Centre for Higher and Adult Education (CHAE)Centre for Higher and Adult Education (CHAE)

Academic and social integration in three first-

year groups: A holistic perspective

First-Year Experience Conference 9-10 September 2008

Stellenbosch

Eli BitzerCentre for Higher and Adult EducationStellenbosch University, South Africa

2

Introduction • 40% of university first-years in SA drop out

(HSRC 2007).• Some background on Louw’s study at four

colleges of Agriculture (2005).• Integration apparently has a major

influence on student commitment and study success (Bean 1990; Tinto 1993; Strauss & Volkwein 2004).

• Kember’s (1995) notion of a ‘holistic’ view.• Purpose of the study.• First-year integration seemingly has a

positive effect on later years of study (Downing 2005; Feldman et al. 2004; Krause et al. 2005).

• Background on the ABQ and APQ.

3

Theoretical considerations• Louw’s (2005) findings on academic

indicators for student departure • Unclear study goals• Unrealistic expectations• Gaps in foundational knowledge• Non-ability to adjust• Wrong programme choices• Language difficulties• Complexity levels• Access to students not meeting admission

standards.

• Social indicators• Inadequate financial provision• Inadequate information• ‘Unhealthy’ social activities.• Ineffective and inefficient time management.

4

Louw’s (2005) framework for first-

year support I. Student background factorsSelf-perception of competenceHistorical experiencesSchool supportAcademic supportSelf confidenceLearning styleStudy skillsOptions and choices.

II. Student factors III. Institutional factors

AcademicPerceived low level of academic integrationLearning backlogsHeavy workloadInadequate study skillsLacking foundational knowledgeLack of commitmentLack of confidence.

SocialPerceived low level of social integrationAcademic/social imbalanceLanguage difficultiesFinancial constraintsLack of family support.

AcademicInadequate learning supportInadequate language & communication in classesLarge classesIn adequate facilitiesInefficient administrationSkewed access measuresInadequate teachingType of assessmentInadequate/wrong course information.

SocialLimited opportunitiesLimited facilitiesInadequate accommodation.

5

Adapted model for 1st year

integration

Student factors Institutional factors

Academic(1) Perceived control of own academic work(2) Perceived academic backlogs(3) Experienced workload(4) Perceived time constraints (5) Perceived study skills(6) Extent to which the module is enjoyed(7) Level of motivation(8) Perceived confidence.

Social(9) Perceived social fit(10) Academic/social balance(11) Financial position/worries(12) Family support.

Social(13) Adequate accommodation.

Academic(14) Responsibility for academic performance (15) Communication in classes(16) Experience of large classes(17) Relationship between lecturer and student (18) Perceived success of teaching methods(19) Expectations of programme(20) Fair assessment.

6

Participants and research questions

• Three first-year groups (n=579) - Educational Psychology 124 (low risk, n=163) - Financial Accounting 178 (medium risk, n=304 ) - Chemistry 114 (high risk, n=112)

• Main question: Are the integration dimensions as identified by Louw’s study valid for the SU context?

• Secondary questions (1) Are there differences in student perceptions of

integration factors among the three student groups? (2) Are there links between integration factors and

early/mid- year student performance levels (marks)? (3) Are there links between mid-participation perceived integration factors and pre-participation factors as measured by the ABQ?

7

Instrumentation

• A survey instrument (the FYES) to generate students’ perceptions on 20 statements concerning integration was implemented by the end of the fist quarter (slide 5).

• Likert-type ordinal scale (1 – Disagree completely to 4 - Agree completely)

• Piloted for validity.• Analysis: Three factor ANOVA and the

Bonferroni correction was applied for the three groups. Reliability of questionnaire items tested by calculating Chronbach’s Alpha.

• To test for relationships between student agreement/non-agreement on statements and their end of semester marks, a forward stepwise regression analysis was used and Spearman’s rank correlation was calculated.

8

Findings: Applicability of the model

• The item reliability test did not support the claim that items contribute meaningfully to the dimensions of the suggested SU integration model.

• Individual items were therefore considered for possible trends.

• Contexts clearly differ and other reasons might also prevail (e.g. methodology and timing).

9

Findings: Differences among the three groups

• Most prominent differences (p<0.01) found on four academic factors between the low risk (Ed Psych) and medium risk (Fin Acc) groups:

- Experienced workload (Q3) (E P > F A) - Sufficient study skills (Q5) (EP < FA) - Lack of motivation (Q7) (EP > FA)

- Expectations of programme (Q19) (EP < FA)

Bonferroni test; variable Q3 (IND DATA 20080716.sta)Probabilities for Post Hoc TestsError: Between MS = .95843, df = 171.00

Cell No.GROUP{1}

2.6404{2}

3.1429{3}

2.1818123

ACC 0.0091710.419354ED0.009171 0.011132

CHEM0.4193540.011132

G RO UP ; L S M e a n s

Cu rre n t e ffe ct: F(2 , 1 7 1 )=6 .5 1 2 1 , p = <0 .0 1 K ru ska l -Wa l l i s p <0 .0 1

E ffe cti ve h yp o th e si s d e co m p o si ti o n

V e rti ca l b a rs d e n o te 0 .9 5 co n fi d e n ce in te rva l s

A CC E D CHE M

G RO UP

1 .4

1 .6

1 .8

2 .0

2 .2

2 .4

2 .6

2 .8

3 .0

3 .2

3 .4

3 .6

3 .8

Q3

10

Findings: Relationship between integration factors and marks

• Three academic factors related strongly (p<0.01) for all three groups (n=164)

• - Having academic backlogs (Q2) - Lack of motivation (Q7) - Fair assessment (Q20)

Q 2 :M A RK S : r = -0 .1 8 2 2 , p = 0 .0 1 9 5

S p e a rm a n r = -0 .2 4 p =0 .0 0

0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .0 4 .5

Q 2

-1 0

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

MA

RK

S

11

Findings: Relation to marks Q 7 :M A RK S : r = -0 .1 8 8 1 , p = 0 .0 1 4 3

S p e a rm a n r = -0 .1 5 p =0 .0 5

0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .0 4 .5

Q 7

-1 0

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

MA

RK

S

Q 2 0 :M A RK S : r = 0 .2 0 2 2 , p = 0 .0 0 8 4

S p e a rm a n r = 0 .2 2 p =0 .0 0

0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .0 4 .5

Q 2 0

-1 0

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

MA

RK

S

12

Findings: Correspondence between the FYES and the ABQ (n=137)

FYESItem/factor

FYESAgree

(f)

FYESAgree(%)

ABQItem/factor

ABQAgree

(f)

ABQAgree (%)

Q7 – I am not motivated.

129 94.2 41 – Feeling depressed.

98 72.6

Q11 – I am worried about my financial situation.

117 85.4 75 – I am worried about paying for my studies 109 – I would benefit from getting financial assistance for my studies.

60

91

44.1

66.9

Q12 – My family supports me.

132 96.3 152 – I have support from my family, friends and those who care for me when I have to overcome problems.

125 92.3

Q13 – The accommodation where I stay during my studies is pleasant.

137 100 1 – Do you stay in a university residence?

91 66.9

13

Discussion and implications

1. It seems clear that Louw’s holistic integration framework does not directly apply to the SU context. However, some elements do apply. Reasons for difference might include context, method and timing.

2. Student motivation seems to be strongly related to both first-year integration and actual academic performance.

3. Perceived academic backlogs and fair assessment (academic factors) as well as students’ financial position, family support and accommodation (social factors) seem to play an important role in integration and performance.

14

Discussion and implications

Implications of findings for • academic staff (determining backlogs;

programme information; assessment) • Students (programme requirements;

expectations) • support services (backlogs; interventions).

Conclusion• At least nine perceived academic and social

factors in this study have proven to influence first-year integration. The relationships among these factors remain complex and student motivation remains a prominent and important integration factor. More institution-wide research is needed to develop the model further.