Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

527

The
British
Psychological
Society

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2008), 78, 527544

q 2008 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

What teacher factors influence their attributions

for childrens difficulties in learning?
Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson*
Department of Psychology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Background. Identifying the factors that influence teacher beliefs about teaching
children with learning difficulties is important for the success of inclusive education.
This study explores the relationship between teachers role, self-efficacy, attitudes
towards disabled people, teaching experience and training, on teachers attributions for
childrens difficulties in learning.
Method. One hundred and eighteen primary school teachers (44 general
mainstream, 33 mainstream learning support, and 41 special education teachers)
completed the short form of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale, the Interaction with
Disabled Persons Scale (IDP), and a revised version of the Teacher Attribution Scale.
Results. Regression analysis found that teachers role influenced stability and
controllability attributions. However, for stability attributions the effect was not
sustained when examined in the context of the other factors of teaching efficacy,
experience, training, and attitudes towards disability. What emerged as important
instead was strong feelings of sympathy towards disabled people which predicted stable
attributions about learning difficulties. Experience of teaching children with additional
support needs and teaching efficacy positively predicted external locus of causality
attributions. Surprisingly, training was not found to have an impact on attributions.
A mixed MANOVA found that mainstream teachers controllability attributions were
influenced by whether or not the child had identified learning support needs.
Conclusions. Teacher efficacy, experience of teaching students with support needs,
attitudes towards disabled people, and teachers role all impact on teacher attributions,
but no relationship with training was found. Implications for teacher training and
development, and for student achievement and student self-perception are discussed.

There is contradictory evidence about which factors impact on teachers attitudes and
beliefs about the teaching of children with learning support needs in mainstream schools.
While some studies suggest that experience of teaching children with special needs results
in more positive teachers attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000;
Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; LeRoy & Simpson, 1996; Romi & Leyser, 2006;

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Lisa Woolfson, Department of Psychology, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK

(e-mail: lisa.woolfson@strath.ac.uk).
DOI:10.1348/000709907X268570

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

528 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996), others provide evidence of the opposite position
(Forlin, 1995; Harvey, 1985; Leyser, Kapperman, & Keller, 1994; Soodak, Podell, &
Lehman, 1998; Wilczenski, 1993), and yet others have found the length of teaching
experience has no influence at all (Avramidis et al., 2000; Villa et al., 1996). Alternatively, it
may be teacher training rather than experience per se, which exerts a positive impact on
teachers beliefs about teaching learners with special needs in mainstream ( Bender, Vail, &
Scott, 1995; Ben-Pajooh, 1992; Smith, 1995). Although Romi and Leyser (2006) disputed
this finding that as students advanced in their initial teacher-training programmes, they
actually became less supportive of inclusion. Indeed, Avramidis et al. (2000) suggested
that it was specifically postgraduate, university-based education that made an impact and
that other forms of teacher education made no difference. These conflicting findings
suggest that it would be useful to try to separate the effects of postgraduate training from
that of teaching experience.
Furthermore, teachers role may also be an important factor in this. Leyser (2002)
found that general class teachers were less likely to modify teaching strategies for
children with learning difficulties than special education teachers. With regards to
children with autistic spectrum disorders who were included in mainstream,
Mavropoulou and Padeliadu (2000) found that regular education teachers were more
concerned with social and psychological well-being while special education teachers
were more educationally goal oriented. When both groups of teachers were asked about
their current success in including students with disabilities in their classrooms, general
teachers rated their understanding of inclusion and their ability to motivate students
lower than special education teachers (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer,
1999). Ward, Center, and Bochner (1994) compared attitudes towards inclusion among
principal teachers, general mainstream teachers, resource teachers (learning support
teachers), school psychologists/counsellors, and nursery school heads in Britain,
Australia and Canada, and found that the general mainstream teachers group held the
most negative attitudes towards inclusion. This concept is a cause for concern, as
negative attitudes towards children with disabilities are likely to have a harmful impact
on the outcome of inclusive educational practices (Tait & Purdie, 2000).
How comfortable a teacher feels around people with disabilities in general is also
likely to have some impact on his/her attitude towards teaching children with learning
support needs. Studies by Leyser et al. (1994) and Parasuraman (2006) have both
suggested there may be a relationship between experience of disabled people and
teachers attitudes. Using Gethings (1991) Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale
(IDP), Forlin, Tait, Carroll, and Jobling (1999b) found that the studentteachers who felt
most comfortable in their interactions with people with disabilities were those who had
regular contact, i.e. at least once a week.
Teaching efficacy is another potentially important variable with regard to teaching
learners with learning support needs. Teaching efficacy relates to a teachers feelings of
his/her own capacity to successfully facilitate learning. It has been found to be related to
student outcomes such as achievement (Ross, 1992), and to motivation (Midgley,
Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Stein and Wang (1988) reported that teachers with a strong
sense of efficacy are more willing to modify teaching methods to accommodate student
needs. Soodak and Podell (1993) found that regular and special educators with a high
sense of teaching efficacy were most likely to be supportive of inclusive placements.
Moreover, teachers evidencing high efficacy were found to be more willing to take
responsibility for meeting the needs of students with learning difficulties in their own
classrooms.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

