Attributional training and the generalization of reading strategies with underachieving children

AllRlBUTlONAlTRAlNlNG ANDTHEGENERALIZATIONOF

READING STRATEGIES WITH UNDERACHIEVINGCHIlDREN

MARTHA CARR AND JOHN G. BORKOWSKI

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

ABSTRACT: Underachieving students often display inappropriate affective states, dysfunctional attributional beliefs, and impoverished metacognitive knowledge that combine to handicap their academic achievements. In the present study, 52 underachieving children participated in an intervention program comparing the effects of strategy-plus-attribution training, strategy-only training, and no training conditions on reading comprehension. The addition of attributional components to a comprehension strategy training program produced significant gains in strategy use, recall, reading grades, and attributional beliefs. Reading awareness increased in both strategy-plus-attribution and strategy-only groups, indicating that strategy training influenced selected aspects of metacognition. The addition of attributional components to strategy training improved reading performance by providing the impetus, via modified effort-related attributions, for the generalized use of the trained strategies.

Mefacognition is an umbrella term representing many interacting processes and skills that facilitate self-awareness of one’s own cognitive processes and capabil- ities. Pressley, Borkowski, and O’Sullivan (1985) and Borkowski, Johnston, and Reid (1987) have developed a metacognitive model that describes relationships among cognitive and motivational states and processes. The model includes the following essential components: Specific Strategy Knowledge is at the core of the metacognitive model and includes a wide variety of strategies and information about the essential steps needed to implement these strategies; Metumemory Acquisition Procedures (MAPS) involve the skills of strategy monitoring and re- vision; Relational Knowledge is the understanding of the similarities and differences among strategies and the task for which they are relevant. MAPS, together with Relational Knowledge, are necessary for the successful transfer of strategies; General Strategy Knowledge is a general belief in the utility of strategies as a means to achieve successful performance.

Direct all correspondence to: Dr. Martha Can, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 03602.

Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 1, Number 3, 1989, pages 327-341. CopyrIght @ 1989 by JAI Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1041-6080.

328 LtARNlNC AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLIJMF I, NUMHEK I, ,‘I”‘)

There is recent evidence that the emergence of attributional beliefs may be an important aspect of metacognitive development (Cullen 1985) and that self- attributions are correlated with school performance (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley in press; Dweck 1975). Borkowski, et al. (1987) suggested that the self-system (including attributions, self-concept, and achievement motivation) powers the metacognitive system by tying affectively based aspects of social cognition (e.g., self-concept, self-attributions) to the development and use of cognitive strategies. That is, a sense of control reflected in effort-related attributional beliefs and heightened self-esteem result from children’s successful strategic endeavors (Fabricius & Hagen 1984), which are essential in the development of Specific Strategy Knowledge, MAPS, and Relational Knowledge. Effort-related attributions, in turn, increase the likelihood of strategy-based performance, thus creating a reciprocal cycle of metacognitive/self-system development.

The interaction of affective and cognitive development is most clear when special populations are studied. Dysfunctional attributional patterns, in particu- lar, have been found to contribute to the development of learned helplessness (Dweck 1986), learning disabilities (Marsh 1986), and underachievement (Oka & Paris 1987) especially by suppressing the use of available strategies and the acquisition of new ones. The dysfunctional attributions of exceptional children generally take the form of ability or externally controlled explanations for success and failure experiences. These attributional patterns aggravate existing physiologically based learning deficits by reinforcing the belief that little can be done to modify existing strategic deficiencies.

In light of the potential importance of self-attributions for academic performance, training packages that reshape attributions as well as teach new strategies have been found to be more successful than training packages that include only strategies (e.g., Dweck 1975). More specifically, several training studies, based on the attributional component of the model of Borkowski, et al. (1987) have been successful in improving learning and paragraph comprehension in learning disabled (Borkowski, ~eyhin~ & Carr 1988), and hyperactive children (Reid & Borkowski 1987).

Because the addition of attributional retraining to strategy instruction has proved effective in increasing the performance of learning-handicapped children, whose deficits are likely biologically based, attributional training should be particularly effective with underachievers, whose deficits are largely the result of environmentally based motivational and affective disorders (Lowen- stein 1982). Underachievers often display maladaptive attributional and affective states, such as external motivation and low self-esteem (Fine 1967; Shaw & Black 1960). Strategy instruction, accompanied by attributional retraining, may be helpful in altering strategic deficits common to underachievers, such as their failure to persist in the accomplishment of goals, to use appropriate strategies, or to make accurate estimates of task demands (Piontkowski & Calfee 1979; Zel- niker & Jeffery 1979; Terman & Oden 1947). Underachievers appear to lack both the motivation and strategic knowledge that has been found to underlie poor performance in other classes of special children (Dweck 1975).

