Vuong

50 Journal of College Student Development

The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Academic Success of First-Generation College Sophomore StudentsMui Vuong Sharon Brown-Welty Susan Tracz

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of self-efficacy on academic success of first-generation college sophomore students. The participants in the study consisted of college sophomores from 5 of the 23 California State University campuses. An online College Self-Efficacy Inventory was employed to measure participants self-efficacy levels. The study explored four areas: the relationship between self-efficacy scores and academic success as defined by GPA and persistence rates, the academic success and persistence rates between first-generation and second-and-beyond-generation college sophomore students, the effects of the demographic factors of gender and ethnicity on self-efficacy, and the relationship between institution size and self-efficacy. Findings show that self-efficacy beliefs affect GPA and persistence rates of sophomore students and second-generation college sophomores outperform their first-generation peers. Applying to a college or university and being accepted is a major accomplishment for many young people. However, matriculating through those institutions and graduating is an even more significant accomplishment. Many factors may influence students to be successful and persist in college or to leave, and among these are self-efficacy achievement (Choi, 2005; Pajares & Schunk, 2001), first-generation college status (Horn & Nunez, 2000; Ting, 2003), gender and ethnicity, and institutional characteristics such as size (Tinto,

1982). A considerably large group of students who experience high attrition rates are college sophomores. A phenomenon known as the sophomore slump is defined by Feldman and Newcomb (1969) as sophomore students dissatisfaction with their personal college experience, resulting from students struggles with achieving competence, desiring autonomy, establishing identity, and developing purpose (Flanagan 1991; Lemons & Richmond, 1987). The second year in college is also a period of time when academic performance is no longer satisfying for its own sake, which oftentimes involves a sophomore identity crisis affecting a students social, academic, and personal self (Margolis, 1976).

First-Generation College StudentsWith the growing diversity of students in higher education, a large body of research has been focused on students who are first in their families to attend college. Billson and Terry (1982) defined first-generation students as those college students who do not have at least one parent who earned a bachelors or higher degree. The federal regulation definition of first-generation is:

an individual both of whose parents did not complete a baccalaureate degree;

in the case of any individual who regularly resided with and received support from only one parent, an

Mui Vuong is interim director of the Educational Opportunity Program, Summer Bridge Program and Renaissance

Scholars Program; Sharon Brown-Welty is Professor of Educational Research and Administration; and Susan Tracz

is Professor of Educational Research and Administration; each at California State University Fresno.

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1 51

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

individual whose only such parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree. (Higher Education Act of 1965, Sec.402B[6]g1[a])

Research has indicated that these first-generation students experience distinct barriers in gaining access to postsecondary education and thus have difficulty remaining enrolled and attaining a degree (Horn & Nunez, 2000). Ting (2003) found that first-generation students were at a higher risk for attrition than were second-generation college students. According to Ting, they tend to have lower first-semester GPA and higher dropout rates than do other students. Hoffman (2003) noted first-generation students were about twice as likely to drop out of a 4-year institution as compared to those students whose parents have a college degree. Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) also found that first-generation students often have lower high school GPA, SAT scores, and educational aspirations than do those students whose parents have a college degree. These students weak academic backgrounds may result from their personal and family experiences. Further, they are more likely to come from low-income families, enroll as part-time students, and commute to school (Ting, 2003). Ting pointed out that even when the parents are aware of the importance of higher education, first-generation students usually are not familiar with the college admission and financial aid application process.

The Sophomore SlumpThe sophomore slump phenomenon emerged during the late 1950s and is related to adjustment stressors experienced by students during their second year of college (Cuseo, 2005). It is especially challenging for first-generation college sophomore students because both the academic and student affairs sides of

the institution offer limited services to these students. Paradoxically, a study by Juillerat (2000) revealed that these students have some of the highest expectations of any class level group on campus. Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler (1995) further suggested that the academic and social integration are positively influenced by the meeting of expectations for academic and career growth. These expectations contrast with the belief by many university administrators that once entering freshmen succeed through the first year, program services are no longer necessary as they move into the second year of college. Coupled with the sophomore slump experience, many first-generation students encounter even greater challenges. This group of students is confronted with multifaceted barriers and obstacles; their struggles include achieving competence, desiring autonomy, establishing identity, and developing purpose (Chickering, 1969); yet they have not been studied.