529

Teaching efficacy was thought to have two distinct components, general teaching
efficacy (the belief that external influences can be overcome by teaching) and personal
teaching efficacy (the teachers belief about his or her own capability to bring
about changes in students). However, this conceptualization has been challenged
on the grounds that teaching efficacy is context specific and varies across
participants (e.g. Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996) and across different student groups
(e.g. Raudenbuch, Rowen, & Cheong, 1992). Furthermore, Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued that the general teaching efficacy component of the
construct is not concerned with an individual teachers sense of efficacy at all. In
response to these criticisms, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998)
developed a new definition of teaching efficacy that recognizes its context-specific
nature. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) subsequently devised a
measurement of teaching efficacy based on items that represent specific teaching
tasks in contextual classroom situations.
Attribution theory offers a useful conceptual framework for examining teachers
beliefs about childrens difficulties in learning. Bar-Tal (1978) defined attributions as the
inferences that observers make about the causes of behaviour, either their own or those of
other people. Weiner (1985) identified that causal attributions can be classified in terms
of three dimensions: locus of causality; stability; and controllability. Locus of causality
refers to the source of the attribution: an internal locus of causality indicates that the
behaviour is caused by a characteristic of the individual; an external locus of causality is
one that is external to the individual; for example, behaviour attributed to factors in the
environment. Stability refers to how enduring the cause appears, and controllability
describes the degree of control an individual has over the cause of the behaviour.
Attributions that teachers make about their pupils could have important
consequences in the classroom for teachers behaviours and pupil outcomes. For
example, a teacher who attributes a pupils failure in a test to factors external to the child
may modify teaching practices more compared with a teacher who attributes the failure
to the pupils disposition (Jordan, Lindsay, & Stanovich, 1997). Furthermore, Weiner
(1984) argued that attributing failure to factors internal to the child can result in the
child feeling guilt or shame and experiencing lower self-esteem. In terms of stability
attributions, if a teacher views the causes of a childs difficulty as unstable, s/he may have
more of an expectation of change and progress for the child than a teacher who sees
them as stable. Weiner (1979) found that attributing failure to a stable factor can result in
students themselves giving up and not trying. Finally, with regards to the controllability
dimension, a teacher who sees a pupil as being in control of his or her own progress may
be less accepting of failure. Clarke and Artilles (2000) argued that if a teacher shows
anger or gives punishment following a negative outcome, the child is likely to feel as
though s/he is in control. Similarly, giving help to a child on an easy task may negatively
impact on the childs self-perception as s/he might interpret the help as a low ability cue.
Bibou-Nakou, Kiosseoglou, and Stogiannidou (2000) and Brophy (1996) found that
learners were more likely to be disciplined if they were seen as being in control of the
problem and were more likely to be treated sympathetically if they were seen as victims
of circumstances. Clark (1997) found that children with identified learning difficulties
were more likely to be rewarded after failure than their peers with no identified learning
difficulties. Teachers expressed less anger and more pity towards the children with
learning difficulties and held lower expectations of their future success.
A number of attribution studies have focused on the dimension of locus of causality.
Brown and Rogers (1991) and Campbell and Sedikides (1999) argued that teachers

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

530 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

evidence a self-serving bias as they tend to attribute problems within the child or within
the childs family, rather than to teaching-related factors. For example, in Mavropoulou
and Padeliadus (2002) study, teachers rejected school-related factors as causing
behaviour problems, viewing them as caused by family- and pupil-related factors.
Similarly, Hos (2004) study found that teachers attributed misbehaviours most to
student effort and least to teachers factors, and Jordan et al. (1997) reported that
teachers holding an interventionist perspective (attributing problems to an interaction
between the student and the environment) persevered more with pupils who failed to
grasp concepts, than those holding a pathognomonic perspective (where difficulties in
learning are viewed as inherent in the pupil).
Stability and controllability attributions have been less well researched with teachers.
Clark (1998) found that teachers attributed the cause of learning difficulties as internal
to the child, and also as stable and as uncontrollable. Woolfson, Grant, and Campbell
(2007) compared stability and controllability attributions in mainstream teachers and
special education teachers and found that mainstream teachers viewed childrens
difficulties as less amenable to change than the special education teachers. In terms of
controllability, the mainstream teachers saw children with learning difficulties as having
less control over their difficulties with schoolwork than those with no identified support
needs, while special school teachers saw no difference between the groups.
The present study then aimed to examine the influence of general teaching
experience, specific experience of teaching children with learning difficulties, and
postgraduate qualifications on teachers role, teaching efficacy, and attitudes towards
disabled persons on teachers attributions about childrens difficulties in learning.

Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from three school districts across central Scotland. Taking
part were 10 mainstream schools, 1 mainstream learning support service, and 9 special
schools that covered a range of special educational support needs similar to those that
general mainstream teachers might experience in their classrooms: learning difficulties
(six schools, including a school that catered for children who also had sensory
impairments); social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties (two schools); and
language difficulties (one school). All schools were primary schools for children aged
512 years. Scottish primary school teachers are trained to teach over the age range
312 years. The mainstream learning support service operated on a peripatetic basis and
was made up of small teams of learning support teachers who each provided
educational support to learners with special needs included in mainstream schools
within a particular geographical locale. Each team of teachers was based at one of the
mainstream primary schools to which it delivered its services.
Questionnaires were completed and returned by 125 teachers. Seven were omitted
because of missing data. The final 118 questionnaires thus came from 44 general
mainstream teachers, 33 mainstream learning support teachers, and 41 special
education teachers. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) recommend a sample $ 104 the
number of predictor variables for testing individual predictors in multiple regression,
assuming a medium-sized relationship between predictors and the dependent variable.
For the present study with six predictors (see page 15), a sample of 110 would therefore
be sufficient. When first-order cross-product multiplicative interaction variables were

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

531

subsequently added into the analysis as predictors (see page 16), the power of the
analysis, calculated using G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, & Lang, 2007) was reduced but
was nevertheless still satisfactory at .84

Materials
Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1991)
The Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (IDP) is a list of 20 statements that have
been used to describe how some people feel when they are in contact with a disabled
person. Participants are asked to respond to each item on a forced-choice 6-point Likert
scale indicating to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement. High scores
indicate negative attitudes towards disabled people while low scores indicate positive
attitudes. Gething and Wheeler (1992) reported that testretest reliability coefficients
ranged between .51 for a 1-year period and .82 over a 2-week period. Internal
consistency across 15 studies ranged from .74 to .86 (Gething, 1991). Gething et al.
(1997) international validation across nine countries, including the United States,
Canada, England, and Scotland, also concluded that the IDP scale is a valid measure,
with mean scores falling within 10 points across countries and moderate-to-high internal
consistency. While Gething (1991) reported a six-factor solution to the IDP scale,
supported by Forlin, Fogarty, and Carroll (1999a), who labelled the factors as
discomfort, sympathy, uncertainty, fear, coping, and vulnerability, this structure has
been criticized because some factors have only two items (Tait & Purdie, 2000), making
interpretation difficult when the two items are not obviously related. Also, Tait and
Purdie argued that the coping and vulnerability subscales are conceptually very similar.
Both MacLean and Gannon (1995) and Tait and Purdie (2000) proposed two orthogonal
subscales (discomfort and sympathy) derived from ten IDP items. However, Tate and
Purdie also presented a four-factor solution (discomfort, sympathy, embarrassment, and
vulnerability) derived from 16 items, which they suggested better represented the ideas
contained in the scale. Because of this lack of consensus as to factor structure, factor
analysis was carried out in the present study to determine the appropriate factor
solution for our sample (see Results section).

Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)

The short form of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale consists of 12 items that
represent factors internal and external to the teacher who might support and hinder
accomplishment of teaching tasks. Items are responded to on a 9-point Likert scale so
that a score of 9 means that the teachers feel they can do a great deal and a score of 1
means they feel they can do little. Responses to all 12 items were summed to give a total
score and the higher the score, the greater the sense of teaching efficacy. This scale was
found to have a reliability of a :9 (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Factor
analyses of this scale consistently identify three correlated factors of efficacy in student
engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management.

Teacher Attribution Scale

This scale is designed to measure teachers attributions of locus of causality,
controllability, and stability regarding learners who are experiencing difficulties using
vignettes. The vignettes in the present study are based on Woolfson et al. (2007)

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

532 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

adaptation of Clarks (1997) vignettes but in the present study, as teachers were required
to complete several questionnaires in this study, we reduced the amount of information
in the vignettes to take account of time constraints. This was done by controlling for the
variables of effort and ability by presenting all pupils in vignettes as of lower ability than
the class average and all pupils high in effort and then reducing the number of vignettes
presented. A two-stage pilot study was carried out to validate this revision of the Teacher
Attribution Scale. Firstly, 10 graduate students answered questions about the level of
ability and effort represented in each vignette as well as whether or not each of the
children had identified learning difficulties. All participants answered as anticipated,
signalling that the information in the vignettes was clear. Secondly, a pilot study was
carried out with 19 teachers showing that internal consistency for each scale exceeded
.9 (locus of causality r :95, controllability r :95, and stability r :94), which
suggested that we did not need to retain all eight vignettes, so the number of vignettes
was reduced to four, leaving the scales with reliabilities of .86 (locus of causality), .87
(stability), and .91 (controllability). Using the revised scale, participants were asked to
make attributions as in the Woolfson et al. (2007) study, on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1,
strongly agree to 5, strongly disagree. For example, after reading the following
vignette,
Christopher has ability below that of most children in his class. He always tries his best,

participants were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements on a
5-point Likert scale:
(1)

(2)
(3)

Christophers poor performance on the test is due to factors within himself such as
ability, effort etc, rather than due to external factors such as his teacher or the
curriculum.
Christophers performance in class is likely to continue more or less the same.
It is within Christophers own control to improve his performance further.

All four vignettes are presented in the Appendix.

Procedure
Questionnaire packs were distributed to teachers at staff meetings and participants
were invited to return their completed questionnaires in the accompanying envelopes
and leave them in the box, which would be collected at a specified time/date, generally
34 working days after distribution. The order of presentation of questionnaires in the
packs was varied to minimize the impact of possible order effects. Teachers were also
asked to provide information on any postgraduate qualifications in special educational
needs, their teaching role, teaching experience, and experience of teaching children
with additional learning support needs.

Results
Table 1 shows the alpha coefficients obtained in this study for each of the instruments
used. While there is some debate in the literature concerning what constitutes
acceptable levels of reliability (e.g. Schmitt, 1996), alpha coefficients greater than .7 are
generally accepted as indicating good reliability.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

533

Table 1. Internal consistency coefficients

Cronbachs a

Scale
Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (IDP)
Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale
Teacher Attribution Scale (TAS)
TAS: causality
TAS: stability
TAS: controllability

