PREDICTORS OF COLLEGE SUCCESS AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN, AND HISPANIC STUDENTS by CANDICE GLOBUSCHUTZ JOHNSTON, M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Approved
Hansel E. Burley Co-Chairperson of the Committee
Bonita K. Butner Co-Chairperson of the Committee
James P. Burkhalter
Accepted
John Borrelli Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2006
Copyright 2006, Candice Glouschutz Johnston
ABSTRACT College students are more diverse today than any other time in the history of higher education. The challenge for students has gradually shifted from that of gaining access to higher education to that of persistence and achieving the goal of graduation. This study examined college success by exploring (1) achievement motivation, (2) student rapport rating with peers, (3) student rapport rating with instructors, (4) grade point average. Each of these items was evaluated across ethnic groups, which include: African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic student. This study explored the relationship between achievement motivation, rapport rating with peers, rapport rating with instructors, and grade point average within the context of a mid-sized, public university campus in the southwestern portion of the United States. The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey as developed by Dr. Amy Strage was used as the assessment instrument. The key research questions were these: 1) Is there a relationship between self-reported grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups? 2) Is there a relationship between self-reported grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups? 3) Is there a relationship between self-reported grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups? Current predictors of student success are not comprehensive, therefore other predictors of student success needed to be studied. Having a better understanding of why some students succeed while others do not, aids in serving students and potentially increases retention and graduation rates. Analyses were conducted using regression, ii
correlations, and MANOVAs to determine the relationship between grade point average and predictors of student success across ethnic groups. The findings demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average, between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average, as well as rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average.
No difference was found across ethnic groups when measuring achievement
motivation, rating of rapport with peers, rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank each of my committee members, Dr. Bonita K. Butner, Dr. Hansel E. Burley, and Dr. James P. Burkhalter for their patience, support, wisdom, and kindness. This dissertation would never have been written without these incredible professionals. I appreciate all the support and assistance provided by my colleagues and friends at Greensboro College, especially to each of the talented Student Development staff members. Their encouragement has made so much difference. I appreciate all the support and love my friends have provided; you know who you are and I love you!! Thank you to my father, Mark John Globuschutz and my step-mother Janice Smith Globuschutz for their love and encouraging words. Thank you to my step-father, George Eugene Shoffner for all of his interest and support. To my in-laws, Nancy Bailey Johnston and Joseph Thompson Johnston thank your for all of your encouragement and kindness, most of all for your wonderful son. To my Uncle Joe, his love of learning always inspired me to explore new topics. Uncle Joe believed I could do this before I believed I could. To my brother, Marcus Allen Globuschutz, whose humor has aided in the completion of this process. To my unconditional supporter and grandmother, Gladys Brady Holt. Granny, thank you for all of your guidance and relentless encouragement throughout this process. A big thank you to my mother, Jacklyn Holt Shoffner., although she will never hold this document in her hand she will see its completion from heaven. I want to thank each of my grandparents that departed much too early, Lila Cates Brady, Jack Allen Holt, Magdalene Welter Globuschutz, and Joseph Globuschutz; who represent the shoulders of giants from which my brother and I stand upon each day. Your
iv
sacrifices and decisions have enabled us to pursue our dreams. Most of all, thank you to my loving husband, Joseph Thompson Johnston, Jr., your love and support and endless hours of reading and reviewing has made this possible. I am so thankful to have your hand to hold as we walk through this life.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………….….
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….….
iv
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………….
ix
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION .……………………………............
1
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………...
12
Academic Achievement and Achievement Motivation in College Students ……………………………………
12
Ethnic Group Differences in College Success ………..
25
Student Adjustment to Campus Life ………………….
31
METHODOLOGY ……………………………………
43
Research Design ………………………………………
44
The Sample ……………………………………………
44
Instrument …………………………………………….
46
Procedures …………………………………………….
47
Analysis of the Data ………………………………….
48
Summary ……………………………………………..
51
FINDINGS ……………………………………………
52
Introduction …………………………………………..
52
Review of Research Questions ……………………….
52
Description of the Sample …………………………….
53
III.
IV.
vi
V.
Data Analysis for the Research Question ……………..
57
Indices for the Research Questions ………………..…
57
Summary of Data Analysis ……………………………
62
Baseline Question I: What is the Achievement Motivation level of participants in the study?...
62
Baseline Question II: Is there a relationship Between grade point average and achievement Motivation?......................................................
64
Baseline Question III: What is the level of Rapport reported by participants in this Study?..............................................................
64
Research Question IV: Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation ………………
65
Research Question V: Rating of Rapport with Peers and Grade Point Average …………
68
Research Question VI: Rating of Rapport with Instructors and Grade Point Average …….
69
Conclusion …………………………………………….
71
RESULTS ……………………………………………..
73
Introduction …………………………………………..
73
Summary of the Research …………………………….
73
Research Questions ……………………………………
74
Summary of the Findings ……………………………...
76
Discussion ……………………………………………..
79
Conclusions…………………………………………….
89
Implications ……………………………………………
89
Recommendations for Future Research ……………….
91
vii
Conclusions ……………………………………………
92
REFERENCES ………………………………………...
95
APPENDIX A …………………………………………
113
Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey ……
114
APPENDIX B …………………………………………
123
Consent Form …………………………….……
124
APPENDIX C …………………………………………
125
Human Subjects Memorandum ……………….
126
APPENDIX D ………………………………….……..
128
Human Subjects Approval Memorandum ……
129
APPENDIX E ………………………………..………..
130
Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey On-Line Version ……………………..………..
131
APPENDIX F …………………………….………….. Permission from Dr. Amy Strage ………...……
146 147
APPENDIX G…………………………………………
148
Ancillary Analyses…………………………….
149
viii
LIST OF TABLES
4.1
Summary of Ethnicity …………………………………
54
4.2
Summary of Class Standing ……………………………
55
4.3
Summary of Respondent Gender ………………………
56
4.4
Summary of Respondent Grade Point Average ………..
57
4.5
Summary of Survey Scales …………………………….
59
4.6
Summary of Dr. Amy Strage’s Survey Scales …………
61
4.7
Summary of Respondent Achievement Motivation……
63
4.8
Summary of Respondent Rating of Rapport with Peers and Rating of Rapport with Instructors……………….
65
Relationship between Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation………………………………
67
Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Peers………………………….
69
Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Instructors……………………
70
4.9 4.10 4.11
ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Not since the influx of immigrants during the early twentieth century has the United States experienced such a notable shift in the racial and ethnic makeup of its population (Clements, 1999). As a result of these changing demographics, the higher education population is also changing. College students are more diverse today than at any other time in the history of higher education. The number of students who attend college is at an all-time high. College enrollment increased 14 percent between 1980 and 1990, and 11 percent between 1990 and 2000, (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004). In 1976, 15.4 percent of college students were ethnic minorities born in the United States; by 2000 that number had risen to 28.2 percent (Digest of Education Statistics, 2004).
Many students, who might have been denied access to higher
education in the past, whether due to economic or social conditions, now have that access. The challenge for students has gradually shifted from that of gaining access to higher education to that of persistence and achieving their academic goals. Students are leaving post-secondary institutions at high rates. When examining degree seeking undergraduate students at four-year institutions, the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that slightly over half graduated within 6 years (NCES Indicator 20, 2003, [Institutional Retention and Student Persistence at 4-year institutions]). This departure from the academy has a negative impact on students as well as the institutions. Rising student attrition rates require these post-secondary institutions to dedicate more resources to replace those students leaving the academy. In terms of dollars spent by 1
institutions of higher education, recruitment of new students costs more than maintaining a currently enrolled student. Colleges and universities continue to struggle with issues concerning the recruitment, retention, and graduation of ethnic students. The literature is full of analysis for incoming students and their data prior to enrollment. While the issue of student retention has been examined across the disciplines as well as at the institutional level, predictors of student success is an area which has not been widely explored. Predictors of student success have usually centered on high school grades and standardized test scores. As resources become more limited, greater accountability is demanded of higher education institutions. The more equipped institutions are to predict and appropriately respond, to issues surrounding student success, the more likely they will be to have a positive impact on student success. The ultimate goal is increasing student degree completion rates. This study will examine college success (1) by exploring student motivation, (2) student rapport rating with peers and faculty members, (3) grade point average, and (4) differences between students’ ethnicity, African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic.
Minority Student Participation in Higher Education Demographic patterns, as it pertains to higher education enrollment, have been widely reported in the literature. The percentage of African American and Hispanic students attending elementary and secondary schools has grown over the last two decades; however, similar levels of growth have not been observed at the post-secondary level. Caucasians comprised 70.4 percent of the enrollment in elementary and secondary 2
schools in 1986, and 64.8 percent in 1995 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a, p.14); they accounted for 77.6 percent of the students enrolled in institutions of higher education in 1990, and 68.3 percent in 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 1). African Americans have increased their numbers from 16.1 percent of children attending elementary and secondary schools in 1986 to 16.8 percent of those enrolled in 1995 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a, p. 14). African Americans constituted only 9.6 percent of all students attending college in 1990 and 12.8 percent in 2000 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004, p. 1). The demographics of Hispanic students reveal a similar pattern to that of African American students. The percentage of Hispanic children enrolled in elementary and secondary schools grew from 9.9 percent of all students enrolled in 1986 to 13.5 percent of all enrolled students in 1995 (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a, p.14). However, Hispanics made up only 9 percent of college students in 1990 and 11.3 percent in 2000 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004, p. 1). To remain competitive and responsive, institutions of higher education cannot afford to lose African American and Hispanic students. It is important to identify ways in which ethnic minority students can be successful on college campuses.
Statement of the Problem According to Weidman (1989), research has established a formula for success for traditional-aged, undergraduate students. The formula has four components: academic preparation; appropriateness of education and career expectations; preparation from parents, peers, and others; and a positive transition into the new environment. Since the 3
1990s, researchers have questioned the generalizability of this traditional-aged student success formula. The formula was questioned, given its focus on upper middle-class students who had at least one parent who had attended college. Because this formula was not indicative of all students attending college, many researchers questioned the applicability to an ever-increasing, diverse student body. Students from varying ethnic groups experience predominately Caucasian campuses differently from their Caucasian counterparts, (Pascerella and Terenzini, 1998). Increasingly, more students are considered non-traditional and ethnically diverse; therefore, necessitating a greater need to now re-examine predictors of student success (Astin, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Strage, 1998). There are gaps in the literature regarding alternative predictors of success for college students. Although the issue of student retention has been examined in various studies, the issues of motivation and student rapport with peers as well as faculty members as predictors of student success have not been widely explored. Dr. Amy Strage (2000) has examined motivation as well as student rapport and other predictors of success for college students, she has compared those predictors across ethnic groups. For example, she found high ratings of rapport with instructors were associated with college student success and adjustment. In addition, she found grade point average to be only one measure of student success, the other indices included confidence, persistence, and task involvement, (Strage, 2000). The work of several researchers will help inform this study. Lefcourt, Martin and Saleh (1984) have tested the effects of social support and locus of control as moderators of stress. When considering achievement motivation, House (2000) studied the predictive relationship between academic background and self-beliefs. From another perspective, 4
Mooney, Sherman, and LoPresto (1991), in an effort to isolate variables that would best predict student adjustment to college, examined academic locus of control, self-esteem, and perceived distance from home as potential predictors of college adjustment. This study will look across the research to examine student achievement motivation, student rapport rating with peers and instructors, grade point average, and differences between students’ ethnicity.
Purpose of the Study College entrance rates, retention rates, and graduation rates of students from ethnic groups remain low and relatively unchanged (Astin, 1982; Duran, 1994; Irvine, 1990; Justiz, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Strage, 2000; Tinto, 1993). This study will examine achievement motivation and predictors of student success. Both achievement motivation and student rapport are believed to be strong predictors of college success for ethnic minority students, (Strage, 2000). The purpose of this study is to examine college success by exploring student motivation, student rapport rating with peers and instructors, and college grade point average. College success is defined as a grade point average which places the student in good academic standing.
Research Questions This study explored the relationship between motivation, rapport, and student success within the context of a mid-sized, public university campus in the southwestern portion of the United States. The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was created by Dr. Amy Strage, professor of Child Development at San Jose State University in San 5
Jose, California. The instrument was used in this study in an effort to duplicate Dr. Amy Strage’s work on Predictors of College Adjustement and Success: Similarities and Differences Among Southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic, and White Students, (Strage, 2001).
The baseline questions which will be addressed in the study are these: (1) What
is the achievement motivation level of participants in the study? (2) Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation? (3) What is the level of rapport reported by participants in this study? The key research questions are these: 4) Is there a relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average across ethnic groups? 5) Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups? 6) Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups? 7) How accurately can grade point average be predicted from a linear combination of persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, rating of rapport with peers, and rating of rapport with instructors for college students? The researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average. In addition, the researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers and instructors. The researcher hypothesized that African-American students and Caucasian students would be more similar than Hispanic students in each category, achievement motivation, rapport with peers, and rapport with instructors.
6
Significance of the Study Current predictors of student success are not comprehensive, therefore other predictors of student success need to be studied. College entrance, retention rates, and graduation rates of ethnic students remain low and relatively unchanged (Astin, 1982; Duran, 1994; Irvine, 1990, Justiz, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Strage, 2000; Tinto, 1993). Many colleges and universities are judged on their outcomes, therefore institutions are consistently working to improve their retention and graduation rates. It is important for administrators to be able to identify predictors of success and non-success in students, so they can better meet student needs with services and programs. By having a better understanding of why some students succeed while others do not, will aid in serving students and hopefully increase retention and graduation rates. This study was an attempt to contribute to the body of knowledge which aids administrators in improving those important retention and graduation rates. This study examined the differences between ethnic and non-ethnic students in an attempt to identify other, less well-known predictors of student success.
Theoretical Perspective Bandura (1977) originally proposed the concept of self-efficacy and self-efficacy expectations; which refer to a person’s beliefs regarding his ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior. According to Bandura, (1977) one’s belief set is a major mediator of behavior and behavioral change. If a person believes that he does not possess the ability to be successful with a given task or behavior then he will not be successful. When a person possesses a low self-efficacy expectation regarding a 7
behavior or behavioral domain then this expectation will lead to avoidance of those behaviors. When there is an increase in self-efficacy expectations, then there will be an increase in the frequency of approach in lieu of avoidance. With the understanding of self-efficacy beliefs, there can be a better understanding and predictability of behavior. As a result, when interventions that facilitate approach behavior are successful, they are simply increasing the individuals’ expectation of self-efficacy and minimizing the avoided behavior. Bandura (1977) outlined four sources of information through which self-efficacy expectations are learned and can be modified. These four sources of information include: (1) performance accomplishments which includes the actual experience of successfully performing the behavior, (2) modeling or vicarious learning, (3) verbal persuasion which includes verbal support and encouragement; and, finally 4) physiological arousal, including anxiety in connection with the behavior, (page 79). Each of these sources can effect how self-efficacy expectations can be changed and enhanced. According to Bandura, (1977) there is an inverse relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy expectations. Self-efficacy expectations increase as anxiety decreases and when selfefficacy expectations decrease, anxiety increases in relationship to the behavior. Originally, Bandura’s (1977) work on self-efficacy was utilized in the treatment of clinical syndromes; however the concept has since been extended to many other disciplines, (Betz & Hackett, 1983). Self-efficacy concepts have been used to help explain career-related behaviors (Hackett & Betz, 1981), to better understand students studying science and engineering (Hackett & Betz, 1983), ethnic minority students, (Hackett & Betz, 1983; Hackett et al., 1992), as well as understanding the work 8
adjustment in adults, (Hackett & Betz, 1983; Schoen & Winocur, 1988). Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory penetrates many research studies related to achievement and achievement motivation. Tinto’s (1987) work emphasizes the importance of social integration and academic integration in terms of predicting retention. According to Tinto (1987), departures from the institution in many cases are voluntary, and not the result of academic dismissal. The more integrative student experiences are, the more students perceive the experience to be satisfying and integrating, which leads to an increase in the likelihood of persistence through degree completion, (Tinto, 1987). Tinto (1987) outlines isolation and incongruence as two sources which lead to the absence of integration. He defines isolation as a state of disconnection with the institution, and incongruence as a state of being at odds with the institution, (Tinto, 1987). These key factors, according to Tinto (1987), lead to undergraduate student drop out. Based on Bandura and Tinto’s work this study examined the relevancy of student success as related to self-efficacy and social connections. As Bandura has outlined, the level of students’ self-efficacy can impact their motivation to succeed and conversely their motivation level can impact their level of self-efficacy. A student who has been academically successful in the past brings a level of confidence and motivation to the college environment. Students who find social support through instructors and peers are more likely to succeed than those students who do not find social support within the college environment. All three of these elements were explored in this study.
9
Definition of Terms The following are a list of terms frequently used in this study: African American student(s) - Of or pertaining to American blacks of African ancestry, their history, or their culture. Ethnic student(s) - The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group regarded as different from the larger group of which it is a part. Hispanic student(s) - Of or pertaining to the language, people, and culture of Spain, Portugal, Mexico, or Latin America. Motivate - To provide with an incentive or motive; impel. Motivation - The act or process of motivating, something that motivates. Self Concept - “The self concept is a composite view of oneself that is formed through direct experience and evaluations adopted from significant others,” (Bandura, p. 409). Self Efficacy - “A judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance, whereas an outcome expectation is a judgment of the likely consequences such behavior will produce,” (Bandura, p. 391).
Delimitations and Limitations The following delimitations outline how this study was narrowed in scope, and the limitations identify the potential weaknesses of this study, (Creswell, 1994). Delimitations •
All of the data was gathered on a four-year, public university campus in the southwest. 10
•
Each of the participants was enrolled in the same internet based course.
•
Only African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic survey responses were examined for the purpose of this study.
Limitations •
The study was limited to the small number of students surveyed; the size of the sample decreases the generalizability of the findings.
•
Though this study cannot be generalized to all college students, it still provides an opportunity for future research on other college or university campuses.
•
It is assumed students will respond honestly to the survey.
•
This study was not conducted to validate the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey, the survey was used for heuristic purposes.
Summary This chapter has provided a rationale for the study, research questions that were investigated, and information on the significance of the study. Chapter two provides an overview of the literature focusing on predictors of ethnic and non-ethnic student success and motivation. Chapter three outlines the methodology used in this research. Chapter four addresses the research data and how the data informs the study. Finally, the results of the study are presented in Chapter five, and include the relevance of the study within the context of the larger body of knowledge, key contributions, and recommendations for future research.
11
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature relevant to this study is reviewed in the following order: a) academic achievement and achievement motivation in college students; b) ethnic group differences in college success; and c) student adjustment to campus life. These sections are followed by a summary of the reviewed literature.
Academic Achievement and Achievement Motivation in College Students The academic achievement of college students is based on several factors. These factors of achievement and motivation vary from student to student. For many years, high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, and co-curricular involvement have been viewed and used as possible predictors of academic success. These variables are helpful in shaping students’ potential academic achievement, however they are not as descriptive as once thought. By examining other predictors of college student academic achievement, as well as academic motivation researchers have aided college administrators in better understanding predictors of college success. Bandura (1977) originally proposed the concept of self-efficacy and self-efficacy expectations; which refer to a person’s beliefs regarding his ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior. According to Bandura, (1977) one’s belief set is a major mediator of behavior and behavioral change. If a person believes that he does not possess the ability to be successful with a given task or behavior then he will not be successful. When a person possesses a low self-efficacy expectation regarding a 12
behavior or behavioral domain then this expectation will lead to avoidance of those behaviors. When there is an increase in self-efficacy expectations, then there will be an increase in the frequency of approach in lieu of avoidance. By avoiding a particular subject a student is unlikely to improve over time. This cyclical pattern increases the students’ chance of failure. With the understanding of self-efficacy beliefs, there can be a better understanding and predictability of behavior. As a result, when interventions that facilitate approach behavior are successful, they are simply increasing the individuals’ expectation of self-efficacy and minimizing the avoidance behavior. The approach behavioral describes the student’s pattern of readdressing or approaching the once avoided subject or task. Bandura (1977) outlined four sources of information through which self-efficacy expectations are learned and can be modified. The four sources of information include 1) performance accomplishments, which include the actual experience of successfully performing the behavior, 2) modeling or vicarious learning, 3) verbal persuasion, which include verbal support and encouragement, and finally 4) physiological arousal, including anxiety in connection with the behavior. Each of these sources can impact how selfefficacy expectations can be changed and enhanced. According to Bandura, (1977) there is an inverse relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy expectations. As selfefficacy expectations increase, anxiety decreases and conversely when self-efficacy expectations decrease, anxiety increases in relationship to the behavior. Originally, Bandura’s (1977) work on self-efficacy was utilized in the treatment of clinical syndromes; the concept has been extended to many other disciplines, (Betz & Hackett, 1983). Self-efficacy concepts have been used to help explain career-related behaviors 13
(Hackett & Betz, 1981), to better understand students studying science and engineering (Hackett & Betz, 1983; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; 1986; Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singe, 1992), ethnic minority students, (Hackett & Betz, 1983; Hackett et al., 1992), as well as understanding the work adjustment in adults, (Hackett & Betz, 1983; Schoen & Winocur, 1988; Vasil, 1992). Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory connects many research studies related to achievement and achievement motivation. Pajares (2003) found a large body of research on the influence of students’ selfbeliefs and principles of academic motivation; this body of research is the most comprehensive in the field of motivation. His research focused on a review of the literature related to self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement related to writing. In examining Bandura’s social cognitive theory as well as self-efficacy, he connected these concepts with student behaviors. As outlined by Pajares (2003), self-efficacy perceptions are formed and interpreted based on information from four sources; the interpreted result of one’s performance or mastery experience, the vicarious experience of observing others performing tasks, verbal messages and social persuasions, as well as physiological states. In Pajares’ (2003) review of the literature he cited Graham and Weiner’s (1996) study on self efficacy as a better predictor of behavioral outcomes than self-beliefs. After a final review of the literature, Pajares (2003) concluded that students’ confidence in their capabilities influence their motivation. Although the review focused on writing and outcomes related to writing, Pajares noted that the findings could be generalized and researched regarding other areas of study, (Pajares, 2003). This finding opened the door to other topics and tasks, such as studying and academic achievement.
14
According to House, (2000) when examining student performance in the areas of science, engineering, and mathematics students’ academic background and self-beliefs can be used as predictors of success. House (2000) studied the predictive relationship between academic background and self-beliefs. In addition, his study examined the similarities of predictive relationships among groups of students with different academic majors. The sample included 658 freshmen students, over four consecutive fall semesters. The participants indicated an interest in science, engineering, or mathematics as a major. Of the sample group, 456 of the participants were males and 202 were females. House (2000) found a positive relationship between academic background, student self-beliefs, and achievement outcomes in science, engineering, and mathematics. Similar research on students is needed to assess the generalizability of House’s findings. House (2000) recommends further research to assess the efficacy of academic background and self-beliefs as predictors of student achievement. Schunk (1991) reviewed the literature regarding academic motivation and examined its relationship to self-efficacy. Schunk (1991) drew from Bandura’s (1986, p. 391) definition of self-efficacy which is, “People’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances.” By outlining constructs related to self-efficacy such as: perceived control, expectations and values, attributions, and self-concept Schunk (1991) demonstrated the relationship between self-efficacy and motivation. As learners progress towards goal completion, self-efficacy is substantiated and heightened, (Schunk, 1991; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Heighten self-efficacy improves skill development and sustains motivation, (Schunk, 1991). Students are more likely to 15
return to tasks which yield positive results and their motivation is increased by the success as well. The author recommends additional research in an effort to better understand the relationship between self-efficacy theory and predicting motivation in the classroom. According to Strage, (2000) predictors of college adjustment and success exist, and if these predictors can be better understood and identified then institutions have a greater chance of assisting students in their persistence efforts. Strage (2000) examined the degree to which and by what measure do college students differ in their academic adjustment and success. When identifying predictors of academic adjustment and college success she compared Southeast Asian-American, Hispanic, and White college students’ experiences. Strage (2000) measured the extent to which these students reported differences in their parents’ values, beliefs, and practices; and how they differ in their comfort level with peers and instructors on campus. Finally, Strage (2000) examined patterns of parenting practices and academic adjustment. Undergraduate students completed the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (SAPS) during a class meeting. Participation was voluntary and anonymous; students were not given course credit or remuneration for their participation. The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey contained questions about family background, parenting characteristics, academic achievement, achievement motivation, and student adjustment which centered on students’ relationships with instructors as well as peers. Strage (2000) found strong rapport between instructors and students was associated with all five indices of college success and adjustment, and strong ratings of rapport with peers were associated with
16
high levels of confidence. These findings are consistent with Tinto (1993) and Padilla, Trevino, and Gonzalez’s (1997) work with college student retention and attrition. In an effort to isolate variables which best predict student adjustment to college, Mooney, Sherman, and LoPresto (1991) examined academic locus of control, selfesteem, and perceived distance from home as potential predictors of college adjustment. The study took place on a small, Catholic, liberal arts college campus in a large midAtlantic metropolitan area, and the participants included 88 female undergraduate freshmen. According to Mooney, Sherman, and LoPresto, female students who possessed an internal academic locus of control and rated a high level of self-esteem reported a more effective college adjustment. The researchers were not able to establish a specific distance from home which led to a more effective college adjustment; however participants which rated the distance as, “just right” were more successfully adjusted to college. Some students preferred to be a greater distance from home than others; this was based on family relationships and responsibilities. Students’ perceptions of the distance from as home as “just right” was a better descriptor than exact miles. The limitations of this study included a small sample size. In addition, the predictor and criterion variables were operationally defined by means of the same type of assessment devices, which were paper and pencil inventories, (Mooney, Sherman, and LoPresto, 1991). Sandler and Lakey (1982) found that individuals who possess an internal locus of control benefited more from social support, than individuals with an external locus of control. The key social support benefit was helping cope with stress. Individuals with an internal locus of control were helped the most by others that assisted them with stress management. In addition, the researchers found a moderating effect of social support in 17
individuals who are more autonomous and less affiliated. Social support may be most beneficial for those individuals who are less frequently engaged in social interactions and tend to be more introverted. Individuals who frequently seek out social support and gain positive energy from social interactions tend to benefit less from social support as a moderator of stress. Lefcourt, Martin, and Saleh (1984) tested the effects of social support and locus of control as moderators of stress. The researchers examined Sandler and Lakey’s (1982) research on individuals with an internal locus of control. When comparing individuals with an internal and external locus of control, the researchers found individuals with an internal locus of control made better use of social support as a moderator of stress. By utilizing social support the individuals with an internal locus of control were less likely to develop a sense of learned helplessness. Lefcourt, Martin, and Saleh’s (1984) findings supported Sandler and Lakey’s conclusions. Schunk (1991) cited Rotter’s (1966) definition of locus of control which is perceived control over outcomes in terms of external and internal control. A related construct to locus of control is learned helplessness; which is defined as a psychological state in which a disturbance in cognition, emotions, and motivation are a result of previously experienced uncontrollability (Schunk, 1991; Seligman, 1975). Helplessness is a result of a perceived disconnect between responses and outcomes, (Schunk, 1991). For example, if a student prepares for an examination by studying and does not perform well on the examination then the student perceives a disconnect between the response and the outcome. It is important for the student and the instructor to have a conversation regarding the material covered by the examination. Perhaps the student focused on the wrong material or underestimated the time needed for preparation. 18
In 1986, Dweck proposed two kinds of achievement goals: a performance goal and a learning goal. A performance goal is one in which individuals are interested in gaining favorable judgment regarding their competence. A learning goal is one in which individuals are focused on increasing their competence. Dweck asserted that goals are influenced by individuals’ conception of intelligence, (Hayamizu and Weiner, 1991). When individuals think of intelligence as a malleable quality then it results in learning goals. In contrast, when individuals think of intelligence as a fixed quality then it is associated with performance goals. Hayamizu and Weiner (1991) tested Dweck’s model of achievement goals, and applied the model to students’ perceptions of ability, and had slightly different outcomes from Dweck’s original study. Hayamizu and Weiner (1991) found when students believed they could influence their ability, they were more confident in their performance goal tendency. Conversely, the more stable and uncontrollable students perceived their ability to be, the less confident they were in their performance goal tendency. The perception of low ability as stable and uncontrollable resembles a state of learned helplessness, (Hayamizu and Weiner, 1991). Weiner’s (1986) attributional principles included what people attributed their outcomes to; effort, task difficulty, luck, and other determinants of motivation. Weiner (1986) related individuals’ motivation, emotions, and expectancies as determinants to outcomes. Individuals attributed the outcomes to locus of control, stability, and controllability. The link between locus of control and motivation is a key element in this study. The researchers used principles of perceived causality, also known as attribution principles, as discussed by Weiner (1986), to test Dweck’s model. Exactly 123 undergraduate students participated in the study for course 19
credit. The study was conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the participants’ ages ranged from 18-26 years old. As a result of the study, Hayamizu and Weiner (1991) discovered that American university students possess three kinds of achievement goal tendencies: a performance goal to advance in school, a performance goal to gain approval, and one learning goal. This differs from Dweck’s theory of two achievement goals; a performance goal and a learning goal.
In addition, the researchers’
findings did not support Dweck’s (1986) original findings. Hayamizu and Weiner (1991) found that a fixed perception of ability cannot produce goal standards which are high, and when low ability is perceived as stable and uncontrollable it closely resembled a state of learned helplessness, (Hayamizu and Weiner, 1991). The researchers cited a difference in the participants as a possible reason for the difference in findings. Dweck (1986) participants were children and the participants for Hayzmizu and Weiner’s (1991) study were college students. Student confidence level in their academic and social ability is a key element to success. How students perceive their abilities has a great deal to do with how they approach challenges in the academic and social arena in college. The researchers recommended that Dweck’s model be reexamined for determinants of achievement goals. Much of the research regarding college student success centers on degree completion, persistence, grade point average, and timeline of degree completion (Strage, 2000). When identifying younger students’ achievement and motivation, researchers take a more analytical perspective when assessing student outcomes. According to Strage, (2000) by utilizing this more analytical perspective, success can be defined as achieving one’s goals while experiencing minimal stress. There are two motivational profiles, 20
mastery orientation and learned helplessness. The mastery oriented student is able to maintain focus and persist when challenged. The learned helpless student does not welcome challenge and is reluctant to take on tasks which seem difficult (Covington, 1984; Dweck, 1985; Dweck, 1986; Dweck and Elliott, 1983; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Hayamizu & Weiner, 1991; Nicholls, 1984; Strage, 2000). Although grade point averages differ only slightly between the two, learned helpless students tend to experience a greater amount of stress and fear. In contrast, mastery oriented students enjoy the academic challenge and rigor associated with their coursework. The mastery oriented students feel safe within the academic environment and have a sense of control over their performance. Learned helpless students do not feel at ease within the academic environment and believe academic success to be beyond their control. Educators are concerned with learning and student engagement. Why are some students engaged and interested in learning, while others are apathetic and disengaged? Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) examined the role of self-efficacy beliefs and student engagement in the classroom. According to Linnenbrink and Pintrich, (2003) just about all motivation research includes constructs related to students’ beliefs about their capabilities. Motivation research has demonstrated that interest in a task, thinking that a task is important, and feeling excited about it lead to an increase in student engagement and learning, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). The researchers make a point to differentiate the notion of self-esteem from self-efficacy. One’s selfesteem is related to emotional reactions to accomplishments, whereas self-efficacy is related to a belief in one’s ability or skill set. This belief is regarding a specific and situational judgment of capabilities, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). By separating out 21
general competence or self-concept beliefs, researchers are better able to measure an individual’s actual level of engagement and learning. This focus on self-efficacy enables researchers to better predict the learners’ outcome, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1994). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) created a general framework for self-efficacy which includes: behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and motivational engagement. This framework relates self-efficacy to learning and achievement. Behavioral engagement is defined as effort, persistence, and instrumental help-seeking. Cognitive engagement consists of strategy use, met cognition, and motivational engagement. Motivational engagement includes interest, value, and affect. The construct of learned helplessness is related to self-efficacy, within selfefficacy theory the concept is referred to as low outcome expectation, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Learned helplessness is present when students believe there is not a relationship between how hard they study and performance in school. Research continues to demonstrate that students who test high in learned helplessness are less likely to persist at tasks, thus experiencing a concomitant decline in performance, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). It is predictable to expect that students who have low academic self-efficacy are less likely to seek help, and this is supported by the research, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Newman, 1990; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Students with high levels of selfefficacy are more likely to seek help, persist, and try (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). According to Pintrich and Schunk, (1996) the generalization of self-efficacy is stable among different student ages, including elementary, junior high, high school, and college; this generalization continues across gender and ethnic group differences. Self-efficacy is 22
related to a careful estimation of one’s abilities, overall self-efficacy beliefs should be slightly higher than actual skill level, but not so high that an individual overestimates their actual level of expertise, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Bandura, 1997). According to Graham, (1994) African American students are more likely to have high perceptions of their ability, which is in contrast to generally low levels of achievement on teacher grades and standardized tests. From the perspective of motivation, this is a positive characteristic since high efficacy beliefs can lead to behavioral engagement. The negative aspect of overestimation is cognitive engagement; students may not seek assistance if they believe they are performing at a high level. Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) call for additional research on the issue of calibration and overestimation of skill level, for all students not just African American students. Self-efficacy is considered a motivational construct that is related to other motivational constructs such as utility and importance beliefs, and personal interest and values, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests a relationship between efficacy and emotions. Efficacy can influence emotions in both a positive and negative way. Students with high levels of selfefficacy can experience positive emotions related to academic contexts. Conversely, students with low levels of self-efficacy can experience negative emotions like anxiety and depression, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Harter, 1992; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Roeser, & DeGroot, 1994; Wright & Mischel, 1992). Students that possess high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to persist and maintain interest. Comparatively, students with a low level of self-efficacy are more likely to discontinue 23
working on a challenging task. As a result of reviewing the literature, Linnebrink and Pintrich (2003) made the following recommendations for classroom practice: help students maintain relatively high but accurate self-efficacy beliefs, provide students with challenging academic tasks that most students can reach with effort, foster the belief that competence or ability is a changeable, controllable aspect of development, and finally promote students’ domain specific self-efficacy beliefs rather than overall self-esteem. These recommendations for the classroom can be modified and utilized while interacting with students outside of the classroom. According to Perry (1999) faculty members can perpetuate learned helplessness in the classroom if they are not intentional about helping students to become more mastery oriented. Learned helpless students attribute failure to uncontrollable causes such as bad luck, the instructor not liking them, and not being good at a particular subject. When students attribute failure to uncontrollable causes it results in a decrease in selfexpectations, hope, and self-esteem, which can lead to reduced persistence (Perry, 1999). Students with a mastery oriented perspective will occasionally fail, however they attribute the failure to controllable causes. It is common for mastery oriented students to attribute failure to not studying enough, being under prepared or not spending enough time with the material, they do not externalize the failure. Mastery oriented students believe they have control over their successes as well as their failures. It is this sense of control that is less anxiety producing in mastery oriented students. In contrast, learned helpless students may have the same test score as their mastery oriented counterparts however they have experienced a great deal more stress. As Perry (1999) has outlined, it is one’s response to failure that shapes one’s perspective and ultimately one’s results. 24
Attribution therapy has been successful in helping students replace uncontrollable causes such as ‘luck’ with controllable causes such as ‘high ability’ or ‘poor strategy’. When faculty members focus on this important cognitive difference between students in the classroom, the result can produce positive academic outcomes. When students possess a more positive perception of their educational abilities, they will experience a reduction in the motivational complexity of the classroom, (Perry, 1999). A reduction in the motivational complexity of the classroom yields a more comfortable environment for the student in which learning is more likely to occur.
