Enculturation and development of beginning students E-Book

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 282

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

Starting with this issue, the ZFHE will publish one English-speaking edition per year on a topic of international interest, in order to disseminate German-language research results beyond our borders and to encourage discussion in an international context. This first English-language edition focuses on the experiences and the academic socialization of first-year university students. The articles offer both diagnoses and differentiations in terms of different types of first-year students, as well as highlighting their experiences and development during their introduction to the academic environment and examining connections between their academic development and the existing educational environment.

Leseprobe

Table of contents

Preface

Editorial: Enculturation and development of beginning students

Tobias Jenert, Liisa Postareff, Taiga Brahm, Sari Lindblom-Ylänne

To leave or not to leave? Critical factors for university dropout among first-generation students

Stephanie Cornelia Aymans, Simone Kauffeld

Exploring the role of student diversity for the first-year experience

Elke Bosse

Statistics Anxiety and Self-Concept of Beginning Students in the Social Sciences – A Matter of Gender and Socio-Cultural Background?

Manuel Förster, Andreas Maur

Starting point: Motivation for choosing a degree in education

Britta Fischer, Miriam Bisterfeld

Between absolute truth and multiperspectivity: New students’ orientations towards science, with a focus on students of educational sciences

Franz Krämer

“Press on regardless!” – The role of volitional control in the first year of higher education

Caroline Trautwein, Katrin Stolz

From eating to discovering: How metaphors of learning change during students’ enculturation

Elisabeth Wegner, Matthias Nückles

The effectiveness of study skills courses: Do they increase general study competences?

Verena Schmied, Martin Hänze

The Changing Landscape: Exploring the dichotomy between academia and first-year students’ transition from school to university

Venicia Flora McGhie, Salo Moodley, Hilary Naidoo

Workload, time-on-task, and learning outcome in online learning for beginning students

Tobias Kärner, Marc Egloffstein, Florian Binöder, Clemens Frötschl, Thomas Schley

Preface

As the scientific publication organ of the Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria, the Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (Journal for Higher Education Development) is of particular importance. It addresses current topics in higher education development in the areas of both studying and teaching, and as a German-speaking (and particularly Austrian) medium, it provides a platform for academics, practitioners, higher education developers and didactic experts to exchange ideas. Furthermore, since the ZFHE is designed as an open-access journal, it is available for anyone free of charge as an electronic publication.

In 2014, the annual number of visitors increased to 31,443 visitors, an increase of approximately 22 %. Monthly visits reached up to more than 3,500 visitors per month, which corresponds to an average of over 100 visitors per day. In addition, Google Scholar Metrics show that the journal is now among the hundred best German-speaking scientific journals.

This success can be attributed to the efforts of the international editorial board and the rotating publishers, who are committed to producing at least four editions annually. Moreover, continuing subsidies from the Austrian Federal Ministry for Science, Research and Economics guarantee the long-term existence of the journal. As the journal would not exist without this support, we would like to express our gratitude to the Ministry.

Starting with this issue, the ZFHE will publish one English-speaking edition per year on a topic of international interest, in order to disseminate German-language research results beyond our borders and to encourage discussion in an international context. This first English-language edition focuses on the experiences and the academic socialization of first-year university students. The articles offer both diagnoses and differentiations in terms of different types of first-year students, as well as highlighting their experiences and development during their introduction to the academic environment and examining connections between their academic development and the existing educational environment.

Since the 9/3 edition, the ZFHE has also been available in printed form and can be purchased on Amazon, for example. The Verein Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria is happy to be able to anchor the topic of “higher education development” within a much broader scientific community through this valuable supplement to the electronic publication.

In this spirit, we hope you will enjoy reading the present edition!

Martin Ebner and Hans-Peter Steinbacher

Chairmen of the Verein Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria

Tobias JENERT1 (St. Gallen), Liisa POSTAREFF (Helsinki), Taiga BRAHM (St. Gallen) & Sari LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE (Helsinki)

Editorial: Enculturation and development of beginning students

1 The crucial first year in Higher Education

In many respects, the first semesters of studying are decisive for students’ further academic development (GALE & PARKER, 2012). The experiences of professionals providing guidance and counselling for incoming students show the practical relevance of students’ successful transition for universities. Furthermore, a considerable body of research approaching the topic from various angles emphasizes the importance of students’ first encounter with Higher Education.