Campus SizeStill another facet related to student adjust-ment is the size of the campus the student attends. Research (Tinto, 1982) has shown that students at small colleges face different problems related to attrition and graduation than do their counterparts at larger institu-tions. Campus size has both positive and negative impacts. Generally, smaller campuses offer more opportunities for studentfaculty interaction, which tends to increase student persistence. However, smaller campuses provide limited academic opportunities by offering fewer numbers of academic courses relative to larger institutions. In addition, smaller campuses offer fewer opportunities for social interaction. Restricted academic and social oppor-tunities generally are associated with decreased persistence and graduation rates (University of


Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

California, Office of the President [UC], 1994). According to Tinto (1982), small colleges may increase the likelihood of studentfaculty and studentstudent interaction; however, the range of possible student communities or subcultures in which to establish membership is restricted. Research literature also suggests that challenges specific to each institution may exist: small campuses may have more success in retaining graduates from small high schools; whereas larger institutions tend to be more successful in retaining students from large high schools (UC).

Academic Self-Efficacy

The construct of self-efficacy is defined as an individuals perceived capability in performing necessary tasks to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997).

Whatever other factors serve as guides and motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce desired effects by ones actions, otherwise one has little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. (Bandura, 2002, p. 2)

Banduras social cognitive theory states self-efficacy belief influences the decisions people make and the courses of action they pursue (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Individuals are more inclined to engage in tasks about which they feel competent and confident and shun those that they do not. According to Solberg, OBrien, Villareal, Kennel, and Davis (1993), college self-efficacy is operationally defined as a students degree of confidence in performing various college-related tasks to produce a desired outcome, such as passing an examination. College students with high self-efficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges to be triumphed rather than as threats to be avoided (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). In contrast, college students who doubt

their capabilities may believe that the matter is too difficult to accomplish. Such a belief often fosters stress and depression, and thus these individuals narrow their vision to effectively solve problems. Self-efficacy has been found to influence academic domains including college student academic achievement and thus is relevant to postsecondary academic success as it is found to influence how much effort is put into performing a task, persevering on the task, and as a result, affecting the level of ones achievement (Choi, 2005; Pajares & Schunk). Clearly, the confidence that college students have in their academic capability becomes a critical component of their academic success. Ample research indicates that academic self-efficacy is positively related with GPA and persistence rates in college (Bong, 2001; Pajares & Schunk; Zimmerman, 2000). Moreover, self-efficacy acts as mediation on the influence of other variables that predict academic achievement, which is to say that it acts as a filter between variables such as previous achievement and mental ability on academic achievement (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Empirical data also indicate a correlation between academic self-efficacy and perceived college stress and their joint effect on academic success for immigrant and minority students who come from first-generation background (Solberg & Villarreal, 1997). Self-efficacy is the single strongest predictor of GPA when examining academic success models, even taking into account high school academic performance and demographic variables (Solberg & Villarreal). Therefore, developing and fostering a sense of self-efficacy may influence students GPAs and hence may increase persistence rates of college students. Chickerings Vectors of Development Theory. Based on Chickerings (1969) theory, there are seven vectors that address the emotional, interpersonal, ethical, and intellectual aspects of development. The seven vectors are not



sequential but build upon one another and include: (a) developing competence, (b) managing emotions, (c) moving through autonomy towards interdependence, (d) devel-op ing mature interpersonal relationships, (e) establishing identity, (f ) developing pur-pose, and (g) developing integrity. Lemons and Richmond (1987) maintained that, of the seven vectors, four are especially significant and are discussed in more detailed: achieving competence, developing autonomy, establishing identity, and developing purpose. First-generation college sophomores are required to establish a new standard of competence in intellectual, manual, and interpersonal skills that surpass those adequate for high school and even the first year of college (Pattengale & Schreiner, 2000). With respect to the emotional independence component of autonomy, the first-generation college sophomores are expected to be self-reliant and to not depend on the support or approval of their parents and family (Pattengale & Schreiner). How successful first-generation college sophomore students establish a new sense of competency and attain a healthy interdependence within the campus commu-nity is greatly influenced by the development of an identity. Furthermore, developing purpose involves the search for direction and commitment, where it encompasses not only vocational choice but also life goals, lifestyle choices, and recreational interests (Lemons & Richmond, 1987). As noted by Chickering (1969), many young adults are all dressed up and dont know where to go; they have energy but no destination (p. 15).

PurPoSe and MeThod

The purpose of this research was to study first-generation sophomore college students to determine (a) whether academic success as defined by GPA and persistence rates is

a function of self-efficacy, (b) whether there are differences in mean academic success and persistence rates between first-generation and second-and-beyond-generation students, (c) whether there are differences in self-efficacy between gender and ethnic groups, and (d) whether there are differences in self-efficacy depending on campus size. This study explored the relationships between self-efficacy and student success (GPA and persistence rates), gender, ethnicity, generation status, and institution size of college sophomores.

SampleFive California State University (CSU) institu-tions were chosen to participate based on size of their campuses: small (enrollment 8,000), medium (enrollment 8,001 to 20,000), large (enrollment 20,001). A comparison of some of the characteristics of the five campuses that participated in the study is found in Table 1. The CSU system is one of the largest, most diverse systems in the United States. The 23 CSU institutions provide access for the vast majority of students seeking a baccalaureate education in California (CSU Mission, 2006). Widely known as an undergraduate teaching institution, the CSU system enrolled a total of 405,000 students at the time of this study (CSU Comparative View, 2006). The population of all second-year students (Cohort Fall 2005) was asked by e-mail to participate in the study. This e-mail contained information about the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI) online survey and the importance of their participation in the investigation of their sophomore experience and their academic success, a guarantee of confidentiality, and the actual CSEI online survey. To provide a small incentive, students who took the survey were advised they could have their names put into a drawing for a gift certificate at a bookstore at each of the participating campuses.



The sample of students (n = 1,291) consisted of all second-year students who replied and completed the CSEI. The online survey was posted and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 2 weeks. Every 2 days, an e-mail was sent out to remind and encourage students to participate by completing the survey. The response rate was closely monitored on a daily basis for potential technical problems. On the last day of administration of the survey, another e-mail was sent to simply remind the potential respondent to complete the survey. The population (N = 6,316) included all second-year students who were admitted to the 5 selected CSU campuses and enrolled with a minimum of 12 units every semester or quarter they had attended. Campus response rates are shown in Table 2. The total number of responding students was 1,291. Of these students, 441 (34%) were first-generation college, 730 (57%) were second-and-beyond-generation sophomores, and 120 (9%) did not respond to the question about their generational status. Table 3 shows the frequencies and percentages of ethnicity of all students and responding students by participating campuses.

TaBle 1.Comparison of CSu Campuses

Cam

pus

Size

Setti

ng

Tota

l En

rollm

ent

On

Cam

pus

Hou

sing

CSu 1 Small urban 7,800 Yes

CSu 2 Small rural 8,374 Yes

CSu 3 Medium Suburban 12,535 Yes

CSu 4 Medium urban 20,371 Yes

CSu 5 large urban 33,243 Yes

TaBle 2.Campus Student response rates

Inst

itutio

ns

Size n No.

of T

otal

R

esp

on

ses

Res

po

nse

R

ate

(%)

CSu1 Small 550 150 27.20%

CSu2 Small 617 55 8.90%

CSu3 Medium 561 94 16.70%

CSu4 Medium 1,983 442 22.20%

CSu5 large 2,605 550 21.10%

Total 6,316 1,291 20.44%

data Collection

A multitude of factors may interfere and influence the likelihood for success of first-generation students from their second-year to graduation from a university. Data were collected on the scores of the three self-efficacy subscales: Self-Efficacy in Academic Coursework (SE Course); Self-Efficacy in Social Interactions with Faculty, Counselor, and Peers (SE Social); and Self-Efficacy in Relationships with Roommates (SE Roommate). To address persistence issue, students were asked for two percentages which represented the perceived likelihood that they would complete the current term (P current term) and return the next term (P following term). These two percentages were recorded as values from 1 to 6, and those values were used as the persistence rates (P current term and P following term). It is important to note that persistence rate is not directly measured in this study. However, research (Bean, 1980; Bers & Smith, 1991) has shown that the intention to return is a strong predictor of actual persistence; hence it is a proxy measure for student persistence. The two measures of self-reported GPA, previous



term GPA and overall GPA, were based on a 4.0 scale with greater GPAs indicating better academic performance than lower GPAs. Gender, ethnicity, and generation status were also variables in this study.