Ethnic Group Differences in College Success According to Kemp (1990), there is a national crisis regarding the status of African American and other minority students in the American university and college system. Statistically African American and Hispanic students are graduating from high school and college at lower rates than Caucasian students. According to Benderson (1988), the graduation rate for college seniors by ethnic group, is 60% for Hispanics, 77% for African Americans, and 85% for Caucasians. When examining the amount of time spent working toward degree completion the numbers are more staggering. According to the American Council on Education (1988) and Green (1989) only 7% of Hispanic students and 10% of African American students, compared to 21% of Caucasian students, that graduated from high school and began college in 1980, received a baccalaureate degree. The author suggested that minority retention programs focus solely on the retention of minority students without regard to graduation. Focusing on retention, instead of degree completion keeps students enrolled but does not necessarily move 25
students toward reaching their goal of graduation. When institutions place such an emphasis on persistence, the degree completion message becomes secondary, according to Benderson (1988). When Strage (2000) examined how Southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students differed from each other regarding adjustment to campus life the overall effect of ethnicity was not statistically significant. The Southeast-AsianAmerican students felt a less positive rapport with their instructors and peers than the Caucasian and Hispanic students. Overall, Hispanic students appeared to have a strong mastery orientation in college. In contrast to their relatively low grades they remained confident and persistent. Strage (2000) suggested that the high levels of emotional support and autonomy reported by the students as well as the high emphasis placed on religious and moral education contributed to their mastery orientation. The SoutheastAsian-American students scored relatively low on persistence and task involvement, which indicated that they were suffering from learned helplessness. This was attributed to family pressures, low social emotional support, and relatively low grades. Strage (2000) made the point that an examination of grade point average alone would not have uncovered this finding. The researcher encourages institutions of higher education to continue to focus on campus climate as well as explore the relationships students have with their families. When Stewart and Vaux (1986) began researching social support resources within ethnic groups there was little empirical literature available. In an effort to examine social support resources among African-American and Caucasian students Stewart and Vaux assessed a more holistic view of social support. Seventy-five African American students 26
and a hundred and one Caucasian students completed a complex set of measures. Results showed that both groups are very similar in terms of social support resources, perceptions of support, and supportive behaviors. Stewart and Vaux (1986) noted African-American students in this sample were able to develop and maintain ethnically congruous support networks which were equivalent to their Caucasian majority counterparts. Much of the literature generated on the topic of ethnic group differences and predictors of college success has centered on academic success. When identifying predictors of college success it is important to define college success as including academic as well as social adjustment. Lee (1999) examined the effect of race on a mentoring program which focused on the retention of African-American students. African American students were asked about their adjustment to a large public university in the southeast, the value of having a faculty mentor, and the importance of having a same-race mentor. Approximately one-hundred and twenty student participants of an existing program, The University Transition Program (UTP), were interviewed in small focus groups. Results showed that African-American students face transitions similar to other freshmen students. Program participants valued having a faculty mentors, and a same-race mentor was less important than having a mentor in the same field of study. Among the author’s recommendations is that institutions formalize a mentoring process for students. McNairy (1996) examined the issue of retaining students of color on predominately white college and university campuses. The research identified ineffective retention strategies, termed retention traps, and suggested several alternative strategies. The author focused predominately on African-American and Latino student retention. 27
According to McNairy (1996) retention programs should include the following elements academic leadership, analysis of existing resources, and strategic planning. Finally, for retention efforts to be successful for the student there should be a focus on the environment the student experiences. With policy changes in federal and state financial aid, Hu and St. John (2001) examined persistence rates among African-American, Hispanic, and White students with regard to their financial aid packages. The researchers focused on ethnic students and their persistence rates in relationship to their financial aid awards. The Indiana Commission for Higher Education’s Student Information System provided information on full-time resident students for three academic years. Results demonstrated that the state of Indiana was able to maintain grants while federal financial aid programs declined. There was a slight decrease in persistence in all three groups over time; this may be due to the overall decline in grants. The researchers concluded that adequate financial aid can help stabilize students’ opportunity to persist regardless of ethnic group. The ethnic makeup of students attending post-secondary institutions is increasingly more diverse. Despite growing minority populations, college acceptance, retention, and graduation rates remain low (Astin, 1982; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993; Strage, 2000). Understanding the challenges and reasons why minority students do not persist at the same rate as their counterparts is an issue that has been explored extensively in the literature. By examining predictors of college adjustment and success, a more targeted approach can be taken with regard to the retention of ethnically diverse students. If the likelihood of college adjustment and success can be predicted, important at risk programs and strategies can be created and implemented. In 2000, only 28
17 percent of African-Americans and 11 percent of Hispanics in the Untied States age 25 and older had attained a bachelor’s degree, this compared with 28 percent of Caucasians, (Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 2001-02, August 31, 2001; Swail et al, 2003). When examining predictors of success for Hispanic and African-American students, the completion of a rigorous curricular program during high school is a more important predictor of college persistence than test scores, (Adelman, 1999; Swail et al, 2003). When examining opportunities for students from different ethnic groups it is important to note in 1992 only a little over one-half of Hispanic (53 percent) and less than one-half of African-American (47 percent) students were minimally qualified to attend a four-year college or university, this compares to more than two-thirds of Caucasian students (68 percent), according to the college qualifications index developed for the U.S. Department of Education, (Berkner and Chavez, 1997; Swail et al, 2003). Academic success in higher education is a function of a number of factors other than cognitive variables (Tracey and Sedlacek, 1989). The Non-Cognitve Questionnaire was developed by Tracey and Sedlacek in 1984 in an effort to measure some of the noncognitive variables which lead to academic success. In 1989, Tracey and Sedlacek refined the instrument in an attempt to assess the eight non-cognitive dimensions related to minority academic success proposed by Sedlacek and Brooks in 1976. The eight noncognitive dimensions include: academic positive self-concept, realistic self appraisal, support of academic plans, leadership, long range goals, community ties, racism, and academic familiarity. The Non-Cognitive Questionnaire (NCQ-R) was found to have good predictive validity. The dimensions of racism and realistic self appraisal were found to be the most relevant in predicting academic success for African-American 29
students. More research is needed before the generalizability of the instrument is known. Sedlacek and Brooks (1976) have created a portal for future research into the disparity between African-American and Caucasian entry and attrition rates in higher education, (Tracey and Sedlacek, 1989). Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) examined African-American students’ experiences at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and compared those experiences to African-American students’ experiences at traditionally White institutions (TWIs). The researchers identified factors that enhanced African-American student retention at both types of institution. Thirty four African-American college students, juniors and seniors, attended either a historically Black college or university or a traditionally White institution on the east coast. Fifteen of the participants attended the traditionally White institution and nineteen of the students attended the historically Black college or university. It is important to note that a majority of the participants transferred from the traditionally White institution to the historically Black college or university. Overall, students that attended the historically Black college or university felt more at home and more connected with the campus community. This connection enhanced their college experience and encouraged student retention, (Fries-Britt and Turner, 2002). According to the researchers, it is critical for institutions to learn how to build confidence in AfricanAmerican students by creating institutional and personal systems of support. All students experience identity development while they are enrolled in college and for ethnic students their race plays a role in shaping their perception. Literature and research on college student change and development indicates that the process of identity development for ethnic students is a similar process for white students, (Pascarella and 30
Terenzini, 1991). Ethnic students attending campuses which are predominately nonethnic face more challenges than their peers. On many campuses, ethnic students feel the need to come together for support and encouragement, as well as in defense of tacit and not-so-tacit hostility some feel from white faculty, students and staff, (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Although more research is needed, it is relatively safe to assume that ethnic students’ educational experiences and outcomes are very different from their nonethnic counterparts. Many programs and interventions exist on campuses across the United States and these efforts, in many cases, are positively impacting the retention of minority students on campus. However, by examining predictors of college adjustment and success, more tailored interventions can be developed and implemented. Racial similarities and differences among students will continue to exist; the relevant issue is how campuses can best assist students in the acculturation process so their educational experience and outcome is a successful one.
Student Adjustment to Campus Life When students arrive on post-secondary educational campuses there are a number of new and transitional experiences awaiting them. Living with peers, behavioral independence, higher academic expectations, as well as identity development are all relevant issues for new college students. These issues play a role in student adjustment and transition. Some students transition to college successfully while others do not. As researchers and administrators better understand student adjustment and transition, more effective programs and services can be developed and implemented in an effort to aid students. 31
Tinto’s (1987) work emphasized the importance of social integration and academic integration in terms of predicting retention. According to Tinto (1987), departures from the institution in many cases are voluntary, and not the result of academic dismissal. The more integrative student experiences are, the more students perceive the experience to be satisfying and integrating; which leads to an increase in the likelihood of persistence through degree completion, (Tinto, 1987). Tinto (1987) outlines incongruence and isolation as two sources which lead to the absence of integration. He defines isolation as a state of disconnection with the institution, and incongruence as a state of being at odds with the institution, (Tinto, 1987). These key factors, according to Tinto (1987), lead to undergraduate student drop out. Tierney (1992) conducted an anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The study challenges Tinto’s (1987) theoretical model, Tinto (1987) asserts that academic and social integration is essential for student persistence. Tierney (1992) suggests that campuses should depart from thinking about student participation from a social integrationist perspective. He suggests that campuses should instead consider the environment as multicultural entities in which differences are highlighted and celebrated. Tierney (1992) wanted to stimulate dialogue around some of the most commonly held perceptions regarding college life, students, and cultural difference in an effort to develop more culturally responsive ways to engage ethnic students. His article and criticism of Tinto (1987) is an attempt to initiate dialogue around these social integration issues. Colton, Connor, Shultz, and Easter (1999) examined the problem of student attrition and identified ways in which a freshmen program, which targets academic progress and retention, could be successful. Although freshmen programs have been very 32
successful across the nation, a quick-fix type of program does not exist. Critical components of a freshmen year retention program include academic and social support elements, (Colton et al, 1999; Strommer, 1993; Tinto, 1993). Kutztown University created a comprehensive student support program for first year at-risk students. The Kutztown University’s Student Support Services Freshman Year Program (SSSFYP) differs from other programs in two ways. The SSSFYP requires intrusive interventions including mandatory program requirements as well as providing extrinsic rewards. Some of the intrusive requirements include: social activities, academic skills workshop, meeting with an advisor, assessment testing, and weekly group and/or individual meetings with a student mentor, (Colton et al, 1999). A few of the extrinsic rewards include special registration, free tutoring, and assistance in tailoring an academic plan. Colton, Connor, Shultz, and Easter (1999) reported the program as successful due to participant retention. The retention of participants was at a higher rate than comparative students that did not participate in the program. Since each of the participants self-selected into the program, this may have produced a more positive relationship with the outcomes observed, (Colton et al, 1999). Sidle and McReynolds (1999) examined student retention and student success in terms of possible outcomes when students participate in a freshmen year experience. Each year institutions lose students to attrition, by examining ways in which this trend can be minimized, the student, institution, and society as a whole benefits. Individuals who complete college degrees earn more than 50% more income than those who have only finished high school, (Sidle & McReynolds, 1999; Mishel & Bernstein, 1994). Employers are continuing to increase demands of the workforce, seeking individuals with 33
a college education and possessing complex cognitive skills, such as reflection and critical thinking, (Student Learning Imperative, 1997; Sidle & McReynolds, 1999). Approximately 3,084 students participated in the study; this includes all of the admitted and enrolled freshmen for the Fall 1993, Fall 1994, and Fall 1995 years. The experimental groups included students enrolled in the institution’s freshmen seminar course. Sidle and McReynolds (1999) found that students enrolled in the freshmen seminar course persisted to their second year at a higher rate and had a higher cumulative grade point average than their peers. In addition, participants earned higher credit hours ratios of attempted credit hours than their peers who did not enroll in the course, (Sidle, 1999). Finally, the course evaluations, with a 67% return rate, indicated that a majority of the students agreed or strongly agreed that enrolling in the course: a) assisted their understanding of the purpose of an education, b) helped them to feel more comfortable on the campus, and c) increased their belief that they could succeed, (Sidle, 1999). The evaluation responses support the notion that intention attention assists students in their first year to develop academic and intellectual competence, as well as gain a sense of their identity, (Sidle, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989). The study was conducted on one campus and this limits the generalizability of the findings. Cambiano, Denny, and De Vore (2000) studied college student retention over a six year period at a Midwestern university. Of all incoming freshmen it is estimated that 50% will drop out before completing degree programs, (Cambiano, Denny, & De Vore, 2000; Brawer, 1996). College participation and persistence can be influenced by circumstances and the educational environment, (Cambiano et al, 2000). According to the researchers, little can be done to impact student circumstances; however the 34
environment, which includes classes, student activities, and campus events, can be influenced. The authors cite Tinto and Kalsner’s work in an effort to establish the importance of studying and improving student retention. Kalsner’s (1991) study examines the relationship between personal, social, and financial variables to student drop out. According to Kalsner (1991) only 15% of the students studied dropped out of college due to academic dismissal. She states that students who remain in college have lower grade point averages as compared to students who have dropped out. The Kalsner study which was completed in 1991, focused on four recurring themes. The Kalsner (1991) themes include: a) uncertainty of what to expect, b) adjustment issues, c) financial constraints, and d) lack of academic preparation. When examining the four themes Kalsner (1991) illustrated that most of the students who drop out, do so voluntarily. Kalsner (1991) identifies students who do not have established goals as being at-risk for drop out. This point is echoed by Tinto, he asserts that the more likely the student is to complete a degree is relational to the higher the student’s goals. This notion is a direct construct of achievement motivation, and can be related to selfefficacy. Cambiano, Denny, and DeVore (2000) collected data on incoming freshmen over a six year period beginning in 1981. The sample consisted of two thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine students, 52% were male and 48% were female. According to Cambiano, Denny, and De Vore (2000), a low retention rate creates uncertainty, and with a high and constant rate of retention, institutions can expand their offerings and benefits. The study concluded that students leaving the institution had acceptable grade point averages, but decided to leave because of uncertainty regarding expectations, as well as 35
adjustment issues, lack of academic preparation, and financial concern. This study is limited by the fact that all of the data is from one institution. The issue of student persistence and retention is one that has been widely explored in the literature. Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) examined the emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students over a six year period. According to Gerdes and Mallinckrodt, (1994) the examination of college adjustment and student expectations may increase the understanding of student departure. By combining emotional, social, and academic adjustment issues the researchers are better able to create a broad scope of adjustment.
Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) state that the important
elements of social adjustment include forming a support network, managing new social freedoms, and becoming integrated into the social life of college. The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1984b, 1989) was the instrument used by Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994). Students were mailed a copy of the SACQ instrument prior to their arrival for the fall semester. During the seventh week of the semester, a follow up survey was sent to each of the participants. The researchers received an overall response rate of 54%; students did not receive any remuneration for their participation. Six years after initial enrollment, students’ transcripts were examined to determine academic status, enrollment, and graduation. Other variables examined included types of degrees awarded, academic sanctions, date of graduation, total credit hours, and last term in attendance. A total of 208 students were in the final sample. According to Gerdes and Mallinckrodt, (1994) the findings support the premise that personal adjustment and integration into the social milieu of campus life play a role which is as important as academic factors in student retention. For students that were not 36
struggling academically, factors such as satisfaction with the quality of the course, a sense of self confidence, and informal contacts with faculty members were important predictors of persistence (Gerdes and Millinckrodt, 1994). For those students struggling academically, freedom from anxiety, satisfaction with extracurricular activities, and an absence of thoughts regarding dropping out were the best adjustment predictors of retention. According to the researchers, counseling based interventions may be helpful in retaining students who are struggling academically. Students who persisted compared to those with poor academic standing reported feeling nervous and tense, were thinking of taking time away from college, and did not anticipate having clear academic goals (Gerdes and Millinckrodt, 1994). The authors concluded that assistance with improving social and academic integration could increase student retention regardless of academic standing. Coordinated efforts between counseling and student affairs professionals would yield a higher student retention rate according to the findings of the study. This would suggest that students leave higher education as a result of a mixture of emotional, social, and academic factors. The researchers addressed the limitations; their sample was taken from students participating in a voluntary summer orientation program. In addition, students interested in a special academically based program were overrepresented in the sample. The researchers noted that it is possible the students who participated in the study were more motivated to succeed and more likely to persist. Seven professors collaborated to examine student study activities and beliefs associated with academic success. Strage, Baba, Millner, Scharberg, Walker, Williamson, and Yoder (2002) combined efforts to examine student grades and their achievement motivations, identify study activities, beliefs, and expectations related to 37
academic experiences that appeared to be related to their success, and finally promoting student success by discovering implications for future services and research. Student success was defined broader than just student grade point average, the definition included evidence to what degree students possess a positive outlook toward academic challenge. Participants include 1,379 students enrolled in 46 courses taught by the authors and other instructors at the university. The courses include major courses, elective courses, as well as upper and lower division courses. The participants were ethnically diverse, representing fourteen different categories. Grade point average was associated with the number of hours students maintained employment, however none of the mastery orientation indices were related to grade point average, (Strage et al., 2002). According to the researchers, all three of the mastery orientation indices were related to students’ sense of responsibility for learning. Grade point average is not a good indicator of mastery orientation or learned helplessness; the indices must evaluate students on a deeper level to determine this underlying characteristic. Strage et al. (2002) is intentional to point out the usefulness of grade point averages for some contexts, however students’ motivational profiles, such as how resilient they are in the face of difficulty or failure, how perseverant they can be, and perceptions of their instructors, are critical elements when drawing conclusions about who is succeeding and who is struggling on campus. The researchers illustrate the importance of uncovering which students are earning good grades at the expense of healthy motivational profiles. They also emphasize not underestimating the resiliency of those students with average grades but possess the drive for mastery to persevere, (Strage et al., 2002). When the researchers examined selfdirected learning, which is defined as study activities, effort management, and attitudes 38
regarding responsibility and students’ success they discovered a common complaint among students. Students shared that they have not had adequate opportunities to learn to be self-sufficient, self-directed, and autonomous with regard to academic coursework, (Strage et al., 2002). This research discovery relates directly to academic expectations as well as academic support services. Finally, Strage et al. (2002) discovered that students reported not knowing about support services offered on campus. Either students did not know about support services or did not understand how to access the services which were available on campus. One issue not explored by the authors has to do with the perceived stigma associated with tutoring or other academic support services. Wright and Mischel (1982) explored how individual’s moods or affective states influence their evaluations of themselves and their performances. In addition, the study examined how individual’s moods impacted their expectancies and goals for future performances, as well as their recall of previous positive and negative consequences, also known as success or failure, experienced on a performance task, (Wright & Mischel, 1982). Participants include 72 male and female students who were randomly selected from an Introduction to Psychology course at Stanford University. The researchers’ findings supported what clinicians have long argued, feelings profoundly mold the processing of information about oneself, (Wright and Mischel, 1982). The data supported how affective states alter self-evaluations, goal setting, selective recall, expectation, and overall self-assessments. According to Wright and Mischel, (1982) ‘feeling sad and doing bad’ may be a context for generating self-defeating coping patterns, which may point to debilitating outcomes when negative outcomes and affect interact. As a result of the findings the researchers assert that happy and sad individuals 39
process the exact same information regarding their achievement outcomes differently, and this may influence their subsequent mood thus resulting in a continuous cycle of interacting feelings, thoughts, and actions, (Wright & Mischel, 1982). According to the researchers, this continuous cycle of interacting thoughts, feelings, and actions biases cognition and is in turn molded by these same characteristics. Boudreau and Kromrey (1994) examined the retention and academic performance of participants in freshmen orientation courses. This particular study was longitudinal and spanned a four year period. Longitudinal studies on freshmen orientation course are not prevalent due to their complexity and cost, as a result Boudreau and Kromrey (1994) wanted to supplement the existing research. The researchers sought to measure significant differences between the academic achievement, retention, and graduation rates of freshmen orientation course participants and non-participants. Based on previous studies, (Fidler & Hunter, 1989) the researchers utilized an extensive matching procedure to insure that participant and non-participant groups were as similar as possible, (Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994). The researchers found significant positive differences between participants and non-participants in terms of retention rates; these finding only applied to the last two cohorts and not the first cohort. In contrast, the first two cohorts demonstrated a positive, but not significant difference in academic performance and retention rates. According to Boudreau and Kromrey, (1994) their findings are consistent with previous extended orientation research. The retention rates for alternate admit participants were significantly higher than non participant alternate admits, and the second cohort had higher retention rates than that of regular admit students. According to Boudreau and Kromrey, (1994) the format and content of the orientation course 40
corresponded to the elements of academic and social integration that Tinto (1987) outlined in his retention model. The researchers assert that the course provides a peer group for encouraging social integration and provide a non-threatening environment for students to discuss personal and academic issues, (Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994). This study was limited to one institution and the results cannot be broadly generalized. By examining the differences in student academic achievement and motivation, student ethnicity, and student adjustment to college this study seeks to determine if any of these differences or similarities are related to predictors of college success. The literature reviewed in this chapter included: a) academic achievement and achievement motivation in college students; b) ethnic group differences in college success; and c) student adjustment to campus life. The literature punctuates the importance of examining predictors of college student success. If reliable predictors can be identified then students at-risk can be served in a more meaningful way thus resulting in improved retention and graduation rates. This chapter has provided an overview of the literature focusing on predictors of ethnic and non-ethnic student success and motivation. Chapter three will outline the methodology used in this research. Chapter four will discuss the research data and how the data informs the study. Finally, the results of the study are presented in Chapter five, and will include relevance of the study within the context of the larger body of knowledge, key contributions, and recommendations for future research. The literature regarding student achievement motivation, rapport with peers, rapport with instructors, and grade point averages is extensive. This literature combined with the literature regarding African-American, Hispanic students provides a solid 41
foundation from which this study has launched. Predictors of college student success are not isolated variables, this study attempted to identify some of those variables. Each component has been examined individually and compared between ethnic groups. This comparison allowed the researcher to determine if one or more variables were more influential to a particular ethnic group. Overall, students are very dynamic and the research which informs higher education practice must be as dynamic. The information captured by today’s research will be used to inform the practice of faculty members as well as administrators in higher education. This chapter has provided an overview of the literature with a focus on predictors of student success across ethnic groups. Chapter one provided a rationale for the study, research questions that were investigated, and information on the significance of the study. Chapter three outlines the methodology used in this research. Chapter four addresses the research data and how the data informs the study. Finally, the results of the study are presented in chapter five, and include the relevance of the study within the context of the larger body of knowledge, key contributions, and recommendations for future research.
42
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In this chapter, a process for measuring and evaluating predictors of college success across different student ethnic groups is described. In the first section, the research design was outlined. In the second section, the instrument, Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey, developed by Dr. Amy Strage was described. The third section, the procedures for participant involvement and instrument administration are outlined. The fourth section outlines the analysis of the data. The purpose of this study was to explore predictors of college student success by examining achievement motivation, rating of rapport with peers, rating of rapport with instructors, and grade point average. College student success was defined as a grade point average which placed the student in good academic standing. For example, most colleges and universities require a minimum grade point average for undergraduate students to be considered in good academic standing. In addition, the study examined these relationships across ethnic groups. The ethnic groups that will be identified for the study included: African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. The baseline questions addressed in the study included: (1) What is the achievement motivation level of participants in the study? (2) Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation? (3) What is the level of rapport reported by participants in this study? The key research questions included: 4) Is there a relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average across ethnic groups? 5) Is there a relationship
43
between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups? 6) Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups? 7) How accurately can grade point average be predicted from a linear combination of persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, rating of rapport with peers, and rating of rapport with instructors for college students? The researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average. In addition, the researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers and instructors. The researcher hypothesized that African-American students and Caucasian students would be more similar than Hispanic students in each category, achievement motivation, rapport with peers, and rapport with instructors.
Research Design This study utilized a survey research design since the population the researcher was interested in studying was too large to observe directly. In addition, a survey research design was an excellent tool for measuring attitudes and orientations, (Babbie, 2004). The core of this study was researching students’ attitudes and perceptions, and a survey design was best suited for this type of research.
The Sample This study took place at a mid-sized public university located in the southwestern region of the United States. The university was created to serve students in an
44
underserved area of the state. The institution is relatively young, less than 85 years old. The total undergraduate enrollment is 23,329 students, of which 3.14 percent are African- American, 11.23 percent are Hispanic, and 81.29 percent are Caucasian (TTU New Factbook, 2004). The sample for this study was a convenience sample and was obtained from two sources. Given this university has multiple sites throughout the state; the participant source was from the same campus. The majority of the participants in this study were undergraduate students who were enrolled in a required technology course through the College of Education. Each undergraduate student interested in majoring in Education was required to enroll in this technology course; therefore a large number of the participants in this study were identified as Education majors. The issue of providing an incentive for participants, either monetary or non-monetary has been debated. A study completed by StatPac Incorporated revealed that non-monetary or monetary incentives were effective only if given at the time of survey. The promise of a future incentive was not as effective in increasing the response rate as an incentive which was present. The difference between an existing incentive and a promised incentive was 19.1 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively (StatPac, Inc., 2004). In addition, researchers found that higher monetary incentives tend to work better than lower monetary incentives. Therefore, this researcher worked with the course instructors to offer extra credit for the completion of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey. The extra credit was applied to the students overall grade when they completed the instrument.
45
Instrument The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was administered with the expressed permission of Dr. Amy Strage, a professor at San Jose State University. Dr. Amy Strage developed the instrument. The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey consisted of 179 items. The instrument measured the following scales: childhood autonomy, childhood demands, childhood support, current autonomy, current demands, current support, agency/leadership, communion, persistence, task involvement, teacher rapport, academic confidence, social confidence, external locus of control, and incremental scale. All of the survey scales were not utilized for this study; however the instrument was administered in its entirety in an effort to gather data for future research. The first section of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey contained items regarding grade point average, family background, and students’ comfort level with peers as well as faculty members. Some of the questions yielded, (a) students’ socioeconomic status, (b) the educational background of their parents and other family members, (c) ratings of the degree to which a variety of specific values were stressed in their families, and (d) ratings of the “parenting styles” they experienced, during childhood and in the present, (Strage, 2000). The measurement scales outlined the extent to which parents encouraged student independence, provided emotional support, and maintained high academic standards. The questions regarding parenting styles were not used in this study. The data gathered regarding parenting styles was retained for possible future research. In an effort to measure achievement motivation the following factors were a part of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey. These factors included academic confidence, students’ academic confidence, students’ confidence in their ability to obtain 46
a baccalaureate degree; persistence, the extent to which students would persist when facing challenges; and task involvement, how students maintained academic focus when faced with distractions. In addition, rating of rapport with peers and rating of rapport with instructors were two other factors measured on the survey. In replicating the study the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was not altered and the logic of the author was followed, several of the same survey items served to inform different factors. The final section of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey measured students’ rating of rapport with their peers as well as rating of rapport with instructors. The items were divided into two scales, the first measured the degree to which students felt comfortable with instructors and felt respected as well as understood by those same instructors. The second scale measured the degree to which students felt comfortable with their peers.
Procedures The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was administered to students enrolled in the Educational Instructional Technology course Computing and Information Technology (2318). A typical enrollment for the course is eight hundred students, which yielded an adequate number of respondents for the purpose of this study. The course was web based and students completed the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey through the course website. The survey was the tenth module for the course and was presented to students by their instructors as an extra-credit opportunity. Students had to complete the module before they were eligible for the extra-credit. If students left a few questions blank they were still awarded extra-credit by the instructors. Very few questions were 47
left unanswered by the respondents, and the items that were unanswered were attributed to respondent error. The only question that appeared to be intentionally unanswered was the grade point average question for first year students. These responses were interpreted by the researcher to mean these students did not yet have a grade point average and were unable to respond with a numerical value. These responses were removed from the analysis of the study. Students were offered extra course credit if they completed the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey. Student responses were anonymous and they were able to leave their telephone numbers if they wanted additional information regarding the survey. Student participation was on a voluntary basis, and students not willing to complete the survey were not be penalized in any way. Students’ responses were anonymous in an effort to encourage honesty. It was important for the sample to reflect an adequate number of students from each of the identified ethnic groups; African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic. If there had not been an adequate number of participants, from a particular ethnic student group then a second data source would have been accessed by involving student organization member meetings. The Hispanic Student Society and the Black Student Association would have been targeted had there not been an adequate response by African-American and Hispanic students.
Analysis of the Data Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics are a collection of methods for classifying and summarizing numerical data (Hinkle et al, 48
1998). The descriptive statistics covered demographic information such as ethnicity and gender.
Specifically, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was
performed. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation enabled the researcher to analyze the relationship among ethnic groups. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the achievement motivation, peer rapport, and instructor rapport measures predicted grade point average.
The predictors were the five indices;
persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, rapport rating with peers, and rapport rating with instructors, while the criterion variable was the overall grade point average. The second section of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey focused on indices of achievement and achievement motivation. The indices for achievement motivation included:
persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence.
Respondents were asked to report their grade point average; since the instrument was anonymous students were believed to have been accurate in the reporting of their grade point average. This section included items which constructed three scales, each addressed aspects of a mastery achievement orientation to college. The first scale contained items related to students’ confidence in their ability to complete college, persistence, (Strage, 2000). In previous research, this scale was reliable for students (range = .52 - .81), (Strage, 2000). Each question was tested for reliability; and the range was acceptable. The second scale focused on how students persist in the face of difficulty or failure, academic confidence. In previous research, this scale was reliable for all student participants (range = .77 - .86), (Strage, 2000). The third scale measured the degree to which students were able to avoid distraction and maintain focus while 49
working on academic assignments, task involvement. In previous research, this scale was also reliable for all student participants (range = .68 - .80), (Strage, 2000). The fourth section of the SAPS contained items designed to measure students’ comfort level with their peers and instructors, (Strage, 2000). The items were contained in two scales, one related to the degree to which students felt understood, respected, and comfortable with their instructors. The second scale was related to the degree to which students felt comfortable with their fellow students. In previous research, these scales were reliable for respondents from each of the ethnic backgrounds (ranges = .63 - .86), (Strage, 2000). To address the first research question, 4) Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups?; a Pearson ProductMoment Correlation was performed as well as a Mutiple Regression. This analysis was performed separately on each of the ethnic groups in the study. Ethnicity was the independent variable for the correlation. Grade point average as well as the three indices of achievement motivation was entered as dependent variables. When the next key research question was addressed, 5) Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups?; a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation and a Multiple Regression was performed. This analysis was performed separately on each of the three ethnic groups. Ethnicity remained the independent variable for the correlation. Grade point average as well as the student rating of rapport with peers was entered as dependent variables. When the final key research question was addressed, 6) Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups?; a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation and 50
Multiple Regression analysis was performed. In previous research, when student rating of rapport with instructors was positive there was s significant and positively relationship with all five indices of success (r’s ranged from .33 to .52, p’s all .004. Finally, there was not a significant relationship between academic confidence and grade point average but the relationship that did exist was negative, r(299) = -.064, p > .004. This would indicate as academic confidence increases grade point average decreases and as academic confidence decreases grade point average increases. There was not a significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average when all of the indices and ethnic groups were combined for analysis, r(290) = .096, p > .001. The findings are outlined in Table 4.7.
Baseline Question 3: What is the level of rapport reported by participants in this study? What is the level of rapport reported by participants in this study, involved the examination of participants’ rating of rapport with peers as well as their rating of rapport with instructors. Participants were asked to respond to questions related to rating of rapport with peers and rating of rapport with instructors by responding on a Likert scale with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 strongly disagree. The mean for rating of rapport with peers for all three ethnic groups was 4.05 with a standard deviation of .545. The mean 64
for rating of rapport with instructors for all three ethnic groups was 3.26 with a standard deviation of .703. In addition, there was a significant correlation between rating of rapport with peers and rating of rapport with instructors when all three ethnic groups were combined, r(287) = .414, p < .03. Students that tend to have a strong rating of rapport with peers also have a strong rating of rapport with instructors. This finding was attributed to personality type, introversion compared to extroversion. In addition, this finding was also attributed to strong social skills. The findings are outlined in Table 4.8. Table 4.8 Summary of Respondent Rating of Rapport with Peers and Rating of Rapport with Instructors
Rating of Rapport with Peers
M
SD
4.05
.545
Rating of Rapport with Instructors 3.26 .703 _______________________________________________________________________
Research Question 4: Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups? Achievement motivation was defined by three indices: persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence.
According to Strage, “High
scores on these latter three scales reflected a “mastery” orientation. Low scores on these scales reflected the presence of a “learned helpless” orientation, (p. 3). Each of the three indices was measured with separate groups of items on the Student Attitudes and 65
Perceptions Survey. The survey items are detailed in Table 4.5. A Pearson ProductMoment Correlation was performed. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient assesses the degree to which quantitative variables are related linearly in a particular sample, (Green and Salkind, 2005). The correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups. Ethnicity was the independent variable and the other variables included in the correlation were: persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, and grade point average. Persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence were the three indices that defined achievement motivation. This study involved several correlations and in an effort to minimize the likelihood of making a Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was made. Six variables were correlated at one time, and the level of significance was p < .004 (p = .05 / 12), with the correction. A separate correlation was conducted on each ethnic group. The correlation between grade point average and achievement motivation, defined as persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence, for African-American students was not significant r(18) = .09, p > .004 (persistence), r(18) = .10, p > .004 (task involvement), r(18) = .03, p > .004 (academic confidence). The correlation between grade point average and achievement motivation for Caucasian students was significant with only the persistence index, r(179) = .25, p < .004. The other two indices for achievement motivation were not significant, r(182) = .14, p > .004 (task involvement), and r(185) = -.09, p > .004 (academic confidence). The correlation between grade point average and achievement motivation for Hispanic students was significant with only the 66
persistence index, r(93) = .31, p < .004. The other two indices for achievement motivation were not significant, r(92) = .13, p > .004 (task involvement) and r(92) = -.00, p > .004 (academic confidence). The correlation between the index of achievement motivation, persistence and grade point average was the only index that was significant for Caucasian and Hispanic students. None of the other indices for achievement motivation and grade point average were significant for any of the ethnic groups. Table 4.7 contains the means and the standard deviations for persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence for all three ethnic groups. Although some of the findings were statistically significant they were not practically significant because of the low sample size. The researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average. The researcher’s hypothesis was not proven.
Table 4.9 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation
Persistence
Task Academic Involvement Confidence ______________________________________ Ethnicity
M
Grade Point Average ________________
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
African-American 3.45
.750
3.94
.730
3.11
.575
2.69
.491
Caucasian
3.56
.773
4.13
.544
3.17
.833
3.05
.638
Hispanic
3.56
.751
4.11
.555
3.29
.726
2.96
.518
67
Research Question 5: Rating of Rapport with Peers and Grade Point Average A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups. The independent variable was ethnicity and the dependent variables were grade point average and rating of rapport with peers. In terms of the research question; Is there a relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average? Three correlations were performed, each with the different ethnic groups represented in this study. The correlation between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average for AfricanAmerican students was not significant, r(17) = -.03, p > .004. The same correlation for Caucasian students was not significant, r(180) = .11, p > .004. The same correlation for Hispanic students was not significant, r(89) = .28, p > .004. The correlation between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average was not significant for any of the ethnic groups. This predictor is not strong for any of the ethnic groups, in fact there is a negative relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average for the African-American students. Although this is not statistically significant it is interesting to note the negative relationship. This has been interpreted to mean as rating of rapport with peers increases grade point average decreases or the inverse could be true as well; as grade point average increases rating of rapport with peers decreases. In addition, the researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers and instructors, this hypothesis was not proven.
68
Table 4.10 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Peers
Rapport with Peers ____________________ Ethnicity
Grade Point Average _________________
M
SD
M
SD
African-American
3.94
.743
2.69
.492
Caucasian
4.08
.515
3.05
.638
Hispanic
4.02
.556
2.96
.516
Research Question 6: Rating of Rapport with Instructors and Grade Point Average A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups. The independent variable was ethnicity and the dependent variables were grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors. In terms of the research question; Is there a relationship between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average? Three correlations were performed, each with a different ethnic group represented in this study. The correlation between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average for African-American students was not significant, r(18) = .22, p > .004. The same correlation for Caucasian students was not significant, r(181) = .18, p > .004. The same correlation for Hispanic students was significant, r(93) = .35, p < .004. The correlation between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average was significant for
69
Hispanic students and not for African-American or Caucasian students. This finding could be related to the low sample size, and does not accurately reflect the level of importance of this predictor of success. When all three ethnic groups are combined and the same correlation is performed there is a statistically significant relationship between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average, r(296) = .22, p < .004. The researcher hypothesized that African-American students and Caucasian students would be more similar than Hispanic students in each category, achievement motivation, rapport with peers, and rapport with instructors. The only category in which African-American student and Caucasian students are more similar and dissimilar to Hispanic students was rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average. This hypothesis was only true when the ethnic groups were examined separately, this was not true when the ethnic groups were examined together for this index.
Table 4.11 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Instructors
Rapport with Instructors ____________________ Ethnicity
Grade Point Average _________________
M
SD
M
African-American
3.28
.667
2.69
.492
Caucasian
3.24
.724
3.06
.603
Hispanic
3.28
.676
2.96
.516
70
SD
Research Question 7: How accurately can grade point average be predicted from a linear combination of persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, rating of rapport with peers, and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups? Two multiple regressions were conducted to determine the best predictors of selfreported grade point average. For Caucasians, the R was low moderate, with R = .231 and R square = .053, F(175) = 9.812, p = .002. The regression equation yielded the following: grades = .(204) Persistence = 1.919. For Caucasians, persistence was the lone predictor that survived the stepwise regression procedure. Both rapport with instructors and rapport with peers were removed by the procedure. For Hispanics, The R was low moderate but higher than for Caucasians, R = .301 and R square = .091, F(175) = 8.892, p = .004. The regression equation yielded the following: grades = .(279) Rapport with Instructors = 1.731. For Hispanics, Rapport with Instructors was the lone predictor that survived the stepwise regression procedure. Both Persistence and Rapport with Peers were removed by the procedure. Conclusions Five hundred and thirty-eight surveys collected on-line from students enrolled in the Educational Technology course (EDIT) at Texas Tech University were completed, and only three hundred and three were applicable for analysis. The students that completed the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey received extra credit for the course. The extra credit module, which involved completing the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was voluntary. Of the 303 participants, 172 were female (57.9%), and 125 were male (42.1%). Since this study focused on the relationship between
71
African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students the demographics were concentrated and resulted in 6.6% African American students, 62% Caucasian students, and 31.4% Hispanic students. When examining the grade point averages from a general perspective, .7% of the respondents reported a grade point average between .00 - .99, 3.3% of the respondents reported a grade point average between 1.00 - 1.99 (D), 35.1% of the respondents reported a grade point average between 2.00 - 2.99, and 56.3% of the respondents reported a grade point average between 3.00 - 3.99, and 4.6% of the respondents reported a grade point average of 4.0. If students reported a .00 grade point average and reported freshman class standing the assumption was made that this respondent that did not have a grade point average and these cases were eliminated from the study. In examining the correlation between achievement motivation and grade point average across ethnic groups a non significant relationship was found. The correlation between grade point average and the rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups was also not significant. Finally, when the correlation between grade point average and the rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups was examined and significance was found only with Hispanic students. The chapter includes the data analysis of the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey as developed by Dr. Amy Strage. This study and its findings will serve to further inform administrators in the area of student affairs. Chapter five will include an introduction, summary of findings, discussion, implications, recommendations for future research, and conclusions.
72
CHAPTER V RESULTS Introduction The purpose of Chapter five is to discuss the findings of the research on motivation and predictors of student success, identify conclusions based on the findings, and suggest future research. The topics covered in chapter five include: (a) a summary of the research, (b) a summary of the findings, (c) discussion, (d) implications, (e) recommendations for future research, and (f) conclusions. Summary of the Research College entrance rates, retention rates, and graduation rates of students from ethnic groups remain low and relatively unchanged (Astin, 1982; Duran, 1994; Irvine, 1990; Justiz, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Strage, 2000; Tinto, 1993). This study examined motivation and predictors of student success. Both achievement motivation and student rapport with peers and instructors were believed to be strong predictors of college success for ethnic minority students, (Strage, 2000). The purpose of this study was to examine college success by exploring student achievement motivation, student rapport rating with peers, student rapport rating with instructors, and self-reported college grade point average; across ethnic groups. College student success was defined as a selfreported grade point average which placed the student in good academic standing.
73
Research Questions This study explored the relationship between achievement motivation, student rating of rapport with peers, student rating of rapport with instructors, and grade point average. Furthermore, the study examined these relationships across ethnic groups, focusing on African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. The research questions addressed in the study include three baseline research questions and three key research questions, and the baseline research questions included: Baseline Question 1: What is the achievement motivation level of participants in the study? Baseline Question 2: Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation? Baseline Question 3: What is the level of rapport reported by participants in this study? The key research questions designed to guide and help meet the purpose of this study included: Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between grade point average and motivation across ethnic groups? Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups? Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups?
74
Research Question 7: How accurately can grade point average be predicted from a linear combination of persistence, task involvement, academic confidence, rating of rapport with peers, and rating of rapport with instructors for college students? Higher education administrators and faculty members have not had a comprehensive way of identifying predictors of student success. As a result, there is a need to study predictors of student success. As identified in Chapter one, college entrance, retention rates, and graduation rates of ethnic students remain low and relatively unchanged (Astin, 1982; Duran, 1994; Irvine, 1990, Justiz, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Strage, 2000; Tinto, 1993). Many colleges and universities struggle to predictably and consistently improve their retention and graduation rates. The attempt to gain a better understanding of why some students succeed while others do not, will aid in serving students. This information will hopefully contribute to practices that will lead to increased retention and graduation rates. This is important because increased retention and graduation rates are essential for students and overall institutional health. Chapter two outlined the relevant literature on academic achievement, achievement motivation, ethnic group differences in college success, and student adjustment. The literature on achievement motivation, grade point average, and rapport with peers as well as rapport with instructors has been identified as important elements for predicting college student success. The literature suggested that each of these variables was related to students’ success in college. By administering the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey, this research study sought to quantify and explore the assertion that achievement motivation, grade point average, student rapport with peers, and student rapport with instructors were predictors of student success. 75
Chapter three reviewed the problem, baseline research questions, key research questions, and introduced the quantitative research design. The study participants and the developer of the instrument were described. In addition, the chapter included the process by which the data was collected and compiled, as well as how it was analyzed statistically in an effort to answer all six of the research questions. Chapter four presented the findings of the study. The research questions were presented again and reviewed. The study participants were described in terms of their class standing, ethnicity, gender, and grade point average. The statistical procedures utilized to analyze the data were presented. The statistical procedures included basic descriptive statistics; means, frequencies, and standard deviations, and a series of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficents. In the appendix of the document includes additional statistically information and these analyses were conducted using Multivariat Tests: Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s Trace, and Roy’s Largest Root, Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances, and Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. The Post Hoc tests that were conducted included: Tukey HSD and Dunnett C. In conclusion, chapter five provides a discussion of the findings of the study, conclusions, and implications as a result of the study. Recommendations for future research are suggested as the final portion of this chapter.
Summary of Findings A total of five hundred and thirty-three Student Attitudes and Perception surveys were completed. Only the surveys completed by African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students, three-hundred and three, utilized in the study because the study 76
focused on these ethnic groups. Each of the students was enrolled for the fall semester at Texas Tech University in the Educational Instructional Technology course, Computing and Information Technology (EDIT 2318). Of the participants, 172 were female and 125 were male. There were almost as many freshmen (36.6%) as sophomores (37.6%). Fifteen point eight percent (15.8%) of the participants had junior class standing, 9.6% were seniors, and there was one graduate (.3%) student participant. Of the three hundred and three students examined for the study 20 were African-American (6.6%), 188 were Caucasian (62.0%), and 95 were Hispanic (31.4%). In the review of the relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average, each of the indices was separated out for analysis. The correlation between grade point average and persistence was not significant for African-American students r(18) = .09, p > .004, it was significant with Caucasian students r(179) = .25, p < .004, and it was significant for Hispanic students r(93) = .31, p < .004. When task involvement and grade point average was correlated across ethnic groups significance was not found for any of the groups; African-Americans r(18) = .10, p > .004, Caucasians r(182) = .14, p > .004, and Hispanics r(92) = .13, p > .004 . When academic confidence and grade point average was correlated across ethnic groups significance was not found for any of the groups; African-Americans r(18) = .03, p > .004, Caucasians r(185) = -.09, p > .004, and Hispanics r(92) = -.00, p > .004. In summary, the correlation between persistence and grade point average was significant for Caucasian and Hispanic students however it was not significant for African-American students. The correlation between task involvement and grade point average was not significant for any of the ethnic groups, and the correlation between academic confidence and grade point average was 77
not significant for any of the ethnic groups. Each ethnic group was examined individually and there was not significance with the exception of persistence for Caucasian and Hispanic students. When the three ethnic groups were combined significance was found only between persistence and grade point average. Although some of the findings were statistically significant they were not practically significant because of the low sample size. The researcher predicted a statistically significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average. The researcher’s hypothesis was not proven. The correlation between rating of rapport with peers and reported grade point average was not statistically significant. Each ethnic group was examined individually and there was not significance. When the three ethnic groups were combined significance was not found either.
There was a low sample size and this may have
impacted significance. The correlation between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average, there was not a statistically significant relationship. The findings were consistent across each ethnic group. When all three ethnic groups were combined rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average was significant. The AfricanAmerican mean was 3.28, the Caucasian mean was 3.24, and the Hispanic mean was 3.28. This finding was very positive because it seems the rating of rapport with instructors was one of the best predictors of success across ethnic groups. The only difference across ethnic groups appeared in the reported grade point average. There was a greater difference between African-American students and Caucasian students when examining the grade point average. The African-American 78
student mean for grade point average was 2.69, the Caucasian student mean for grade point average was 3.04, while the Hispanic student mean for grade point average was 2.96. It is important to note that these grade point averages were self-reported. In addition, there were many more Caucasian students than African-American and Hispanic students represented in the study, and this could have been the reason for the difference. When examining ethnic groups and achievement motivation the only difference was related to persistence and grade point average. There was not a difference across ethnic groups when examining task involvement and grade point average and academic confidence and grade point average. The ethnic groups are more similar than different when examining predictors of college student success. When the findings of student rating of rapport with peers and grade point average, and rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average was examined there was a not a difference among the ethnic groups. The ethnic groups are more similar because they have proven to not be different when these indices of predictors of student success are examined. Strengths and Weaknesses In examining the study it is important to note the following weaknesses. Several of the same items loaded into different indices making it difficult to properly examine correlational relationships because several items were correlating with themselves. Multicollinearity existed with the items because several of the same items existed in different indices. The strengths of the study included the expansion for additional research regarding predictors of college success among ethnic groups. The Student Attitudes and 79
Perceptions Survery created by Dr. Amy Strage is a good instrument and can be used in many different ways in the future to answer similar research questions. This study has outlined recommendations for future researchers. Discussion In the review of the relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average, the only difference was related to persistence and grade point average. There was not a difference across ethnic groups when examining task involvement and grade point average and academic confidence and grade point average. With the exception of persistence, the findings were consistent across each of the three ethnic groups, AfricanAmerican, Caucasian, and Hispanic. Achievement motivation was constructed with three indices which include: persistence, task involvement, and academic confidence. None of the groups scored low on persistence, task involvement, or academic confidence. The mean for persistence were: African-American students 3.45, Caucasian students 3.56, and Hispanic students 3.56. The means for task involvement were: African-American students 3.94, Caucasian students 4.13, and Hispanic student 4.11.
The means for
academic confidence were: African-American students 3.11, Caucasian students 3.17, and Hispanic students 3.29. The level of the means for each index indicates a level of mastery orientation among each of the groups examined. The findings are in contrast to Dr. Strage’s (2000) findings in which SoutheastAsian-American students scored relatively low on persistence and task involvement, which indicated that they were suffering from what Dr. Strage identified as learned helplessness. This was attributed to family pressures, low social emotional support, and relatively low grades. Strage (2000) made the point that an examination of grade point 80
average alone would not have uncovered this finding. None of the three ethnic groups had a low score on any of the achievement motivation indices which means they differed from the Asian-American students in Dr. Strage’s study. The researcher encourages institutions of higher education to continue to focus on campus climate as well as explore the relationships students have with their families. The findings of this study were consistent with Bandura’s (1977) concept of selfefficacy and self-efficacy expectations; which refer to a person’s beliefs regarding his ability to successfully perform a given task or behavior. According to Bandura, (1977) one’s belief set is a major mediator of behavior and behavioral change. If a person believes that he does not possess the ability to be successful with a given task or behavior then he will not be successful. A low self-efficacy expectation regarding a behavior or behavioral domain leads to avoidance of behavior. An increase in self-efficacy expectations leads to an increase in the frequency of approach, instead of avoidance. This avoidance behavior is related to task involvement, which was one of three indices for achievement motivation. Interventions that facilitate approach behavior are successful because the function serves to increase individuals’ expectation of selfefficacy which minimizes the avoidance behavior, thus increases task involvement. The findings are aligned with Pajares (2003) who concluded that students’ confidence in their capabilities influence their motivation. It is important to note this study did not find any difference between the ethnic groups studied regarding achievement motivation, with the exception of persistence and grade point average. According to Pintrich and Schunk, (1996) the generalization of selfefficacy is stable among different student ages, including elementary, junior high, high 81
school, and college; this generalization continues across gender and ethnic group differences. According to Graham, (1994) African American students are more likely to have high perceptions of their ability, which is in contrast to generally low levels of achievement on teacher grades and standardized tests. This study did not find that African-American students were more likely to have higher expectations than Caucasian or Hispanic students. A number of factors could be attributed to explaining why AfricanAmerican students at Texas Tech University did not have perceptions of their ability that were too high. In contrast to Graham’s research the African-American students’ perception of their ability seemed to be very balanced. It is important to note these findings are based on a study with a low number of African-American participants, and the findings cannot be generalized. These findings can be interpreted as AfricanAmerican students at Texas Tech University have a positive relationship between their abilities and their academic performance. Graham (1994) noted when academic expectations that are too high they can be counterproductive to performance. In other words, too much confidence can be detrimental to performance. This can be explained by understanding if students think they are doing well academically they are less likely to access academic services.
Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) call for additional research
on the issue of calibration and overestimation of skill level, for all students not just African American students. When examining Caucasian and Hispanic students there was a negative relationship between academic confidence and grade point average, although not significant. There was not a negative relationship between academic confidence and grade point average for African-American students studied.
82
In summary, this study did not find a correlation between achievement motivation and grade point average with the exception of persistence for Caucasian and Hispanic students. The non-significant relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average findings were not supported by previous research. Task involvement, persistence, and academic confidence were the indices of achievement motivation in this study. The relationship between achievement motivation and grade point average did not support the hypothesis that achievement motivation was a predictor of college success. The more a student possesses task involvement, academic confidence, and persistence does not necessarily mean the student will experience college success. This finding indicated that achievement motivation cannot predict student success. The sample size in this study was low and the findings cannot be generalized. When the relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average was reviewed a statistically significant relationship was not found. Similar to achievement motivation, the correlation was not statistically significant. There was not a significant relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average. There was a negative relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average for African-American students. As rating of rapport with peers increases grade point average decrease and as rating of rapports decreases grade point average increases. The sample size was low and the findings cannot be generalized. When rating of rapport with peers and grade point average was correlated with all three ethnic groups significance was not found. This finding however is not similar to other research findings.
