Students’ academic success and its association to student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers
Hafeez Ullah
This study examines undergraduate students’ academic achievement and its association with students’ involvement with learning, students’ relationships with faculty and students’ relationships with peers at a Midwestern public University. To examine students’ academic achievement, this study uses three years of data (2003-05) collected through the administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement. Using regression analysis, the study concludes that students’ active involvement with learning positively influences their academic achievement. Moreover, students’ relationships with faculty influence their academic achievement significantly. The relationship between students’ connection with peers and academic achievement, however, is not simple. Female students’ relationships with peers influence academic achievement positively. Whereas, male students’ relationships with peers influence their academic achievement negatively. These finding provide valuable information in developing curricular and co-curricular programming. However, more information is needed to determine how the male-to-male peer relationship differs from their female counterparts, and whether there is a difference in academic achievement based upon relationships that are identified as more academically based versus those that are more socially grounded.
**********
Discovering tangible links to students’ academic success in higher education has been the cornerstone for a multitude of research projects. Today, many institutions are eager to find new ways to utilize information from some of the more popular assessment instruments to help define student success on their campuses. One such popular evaluation is the National Survey of Student Engagement. Pairing information regarding student engagement to academic achievement can provide institutions with yet another perspective of what influences academic success.
Students ‘Academic Achievement
Lufi (2003) examined student persistence in higher education. She found that academic persistence was positively associated with college grades. The persistent group had significantly higher GPA than the non-persistent group. It was concluded that success in college contributes to the ability to persist while lower grades hinder the ability to persist in college.
DeBerard, Spielmans, and Julka (2004) examined predictors of first-year academic achievement. They assessed students on various dimensions during the first week of their freshmen year, and at the beginning of the following academic year. Using a multiple linear regression model, they found that GPA and SAT scores accounted for a substantial variation in academic achievement. They reported that their model was useful in identifying students at high risk for low academic performance, as well as identifying appropriate intervention strategies for improving academic performance in the first-year.
Investigating the academic performance of transfer versus native students, Johnson (2005) found no difference between the two groups. The average GPA for out-of-state transfer students was higher (by an average of 0.03 grade points) than for state resident students. However, this difference in GPA disappeared when effects of high school GPA and graduation age were controlled.
Students’ Engagement with Learning
Astin (1984) examined the connection between learning and students’ involvement, and presented his theory of student development – that students learn by becoming involved. He proclaimed that students’ learning and developmental outcomes are directly proportional to student involvement in the college experience; and it is both the quantity and quality of involvement that students invest in their college experience that make a difference. Students’ involvement may take place in several forms such as academic activities, co-curricular activities, and interaction with peers, faculty and administration. Astin (1993) reiterated that although contents and classroom teaching techniques are important, the most important factor is what students do while in college -“how motivated they are and how much time and energy they are devoting to the learning process (p. 305).” Astin (1993) also concluded that learning, academic performance, and retention were positively associated with students’ involvement with academics, faculty and peers.
Activities such as student-faculty interaction, student-student interaction, institutional emphasis on diversity, participation in extra-curricular activities, student interaction with faculty outside the classroom and quality of relations with peers have been positively associated with student persistence and educational attainment. Kuh and colleagues (1994) suggested that students should evaluate the quality of their relations with peers and teachers, discuss their academic progress, and how/what they are learning in classes. These conclusions were also supported by Graunke and Woosley (2005) who examined the effects of sophomore students’ experiences and attitudes on their academic performance. They concluded that commitment to an academic major and satisfaction with faculty interaction are important predictors of sophomore success.
Farmer-Dougan, James, and McKinney (2000) examined students’ engagement and they identified five predictors of students’ engagement with learning: 1) enrollment in classes which use or are required to use computers, 2) satisfaction with grade compensation, 3) ability to deal with other students, 4) task identity, and 5) class discussion format. They emphasized that classroom settings which provide opportunities and support for student interactions, computer technology and challenging tasks are helpful in promoting students’ engagement with learning. Moreover, student interaction with peers and an understanding of the meaning of their performance in academics could contribute to engagement.
Examining the relationship between faculty’s educational practices and student engagement, Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) concluded that the educational context created by faculty influenced student learning and engagement considerably. Students had greater engagement and learning when instructors used active and collaborative learning methods, engaged students in experiences, emphasized higher-order cognitive skills, challenged students in academics, interacted with students, and emphasized activities for enriching students’ experiences.
