The influence of causal elements of locus of control on academic achievement satisfaction.

This study attempted to explore the influence of causal elements (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) as the strongest elements of locus of control predicting students' academic achievement satisfaction among foreign students. Based on locus of control scale invented by Rotter (1966), the findings obtained from 210 foreign students in primary school supported majority of the previous studies. The evidence obtained from descriptive statistics and correlational analysis indicated that the reliability and validity of the locus of control scale were relatively valid and reliable. The results indicated that the majority of the students attribute their causes of success to internal elements that is 96% of the respondents were characterized as internal. Based on correlational analysis, the result revealed that locus of control is significant and positively related to academic achievement satisfaction with moderate strength. The implications of the study were based on the conclusions of the findings.

**********

A number of previous studies' findings have identified significant relationships between locus of control and academic achievement (Weiner, 1979; Millar and Irving, 1995). From these studies it was concluded that internals tend to show superior achievement in comparison to their external counterparts. Another research presented by Guthrie (1998) confirmed the evidence that there is a relationship between locus of control and academic achievement levels. Also many researches on academic achievement had focused on students' perceptions of the psychological factors related to academic achievement (Butter and Orion, 1990). Their research identified two main approaches such as the concept of locus of control, which was primarily concerned with identifying individual differences and with studying the relationship between such tendencies and broad outcomes such as academic achievement.

The purpose of the current study is to suggest that causal elements (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) are the strongest factors of academic locus of control in predicting students' academic achievement satisfaction. Based on this model, the locus of control assists in increasing student potential to achieve academic satisfaction. This was confirmed by the study done by Wiener (1979) that the success of ability, effort, task difficulty and luck, was frequently shown by students' academic achievement at the end as the mean causal elements of locus of control. However, the two approaches of locus of control and students' perception were grouped by Weiner under one heading of locus of control as one of the psychological factors that have high impact on academic achievement.

One of the interesting things about the causes identified earlier by Weiner (1979) as critical elements in determining academic achievement as related to locus of control, was that they fell into two separate dimensions (locus of control and stability). He explained how those causal elements operate as dimensions of locus of control that contribute to academic achievement. He divided the causes into two dimensions: locus of Control and Stability dimensions. His explanation was based mainly on the role of those causes towards the achievement patterns among the achievers in schools.

Locus of Control Dimension

The locus of control was perceived as location of control over our lives. For example, one who made his own decisions and feelings was in control of his decisions and behaviors had an internal locus of control (Weiner 1992). This concept was explained by Rotter 1954 in his studies that a person who entered a situation with expectancies concerning the probable outcome of his possible behaviors was either internal or external in nature. Shinn (1973) was of the opinion that at one extreme of locus of control (internal), the individual thought of himself as being responsible for his own behavior. At the other extreme (external), the individual would see others, luck or circumstances beyond his control as responsible for his behavior. Millar and Irving (1995) incorporated the prediction of causality in their self-reinforcement model of scale with internal and external control factors. They argued that an individual's subjective probability of success was determined by perception of competence in relation to an internalized standard of excellence. They also suggested that success-oriented individuals preferred tasks and activities with an intermediate level of difficulty.

Academic achievement satisfaction attributed mainly to internal factors (effort and ability), which Weiner (1979), Wyatt and Medway (1984) perceived as stable and controllable. Stevenson (1993) found in his study that failure-oriented individuals contributed outcomes to be caused by external factors namely, the difficulty level of the tasks or bad luck. Those failure-oriented persons were strongly influenced by prior negative expectancies; they usually had low success expectancy and set themselves unrealistic goals, which were either too high or too low. Ford and Thomas (1997) supported the findings found by Shinn that when students occasionally experienced success, they considered it as good luck or as the result of too easy a task but when they experienced failure they attributed it to internal, stable and uncontrolled factors such as having low ability of themselves. Weiner (1979) referred to whether individuals saw an event as being caused by their own behavior demonstrating an internal locus of control or as being caused by environmental factors that were independent of them; demonstrating an external locus of control. Referring to the four factors identified by Weiner as being related to academic achievement, ability and effort were associated with internal locus of control, and task difficulty and luck with external locus of control (Lowenstein, 1997).

However, Stipek and Iver (1989) also argued that achievers would not perform well academically and despite tremendous amounts of effort would still not produce high achievement if ability was low. He also had the opinion that high effort, relative to others, put low ability on display. Only if students were socialized to value academic achievement and to feel obligated to themselves and others to pursue it, they would be concerned about their revealing low ability.