83
Strage (2000) found strong ratings of rapport with peers were associated with high levels of confidence. These findings are consistent with Tinto (1993) and Padilla, Trevino, and Gonzalez’s (1997) work with college student retention and attrition. Hayamizu and Weiner (1991) found that student confidence level in their academic and social ability is a key element to success. Student perception regarding their abilities has a great deal to do with how they approach challenges in the academic and social arena in college. In addition, Sandler and Lakey (1982) found that individuals who possess an internal locus of control benefited more from social support, than individuals with an external locus of control. The key social support benefit was helping cope with stress. Lefcourt, Martin, and Saleh (1984) tested the effects of social support and locus of control as moderators of stress. The researchers found individuals with an internal locus of control made better use of social support as a moderator of stress. By utilizing social support the individuals with an internal locus of control were less likely to develop a sense of learned helplessness. Lefcourt, Martin, and Saleh’s (1984) findings supported Sandler and Lakey’s conclusions. The findings of this study are concurrent with other research findings related to the importance of social support for college students. When Stewart and Vaux (1986) began researching social support resources within ethnic groups little empirical literature available. In an effort to examine social support resources among African-American and Caucasian students Stewart and Vaux assessed a more holistic view of social support. Study results showed that both groups are very similar in terms of social support resources, perceptions of support, and supportive behaviors. African-American students Stewart and Vaux’s sample were able to develop 84
and maintain ethnically congruous support networks which were equivalent to their Caucasian majority counterparts. In summary, this study did not find a significant relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average. The statistically non-significant relationship between rapport rating with peers and grade point average findings was not supported by previous research. The study found that Texas Tech University students who are moderately social with peers and instructors, possess a reasonable achievement motivation level are most likely to be successful academically. The relationship between rating of rapport with peers and grade point average does not support the researcher’s hypothesis that rating of rapport with peers is a predictor of college success. It is believed that the more a student feels comfortable with peers and maintains a sense of social confidence the more likely the student is to be successful academically; although this may be true it is not supported by this research finding. Overall, Texas Tech students are friendly and willing to interact with peers. There are strong communities within the residence halls at Texas Tech and all first year students are required to live on campus, this residential community promotes social growth. These findings indicated that although rapport rating with peers was not a predictor of student success it may enhance other areas of the college experience. In reviewing the correlation between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average, there was not significance with African-American students or Caucasian students. There was significance with Hispanic students. The findings were not consistent across each ethnic group. The rating of rapport with instructors’ means was similar across ethnic groups. The African-American mean was 3.28 with a standard 85
deviation of .667, the Caucasian mean was 3.24 with a standard deviation of .724, and the Hispanic mean was 3.28 with a standard deviation of .676. This finding was interesting because it was not expected. When the correlation between rating of rapport with instructors and grade point average was calculated including all ethnic groups the finding was significant to the .001 level. The overall mean was 3.26 with a standard deviation of .703. The non-significant findings with individual ethnic groups was attributed to a low sample size. Strage (2000) found a strong rapport rating between instructors and students was associated with all five indices of college success and adjustment. These findings are consistent with Tinto (1993) and Padilla, Trevino, and Gonzalez’s (1997) work with college student retention and attrition. Tinto’s (1987) work emphasized the importance of social integration and academic integration in terms of predicting retention. According to Tinto (1987), departures from the institution in many cases are voluntary, and not the result of academic dismissal. The more integrative student experiences are, the more students perceive the experience to be satisfying and integrating; which leads to an increase in the likelihood of persistence through degree completion, (Tinto, 1987). Tierney (1992) conducted an anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The study challenges Tinto’s (1987) theoretical model, where Tinto (1987) asserts that academic and social integration is essential for student persistence. Tierney (1992) suggests that campuses should depart from thinking about student participation from a social integrationist perspective. He suggests that campuses should instead
86
consider the environment as multicultural entities in which differences are highlighted and celebrated. Sidle and McReynolds (1999) examined student retention and student success in terms of possible outcomes when students participate in a freshmen year experience. course. Sidle and McReynolds (1999) found that students enrolled in the freshmen seminar course persisted to their second year at a higher rate and had a higher cumulative grade point average than their peers. Finally, the course evaluations, with a 67% return rate, indicated that a majority of the students agreed or strongly agreed that enrolling in the course: a) assisted their understanding of the purpose of an education, b) helped them to feel more comfortable on the campus, and c) increased their belief that they could succeed, (Sidle, 1999). The evaluation responses support the notion that intentional attention from instructors and others assists students in their first year to develop academic and intellectual competence, as well as gain a sense of their identity, (Sidle, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989). Although this study was conducted on one campus and the findings are not generalizable, the findings are consistent with the findings of other studies. The only difference across ethnic groups appeared in the reported grade point average. There was a greater difference between African-American students and Caucasian students when examining grade point average. The African-American student mean for grade point average was 2.69, Caucasian student mean for grade point average was 3.04, and Hispanic student mean for grade point average was 2.96. It is important to note that there grade point averages were self-reported. In addition, there were many more Caucasian students than African-American and Hispanic students represented in the 87
study. Ethnicity cannot be attributed to grade point average due to the fact there are so many variables, other than ethnicity, that impact grade point average. Some of the other variables that impact student grade point average include high school quality, high school preparation, a student’s college course selection, and possible transitional issues. Other research has found few differences between ethnic groups. There were very few differences between ethnic groups in this study. Differences in grade point averages can be attributed to several possible factors. Some of the following research examined programs and their effectiveness on minimizing negative effects on grade point averages. When Lee (1999) examined the effect of race on a mentoring program which focused on the retention of African American students, he found that African American students face transitions similar to other freshmen students. Program participants valued having a faculty mentors, and a same-race mentor was less important than having a mentor in the same field of study. Lee’s findings supported the findings of this study in the respect there are very few differences between ethnic groups. McNairy (1996) examined the issue of retaining students of color on predominately white college and university campuses. The author focused predominately on African American and Latino student retention. According to McNairy (1996) retention programs should include the following elements academic leadership, analysis of existing resources, and strategic planning. Finally, for retention efforts to be successful for the student there should be a focus on the environment the student experiences.
88
When Strage (2000) examined how Southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students differed from each other regarding adjustment to campus life the overall effect of ethnicity was not statistically significant. The Southeast-AsianAmerican students felt a less positive rapport with their instructors and peers than the Caucasian and Hispanic students. Overall, Hispanic students appeared to have a strong mastery orientation in college. In contrast to their relatively low grades they remained confident and persistent. Strage (2000) suggested that the high levels of emotional support and autonomy reported by the students as well as the high emphasis placed on religious and moral education contributed to their mastery orientation. Academic success in higher education is a function of a number of factors other than cognitive variables (Tracey and Sedlacek, 1989). The Non-Cognitve Questionnaire was developed by Tracey and Sedlacek in 1984 in an effort to measure some of the noncognitive variables which lead to academic success. The eight non-cognitive dimensions included in the Non-Cognitive Questionnaire include: academic positive self-concept, realistic self appraisal, support of academic plans, leadership, long range goals, community ties, racism, and academic familiarity. The dimensions of racism and realistic self appraisal were found to be the most relevant in predicting academic success for African American students. More research is needed before the generalizability of the instrument is known. By examining the differences in student achievement motivation, student ethnicity, rating of rapport with peers, and rating of rapport instructors this study sought to determine if any of these differences or similarities are potential predictors of college success. According to Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) a connection with the campus 89
community enhanced African-American college students’ experience and encouraged student retention, (Fries-Britt and Turner, 2002). According to the researchers, it is critical for institutions to learn how to build confidence in African-American students by creating institutional and personal systems of support. This study found very little difference between ethnic groups. When ethnic groups were combined persistence and rating of rapport with instructors were the two strongest predictors of college student success, with persistence being slightly higher.
Conclusions Implications According to Kemp (1990), there is a national crisis regarding the status of African American and other minority students in the American university and college system. Statistically African American and Hispanic students are graduating from high school and college at lower rates than Caucasian students. According to Benderson (1988), the graduation rate for college seniors by ethnic group, is 60% for Hispanics, 77% for African Americans, and 85% for Caucasians. When examining the amount of time spent working toward degree completion the numbers are more staggering. According to the American Council on Education (1988) and Green (1989) only 7% of Hispanic students and 10% of African American students, compared to 21% of Caucasian students, that graduated from high school and began college in 1980, received a baccalaureate degree. Benderson (1988) suggested that minority retention programs focus solely on the retention of minority students without regard to graduation. Focusing on retention, instead of degree completion keeps students enrolled but does not 90
necessarily move students toward reaching their goal of graduation. When institutions place such an emphasis on persistence, the degree completion message becomes secondary (Benderson, 1988). Studies like Benderson’s are important because they assist faculty members and administrators in developing programs and services that can positively contribute to students in affecting graduation as well as persistence. This study suggests that faculty members and administrators should spend time with students, especially new students focusing on the importance of establishing and developing rapport with instructors. If this philosophy of dialogue becomes part of the campus culture, all students will benefit. The strongest relationship between grade point average was with students that rated a moderately high rapport with instructors. In addition, developing communities of learners on campus achieves two purposes; it encourages student rapport with peers and places an importance on academic success. Student rapport with peers was found to have a positive relationship with grade point average. It is important to note that if students are too social there can be a negative impact on grade point average. Finally, it is recommended for students to be better educated on how to read and use syllabi. If students are capable of calculating and estimating their performance in each course they will be more likely to have a reasonable and accurate sense of their abilities and needs, this will hopefully lead to persistence. The ability to accurately assess performance enables students to seek assistance and direction early enough in their academic career to make a positive difference. Self-efficacy is related to a careful estimation of one’s abilities, overall selfefficacy beliefs should be slightly higher than actual skill level, but not so high that an 91
individual overestimates their actual level of expertise, (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy plays an important role in how students’ perceive their ability to succeed in college. If research can continue to better identify programs and services that enhance student efficacy then faculty and administrators can work to implement strategies to build student efficacy on campus.
Recommendations for Future Research According to Perry (1999) if faculty members are not intentional about helping students to be mastery oriented they can perpetuate learned helplessness in the classroom. When students attribute failure to uncontrollable causes it results in a decrease in selfexpectations, hope, and self-esteem, which can lead to reduced persistence (Perry, 1999). A reduction in the motivational complexity of the classroom yields a more comfortable environment for the student in which learning is more likely to occur. With continued research in the area of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and social support, including rapport rating with peers and rapport rating with instructors, student retention and ultimately graduation can be more positively impacted. The findings in this study are limited to one campus and the sample size was small. Future research should include a greater sample size with student participation from public and private institutions in different regions of the country. In addition, it would be very helpful to conduct a longitudinal study in which participant high school grade point average and SAT/ACT score is captured. A longitudinal study would enable researchers to track student persistence and graduation rates. This tracking would create a clear picture of student behavioral patterns. Another recommendation for future 92
research would be to conduct a similar type of study but in the reverse. Identify successful students and measure the variables in which they attribute their success. Then assess how these variables are similar to or different from research identifying predictors of college student success. Finally, another issue not explored by this study includes students’ likelihood to access academic services. Additional research needs to be conducted around the perceived stigma associated academic services and who these services are designed to assist. Conclusions The issue of student persistence and retention is one that has been widely explored in the literature. According to Gerdes and Mallinckrodt, (1994) personal adjustment and integration into the social milieu of campus life play a role which is as important as academic factors in student retention. Strage, Baba, Millner, Scharberg, Walker, Williamson, and Yoder (2002) combined efforts to examine student grades and their achievement motivations, study activities, beliefs, and expectations related to academic experiences that appeared to be related to student success. According to the researchers, all three of the mastery orientation indices were related to students’ sense of responsibility for learning. Grade point average was not a good indicator of mastery orientation or learned helplessness; the indices must evaluate students on a deeper level to determine this underlying characteristic. Strage et al. (2002) is intentional to point out the usefulness of grade point averages for some contexts, however students’ motivational profiles, such as how resilient they are in the face of difficulty or failure, how perseverant they can be, and 93
perceptions of their instructors, are critical elements when drawing conclusions about who is succeeding and who is struggling on campus. The researchers illustrate the importance of uncovering which students are earning good grades at the expense of healthy motivational profiles. They also emphasize not underestimating the resiliency of those students with average grades but possess the drive for mastery to persevere, (Strage et al., 2002). It is important to note that several variables contribute to student success and grade point average; and students place varying importance on each of those variables. This study did not explore all of the possible predictive variables of student success. However, the some of variables that were examined in this study were found to be statistically significant in predicting college student success. Rating of rapport with instructors and persistence were the variables identified as statistically significant. Task involvement, academic confidence, and rating of rapport with peers were not statistically significant as predictors of college student success. The fact that very little difference between ethnic groups was discovered while studying these predictive variables is noteworthy. Although ethnic differences exist, the differences are not frequently found within these identified variables. More research continues to be facilitated in this very important area of higher education.
94
REFERENCES Abrams, D. (1987). Political competition and cooperation between public and higher education agencies of state government. Journal of Educational Finance, 12, 369-390.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment, Washington, D.C., United States Department of Education.
American Council on Education. (1988). Minorities in higher education (Seventh Annual Status Report). Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1982). Ethnic minorities in American higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966-1996. Review of Higher Education, 21, 115-135.
Babbie, Earl (2004). The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition, United States: Thomson Wadsworth.
95
Baker, R.W. and Siryk, B. (1986). Exploratory intervention with a scale measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Volume 33, p. 31-38.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review Volume 84, p. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought & Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, p. 1175-1184.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, p. 586-598.
Benderson, A. (1988). Testing, equality, and handicapped people. FOCUS, Volume 21, p .2-25.
Benvenist, G. (1985). New politics of higher education: Hidden and complex. Higher Education, 14, 175-195.
96
Berkner, Lutz and Chavez, Lisa. (1997). National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, D.C.
Betz, N.E. and Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 23, p. 329-345.
Boudreau, Charles A. and Kromrery, Jeffrey D. (1994). A longitudinal study of the retention and academic performance of participants in freshmen orientation course. Journal of College Student Development, Volume 35, Number 35, p. 444-449.
Boyer, E. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper Collins, 1987.
Cambiano, Renee L., Denny, George, S., De Vore, Jack B. (2000). College student retention at a midwestern university: a six-year study. Journal of College Admission, Number 166, Winter, p. 22-29.
Chickering, A.W. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
97
Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F. “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.” The Wingspread Journal, 1987, 9 (June Special Section), 2.
Chronicle of Higher Education, The Almanac Issue, 2001-2002, Volume XCVIII, Number 1.
Clements, Evelyn (1999). Creating a campus climate that truly values diversity. About Campus, 4, 23-25.
Covington, Martin V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, Volume 85, Number 1, p. 77-113.
Colton, George M., Connor Jr., Ulysses J., Shultz, Eileen L., Easter, Linda M. (1999). Fighting attrition: on freshman year program that targets academic progress and retention for at-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention, Volume 1(2), p. 147-162.
Creswell, John W.
Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994.
98
de Give, M. & Olswang, S.G. (1999) The making of a branch campus system: A statewide strategy of coalition building. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 287-313.
Dey, E.L., Astin, A.W., and Korn, W.S. The American Freshman: Twenty-Five Year Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, 1991.
Duran, R. (1994). Hispanic student achievement. In M. Justiz, R. Wilson & L. Bjork (Eds) Ethnic minorities in Higher Education. (pp.151-172) Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Dweck, C. and Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation in E.M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4, Socialization, personality, and social development, p 643-691, New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, Volume 41, p. 1040-1048.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, Volume 95, p. 256-273.
99
Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, p. 5-12.
Fidler, P. and Hunter, M. (1989). How seminars enhance student success. In M. Upcraft, J. Garner, & Associates, The freshman year experience: helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, L. (1988). State legislatures and the authority of colleges and universities: A comparative study of legislatures in four states, 1900-1979. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 133-159.
Fries-Britt, Sharon & Turner, Bridget (2002). Uneven Stories: successful lack collegian at a black and a white campus. The Review of Higher Education, Volume 25, p. 315-330.
Garms, W. (1986). The determinants of public revenues for higher and lower education: A thirty year perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8, 277-293.
Gerdes, Hilary and Mallinckrodt, Brent (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: a longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, Volume 72, Number 3, p. 281-288.
100
Gove, S.K., & Solomon, B.W. (1968). The politics of higher education. Educational Record, 58, 357-372.
Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in african americans. Review of Educational Research, Volume 64, p. 55-117.
Green, M.F. (Ed.). (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Green, Samuel B. and Salkind, Neil J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh, Analyzing and Understanding Data, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hackett, G. and Betz, N.E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 18, p. 326-339.
Hannah, S. (1996). The Higher Education Act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67,498-527.
101
Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within classroom: processes and patterns of change. In A.K. Boggiano & T.S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (p. 77-114). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkle, Dennis E. (1988). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Houghton Mifflin College Division.
House, J. Daniel (2000). Academic background and self-beliefs as predictors of student grade performance in science, engineering and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, Volume 27, Number 2, p. 207-220.
Hu, Shouping and St. John, Edward P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system: Understanding racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus, Ohio), Volume 72, Number 3, p. 265-286.
Hyman, H., Wright, C., and Reed, J. The Enduring Effects of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
102
Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and prescriptions. New York: Greenwood Press.
Jones, T. (1984). Public universities and the new state politics. Educational Record, 5, 10-12.
Justiz, M. (1994). Demographic trends and the challenges to American higher education. In M. Justiz, R. Wilson & L. Bjork, (Eds) Ethnic minorities in Higher Education. (pp. 1-21) Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Kalsner, L. (1991). Issues in college student retention. New York, NY: Higher Education Extension Service Review. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3 5 0 894).
Kemp, Arthur D.(1990). From matriculation to graduation: Focusing beyond minority retention. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, Volume 18 Issue3, p. 144-150.
Kuh, George and American College Personnel Association (1997). The Student Learning Imperative. One Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.
Kyung, W. (1996) In-migration of college students to the state of new york. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 349-358. 103
Lee, E.C., & Bowen, F.M. (1971). The Multicampus University. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, Wynetta Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African American students. Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 74, Number 2, p. 27-43.
Lefcourt, Herbert M., Martin, Rod A., and Saleh, Wendy E. (1984). Locus of control and social support: interactive moderators of stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 47, Number 2, p. 378-389.
Linnenbrink, Elizabeth, A. and Pintrich, Paul R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, Volume 19, p. 119-137.
McMahon, L. (1981). Independent college interest group influence on state policy (Report No. HE 014 691). Washington, DC: National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 213 300).
104
McNairy, Francine G. (1996). The challenge for higher education: Retaining students of color. New Directions for Student Services, Number 74 Summer, p. 3-14.
Meece, Judith L., Wigfield, Allan,, and Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions an performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 82, p. 60-70.
Mishel, Lawrence and Bernstein, Jared. (1995). The State of Working America. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Mooney, Scott, P., Sherman, Martin F., and Lo Presto, Charles T. (1991). Academic locus of control, self-esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of college adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, May/June, Volume 69, p. 445-448.
National Center for Education Statistics.(1988). Faculty in Higher Education Institutes, 1988. Contractor Report. Data Series DRNS OPF-87/88-I.27. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, March 1990.
105
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004) Mini-Digest of Education Statistic 2003. U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, October 2004.
Nichols, R. (1964). Effects of various college characteristics on student aptitude test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 55, p. 45-54.
Padilla, R., Trevino, J., and Gonzalez, K. (1997). Developing local models of minority student success in college. Journal of College Student Development, Volume 38, p. 125-135.
Pajares, Frank and Miller, David M. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and selfconcept beliefs in mathematical problem: a path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 86, Number 2, p. 193-203.
Pajares, Frank (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research. Washington: Winter 1996. Vol. 66, Issue 4; p. 543 -536.
Pajares, Frank (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: a review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, p. 139-158. 106
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21, p. 151-165.
Perry, Raymond (1999). Teaching for success: assisting helpless students in their academic development. Education Canada, Spring, Volume 39, Issue 1, p. 16.
Pinto, Jeffrey K., Geiger, Marshall A., and Boyle, Edmund J. (1994). A threeyear longitudinal study of changes in student learning styles. Volume 35, p. 113-119.
Pintrich, P.R. and DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 82, p. 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R. and Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R., and De Groot, E. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, p. 139-161. 107
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole Number 609).
Sandler, I.N. and Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: the role of control perceptions and social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, Volume 10, p. 65-80.
Schoen, L.G. and Winocur, S. (1988). An investigation of self-efficacy of male and female academics, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 32, p. 439-477.
Schunk, Dale H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), p. 207-231.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Sidle, Meg Wright and McReynolds, Janet (1999). The freshman year experience: student retention and student success. NASPA Journal, Volume 36, Number 4, Summer, p. 288-300.
108
Solberg, V. Scott, Hale, James Bradford, Villarreal, Pete, and Kavanagh, Jack. (1993). Development of the college stress inventory for use with hispanic populations: a confirmatory analytic approach. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Volume 15, Number 4, p. 490.497.
StatPac Incorporated (2004). www.statpac.com, p. 45
Stewart, Doreen and Vaux, Alan. (1986). Social support resources, behaviors, and perceptions among black and white college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, Volume 14, p. 67-72.
Strage, A. (1998). Family context variables and the development of selfregulation skills in college students. Adolescence, Volume 33, p. 17-32.
Strage, Amy. (2000). Predictors of college adjustment and success: similarities and differences among southeast-asian-american, hispanic and white students. Education. Chula Vista: Summer 2000, Volume 120, Issue 4, p. 731-742.
109
Strage, Amy, Baba, Yoko, Millner, Steven, Scharberg, Maureen, Walker, Ethel, Williamson, Rhea, and Yoder, Marian (2002). What every student affairs professional should know: student study activities and beliefs associated with academic success. Journal of College Student Development, March/April 2002, Volume 43, Number 2, p. 246-263.
Strommer, D.W. (1993). Portals of entry: university colleges and undergraduate divisions, National Resource Center, Columbia, SC.
Swail, W.S., Redd, K.E., and Perna, L.W. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education a framework for success. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report, Year 30, Part 2, all pages.
Texas Tech University Institutional Research and Information Management and Division of Enrollment Management. (2004). Fall 2004 Fact Sheet. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Tierney, William G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, Volume 63, Number 6 (November/December) p. 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. 110
Tracey, Terence J. and Sedlacek, William E. (1989). Factor structure of the noncognitive questionnaire-revised across samples of black and white college students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, Volume 49, p. 637-648.
Upcraft, M., Gardner, J., and Associates (1989). The freshman year experience: helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Warren, J. R. Patterns of College Experiences. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Cooperative Research Project S-327. Claremont, California: College Graduate School and University Center, 1966.
Weidmann, J. (1989). The world of higher education: a socialization-theoretical perspective. In K. Hurrelmann & U. Engel (Eds.) The Social World of Adolescents: International Perspectives. p. 87-105, New York: DeGruyter.
Wingard, T.L., Trevino, J.G., Dey, E.L., and Korn, W. S. The American College Student, 1989: National Norms for 1985 and 1987 College Freshmen. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.
111
Wright, J., & Mischel, W. (1992). Influence of affect on cognitive social learning person variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, p. 901-914.
Zumeta, W. (1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank: A framework for the design of state higher education policies for an era of increasing demand. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 367-425.
112
APPENDIX A STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY AS DEVELOPED BY DR. AMY STRAGE
113
Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey Dr. Amy Strage San Jose State University
Direct correspondence regarding this survey to: Dr. Amy Strage, Child Development Department San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0075. e-mail:
[email protected] Do not use without permission.
114
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTION SURVEY Instructions: Please answer the following questions on the scantron sheet provided. Work quickly but answer questions as thoughtfully and accurately as possible. Please indicate your CLASS LEVEL and SEX in the appropriate boxes on the left side of the answer form. Indicate your AGE in the two left-most columns of the box labeled TEST. And indicate the ETHNIC GROUP with which you identify the most by selecting one of the following codes and entering it into the two left-hand columns of the box labeled SPECIAL CODES. Code 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Ethnicity African-American Chinese-American Japanese-American Korean-American Vietnamese-American Other Southeast-Asian-American Mexican-American Central-American South-American Other Hispanic Pacific Islander Native-American European-American Other
1. Were you born in the United States? a. yes b. no 2. Was your mother born in the United States? a. yes b. no 3. Was your father born in the United States? a. yes b. no
115
4. How many of your grandparents were born in the United States? a. none b. one c. two d. three e. four 5. Where do you live during the school term? a. in a dormitory, fraternity, or sorority b. off campus, alone or with roommates c. with parent(s) d. with "significant other", own spouse and/or children e. other 6. How many hours per week are you employed in a typical semester? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (pull down) 7. How many units are you registered for in a typical semester? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (pull down) 8. What is your overall college GPA? 4.00 - 0.00 (pull down) 9. Are you the first person in your immediate family to attend college? a. yes b. no 10.
What is the highest educational level achieved by your father? a. some high school b. high school graduate c. some college d. college graduate e. some post-graduate education
11.
What is your father's age (now)? (or what would it be now, if he is deceased) 35 years – 70 years (pull down)
12.
What is the highest educational level achieved by your mother? a. some high school b. high school graduate c. some college d. college graduate e. some post-graduate education
116
13.
What is your mother's age (now)? (or what would it be now, if she is deceased) 35 years – 70 years
14.
Where do you fall in your family? (Include half- and step-siblings if you grew up with them.) a. only child b. oldest c. youngest d. somewhere in the middle
15.
How many brothers and sisters did you grow up with? (Include half- and step- siblings.) a. none b. one c. two d. three e. four or more
16.
How much older than you is the next older sibling in your family (that you grew up with)? a. less than 2 years older b. 2-3 years older c. 3 and a half to 6 years older d. 6 and a half or more years older e. you have no older siblings
17. How much younger than you is the next younger sibling in your family (that you grew up with)? a. less than 2 year younger b. 2-3 years younger c. 3 and a half to 6 years younger d. 6 and a half or more years younger e. you have no younger siblings 18.
Please indicate the parents present in your home when you were 8-10 years old: a. mother and father b. mother only c. father only d. mother and step-father e. father and step-mother
19. If your parents were divorced while you were a child, how old were you at the time of the separation? (Leave blank if your parents did not separate.) Less than 1 year old - 18 years old or older 20. If your parents were divorced while you were a child, and the parent you lived with remarried, how old were you at the time of the remarriage? (Leave blank if they did not remarry.) Less than 1 year old – 18 year old or older 117
21.
How would you describe your family's socio-economic status as you were growing up? a.upper-class, wealthy b.comfortable, upper middle-class c.comfortable, middle class d. getting by, lower middle class, working class e.challenged, poor, financially very strained _______________________________________________________________________________ _ To answer the following questions, bubble "A" for yes and "B" for no. _______________________________________________________________________________ _ 22. 23. 24. 25.
Are you the oldest male child in your family? Are you the oldest female child in your family? Are you the only male child in your family? Are you the only female child in your family?
_______________________________________________________________________________ To answer the next questions, please use the following scale: A B C D E strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly disagree disagree agree agree ____________________________________________________________________ 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
I see my parents as successful I see my parents as happy I admire my parents I worry about by parents My parents don't have any idea about what's important to me My parents encourage me to explore My parents impose very few restrictions on me My parents enforce rules strictly My parents expect me to have a direction for my future all figured out already My parents expect me to follow in their footsteps, professionally My parents expect me to graduate from college My parents are encouraging if I don't do well in school My parents are critical of my failures My parents worry about me My parents are proud of me My parents need my help My parents intrude into my life and my decisions My parents expect me to be self-sufficient financially I think I can live up to my parents' expectations of me 118
45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.
I feel that our roles are reversing, and that my parents need me to take care of them now I worry I will disappoint my parents As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my moral education As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my academic education As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my religious education As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on sports and extracurricular activities. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my understanding my cultural and ethnic background. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my bringing honor to my family As I was growing up, my family responsibilities (jobs, chores) interfered with my school work. As I was growing up, my family was close, emotionally As I was growing up, my father made high demands of me As I was growing up, my father expected me to follow orders As I was growing up, my father was very strict As I was growing up, my father scared me As I was growing up, my father was supportive if I was having problems As I was growing up, my father treated me with respect As I was growing up, my father let me set my own limits As I was growing up, my father was overbearing and intrusive As I was growing up, my father was critical of me and my decisions As I was growing up, my father told me what to do As I was growing up, my father explained things to me patiently As I was growing up, my father made me feel smart As I was growing up, my father was sometimes unable to be "there" for me, emotionally As I was growing up, my father made me feel stupid As I was growing up, my father ignored me As I was growing up, my father attached great importance to school As I was growing up, my father was proud of me As I was growing up, my father encouraged me to be independent As I was growing up, my father demanded respect As I was growing up, my father seemed depressed or overburdened by his responsibilities As I was growing up, my mother made high demands of me As I was growing up, my mother expected me to follow orders As I was growing up, my mother was very strict As I was growing up, my mother scared me As I was growing up, my mother was supportive if I was having problems As I was growing up, my mother treated me with respect As I was growing up, my mother let me set my own limits As I was growing up, my mother was overbearing and intrusive As I was growing up, my mother was critical of me and my decisions As I was growing up, my mother told me what to do As I was growing up, my mother explained things to me patiently 119
86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.
As I was growing up, my mother made me feel smart As I was growing up, my mother was sometimes unable to be "there" for me, emotionally As I was growing up, my mother made me feel stupid As I was growing up, my mother ignored me As I was growing up, my mother attached great importance to school As I was growing up, my mother was proud of me As I was growing up, my mother encouraged me to be independent As I was growing up, my mother demanded respect As I was growing up, my mother seemed depressed or overburdened by her responsibilities I am happy with my choice of major I have clear personal and career goals I feel in control of my life and my future I feel confident in my ability to complete college The thought of graduating and being done with school makes me anxious My confidence in my abilities has increased since I started college My confidence in my abilities has decreased since I started college I feel comfortable with the other students on campus I feel rapport with my instructors at college A college degree is an important step toward my future success The grades I earn are a good reflection of my abilities When I have an important test, I am able to focus on my work easily When I have an important test, I find I tend to procrastinate studying When I have an important test, I worry I won't do well enough for my own standards When I have an important test, I worry I won't do well enough for my parents' standards When I have an important test, I am distracted by fears of being underprepared When I have an important test, I dwell on how hard the material is, and I can't concentrate When I have an important test, things often seem to come up that prevent me from studying My goal in college is to learn things I care about My goal in college is to learn what I need to know so that I can get a good job My goal in college is to get good enough grades to satisfy myself My goal in college is to get good enough grades to satisfy my parents I am disappointed in myself if I get poor grades I am disappointed in myself if I don't do as well as I feel I can, regardless of the grade I get I pick electives according to my interests I pick electives according to how easy I think they will be I think of my instructors as resources to help me learn It is just a matter of time before my instructors uncover my lack of intelligence I tend to think of my mistakes and bad grades as "learning experiences" I tend to think of my mistakes and bad grades as indications of my inadequacies I turn in big assignments early, so that I can get feedback and work on them some more I feel comfortable asking questions in class I worry that asking questions in class might lead the instructor to think I am not very smart I would describe myself as impulsive I often act before thinking of all of the consequences of my actions I often start to answer a question without waiting to hear/read the entire question 120
131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175.
I work slowly and steadily I work fast When I am faced with a complicated question, I go with the first answer I think of When I am faced with a complicated question, I get confused by all the possible answers When I am faced with a complicated question, I approach it systematically I am a reflective person I try to participate in class, but others seem to be quicker to raise their hands I think my teachers think I am smart I think I am smarter than my teachers think I am I think I am not as smart as my teachers think I am I am a responsible person People seem to trust me People expect me to act responsibly When I was growing up, I had a lot of household responsibilities When I was growing up, I enjoyed most of my household responsibilites I am an independent thinker; I collect the facts and then make up my own mind My opinions about important matters are strongly influenced by my friends My opinions about important matters are strongly influenced by my family I would describe myself as a leader I would describe myself as a follower People look to me to make decisions I would describe myself as competitive I would describe myself as cooperative and good at reaching compromises I have good negotiating skills I look for the solution that benefits the most people I consider the effect of my behavior or decisions on others I see my role as setting the agenda for others to follow I see my role as implementing an agenda others have decided on I am good at manipulating people to get what I want I am popular among my peers I have good social skills I have good self-control in most areas of my life I feel comfortable in most new situations I am afraid I will not know how to behave/what to say in many new situations I am shy in most new situations When people in authority tell me what to do, I end up rebelling, in one way or another When people in authority tell me what to do, I comply without causing problems When people in authority tell me what to do, I try to get an explanation Sometimes I feel I do not have enough control over the direction my life is taking What happens to me is my own doing Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck has little to do with it Getting a good job depends mainly on being at the right place at the right time You are born with a fixed amount of intelligence; working hard makes no difference Your intelligence increases as you work hard, learn more and get better at things I am a happy person, most of the time 121
176. I feel too stressed out to really enjoy myself most of the time 177. I wish I were a child again 178. How do you feel about being in the birth order position that you are in your family? a. I like it, and wouldn't want to change b. I'd prefer being the oldest c. I'd prefer being in the middle d. I'd prefer being the youngest e. I'd prefer being an only child 179. I am interested in finding out more about this study (if yes, write your phone number on the scantron sheet) a. yes b.
no
122
APPENDIX B STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY CONSENT FORM
123
Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey Consent Form Candice Johnston of Texas Tech University is conducting this survey for her dissertation in the Higher Education program. Candice Johnston is responsible for this research project. If at any time you have questions about the survey you may reach her by telephone at (336) 272-7102 or by e-mail at
[email protected] The survey is designed to capture the perceptions of college students as it related to the relationship between grade point average and one’s rapport with instructors, rapport with peers, and motivation. Each of the variables will be examined across ethnic groups. It is important for you to complete each question, however you are free to skip a question if you prefer. The survey will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. The survey is anonymous and kept confidential, none of the responses can be linked to you personally. Your participation in the study is voluntary, and refusal to participate involves no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. If you are not 18 years of age please do not complete the survey. Please see your instructor regarding extra credit for this module. In an effort to encourage participation, by completing the survey you will receive extra credit for the EDIT 2318 course if you also complete the additional tasks required by your instructor. The survey counts as a module credit, its weight is the same as any other module credit. Only the researcher will be able to see your survey responses. They will be kept in a secure database and no one will be able to determine what your individual answers. You are not required to take the survey as part of the EDIT 2318 course. Each student enrolled in the EDIT 2318 course has the opportunity to participate in the study. There is no risk to you if you elect to not participate in the survey. Please note, Candice Johnston will answer any questions you have about this research project and survey. You may contact her by telephone at (336) 272-7102 extension 336, or by e-mail at
[email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a subject or about injuries that my be caused by this research, contact Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409, or you can call (806) 742-3884. This consent is not valid after, (date will be given once study is approved). By clicking the link below you are giving your consent to participate in the survey. Please click the following link if you would like to complete Module 10 and participate in the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey. Thank you!