.82
.91
.86
.97
.92
.93

As indicated above, IDP responses were analysed by principal components analysis

with varimax rotation (the most common method, according to Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001), to determine which subscales to be used for analysis. Item 19 was removed
before analysis, as findings consistently show this does not load on any factor, signalling
poor reliability. These data were tested for suitability for factor analysis using the Kaiser
MeyerOlkin measure to test the size of partial correlations between variables and met
the requirement for good factor analysis that the value obtained should be greater than
.6 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Our initial analysis also found a six-factor solution
(six factors with an eigenvalue of greater than 1.0, accounting for 66% of the variance),
similar to Gething (1991). However, the reliability of factors 4, 5, and 6 was poor
(a :59, .43, and .41, respectively) and there was also the problem of interpreting
factors made up of small numbers of items, particularly so for Factor 6, for which, of
additional concern, those items were not particularly related. The same problems
emerged when we further removed items 3, 11, and 14 to investigate the four-factor
solution proposed by Tait and Purdie (2000). Consequently, we then analysed the 10
items used by MacLean and Gannon (1995) in their two-factor solution. The reliability of
this ten-item scale was good, a :75. Two factors with an eigenvalue of over 1.0
emerged and the items in each factor were the same as that found by both MacLean and
Gannon (1995) and Tait and Purdie (2000). Together, both factors accounted for 52% of
the variance. Table 2 shows the similarities between factor loadings found in the present
study and those of Tait and Purdie.
The two subscales were labelled by MacLean and Gannon as Discomfort and
Sympathy and as with the whole scale; lower scores indicate more positive attitudes.
The subscale scores were arrived at by computing unweighted means of the items that
Table 2. Comparison of factor loadings 10-item IDP scale with Tait and Purdie (2000)
Factor
Discomfort
Discomfort
Discomfort
Discomfort
Discomfort
Sympathy
Sympathy
Sympathy
Sympathy
Sympathy

Item no.

Factor loadings (Tait & Purdie, 2000)

Factor loadings (present study)

9
11
12
17
18
1
2
3
5
13

.738
.633
.710
.718
.704
.468
.695
.582
.433
.450

.736
.688
.704
.763
.775
.629
.778
.530
.654
.679

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

534 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

load on each factor. Internal reliability was good for the Discomfort scale (a :79) and
acceptable for the Sympathy scale (a :68). Also, as Gannon and MacLean and Tait and
Purdie found, the two scales were not highly correlated (r :24, p :008), indicating
that the subscales are measuring two independent attitude dimensions. These are the
two subscales that will be used in the analyses.
Three multiple regression analyses were first carried out to investigate the impact of
the teacher predictor factors teachers role, years of teaching experience, experience
working with pupils with additional learning support needs, postgraduate qualifications
in special educational needs, teaching efficacy, and attitudes towards disabled people on
locus of causality, stability and controllability attributions. Higher scores for causality
reflect an external locus of causality and higher scores for stability reflect more unstable
attributions i.e. that recognize the possibilities of change in learner performance. Scores
for controllability were reversed so that higher scores reflect the child being attributed
with control. This meant that across all three types of attribution, higher scores
indicated more positive attributions. The support needs variable could not be entered in
these regression analyses as a predictor, as scores for the two conditions of the support
needs variable (needs identified and needs not identified) were themselves teachers
attribution scores on the relevant vignettes and therefore would obviously be highly
correlated with the dependent attribution total scores. Analysis of the attributions on
the two sets of support need vignettes and their interaction with teachers role was
therefore carried out separately using multivariate analysis of variance.
Of the participants, 15% reported having 05 years of teaching experience,
14% reported 610 years of experience, 15% reported 1115 years of experience, and
56% reported more than 15 years of experience. In addition, 16% of teachers reported
having no experience of children with special needs, and another 16% reported having
less than 5 years of such experience. A further 23% of participants reported having
between 5 and 10 years, while 44% had more than 10 years of experience with
additional support needs. Postgraduate qualifications were recorded in terms of the
highest postgraduate qualification gained in special educational needs. 50% of
participants had undertaken no postgraduate training, 3% were currently studying for a
qualification, 8.5% had a postgraduate certificate, 1.7% had a postgraduate certificate
and were currently undertaking a further qualification, 32% had gained a diploma, 0.8%
(one participant) had two diplomas, and 2.5% had a Masters degree. One participant
reported having a different, unspecified qualification. Table 3 shows how mean
attribution scores differed by each of these participant characteristics.
The predictor of teachers role was entered using dummy coding. This requires one
category to be excluded to prevent perfect multicollinearity in the model and so in this
case, special education was the excluded category. Thus two dichotomous variables
were created; mainstream teachers (1 for mainstream and 0 for special education and
learning support) and learning support teachers (1 for learning support and 0 for
mainstream and special education). This meant that the special education group was the
reference group, allowing the two groups of teachers working in mainstream settings to
be compared with those working in special education environments. Years of teaching
experience also used dummy coding with 0 representing less than 115 years of
teaching and 1 representing more than 15 years of teaching experience. Experience of
working with pupils with additional support needs again used dummy coding with 0
representing less than 5 years experience and 1 representing 5 or more years. Training
was examined in a similar way, with 0 representing no postgraduate training in special
education and 1 representing some kind of postgraduate training. Teaching efficacy

Teachers role
General mainstream
Mainstream learning support
Special education
Years of teaching experience
0 5
6 10
1115
15
Years including any work with special needs
None
Less than 5
Between 5 and 10
10
Highest postgraduate qualification gained in SEN
No qualification
Currently studying for a qualification
Postgraduate certificate
Postgraduate certificate and currently studying for other
Postgraduate diploma
Two diplomas
Masters degree
Others

Characteristic

12.55 (4.09)
14.45 (4.56)
13.49 (4.65)
12.22 (2.51)
14.13 (4.33)
15.39 (3.88)
13.02 (4.90)
11.95 (4.02)
12.05 (4.44)
14.82 (3.39)
13.67 (4.91)
12.63 (4.52)
15.75 (4.35)
14.40 (3.75)
12.00 (0.00)
14.26 (4.67)
16.00 (0.00)
12.00 (4.00)
12.00 (0.00)