ATTRIBUTIONAL TRAINING 329

The goal of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of attributional training in tandem with strategy training with underachieving readers. We focused on poor readers because they typically have problems with strategies, skills, metacognition, and motivation (Ryan, Ledger, Short, & Weed 1982). Because intervention programs based on a metacognitive model were helpful in altering poor performance in hyperactive and learning-disabled children (Bor- kowski, et al. 1987), it was hypothesized that teaching comprehension strategies in combination with attributions to underachievers would improve their comprehension skills, and increase the chances for strategy generalization’more so than training only comprehension strategies. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that underachievers do not lack the ability to acquire skills but rather the understanding that strategic behavior in tandem with effort results in good short-term performance and long-term academic achievement. It was posited that the attributional retraining component would affect reading performance by altering underachieving children’s beliefs about the usefulness of reading strategies in performance. In turn, the prospects for strategy mainte- nance and transfer should be enhanced.

METHOD

SUBIECTS

The selection of underachievers was based on a four-step process: (1) third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers were asked to nominate children who were currently receiving C or D grades and yet who appeared capable of working at a higher level of performance; it should be added that none of the nominated children were participating in special education classes; (2) next, the children were given two tests of ability-the Slossen IQ and Peabody Picture Vocabulary tests. Averaged IQ scores were transformed to z-scores using national norms; (3) reading grades were then averaged over two semesters, and the averaged grades were transformed to a z-score using normed distributions for reading grades from local school systems (the mean reading grade for the school popula- tion in this area was X = 7.19, SD = 1.56); (4) finally, each child’s z-score for reading was subtracted from his or her z-score for intelligence. Children with difference scores of .5 or above were considered underachievers. Approximately half of the children originally nominated by the teachers were considered underachievers using this method.

Fifty underachieving children from the third, fourth, and fifth grades of three Midwestern school systems participated in the study. Their mean age was 9.8 (SD = 1.04). Of this sample, 38% was female, and 98% was Caucasian. The mean IQ of the underachiever group was 111.5 (SD = 10.6) and the mean reading grade was 5.91 (SD = .83) or approximately a C average; the range for reading grade was 1 (F) to 13 (A+).

330 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLLJME 1. NUMBER 1. 1989

DESIGN

Underachievers were pretested over two 40-minute sessions (spread across two days). During the initial sessions all underachieving children were presented four tests: attributional beliefs, self-esteem, a test assessing children’s metacognitive knowledge of reading, and a test of prose recall. Next, the children were divided into three treatment and control conditions: Strategy-plus-attribution training (N = 19), strategy-only training (N = 20), and no training (N = 11). The children were randomly assigned to conditions by sex and grade level. Interven- tion took place during the three-week period following pretest. During six, approximately one-half hour sessions (twice a week), instructors met with students in small groups, ranging in size from five to seven students. Three instructors trained the children, each instructor training at least one group in strategy- only or strategy-plus-attribution condition. Only two different instructors were needed for the control condition because there were only two groups for this condition. Children in the strategy-plus attribution condition and the strategy- only condition were given strategy training via the direct instruction method. Three comprehension strategies, derived from Borkowski, et al. (1988), were trained: topic sentence, summarization, and question strategies. In addition, children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition were given attributional retraining begun during the third training session. Children in the control group were exposed to the materials but received no training. Two weeks following the last training session, the children were posttested on the same measures used during pretest.

MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE

Pretesting. Children were first given the Krause (1983) attributional questionnaire. The attributional questionnaire assessed children’s thoughts about the importance of effort, luck, help, difficulty of material, and ability. A total of eight questions, half dealing with success and half dealing with failure, were presented. Following a practice question, the instructor read the questions aloud twice to the children. The questions referred to experiences children are likely to encounter in school (e.g., You got all the words right on the weekly spelling test. Why did this happen?). The children were asked to choose the best of five attributional explanations: luck, ability, help, effort, and difficulty of material. The child placed a 2 in front of the best reason and a 2 in front of the second-best reason. Success and failure scores were obtained by using the formula, 2E + 1/2A - (H + D + L), where E is effort, A is ability, H is help, D is difficulty, and L is luck. Test-retest reliability for this measure was .61 (Krause 1983). Next, a reading awareness scale, developed by Jacobs and Paris (1987), assessed the children’s metacognitive knowledge on four separate scales: evaluation, plan- ning, regulation, and conditional knowledge of reading.

During session 2, Pretest Comprehension Strategies were assessed as indica- tors of reading skill. The Pretest Comprehension Strategies task consisted of four paragraphs (derived from third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade level children’s books) that the children and instructor read aloud together. Following the presentation


of each paragraph, the children were allowed to write information about the paragraphs on a sheet of paper. These responses were collected and scored for the use of four comprehension strategies: topic word, topic sentence, summarization, and question strategy. The Pretest Comprehension Strategies task was scored as follows: one point was awarded for each topic word; two points were awarded for each sentence that either summarized the paragraph, restated the topic sentence, or was a question about the main topic of the paragraph. Possible scores for Pretest Comprehension Strategies task ranged from 0 to 8.

Prose recall for the four paragraphs was assessed 5 minutes after the initial presentation of the paragraph. The children were asked to recall the paragraphs that had been presented. Prose Recall could be in the form of the actual sentences or anything that they could remember about the paragraphs. Scoring for the Prose Recall task was the same as for the Pretest Comprehension Strategies task with possible scores ranging from 0 to 8. Scoring on the Pretest Compre- hension Strategies and Prose Recall tasks was done by an assistant who was blind to the training condition of each child.

Finally, a self-esteem questionnaire developed by Schneider, Borkowski, Kurtz, and Kerwin (1986) was presented to the children. The questionnaire was formatted so that the children could choose which face on a continuum of 25 faces best represented their level of work in relation to the rest of the class. Six self-esteem questions presented with six corresponding face continuums assessed information about self-esteem in relation to reading, math, spelling, reading comprehension, and summarization reading strategy (the first question referred to height, and was used as a practice question). Scores ranged from 1 to 25, with a high score indicating a positive self-esteem. Pilot data based on similar respondents revealed that the test-retest reliability for the self-esteem scale was .77.

Strategy Training and Assessment. An outline of the strategy training and assessment is provided in Table 1. Underachievers were divided into three treatment conditions: strategy-plus-attribution, strategy-only, and control. Children in the training conditions were given six, one-half hour, sessions of strategy training in- volving three comprehension strategies: topic sentence, summarization, and questioning strategies. The direct instruction method was used to train both strategies and attributions. Direct instruction works by shifting from teacher- dependent, overt, prompted performance with simple exemplars and immediate feedback to student initiated, covert, and unprompted performance with complex exemplars and delayed feedback (Becker, Engleman, Carnine, & Rhine 1981). The instructors within each training condition followed the same script for training. The children in each condition worked with 6 new paragraphs per session for a total of 36 paragraphs for the entire six sessions. All groups worked on the same paragraphs during each training session.

During session 1, the instructors introduced the topic-word strategy to the strategy-plus-attribution and strategy-only groups. The topic strategy was used in order to begin comprehension strategy training at a relatively simple level. The topic-word strategy was intended only as an intermediary to the topic-

332 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1, I‘IBY

TABLE 1 Outline of Strategy Training and hsessment

I.

II.

III.

Session 1: Topic word and topic sentence

strategy training

A. Strategy-plus attribution condition

1. Topic word strategy training

2. Introduction to topic sentence

strategy training

B. Strategy-only condition

1. Topic word strategy training

2. Introduction to topic sentence

strategy training

C. Control condition

1. Exposure to paragraphs

Session 2: Topic sentence strategy

training

A. Strategy-plus-attribution condition

I. Topic sentence strategy training


1. Topic sentence strategy training



Session 3: Summarization strategy

training


1. Summarization strategy and

attributional training


1. Summarization strategy training



IV. Session 4: Summarization strategy

training


1. Summarization strategy and

attributional training


1. Summarization strategy training



V. Session 5: Question strategy training


1. Question strategy and attribu-

tional training


1. Question strategy training



VI. Session 6: Question strategy training


1. Question strategy and attribu-

tional training


1. Question strategy training



sentence strategy. Three paragraphs were used to train the topic-word strategy. After the first paragraph was distributed the instructor explicitly taught the topic-word strategy using a three-step strategy. It should be noted that during strategy training the instructor asked one child to read the paragraph aloud while the other children read along (a different child was asked to read each time a new paragraph was presented):

1. Read the entire paragraph and make sure that you know and understand what you have read;

2. Look for the word in the paragraph that tells you what each paragraph was about; and

3. Check to make sure that each sentence in the paragraph has something to do with the chosen topic word.

Next, the instructor chose a nontopic word from the paragraph and explained that the word was not the topic word because it was not representative of every


sentence in that paragraph. The children then repeated the three steps of the strategy aloud and were checked for understanding of the strategy.