Students’ academic achievement is an important indicator of their success in achieving their goals for higher education (Pascarella & Terenzinin, 1991). A student’s success is influenced tremendously by the individual academic ability, characteristics, and involvement with the learning activities in academic institutions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Given the importance of student learning, most of the research studies in this area have emphasized student involvement with learning (Astin, 1984), established learning outcomes (Kuh, Douglas, Lund, Ramin-Gyurnek, 1994), presented a talent development perspective (Jacobi, Astin, & Ayala, 1987), identified predictors of engagement (Farmer-Dougan, James, and McKinney, 2000; McKlusky, 2004) and recognized effective educational practices of teaching and learning (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). Nonetheless, even now higher education institutions are struggling to identify programs and services that could be helpful to students to achieve their educational goals. They continue seeking strategies that could be effective in improving students’ achievement. The part of the problem is that there is a lack of understanding about the relationship of academic achievement and factors associated with it. The purpose of this study was to examine students’ academic achievement and its association with students’ involvement with learning, students’ relationship with faculty, and students’ relationship with peers at a Midwestern public university.
Methods
Description of Data and Sampling
Procedure
Data for this study were derived from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) administered annually at a Midwestern public university from 20032005. The instrument was administered to undergraduate students (first-year students and seniors) in the spring semester of 2003, 2004, and 2005. Each year, the sample was drawn randomly from the population file that included the information of all enrolled first-year students and seniors.
After receiving the population file that contains information of all undergraduate students, NSSE selected first-year students and seniors randomly according to the sample request of the institution. In 2003, NSSE selected a sample of 500 students from each group (first-year and senior students); and in 2004, a sample of 1,000 students from both first-year and senior students was selected. Similarly, in 2005, NSSE selected a sample of 2,000 students from each group of students. The response rate was 44.0% for first-year students and 35.4% for seniors in 2003, 36.5% and 34.4% in 2004, and 50.8% and 49.2% in 2005 for first-year and senior students respectively.
Instrument
The National Survey of Student Engagement, Indiana University, developed the survey to evaluate undergraduate students’ engagement with learning in higher education institutions (Kuh, 2001). The survey consists of 29 questions with various scales of response, depending upon the nature of the question. Primarily, this instrument encompasses students’ engagement with learning activities as well as the institutional supportive environment for learning. Some of the questions are related to students’ activities, students’ course work, reading and writing, quality of academic advising, experiences that contributed to students’ knowledge, skills, personal development, students’ relationships with peers, faculty and administration. In addition, the survey includes information regarding gender, ethnicity, current enrollment status, and educational experiences at the institution. NSSE supports the validity and reliability of the survey, by reporting very consistent results since its initial release in 2001 (Kuh, 2003).
Data Collection
Academic achievement was defined by the students’ cumulative grade point average (GPA). The cumulative GPA of students was obtained from the fall term record prior to the administration of NSSE the following spring semester. The cumulative GPA could range from 0.0 to 4.0. Students’ ACT scores were obtained from their admission record maintained by the university. The student’s age was computed from the birth year provided by the students in the NSSE survey and gender information was also gathered from the NSSE data. Specific NSSE items utilized for this study included:
a.) Students asked questions or contributed to class discussion (Measured on a four-point scale, where 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often)
b.) Quality of students’ relationship with faculty (Measured on a seven-point scale, where 1 was unavailable/unhelpful, and 7 was available/helpful.)
c.) Quality of students’ relationship with peers (Measured on a seven-point scale, where 1 was unavailable/unhelpful, and 7 was available/helpful.)
Results
Participants of the study included 2,160 undergraduate students (first-year students = 1,122; seniors = 1,038) enrolled at a Midwestern public university. There were 1,474 female (68.2%), 686 males (31.8%), and the mean age for the sample was 20.9 years, with a range from 16 to 62 years. Of the total number of students, 88.6% were Caucasians, 5.4% were African-American, 2.3% were Hispanic, 1.9% were Asian, and 1.8% belonged to other ethnic categories. The sample characteristics were very similar to the entire campus community. Of the total participants, 397 students participated in 2003, 733 participated in 2004, and 1,030 participated in 2005.