Stability Dimension

The stability dimension can also be used to clarify the four perceived causal elements of success as related to achievement patterns (Messina, 2002). He stressed that in any given task, stability, which was related to a factor's invariance over time, was relatively high for ability and task difficulty.

In contrast, effort and luck were rather unstable, since they were likely to vary a great deal over time (Slavin, 1994). Weiner (1979) argued that the four elements and two dimensions were considered simultaneous. It can be deduced that ability was stable and internal; task difficulty as stable and external; effort as unstable and internal; and luck as unstable and external. Weiner (1979) pointed out that what was important about his model was that a good deal of research had shown that the locus of control dimension influenced people's feelings of pride (in the event of success) and shame (as a result of failure).

Kivilu and Rogers (1997) supported Weiner's model by saying that pride is increased when one attributed one's success to one's internal qualities (ability and effort) and decreased correspondingly when one perceived success to be caused by external circumstances (task difficulty and luck). He also argued that feelings of shame were maximized when failure was explained by internal determinants, and minimized when failure was attributed to external causes.

Chandha (1989) explained that the dimension of stability was closely related to an individual's expectations of success or failure in the future. However, attributing performances to stable causes (ability and task difficulty) led to the expectation of similar performance was it good or bad in the future, while unstable causal explanation (effort and luck) resulted in the expectation that future achievement may vary from previous experiences of success and failure. Weiner (1979) elaborated on the stability dimension by showing that possible outcome of academic achievement is a result of students' attribution. On the other hand, if success was thought to be caused by luck (an external, unstable cause), there was decreased pride as well as an expectation of future changes in the trend of the achievement patterns among the students in school (Russell, 1992). Since luck was one of the external causes of achievement, then the achievement patterns would show almost low level of achievement.

Method

Sample

The questionnaires were administered to 210 from 6-9 forms primary students studying in Libyan international school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The majority of the students were male (63%). The age of the respondents ranges from 11-14 years old. The questionnaires were administered in the classes and all students were informed about the importance of the questionnaire. As only 16 students were not included in the sample still the sample was very representative of the school population.

Procedures

Foreign students' Locus of control was measured using locus of control scale (Rotter, 1966). It comprised 23 forced-choice questionnaire in which each statement or item is followed by a set of two responses or a pair of alternatives lettered A or B. Students are requested to select only one statement of each pair which he "more strongly believe to be the case". The reliability coefficient was 0.75 and its content validity has been checked and was found valid and accurate in measuring internal and external locus of students' control. It is scored in the "external" direction, that is, one point is given for each "external" statement selected; the higher the score the more external the individual will be regarded (Rotter, 1966). The scoring is that '0' for internal and '1' for external which resulted into the possible range of scores from 0 to 23. This means that items of locus of control scale, was on a yes or no (A or B) basis to indicate the degree of one's agreement with each statement.

Results

Based on this scale, the minimum composite scores of locus of control rating was 1.00 and a maximum of 11.00 and this gives a range of 10.00. The median locus of control rating value was 3.50. The mean locus of control rating was 3.80 with a standard deviation of 1.51 implying that overall level of locus of control is internal. However, the variations among the students' scores on locus of control items are presented in Table 1.

In accordance with the ratings 0.00 is an internal control, and 1.00 is an external control as the indication of the locus of control results, it was found that the majority of students appeared to be internal locus of control individuals. The results indicated that 96.2% students were internal, and 3.8% students were external locus of control (Table, 2). This means that the internal locus of control influences students' academic achievement satisfaction positively rather than external locus.

The findings revealed that there is a relationship between locus of control and academic achievement satisfaction among the foreign students. The results of correlation analysis indicated that the relationship between locus of control towards academic achievement satisfaction was significant ([r.bar] = 0.52; [p.bar] = 0.0001). Table 2 summarizes the results of this correlation. Thus, the purpose of the current study is confirmed. Therefore, it could be concluded that there is a significant relationship between locus of control and academic achievement satisfaction among the foreign students. This means that academic achievement satisfaction depends on student's causal elements towards learning. However, the magnitude of the relationship between students' locus of control towards their academic achievement satisfaction was moderate. From these findings, there is a tendency for students to experience the moderate level of academic achievement satisfaction.