Especially in the US, the first year of studying has been studied through a sociocultural lens, investigating how students adapt and integrate into Higher Education as their new habitat. Most prominently, research into retention and attrition has highlighted the pivotal role of the students’ ability to integrate into the sociocultural environment of their Higher Education institution at the beginning of their studies. It has been shown that students who do not succeed in building an identity and social ties related to their study environment have a higher risk of dropping out than students who successfully master this process of enculturation (TINTO, 1998). In a similar vein, college effectiveness research provides evidence that the way Higher Education Institutions receive their incoming students, communicate their institutional mission, and explicate their expectations concerning performance and learning effort, has a significant impact on the time and energy students dedicate to their studies which is one important aspect of student engagement (KEZAR & KINZIE, 2006; KRAUSE & COATES, 2008; KUH, KINZIE, SCHUH & WHITT, 2005). Furthermore, integrating students into social learning communities from the beginning of their studies is another important factor affecting engagement (ROCCONI, 2011; ZHAO & KUH, 2004). Engagement comprises cognitive, motivational, and behavioural aspects, thus referring to student life within and outside the classroom (FREDRICKS, BLUMFELD & PARIS, 2004). Engagement, in turn, plays an important role for academic success (PASCARELLA, SEIFERT & BLAICH, 2010).

Other studies have approached the topic of beginning students in Higher Education by looking at their individual developments, studying variables such as motivation, emotions, attitudes and learning strategies. Concerning students’ motivation, several studies indicate that students loose motivation throughout the first year (BRAHM & GEBHARDT, 2011; BUSSE, 2013; JACOBS & NEWSTEAD, 2000; LAU, LIEM & NIE, 2008; LIEBERMAN & REMEDIOS, 2007; MARTIN, COLMAR, DAVEY & MARSH, 2010) and that their interests narrow down from a broad range of subject areas to just a few (BUSATO, PRINS, ELSHOUTA & HAMAKER, 2000). In a longitudinal study, BRAHM et al. found negative developments in students’ motivations as well as their attitudes towards studying (BRAHM & JENERT, 2013, 2014; BRAHM, JENERT & EULER, 2013). However, advanced analysis within the sample showed those developments to be quite different for distinctive student subgroups (JENERT & BRAHM, 2013). MIKKONEN and colleagues (2013) qualitatively investigated the developments of first-and second-year students’ interests and goal orientations, identifying different constellations supporting or hindering commitment to their studies. Research focusing on university students’ emotions has shown that emotions also play an important role in their studying (PEKRUN et al., 2002; TRIGWELL, 2012). A study by HAILIKARI, KORDTS-FREUDINGER and POSTAREFF (2014) focusing on first year students showed that they experienced a range of emotions during their first study year. Students often described positive emotions such as satisfaction and enthusiasm, but worryingly, negative emotions were described more often. Among the emotions explicated most frequently were dissatisfaction, confusion and anxiety. The results also showed that emotions were related to study success and progress: The lesser students experienced negative emotions, the better their study success and the faster their academic progress during the first year (HAILIKARI, KORDTS-FREUDINGER & POSTAREFF, 2014).

Concerning the development of learning strategies and approaches to learning which are immediately related to learning and studying, there is no clear evidence as to whether students develop and if they do, in which direction (EDMUNDS & RICHARDSON, 2009; STRUYVEN, DOCHY, JANSSENS & GIELEN, 2006). Some studies suggest that approaches to learning are relatively stable across time and contexts (e.g. LIETZ & MATTHEWS, 2010; ZEEGERS, 2001) but a recent study found that students’ deep approach to learning increased from their first study year to the third study year (ASIKAINEN et al., 2014). From a more individual perspective, it has been shown that some first and second-year students show greater variability in their approaches to learning across different courses while others show less (LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE, PARPALA & POSTAREFF, 2013; POSTAREFF, LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE & PARPALA, 2014).

Considering this body of existing research, it becomes evident, that the initial phase of studying deserves special attention. How students experience their first months at a Higher Education Institution and how they react to this experience (cognitively, motivationally, emotionally, and behaviourally) may have a strong influence on their academic future. Thus, it can be regarded as any HEI’s challenge to support students so that they can realize their academic potential to the best.

