Higher Education

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 613–632 | Cite as

Individual and school factors affecting students’ participation and success in higher education

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify school factors that affect students’ achievements at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. The analysis included data of 9,894 students who studied in Auckland regional secondary schools in 2004. The results indicate that, although student demographic characteristics are associated with students’ pathways and achievements, schools’ demographic composition did not affect student outcomes. It was found, however, that schools’ organisational factors do have an effect. At the university level, none of the schools’ characteristics was related to students’ achievements at the higher end of the achievement scale (GPA ≥ 4). However, students from private or state-integrated schools were found to be more likely to achieve low GPA (<2) than students who came from state schools. In conclusion, it is suggested that interventions targeting at-risk populations based on demographic factors should focus on individuals or groups rather than on institutions; while school-based interventions should identify the schools by their structure and function rather than by their demographic characteristics.

Keywords

Higher education Secondary schools University 

References

  1. Abramson, H. J. (1988). Making sense of data. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anae, M., Anderson, H., Benseman, J., & Coxon, E. (2002). Pacific peoples and tertiary education: Issues of participation. Auckland: Auckland Uniservices Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Arum, R. (1998). Invested dollars or diverted dreams: The effect of resources on vocational students’ educational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71(2), 130–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, E. (2006). MATES 2005 evaluation report. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  5. Ayres, E., Timperley, H., Shulruf, B., & Cooper, L. (2006). 2005 Tuakana programmes evaluation report number one. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, G. (1990). Single sex schooling and subject choice: Pattern of enrolment at Monash University. Australian Educational Researcher, 17(3), 47–64.Google Scholar
  7. Benseman, J., Coxon, E., Anderson, H., & Anae, M. (2006). Retaining non-traditional students: Lessons learnt from Pasifika students in New Zealand. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birrell, B. (1994). Competition for tertiary entrance: The Monash experience. People and Place, 2(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
  9. Boyd, S., Chalmers, A., & Kumekawa, E. (2001). Beyond school: Final year school students’ experiences of the transition to tertiary study or employment. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  10. Bragg, D. D., Loeb, J. W., Gong, Y., Deng, C.-P., Yoo, J.-s., & Hill, J. L. (2002). Transition from high school to college and work for tech prep participants in eight selected consortia (Research/Technical No. V051A990006). National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, St. Paul, MN [BBB36652].Google Scholar
  11. Brandes, B. G., Hayward, G. C., Kirst, M. W., & Mazzeo, C. (1997). PACE report: Higher education outreach programs: A synthesis of evaluations. Policy Analysis for California Education.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, H. E., & Burkhardt, R. L. (1999). Predicting student success: The relative impact of ethnicity, income, and parental education. AIR 1999 Annual Forum Paper.Google Scholar
  13. Byrne, G. R. (1993). Past, present and future: A Year 12 profile. Unpublished MEd FTI: No, University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic.Google Scholar
  14. Cabrera, A. F., & Las Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CEPRI. (2002). Postsecondary progression of 1993–94 Florida public high school graduates: 2002 update (Research/Technical). Florida State Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement, Tallahassee [BBB37224].Google Scholar
  16. Collins C., Kenway J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Deakin: Deakin University, University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Comi, S. (2003). Intergenerational mobility in Europe: Evidence from ECHP (Working Paper No. 03.2003). Milan: University of Milan.Google Scholar
  18. Cummings, W. (1984). Going overseas for higher education: The Asian experience. Comparative Education Review, 28(2), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Boni, D. (2002). Cambridge here for NCEA unbelievers. New Zealand Herald.Google Scholar
  20. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Education Review Office. (2003). Students in years 9 and 10 (No. D-EducationReviewOffice0304). Wellington, New Zealand: Education Review Office.Google Scholar
  22. Education Review Office. (2004). ERO school and early childhood education reports. Retrieved 28 March 2006, from http://www.ero.govt.nz/ero/publishing.nsf/Content/Reports.
  23. Fresko, B. (1996). Effects of tutor-tutee intimacy, tutoring conditions and tutor background on college student tutor satisfaction. Educational Studies, 22(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fresko, B. (1997). Attitudinal change among university student tutors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14), 1277–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller, A. M. (1995). The effects of single-sex classes on students’ confidence and participation in mathematics. Unpublished MEd FTI: No, University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic.Google Scholar
  26. Gannicott K. (1998). School autonomy and academic performance (371.2 GAN). Australia: Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training.Google Scholar
  27. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Markman, J., & Rivkin, S. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harman, G. (2002). Australia as a major higher education exporter. Paper presented at the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, the 15th Annual Conference Vienna.Google Scholar
  29. Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 329–426.Google Scholar
  30. Hughes, D., & Pearce, D. (2003). Secondary school decile ratings and participation in tertiary education. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 38(2), 193–206.Google Scholar
  31. James, R. (2001). Participation disadvantage in Australian higher education: An analysis of some effects of geographical location and socioeconomic status. Higher Education, 42(4), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to higher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Juhong, B., & Maloney, T. (2005). Understanding the effects of ethnicity on acedemic success at university. Auckland: The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  34. Kim, M. M., & Placier, M. (2004). Comparison of academic development in Catholic versus non-Catholic private secondary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(5).Google Scholar
  35. King R. (2004a). 2004 Tertiary analysis: Business and economics faculty, Starpath technical report 2. Auckland: The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  36. King R. ((2004b). 2004 Tertiary analysis: Engineering faculty Starpath technical report 3. Auckland: The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  37. Konstantopoulos, S. (2005). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB:82, and NELS:92. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205–227.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1992). Who goes where? Choice of single-sex and coeducational independent secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 65(3), 226–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lumley, T. (1992). Coeducation and factors affecting choice of university courses. Australian Educational Researcher, 19(2), 51–60.Google Scholar