Discussion

A number of studies have identified significant relationships between locus of control and academic achievement satisfaction. In a discussion of locus of control level, it could be concluded that internal students tended to show highest academic achievement satisfaction in comparison to the external students. These findings confirmed the study by Millar and Irving (1995) that the internals show superior performance in comparison to their external counterparts. However, internal locus of control had significantly, increased the amount of variance explained in academic achievement satisfaction. The general trend in the literature suggested an advantage of holding internal rather than external locus of control beliefs with respect to academic achievement satisfaction. The results indicated that internal locus of control had also demonstrated significant correlations with academic achievement satisfaction scores.

Therefore, the current research has tended to suggest that locus of control scale developed by Rotter (1966), is significantly related to and predictive of academic achievement satisfaction among the international students. In this sense locus of control that possess some predictive capability, contributed to the identification of students with low and high level of academic achievement satisfaction. And therefore, locus of control assisted in maximising student potential to achieve academic satisfaction. However, it is by no means certain that such interventions prevented students from dropping out of the system altogether.

Salo (1995) argued that locus of control appeared to be closely related to students academic out-comes of which one may claim as the positive relationship between locus of control and student's behavior. This study focuses mainly on the existing relationship between locus of control and academic achievement satisfaction as the important link between the individual and his ability to perform the task. Based on locus of control, it is possible for student to control his own environment since success depends on him, he could achieve more than the external students who feel that they are dependent on the whims and fancies (desires) of other people or events. Another example to explain this relationship was that children from different socio-economic levels might differ in their perceptions of locus of control. Indeed, a number of studies had pointed to a strong relationship between perception of locus of control and achievement patterns (Schneider and Lee 1990).

More specifically, numerous investigators had reported that locus of control predicts academic achievement among the students (Bar-Tal, 1980). Those findings were in line with the current findings that conceivably, the perception of lack of control of an individual induces a certain amount of factors that might be strengthened by the external or internal domains to perceive external controlling forces. In addition, perception of locus of control had been observed to be related to academic achievement satisfaction. For example, it was observed that students whose orientation was internal were characterized by higher achievers in educational expectations and aspirations than students whose orientation was external that marked the low academic achievement among students.

Weymer (2002) justified in his findings that locus of control was firmly related to academic achievement; he mentioned that more than 40 studies had investigated the relationship between perceptions of locus of control and students' academic achievement. Although the results were somewhat inconsistent, internal perception of control tends is positively correlated with academic achievement. McIlroy 2000) suggested that perception of locus of control was an important personality variable which predicts academic achievement patterns among students. This view was in line with the current findings that internal perception of locus of control was systematically related to behaviors which increased the probability of successful academic achievement satisfaction.

However, Millar and Irving (1995) were of the idea that the general trend in the literature suggested an advantage of holding internal rather than external locus of control. The reason was that internal control related to high academic achievement satisfaction as confirmed by the present study about the influence of causal elements of locus of control on academic achievement satisfaction among foreign students in Libyan international school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Conclusion

In summary, the findings of the current study supported the proposed model by Millar and Irving (1995). The results were consistent partially with findings by Shinn (1973) which found that the individual thought of himself as being responsible for his own behavior. The present results confirmed the argument by Weiner (1979) that the four elements (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) were related to students behavioral out-comes.

This study concluded that the problem of effort was probably more at the heart of those achievement differences than were competing demands or wishful thinking. For example, learning will not be possible without efforts to learn. To relate all those findings to the present study, also concluded that the study was highly related to the previous studies. However, the study also contributed positively to the previous findings that were not covered in their findings such as the reasons and criteria that determine students' behavioral outcomes on performing a task. This means that the existing relationships between locus of control and academic achievement satisfaction among achievers will clarify some missing links of the previous studies which were not well-focused by the previous researches.

Implications

From the findings and discussions of the results of the current study, it would be logical to deduce the following implications. For a student, the most important point of the model is that students have characteristic causes to which they attribute their success or failure (Millar and Irving, 1995). Thus, some students typically think their academic achievement satisfaction is caused by ability, while others might have a tendency to rely on explanations of effort, task difficulty, or luck. While some elements may lead student to work harder, others may be maladjusted. For instance, students who characteristically attribute failure to low ability are likely to feel displeased with their academic achievement satisfaction and to expect similar performance in the future. Likewise attributing success to task difficulty leads to decrease pride in academic achievement satisfaction.

The Attributional analysis of locus of control and the findings of the current study, should correct maladjustment attributions, which lead students to perform below their potential. Thus students may benefit by the encouragement of internal explanations for unsatisfactory academic achievement.