Students’ (n = 2160) mean cumulative GPA for all three years was 3.05 [+ or -] 0.62. The average ACT scores was 23.40 [+ or -] 3.36 with a range of 13-35 [+ or -] 3.36. Based upon the NSSE items, quality of student relationship with faculty was 5.32 [+ or -] 1.39, which was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Similarly, the mean of quality of students’ relationship with peers was 5.67 [+ or -] 1.21, which was also measured using the seven-point Likert scale. Table 1 provides a summary of all outcome and independent variables.
Correlations Among Variables
Table 2 presents Pearson r correlations among variables used for the study. Correlations among variables were helpful in identifying good predictors of achievement and prevalent autocorrelation among independent variables. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between student academic achievement (GPA) and ACT scores (r = 0.23). A moderate positive correlation between academic achievement and students’ age (r = 0.46) indicated that age helped to explain variation in achievement. Students’ relationships with faculty had a significant positive correlation with academic achievement (r = 0.16); whereas, students’ relationship with peers had a low positive correlation with academic achievement (r = 0.05). A significant positive correlation existed between students’ relationship with faculty and their age (r =0.13).
Regression for Predicting Students’ Academic Achievement
Linear multiple regression in which five predictors was used to determine students’ academic achievement was conducted. The predictors included: 1) age of the students, 2) ACT scores, 3) asking questions or contribution in class discussion, 4) students’ relationship with faculty and 5) interaction term of students’ relationships with peers and gender. Results indicated that the regression model was significant (F (5, 1697) = 39.75, p = 0.00), though it accounted for only 10% of the total variance in academic achievement. In addition, all coefficients were statistically significant. A summary of these findings is provided in Table 3.
The researchers included students’ age and students’ ACT scores as predictors for representing students’ characteristics and students’ academic ability respectively (Table 3). Students’ age was a significant predictor for students’ academic achievement ([beta] = 0.02 t = 2.35, p < 0.05). Similarly, students' ACT scores had significant influence on students' achievement ([beta] = 0.05, t = 10.67, p < 0.05). Students' active involvement with learning in class or contributing to class discussions as measured by NSSE had a positive effect on students' academic achievement ([beta] = 0.06, t = 3.35, p < 0.05). Students' relationship with faculty was also a significant predictor for students' academic achievement as measured by cumulative GPA ([beta] = 0.06, t = 4.66, p < 0.05).
Since students’ relationships with peers had an insignificant effect on their academic achievement, the researchers created an interaction term, which was product of students’ relationship with peers and gender of students. The purpose of this interaction term was to determine if students’ relationship with peers differ between male and female students. In addition to chosen predictors (age, ACT scores, students asked questions or contributed to class discussions, quality of students’ relationships with faculty), the researchers included the interaction terms for predicting students academic achievement. The results revealed a statistically significant interaction between gender and students’ relationship with peers (, = 0.02, t= 40.81, p< 0.05) (Table 3).
To determine the nature of interaction between genders, the researchers computed multiple regression equations by gender. Assuming both males and females had the overall average age, average ACT scores, average of students’ involvement with learning, and average level of students’ relationships with faculty, the researchers identified a disordinal interaction between students’ relationships with peers and gender of the students. Female students’ relationships with peers had a positive effect on their academic achievement; whereas, male students relationships with peers had a negative effect on their academic achievement.
Discussion
Results of this study indicated that students’ ACT scores and age were important predictors for their academic achievement After controlling the effects of all other variables, students’ ACT scores also had a significant effect on their academic achievement ([beta] = 0.05, t = 3.35, p < 0.00). On average, a 1% percent change in ACT scores was associated with a 5% change in students' academic achievement. Similarly, the difference of one year in a student's age was associated with .02% percent change in academic achievement. These results are similar to the past research on predicting academic achievement. When attempting to predict freshmen's academic achievement, DeBerard, Spielmans, and Dinke (2004) found that high school GPA and SAT scores accounted for a substantial variation in academic achievement. In the same way, Johnson (2005) reported that high school GPA and student age are significant predictors for students' college achievement.
Students’ active involvement with learning had the greatest effect on their academic achievement ([beta] = 0.06, t = 3.35, p < 0.05). After controlling the effect for all other variables, students' active involvement had a positive effect on students' academic achievement. On average, a 1.0 positive change in active involvement with learning was associated with a positive .06 change in academic achievement as measured by cumulative GPA. These results are consistent with the Kember and Leung's (2005) findings in which they concluded that active learning strategies influence the development of students' capabilities significantly.
The results showed that students’ relationships with faculty have a positive effect on their overall academic achievement as measured by cumulative GPA ([beta] = 0.06, t= 4.66, p < 0.05). When holding all other variables constant, a 1.0 positive change in the quality of students' relationships with faculty was associated with a .06 positive change in their academic achievement. These results were similar to past research findings regarding students' relationships with faculty and its influence on student achievement, which concluded that satisfaction with faculty interaction was an important predictor of students' achievement (Graunke and Woosley, 2005).
Analyses suggest that the connection between peer relationships and achievement is not simple. The results revealed that gender was moderating the effects of students’ relationships with peers on their academic achievement ([beta] = 0.02, t = 4.81, p < 0.05). Students' relationships with peers were not always favorable for male students. Male student academic achievement decreased with an improvement in their relationships with peers. Female students' academic achievement, on the other hand, was positively associated with the quality of their relationships with peers as measured by NSSE. These results indicated that programs dedicated towards improving undergraduate education must take into account the gender differences. These results are supported by Chee, Pino, and Smith (2005) who concluded that a female undergraduate will have a higher GPA if she actively participates in student organizations or groups, has a higher locus of control, and misses or skips class infrequently. On the other hand, a male undergraduate is likely to have a higher GPA if he has a higher SAT score, belongs to a higher classification, works less, has a higher academic locus of control, and misses or skips class less.
The findings of the present study indicate that the effects of students’ relationships with peers on academic achievement differ between male and female students and are also consistent with the theoretical perspectives of Chodorow (1978) and Gilligan (1982). Chodorow (1978) affirmed that personalities differ by gender; and the fact that women largely depend on social connections, value responsibility and care was established by Gilligan (1982). Gilligan argues that women’s achievement depends on social relationships that help define their identity and determine their attitudes about learning. Men, however, tend to focus on academic achievement and value autonomy. As a result, it is likely that female students benefit from their peer relationships more than male students, which ultimately influences their overall achievement.
This study had several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the outcomes of this study are limited in its scope to a single public university with a large Caucasian representation; therefore, the results may vary when student achievement is measured across many institutions with greater ethnic diversity. Second, the model used in this study accounted for approximately 10% of total variation in the academic achievement. Though it is very likely that the explained variation is the result of the way academic achievement (cumulative grade point average) and independent variables are measured, future studies may include additional variables to explain a higher proportion of variance in achievement. Additional variables may include race/ethnicity, declared major, etc.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, students’ active involvement with learning (asking questions or contributing to class discussions) had a positive influence on students’ academic achievement. The quality of students’ relationships with faculty was an important predictor of students’ academic achievement. Encouraging faculty to explore opportunities in which students’ active involvement can be fostered; for example through service learning, collaborative assignments, integrative learning, and even enhanced classroom participation, should continue to be emphasized throughout faculty development programming. Based upon the results of this study opportunities in which faculty/student relationships can be enhanced may also be a warranted area for further development. Future studies should consider how courses/faculty who promote active learning opportunities influence students’ perceptions regarding the student-faculty relationship they maintain with those instructors and how the combination affects academic achievement.
Though the quality of students’ relationships with peers had a significant impact on students’ academic achievement, the relationship differed between genders. Female students’ relationships with peers had a positive impact on their academic achievement; whereas, male students’ relationships with peers had a negative impact on academic achievement. Certainly these findings are important when developing the first-year experience and additional co-curricular events. More information is needed to determine how the male-to-male peer relationship differs from their female counterparts, and whether there is a difference in academic achievement based upon relationships that are identified as more academically based versus those that are more socially grounded. This study is just one example of how the vast array of information available from the National Survey of Student Engagement can help to identify target areas for improving academic achievement among our undergraduate students.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Chee, K.H., Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic and academic achievement. College Student Journal, 39 (3), 604-618.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkley: University of California Press.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38 (1), 66-80.
