University of Groningen

Connecting, interacting and supporting

Brouwer, Jasperina

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:
2017

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Brouwer, J. (2017). Connecting, interacting and supporting: Social capital, peer network and cognitive
perspectives on small group teaching. [Thesis fully internal (DIV), University of Groningen]. Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen.

Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: [Link]
amendment.

Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): [Link] For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 14-04-2025

Chapter 2
Determinants of early study
success in contemporary higher
education 2
This chapter investigates the determinants of early study success (i.e., study success during
the first semester) in a contemporary higher education context. The main focus is on how
psychosocial environmental factors, among the other factors, relate to early study success,
either directly or indirectly through a self-efficacy cognition. This consideration of early
study success is important, because it is crucial for determining the likelihood that students
complete their first year successfully.3

3 This chapter is based on Brouwer, J., Jansen, E., Hofman, A., & Flache, A. (2016). Early tracking
or finally leaving? Determinants of early study success in first-year university students. Research
in Post-Compulsory Education, 21(4), 376-393. doi: 10.1080/13596748.2016.1226584

33
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

Abstract. Two theoretical approaches underlie this investigation of the determinants of early
study success among first-year university students. Specifically, to extend Walberg’s
educational productivity model, this study draws on the expectancy-value theory of
achievement motivation in a contemporary university context. The survey data came from
407 first-year students, and the measure of early study success reflects the weighted grade
point average at two moments during their first semester. A path model reveals that the
proposed extended educational productivity framework explains early study success well.
The operationalized educational productivity factors (age, prior achievement, psychosocial
environment, program satisfaction, study skills) and achievement motivation (expectancy)
all relate to early study success, directly or indirectly through expectancy and self-study. The
two theoretical approaches jointly provide a thorough understanding of early study success.
These results have notable implications for tracking students and for further research.
Keywords: educational productivity, achievement motivation, determinants, early study
success, university

2.1. Introduction
In most Western countries, including the Netherlands, enrolment in higher education has
increased in recent decades, driven by both government policies that aim to foster the
development of a knowledge economy and increasing labour market demand for highly
educated labour forces. Increasing enrolment in turn has enhanced the diversity of the
student body in terms of their background characteristics, such as prior education level.
Many students in this diverse group have difficulties meeting academic requirements
though; poor study success rates raise concerns, especially in terms of the potential costs
to society, universities, and students themselves (Beerkens-Soo & Vossensteyn, 2009;
Dutch Inspectorate of Education, 2014). A key issue for university education policy, thus, is
finding means to improve study success for this highly diverse student population. Recent
changes to university contexts, including increasing student diversity and growing calls for
institutions to be accountable for study success, have reinvigorated academic interest in
student success.
Although literature describing factors that might contribute to study success is substantial
(e.g., Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012), the relationships among these factors as well
as why and how these factors explain study success are less clear. McIlroy and Bunting
(2002) recommended an eclectic approach that includes several measures in model
building to reflect the major theoretical orientations. That is, the factors included in a model
should reflect a strong theoretical foundation and cover a variety of behaviours,
motivations, attitudes, beliefs, personality, and affect that probably contribute to
achievement. With such an approach, researchers are more likely to find an optimal model,
built on factors already known to be associated with achievement. In addition to individual
characteristics, the psychosocial environment influences achievement (Richardson et al.,
2012), so it also should be included in any conceptual model.
In Walberg’s (1984) educational productivity model, the key factors relate to the
student, psychosocial environment, and instruction. This model reflects a synthesis of many

34
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

studies pertaining to student achievement in primary and secondary education. However,

the university context differs from a primary or secondary school context in many ways, and
especially in relation to the requirements for university students. These students are
increasingly responsible for their own learning processes, and their emerging adulthood and
the major life transitions they experience likely affect the importance of several success
factors. For example, the importance of the home environment changes if university

2
students move to the campus (Arnett, 2004). Despite these differences in the context, the
educational productivity factors provide valuable starting points for investigating
achievement in a university context. It shows a reasonably complete picture of the complex
dynamics of study success by including nine factors regarding personal and motivational
factors, the psycho-social and the learning environment.
The focus on study success during the very early stage of the academic year, i.e. the
first semester, seems important, since this period is evaluated as extremely challenging. A
common phenomenon is that students starting at university feel lonely, homesick, and
uncertain about the academic rules and requirements, and have difficulties in becoming
independent learners (Christie, Tett, Cree, Hounsell, & McCune, 2008; Dias & Sá, 2012). In
particular during the first semester, these uncertainties can hinder their learning process.
When students become acquainted with the university environment, build a new peer
network, learn how to study and develop new learning strategies (Christie et al., 2008), the
determinants of study success may change over time.

2.1.1. Educational productivity model

The educational productivity model captures nine factors, divided into three groups: (1)
students’ characteristics and aptitude, comprising students’ prior achievement or ability,
age or development, and motivation; (2) environmental factors, involving the home
environment, peer environment, school environment, and mass media; and the (3) quantity
and quality of instruction (Walberg, 1984, 1986).
Based on previous studies, we extend Walberg’s (1984, 1986) educational productivity
model and apply it to the contemporary university context. Regarding student
characteristics, mixed results have emerged for the relationship with academic
achievement in higher education (Richardson et al., 2012). Some studies did not find
significant effects for age on academic achievement (Bruinsma & Jansen, 2007; McKenzie
& Schweitzer, 2001), while others found a positive relationship (Etcheverry, Clifton, &
Roberts, 2001; Jansen & Bruinsma, 2005; Sheard, 2009) or a negative relationship
(Pellizzari & Billari, 2012). Prior achievement is an indication of ability, which varies among
university students. Most studies revealed a positive relationship between prior
achievement, such as high school grades, and current academic achievement, and
appeared to be an important predictor of achievement after the first semester (e.g., McIlroy
& Bunting, 2002; McKenzie, Gow, & Schweitzer, 2004; Richardson et al., 2012).
Several previous studies focused on the environmental factors. Although for university
students, the home environment is still important, it is less critical than it might be for
pupils in primary or secondary education. However, research findings about the effect of
parents’ educational level are mixed. Dropout rates are higher among first-generation

35
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

students than second-generation students (Ishitani, 2006; Stage & Hossler, 2000), but Van
den Berg and Hofman (2005) found no evidence of an influence of parents’ educational
level on students’ study progress. The peer environment seems more important during the
early days at the university. Students who have moved out of their parents’ home are
physically distant from sources of parental support, pushing them to depend more on
support from fellow students. These peers can provide information, advice, and help with
studying, as well as emotional and practical support. Thus, peer support should relate
positively to early study success. Robbins et al. (2004), indeed, found that it correlates
positively with retention and academic achievement. Another key environmental factor is
the classroom climate, which can be measured as a sense of belonging to the university.
Zepke, Leach, and Prebble (2006) indicated that students who believe they do not belong
to the university think more of withdrawing. In the educational productivity model, the
original measures of mass media considered hours spent watching television (Fraser,
Walberg, Welch, & Hattie, 1987). Today, social media affect students’ lives more than
television (Hattie, 2009). Therefore, we replace prior operationalizations of the mass media
concept with social media use, which represents passive leisure time (if not used for
studying) and, appears negatively related to study success, according to a diary study
among university students (George, Dixon, Stansal, Gelb, & Pheri, 2008).
Assessments of the quality of instruction can be derived from students’ satisfaction
with the degree program and faculty. Suhre, Jansen, & Harskamp (2007) measured the
influence of satisfaction with a degree program on persistence among a sample of Dutch
first- and second-year law students. Beyond capabilities, satisfaction with the program is an
important driver of motivation and study behaviour and thus academic achievement.
Charlton, Barrow, and Hornby-Atkinson (2006) found also that courses matching students’
intrinsic interest predicted their completion. A reasonable indicator of quantity of instruction is
the number of hours spent on self-studying. In Dutch higher education contexts, students are
relatively free to determine how much time they spend on self-study. University students are
expected to study on their own, but the amount they do so inherently varies among students; it
also should relate to study success. We avoid using the measure of contact hours during
lectures since within one faculty they do not vary much across early-stage students. Also, many
lectures are mandatory at the start of an academic year. As previous research indicates, time
spent on (self-) study relates positively with study success (Masui, Broeckmans, Doumen,
Groenen, & Molenberghs, 2014; Suhre et al., 2007; Svanum & Bigatti, 2006; Torenbeek,
Jansen, & Hofman, 2010). Empirical findings also show that time spent studying mediates
the relationship of several other factors with study success. According to Torenbeek (2011),
students with higher prior achievement invest more time studying and perform better than
students with lower prior achievement. However, Plant, Ericsson, Hill, and Asberg (2005)
showed that students with higher prior achievement spent less time on self-study, possibly
because of their lower need to spend time studying. Intuitively, time spent on self-study
should be beneficial for study success, both directly and indirectly, because self-study is an
active extension of instruction time. The amount of time spent on self-study should also
affect students’ study skills. As Plant et al. (2005) revealed, the quantity of study time
exerts an effect, only when they control for both prior achievement and the quality of study