InstrumentParticipants completed the CSEI, which consists of two parts (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). The first part collects demographic and academic-related informa-tion that includes age, gender, family income, institution affiliation, previous term GPA, overall GPA, ethnicity, intent of completing the current term (P current term), and the intent of continuation of enrollment for the following term (P following term). The second

part of the survey includes questions that measure academic self-efficacy. The items for the self-efficacy scores are measured using a 10-point Likert-type scale, with three subscales including SE Course (range from 20 to 200), SE Social (4 to 40), SE Roommate (2 to 20), and SE total (range from 26 to 260). Questions about getting along with family members/roommates, making friends at school, and communicating to professors, found within the three subscales (SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate), operationalize Chickerings (1969) theory by addressing the emotional, interpersonal, and intellectual aspects of development through the seven vectors. For example, efficacious college sophomore students may have a belief that they have the

TaBle 3.ethnicity of all Students and responding Students at Participating Campuses

(n and %)

Institution and Size

Ethnicity CSU1Sm CSU2Sm CSU3Med CSU4Med CSU5Lg

african american

alla 392 (7%) 267 (4%) 1,123 (12%) 89 (5%) 2,336 (9%)

respondb 5 (3%) 0 (0%) 4 (4%) 24 (5%) 48 (9%)

asian/Pacific Islander

all 366 (6.5%) 800 (12%) 2,675 (29%) 2,405 (14%) 3,330 (12%)

respond 14 (9%) 7 (13%) 39 (41%) 82 (18.5%) 96 (17%)

hispanic all 2,125 (38%) 1,948 (29%) 1,269 (14%) 5263 (30%) 7,465 (28%)

respond 73 (49%) 15 (27%) 20 (21%) 160 (36%) 178 (32%)

native american

all 66 (1.00%) 67 (1.00%) 64 (0.70%) 139 (0.80%) 107 (0.04%)

respond 1 (0.007%) 1 (0.200%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.005%) 1 (0.002%)

White all 1,933 (34%) 2,695 (40%) 2,255 (25%) 6,431 (37%) 7,922 (30%)

respond 41 (27%) 25 (46%) 18 (19%) 129 (29%) 133 (24%)

unknown all 636 (11%) 807 (12%) 1,269 (14%) 1,882 (11% 4,323 (16%)

respond 16 (11%) 7 (13%) 13 (14%) 45 (10%) 94 (17%)

Intl (nonres)

all 108 (2%) 87 (1%) 475 (5%) 401 (2%) 1371 (5%)

respond na na na na na

a Frequencies and percentages of all students at participating campuses. b Frequencies and percentages of sophomore students at participating campuses who responded to the survey.



capability to learn mathematics. However, they may also believe that despite their perceived capability they will not earn a good grade in the class because they do not have a positive relationship with the instructor (Wilder, 1993). Furthermore, Chickerings seventh vector involves developing integrity and may be related to skills such as honesty and openness needed to interact on a college campus, as measured by SE Roommate. The perceived capability of college sophomore students in performing necessary tasks to achieve their academic goals are rooted in the core belief that students have the power to produce desired outcomes and persevere in the face of academic challenges (Bandura, 2002). The CSEI was tested for validity and reliability in previous studies (Solberg et al., 1993; Solberg & Villareal, 1997; Zajacova et al., 2005). A study with a sample of 164 Mexican American and Latino American college students was conducted to establish an internal consistency reliability using coefficient alpha, and the estimates were .93 for the total CSEI and .88 for each of the SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate subscales, respectively (Solberg et al.). Findings also indicated that CSEI was found not to be sensitive to differences in acculturation, gender, or class level. The subscales (SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate) were found to have strong internal consistency and demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. A pilot study of the instrument used in this study was conducted, and some formatting changes were made to accommodate the online survey as a result of the pilot study.