The second and third paragraphs were used to practice the topic-word strategy. The children went through the same steps as with the first paragraph, but the instructor modified the instruction to allow the children to take more responsibility for remembering and performing the steps of the strategy. For the second paragraph, children were asked to recall unaided the second step of the strategy and to perform step two by choosing the word in the paragraph that “said something” about every sentence in that paragraph. The children also checked their choice of topic word by reviewing each sentence in the paragraph to make sure that the topic word they chose reflected something about each sentence in the paragraph. Instructor support was further withdrawn for paragraph three: the instructor did not prompt the children to perform any of the three steps of the strategy. By the end of the third paragraph all children were able to repeat the steps of the topic-word strategy and were able to apply the strategy.

The topic-sentence strategy was introduced with the fourth paragraph. The same three strategic steps were used for the topic-sentence strategy as were used for the topic-word strategy. Instead of picking out the topic word, the children were asked to underline the topic sentence. After the children under- lined the sentence, the instructor reviewed the answers and the children’s explanation for that choice. Most children chose the correct topic sentence, those children who did not were shown how the correct topic sentence was a better match to the topic-sentence criterion. The children then gave examples of incorrect topic-word sentences and why these sentences did not fulfill the requirements of a topic sentence was explained. The same procedure used for paragraph four was used for paragraphs five and six.

At the end of session 1, the instructor told the children that they could use this strategy for their reading class and other subjects. The children were asked to volunteer other subjects in which they could use the topic-word strategy. Subjects such as social studies and science were volunteered. The control group was given the same materials (e.g., the paragraphs were shown and read to them); however, they received no strategic or attributional training.

During session 2, children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition and the strategy-only condition resumed their training of the topic-sentence strategy. By the end of the half-hour period, the majority of the children understood and were able to repeat the steps of the strategy, as well as apply the strategy to the paragraphs distributed to them.

During session 3, the instructor reiterated the strategies taught in session two (topic-sentence strategy) and then introduced the summarization strategy. Training of the summarization strategy was in the same format as training of the topic-sentence strategy. It used the same strategy steps except that the instruction “make up a sentence that tells you something about every sentence in the paragraph” was given instead of looking for a sentence that “tells you something about every sentence in the paragraph.” At this junction, attributional training commenced in the strategy-plus-attribution condition, after the

334 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 1, NUMBER 3, 1989

students had worked through two examples of the summarization strategy. Using cartoons representing four attributional beliefs (effort, ability, difficulty of task, and help), the instructor began a discussion about the importance of effort in the production and correct use of strategies. The differences between effort and external causes (luck, others, difficulty of task) and internal causes (ability) were addressed. For example, the instructor said, “Remember the topic- sentence strategy? There’s a right way to use the topic-sentence strategy and a wrong way to use the topic-sentence strategy. When you try hard you are remembering how to use the strategy the right way and you think about every step of the strategy.”

Following the discussion about attributions, the instructor resumed training of the summarization strategy with a reminder that the strategy had worked in the past because the children carefully thought through each step of the strategy. At one point the instructor made a mistake that was attributed to the failure to apply effort in thinking through each step of the summarization strategy. The instructor went through the required steps to correctly solve the problem. For example, “First I will read the entire paragraph. Then 1 will look for the sentence that tells me about all the rest of the sentences. Then I will carefully check again to make sure that the sentence I chose tells me about the other sentences in the paragraphs. I got the right answer because I thought about every step of the strategy as I was doing it and I was careful about doing it right.” When a child made a mistake, he or she went through the steps of the strategy including the step about the need for effort in the form of careful attention to the problem; this allowed the child to successfully perform the failed item. During this session the children in the strategy-only condition reviewed the topic-sentence strategy with the instructor and were then introduced to the summarization strategy; however, no attributional training occurred in this condition. The sole difference between the strategy-plus- attribution group and the strategy-only group was in the addition of the attributional training; both groups received the same paragraphs. Session 4 was a continuation of the summarization strategy trained in session 3.

