Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 45–66 | Cite as

At-risk at the gate: prediction of study success of first-year science and engineering students in an open-admission university in Flanders—any incremental validity of study strategies?

  • Maarten PinxtenEmail author
  • Carolien Van Soom
  • Christine Peeters
  • Tinne De Laet
  • Greet Langie
Article

Abstract

Against the background of the increasing need for skilled scientists and engineers, the heterogeneous inflow of incoming students in science and engineering programs is particularly challenging in universities with an open-admission system. The prime objective of the present study is to determine the main academic and non-academic determinants of study success in a STEM study program in the largest university of Flanders (Belgium). The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), supplemented with additional background questions, was completed by 1521 first-year science and engineering students at the start of the academic year. To evaluate the incremental value of a particular predictor in explaining first-year GPA, a series of nested regression models were evaluated. Math level and math/science GPA in secondary school were strongly related to first-year GPA. Analysis of the LASSI questionnaire showed that students’ motivation/persistence, concentration, and time management skills at the start significantly influenced student achievement at the end of the first year, although the incremental value over prior achievement was small. Altogether, our results show that incoming students’ ability to regulate their study efforts has beneficial consequences in terms of achievement. Additionally, a negative recommendation by the secondary school teacher board was a clear indicator to identify at-risk students. In open-admission universities wherein new students cannot be formally denied access based on weak prior mathematics and science achievement, a focus on effort-related self-regulatory skills training (e.g., time management sessions) offers valuable opportunities for remedial interventions.

Keywords

At-risk students STEM Study skills Achievement 

Notes

Funding Information

This work was supported by the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership programme under Grant 2014-1-BE02- KA200-000462.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Beier, M. E. (2013). Trait complex, cognitive ability, and domain knowledge predictors of baccalaureate success, STEM persistence, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 911–927.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashford, S. N., Lanehart, R. E., Kersaint, G. K., Lee, R. S., & Kromrey, J. D. (2016). STEM pathways: examining persistence in rigorous math and science course taking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 961–975.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9654-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernold, L., Spurlin, J. E., & Anson, C. M. (2007). Understanding our students: a longitudinal study of success and failure in engineering with implications for increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 263–274.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00935.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burtner, J. (2005). The use of discriminant analysis to investigate the influence of non-cognitive factors on engineering school persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 335–338.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00858.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cano, F. (2006). An in-depth analysis of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 1023–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, J. S., & Osterlind. (2008). Investigating differences between low- and high-stakes test performance on a general education exam. The Journal of General Education, 57, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: the third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2011). Predicting academic performances in engineering using high school exam scores. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27, 1343–1351.Google Scholar
  9. Eagan, K.M., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M.J. (2010). What matters in STEM. Institutional contexts that influence STEM bachelor’s degree completion rates, Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis. Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010). Analyzing the factors that influence persistence rates in STEM field, majors: introduction to the symposium. Economics of Education Review, 29, 888–891.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellingson, J. E., & McFarland, L. A. (2011). Understanding faking behavior through the lens of motivation: an application of VIE theory. Human Performance, 24, 322–337.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.597477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott, R., Strenta, A. C., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1996). The role of ethnicity in choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37, 681–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitchett, S., King, K., & Champion, J. (2011). Outcomes of mathematics placement: an analysis of advising and enrollment data. Primus, 21, 577–591.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970903515323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. French, B. F., Immekus, J. C., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). An examination of the indicators of engineering students’ success and persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 419–425.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00869.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(127), 73–89.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales. Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50, 14–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huy, L., Robbins, S. B., & Westrick, P. (2014). Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded P-E fit framework: a large-scale multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, Advanced online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035998.
  19. Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students: relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 319–336.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01066.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 47–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leuwerke, W. C., Robbins, S., Sawyer, R., & Hovland, M. (2004). Predicting engineering major status from mathematics achievement and interest congruence. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Litzler, E., & Young, J. (2012). Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 319–345.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00052.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olaussen, B. S., & Braten, I. (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979809598346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olivier, I., Lacante, M., & Briers, V. (2015). A re-calibration of the LASSI norm scores for a Flemish educational context (Unpublished Master Thesis). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, K. W., Medhanie, A. G., Harwell, M. R., Anderson, E., & Post, T. R. (2011). High school mathematics curricula, university mathematics placement recommendations, and student university mathematics performance. Primus, 21, 434–455.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970903261902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 315-329.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034027.
  27. Pinxten, M., de Fraine, B., van Damme, J., & D'Haenens, E. (2010), Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Effects of type of achievement measure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 689–709.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X493071.
  28. Pinxten, M., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Boonen, T., & Vanlaar, G. (2014). "I choose so I am". A logistic analysis of major selection in university and successful completion of the first year, Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1919–1946.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914904.
  29. Pinxten, M., De Laet, T., Van Soom, C., ∓ Langie, G. (2015). Fighting increasing drop-out rates in the STEM field: The European readySTEMgo Project. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual SEFI Conference. Annual Conference of European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). Orléans, France, pp. 1-8.Google Scholar
  30. Ricci, C. (2006). Book review: Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions by R. Zwick. The Journal of Educational Thought, 40, 177–180.Google Scholar
  31. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson, C. L., & Croft, A. C. (2003). Engineering students—diagnostic testing and follow up. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 22, 177–181.  https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/22.4.177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  35. Somers, C. B. (1996). Correlates of engineering freshman academic performance. European Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 317–326.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043799608923417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2014). Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement. In S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock, & M. Böhmer (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development assessment, training, and learning (pp. 5–25). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tynjälä, P., Salminen, R. T., Sutela, T., Nuutinen, A., & Pitkänen, S. (2005). Factors related to study success in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 221–231.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790500087225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyson, W. (2011), Modeling Engineering Degree Attainment Using High School and College Physics and Calculus Coursetaking and Achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 760–777.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00035.x.
  41. van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vanderoost, J., Callens, R., Vandewalle, J., & De Laet, T. (2014). Engineering positioning test in Flanders: a powerful predictor for study success, Proceedings of the 42 nd Annual Conference of European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). Birmingham, UK, 15–19 September 2014, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  43. Vanderoost, J., Van Soom, C., Langie, G., Van den Bossche, J., Callens, R., Vandewalle, J., & De Laet, T. (2015). Engineering and science positioning tests in Flanders: powerful predictors for study success? Proceedings of the 43 rd Annual Conference of European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). Orléans, France, 29 June - 2 July 2015, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  44. Van Soom, C., & Donche, V. (2014). Profiling first-year students in STEM programs based on autonomous motivation and academic self-concept and relations with academic achievement. PLoS One, 9, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112489.Google Scholar
  45. Veenstra, C. P., Dey, E. L., & Herrin, G. D. (2008). Is modeling of freshman engineering success different from modeling non-engineering success? Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 467–479.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00993.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory (2nd ed.). Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  47. Yates, J., & James, D. (2007). Risk factors for poor performance on the undergraduate medical course: cohort study at Nottingham University. Medical Education, 41, 65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02648.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang, G., Anderson, T. J., Ohland, M. W., & Thorndyke, B. R. (2004). Identifying factors influencing engineering student graduation: a longitudinal and cross-institutional study. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 313–320.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00820.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zwick, R. (Ed.). (2004). Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. London: Routledge Farmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven Engineering and Science Education Center, Faculty of Engineering TechnologyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Leuven Engineering and Science Education Center, Faculty of ScienceKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Leuven Engineering and Science Education Center, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Leuven Engineering and Science Education Center, Faculty of Engineering ScienceKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations