discussion board response

Intent to Persist in College Freshmen: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Mentorship

Stefanie T. Baier, Barry S. Markman, Francesca M. Pernice-Duca

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 57, Number 5, July 2016, pp. 614-619 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI:

For additional information about this article

[ Access provided at 14 Oct 2020 19:02 GMT from Wilmington University ]

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0056

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/626131

614 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

614 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

Intent to Persist in College Freshmen: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Mentorship Stefanie T. Baier Barry S. Markman Francesca M. Pernice-Duca

We surveyed 237 first-time college students to examine the extent to which social-cognitive factors—self-efficacy, perceptions of mentorship, high school GPA, ACT scores, first-semester college GPA, and demographic charac ter istics—influence freshmen’s intent to persist. Standard multiple regression and MANOVA were conducted to determine the influence of the selected characteristics on intended persistence. The findings show that college self-efficacy and perceptions of mentorship were the strongest predictors for intentions to persist past the first college semester, whereas ACT, GPA and socioeconomic status did not predict intent to persist. Implications for freshmen retention at 4-year institutions and directions for future research are discussed.

Researchers have investigated multiple models of college student retention, including a sociological approach to academic and social integration, and programs focused on social support (Bean & Eaton, 2001; Tinto, 2006). Other models emphasize understanding students’ backgrounds, distinguishing among different institutional settings and character­ istics (Tinto, 2006) and student engagement (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). These factors may matter most during the first year, especially for First Time in Any College Students (FTIACS). In addition, constructive social interactions with role models and mentors from their families, circle of friends, peers, and university personnel including faculty members are key. Furthermore, behavioral factors are

also important for adjustment, persistence, and college success (DeBerard, Spielmans & Julka, 2004). Because of the complexity of student persistence, Bean and Eaton (2001) suggest that psychological processes be considered in retention models also. Social­cognitive aspects including the social/physical environment, behavioral, and personal influences can be applied within the context of academic persistence. Among these influences are: (a)  academic variables, such as Grade Point Average (GPA) and college entry exams (e.g., ACT); (b)  self­efficacy, the belief in one’s capability to execute courses of action required to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1986); (c)  participation in learning communities, which are small groups that support intellectual growth and foster social connections among students in a cooperative learning situation (Zhao & Kuh, 2004); (d) mentorship, includ­ ing emotional, psychological, and academic support, and career guidance (Crisp, 2009); and (e) socioeconomic status (SES) comprising parental education and occupation (Barratt, 2005). Students who are the first in their family to attend college are four times more likely to drop out than others (Engle & Tinto, 2008). They often rely on financial aid and work to afford college, and they may lack mentoring and knowledge about college life. Identifying characteristics that encourage freshmen to persist can help facilitate effective interventions to improve graduation rates.

Stefanie T. Baier is a postdoctoral fellow of Student Affairs; Barry S. Markman is Professor of Educational Psychology; Francesca M. Pernice-Duca is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology; each at Wayne State University.

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 615

Research in Brief

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 615

Research in Brief

Our study examined the extent to which college self­efficacy beliefs, mentorship per cep­ tions, prior academic achievement and parti­ ci pation in learning communities, as well as socio economic status predict intent to persist (intentions to complete degree), both at the onset and at the end of FTIACS’ first semester in college. The hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: High School GPA (HSGPA), ACT scores, first semester college self­ efficacy, and perceptions of mentoring support predict intent to persist among college students at the beginning of their first semester in college.

Hypothesis 2: College GPA, first semester college self­efficacy, perceptions of men­ tor ing support, and participation in learn­ ing communities predict intent to persist among college students at the end of their first semester in college.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between ACT scores and first semester college GPA among college freshmen is moderated by participation in learning communities.

Hypothesis 4: SES, number of hours worked, number of hours enrolled, and first­generation student status predict intent to persist among freshmen in their first semester of college.

METHOD Participants from a Midwestern, public university with a large commuter student population were recruited for the study at the fall freshman orientation, where they provided their contact information. The first­wave online survey (beginning of first semester) was completed by 239 FTIACS. Of those, 172 completed the second­wave online survey (end of first semester). Table 1 presents demographic information for the first­wave participants. The sample was diverse: more than 50% did not identify as Caucasian, and 32% identified as first­generation college students.

Academic performance data (HSGPA, ACT scores, and first semester GPA) were retrieved from the Student Tracking Advising Retention System (STARS), used for advising, retention efforts, curriculum tracking, and pro­ gram ming. A demographic survey addressed student background (see Table  1). To assess college self­efficacy, students completed the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (Solberg, O’Brian, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993). Perceptions of mentoring support were assessed through the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS; Crisp, 2009), and questions were added to learn about the students’ specific mentors. Intent to persist was measured with Davidson, Beck and Milligan’s (2009) College Persistence Questionnaire (CPQ). College self­ efficacy, mentoring and intent to persist were measured in both waves. Barratt’s Simplified Measure of Social Status (BSMSS) was used to assess socioeconomic status, using parents’ education and occupation (Barratt, 2005).

RESULTS

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for college self­efficacy, mentorship perceptions, and intent to persist for participants at the first and second waves of the study. For Hypotheses 1 and 2, standard linear multiple regression analyses were performed. Table 3 displays the results of these analyses. For Hypothesis 1, the total model was significant (p < .001) and indicated that the predictors explained 45.7% of the variance. Moreover, the standardized regression coefficients showed that college self­ efficacy (β = 0.49) and mentorship perceptions (β = 0.30) significantly predicted intent to persist. ACT scores and HSGPA were not significant predictors in the model. The squared semipartial correlations (sr²), which indicate each variable’s unique contribution to the model, show that 18.1% of the variance was uniquely accounted for by college self­

616 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

616 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

TABLE 1. Demographics on First Time in Any

College Students (FTIACS)

FTIACS characteristics n % Age

17–18 217 91.6 19–20 19 8.1 Missing 1 0.4

Gender Men 81 34.2 Women 156 65.8

Ethnicity African American / Black 42 17.7 American Indian / Alaska Native

4 1.7

Asian American / Asian 48 20.3 Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander

1 0.4

Hispanic or Latino 6 2.5 Middle Eastern 21 8.9 White/Caucasian 101 42.6 Other 14 5.9

First-Generation College Student Status First-Generation 76 32.1 Not First-Generation 159 67.1 Missing 2 0.8

BSMSS Socioeconomic Status Categories Low (8–26) 54 22.8 Medium (27–46) 74 31.2 High (47–66) 92 38.8 Missing 17 7.2

Note. BSMSS = Barratt’s Simplified Measure of Social Status.

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for College Self-Efficacy, Mentorship, and Intent to Persist

Beginning of Semester End of Semester

Variable M SD n M SD n College Self-Efficacy 7.45 1.24 170 7.46 1.13 170 Mentorship Perceptions 3.73 1.13 168 3.81 0.49 168 Intent to Persist 3.43 0.37 168 3.43 0.41 168

efficacy and 7.2% was accounted for by perceptions of mentorship, whereas HSGPA and ACT scores each accounted for less than 1.0% of unique variance. Findings were similar for Hypothesis 2. The results of this analysis indicated that the predictors explained 41.0% of the variance in intent to persist. College self­efficacy significantly predicted intent to persist at the end of the first semester in college (β = 0.40) as did mentorship perceptions (β = 0.35), whereas college GPA and participation in learning communities did not. The importance of college self­efficacy and perceptions of mentorship at the end of the FTIACS’ first semester in college is similar to the findings in the first wave; however, the standardized regression coefficients dropped for self­efficacy by 0.9 and increased for mentorship by 0.5. The squared semipartial correlations indicated that 12.4% of the variance was uniquely accounted for by college self­efficacy, 9.4% by perceptions of mentorship, 1.4% first semester college GPA and 0.5% by participation in learning communities. When asked, “When I am looking for advice regarding my decisions that affect my academic performance or relate to college I first go to . . .” of those who answered, 52.0% selected family member, followed by a friend (28.0%), faculty member (14.0%) and 6.0% staff at the university. For Hypothesis 3, analyses were conducted using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) to deter mine whether there were moderation effects. No

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 617

Research in Brief

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 617

Research in Brief

TABLE 3. Standard Multiple Regressions Predicting FTIACS’ Intent to Persist

Variables B β sr2 F df R2 Sig. F t

First Wave – Demographics model 45.48 4, 216 .46 .001

(Constant) 1.65 8.32*

ACT Score .01 .07 .00 1.12

High School GPA –.03 –.03 .01 –0.57

College Self-Efficacy .16 .49 .19 8.67*

Mentorship Perceptions. .15 .30 .07 5.38*

Second Wave – End of Semester 28.09 4, 165 .41 <.001

(Constant) 1.80 9.39

First Semester GPA –.06 –.13 .01 –2.00

College Self-Efficacy .15 .40 .12 0.86*

Mentorship Perception .19 .35 .09 0.10*

Learning Community .08 .08 .01 1.26

First Wave – Beginning of Semester 0.83 4, 155 .02 .509

(Constant) 3.02 8.77*

SES –.00 –.06 .00 –0.61

Number of Work Hours .01 .04 .00 0.51

Number of Credits .03 .11 .01 1.34

First Generation Student –.08 –.09 .01 –0.98

Note. ACT Score = American College Test Score; High School GPA = High School Grade Point Average.