(15.3)
(13.6)
(15.3)
(55.9)
(16.1)
(16.1)
(23.7)
(44.1)

18
16
18
66
19
19
28
52
59 (50.0)
4 (3.4)
10 (8.5)
2 (1.7)
38 (32.2)
1 (0.8)
3 (2.5)
1 (0.8)

Causality mean (SD)

44 (37.3)
33 (28.0)
41 (34.7)

Frequency (%)

Table 3. Mean (SD) attribution scores by participant characteristics

12.66 (3.43)
18.00 (1.63)
14.40 (4.27)
12.00 (0.00)
14.18 (4.64)
20.00 (0.00)
14.67 (6.11)
12.00 (0.00)

12.05 (3.64)
13.74 (3.54)
14.43 (3.35)
13.62 (4.64)

13.72 (2.78)
13.88 (3.46)
14.94 (4.62)
13.09 (4.30)

12.57 (3.45)
13.36 (4.08)
14.83 (4.39)

Stability mean (SD)

9.88 (3.80)
13.00 (5.03)
13.10 (3.90)
12.00 (5.66)
10.39 (4.85)
20.00 (0.00)
16.00 (4.00)
16.00 (0.00)

10.79 (4.30)
11.58 (3.75)
10.54 (4.03)
10.56 (4.99)

11.89 (2.68)
10.44 (4.68)
11.33 (4.69)
10.36 (4.72)

10.00 (3.46)
9.55 (3.87)
12.54 (5.27)

Controllability mean (SD)

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

535

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

536 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

was analysed using the total scores from the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale.
Finally, attitudes towards disabled people were investigated using the Discomfort and
Sympathy subscales of the IDP scale.
Hierarchical regression analysis was employed with the teachers role dummy
variables entered first, followed by all main effects and then first-order interactions
which were explored by creating cross-product multiplicative terms. Following Aitken
and Wests (1991) recommendation, the predictor variables were centred prior to
construction of the interaction terms to reduce potential multicollinearity problems.
Using the variance inflation factor ( VIF ) to test for multicollinearity, VIF values of
between 1.09 and 2.22 were obtained, showing multicollinearity was not a problem as
high multicollinearity is represented by VIF values above 4 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1995).
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in Table 4. No significant
interactions were found in any of the analyses so the third models containing these
interactions have not been included in this table. The first model was not significant,
(F 2; 115 1:77, MS residual 19:58), so teachers role was not found to predict locus
of causality attributions. Years of teaching experience was found to be a negative
predictor of external locus of causality attributions (b 20:28, t 22:77, p :007),
while experience with additional support needs was found to be a positive predictor of
external locus of causality attributions (b 0:28, t 2:53, p :013). Also, teaching
efficacy was found to positively predict external causality attributions (b 0:19,
t 2:08, p :040). This second model explained 9% (adjusted R2) of the variance,
(F 8; 109 2:46, MS residual 18:03, p :017), indicating that teachers with more
experience attribute the childrens failure in the test more to factors internal to the child
than those with less experience. Conversely, participants with more experience of

Table 4. Regression summary table

Locus of causality

Stability

Controllability

Model 1: teachers role

Mainstream
Learning support

b
20.10
0.10

t
2 0.98
0.93

b
2 0.27
2 0.16

t
2 2.62*
2 1.58

b
2 0.28
2 0.30

t
22.73**
22.99**

Model 1: Summary

R2(adj )
0.01

F
1.77

R2(adj )
0.04

F
3.50*

R2(adj )
0.07

F
5.56**

Model 2: Main effects

Mainstream
Learning support
General teaching experience
Experience with ASN
Training
Teaching efficacy
IDP scale: Discomfort
IDP scale: Sympathy

b
0.05
0.17
20.28
0.28
0.05
0.19
0.10
20.07

t
0.40
1.56
2 2.77**
2.53*
0.38
2.08*
1.08
2 0.75

b
2 0.17
2 0.13
2 0.16
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.01
2 0.33

t
2 1.30
2 1.24
2 1.60
0.89
0.24
1.24
0.05
2 3.51**

b
2 0.24
2 0.31
2 0.02
2 0.16
2 0.24
2 0.09
0.11
2 0.06

t
21.85
22.91**
20.19
21.48
1.95
21.01
1.16
20.64

Model 2: Summary

R2(adj )
0.09

F
2.46

R2(adj )
0.15

F
3.59

R2(adj )
0.17

F
2.69

*p , :05.
**p , :01.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

537

working specifically with pupils with additional learning support needs attributed to
external classroom factors the pupils failure in the class test more than those with less
experience. Moreover, teachers with a higher sense of teaching efficacy also attributed
the failure to external factors more than those with a lower sense of teaching efficacy.
Teachers role was found to predict stability attributions as Model 1 in the stability
regression was significant (F 2; 115 3:50, MS residual 15:81, p :034), with the
mainstream teachers dummy variable a negative predictor of stability attributions,
(b 20:27, t 22:62, p :010). When the other factors were included in Model 2,
this now explained 15% (adjusted R 2) of the variance (F 8; 109 3:59,
MS residual 14:01, p :001), and teachers role no longer emerged as a predictor
of stability attributions. Instead the IDP subscale of Sympathy was found to be the best
predictor of stability attributions (b 20:33, t 23:51, p :001). More positive
attitudes on the IDP scale are represented by lower values, so teachers with more
positive attitudes not overwhelmed by sympathy saw childrens difficulties in learning as
being more amenable to change.
Teachers role was also found to be predictive of controllability attributions
(F 2; 115 5:56, MS residual 18:32, p :005; Table 4). Both the mainstream
(b 20:28, t 22:73, p :007) and the learning support (b 20:30, t 22:99,
p :003) dummy variables were found to be negative predictors. However, in Model 2
where all the factors are included, it was only the mainstream learning support variable
that emerged as a predictor (b 20:31, t 22:91, p :004). This model explained
17% (adjusted R2) of the variance (F 8; 109 2:69, MS residual 17:69, p :010).
Therefore, teachers role was found to be the only predictor of controllability
attributions. The relationship between teachers role and controllability attributions will
be referred to again in the subsequent multivariate analysis of variance.
The postgraduate qualifications variable did not emerge as a predictor of attributions.
There were originally eight categories of postgraduate qualifications (no postgraduate
qualifications, studying for a postgraduate qualification, postgraduate certificate, two
postgraduate certificates, postgraduate certificate and studying for a diploma, two
diplomas, diploma and studying for a masters degree, and masters degree) but no effects
emerged when these categories were investigated. Therefore the dichotomous variable
of postgraduate qualification or no postgraduate qualification was devised to further
investigate potential effects, as we had done for teaching experience and additional
support needs. For teaching experience there were initially four categories: (a) 05
years; (b) 610 years; (c) 1115 years; and (d) more than 15 years. Using this breakdown
of experience, this variable did not emerge as a predictor of attributions. These four
categories were then merged into two categories less than 10 years and more than 10
years of experience. Again, this breakdown of experience did not appear as a predictor
of attributions. It was only when experience was broken down into the categories of 15
or less years or more than 15 years that it emerged as a predictor. It should also be noted
that when additional support needs was investigated with its original four categories of
(a) none, (b) less than 5 years, (c) between 5 and 10 years, and (d) more than 10 years, it
did not come out as a predictor. However, postgraduate qualifications did not emerge as
a predictor, regardless of how it was categorized.
A mixed 3 2 (general mainstream, learning support and special education
identified learning support needs or no identified support needs) multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was carried out to analyse the effects of support needs on the
dependent teachers attribution variables of locus of causality, stability, and controllability
as well as interaction with teachers role. There appeared to be problems with

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

538 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

homogeneity associated with the MANOVA, as Boxs M test was significant (p , :001).
For this reason, Pillais Trace was used in place of Wilks Lambda (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Mean ratings and standard errors for each of the attributions by teachers group
and support needs conditions are shown in Table 5. A multivariate effect was found for
the within-participants factor of support needs (Pillais trace F 3; 113 3:07, p :031).
Univariate analysis identified a significant main effect of support needs for the
controllability attributions (F 1; 115 5:87, MS error 1:37, p :017; h2 :01; small,
but not trivial, effect size). Teachers made significantly lower controllability ratings for the
learners with identified support needs (mean 5:16, SE 0:20) compared with those
without identified needs (mean 5:53, SE 0:22). Therefore, learners without
identified support needs were seen as being more in control over their own progress.
No main effects of support needs were, however, found for locus of causality or stability
attributions.
Table 5. Mean (SE) attribution ratings by teachers role and support needs condition

Causality
Stability
Controllability

Identified
support needs

General mainstream
teachers mean (SE)

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

6.23 (0.34)
6.32 (0.35)
6.18 (0.32)
6.39 (0.33)
4.43 (0.33)
5.57 (0.36)

Learning support
teachers mean (SE)
7.21
7.24
6.76
6.61
4.76
4.79

(0.39)
(0.40)
(0.37)
(0.38)
(0.38)
(0.42)

Special education
teachers mean (SE)
6.68
6.81
7.61
7.22
6.29
6.24

(0.35)
(0.36)
(0.33)
(0.34)
(0.34)
(0.37)

As the influence of teachers role on attributions has already been reported in the
regression analyses results, MANOVA results for this are not reported again here.
A multivariate teachers role support needs interaction effect was however obtained
(Pillais trace F 6; 228 2:22, p :042). Univariate tests revealed the interaction to be
significant for the controllability attributions (F 2; 115 6:66, MS error 1:37,
p :002; h2 :01, a small effect size), but not for locus of causality or stability
attributions. Follow-up analysis was carried out using Tukey HSD to compare the
controllability means for the teachers groups and support needs conditions. The
harmonic mean was used due to the unequal group sizes. This analysis revealed that
while the learning support and the special education teachers saw no difference
between the pupils with identified support needs and those without, the general
mainstream teachers saw the pupils without any identified support needs
(mean 4:43, SE 0:33) as having more control than the pupils with identified
needs (mean 5:57, SE 0:36), p , :01. These findings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Discussion
The study found that teachers with more than 15 years of experience viewed childrens
difficulties as more internally attributable than those with less than 15 years of
experience. One explanation is that perhaps pre-service training courses now focus
more on inclusive practices compared with 15 years ago when the more experienced,
longer-serving teachers in our sample were trained, making it more likely that recently
trained teachers view learner difficulties as responsive to external, teacher-driven

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

539

Figure 1. Controllability attributions by teachers role and support needs condition.