124
APPENDIX C HUMAN SUBJECTS MEMORANDUM
125
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:
Protection of Human Subjects Committee Candice G. Johnston Doctoral Candidate, Doctor of Education, Higher Education September 26, 2005 Proposal for Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey
The following is a proposal to survey students enrolled in the EDIT 2318 course taught in the College of Education. The Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey was developed by Dr. Amy Strage, a professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Development within the College of Education at San Jose State University. Dr. Strage has given permission to the researcher to use the instrument. The researcher seeks to examine college success by exploring student motivation, student rapport rating with peers as well as faculty members, and self-reported grade point averages. Once approved and implemented, the web-based survey will be open for all EDIT 2318 students. Students are not required to complete the survey; it is part of an extra credit module and optional for students. If students are not 18 years of age then they are directed to not complete the survey. The field of IP has been deleted in an effort to protect the students. None of the IP addresses from survey participants are being captured to ensure anonymity. I. The rationale for this survey is to provide the researcher with information needed to gain an understanding of the relationship between self-reported grade point average and motivation, rapport with peers, and rapport with instructors. Each of these relationships will be examined across ethnic groups. This study will benefit higher education professionals by providing insight into potential predictors of college student success. II. The researcher intends to survey all EDIT 2318 students willing to participate in the study. In an attempt to survey between 500 – 800 students, the students are eligible for extra credit in their course. The survey is web based and easily accessed by any EDIT 2318 student interested in participating. Student information is confidential and not linked in any way to their identity. The course instructors will not be able to view student responses. Students under the age of 18 are asked to not complete the survey, since their participation would require parental consent. If a student under the age of 18 seeks to earn the extra credit by completing the survey, Module 10, they will be directed to their course instructor. III. Procedurally, students of the EDIT 2318 course choosing to take the approximately fifteen (15) minute survey will select Module 10 which is an internet link taking them to a consent form page detailing the survey. This page will again mention the voluntary and confidential nature of the survey. Students interested in completing the survey will be 126
directed to a link to the survey. Responses will be viewed only by the researcher, Candice G. Johnston. This will help to ensure total confidentiality of student responses. Students are able to leave their contact information at the end of the survey, this is not required. No individual identification information is required of students. Unique “IP” addresses from survey participants are not being captured; this will assist in ensuring complete anonymity. In terms of benefits, the students are able to earn extra credit for the EDIT 2318 course by completing the survey. This survey was created by Dr. Amy Strage, Dr. Amy Strage, a professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Development within the College of Education at San Jose State University. Dr. Strage provided the researcher with the survey and gave permission for use. IV. There is not a specific liability plan offered as there is limited danger to survey participants. Unique “IP” addresses from survey participants are not being captured, assisting to ensure complete anonymity. It is not the goal of the researcher to use the data obtained to make contact with students to solicit any additional information regarding the survey. If students are interested in receiving additional information or have questions regarding the survey or its content there is a field for their telephone number. If students leave their telephone numbers the researcher will contact them directly. V. In terms of consent, attached is a consent form that survey participants are directed to read prior to taking the survey. A participant must “click” that he or she has read the form and is willing to continue with survey. VI. The can be reached for clarification and questions by telephone at (336) 272-7102, extension 336, and by e-mail at
[email protected], in addition Dr. Burkhalter may be reached by telephone at (806) 742-8694, and by e-mail at
[email protected]. The committee’s assistance and guidance is appreciated. Sincerely, Candice G. Johnston Doctoral Candidate, Doctor of Education – Higher Education Attachments: Consent Form; Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey cc:
Dr. James P. Burkhalter, Dissertation Committee, College of Education Dr. Hansel Burley, Dissertation Co-Committee, College of Education Dr. Bonita Butner, Dissertation Co-Chair, former faculty College of Education 127
APPENDIX D HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
128
Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects Office of Research Services 203 Holden Hall / MS 1035 742-3884
October 21, 2005 James Burkhalter Vice President for Student Affairs Mail Stop: 1141 Regarding: 500170 Predictors of College Success Among African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic Students Dr. James Burkhalter: The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee has approved your proposal referenced above. The approval is effective from October 18, 2005 through September 30, 2006. This expiration date must appear on all of your consent documents. You will be reminded of the pending expiration approximately eight weeks prior to September 30, 2006 and asked to give updated information about the project. If you request an extension, the proposal on file and the information you provide will be routed for continuing review. Best of luck on your project. Sincerely,
Richard P. McGlynn, Chair Protection of Human Subjects Committee
129
APPENDIX E STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY ON-LINE VERSION USED FOR THE STUDY
130
STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTION SURVEY Instructions: Please answer the following questions on the screen provided. Work quickly but answer questions as thoughtfully and accurately as possible. _ Your class level: _ Gender: Male _ Ethnic group:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Female
African-American Chinese-American
Japanese-American
Korean-American
Vietnamese-American
Other Southeast-Asian-American
Mexican-American
Central-American
South-American
Other Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Native-American
European-American
Other _ _ 1. Were you born in the United States?
yes
no 2. Was your mother born in the United States?
yes
no 3. Was your father born in the United States?
yes
no
131
Senior
Graduate
4. How many of your grandparents were born in the United States?
none
one
two
three
four 5. Where do you live during the school term?
in a dormitory, fraternity, or sorority
off campus, alone or with roommates
with parent(s)
with "significant other", own spouse and/or children
other
6. How many hours per week are you employed in a typical semester? _ 7. How many units are you registered for in a typical semester? 8. What is your overall college GPA?
0
0
0.0
9. Are you the first person in your immediate family to attend college?
yes
no
10. What is the highest educational level achieved by your father?
some high school
high school graduate
some college
college graduate
some post-graduate education
11. What is your father's age (now)? (or what would it be now, if he is deceased)
132
35
years
12. What is the highest educational level achieved by your mother?
some high school
high school graduate
some college
college graduate
some post-graduate education 35
13. What is your mother's age (now)? (or what would it be now, if she is deceased) years 14. Where do you fall in your family? (Include half- and step-siblings if you grew up with them.)
only child
oldest
youngest
somewhere in the middle 15. How many brothers and sisters did you grow up with? (Include half- and step- siblings.)
none
one
two
three
four or more
16. How much older than you is the next older sibling in your family (that you grew up with)?
less than 2 years older
2-3 years older
3 and a half to 6 years older
6 and a half or more years older
you have no older siblings 17. How much younger than you is the next younger sibling in your family (that you grew up with)?
less than 2 year younger
2-3 years younger
3 and a half to 6 years younger
6 and a half or more years younger
133
you have no younger siblings
18. Please indicate the parents present in your home when you were 8-10 years old:
mother and father
mother only
father only
mother and step-father
father and step-mother 19. If your parents were divorced while you were a child, how old were you at the time of the separation? Not seperate
_ _ 20. If your parents were divorced while you were a child, and the parent you lived with remarried, how old were you at the time of the remarriage? Not remarry
21. How would you describe your family's socio-economic status as you were growing up?
upper-class, wealthy
comfortable, upper middle-class
comfortable, middle class
getting by, lower middle class, working class
_
challenged, poor, financially very strained
22. Are you the oldest male child in your family?
Yes
23. Are you the oldest female child in your family? _ 24. Are you the only male child in your family? _ 25. Are you the only female child in your family?
No
Yes Yes
No No
Yes
No
26. I see my parents as successful Strongly disagree _ 27. I see my parents as happy
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Strongly disagree _ 28. I admire my parents
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
134
Somewhat agree
Stronglyagree
_ 29. I worry about by parents Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 30. My parents don't have any idea about what's important to me
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 31. My parents encourage me to explore
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 32. My parents impose very few restrictions on me
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 33. My parents enforce rules strictly
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 34. My parents expect me to have a direction for my future all figured out already
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 35. My parents expect me to follow in their footsteps, professionally
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 36. My parents expect me to graduate from college
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 37. My parents are encouraging if I don't do well in school
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 38. My parents are critical of my failures
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 39. My parents worry about me
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 40. My parents are proud of me
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 41. My parents need my help
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 42. My parents intrude into my life and my decisions
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 43. My parents expect me to be self-sufficient financially
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
135
44. I think I can live up to my parents' expectations of me _
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
45. I feel that our roles are reversing, and that my parents need me to take care of them now Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 46. I worry I will disappoint my parents
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 47. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my moral education
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 48. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my academic education
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 49. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my religious education
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 50. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on sports and extracurricular activities.
Strongly agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree _ 51. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my understanding my cultural and ethnic background. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 52. As I was growing up, my parents placed great importance on my bringing honor to my family
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 53. As I was growing up, my family responsibilities (jobs, chores) interfered with my school work.
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 54. As I was growing up, my family was close, emotionally
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 55. As I was growing up, my father made high demands of me
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 56. As I was growing up, my father expected me to follow orders
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
57. As I was growing up, my father was very strict Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 58. As I was growing up, my father scared me
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
136
_ 59. As I was growing up, my father was supportive if I was having problems Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 62. As I was growing up, my father was overbearing and intrusive
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 63. As I was growing up, my father was critical of me and my decisions
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 64. As I was growing up, my father told me what to do
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 65. As I was growing up, my father explained things to me patiently
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 67 As I was growing up, my father was sometimes unable to be "there" for me, emotionally
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 68. As I was growing up, my father made me feel stupid
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 69. As I was growing up, my father ignored me
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 70. As I was growing up, my father attached great importance to school
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 71. As I was growing up, my father was proud of me
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 72. As I was growing up, my father encouraged me to be independent
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 73. As I was growing up, my father demanded respect
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
60. As I was growing up, my father treated me with respect Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 61. As I was growing up, my father let me set my own limits
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
66. As I was growing up, my father made me feel smart
137
Neutral
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 74 As I was growing up, my father seemed depressed or overburdened by his responsibilities Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 76. As I was growing up, my mother expected me to follow orders
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 77. As I was growing up, my mother was very strict
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 78. As I was growing up, my mother scared me
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 79. As I was growing up, my mother was supportive if I was having problems
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 80. As I was growing up, my mother treated me with respect
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 81. As I was growing up, my mother let me set my own limits
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 82. As I was growing up, my mother was overbearing and intrusive
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 83. As I was growing up, my mother was critical of me and my decisions
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 85. As I was growing up, my mother explained things to me patiently
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 86. As I was growing up, my mother made me feel smart
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 87. As I was growing up, my mother was sometimes unable to be "there" for me, emotionally
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly agree
75. As I was growing up, my mother made high demands of me
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
84. As I was growing up, my mother told me what to do
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
138
Neutral
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
88. As I was growing up, my mother made me feel stupid Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 89. As I was growing up, my mother ignored me
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 92. As I was growing up, my mother encouraged me to be independent
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 94. As I was growing up, my mother seemed depressed or overburdened by her responsibilities
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 95. I am happy with my choice of major
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 96. I have clear personal and career goals
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 97. I feel in control of my life and my future
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 98. I feel confident in my ability to complete college
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 99. The thought of graduating and being done with school makes me anxious
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 100. My confidence in my abilities has increased since I started college
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 101. My confidence in my abilities has decreased since I started college
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
90. As I was growing up, my mother attached great importance to school Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 91. As I was growing up, my mother was proud of me
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
93. As I was growing up, my mother demanded respect
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
102. I feel comfortable with the other students on campus
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
139
_ 103. I feel rapport with my instructors at college Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 104. A college degree is an important step toward my future success
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 106. When I have an important test, I am able to focus on my work easily
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 107. When I have an important test, I find I tend to procrastinate studying
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 108. When I have an important test, I worry I won't do well enough for my own standards
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 109. When I have an important test, I worry I won't do well enough for my parents' standards
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 110. When I have an important test, I am distracted by fears of being underprepared
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
105. The grades I earn are a good reflection of my abilities
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
111. When I have an important test, I dwell on how hard the material is, and I can't concentrate Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 112. When I have an important test, things often seem to come up that prevent me from studying
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 113. My goal in college is to learn things I care about
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 114. My goal in college is to learn what I need to know so that I can get a good job
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 115. My goal in college is to get good enough grades to satisfy myself
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 116. My goal in college is to get good enough grades to satisfy my parents
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 117. I am disappointed in myself if I get poor grades
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
140
Neutral
Neutral
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 118. I am disappointed in myself if I don't do as well as I feel I can, regardless of the grade I get
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 119. I pick electives according to my interests
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 122. It is just a matter of time before my instructors uncover my lack of intelligence
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 123. I tend to think of my mistakes and bad grades as "learning experiences"
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 124. I tend to think of my mistakes and bad grades as indications of my inadequacies
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 125. I turn in big assignments early, so that I can get feedback and work on them some more
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 126. I feel comfortable asking questions in class
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 127. I worry that asking questions in class might lead the instructor to think I am not very smart
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 128. I would describe myself as impulsive
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
120. I pick electives according to how easy I think they will be Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 121. I think of my instructors as resources to help me learn
Neutral
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 129. I often act before thinking of all of the consequences of my actions
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 130. I often start to answer a question without waiting to hear/read the entire question
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 131. I work slowly and steadily
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_
141
132. I work fast Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 133. When I am faced with a complicated question, I go with the first answer I think of
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 134. When I am faced with a complicated question, I get confused by all the possible answers
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 137. I try to participate in class, but others seem to be quicker to raise their hands
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
135. When I am faced with a complicated question, I approach it systematically Strongly disagree _ 136. I am a reflective person
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 139. I think I am smarter than my teachers think I am
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 140. I think I am not as smart as my teachers think I am
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 141. I am a responsible person
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 142. People seem to trust me
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 143. People expect me to act responsibly
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 144. When I was growing up, I had a lot of household responsibilities
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 145. When I was growing up, I enjoyed most of my household responsibilites
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 146. I am an independent thinker; I collect the facts and then make up my own mind
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
138. I think my teachers think I am smart
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
142
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_ 147. My opinions about important matters are strongly influenced by my friends Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 148. My opinions about important matters are strongly influenced by my family
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 149. I would describe myself as a leader
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 151. People look to me to make decisions
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 152. I would describe myself as competitive
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 153. I would describe myself as cooperative and good at reaching compromises
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 154. I have good negotiating skills
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 155. I look for the solution that benefits the most people
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 156. I consider the effect of my behavior or decisions on others
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 157. I see my role as setting the agenda for others to follow
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 158. I see my role as implementing an agenda others have decided on
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 159. I am good at manipulating people to get what I want
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 160. I am popular among my peers
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree _ 161. I have good social skills
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
150. I would describe myself as a follower
143
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 162. I have good self-control in most areas of my life
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 163. I feel comfortable in most new situations
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 164. I am afraid I will not know how to behave/what to say in many new situations
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 166. When people in authority tell me what to do, I end up rebelling, in one way or another
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 167. When people in authority tell me what to do, I comply without causing problems
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 168. When people in authority tell me what to do, I try to get an explanation
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 169. Sometimes I feel I do not have enough control over the direction my life is taking
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 170. What happens to me is my own doing
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 172. Getting a good job depends mainly on being at the right place at the right time
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 173. You are born with a fixed amount of intelligence; working hard makes no difference
Strongly agree
_
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
165. I am shy in most new situations
Neutral
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral _ 171. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck has little to do with it
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
174. Your intelligence increases as you work hard, learn more and get better at things Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree _ 175. I am a happy person, most of the time _
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
144
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
176. I feel too stressed out to really enjoy myself most of the time Strongly disagree _ 177. I wish I were a child again
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree _ 178. How do you feel about being in the birth order position that you are in your family?
Strongly agree
I like it, and wouldn't want to change
I'd prefer being the oldest
I'd prefer being in the middle
I'd prefer being the youngest
Neutral
I'd prefer being an only child 179. I am interested in finding out more about this study (if yes, write your phone number on the blank filed)
yes, phone number no
_ Submit
145
APPENDIX F PERMISSION FROM DR. AMY STRAGE TO USE THE STUDENT ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY
146
Message From:
Amy Strage
Subject:
SAPS survey
Date:
Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:26:46 -0800
To:
[email protected]
Candice, Once again, it was delightful to chat yesterday. I've of reprints including a copy of the survey we used in study. And here, attached, as MS-Word documents are the SAPS scale information. I hope this is all helpful to you. know how your own research develops.
sent you a packet the more recent survey and some Please let me
Amy
Attachment: STRAGE.SAPS.survey. (67Kbytes) Attachment: Strage.SAPS.scale.info (22Kbytes)
147
APPENDIX G ANCILLARY ANAYSES
148
Summary of Data Analysis Research Question 1: Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation Is there a relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups? Achievement Motivation was defined by three indices: Persistence, Task involvement, and Academic confidence.
According to Strage, “High
scores on these latter three scales reflected a “mastery” orientation. Low scores on these scales reflected the presence of a “learned helpless” orientation, (p. 3). Each of the three indices was measured with separate items on the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey. The survey items are detailed in Table 4.6. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and achievement motivation across ethnic groups. The independent variable was ethnicity and the dependent variables were grade point average and achievement motivation. Significant differences were found among the three ethnic groups, Wilks’s λ = .96, F(4, 576) = 2.83, p < .01. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s λ was strong, .019. Table 4.6 contains the means and the standard deviations on the dependent variables for grade point average and achievement motivation. 149
Analyses of variances (ANOVA) on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Using the Tukey HSD method, each ANOVA was tested at the .025 level. The ANOVA on the achievement motivation scores was not significant, F(2, 289) = 1.27, p < .01, η2 = .009, while the ANOVA on the grade point average scores was significant, F(2, 289) = 4.72, p < .010, η2 = .032. Although the findings were statistically significant they were not practically significant. The findings met the level for significance, although just barely. A low sample size contributed to the low level of significance. Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for the achievement motivation scores consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to find a relationship between any of the ethnic groups. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .025 divided by 3 or .008 level. There was a significant difference between the ethnic groups regarding achievement motivation.
Table AG1 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Achievement Motivation
Achievement Motivation ____________________ Ethnicity
Grade Point Average _________________
M
SD
M
African-American
3.53
.514
2.69
.4914
Caucasian
3.68
.403
3.08
.582
Hispanic
3.69
.384
2.97
.521
150
SD
Research Question 2: Rating of Rapport with Peers and Grade Point Average A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with peers across ethnic groups. The independent variable was ethnicity and the dependent variables were grade point average and rating of rapport with peers. Significant differences were found among the three ethnic groups, Wilks’s λ = .98, F(4, 576) = 1.68, p < .056. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s λ was not strong, .012. Table 4.7 contains the means and the standard deviations on the dependent variables for grade point average and rapport with peers. Analyses of variances (ANOVA) on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Using the Tukey HSD method, each ANOVA was tested at the .025 level. The ANOVA on the rating of rapport with peers scores was not significant, F(2, 289) = .818, p < .056, η2 = .442, while the ANOVA on the grade point average scores were significant, F(2, 289) = 2.92, p < .056, η2 = .020. Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for the rating of rapport with peers scores consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to find a relationship between any of the ethnic groups. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .025 divided by 3 or .008 level. There was a significant difference between any of the ethnic groups.
151
Table AG2 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Peers
Rapport with Peers ____________________ Ethnicity
Grade Point Average _________________
M
SD
M
SD
African-American
3.94
.743
2.69
.505
Caucasian
4.08
.515
3.04
.645
Hispanic
4.02
.556
2.99
.605
Research Question 3: Rating of Rapport with Instructors and Grade Point Average Is there a relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups? A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between grade point average and rating of rapport with instructors across ethnic groups. The independent variable was ethnicity and the dependent variables were grade point average and rating of rapport with
152
instructors. No significant differences were found among the three ethnic groups, Wilks’s λ = .97, F(4, 588) = 2.34, p < .017. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s λ was not strong, .016. Table 4.8 contains the means and the standard deviations on the dependent variables for grade point average and rapport with instructors. Analyses of variances (ANOVA) on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Using the Tukey HSD method, each ANOVA was tested at the .025 level. The ANOVA on the rating of rapport with instructors scores was significant, F(2, 295) = .118, p < .889, η2 = .001, while the ANOVA on the grade point average scores was also significant, F(2, 295) = 4.12, p < .017, η2 = .027. Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for the rating of rapport with instructors scores consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to find a relationship between any of the ethnic groups. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .025 divided by 3 or .008 level. There was not a significant difference between any of the ethnic groups.
Table AG3 Relationship between Grade Point Average and Rating of Rapport with Peers
Rapport with Instructors ____________________ Ethnicity
Grade Point Average _________________
M
SD
M
African-American
3.28
.667
2.69
.492
Caucasian
3.24
.724
3.06
.603
153
SD
Hispanic
3.28
.576
154
2.96
.516