Based on these findings, the study provides some validations of using an attribution theory as the theoretical framework on the study of academic achievement satisfaction. The findings supported the theory that psychological factors have a great impact on academic achievement satisfaction and do influence students' reactions to their failures and successes. Because attributions influence students reactions to their failures and successes, Russell (1992) attempts to reshape these attributions might help undo some of the harmful psychological consequences of failure. The findings indicated that adjustment, attribution, motivation, self-efficacy, and attitude were among the best contributing factors to students' academic achievement satisfaction.

In the educational realms, educators should help their students arrive at the most adaptive, educationally beneficial causal conclusions as possible. For example, the bulk of the evidence obtained from these findings of the current study, indicated a student's first attribution inclination for failure. These findings supported the attribution theory in its assumptions that externalization did not facilitate learning, help-seeking, or increased persistence (Rotter, 1966). In addition, as some students clearly took blame for their dismal failures, it could result in debilitating losses in motivation, adjustment, attitude, self-efficacy, attribution, locus of control, and so on. To counteract those "natural" attribution tendencies, educators should encourage students to explore the causes of their academic achievement dissatisfaction, while guiding them towards achievement-promoting conclusions about causality. Although additional research was needed, several studies suggested that psychological factors such as locus of control (controllable, unstable) factors might facilitate academic achievement satisfaction. Those students tended to explain their academic achievement dissatisfaction by making external elements as the causes of their failure. They should be therefore exposed to some different internal elements to change their attributions from external to internal locus of control.

Finally, the study suggests that students would probably feel and experience higher levels of causal elements were they have longer exposure to influence their academic achievement satisfaction. Furthermore, the experience of being psychologically influenced to achieve satisfactorily is primarily individualized and therefore, would tend to be a better reflection of how students in this study personally feel about their academic achievement satisfaction.

References

Bar-Tal, D. et al. (1980). The Relationship between Locus of Control and Academic Achievement, Anxiety, and Level of Aspiration: Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 53-60.

Butter, R. and Orion, R. (1990). When pupils do not understand of the determinants of their success and failure in school: relationship between internal, teacher and unknown perceptions of control and school achievement, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 63-75.

Chandha, N. K. (1989). Causal antecedents of self- concept, locus of control and academic achievement: a path analysis. Psychology, 32, 264-268.

Ford, D. Y. and Thomas, A. (1997). Underachievement among Gifted minority students: problems and promises: the ERIC clear house on disabilities and gifted education (ERIC EC)--the council for exceptional children, 1-7.

Guthrie, J. T. et al. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, (2): 261-278.

Kivilu, J. M. and Rogers, W. T. (1997). A multi-level analysis of cultural experience and gender influences on causal attributions to perceived performance in mathematics: International Development Research Centre (IDRC): 25-37.

Lowenstein, D. (1997). Understanding and helping the slow learner, PhD. Thesis, San Narciso Community, college, accessed in 1997.

McIlroy, B., Bunting, B., and Adamson, G. (2000). An evaluation of the factor structure and predictive utility of a test anxiety scale with reference to students' past performance and personality indices: British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 17-32.

Messina, J. J., 2002. Tools for personal Growth handling fear of Success, PhD. Thesis, accessed in 2002.

Millar, B. and Irving, E (1995). Academic locus of control in British undergraduate students, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 331-340.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for Internal versus External: Washington D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Russell, D. W. (1992). Reactions to success and failure: An Attributional Analysis: Research Success and Failure, 1-9.

Salo, K. (1995). Teacher-stress processes: How can they be explained? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 39: 205-222.

Schneider, B. and Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: the school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21: 358-377.

Shinn, M. 1973. Secondary school coeducation and the fear of success and failure, MA. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, Allyn and Bacon, USA. 4th. Ed. P: 2-562.

Stevenson, H. W. et al. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children: Ten Years Later Science, 259:53-58.

Stipek, D. & Iver, D. (1989). Developmental changes in children's assessment of intellectual competence: A Review of Child Development, 60: 521-538.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: metaphors, theories, and research. USA. Sage Publication, p. 1-364.

Weymer, R. A. (2002). Factors Affecting Students' Performance in Sixth Grade Modular Technology Education: Journal of Technology Education, 13, (2): 34-47.

Wyatt, S. A. and Medway, E J. (1984). Causal attributions of students and student-proctors for performance on a University Examination: Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9, 25-37.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Uget Apayo Uguak, 18A--2 1st FL. JLN 18/35, TMN Sri Serdang, Postal code: 43300, Seri Kembangan, Selangor D. E. Malaysia; email: [e-mail]

Uget Apayo Uguak, Habibah Bt. Elias, Jegak Uli and Turiman Suandi, Faculty of Educational Studies, University of Putra Malasia.