36
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

time (i.e., study habits). We therefore include study skills as an indicator of the quality of
study time, in addition to satisfaction with the study program.
The original educational productivity model (Walberg, 1984) includes only direct effects
from educational productivity factors to achievement or learning. Yet other studies indicate
that mediation models fit student data better than a direct effects model. The indirect
effects revealed by Reynolds and Walberg (1991) include the mediation of prior science

2
achievement on the effects of the home environment and motivation, as well as the
mediation of instruction quantity and quality on the influences of the home environment,
motivation, mass media, and peer environment. In replicating their test of the mediation
model, Reynolds and Walberg (1992) found consistent support for a mediation model, such
that some productivity factors influence achievement both directly and through other
proximal factors.

2.1.2. Expectancy-value affect theory

Although the motivational factor arises in the educational productivity model too, we expect
that extending the educational productivity model with elements of expectancy-value affect
theory (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) will help improve our understanding of the contemporary
university context. Especially, since previous studies have shown that expectancy is one of
the main predictors of study success (e.g., Richardson et al, 2012) and incorporating affect
should be relevant, in particular among first-year students, because the current Dutch
university context features several measures, such as the academic dismissal policy (e.g.,
Stegers-Jager & Cohen-Schotanus, 2012), that put pressure on students to perform and
graduate within a standard time, which may increase their failure anxiety.
Expectancy has been conceptualized in several ways (e.g., self-efficacy, control beliefs,
perceived competence), but its core meaning is that people believe, to varying levels, that
they are able to accomplish tasks successfully and are accountable for their own
achievements. Value indicates the incentive to complete a task and can be decomposed
into attainment value, or the importance of succeeding in the task; intrinsic value, or
interest and enjoyment from doing the task; and utility value, or task fit with individual
goals; as well as costs, defined as the amount of effort required to complete the task
(Eccles et al., 1983; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Affect indicates
emotional reactions to a task, including fear of failure and test anxiety (Pintrich & De Groot,
1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991).
Credé and Phillips (2011) investigated academic performance in college students and
found, with a meta-analysis of 59 studies that used the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991), that expectancy and value related positively to
academic performance, whereas affect showed a negative relation. According to
Doménech-Betoret, Goméz-Artiga, and Lloret-Segura (2014), expectancy or belief in one’s
own capabilities for achieving the requirements successfully was especially important early
in the academic year, because it influenced the extent to which the student was willing to
put effort into studying. Previous studies tested a direct relationship between motivational
beliefs (i.e., expectancy) and study success (e.g., De Clercq, Galand, Dupont, & Frenay,
2013), but motivational beliefs also might mediate the relationships between the

37
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

educational productivity factors and early study success. Credé and Phillips (2011)
encouraged researchers to investigate the MSLQ constructs in combination with other
widely used determinants of academic achievement. Accordingly, we combine these
constructs with educational productivity and we anticipate both direct effects of the MSLQ
constructs and mediation by value, affect and expectancy (e.g., Pajares, 1996).

2.1.3. Toward an extended educational productivity model

On the basis of the theoretical approaches and previous research we have outlined, we
propose a conceptual model as shown in Figure 2-1. By testing this extended educational
productivity model in a contemporary university context, we address three research
questions:
1 To what extent and how do the factors pertaining to the proposed extended productivity
model relate to early study success?
2 Do factors pertaining to the expectancy-value affect theory add value to educational
productivity factors for explaining early study success?
3 To what extent do the models for study success after the mid-term of the first semester
differ from the model after the first semester?

Fig. 2-1. Schematic overview of the proposed conceptual educational productivity model,
as extended with expectancy-value theory

38
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

2.2. Method

2.2.1. Participants
The participating students were recruited from the Psychology, Sociology, and Pedagogical
Sciences bachelor’s degree programs at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences

2
(BSS) of a research university in the north of the Netherlands with about 30,000 students.
The sample consisted of 407 first-year social science bachelor’s students (22% male, 78%
female) with a mean age of 19.3 years (SD = 2.0), such that it was representative of the
overall population of 589 first-year BSS' students, i.e., 20% male and 80% female with a
mean age of 20.0 years (SD = 2.0). From the Psychology degree program 243 students
participated, from Sociology 89 students, and from Pedagogical Sciences 75 students. The
participants were predominantly Dutch (98%), living away from home (67%), and second-
generation students (87%), such that at least one of their parents or siblings was highly
educated. Most participants entered university with a pre-university diploma (N = 325,
81%), and a minority had attained another bachelor’s degree (N = 66; 16%) or admission
for university studies (N = 11; 3%).

2.2.2. Measures
We conducted two surveys reflecting the nine educational productivity factors, divided in the
three groups of student characteristics and aptitude, environment, and instruction. The first
asked about home environment, program satisfaction, and time management (i.e. self-
study, social media use). The second survey asked about motivation, peer environment,
faculty environment, and study skills. The response rate for the first survey was
approximately 69% (N = 407), that for the second measurement was 62% (N = 364), and
the attrition rate was 11% (N = 43). Table 2-1 presents the items and structure of the
scales, means (M), standard deviations (SD), and reliability (α). The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients indicated good internal consistency for the scales, with a range from .70 to .82.
Students responded on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

39
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

Table 2-1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and internal consistency of the scales

Educational Productivity Operationalization Factors Items M SD α

(n)
Aptitude and characteristics
Ability Prior achievement 1 6.67 0.57
Age Age 1 19.34 1.98
Motivation Expectancy 9 3.50 0.42 .70
Value 9 3.97 0.42 .77
Affect 5 2.85 0.75 .77
Social-psychological environment
Home First-generation student (yes/no) 1 - - -
Educational Faculty climate 8 3.80 0.48 .78
Peer group Peer consideration 5 3.86 0.47 .75
Media Social media 1 7.29 5.74
Instruction
Quantity Time spent on self-study 1 16.64 7.97
Quality Satisfaction with program 2 4.23 0.84 .82
Study skills 10 3.37 0.58 .77
Outcome
Learning Success midpoint semester 1 1 6.77 1.13
Success end semester 1 1 6.42 1.43

Information regarding age and prior achievement was obtained from the university’s central
administration. Prior achievement, as an indicator of ability and aptitude, was derived from
the students’ secondary Dutch central school exam grades in the following core subjects:
Dutch language and literacy, English language and literacy, and math. Using achievement in
these subjects leads to similar results to those obtained from averaging performance on all
exam subjects (Severiens et al., 2011). Therefore, we used the mean of these three
subjects to indicate prior achievement. The exam grades were verified by the Dutch Ministry
of Education (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs), obtained from the central administration of the
university.
Motivation was assessed by the widely used MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991), which reflects
the affect-extended expectancy-value theory (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Its motivation
section comprises three scales: expectancy, value, and affect, with six subscales. The two
Expectancy subscales measure self-efficacy beliefs about learning and performance and
control of learning beliefs, such as “I am confident I can learn the basic concepts of a
course”. The three Value subscales measure task value, intrinsic goal orientation, and
extrinsic goal orientation, such as with, “I prefer study material that is challenging to me so I
can learn new things”. Affect subscale measures anxiety using items such as, “When I take
a test I think about how poorly I am doing compared to other students”.
Reflecting the educational productivity factors regarding home, peer and learning
environment, and media were operationalized in contemporary university context. Being a
first-generation student was a dichotomous indicator of the home environment. A student
was classified as a first-generation student if she or he indicated that neither parents nor
40
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

siblings were highly educated. Thirteen percent of students did not have any highly
educated family members. Peer consideration was the extent to which students were willing
to interact with fellow students, in terms of collaboration, providing support, or listening. The
scale was derived from the compassion and solidarity scales used by Boom and Pennink
(2012) in an organizational context. An example item was, “I am willing to listen to my fellow
students if they have problems”. Faculty climate measured the perceived atmosphere,

2
related to other students, the mentor, or the study advisor. This scale was derived from
Severiens, Ten Dam, and Blom (2006). An example item read, “I like going to the faculty”.
Media was indicated by the use of social media, measured with an open question about the
number of hours participants spent using social media weekly.
Quantity of instruction was measured with an open question about the number of
hours participants spent on self-study weekly. Quality of instruction was indicated by
satisfaction with the program. When students were satisfied, they seemingly appreciate,
among other things, the instruction. It included, for example, “I am happy with my choice of
degree program”. The item “I'm thinking about starting another degree program” was
reverse coded, so higher scores had a positive connotation. The study skills scale came
from the MSLQ’s learning strategy scales. Learning strategies can be divided into cognitive
and metacognitive strategies, such as rehearsal, organization, elaboration, critical thinking,
and meta-cognitive self-regulation, and resource management, such as time and study
environments, effort regulation, peer learning, and help seeking. However, only one
component emerged from an exploratory factor analysis in the current sample and included,
for example, “I make sure to keep up with the weekly readings and assignments for a
course”. The item, “I often feel so lazy or bored when I study for this class that I quit before I
finish what I planned to do” was reverse coded, so that higher scores had a higher
connotation.
As a continuous dependent variable, early study success was measured as a weighted
average mark (WAMi). Grades were weighted by the obtained European credits (ECTS),
divided by the maximum ECTS in the program for the first two periods (i.e., at the midpoint
of the first semester and after the first semester). With students’ informed consent,
students’ academic records were obtained from the university at the end of the first
semester, to ascertain students’ grades.

2.2.3. Procedure
All first-year students in the BSS at the aforementioned research university were
approached. During an introductory period, students were informed verbally about the aims,
the procedure, and that the data will be processed anonymously. The students received
written information and were asked for their informed consent to participate in the study
and to use their centrally registered study results. Nineteen students were excluded,
because they did not give informed consent to release their official university records. The
study was approved by the ethical committees of the departments responsible for the
degree programs. The data were collected at the midpoint and at the end of the first
semester, namely, in October 2013 and January 2014. Both surveys were provided to the
students in Dutch. Participation was voluntary, and students could fill out the surveys at

41
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

home (for Pedagogical Sciences) or at the faculty during a course (for Psychology and
Sociology).

2.2.4. Statistical analyses

Path analysis, conducted in the statistical program Mplus version 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998-2013), was performed to test the proposed extended productivity model by including
the observed variables expressed by the means of the underlying items of the scales. The
model fit was evaluated with the following indices: the chi-square (χ2), comparative fit index
(CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean
square (SRMR). Indications of a good fit are a non-significant χ2-test, RMSEA values less
than .06, SRMR at .08 or below, and CFI close to or greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999;
Kline, 2011).
Few missing values remained for the study success dependent variable at the midpoint
of the first semester (.5%) and after the first semester (0%). Little’s MCAR test was
significant, indicating that the data were not missing completely at random (χ2(137) =
305.31, p < .001). In total, the proportion of missing cases varied from .5% to 12.0%, which
is quite small and assumed to be missing at random (MAR). That is, we can assume MAR,
because the missing cases relate to the observed data, not the dependent variables (e.g.,
De Leeuw, Hox, & Huisman, 2003; Little & Rubin, 2002). To handle MAR, maximum
likelihood (ML) is appropriate, in that it handles missing data well while producing unbiased
estimates (Allison, 2002; Arbuckle, 1996; McKnight, McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007).
However, the data also indicate violations of multivariate normality. ML estimation with
robust standard errors (MLR; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012; see also Kline, 2011) thus
offers a good approach, because it can deal with MAR even when the multivariate normality
assumption is violated.

2.3. Results

2.3.1. Correlation analyses

A bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships among the
educational productivity factors, and the motivational factors (expectancy, value, and
affect). In general, small positive and significant relationships emerged for the relationships
with early study success, except for age and affect. Regarding the environment, peer
consideration related only significantly to study success at the midpoint of the first
semester (r = .13, p < .05). Furthermore, the time spent on self-study related positively to
time spent on social media (r = .10, p < .05). We included the significant relationships with
time spent on self-study, expectancy, value and affect to test their indirect effects. Because
the home environment was not significantly related to the other factors, we excluded it from
further analysis. Furthermore, study success at midpoint first semester and after the first
semester were highly correlated (r = .78. p ≤ .001). To disentangle the determinants of
each of the two time points, we estimated separate models for both time points. With this,
we prevented that most of the variance would be explained by a stability path in a

42
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

longitudinal model, which would have masked the effects of the variables of theoretical
interest. Table A2-1 in the Appendix of Chapter 2 provides more details.

2.3.2. Path modelling

We conducted path analyses to explore the hypothesized relationships among the factors in
the proposed extended educational productivity model. The fit indices, obtained using MLR,

2
revealed that the first model did not fit the data for study success at the midpoint of the first
semester (χ2 (17) = 113.36; p < .001, CFI = .696, RMSEA = .133, SRMR = .056) or study
success after the first semester (χ2 (7) = 113.26; p < .001, CFI = .727, RMSEA = .133,
SRMR = .057). Following recommendations for model trimming, we modified the model by
dropping the non-significant relationships. Through the model building process defined by
Kline (2011), we developed a final empirical model that optimally described the
relationships among all variables. Next, we added the correlation between expectancy,
value and affect, and as a third step, we tested the indirect effects on the basis of the
significant relationships. Despite the complexity and the number of observed variables still
included, these models fit the data very well for the study success at the midpoint of the
first semester (χ2(17) = 21.97; p ≥ .05, CFI = .985, RMSEA = .030 [.000;.062], SRMR
= .034) and study success after the first semester (χ 2(17) = 21.79; p ≥ .05, CFI = .987,
RMSEA = .029 [.00;.06], SRMR = .034).

Path model for study success at the midpoint of the first semester
Figure 2-2 contains a graphic depiction of the model for study success at the midpoint of
the first semester. Using the standardized variables, we found significant relationships
between study success and prior achievement, study skills, and expectancy. The indirect
relationships between early study success at the midpoint of the first semester and age (b*
= .02, p < .05), peer consideration (b* = .03, p < .05), and satisfaction with program (b*
= .03, p < .05), were mediated by expectancy. This model explained significantly 19% of the
variance in early study success at the midpoint of the first semester, 16% in time spent on
self-study, 14% in expectancy and 22% in value.

43
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

Fig. 2-2 Model of the determinants of study success midterm semester 1

Note. Significant (bold paths p ≤ .001) and standardized coefficients of the
extended educational productivity model and study success at the midpoint of
the first semester are displayed.

Path model for study success after the first semester

Figure 2-3 offers a graphic depiction of the model for study success at the end of the first
semester. Using the standardized variables, age was negatively related to study success,
whereas prior achievement, time spent on self-study, satisfaction with the program, study
skills, and expectancy were positively related to study success. The indirect relationships
between early study success after the first semester and age (b* = .02, p < .05), peer
consideration (b* = .03, p < .05), and satisfaction with study program (b* = .03, p < .05),
were mediated by expectancy, and for study skills mediated by time spent on self-study (b*
= .04, p < .05). This model explained significantly 30% of the variance in early study
success after first semester, 16% in time spent on self-study, 14% in expectancy, and 22%
in value.

44
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

Fig. 2-3. Model of the determinants of study success at the end of semester 1
Note. Significant (bold paths p ≤ .001) and standardized coefficients of the
extended educational productivity model and study success after the end of the
first semester are displayed.

Model comparisons
Compared with those for study success at the midpoint of the first semester, we found more
significant direct relationships between the educational productivity factors on early study
success after the first semester, which explained 11% more of the variance in study
success. Relationships between early study success after the first semester emerged for
age, time for self-study, and satisfaction with the program; these relationships were non-
significant with early study success at the midpoint of the first semester.
In addition to these differences, some consistencies emerged between the models. For
the mid-term of the semester as well as at the end of the first semester, time spent on self-
study was positively related to study skills and social media, which implies that students
who spent more time on their studies and have more effective study skills spent more time
on social media. Social media was also positively related to affect, suggesting that students
use social media for reflecting their emotional concerns. For value and expectancy, positive
relationships were found with age, peer consideration, and satisfaction with program. Study
skills were positively related to value, but the effect was small. Prior achievement
contributed most in explaining study success, as well as indirectly through expectancy. It
appeared that when students have obtained higher grades in high school, they belief more
that they will succeed. Expectancy was important for explaining study success, because it
mediated the relationships with several educational productivity factors. Value and affect
did not mediate the relationship with the educational productivity factors and study success
45
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

at the mid-term and after the first semester, but value was positively related to the
expectancy, and affect was negatively related to expectancy. Overall, these results reveal
the added value of the expectancy-value theory in addition to the educational productivity
factors in one model for explaining early study success.

2.4. Discussion and conclusions

Increasing enrolment in university programs, and the concomitant poor progress of first-year
university students, inspired the present study. We aimed to improve understanding of first-
years students’ early study success, at the midpoint of the first semester and after the first
semester. We adopted a theoretical framework to conceptualize educational productivity
factors in the contemporary university context and extend them with factors derived from
adapted versions of expectancy-value theory.
The findings largely support the schematic presentation of the conceptual extended
educational productivity model in Figure 2-1. Our path analysis reveals that early study
success across the first semester related, either directly or indirectly, to the educational
productivity factors age, prior achievement (ability), psychosocial environment (peer
consideration, social media use), quantity of instruction (time spent on self-study), and quality
of instruction (satisfaction with the program, study skills); and an achievement motivation, in
the form of expectancy, which was correlated with value and affect. Expectancy was an
important mediator of the relationship with the educational productivity factors. These findings
confirm the expectation that factors in our extended educational productivity model are
important determinants of early study success and supported partly our expectation that
expectancy, value, and affect would have added value, beyond the educational productivity
model, for explaining early study success.
In line with previous studies, prior achievement was the most important determinant of
study success in the first semester (e.g., Bruinsma & Jansen, 2007; McKenzie et al., 2004).
Counter intuitively, the more time students spend on social media, the more time they
spend on self-study. It, thus, appears that students use social media for self-study, such as
asking study-related questions on social media platforms and to motivate each other. Price
and Kadi-Hanifi (2011) found, indeed, that students use social media to keep motivated for
studying, which is also in line with our finding of the positive relationship between social
media and affect. Also consistent with previous studies in a Dutch university context
(Bruinsma & Jansen, 2007; Van den Berg & Hofman, 2005), we did not find an effect of the
home environment, measured as parents’ or siblings’ educational level. This may be the
result of the uneven distribution of students with highly educated kin in the representative
sample of first-year students. Nor did we find direct effects of affect or value. In contrast,
McKenzie et al. (2004) indicate that internal locus of control (affect) and task value are
important predictors of self-regulatory learning strategies and study success in the first
semester. Our inability to find impacts of value and affect on study success might result
from perceptions of these motivational factors as subject-related, rather than generic
(Tempelaar, Gijselaers, Schim van der Loeff, & Nijhuis, 2007). For example, students may

46
 DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS

be more nervous about a statistics exam than about theoretical tests, and also value the
subjects in different ways.
More determinants explained study success after the first semester than at the
midpoint of the first semester. Age, time spent on self-study and satisfaction with the
program were determinants of study success only after the first semester, not at the
midpoint of the first semester. During an academic year, courses become more difficult,

2
and the demands on students increase. Therefore, their background characteristics,
behaviours, including time spent on self-study, may become more prominent, and individual
differences among students will emerge. Students also develop a better idea of their
studies and how satisfied they are with the program. Furthermore, during the first semester,
courses are changing from a general introduction to more specific course content and it
may be that the self-study time becomes more important when courses are more specific
and possibly more difficult. This is consistent with the finding that the relationship between
self-study time on study success depends on the courses (Masui et al., 2014).
To conclude, we have evaluated the proposed extended educational productivity model
and found that different factors pertaining to the original educational productivity model
and expectancy-value theory explain early study success in a contemporary university
context. The results are important not only for research into ways to enhance study success but
also for theory about the added value of combining expectancy, value, and affect with original
educational productivity factors. The empirical findings obtained on the basis of these
theoretical orientations can be used to track early students and thus improve their study
success rates.

2.4.1. Practical implications

It is important to monitor students at the very beginning of the academic year, because
study failure can lead to a downward spiral of a low self-esteem, discouragement, or
depression (Reichart, 2007; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Early tracking and
intervention may help improve university students’ performance. Our findings indicate that
universities should pay attention not only to individual characteristics but also to the
psychosocial environment of their degree programs to enhance early study success.
Universities need to provide a psychosocial environment that meets students’ needs by
stimulating peer consideration, improving satisfaction with the program, fitting instruction to
their needs, and emphasizing the importance of time spent on self-study. To adapt the
psychosocial environment to the needs of students, universities might implement small
group teaching, such as learning communities (LCs). A range of LC forms are available
(Zhao & Kuh, 2004), but a common factor involves stable groups of students with a mentor,
who monitors the students’ study progress and gives feedback on their learning process
(Russell, 2009; University of Groningen, 2012). This mentor can use the current findings of
which factors that contribute to early study success. Universities also can use these findings
as practical guidelines for monitoring procedures, which should consider age, prior
achievement, and achievement motivation. With such information, universities can develop
assessments of the types of students who are most likely to succeed and track students
more effectively at early stages. Preventive failure measures can be applied at the moment

47
CONNECTING, INTERACTING AND SUPPORTING

deficiencies are identified, such as a low score on expectancy scales or difficulties with time
management. These recommendations are in line with recent studies (Doménech-Betoret et
al., 2014; Pawlowska, Westerman, Bergman, & Huelsman, 2014). Degree program
satisfaction is another important predictor of early study success, which suggests the need to
evaluate degree programs to ensure they meet the needs of the diverse student population
and enhance study success. More research is needed to specify monitoring procedures and
programs for tailored support.

2.4.2. Limitations and further research

The results of the path analyses, with a representative sample of students, are solid, but
some limitations and suggestions for research also should be mentioned. First, we
measured self-reports; the measurement might be improved if students recorded the time
they spent on activities during the day, rather than retrospectively estimating an average for
one week (e.g., Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). In addition to time management, students’
self-reports might describe other factors, such as achievement motivation, study skills,
satisfaction with the study program, interaction with peers, and leisure versus study-related
uses of social media. Self-reports in conjunction with qualitative research would provide
better insights into fluctuations in these variables over time. Second, our study was cross-
sectional; a longitudinal design could shed more light on the temporal order of events and
fluctuations in behaviours, attitudes, beliefs, and motivations. Third, we tested several
theory-driven hypotheses, but we did not test for causality or offer a complete model of
study success. The extended educational productivity model represents a template, and
further replications of this study that explore additional relationships and constructs are
necessary.

48
 Table A2-1. Bivariate correlations

2.5.
Appendix

Age
Prior achievement
Expectancy
Value
Affect
Home
Peer consideration
Faculty climate
Social media
Self-study
Satisfaction with
program
Study skills
Study success
midpoint semester 1
Study success sem 1

Age 1
Prior -.23** 1
achievement
Expectancy .14** .16** 1
Value .14* .09 .59** 1
Affect -.01 -.05 -.24** -.10 1
Home .07 -.01 -.03 .07 -.05 1
Peer -.05 -.06 .26** .35** -.02 .04 1
consideration
Faculty climate -.04 -.13* .18** .26** .03 .07 .57** 1
Social media -.09 -.02 -.11* -.07 .13* -.02 .00 .03 1
Self-study -.07 .10 -.02 .04 -.03 .10 .01 .07 .10* 1
Satisfaction with .08 .08 .31** .36** -.11* .03 .19** .24** -.02 .11* 1
program
Study skills -.06 .09 .13* .23** -.02 .10 .21** .30** -.07 .37** .28** 1
Study success .00 .35** .20** .14** -.13* .08 .13* .03 -.07 .17** .17** .25** 1
midpoint first
semester
Study success -.12* .39** .21** .15** -.12* .05 .07 -.01 .-.06 .24** .28** .31** .78** 1
first semester

Note. Home (first-generation student) is a dichotomous variable; non-parametric correlations (Spearman’s rho)
between home and the other variables are displayed.
**p ≤ .001 *p ≤ .05.

49
DETERMINANTS OF EARLY STUDY SUCCESS