In sessions 5 and 6, both training groups first reviewed the summarization strategy and were then introduced to the question strategy. The question strategy used the three basic steps of the topic sentence and summarization strategy; however, instead of finding a topic sentence or summarizing the paragraph, children were instructed to formulate a question and told that the answer to that question should say something about the topic of the entire paragraph. This strategy emphasized the use of questions in promoting comprehension and memory of texts. The strategy-plus-attribution group also received attributional training that was integrated into the local sequencing of learning and practice of the strategy.

Two weeks following the final training session, children were posttested using the same measures as a pretest: attributional beliefs, reading awareness test, self-esteem, strategy use for prose comprehension and prose recall. Fourth quarter reading grades were obtained from the schools at the end of the school year. Six weeks passed between the end of training and the assigment of final grades.

A TTRBLJTIONAL TRAINING 335

One year after training, available reading grades were again collected for some of the participants.

RESULTS

ERECTS OF TRAINING

All statistics reported as significant were tested at the .05 experimentwise level of confidence. Mean scores and standard deviations for prose recall, strategy use, reading grades, attributions, and reading awareness are presented in Table 2. The initial comparison of posttest differences used a multivariate analysis of covariance, including measures of prose recall, strategy use, reading grades, attributions, reading awareness, and self-esteem as dependent variables. Co- variate measures of this analysis were pretest recall, pretest strategy use, pretest reading grades, attributions, reading awareness, and self-esteem; a significant overall effect was found, Multi F(12,72) = 3.72. Univariate tests indicated significant group differences on the following four variables: Strategy use, F(2, 41) =

TABLE 2 Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations* for

Reading Grades, Prose Comprehension, Strategy Use, Attributions,

and Reading Awareness

Pretest POStM

Recall Scores

Strategy plus Attribution

Strategy Only

Control Group

Strategy Use


Strategy Only

Control Group

Attributions Strategy plus Attribution

Strategy Only

Control Group

Reading Awareness


Strategy Only

Control Group

Reading Grade Strategy plus Attribution

Strategy Only Control Group

1.68 (1.80) 3.95 (4.25)

2.20 (2.04) 2.00 (2.34)

1.27 (1.62) .73 C.90)

3.05 (2.42)

3.20 (2.38)

3.82 (2.75)

3.89 (5.86)

6.53 (8.69)

6.78 (2.79)

23.27 (1.95)

23.60 (4.32) 23.27 (1.95)

5.89 (1.31) 6.13 (1.24) 5.59 (1.16)

4.95 (5.98)

1.43 (2.02)

1.64 (2.16)

11.15 (9.15)

5.69 (8.54)

5.73 (7.23)

28.45 (8.91)

27.44 (4.21)

20.73 (3.74)

8.00 (3.50) 6.20 (2.40)

5.36 (1.96)

Note: ‘Standard deviations in parentheses

336 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME I, NUMBER 1. IWY

3.75, MSe = 17.05; prose recall, F(2, 41) = 4.23, MSe = 10.05; reading awareness, F(2, 41) = 3.25, MSe = 37.34; and attributional beliefs, F(2, 41) = 6.30, MSe = 61.60. Follow-up ANCOVAs were performed to determine the location of group differences. It should be noted that no significant changes occurred between groups or across sessions for self-esteem.

Prose Recall, An analysis of covariance performed on posttest prose recall with pretest prose recall as a covariate indicated significant differences between conditions, F(2, 46) = 4.16, MSe = 39.31. Subsequent contrast indicated that children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition had significantly better posttest prose recall than children in the strategy-only, F(l, 46) = 4.09, MSe = 38.71; or control conditions, F (1, 46) = 7.36, MSe = 69.55. Recall scores for children in the control condition were not significantly different from the scores of the children in the strategy-only condition.

Strategy Use. An ANCOVA performed on the posttest strategy use scores with pretest strategy use scores as a covariate indicated significant overall differences between conditions, F(2, 46) = 4.13, MSe = 68.81. Children who participated in the strategy-plus attribution condition were more strategic than children in the strategy-only condition, F (1,46) = 7.21, MSe = 120.06. Similarly, posttest strategy use in the strategy-plus-attribution condition was significantly better than that of the control condition, F(l, 46) = 4.37, MSe = 72.75. Children in the strategy- only condition were more strategic than children in the control condition.

Attributional Beliefs. An ANCOVA on posttest attribution scores with pretest attribution scores as a covariate was significant, F(2, 46) = 4.50, MSe = 304.98. Children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition were more likely to modify self- attributions about effort than children in the strategy-only, F(l, 46) = 7.40, MSe = 501.92; or children in the control conditions, F(1, 46) = 5.53, MSe = 374.78. In contrast, children in the strategy-only condition did not acquire significantly higher attributional beliefs than those in the control group.

If changes in the performance at posttest were to be attributed to the strategy- plus-attribution training, then posttest reading, prose recall, and strategy use should be correlated with posttest attributional beliefs. Attributions at posttest, however, were only marginally correlated with posttest recall, r = .35, p = .07, within the strategy-plus-attribution condition. No other correlations were found in the strategy-plus-attribution condition.

Reading Awareness. In order to determine the effects of the training conditions on reading awareness, an ANCOVA was performed on the posttest reading awareness measure, with pretest reading awareness as the covariate. Significant overall differences were found between conditions, F(2, 46) = 5.24, MSe = 196.26. Children in the strategy-plus attribution condition had higher posttest reading awareness scores in contrast to children in the strategy-only condition, F (1,46) = 8.09, MSe = 303.54. Similarly, children in the strategy-plus attribution condition

A~RIBUTIONAL TRAINING 337

had higher posttest reading awareness scores in contrast to the control condition, F(1,46) = 9.01, MSe = 337.68. There were no significant differences in reading awareness between the strategy-only and the strategy-plus-attribution conditions.

Reading Grades. In order to determine whether the effects of training had generalized to reading grade, an ANCOVA was performed on fourth-quarter reading grades using pretest average reading grade as a covariate; the analysis was significant, F(2, 46) = 3.77, MSe = 27.42. Fourth-quarter reading grades were higher in the strategy-plus attribution condition in comparison to the strategy- only condition, F (1,46) = 5.05, MSe = 36.57; and control condition, F (1,46) = 5.67, MSe = 41.39. There were no significant differences between the control and the strategy-only conditions in fourth-quarter reading grades.

Long-Term Follow-up. One year following the posttest, reading grades were collected on 19 of the original participants (7 in the strategy-plus-attribution group, 9 in the strategy-only group, and 3 in the control group). A comparison of means and standard deviations at posttest indicated that children whose long-term reading grades were obtained did not significantly differ from children whose grades were not obtainable. Students in the control and strategy-only groups were combined for the analysis of the long-term follow-up data.

Reading grades at posttest were correlated with reading grade at the long- term follow-up, even when pretest reading grades were partialed out, Y (19) = .46. In addition, an ANCOVA on long-term changes in reading grades, with pretest reading grades as the covariate, indicated that children in the strategy-plus- attribution condition maintained significantly higher grades than children in the combined strategy-only and control conditions, F(l, 15) = 6.31, MSe = 8.41. At the long-term follow-up, children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition averaged about one reading grade higher (X = 7.68, SD = 1.30) than children in the strategy-only group (X = 6.89, SD = 1.05), and about one and a half grades higher than those in the control group (X = 6.33, SD = .58). Thus, the training program had long-term effects on reading performance, not attributable to preexisting reading performance.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to assess the effects of a training program, based on the metacognitive-motivational model developed by Pressley, et al. (1985) and Borkowski, et al. (1987), with underachieving children. The present findings supported a major aspect of the model, namely, that retraining effort- related attributions facilitates the application of comprehension strategies. Underachieving children who received attributional retraining in addition to comprehension strategy training were more strategic, had higher recall, and were more likely to report effort-related attributions than children who received only strategic instruction or who had no training.

338 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME I, NUMBER 1. 1989

Attributional training produced significant gains in reading grades from pretest to posttest. Further, some children in the attributional retraining group maintained their superiority in reading one year later. The significant posttest gains in reading grades found in this study are unusual in that earlier training studies have found it difficult to sustain gains in reading achievement (Ryan, et al. 1982). For example, Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984) were unable to enhance the generalization of reading comprehension strategies to standardized reading tests.

There are, however, several exceptions, Palincsar and Brown (1984) found that children who experienced reciprocal teaching procedures did better on comprehension tests than control children and were able to generalize this knowledge to classroom settings. Similarly, the direct instruction method has been useful in increasing reading achievement in retarded children by providing both explicit explanations and the internalization of strategies necessary for generalizations (Branwhite 1983). A study by Duffy and his colleagues (1987) suggests that teacher explanation of strategies and their uses may be critical to the success of strategy training programs. In addition, strategy-plus-attribution training packages similar to the one used in the present study have been effective in improving reading achievement test scores (Borkowski, et al. 1988), and have altered attributions about the impact of specific strategies on performance (Reid & Borkowski 1987). Programs, such as reciprocal teaching and the multifaceted instructional method used in the present study, may be effective because they emphasize the application and extension of strategies.

DYNAMICS OF ATTRIBUTIONAL RETRAINING

The present study was limited in that the results did not indicate exactly how attributional retraining influenced the absorption and extension of the trained comprehension strategies. Reshaped attributional beliefs about effort and strategy use may have altered performance by energizing newly learned metacognitive knowledge. In the case of children in the strategy-only group, newly presented strategies may have been acquired but not effectively utilized because the children failed to recognize that the effortful application of these strategies would affect performance.

Self-esteem was not modified in correspondence with changes in attributions, reading awareness, and strategic performance. It was not surprising, however, that six weeks of attributional and strategy training failed to enhance self- esteem because the ability of a strategy training program to alter low self-esteem is probably highly dependent on the amount of experience children have in working new strategies and reshaping attributions. Underachievers may require extensive encounters with complex strategies-which necessitate the repeated expenditure of consciously deployed effort in several settings and for several months-before they reevaluate their self-esteem in academic domains.

Because changes in attributional beliefs were assumed to cause the improved performance in strategy use, recall, and reading grade, attributions at posttest were expected to correlate with performance measures, especially in the attribu-


tional condition. The influence of attributional retraining however, was not reflected in consistent relationships among attributions and posttest reading grades, recall, and strategy use in the attributional group. The issue is whether the increase in reading grades at posttest resulted from the generalization of newly acquired strategies (and attributions), or from a transitory motivational boost or teacher bias.

Although attributions were only marginally correlated with recall performance (the nonsignificant correlation may be due to the small sample size of the training groups), the majority of children in the strategy-plus-attribution condition significantly increased their strategy use from pretest to posttest. This was not the case for children in the strategy-only and control group. Additionally, posttest academic performance correlated with grades gathered at the long- term follow-up. Transitory motivational effects should not have resulted in sus- tained improvements in reading grades. These findings support the interpreta- tion that attributional beliefs were the critical element in improving classroom reading performance. This conclusion is consistent with earlier findings on the importance of attributional training for strategy transfer (Borkowski, et al. 1988; Reid & Borkowski 1987). Regarding the possibility of teacher bias, teachers were not informed at any point during the training program about the assignment of specific children to training condition. Hence, it is unlikely that correlated but irrelevant factors produced the major findings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION

These data suggest that teachers need to include explicit instructions about the importance of effort in teaching a functional learning skill, such as the summarization of main elements in the story. Children must learn not only how to perform a task but when and why each step is effective in producing academic achievements. Explicit training, as opposed to implicit training, is especially important because it has been found to produce significant improvement in strategic behavior and metacognitive knowledge (Ghatala, Levin, Pressley, & Goodwin 1986). Ghatala and her colleagues believe that explicit instruction is effective because it provides accurate information about how to perform a strategy as well as establishing the connection between strategies and performance.

Educators who teach strategic instruction generally fail to provide the motivational supplements that are necessary for promoting appropriate effort-related attributions and long-term strategy use (Borkowski, et al. in press). Suggestions to try hard, however, should be explicit and should be embedded within a strategy-based, carefully targeted lesson (Clifford 1984). Indeed, oblique instructions about effort could backfire if children are instructed to try hard, do so, and fail because of a poorly instructed strategy. Failure might lead the child to conclude that effort is ineffective or that he or she lacks the extant ability to perform well in the classroom. In this light, Borkowski, et al. (in press) suggest that teachers should instruct both powerful strategies that will produce significant improvements in performance, and rich metacognitive knowledge about the applicability of different strategies. Even when children are taught strategies

340 LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME I, NUMBER 3. 19H9

and corresponding positive attributions, they must also be taught that effort and strategy deployment are, at times, limited by ability and task difficulty. Otherwise, effort-attributions might serve only to reinforce views about learned helplessness and to perpetuate low self-esteem and poor performance. In sum, teachers should provide training commensurate with children’s ability level, should give feedback about performance in terms of ability and effort, and reinforce appropriate self-perceptions that are derived from the controlability of learning outcomes (Bar-Tal1978).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This research was supported by NIH grant HD-21218.

REFERENCES

Bar-Tal, D. (1978). “Individual differences and attributional analysis of achievement related behavior.” Review of Educational Research, 48, 259-271.

Becker, W.C., S. Engleman, D.W. Carnine, & W.R. Rhine. (1981). “Direct instructional model.” Pp. 95-151 in Making schools more effective, edited by W.R. Rhine. New York: Academic Press.