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of items measuring academic
Locus of control's levels

        Item                                              Mean     SD

1. A.   Many of the unhappy achievement levels             0.3    0.45
        in student's academic performance is
        partly due to bad luck.
   B.   Student's poor performance result from
        the mistakes they make.

2. A.   One of the major reasons why students have         0.3    0.45
        low achievement pattern is because they do
        not have enough interest in studies.
   B.   There will always be low achievement pattern,
        no matter how hard students try.

3. A.   In the long run students get the high              0.4    0.48
        achievement they deserve in the academic
        performance.
   B.   Unfortunately, a student's worth often passes
        unrecognized, no matter how hard he tries.

4. A.   The idea that teachers are unfair to               0.4    0.48
        students is nonsense.
   B.   Most students don't realize the extent to
        which their achievement patterns are
        influenced by accidental factors.

5. A.   With the right motivation, one can be an           0.3    0.48
        effective achiever.
   B.   Capable students who fail to become high
        achievers have not taken advantage of their
        opportunities.

6. A.   No matter how hard you try, some students          0.4    0.49
        just do not like you.
   B.   Students who can not get others to like them,
        do not understand how to get along with
        others.

7. A.   I have often found that what is going              0.4    0.50
        to happen will happen.
   B.   Trusting to fate has never turned out as well
        for me as making a decision to perform well.

8. A.   In the case of the well-prepared student           0.3    0.46
        there is rarely ever such a thing as
        an unfair test.
   B.   Many times examination questions tend to
        be so unrelated to course work that studying
        is really useless.

9. A.   Becoming a success is a matter of hard work,       0.3    0.47
        luck has little or nothing to do with it.
   B.   Getting a good achievement pattern depends
        mainly on luck.

10. A.  The average student can have an influence          0.3    0.46
        in his performance.
    B.  The average pattern of achievement is
        obtained by few students.

11. A.  When I make plans, I am almost certain             0.3    0.44
        that I can make them work.
    B.  It is not always wise to plan far ahead
        because many things turn out to be a matter
        of good or bad fortune.

12. A.  In my case getting what I want has little          0.3    0.46
        or nothing to do with luck.
    B.  Many times we might just as well decide on
        what to do by flipping a coin.

13. A.  The one gets high achievement pattern often        0.3    0.48
        depends on who was lucky enough to be in
        the right place.
    B.  Getting students to do the right thing depends
        upon ability; luck has little or nothing to
        do with it.

14. A.  As far as academic affairs are concerned,          0.3    0.48
        most of us are the victims of examinations we
        can neither understand nor control.
    B.  By taking an active part in academic affairs,
        the students can expect a good examination
        outcome.

15. A.  Most students do not realize that the              0.3    0.48
        extent of academic performance is controlled
        by certain factors.
    B.  There is really no such thing as "luck".

16. A.  It is hard to know whether or not a person         0.4    0.50
        really likes you.
    B.  The number of friends you have, indicate how
        nice a person you are.

17. A.  In the long run the bad things that happen         0.3    0.44
        to us are balanced by the good ones.
    B.  Most misfortunes are the result of lack
        of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.

18. A.  With enough effort we can wipe out                 0.2    0.43
        low achievement pattern.
    B.  It is difficult for students to have much
        control over their low achievement pattern.

19. A.  Sometimes I cannot understand how teachers         0.3    0.46
        arrive at the achievement levels they give.
    B.  There is a direct connection between hard
        work and my achievement levels.

20. A.  Many times I feel that I have little influence     0.4    0.48
        over the things that happen to me.
    B.  It is impossible for me to believe that chance
        or luck plays an important role in life.

21. A.  Students are lonely because they do not            0.4    0.48
        like to be friendly.
    B.  There is not much use in trying too hard
        to please students, if they like you.

22. A.  What happens to me is my own doing.                0.3    0.47
    B.  Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough
        control over the direction my life is taking.

23. A.  Most of the time I can't understand why            0.3    0.46
        students behave the way they do.
    B.  In the long run the students are responsible
        for their  achievement levels.

Table 2
Students' Locus of Control Levels

Level                   Frequency   Percent

Internal         0.00   202         96
External         1.00   8           04

Total                   210         100.0
Note: r = 0.52          p < 0.01