influences. Alternatively, as Ward et al. (1994) found that enthusiasm for inclusion
increased with distance from regular classroom practice, it could be that teacher
educators and trainers enthusiasm about the effects teachers can have on learners with
difficulties has been transmitted to, and retained by, the more recently trained teachers.
As anticipated, teachers with more experience of working with children with
additional learning support needs attributed difficulties in learning more to external
factors such as teacher- and school-related factors. This echoes the findings of Avramidis
et al. (2000), LeRoy and Simpson (1996), and Cook et al. (2000) and suggests a
constructive willingness to accept responsibility for learner progress. Surprisingly,
postgraduate qualifications in additional learning support needs were not found to
impact on teachers attributions which contrasts with the findings of Avramidis et al.
(2000). One explanation for the apparent disparity may be that such qualifications may
only address surface attitudes and do not adequately deal with underlying attributional
beliefs about children with additional support needs. Perhaps postgraduate training in
additional support needs should be more hands on, offering teachers placement
opportunities to gain greater experience with learners with special needs. Both pre- and
post-service trainings should aim not only to provide teachers with the relevant skills
and knowledge to support inclusion, but also more fundamentally to tackle their beliefs
about learners. It should be noted that in-service training was not considered due to
Avramidis et al.s (2000) finding that only postgraduate university-based training made a
difference. Certainly, the findings of the present study suggest a need for further
research into the impact of current training approaches, whether pre-service, in-service
short courses or postgraduate qualifications, on teachers beliefs about learners with
difficulties. This could take the form of in-depth qualitative research which focuses on
what teachers find useful and what they feel is required.
Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy attributed the childrens difficulties more to
external factors than those with a lower sense of efficacy, suggesting that teachers who
feel more competent and have a greater belief in the power of their profession are more

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

540 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

comfortable in accepting some responsibility for the childrens difficulties. This

concords with Stein and Wangs (1988) finding that teachers with a strong sense of
efficacy were more willing to adapt their teaching methods to suit the needs of included
students. Attitudes towards disabled people were found to have an impact on stability
attributions. Teachers who did not feel overwhelmed with sympathy saw the childrens
difficulties as less stable and therefore more amenable to change. It should be noted that,
on this scale, having less sympathy is considered to be a more positive attitude because
the scale does not measure societal concerns such as prejudices against people with
disabilities but instead investigates how people feel while interacting with disabled
people. A person who feels a great deal of sympathy may respond to the disabled
individual differently from non-disabled people. Prior contact with people with
disabilities has been found to be the strongest predictor of attitudes towards disabled
people as measured by the IDP scale (Gething et al., 1997), and on attitudes towards
pupils with additional support needs (Parasuraman, 2006). Pre-and post-service
trainings should aim to raise teachers sense of efficacy and improve teachers attitudes
towards disabled people in general.
The study supported the findings of Woolfson et al. (2007) that there are differences
in stability attributions according to the teachers role. However, more important than
the role itself were the accompanying experiences connected with different teachers
roles. So, strong feelings of sympathy towards disabled people were more predictive
than teachers role of viewing childrens difficulties in learning as less amenable to
change. Forlin et al. (1999b) found that people who were most comfortable around
people with disabilities were those who had regular contact with disabled people. For
this reason, it makes sense that special education teachers would feel more comfortable
and not overwhelmed by sympathy as they are likely to have more regular contact with
children with disabilities. While initial regression analysis showed that special education
teachers also saw children as having more control over the causes of their difficulties
than did mainstream general class and mainstream learning support teachers, when all
the other factors were added to the analysis, this effect of teachers role was not fully
sustained in that only the mainstream learning support role was found to be predictive
of controllability attributions. So for controllability attributions, the various teachers
factors could not account for the differing attributions of the mainstream learning
support teachers. Mainstream teachers controllability attributions were also influenced
by whether or not a child had identified learning support needs.
These attributions could have important consequences for the self-perceptions and
achievement of children with additional support needs who are included in mainstream
settings. Teachers who see difficulties in learning as internally attributable to the child
may be less likely to modify teaching practices ( Jordan et al., 1997). In terms of stability
attributions, teachers seeing childrens difficulties as stable and not readily amenable to
change may hold lower expectations for the future success of the children. These low
expectations could mean that the teacher sets fewer goals for the child and this has
implications for achievement. In terms of controllability attributions, if a teacher sees a
learner as not being in control, the teacher is more likely to provide help. As discussed
previously, if help is provided on a task that the learner does not see as challenging, the
help could be interpreted as a low ability cue, i.e. transmitting to the learner the
message that they are of low ability and likely to need help (Tollefson & Chen, 1988).
There is a need for more up-to-date research which empirically demonstrates a link
between teachers attributions, teachers behaviours, and the impact of these
behaviours on pupils.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

541

Furthermore, the external validity may be limited by the use of hypothetical

vignettes, which in their effort to be simple, do not then depict the complexity of
classroom dynamics. Very few details were given about the boys in the vignettes; for
example, it was not known what kind of test they had just failed. Therefore, when
interpreting the vignettes, the teachers could have made unintended inferences about
the children; for example, the extent and severity of the difficulties and the age of the
child. Future research could further examine child-related variables such as type and
extent of support needs as well as the impact of environmental variables such as school
climate and the availability of support services.

Conclusion
Teachers with a higher sense of teaching efficacy and those with more experience of
working with learners with additional support needs both attributed learners failure in
class more to external factors than did those with less experience of teaching children
with additional support needs and with lower teaching efficacy. Teachers who did not
feel high levels of sympathy viewed learner difficulties as more amenable to change.
Special education teachers saw that the learners were having more control over their
own progress than mainstream learning support teachers. Mainstream teachers were
also less optimistic about learner progress than special education teachers, viewing the
children with learning support needs as having less control over their own progress
than the children without such needs. No relationship was found between postgraduate
qualifications and teachers beliefs about learners. These findings have important
implications for effective inclusion in terms of modification of teaching, expectations of
success, and setting of goals, and teachers pre- and post-service training.