*p < .001 (two-tailed).

significant main effect was found for parti­ cipation in learning communities, b = 0.17, SE = 0.14, t(233) = 1.28, p = .20. A significant main effect was found for ACT, b = 0.08, SE = 0.01, t(233) = 7.16, p < .001; however, no significant interaction was found, b = –0.00, SE = 0.03, t(233) = –0.12, p = .90. PROCESS for mediating effects and simple slopes analyses then examined the main effect in depth. Analysis of simple slopes showed that ACT predicted a significant difference in college GPA for both individuals participating in learning

communities and individuals not participating in learning communities, b = 0.08, SE = 0.02, t(233) = 2.81, p = .005; b = –0.08, SE = .01, t(170) = 6.74, p = .000 respectively. A standard multiple regression analysis conducted to test Hypothesis 4 showed that the model was not significant (see Table 3). The predictors only explained 2.0% of the variance in intent to persist (p = .51). According to these results, socioeconomic factors as measured in this study did not predict intent to persist at the end of FTIACS’ first semester in college.

618 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

618 Journal of College Student Development

Research in Brief

DISCUSSION

The findings show that college self­efficacy and perceptions of mentorship were most important for FTIACS’ intentions to persist past their first semester in college. These findings are congruent with those of Brady­Amoon and Fuertes (2011), which showed that self­efficacy predicted persistence, but that it did not significantly predict academic performance. In addition to college self­efficacy, per cep­ tion of mentorship was an important factor related to intentions to persist. Although mentor ship perceptions of freshman in relation to persistence have less frequently been studied in the past, Mangold, Bean, Adams, Schwab, and Lynch (2002/2003) found a positive effect of enrollment as cohort and mentoring of freshmen on graduation and dropout rate. The findings about mentorship and self­efficacy may also allude to the connection between the two, leading less self­efficacious students to not approach their professors for mentoring support, but to consult their peers instead. The role of family members in these college students lives is important to acknowledge especially for FTIACS. Surprisingly, participation in learning communities did not positively influence students’ intent to persist according to our study. The groups differed only in that students in learning communities earned higher first­semester GPAs than did students who were not in learning communities. Lastly, socioeconomic status did not appear to matter in our study, perhaps partially because the university offers a good financial aid package for low­income students. It is possible that

socioeconomic factors become more important later in college. For example, Hoyt and Winn (2004) found that 50% of the students who did not return to college reported that they did so because of financial constraints, but also full­time work. This is especially a concern for FTIACS who are highly represented at the university where this study took place. Our study suggests that providing mentoring combined with strategies to increase self­efficacy may be one route to enhance success, including academic outcomes and reduced dropout rates, thus leading to future career success. The primary limitations of the study include the relatively modest sample size and brief follow up. The first year is most critical for persistence especially for first­ generation college students (Engle & Tinto, 2008); however, longer follow­up is needed to identify trajectories of attrition and success. The racial and ethnic diversity of the sample is a strength of this study; however, it also may limit generalizability to schools with more homogeneous student bodies. Because each university has distinct institutional and student characteristics, and academic support initiatives, this study’s results may be especially relevant to universities with a high proportion of first­generation and commuter students; however, it is likely that self­efficacy and mentorship have similar relevance for students in universities across the country.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefanie Baier, Office of the Provost, Division Student Success, 4016 FAB, Wayne State University, Detroit MI 48202; [email protected]

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 619

Research in Brief

July 2016 ◆ vol 57 / no 5 619

Research in Brief

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Barratt, W. (2005). The Barratt Simplified Measure of Social Status

(BSMSS): Measuring SES. Terre Haute, IN: Department of Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations, Indiana State University.

Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3, 73­89.

Brady­Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self­efficacy, self­ rated abilities, adjustment, and academic performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 431­438.

Crisp, G. (2009). Conceptualization and initial validation of the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS). Journal of College Student Development, 50, 177­194. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0061

Davidson, W. B., Beck, H. P., & Milligan, M. (2009). The college persistence questionnaire: Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 373­390.

DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38, 66­80.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.

Hoyt, J. E., & Winn, B. A (2004) Understanding retention and college student bodies: Differences between drop­outs, stop­ outs, opt­outs, and transfer­outs. NASPA Journal, 41, 395­417.

Mangold W. D., Bean, L. G., Adams, D. J., Schwab, W. A., & Lynch, S. M. (2002/2003). Who goes, who stays: An assess ment of the effect of freshmen mentoring and unit registra tion program on college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4, 95­122. doi:10.2190/CVET­TMDM­CTE4­AFE3

Solberg, V. S., O’Brian, K., Villareal, P., & Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self­efficacy and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self­efficacy instrument. Hispanic Journal for Behavioral Sciences, 15, 80-9. doi:10.1177 /07399863930151004

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8, 1­13. doi:10.2190/4YNU–4TMB–22DJ­AN4W

Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115­138.