2 Student development and the role of educational environments in the first year

With this special issue, we aim at expanding the knowledge on students’ first year in Higher Education. Decidedly, our call focused on students’ developments after they have entered their studies, excluding issues such as selection processes or preparation during secondary education. Emphasizing research on students who are already within the Higher Education system is motivated by our keen interests for

(1) diagnosing and differentiating beginning students according to various characteristics relevant to their academic development,

(2) students’ development throughout the initial phase of Higher Education as well as

(3) interrelations between educational environments and beginning students’ experiences.

In accordance with those main points of interest, contributions were required to address at least one of the following questions:

How do students develop throughout the initial phase of their studies concerning e.g. motivation, emotions, attitudes, learning strategies, approaches to learning?

What are important variables according to which subgroups of beginning students can be distinguished?

How do subgroups within student cohorts differ with regard to study-related variables?

What kind of challenges do students encounter during their enculturation/adaptation to the Higher Education environment?

What provides guidance and orientation for students during their enculturation/adaptation to the Higher Education environment?

Which factors are crucial for beginning students’ study success and academic progress?

How does the teaching-learning environment enhance or impede beginning students’ studying?

The papers in this special issue consist of both qualitative and quantitative contributions. They cover three main topical areas as outlined above:

Diagnosing and differentiating beginning students

Building on previous research, Stephanie Aymans and Simone Kauffeld investigate whether factors for student drop-out and retention affect first-generation students in the same ways as students with an academic family background. Their findings indicate similar mechanisms influencing drop-out and retention for both groups (first-generation and non-first-generation students). Thus, the authors confirm previous research on the predictability of student drop-out and retention. Despite this finding, the study still indicates a higher drop-out risk for first-generation students. Explaining this phenomenon, Aymans and Kauffeld discuss practical implications regarding how to support first-generation beginning students.

Applying a qualitative research design, Elke Bosse investigates how diversity influences students’ experience of the first year in Higher Education. Distinguishing a total of eight different dimensions of diversity (such as maturity, internationality or part-time enrolment), the study provides a fine-grained analysis of 25 students’ individual experiences during their first year at university. This leads to a taxonomy categorizing challenges beginning students typically encounter when entering Higher Education. In accordance with the findings presented by Aymans and Kauffeld, the study does not reveal any systematic differences between the challenges experienced by traditional and non-traditional students. Rather, the author reports complex interrelations between individual and institutional factors leading to very specific first-year experiences. Accordingly, Bosse argues for developing multi-factorial “risk scenarios” to offer support for diverse student cohorts rather than providing isolated offerings for non-traditional students.

Manuel Förster and Andreas Maur investigate whether gender and socio-cultural background play a role in beginning students’ attitudes towards statistics. Based on a quantitative survey, they illustrate the strong influence of gender on statistics anxiety. Regarding students’ socio-cultural background, there are little differences with regard to statistics-related anxiety and self-concept. Yet, the authors were able to establish significant differences when it comes to proactive behaviour (e.g. asking questions) in learning situations.

Studying 152 preservice teachers’ motivation for choosing their degree, Britta Fischer and Miriam Bisterfeld aim at discovering specific motivational characteristics of sports students compared to other disciplines. Their findings suggest that prospective sports teachers’ degree choice is primarily motivated by intrinsic subject-related interest. Concerning their own ability-beliefs, however, sports students appear to be less confident than students within other subject areas. The authors suggest that while in general high subject-related interest is a positive predictor for academic success, sports students might also be at risk to start their studies with wrong expectations concerning the subject and should therefore be well-informed about the content and the demands of their study programme.

Franz Krämer presents a qualitative study looking into beginning students’ conceptions of science. Analysing 33 texts, the author identifies two main orientations: The fist, termed “essentialist-answering” conceives of science as finding clear, unambiguous definitions and theories. In contrast, the “questioning” orientation towards science focuses on the processes of producing scientific insights and the multiplicity of perspectives any problem can be defined through. Concerning these orientations, Krämer finds considerable heterogeneity within his sample, suggesting that explicating and discussing beginning students’ orientations may be a great chance to help their development within scientific subjects.

Student development throughout the initial phase of Higher Education

To unveil what helps students to continue their studies in the face of challenging experiences, Caroline Trautwein and Katrin Stolz conducted a qualitative interview study. While previous research has shown a steady decline in student motivation during the first year in Higher Education, a majority of students continue their studies; i.e. they are able to cope with demotivating experiences. The authors establish that volition plays a crucial role, helping students to persevere despite losing their motivation to study. The shift from (intrinsic) motivation to volitional control may have detrimental effects on students’ educational experiences: studying becomes a rather unreflected act of self-discipline rather than a critical discovery of the subject. The authors provide suggestions how the organisation of study programmes might be altered in order to counter such negative developments.

Employing metaphors, Elisabeth Wegner and Matthias Nückles investigate how students’ conceptions of learning change over the first year of studying. Classifying and structuring 30 students’ metaphors for learning at two measurement points, the authors are able to show significant developments during the first year. Interestingly, students adapt their conceptions of learning to the learning culture they encounter at university, increasingly emphasizing the need for structuring and discovering new knowledge by themselves. Furthermore, the results indicate that students whose conceptions at the first measurement point are more congruent to the university’s learning culture tend to be more self-efficacious learners in the second year than those students who showed more divergent conceptions at the beginning of their studies. This emphasizes the necessity to enculturate students to the kind of learning they encounter at university.

Verena Schmied and Martin Hänze report a longitudinal study to determine the effects of courses to improve study skills on students’ general competencies for studying. Using a validated survey, the authors assessed whether 45 students participating in an interdisciplinary course at five different universities improve different study skills (such as planning and motivation to learn). The longitudinal design measured the level of study skills just before and two month after having completed the course and results were compared between the treatment and a control group. The findings confirm significant improvements with the treatment group. Despite these positive results, the authors emphasize that in a between-group comparison the treatment groups’ level of study competencies had already been higher at the initial (pre-intervention) measurement, confirming the well-known phenomenon that additional offerings are often employed by those students who do not necessarily need extra support.

Educational environments and beginning students’ experiences

Venicia Flora McGhie, Salo Moodley and Hilary Naidoo present a study inquiring into the relationship between academics’ demands and 40 South African students’ first-year experience. In accordance with the study by Wegner and Nückles, the case study revealed that students are challenged in multiple ways (e.g. in terms of language, modes of studying a.o.) by the need to adapt their learning styles to the requirements of their new academic environment. This adaptation can be facilitated or inhibited by the faculty’s teaching style. In the reported case study, faculty primarily displayed classroom behaviours that led especially Black students to disengage with the academic environment, feeling incapable to succeed in Higher Education. The authors suggest that in order to make students more resilient against adverse situations during their studies, the first year should provide positive educational experiences especially to those students who are at risk of dropping out.

Tobias Kärner, Marc Egloffstein, Florian Binöder, Clemens Frötschl, and Thomas Schley investigate to which degree beginning students are able to take advantage of an open online introductory course on scientific methods. Data was gathered from more than 500 students via learning diaries. The study explores the workload students invested in the online course as well as the relationship between time on task and students’ learning outcomes. The results indicate that most students invested much less time in learning than intended by the course design. Time on task showed a small but significantly positive interrelation with the quality of students’ learning outcomes. The authors conclude that open online courses are a challenging environment for beginning students as they obviously lack the study skills necessary to successfully use such a learning environment. In order for first-year students to exploit the potentials of open online environments, especially their flexibility, additional guidance seems to be called for.

3 Conclusion

With regard to diagnosing beginning students, the contributions show that the challenges of the first year as well as the diversity of the student body are getting mapped ever more clearly. An increasing number of quantitative instruments are developed for or adapted to the Higher Education context in order to evaluate beginning students’ expectations, perceptions and prerequisites for studying with regard to different dimensions. Qualitative studies, in turn, show the complexity of beginning students’ realities and warn against oversimplified conceptions of the first year of studying.

Concerning student development during the first year, longitudinal studies provide interesting insights into how diverse starting conditions or different educational experiences influence further academic developments. Yet, the methodical design and the effort needed to conduct such research remain a huge challenge.

The last years have seen an increasing number of interventions that aim at supporting students’ transition into the Higher Education system. The papers in this issue show that often beginning students’ challenges are caused by specific elements of the academic environments they encounter. Also, students often do not respond to support and guidance in the way educational developers initially intended them to do. Therefore, studies that combine the design of educational interventions with systematic studies on students’ experiences with those interventions are necessary.

Viewed together, the papers presented in this issue confirm that from a students’ perspective, entering Higher Education is a very complex phenomenon (GALE & PARKER, 2012). And it is becoming ever more complex with increasing student diversity and cross-disciplinary study programmes. Looking into the future, a major challenge for practitioners will be to develop educational designs addressing these issues. At the same time, researchers will have to come up with research designs that are able to tackle the complex questions resulting from increasing diversity. Such studies could combine the diagnosis of students’ prerequisites with the design of adequate interventions for supporting the initial phase of studying and longitudinal assessments of students’ academic development. Yet, such research endeavours would require ample resources as well as complex multi-method and multi-level designs.

4 References

Asikainen, H., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Vanthournout, G., & Coertjens, L. (2014). The Development of Approaches to Learning and Perceptions of the Teaching-Learning Environment During Bachelor Level Studies and Their Relation to Study Success. Higher Education Studies, 4, 24-36.

Brahm, T., & Gebhardt, A. (2011). Motivation deutschsprachiger Studierender in der „Bologna-Ära“. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 6(2), 15-29. http://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/226/345

Brahm, T., & Jenert, T. (2013). A latent growth curve analysis of Business students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference EARLI 2013, Munich.

Brahm, T., Jenert, T., & Wagner, D. (under review). Students’ transition into a Business School – A longitudinal study of their motivational development. Higher Education.

Brahm, T., & Jenert, T. (2015). On the assessment of attitudes towards studying – Development and validation of a questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 233-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.019

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshouta, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1057-1068.

Busse, V. (2013). Why do first-year students of German lose motivation during their first year at university? Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 951-971.

Edmunds, R., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 295-309.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59-109.

Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2012). Navigating change: a typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-20.

Hailikari, T., Kordts-Freudinger, R., & Postareff, L. (2014). Exploring the relationship between university students’ emotions and their studying and learning: A mixed-method approach. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher Education Conference, Leuven.

Jacobs, P. A., & Newstead, S. E. (2000). The nature and development of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 243-254.

Jenert, T., & Brahm, T. (2013). How Business Students Attitudes towards their University and Studying Develop during the First Year: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study C3 – Responsible Teaching and Sustainable Learning. Paper presented at the 15th Biennal EARLI Conference 2013, Munich.

Kezar, A., & Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the Ways Institutions Create Student Engagement: The Role of Mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149-172.

Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing Conditions to enhance Ecuational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement and Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lau, S., Liem, A. D., & Nie, Y. (2008). Task- and self-related pathways to deep learning: The mediating role of achievement goals, classroom attentiveness, and group participation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 639-662.

Lieberman, D. A., & Remedios, R. (2007). Do undergraduates’ motives for studying change as they progress through their degrees? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 379-395.

Lietz, P., & Matthews, B. (2010). The Effects of College Students’ Personal Values on Changes in Learning Approaches. Research in Higher Education, 51(1), 65-87.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2013). Challenges in analysing change in students’ approaches to learning. In V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, J. D. Vermunt, & D. Gijbels (Eds.), Learning Patterns in Higher Education (pp. 232-248). New York: Routledge.

Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., Davey, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the ‘5Cs’ hold up over time? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 473-496.

Mikkonen, J., Ruohoniemi, M., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2013). The role of individual interest and future goals during the first years of university studies. Studies in Higher Education, 38(1), 71-86.

Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How Effective are the NSSE Benchmarks in Predicting Important Educational Outcomes? Change, 1. http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/January-February%202010/full-how-effective.html

Pekrun, R., Götz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-106.

Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Parpala, A. (2014). Explaining university students’ strong commitment to understand through individual and contextual elements. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 31-49.

Rocconi, L. M. (2011). The Impact of Learning Communities on First Year Students’ Growth and Development in College. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 178-193.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279-294.

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.

Trigwell, K. (2012).Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their approaches to teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40, 607-621.

Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.

Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.

Editors

Dr. Tobias JENERT || Universität St. Gallen, Competence Centre for Educational Development and Research in Higher Education – CEDAR || Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St. Gallen

www.hochschulentwicklung.ch

[email protected]

Dr. Liisa POSTAREFF || University of Helsinki, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education || Siltavuorenpenger 1A, FI-00014 University of Helsinki

www.helsinki.fi/yty/english/index.htm

[email protected]

Dr. Taiga BRAHM || Universität St. Gallen, Competence Centre for Educational Development and Research in Higher Education – CEDAR || Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St.Gallen

www.hochschulentwicklung.ch

[email protected]