Farmour-Dougan, V., James, D., & McKinney, K. (2000). Student engagement at Illinois State: Predictors of high engagement. Illinois State University: Normal: Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology. Unpublished manuscript.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graunke, S.S. & Woosley, S. A. (2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic success of college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39 (2), 367-376.
Jacobi, M., Astin, A., & Ayala, F. Jr., 1987). College student outcomes assessment: A talent development perspective, 7. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse, George Washington University.
Johnson, M.D. (2005). Academic performance of transfer versus “native” students in natural resources and sciences. College Student Journal 39 (3), 570-579.
Kember D. & Leung D. Y. P. (2005). The influence of active learning experiences on the development of graduate capabilities. Studies in Higher Education. 35, (2), 155-170.
Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.
Kuh, G.D. (2003). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties [on line]. Available: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/conceptual_framework_2003.pdf
Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., & Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries. Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.
Lufi, D., Parish-Plass, & Cohen, A. (2003). Persistence in higher education and its relationship to other personality variables. College Student Journal 37 (1), 50-59.
McCluskey-Titus, P. (2004). A study of graduate student engagement with some preliminary suggestions about teaching and learning. Zeal Unceasing: on Teaching at Illinois State University. Normal: Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Umbach, P. D. & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education 46 (2), 153-184.
HAFEEZ ULLAH, PHD
Research Associate
MARDELL A. WILSON, EDD, RD
Associate Professor and Director
Illinois State University
Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’ GPA, Age, ACT
Scores, Active Involvement with Learning, Quality of Relationship
with Peers and Quality of Relationship with Faculty (n = 2,160)
Variable NI SD
GPA 3.05 0.62
Age 20.9 4.26
ACT Scores 23.40 3.36
Students Asked Questions/
Contributed to Class Discuss 2.82 * 0.83
Quality of Students’
Relationships with Peers 5.67 ** 1.21
Quality of Relationship
with Faculty 5.32 ** 1.19
* Measured on a four-point scale, where 1 = never, 2 = sometimes,
3 = often, and 4 = very often
** Measured on a seven-point scale, where 1 was unavailable/
unhelpful, and 7 was available/helpful
Table 2. Intercorrelations among Students’ GPA, Age, ACT Scores,
Quality of Relationship with Faculty, Quality of relationship with
Peers and Students Asked Questions or Contributed to Class
Discussions (n = 2,160)
Variables 1 2
1. GPA 1.00 0.46 *
2. Age 1.00
3. ACT Scores
4. Peer Relationship
5. Student Relationship
with Faculty
6. Students Asked Questions/
Contributed to Class Discussions
Variables 3 4
1. GPA 0.23 ** 0.05 *
2. Age -0.15 ** -0.02 *
3. ACT Scores 1.00 -0.01
4. Peer Relationship 1.00
5. Student Relationship
with Faculty
6. Students Asked Questions/
Contributed to Class Discussions
Variables 5 6
1. GPA 0.16 ** 0.14 **
2. Age 0.13 ** 0.19 **
3. ACT Scores -0.02 0.09 **
4. Peer Relationship 0.34 ** 0.15 **
5. Student Relationship 1.00 0.19 **
with Faculty
6. Students Asked Questions/ 1.00
Contributed to Class Discussions
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
Table 3. Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Students’ Academic Achievement (n = 2,160)
Independent Variable [beta] SE ([beta]) SC-[beta]
Age 0.02 0.006 0.06
ACT Score 0.05 0.004 0.25
Asked Questions in
Class / Contributed
to Class Discussions 0.06 0.018 0.08
Quality of Relationship
with Faculty 0.06 0.120 0.11
Interaction:
Quality of Relationship
with Peers * Gender 0.02 0.004 0.11
Independent Variable t P
Age 2.35 ** 0.01
ACT Score 10.67 *** 0.00
Asked Questions in
Class / Contributed
to Class Discussions 3.35 *** 0.00
Quality of Relationship
with Faculty 4.66 *** 0.00
Interaction:
Quality of Relationship
with Peers * Gender 40.81 *** 0.00
Independent Variable F [R.sup.2]
Age 39.75 ** 0.105
ACT Score
Asked Questions in
Class / Contributed
to Class Discussions
Quality of Relationship
with Faculty
Interaction:
Quality of Relationship
with Peers * Gender
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
*** p < 0.001
COPYRIGHT 2007 Project Innovation (Alabama)
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
