1. Introduction Method Results Conclusions
An Investigation of Variables Contributing to Student Performance in College Robert L. Altman Faculty Mentor: Marshall Green Dept. of Psychology, Armstrong State University
Introduction
Academic motivation has been linked to the concept of student success. Vallerand et al. (1992) developed the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS), which differentiates between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Vallerand et al. defines intrinsic motivation as stemming from “the innate psychological needs of competence and self-determination” (p. 1004). Extrinsic motivation is described by Vallerand et al. as having to do with “a wide variety of behaviors which are engaged in as a means to an end and not for their own sake” (p. 1006). Amotivation results when an individual lacks both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The results of Vallerand et al.’s study contribute to the theory that academic motivation may be significantly linked to the construct of students’ commitment to academics.
According to Høigaard, Kovač, Øverby, & Haugen (2015), self-efficacy refers to personal “beliefs about the degree of perceived self-control over future actions” (p. 65). It usually relates to an “individual’s ability to successfully perform a certain task” (p. 65). In relation to academics, self-efficacy is defined as referring to “personal beliefs about one’s ability to organize and execute actions to attain desired levels of academic performance” (p. 66). It is noted that academic self-efficacy positively correlates with an individual’s “academic performance, achievements, and efforts” (p. 66). Furthermore, it is noted that individuals with “higher levels” of academic self-efficacy are “likely to succeed now and are better prepared for later academic and vocational challenges” (p. 66). The results of Høigaard, Kovač, Øverby, & Haugen’s study provide further evidence for the importance of academic self-efficacy as a component of academic achievement.
Investigations of concepts such as Motivation and Self-Efficacy have shed light on what encourages students to attend to or to continue in their studies. The current study examines the theory that Commitment to Academic Success is a psychological construct entailing an individual student’s mindset for learning in school.
Method
Participants:
141 college students (95 female and 31 male, M = years of age, SD = 6.535) who volunteered to complete this survey in exchange for 0.5 hours of research credit.
Materials:
-Commitment to Academic Success items: A brief survey consisting of 42 items theorized to be related to the construct. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale to rate their agreement with each item.
-Demographics: A basic demographic questionnaire which collected information on age, gender, credit hours, GPA, educational goals, social Influences and academic classification.
Procedure:
After participants registered for the study via sona systems, the psychology department’s online database, they provided informed consent, survey responses, and demographic answers via SurveyMonkey.com. No participants completed the survey twice.
Analysis:
We completed descriptive and statistical analyses using IBM SPSS statistical software and Microsoft Excel.
Results
An assessment of the 42 original items revealed good internal consistency with a Chronbach’s alpha of .75. Principle component analysis with a varimax rotation of commitment items revealed 11 significant factors with eigenvalues above Examination of the scree plot indicated two primary factors. We eliminated 27 individual items on the factor that did not reach a minimum loading value of .50. The remaining 15 items revealed an increased level of internal consistency with a Chronbach’s alpha of .89.
Figure 1. This histogram depicts the differences between the mean scores on the Commitment to Academic Success Scale (C2AS) according to participant’s degree aspirations. Error bars represent the standard deviations of each group.
Results indicated a higher degree of commitment to academic success in participants hoping to pursue advanced degrees in comparison to their peers. The difference in commitment to academic success between Master’s and Doctorate aspirants was slight.
Table 2. This table depicts factor loadings for each of the retained questions as they applied to each of the two subscales, Self-Regulating and Social Influences. All retained items possessed a minimum loading of .50.
Conclusions
The current study found evidence supporting the creation of a scale to measure the construct of commitment to academic success and its two components, self-regulating and social influences, among college students. Of the two components, results indicated that self-regulating, internal factors may play a stronger role in commitment to academic success than social, external factors. Thus, commitment may contribute to academic success alongside constructs such as motivation and reinforcement.
However, the current study did find a lack of correlation between C2AS scores and several criterion validity items, including GPA, credit hours, academic class, and parental influences. What the scale seems to highlight is a correlation between commitment and educational aspirations.
Future work with the scale may see validation through examination of its relationship with the Academic Motivation Scale, Social Desirability Scale, and similar measurement tools. The C2AS might also be studied among different populations, including other universities and age groups, in order to lend further credibility to its results.
References:
Høigaard, R., Kovač, V.B., Øverby, N.C., & Haugen, T. (2015). Academic self-efficacy mediates the effects of school psychological climate on academic achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1),
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,
Table 1. This table displays descriptive statistics and correlations between the two components of the C2AS with variables from the study. Correlations in bold are significant.
1Correlation assessed with Pearson’s R; 2Correlation assessed with Spearman’s rho; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.