Prof. Dr. Sari LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE || University of Helsinki, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education || Siltavuorenpenger 1A, FI-00014 University of Helsinki

http://www.helsinki.fi/yty/english/index.htm

[email protected]

1 email: [email protected]

Stephanie C. AYMANS1 & Simone KAUFFELD (Brunswick)

To leave or not to leave? Critical factors for university dropout among first-generation students

Abstract

Researchers who study university dropout have identified personal and organizational factors as crucial. The question is whether these factors affect first-generation students (FG) in the same way as they affect others (non-FG). Our sample consisted of 286 non-FGs and 250 FGs from three German universities, who responded to an online survey. For both groups, the quality of information before studying had a direct effect on the probability of student dropout. For FGs, the quality of information in the first semester increased self-efficacy and decreased the probability of student dropout. For non-FGs, both self-efficacy and the quality of information in the first semester decreased the perceived organizational constraints and hence the probability of student dropout. Recommendations for universities are discussed.

Keywords

First-generation, university dropout, self-efficacy, structural equation model

Soll ich bleiben oder gehen? Eine Analyse von Abbruchgründen des Studiums bei der First-Generation

Zusammenfassung

Studienabbrüche werden durch personale und organisationale Faktoren erklärt.

Die Frage ist, ob für Studierende der First-Generation (FG) dieselben Zusammenhänge wie für andere Studierende (non-FGs) gelten. Den Online-Fragebogen füllten 250 FGs und 286 non-FGs von deutschen Universitäten aus.

Bei beiden Gruppen besteht ein direkter Zusammenhang zwischen der Qualität der Informationen vor Studienbeginn und der Abbruchwahrscheinlichkeit. Für FGs erhöht die Qualität der Informationen während des ersten Semesters die Selbstwirksamkeit und senkt dadurch die Abbruchwahrscheinlichkeit. Bei der non-FG senken die Selbstwirksamkeit und die Qualität der Informationen im ersten Semester die wahrgenommenen Barrieren und dadurch die Abbruchwahrscheinlichkeit. Handlungsempfehlungen für Universitäten werden diskutiert.

Schlüsselwörter

First-Generation, Studienabbruch, Selbstwirksamkeit, Strukturgleichungsmodell

1 Introduction

Although it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Germany remains a country of strong societal stratification, particularly in the domain of education (EL-MAFAALANI, 2015). In addressing social differences, the current study compares two specific subgroups of beginning students, FG students and non-FG students, to explore crucial factors for student dropout. FGs are defined as students whose parents did not study within a university setting (JEHANGIR, 2010). As part of the uneducated class, FGs are a group most at risk of dropout, although they account for 50 % of the total student population (MIDDENDORF, APOLINARSKI, POSKOWSKY, KANDULLA & NETZ, 2013). Given that FG dropout is higher than non-FG rates (MIDDENDORF et al., 2013), the question remains whether the same mechanisms for predicting university dropout apply to both groups. Therefore, we focused on (1) the quality of information before studying and (2) information received in the first semester, as universities can easily influence such information (e.g., via a well-structured homepage). Additionally, we included self-efficacy and organizational constraints as mediators. While both have been identified as important for academic success, prior research has found that FGs have weaker self-efficacy than non-FGs (RAMOS-SANCHEZ & NICHOLS, 2007).

Our study contributes to the research on university dropout in several ways. First, contrary to previous studies addressing personal factors (e.g., HORN & NUÑEZ, 2000), we have focused on organizational factors (e.g., quality of information) that universities can influence, comparing the relation between information and university dropout for FGs and non-FGs. Second, we show that due to weaker self-efficacy, FG students begin their studies under more difficult circumstances. Universities may apply the results to develop more efficient programs to decrease dropouts of both FGs and non-FGs. Finally, we have established structural equation models for FGs and non-FGs to demonstrate the relations between the aforementioned variables.

2 Theoretical Background

Whereas some studies have found no link between parental education and study time or academic success (ALARCON & EDWARDS, 2013; SCHLECHTER & MILEVSKY, 2010), or between parental education and adaptation to university life (RAMOS-SANCHEZ & NICHOLS, 2007), an increasing number of studies have emphasized the connection between university dropout and FGs. FGs are three times less likely to begin coursework toward a degree (77 % vs. 33 % among non-FGs), and one in five FGs either changes his/her subject major (MIDDENDORF et al., 2013) or drops out (CINGANO & CIPOLLONE, 2003; DELL’MOUR & LANDLER, 2007; MARTINEZ, SHER, KRULL & WOOD, 2009).