References
Aitken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one
local educational authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 193213.
Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Attributional analysis of achievement-related behaviour. Review of Educational
Research, 48, 259271.
Ben-Pajooh, A. (1992). The effect of social contact on college teachers attitudes towards students
with severe mental handicaps and their educational integration. Journal of Special Needs
Education, 7, 231236.
Bender, W., Vail, C., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes to increased mainstreaming:
Implementing effective insruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 28, 8794.
Bibou-Nakou, I., Kiosseoglou, G., & Sogiannidou, A. (2000). Elementary teachers perceptions
regarding school behavior problems: Implications for school psychological services.
Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), 123134.
Brophy, J. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: The Guildford Press.
Brown, J. D., & Rogers, R. J. (1991). Self-serving attributions: The role of physiological arousal.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 501506.
Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special
education teachers perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 143156.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

542 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic
integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 2343.
Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability. A test of attributional principles.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 6979.
Clark, M. D. (1998). An attributional analysis of the causal properties of specific learning
disability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles and
California State University, Los Angeles.
Clark, M., & Artiles, A. (2000). A cross-national study of teachers attributional patterns. Journal of
Special Education, 34(2), 7789.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers attitudes toward their
included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115135.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175191.
Forlin, C. (1995). Educators beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal
of Special Education, 22, 179185.
Forlin, C., Fogarty, G., & Carroll, A. (1999a). Validation of the factor structure of the Interactions
with Disabled Persons Scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51, 5055.
Forlin, C., Tait, K., Carroll, A., & Jobling, A. (1999b). Teacher education for diversity. Queensland
Journal of Educational Research, 15(2), 207225.
Gething, L. (1991). Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale: Manual and kit. Sydney Australia:
University of Sydney.
Gething, L., & Wheeler, B. (1992). The Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale: A new Australian
instrument to measure attitudes towards people with disabilities. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 44, 7582.
Gething, L., Wheeler, B., Cote, J., Furnham, A., Hudek-Knezevic, J., Jaroslaw, R., et al. (1997). An
international validation of the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale. International Journal
of Rehabilitation Research, 20(2), 149158.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis: With
readings. New York: Macmillan.
Harvey, D. (1985). Mainstreaming: Teachers attitudes when they have no choice about the matter.
Exceptional Child, 32, 163173.
Ho, I. (2004). A comparison of Australian and Chinese teachers attributions for student problem
behaviour. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 375391.
Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. (1997). Interactions with students who are exceptional, at
risk and typically achieving. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 8293.
LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive education.
Support for Learning, 11, 3236.
Leyser, Y. (2002). Choices of instructional practices and efficacy beliefs of Israeli general and
special educators: A cross-cultural research initiative. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 25(2), 154167.
Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: A crosscultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 115.
MacLean, D., & Gannon, P. M. (1995). Measuring attitudes toward disability: The Interaction with
Disabled Persons Scale revisited. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 10(4),
791806.
Mavropoulou, S., & Padeliadu, S. (2000). Greek teachers perceptions of autism and implications
for educational practice: A preliminary analysis. Autism, 4, 173183.
Mavropoulou, S., & Padeliadu, S. (2002). Teachers causal attributions for behaviour problems in
relation to perceptions of control. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 191202.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self and task
related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 247258.

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Teachers attributions for childrens difficulties

543

Parasuraman, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers attitudes towards disability and inclusive
education in Mumbai, India. Disability and Society, 21(3), 231242.
Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy
of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150167.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables
associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 21(1), 85105.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian
Journal of Education, 17(1), 5165.
Ross, J., Cousins, J., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 12, 385400.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4),
350353.
Smith, L. (1995). The impact of early life history on teachers beliefs: In-school and out-of-school
experiences as learners and knowers of science. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
11(1), 536.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special
education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 6681.
Soodak, L., Podell, D., & Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, student and school attributes as predictors of
teachers responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480497.
Stein, M., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of
teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171187.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tait, K., & Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes towards disability: Teacher education for inclusive
environments in an Australian university. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 47(1), 2538.
Tollefson, N., & Chen, J. (1988). Consequences of teacher attribution for student failure. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 4, 259265.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998), Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202248.
Villa, R., Thousand, J., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of
heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 2945.
Ward, J., Center, Y., & Bochner, S. (1994). A question of attitudes: Integrating children with
disabilities into regular classrooms? British Journal of Special Education, 21, 3439.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 325.
Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application within an
attributional framework. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Student motivation ( Vol. 1, pp. 1538).
New York: Academic Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548573.
Wilczenski, F. L. (1993). Changes in attitudes towards mainstreaming among undergraduate
education students. Educational Research Quarterly, 17, 517.
Woolfson, L., Grant, E., & Campbell, L. (2007). A comparison of special, general and support
teachers controllability and stability attributions for childrens difficulties in learning.
Educational Psychology, 27(2), 293304.
Received 8 March 2007; revised version received 15 November 2007

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

544 Katy Brady and Lisa Woolfson

Appendix. Teacher Attribution Scale vignettes

(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)

Christopher has ability below that of most children in the class. He always tries his
best.
Andrew is considered to have lower ability for academic tasks than most children
in the class. He works hard in class. He receives services from learning support to
help him in language and maths.
Johns ability is considered to be below that of many children in his class. He works
hard in class.
Stevens ability is below that of most of his classmates. He has difficulty with
writing tasks which involve constructing sentences and spelling correctly. The
learning support teacher helps him with this. He always tries his best in class.