Individual teachers' academic optimism (TAO) is an important teacher characteristic that influences student achievement. Academically optimistic teachers believe they can make a difference, build trusting relationships with students and parents, and focus on learning (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008).  Research confirms a strong correlation with student achievement, even after controlling for background variables such as SES and migration (Ates & Unal, 2021). At the same time, TAO is inherently malleable; pessimistic teachers can become optimistic (Hoy, 2012). Despite the essential importance of TAO, the academic community has so far had limited success in grasping how TAO is formed, how it evolves and – crucially – how it can be influenced. Therefore, understanding how teachers attribute their level of academic optimism to certain causes is an important step in expanding the knowledge base on TAO, as this can offer more insight into the mechanisms at play in creating academically optimistic teachers.

Using attribution theory, we try to capture how teachers explain high or low levels of TAO. Attribution theory states that the perceived causes of past events determine what will happen in the future (Weiner, 2010). Depending on the underlying properties of causes (locus, stability, and controllability) that teachers attribute to their degree of academic optimism, causal attributions shape teachers' affective reactions, expectations, and behaviour (Tõeväli & Kikas, 2016). In other words, teachers who attribute internally and believe they exert control over student learning are more likely to take responsibility compared to teachers who attribute causes externally, uncontrollably, and stable (Wang et al., 2015). To promote favourable attribution patterns, it is therefore important to understand those causal attribution processes (Suter et al., 2022). Consequently, knowledge about the causes teachers name for high or low levels of academic optimism creates opportunities for understanding the development of TAO. 

In addition, this study examines the role of students' disadvantaged background and schools' level of academic optimism (SAO) regarding these attributions. After all, teachers' attribution process is not independent of the social (school) context (Murray et al., 2020). Previous research has already shown that school composition influences teachers' attribution processes regarding their students’ success or failure (Riley & Ungerleider, 2012). Despite good intentions, a common attribution error is over-reliance on information based on stereotypes (Reyna, 2008). These stereotypes lead to failure being internally, uncontrollably, and stably attributed to the student, negatively affecting expectations for future success. Because teachers can influence students through their attributions (Georgiou, 2008), it is important to know whether causes for high or low levels of TAO are attributed differently according to school composition. At the same time, we examine whether the degree of school-level academic optimism can be related to those attributional processes. School academic optimism (SAO) is a characteristic of the collectively shared school culture and is reflected in the degree of collective efficacy, the trust the team has in students and parents and the way a school-wide focus on learning exists (Hoy, 2012). As the degree of SAO influences normative culture and behaviour in schools (Wu & Lin, 2018), we also expect an influence on the mode of attribution. Schools with high levels of SAO believe they can make a difference, but whether this also trickles down into the way teachers attribute TAO is unknown. While that information could offer more insight into how schools can create an academically optimistic culture. This all leads to the following research questions: (1) How do teachers attribute causes for high or low levels of TAO? And (2) what role do the number of disadvantaged students and the level of SAO play in making these attributions? 

In an urban aera data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 16 teachers from eight secondary schools that participated in previous quantitative research on academic optimism. These schools were chosen through purposive sampling by the level of SAO (high/low) and the number of disadvantaged students (highest and lowest quartile). As academic optimism is a latent construct, our approach involved a detailed examination of its subcomponents. We explored the factors influencing teachers' perceptions of high or low levels within these components of academic optimism. To elicit insights, teachers were prompted to identify the causes and subsequently discuss their attributions. In addition to the interview guide, we employed a checklist to systematically address the internal/external locus of control and consider dimensions of stability and controllability for each component. Furthermore, we explicitly inquired about the connection between teachers' beliefs, and the potential influence of students' background characteristics, if respondents did not already raised these context factors themselves. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using Nvivo software, with a codebook developed based on academic optimism and attribution theory. Distinctions were made in attributions for high or low levels of academic optimism components, based on respondents’ positive or negative evaluations. The codebook, applied deductively, considered locus of control, stability, and controllability. Regular team discussions ensured coding accuracy. Each unique attribution received a separate code, with the repetition of the same attribution not included as a new code. The study classified interviews as cases, attaching school characteristics obtained from prior research. Quantifying attributions within each code facilitated comparisons based on school characteristics. This comprehensive process addressed research questions, offering insights into teacher attributions related to academic optimism subcomponents and background characteristics of students.

Results show that teachers attribute causes for high degrees of TAO both to themselves (internally) and others (externally), and they mainly perceive these causes as stable and controllable. Low levels of TAO are attributed exclusively externally and outside their control, but both stable and unstable. This is in line with previous research and confirms the self-serving attribution bias where people attribute success internally but failure externally (Cabanis et al., 2013). In addition, the degree of SAO seems to play a role in attribution, rather than school composition. Teachers in academically optimistic schools are more likely to attribute high levels of TAO to positive school characteristics that are stable and controllable. Moreover, they explain low levels of TAO less frequently with causes referring to students' disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to colleagues from less optimistic schools. The latter group attributes causes for low levels of TAO exclusively external and beyond their control. In conclusion, teachers in academically optimistic schools seem to speak differently about their students, their school, and themselves. In the way they attribute low or high levels for TAO opportunities are seen and responsibilities are recognised. This creates possibilities for increasing academic optimism by addressing teachers' perceptions and attributions. After all, academic optimism may be changeable, but if teachers are not willing to assign themselves a role in this process, this transformation will be little successful (Oakland & Tanner, 2007). As higher levels of TAO can lead to better performance for all students the importance of these insights come to the fore. More detailed results, insights, and consequences, as well as limitations, will be covered in the presentation.

Ates, A., & Unal, A. (2021). The relationship between teacher academic optimism and student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.52963/perr_biruni_v10.n2.20 Cabanis, M., Pyka, M., Mehl, S., et al. (2013). The precuneus and the insula in self-attributional processes. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0143-5 Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211196078 Murray, R. M., Coffee, P. A., Calum, A. E., & Robert C. (2020). Social Identity Moderates the Effects of Team-Referent Attributions on Collective Efficacy but Not Emotions. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(3), 322–340. Oakland, J. S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Successful change management. In Total Quality Management and Business Excellence (Vol. 18, Issues 1–2, pp. 1–19). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601042890 Reyna, C. (2008). Ian is intelligent but Leshaun is lazy: Antecedentsand consequences of attributional stereotypes inthe classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIII(4), 439–458. Riley, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2012). Self-fulfilling Prophecy: How Teachers’ Attributions, Expectations, and Stereotypes Influence the Learning Opportunities Afforded Aboriginal Students. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 35(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.35.2.303 Suter, F., Karlen, Y., Maag Merki, K., & Hirt, C. N. (2022). The relationship between success and failure causal attributions and achievement goal orientations. Learning and Individual Differences, 100, 102225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102225 Tõeväli, P. K., & Kikas, E. (2016). Teachers’ ability and help attributions and children’s math performance and task persistence. Early Child Development and Care, 186(8), 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1089434 Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.005 Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596 Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004 Wu, J. H., & Lin, C. Y. (2018). A multilevel analysis of teacher and school academic optimism in Taiwan elementary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9514-5