Studies asserting a correlation have identified different reasons for FG academic underperformance, including the influence of parental education on the ability to cope with the demands of university life (ADDINGTON, 2005); lack of support in preparation for academia (HORN & NUÑEZ, 2000); and less familiarity with the varieties of learning strategies (STEPHENS et al., 2012). These studies have highlighted differences in personal factors between FGs and non-FGs. However, university dropout research generally has distinguished between personal and organizational factors (e.g., BLÜTHMANN, 2014). In our study, we have concentrated on organizational factors, such as the special role of information, which universities can influence (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Model of Hypotheses

One important factor in explaining university dropout is self-efficacy because it controls cognitive, motivational, affective, and decision-relevant processes (BANDURA, 1997). It is defined as people’s confidence in their ability to perform an act or exercise successfully (BANDURA & CERVONE, 1983). Not surprisingly, people with greater self-efficacy develop better information-seeking effectiveness (BROWN, GANESAN & CHALLAGALLA, 2001); exhibit higher motivation, better performance, and more tenacity; and have more academic success (CARAWAY et al., 2003). Similarly, experiences with setting and reaching goals increase students’ readiness to set further goals and to pursue them, even in the face of obstacles (CARAWAY et al., 2003; RICHARDSON, CHARLES & BOND, 2012). Hence, people with high self-efficacy cope with organizational constraints (e.g., unclear structure of the study program) easier than people with weaker self-efficacy. Since it is known that perceived constraints lead to an increased risk of student dropout (BLÜTHMANN, 2014), we assume that organizational constraints mediate the relation between self-efficacy and the probability of student dropout.

H1a: Self-efficacy affects the probability of student dropout via organizational constraints.

Additionally, FGs show lower levels of self-efficacy than non-FGs (RAMOSSANCHEZ & NICHOLS, 2007). It seems probable that parents with university experience serve as role models for their children, who are more likely to expect success within the university.

H1b: FGs’ self-efficacy is weaker than non-FGs’ self-efficacy.

To avoid university dropout, it is important to determine exactly what strengthens self-efficacy beliefs. We assume that the quality of information about the study program (especially on pre-study program requirements), the transition between bachelor and master studies, and career perspectives influence students’ self-efficacy and are therefore important organizational factors for explaining university dropout (BLÜTHMANN, 2014). These variables mediate students’ judgment of study requirements and their likelihood of dropping out (BLÜTHMANN, 2014). Similarly, studies found a correlation between the accuracy of students’ expectations for their studies and the subsequent satisfaction with their studies (cf. SCHMIDT-ATZERT, 2005; VOSS, 2006). Information about studying likely reduces the gap between expectations and reality, which consequently decreases the probability of university dropout (e.g., GAWRILOW, SEVINCER & OETTINGEN, 2009; OETTINGEN & GOLLWITZER, 2002). Furthermore, realistic expectations about the content and demands have been found to increase satisfaction with the study program (HASENBERG & SCHMIDT-ATZERT, 2013), the lack of which can result in a change of university, a change of subject, or university dropout (BRANDSTÄTTER, GRILLICH & FARTHOFER, 2006; SUHRE, JANSEN & HARSKAMP, 2007).

The present study distinguished between information acquired independently by the student before studying (quality of information before studying) and information the university provided directly as part of the first-semester orientation (quality of information in the first semester). In our models, we focused on quality over quantity, as the sheer amount of information is no indicator of whether students consider themselves well-informed (KELLER & STAELIN, 1987).

In line with previous studies (GAWRILOW ET AL., 2009; OETTINGEN & GOLLWITZER, 2002), we assume:

H2a: High quality of information before studying decreases the probability of student dropout.

H2b: High quality of information in the first semester decreases the probability of student dropout.

Assuming that information reduces the level of uncertainty and strengthens students’ confidence (MUNRO & HANLEY, 2001), we hypothesized that the quality of information decreases the probability of student dropout, mediated via both self-efficacy and a combination of self-efficacy and organizational constraints.

Hypothesis 2c: The quality of information before studying reduces the probability of student dropout mediated via self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2d: The quality of information in the first semester reduces the probability of student dropout mediated via self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2e: The quality of information before studying has an indirect effect on the probability of student dropout via self-efficacy and perceived organizational constraints.