INTRODUCTION The education profession continues to question why some students successfully meet their educational outcomes as measured by educational institutions and the larger society and others do not. Naturally, human beings also are in constant search for the factors that cause them or other people to behave the way they do. Among cognitive psychologists, the discussion of this issue has led to conclusions which indicate that students’ beliefs about their probability and causes for success and failure greatly influence their academic achievement (Williams et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2001). The process of assigning causes to our or other people’ s behavior is called attribution (Heider, 1958). According to Heider (1958), people broadly attribute the causes of their behavior either to internal or external factors. WEINER (1985) identified four attribution factors that are related to academic success or failure, namely: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. In the traditional approach used to assess causal dimensions, researchers have generally translated the causal attributions made for an achievement-type task by the subject into the causal dimensions described by WEINER (1985). This assumes that the researcher perceives causes in the same way as the respondent. Russell (1987) found this methodology problematic since it did not take into consideration that a meaning of an attribution could vary greatly from person to person and from situation to situation. The present study, intends to resolve the limitation of the previous studies by not restricting the attribution factors being studied to the ones the researchers know or are familiar with through WEINER’ s attribution THEORY (2010) and relevant studies. As such, this study investigates the attribution factors experienced and known by university students themselves and the relationship between those factors and university students’ academic achievement. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study employed a qualitative approach to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ attributional factors and their academic achievement in university. The participants included 20 junior and 20 senior students studying English Literature at Bahonar University of Kerman. The participants’ attributing factors to their successes and failures were, subsequently, categorized into different classes thematically. An inductive category formation procedure (Mayring, 2004) was employed to induce the themes from the responses. That is; the raw data was codified to develop concepts and themes from data using constant comparative method and the coding paradigms of the grounded THEORY approach (Ary et al., 2014). In order to gather data, a series of interviews were conducted with the students who allowed the researcher to record their voice during the interview process. The interviews were semi-structured in nature to be able to freely delve into issues presented since the students attribute their successes and failures to various internal and external factors that are required to be studied more and more. In other words, academic achievement has a multi-factor nature and the interview questions that don’ t limit the participants to some pre-determined responses, increase the probability that the participants do not confine the attribution factors to the ones researched before by the previous studies. Hence, this gives them the chance to reflect on their own experiences and state their believes about them (Liu, et al., 2016). The interview questions were designed and asked in English, but with the purpose of better communication and facilitation of expressing ideas, the interviewees were allowed to use their mother tongue i. e., Persian, if needed. Every face-to-face interview took about 30 minutes and the length of each online interview was about 25 minutes. However, some extended more than that since different ideas and opinions were brought into contact and the total length for all interviews was about 21 hours. Permissions were sought to gather participants' GPAs (grade point averages) of their last semester to be the indicator of their academic achievement. To be more specific, this research contributes to the body of attributional factors literature by responding to the following research questions: Research question one: Based on WEINER's attribution THEORY, which factors do Iranian EFL learners attribute their academic success and failure to? Research question two: What are the differences between successful and unsuccessful EFL learners in terms of attributional factors of academic achievement? RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Using constant comparative method of data analysis and coding paradigms of grounded THEORY, participants' attributional factors were classified into two main categories of internal factors and external factors, five subcategories of internal factors, including ability, effort, interest, familiarity with educational major and learning eagerness, and also seven subcategories of external factors, including test difficulty, luck, the time set for studying before exams, quality of teaching, personal and family situation, obligation from family members and the nature of academic courses were obtained. The findings indicated that most of students with high GPAs attributed their academic achievement to internal factors, including most of all, effort and ability and then, interest. On the other hand, most of students with low GPAs attributed their academic failure to external factors, such as test difficulty, luck, and the time set for studying before each exam. In addition, a high number of recent studies, including Genet (2016), Lei (2009) and Boruchovitch (2004) obtained similar results. Most of participants with low GPAs did not attribute their failures to lack of enough ability and effort. This part of results in the present study does not confirm Kumar et al., (2020) study that introduced lack of enough effort as the most important attributional factor to failure by unsuccessful participants and also does not correspond to Hoomanfard et al., (2020) and Mahmoodi and Karampour (2020) studies since they found that participants attributed their failure to lack of enough ability. CONCLUSION Regarding the findings of the present study, it could be concluded that students’ attribution style influences their learning motivation and inclination since each attributional factor leads to unique results for students. The present study tried to discover the factors that university students themselves attribute to academic achievement so that it would be much more feasible and profitable for instructors to utilize the results to make positive change in the students believes and thoughts about real causes of events.

One of the factors that can be the link between our intentions and actions and their external consequences is human agency, which indicates the conscious design and intentional execution of actions by the individual in order to influence future events.Objective and Method: This research with a developmental approach of psychometric method and method 1, examines the psychometric indices of the Human Factor Characteristics Scale using the classical THEORY of test score measurement and the graduated question-answer THEORY. The purpose of this study, which included high school students in Tehran, was selected by cluster sampling of 500 people as a sample size and statistical analysis was performed on 481 data. To collect the data, the ion Human Agent Characteristics Scale (2011) was used and the research questions were evaluated using IRTPRO and SPSS software.Results:The assumption of local independence based on Pearson x2 index was established by applying Simjima's calibrated question-answer THEORY and the assumption of being one-dimensional based on the analysis of multidimensional question-answer THEORY. Diagnosis parameters with question-answer approach and classical approach Test score Both item 25 approach had the lowest and item 2 had the highest diagnosis parameter. The answer thresholds for all the questions were so far apart that no option was covered by the other option, and the options were independently selected by individuals at intervals of theta. The total scale was calculated with Cronbach's alpha of 0.945, intentionality of 0.894, foresight of 0.780, self-reactivity of 0.871 and rethinking of 0.762. Also, the role of each item in internal consistency was investigated by the loop method, which all questions had a favorable role in internal consistency of this scale. The value of the validity coefficient obtained from the question-answer THEORY was obtained by marginal method for intentionality 0.92, forethought 0.85, self-reaction 0.91, rethinking 0.83..

This article introduces, analyzes, and criticizes the work of Lawrence M. Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral THEORY. Hinman is a Philosopher of Ethics in the multimedia learning. He believes that multiculturalism is important factor of nowadays so the most important responsibility of philosophers of Ethics is prevention of moral conflict. The global communication and information in 21st century needs global tolerance and respect of various nations, cultures, and moralities together because different people and societies have a common human nature and common natural rights that obligate to justice and moral relationship between different people and various societies’ beliefs throughout the world. Moral communication in multiculturalism approach is against racial, gender, national, and ethnic prejudice. Hinman believes in moral dialogue and global learning across different cultures. The book of Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral THEORY has a proper category of new ethical problems, and the candid standpoint of author is considerable. He has a logical method, and in the end of every part of book there are some questions for evaluation of students learning. So this book is proper for the philosophy of ethics in universities.

This paper examines the work of Immanuel Kant in the light of a new THEORY on the nature of truth, knowledge and falsehood (the Inversion THEORY of Truth). Kant’s idea that knowledge could be absolutely certain, and that its truth must correspond with reality, is discredited by a dissection of the Correspondence THEORY of Truth. This examination of the nature of truth, as well as knowledge and falsehood, is conducted with reference to Sir Karl Popper’s writings on regulative ideas, the criterion of demarcation and the principle of falsifiability. It is argued that if truth is to be regarded as certain, it should be used to describe objects and events in the objective (noumenal) state, and that subjective knowledge must contain (and is improved by) falsehood. Perceptions and knowledge are obtained by the biological and evolutionary process of Active Subjectivism. Ideas we have knowledge of can be metaphysical or scientific, according to Popper’s Criterion of Demarcation. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” claim that our intellect imposes absolutely true laws on nature could not allow for the possibility that ideas might be constructed from fallible perceptions, and hence that all knowledge is uncertain. Instead, he developed a Critique of Practical Reason in which religion, though not provable through logical reasoning, could be proved by our innate moral sense, giving us a Categorical Imperative that could lead to perverse results. By rejecting the absolute certainty of a priori knowledge, and admitting a degree of essential falsehood, we arrive at a more reasonable grounding for moral behavior.

Different narratives have been offered so far of the nature of science and scientific activity. Roy Bhaskar as one of the leading critical realists seeks to set the ground for a Copernican Revolution in the philosophy of science which seems to have been handled well by him. To this end, he proceeds to highlight the ontological debates and at the same time pays attention to the social nature of science. In “, A Realist THEORY of Science”, , which contains original and powerful arguments in the philosophy of science, not only does he raise criticisms against some philosophical schools and explains his own THEORY of science, rather he does also broach significant categories in the philosophy of science. His remarks with their philosophical basis can inspire the scholar who studies Bhaskar’, s philosophy. Among the most important ones of these categories, one can refer to the mutuality of ontological realism and epistemological relativism as well as his criticism of Tarsky’, s THEORY of truth. This essay aims at reviewing Bhaskar’, s key work in the philosophy of natural sciences and identification of its points of weakness and strength using a descriptive-analytic method. This is undertaken through a detailed review of the whole book in view of its formal, qualitative, and content dimensions. The essay is concluded by a number of practical suggestions.

The book “, History and THEORY in Anthropology”,by Alan Barnard, a leading researcher and author of anthropological studies, especially anthropology in South Africa is among valuable works in the field of anthropology. In this book, he examines the theoretical nature of anthropology throughout history and the views of prominent scholars and thinkers of this science and their comparisons, as well as the rooting of theories and schools of thought presented in the field of anthropology. The purpose of this book is to examine the pioneering views of anthropological studies, evolution in all its dimensions, the THEORY of disseminators in cultural areas, functionalism and structural functionalism, pragmatic theories, processing, and Marxist views, various aspects of relativism, structuralism and post-structuralism, postmodernist views and recent interpretations. Although this work should be regarded as an overview of anthropological theories and related problems since it lacks the details of theorists, approaches, and ideas, its very briefness of the terms and contents, its conceptual clarity and explanation have been diminished and it requires revisions.