  41. Luyten, H. (2003). The size of school effects compared to teacher effects: An overview of the research literature. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1), 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maani, S. A. (2000). Secondary and tertiary education attainment and income levels for Maori and non-Maori over time. Wellington: Treasury New Zealand.Google Scholar
  43. Marks, G. N., McMillan, J., & Hillman, K. (2001). Tertiary entrance performance: The role of student background and school factors. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  44. Martin, D. (2005). Report on the performance of the New Zealand qualifications authority in the delivery of secondary school qualifications. Wellington: State Service Commission.Google Scholar
  45. McEwen, A., Knipe, D., & Gallagher, T. (1997). The impact of single-sex and coeducational schooling on participation and achievement in science: A 10-year perspective. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(2), 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGaw, B., & Lievesley, D. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD, UNESCO.Google Scholar
  47. Ministry of Education. (2004). Education statistics of New Zealand for 2003. Wellington: The Data Management and Analysis Division.Google Scholar
  48. Morgaman, P., Desai, A., Leone, D., McIntyre, B., Moore, E., Stuart, J., et al. (2002). Postsecondary progression of 1993–94 Florida public high school graduates: 2002 update (Research/Technical). Florida State Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement, Tallahassee [BBB37224].Google Scholar
  49. Muijs, R. D. (1997). Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept; a longitudinal perspective. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 339–377.Google Scholar
  50. NCES. (2006). NELS:88/2000. Fourth follow-up: An overview. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/. Retrieved 24 February 2006.
  51. NZQA. (2005). How grade averages are calculated. http://nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/results/gradeaverages.html. Retrieved 20 April 2006.
  52. NZQA. (2006). University entrance standard. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/ue/index.html. Retrieved 26 April 2006.
  53. O’Shea, C., & Jones, M. (2005). Creating tomorrows scientists and engineers: K-12 outreach that works. Williamsburg, Virginia: College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
  54. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Damme, J. V. (2000). Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: similarities and differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Outreach Task Force. (1997). New directions for outreach. Report of the University of California Outreach Task Force. California: Board of Regents, University of California.Google Scholar
  56. Perna, L. W. (2002). Precollege outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 64–83.Google Scholar
  57. Polesel, J. (1995). Victoria high school scholastic selection, social class, gender and ethnicity in an Australian public high school: a study of a secondary school in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. Unpublished PhD FTI: No, University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic.Google Scholar
  58. Quigley, D. D. (2002). The Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP) and its impact on high school students’ completion of the University of California’s Preparatory Coursework. CSE Technical Report (Evaluative/Feasibility No. CSE-TR-589). California Univ., Los Angeles. Center for the Study of Evaluation [CIQ11702], National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles, CA [BBB30050].Google Scholar
  59. Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, D. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(4), 307–335.Google Scholar
  60. Ringold, D. (2005). Accounting for diversity: Policy design and Māori development in Aotearoa New Zealand. http://www.fulbright.org.nz/voices/axford/ringoldd.html. Retrieved 20 April 2006.
  61. Rodriguez, J. L., Jones, E. B., Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2004). Promoting academic achievement and identity development among diverse high school students. San Diego State University.Google Scholar
  62. Salmond, A. (2004). Equal opportunities annual reports summary 2004. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  63. Salmond, C., & Crampton, P. (2002). NZDep2001 Index of Deprivation User's Manual (User's Manual). Wellington: University of Otago, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  64. Schleicher, A., Albiser, E., Charbonnier, E., Davidson, M., Guillot, S., Heller, J., et al. (2005). Education at a glance: OECD indicators—2005 Edition.Google Scholar
  65. Scott, D. (2003). Participation in tertiary education. Wellington: Ministry of Education New Zealand.Google Scholar
  66. Scott, D. (2005). Retention, completion and progression in tertiary education in New Zealand. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Tumen, S. (2006a). The predictability of enrolment and first year university results from secondary school performance. Auckland: Starpath—Project for Tertiary Participation and Success, The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  68. Shulruf, B., Keuskamp, D., & Timperley, H. (2006b). Coursetaking or subject choice? Technical report #7. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  69. Shulruf, B., Meagher-Lundberg, T., & Timperley, H. (2006c). Extra curricular activities and high school students: A systematic review, technical report #6. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  70. Shulruf, B., Tolley, H., & Tumen, S. (2005). Students’ pathways and achievements, technical report No. 4. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  71. Spielhofer, T., Benton, T., & Schagen, S. (2004). A study of the effects of school size and single-sex education in English schools. Research Papers in Education, 19(2), 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strathdee, R. (2003). The qualifications framework in New Zealand: Reproducing existing inequalities or disrupting the positional conflict for credentials. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Countering the critics: responses to recent criticisms of school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 41–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thrupp, M. (1995). The school mix effect: The history of an enduring problem in educational research, policy and practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tolley, H., Smith, S., Gasson, C., Tumen, S., Timperley, H., & Shulruf, B. (2005). Students, staff and school engagement in extra-curricular activities, a scoping study. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  76. University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate. (2004). University of Cambridge International Examination. http://www.cie.org.uk/CIE/WebSite/AboutCIE/AboutCIE.jsp. Retrieved 17 august 2006.
  77. Valerie, E. L., Todd, K. C.-H., David, T. B., Douglas, G., & Becky, A. S. (1998). Sector differences in high school course taking: A private school or Catholic school effect? Sociology of Education, 71(4), 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vandenberghe, V., & Robin, S. (2003). Does (private) education matter? Recent evidence from international OECD data. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Universite Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  79. Vaughan, K. (2005). The pathways framework meets consumer culture: Young people, careers, and commitment. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Win, R., & Miller, P. W. (2005). The effects of individual and school factors on University students’ academic performance. The Australian Economic Review, 38(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations