Student Attitudes to Learning

Without exception, recent key documents in educational policy, planning and evaluation in Victoria refer to student attitudes to learning as important. For example (Kosky 2003; Fullarton 2002; James, Leger et al. 2001; Bradshaw, Clemans, Donovan and Macrae 2001; Kirby 2000; Connors 2000). Similarly, a review of school web sites reveals that student attitudes to their schooling remain a predominant focus of secondary school charters and
mission statements across Victoria1. Often, both school charters and policy documents refer to their commitment to the “major stakeholders” of education in their consultation processes. However, it is alarmingly rare for students to be centrally involved, if at all, in these discussions (some notable exceptions exist, for example; (James, Leger et al. 2001; Australian Centre for Equity through Education 2001) and (Cormack and Cumming 1996). While the reports themselves fail to recognise the absence of student contribution as a weakness, this study concurs with existing research, e.g.(Gitlin 1990) that this fundamentally undermines their validity and usefulness. Apparently, student learning is a paramount concern for educational research. Why then does it not follow that students can and should play an important and valid role in contributing to the understanding of learning processes? Arguably, this conception of students as passive, inactive or at best re-active agents of the educational process creates
one of the most fundamental barriers to real educational change. Student attitudes are considered for their quantitative value for academic theorising but not as substantive contributions to theoretical development in themselves. A growing acceptance of the validity of practitioner research, and the usefulness of self-reflection as a basis for inquiry can and should be extended to students. Moreover, the discussion that takes place in schools and the community more broadly regarding student attitudes to learning is often conducted in isolation from the complex socio-political factors that contextualise the approach of students, see for example (Cuttance 2001; Ainley, Batten, Collins and Withers 1998).

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS’ TEACHING SELF-EFFICACY AND ATTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ LEARNING

Laura B. Grove McCrea

Teaching self-efficacy (TSE) refers to teachers’ expectations that they can help students learn (Ashton & Webb, 1986). A significant amount of research has explored the importance of teaching self-efficacy for both K-12 education teachers and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Researchers have focused heavily on the relationship between teaching self-efficacy and other relevant variables, such as training and experience; however, researchers have yet to determine the specific relationship between teaching self-efficacy and attributions GTAs make regarding their students’ performance. The present investigation, which is grounded in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1997) and attribution (Weiner, 1986) theories, was an attempt to augment the existing literature. The current research examined the relationship between GTAs’ teaching self-efficacy and the attributions they make regarding their students’ performance. It was hypothesized that GTAs’ teaching self-efficacy would influence the attributions that GTAs make regarding their students’ performance. A total of 117 GTAs from The University of Akron responded to an online survey. GTAs were randomly assigned to respond to the CDS-II, which is a measure of causal attributions, imagining that their students had done well in their class (n = 58) or had done poorly in their class (n = 59). GTAs also completed the SETI-A, which is a measure of personal teaching self-efficacy, and a demographic questionnaire. Major findings of the study were a) GTAs who endorsed extremely high levels of TSE made significantly more internal attributions when compared to GTAs with high TSE; b) GTAs’ TSE was significantly positively correlated with ability and effort attributions when GTAs’ students did well in the class; and c) GTAs did not significantly attribute their students’ performance to luck. Exploratory findings revealed that GTAs’ attributions varied based on GTAs’ sex and GTAs’ students’ performance. Implications and limitations of the current study are discussed.