Borkowski, J.G., M. Carr, E. Rellinger, & M. Pressley. (In press). “Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem.” In ~~~ensio~s of thinking, edited by 0. Jones.

Borkowski, J.G., M. Carr, E. Rellinger, & M. Pressley. (In press). “Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem.” In Dimensions of thinking, edited by B. Jones and L. Idol. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Borkowski, J.G., R.S. Weyhing, & M. Carr. (1988). “Attributional retraining in LD children.” ~ourna~ of Ed~catio~a~ Ps~ckolo~, SO, 40-53.

Branwhite, A.B. (1983). “Boosting reading skills by direct instruction.” British journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 291-298.

Clifford, M.M. (1984). “Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure.” Educational Psycholo- @I, 29, 108-120.

Culien, J.L. (1985). “Children’s ability to cope with failure: Implications of a metacognitive approach in the classroom.” Pp. 267-300 in Metacognifion, co~ition, and human performance, edited by D.L. Forrest-Pressley, GE. MacKennon, and T.G. Waller. San Diego: Academic Press.

Duffy, G.G., L.R. Roehler, E. Sivan, G. Radcliffe, C. Book, M. Meloth, L. Vavrus, R. Wessel- man, J. Putnam, & D. Basiri. (1987). “The effects of explaining the reasoning asso- ciated with using reading strategies.“ Reading Research Quarterly, 22,347-368.

Dweck, C.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attribution in the alleviation of learned helplessness.” Ioournai of ~ffsona~i~ and Social Psycholo~, 31, 674-685.

__. (1986). “Motivational processes affecting learning.” American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Fabricius, W.V., & J.W. Hagen. (1984). “Use of causal attributions about recall performance to assess metamemory and predict strategic memory behavior in young children,” ~~~e~op#ental Psycho~o~, 20,975-987.

Fine, 3. (1967). ~nd~acki~~~ HOW can they be hexed. New York: Dutton & Co. Ghatala, ES., J.R. Levin, M. Pressley, & D. Goodwin. (1986). “A componential analysis of

the effects of derived and supplied strategy-utility information on children’s strategy selections.“ Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 76-92.


Jacobs, J.E., & S.G. Paris. (1987). “Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in defini- tion, measurement, and instruction.” Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.

Krause, A. (1983). Attributions, intrinsic motivation, and metamernory: Determinants of strategic behavior. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Notre Dame.

Lowenstein, L.F. (1982). “An empirical study of the incidence, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of academically underachieving children.” School Psychology International, 3, 219-230.

Marsh, H.W. (1986). “Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal-external frame of refer- ence model.” American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129-180.

Oka, E.R., & S.G. Paris. (1987). “Patterns of motivation and reading skills in underachieving children.” Pp. 115-146 in Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2), edited by S.J. Ceci. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Palincsar, A., & A.L. Brown. (1984). “Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities.” Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Paris, S.G., D.R. Cross, & M.Y. Lipson. (1984). “Infant strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 1239-1252.

Piontkowski, D., & R. Calfee. (1979). “Attention in the classroom.” Pp. 297-330 in Attention and cognitive development, edited by G. Hale and M. Lewis. New York: Plenum.

Pressley, M., J.G. Borkowski, & J.T. O’Sullivan. (1985). “Children’s metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies.” Pp. 111-153 in Metacognition, cognition, and human performance, edited by D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. MacKennon, and T.G. Waller. San Diego: Academic Press.

Reid, M.K., & J.G. Borkowski. (1987). “Causal attributions of hyperactive children: Impli- cations for training strategies and self-control.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 296-307.

Ryan, E.B., G.W. Ledger, E.J. Short, & K. Weed. (1982). “Promoting the use of active comprehension strategies in poor readers.“ Topics in Learning 6 learning Disabilities, 21,53-60.

Schneider, W., J.G. Borkowski, B.E. Kurtz, & K. Kerwin. (1986). “Metamemory and motivation: A comparison of strategy use and performance in German and American children.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 315-336.

Shaw, M.C., & M.D. Black. (1960). “The reaction of frustration of bright high school underachievers.“ California Journal of Educational Research, 11, 120-124.

Terman, L.M., & M.H. Oden. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Zelniker, T., & W.E. Jeffrey. (1979). “Attention and cognitive style in children.” Pp. 275-296 in Attention and cognitive development, edited by G. Hale and M. Lewis. New York: Plenum.

Documents

Attributional training and the generalization of reading strategies with underachieving children