data analysisTo study whether academic success was a function of self-efficacy, four regression analyses were run. The four regression models run on all students used previous term GPA, overall GPA, persistence rates (P current term and P following term) as the dependent

variables. Predictor variables were the scores from the self-efficacy subscales: SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate. A Hotelling T was also run to determine the differences in the means of previous term GPA, overall GPA, P current term, and P following term between first- and second-and-beyond-generation students. The Hotelling T test was used to investigate if there was a difference in mean self-efficacy between sophomore college students who were the first in their family to attend college in comparison to their counter peers whose parents have a college degree. After, multivariate tests, independent t tests were run. In addition, a 2 9 multivariate ANOVA was used to examine the effects of gender and ethnicity on the three self-efficacy subscales. The ethnic groups were African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Mexican/Chicano, Southeast Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, White, Multi-ethnic, and Other. The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test addressed three primary questions: (a) Was there a difference in mean SE (Course, Social, and Roommate) between male and female students? (b) Was there a difference in mean SE (Course, Social, and Roommate) among the nine ethnic groups? (c) Was there an interaction between gender and ethnicity on SE (Course, Social, and Roommate)? After the multivariate test, individual univariate ANOVA tests of the three self-efficacy subscales were conducted. Lastly, a one-way MANOVA was used to examine the relationship between institution size and self-efficacy. The multivariate analy-sis was used to determine if there was a difference in mean of SE (Course, Social, and Roommate) between the small, medium, and large institution sizes. In addition, each of the three self-efficacy subscale variables (Course, Social, and Roommate) was separately tested using a univariate one-way ANOVA.



reSulTSSelf-Efficacy and Student Success

The first two of the analyses used academic success indicators as the outcome or dependent variables. In exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and student success, four regression models were run using all student data. In all models, the independent variables were SE course, SE roommate, and SE social. The four regression models used previous term GPA, overall GPA, P current term, and P following term as the dependent variables. The results for these four regression models appear in Table 4. In summary for all students, SE course was a significant predictor of all four dependent

variables or measures of academic success. SE roommate, on the other hand, significantly predicted previous term GPA and P following term, and SE social did not significantly predict any measures of academic success. For first-generation students, all models were significant for course only. To explore the relationship between first- and second-and-beyond- generation college students as relating to academic success, Hotelling T was calculated using the four indicators of academic success as the dependent variables: previous term GPA, overall GPA, P current term, and P following term. The multivariate results were significant, F = 7.13(4, 1139), p < .001, Wilkss lambda = .98, Hotellings Trace = 0.25.

TaBle 4.Multiple linear regression results Predicting academic Performance

From SelfEfficacy Variables

Dependent Variables

Independent VariablesPrevious Term

GPAOverall

GPA

Persistence Rate

(Current Term)

Persistence Rate

(Following Term)

Overall Model

F 50.99 65.83 13.41 13.73df 3, 1156 3, 1146 3, 1185 3, 1185p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001adjusted R2 11.5% 14.5% 3.0% 3.1%

SE Course

t 10.37 11.54 4.47 3.27 .40 .19 .17 .13p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

SE Social nS nS nS nS

SE Roommate nS nS

t 2.16 1.98 0.07 0.07p 0.029 0.049



TaBle 5.GPa and Persistence rates (Means and Standard deviations)

Dependent Variables M SD n t p

Previous GPA

1st Generation 2.93 0.627 414 4.79 < .001

2nd Generation 3.12 0.636 730

Overall GPA

1st Generation 2.93 0.532 414 4.39 < .001


Persistence Rate (Current Term)

1st Generation 5.58 0.684 414 1.95 0.051


Persistence Rate (Following Term)

1st Generation 5.87 0.532 414 0.61 0.54


Note. Persistence rate: 1 = 0%, 2 = 20%, 3 = 40%, 4 = 60%, 5 = 80%, 6 = 100%.

In all, significant and approaching signifi-cant cases for second-and-beyond-generation were higher than for first-generation students. Table 5 shows the GPA means and standard deviation of first-generation and second-and beyond-generation students. Test of significant differences between first-generation and second-and-beyond-generation college students were run. No significant differences were found on any SE variables, so these results are not reported in this paper and subsequent analyses were run on all students. The second two sets of analyses used self-efficacy measures as the outcomes or dependent variables. An additional analysis was conducted to determine if there were significant differences for gender, for ethnicity, and for the interaction of gender and ethnicity on the dependent variables of the three self-efficacy subscales. A 2 9 MANOVA was run. The MANOVA results for gender were not significant, F = .85(3, 1169), p = .47, Wilkss lambda = .998, Hotellings

Trace = .002. The MANOVA results for ethnicity were significant, F = 3.09(24, 3513), p < .01, Wilkss lambda = .939, Hotellings Trace = .064. Further, the MANOVA results for the interaction of gender and ethnicity were not significant, F = 1.38(24, 3513), p = .102, Wilkss lambda = .972, Hotellings Trace = .028. To follow up, three 2 9 ANOVAs, one for each of the SE variables, was run. A significant difference for SE course by ethnicity, F = 5.28(8, 1171), p < .001, was found. There was a significant difference for SE social by ethnicity, F = 4.81(8, 1171), p < .01. There was also a significant difference for roommate SE, F = 2.82(8, 1171), p = .004. Pairwise post hoc tests were run, and Table 6 shows the probabilities for multiple comparisons between ethnicity groups for SE course, SE social, and SE roommate where significant differences were found. To explore the differences between insti tu-tion sizes on self-efficacy, a one-way MANOVA



TaBle 6.Pairwise Post hoc Comparisons

Ethnic Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SelfEfficacy Course by Ethnicity

1. african american 0.015 0.026 0.002

2. Asian/Pacific Islander 0.048 0.022 0.017 0.000

3. Mexican/Chicano 0.001 0.045 0.003

4. Southeast asian 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001

5. hispanic/latino 0.044 0.002

6. native american

7. White

8. Multiethnic

9. other

SelfEfficacy Social by Ethnicity

1. african american 0.020 0.010

2. Asian/Pacific Islander 0.010 0.046 0.000 0.001 0.000

3. Mexican/Chicano 0.014

4. Southeast asian 0.014 0.032 0.020

5. hispanic/latino 0.002 0.048 0.019

6. native american

7. White

8. Multiethnic

9. other

SelfEfficacy Roommate by Ethnicity

1. african american 0.040

2. Asian/Pacific Islander 0.012 0.000

3. Mexican/Chicano 0.043 0.001

4. Southeast asian 0.005

5. hispanic/latino

6. native american

7. White 0.004

8. Multiethnic

9. other



was calculated. The MANOVA was significant, F = 4.42(6, 2370), p < .001, Wilkss lambda = .978, Hotellings Trace = .023. A series of univariate one-way ANOVAs were also conducted to separately test the three sub-scale variables to explore the differences in self-efficacy by institution size. There was only one significant univariate difference, F = 9.29(2, 1186), p < .001, on the mean of SE Roommate subscale by small (M = 8.06), medium (M = 8.29) and large (M = 7.78) size campuses. Only one significant post hoc difference was found between medium and large size campuses (mean difference = .51, p < .001).

dISCuSSIon

The multiple linear regression indicated that both GPA variables were functions of self-efficacy. In addition, there were significant differences in the academic success between first-generation and second-generation sophomore students. First-generation students have lower previous term GPAs and overall GPAs in comparison to second-generation sophomore students. Furthermore, a significant difference was also found for academic persistent as measured by the likelihood of completing current term and approaching significant difference was found for the likelihood of staying enrolled the following term. Table 7 shows the summary of the findings for the areas explored in this study. The results of the present study revealed that academic success as defined by both GPA measures and both persistence rates (as determined by the likelihood of completing the current term and the likelihood to return the following term) were functions of self-efficacy for all sophomores, particularly SE course and SE roommate, which can be associated with Chickerings (1969) third and seventh vectors of moving through autonomy

toward interdependence and developing integrity, respectively. In Chickerings theory, students have the autonomy to make choices, and making the right choices to persist in their educational pursuit is more likely to succeed academically as measured by SE course. Overall, the results of this study show that the perception college sophomore students have about their capabilities influences their academic performance and their persistence to maintain a grade point average that allows them to continue in their chosen program of study as well as to stay enrolled until graduation from the university. This study further supports other research that academic self-efficacy is positively related with GPA and persistence rates (Bong, 2001; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). In addition, this study found that there are differences in academic variables, with first-generation students faring worse, and these results are consistent with those of other researchers (Nunez & Cuccaro, 1998; Ting, 2003). However, there were no differences in self-efficacy between first-generation and second-and-beyond-generation sophomore students. This seeming inconsistency may be explained by the following research finding. A possible explanation may be related to parental influence, as research shows that parents of children with high academic aspirations have both direct and indirect influence on their childrens self-efficacy (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Further research in this area would be important. Overall, the results of this study did not find that first-generation college sophomore students have different perceptions of their self-efficacy than do second-generation college sophomore students. There are studies suggesting that minority students, many of whom are first-generation students, have lower perceptions of competence than do nonminority students. However, the findings of this study do not



TaBle 7.Summary of Findings

Dependent Variables/Independent Variables Statistical Test Findings

1a. Previous Term GPA / SelfEfficacy Multiple linear F Test S

1b. Accumulative GPA / SelfEfficacy Multiple linear F Test S

1c. Academic Persistence of Current Term / SelfEfficacy Multiple linear F Test S

1d. academic Persistence of the Following Term / SelfEfficacy

Multiple linear F Test S

2a. academic Performance hotellings T S

2b. GPa (Previous Term) / 1st and 2ndGeneration Independent t Test S

2c. GPa (accumulative) / 1st and 2ndGeneration Independent t Test S

2d. Persistent rate (Current Term) / 1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test S

2e. Persistent rate (Following Term) / 1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test nS

3a. SelfEfficacy 1st and 2ndGeneration hotellings T nS

3b. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) / 1st and 2ndGeneration


3c. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) / 1st and 2ndGeneration


3d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) / 1st and 2ndGeneration


4a. SelfEfficacy by Gender 2 9 ManoVa F Test nS

4b. SelfEfficacy by Ethnicity 2 9 ManoVa F Test S

4c. SelfEfficacy Subscale by Gender and Ethnicity 2 9 ManoVa F Test nS

4d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) by Ethnicity 2Way anoVa S

4e. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) by Ethnicity 2Way anoVa S

4f. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) by Ethnicity 2Way anoVa S

5a. SelfEfficacy (Total) / Institution Size oneWay ManoVa F Test nS

5b. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) / Institution Size oneWay anoVa nS

5c. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) / Institution Size oneWay anoVa nS

5d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) / Institution Size oneWay anoVa S

Note. S = significant, NS = Not Significant.

support that conclusion. Other researchers have argued that much of the research has the confounding variable of socioeconomic factor (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). The research findings from the current

study show that self-efficacy beliefs affect academic success as defined by GPA and persistence rates of first-generation college sophomore students. However, additional research is required to examine the impact of



self-efficacy on the following: gender, ethnicity, and first-generation students.

ImplicationsThe implications of this studys results and other research findings suggest that curricular practices that link students ideas across courses and disciplines, connect what students learn at school and their lives at home, and relate academic topic to their social and cultural experiences are powerful and effective educational devices (Nieto, 2000). It is critical that postsecondary institutions have an understanding of strong predictors of academic persistence and completion, particularly for first-generation college sophomore students. Institutions can help to develop students aspirations by providing an environment that is rich in high quality course curricula and offering challenges that can be met by first-generation college sophomore students. In addition, colleges and universities must provide social support for faculty and peer interaction. Social support is crucial in developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing ideas, and developing purpose, Chickerings (1969) vectors four, five, and six, respectively. Research has shown that students who have strong social networks that support their academic and emotional development are more likely to complete their bachelors degree (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Universities should consider allocating funding and resources to create and implement programs specifically designed for sophomore students. It is evident that the interaction with faculty and the social networking with peers are important factors in helping first-generation college sophomore students to increase aspirations about their career and educational goals and thus can positively influence their self-efficacy perception, which in turn, can have positive effects on their academic success.

limitationsLike many other studies, the current investi-gation has limitations. The limitations are as follows:

1. Participation was voluntary and academic performance such as GPA was self-report-ed, which may have resulted in grade inflation or other inaccuracies.

2. Persistence was not directly assessed in this study. The enrollment data for future academic terms were not available for this study, and the intention to return was used as a proxy measure of student persistence rates. The intention to return is a strong predictor of persistence rates and has been used as a proxy measure of persistence rates in various studies (Bean, 1980; Bers & Smith, 1991).

3. The aggregate response rate was lower than ideal. The reason may be related to the timing of the survey administration and the fact that the five participating campuses were based on both quarter and semester systems. The response rates were low in general, but the lower response rates were at campuses where the academic schedule was quarterly and students who were at those institutions were on winter break and may not have checked their e-mail regularly.

4. However, although 1,291 (20.44%) students responded, the vast majority of sophomore students surveyed were either too busy or did not deem the study to be important enough for them to respond. Although the percentages of ethnicity for all students by participating campuses are reported (see Table 3), the percentages for all sophomore students were not available and is also a limitation of this study. Further, the sample sophomore percentages may not always reflect the demographics of the entire campus.



5. It may be that first-generation students who did not develop as theorized by Chickerings (1969) first vector of develop-ing competency did not advance to the sophomore year. Hence these students did not participate in this study and information about them could not be examined here.

6. Because this study was based on theories of intrinsic variables of Banduras (1997, 2002) self-efficacy theory and Chickerings (1969) theory of student development, many other important external variables that may have influences on student retention decision were not directly measured. Such key variables include social integration and institutional commitment. However, several items, such as making friends at school, communicating con cerns/issues with a counselor, and communicating with professor, were included in the instrument. These items, to some extent, indirectly measured student social integration, which has been found to be positively influenced by expectations for personal involvement, which, in turn, influences subsequent institutional commitment (Braxton et al., 1995). Findings from this study indicate

that future research should examine other potential sources of social integration that may affect student persistence as students go through Chickerings (1969) vectors of development.

ConCluSIon

The findings of this study revealed and further supported the evidence that self-efficacy, as measured by SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate subscales, has a direct impact on GPA and persistence rates. In addition, the social self-efficacy subscale score was different for different ethnic groups of college sophomore students. The results of the current study also show that the SE Roommate subscale score was different for college sophomore students who were enrolled at mid- and large-sized institutions. Overall, the construct of self-efficacy was found to influence the academic success, as measured by GPA, and the likelihood to persist in first-generation college sophomore students.

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Sharon Brown-Welty, 5005 N. Maple

Ave., MS ED 116, Fresno, CA 93740-8025; sharonb@

csufresno.edu

reFerenCeSBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New

York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context.

Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269-290.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, C., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education 12, 155-187.

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education 32(5), 539-556.

Billson, J. P., & Terry, M. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College & University. 58(1), 57-75.

Bong, M. (2001). Between-and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23-34.



Braxton, M. J., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 595-611.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 197-205.

CSU Comparative View. (2006). CSUMentor. The California State University. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.csumentor.edu/select/compareview/

CSU Mission. (2006). CSUMentor. The California State University. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www .csumentor.edu/AboutMentor/history.asp

Cuseo, J. B. (2005). The sophomore-year experience. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://[email protected]

Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students: Analysis of four decades of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, W. J. (1991). Sophomore retention: The missing strategy in small college retention efforts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Higher Education Act of 1965. 20 U.S.C. 1070a11 (1965). Retrieved January 2, 2006, from http://www.nrcys.ou.edu /yd/programs/pdfs/hea1965.pdf

Hoffman, N. (2003). College credit in high school: Increasing postsecondary credential rates of underrepresented students. Change, 35(4), 43-48.

Horn, L., & Nunez, A.-M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students math track, planning strategies, and context support (NCES 2000-153). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Juillerat, S. (2000). Assessing the expectations and satisfactions of sophomores. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale (Eds.), Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31, pp. 19-29). Columbia: National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Lemons, L. J., & Richmond, D. R. (1987). A developmental perspective of sophomore slump. NASPA Journal, 24(3), 15-19.

Margolis, G. (1976). Unslumping our sophomores: Some clinical observations and strategies. American College Health Association, 25, 133-136.

Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.aypf.org/publications /HSReformCollegeAccessandSuccess.pdf

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.

Nunez, A.-M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, H. D. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/PajaresSchunk2001.html

Pattengale, J., & Schreiner, L. A. (2000). What is the sophomore slump and why should we care? In L.A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale. (Eds.), Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph 31, p. v-viii). Columbia: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Solberg, V. S., OBrien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-efficacy and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95.

Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of self-efficacy, social support, and stress as predictors of psycho-logical and physical distress among Hispanic college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 182-201.

Ting, S. M. (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive variables in predicting academic success of first-generation college students. College & University, 78(4), 27-31.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 687-700.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

University of California, Office of the President. (1994). Undergraduate persistence and graduation at the University of California: Review of the literature on undergraduate persistence. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.ucop.edu /sas/publish/ugpgrad2.pdf

Wilder, J. S. (1993). The sophomore slump: A complex developmental period that contributes to attrition. College Student Affairs Journal, 12, 18-27.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, M. S., & Espenshade, J. T. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Vuong

Documents

Transcript of Vuong