Predicting College Student Success: College Engagement and Perceived English Language Proficiency

Year 2015, Volume: 44 Issue: 2, 229 - 240, 14.03.2016

Yeşim Çapa Aydın , Oya Yerin Güneri , Funda Barutçu Yıldırım , Pınar Çağ

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to test a model predicting student gains and academic success (GPA) through perceived English language proficiency and student engagement. The participants of the study were 1109 college students enrolled in a large state university in Turkey where medium of instruction is English. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the data gathered through a web-based survey instrument. Findings indicated that, engagement with the instructors, peers and campus events and perceived English proficiency were positively associated with academic gains. While engagement with the instructors, peers, academic tasks, and campus events were positively related to personal gains; engagement in campus events was also positively associated with social-cultural gains. Finally, engagement with the peers, campus events, and academic tasks, and perceived English proficiency appeared as significant predictors of GPA. In conclusion, for the both variables of academic gains and academic achievement, students’ engagement with the peers, campus events and perceived English proficiency level were appeared as common significant predictors. Engagement with campus events was also a significant predictor of all outcome variables.

References

• Arkın, İ. E. (2013). English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study in a Turkish university context . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427 – 445.
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-15.
• Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianath, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153-160.
• Bowman, N. A., & Hill, H. L. (2011). Measuring how college affects students: Social desirability and other potential biases in college student self-reported gains. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150, 73-85.
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing and linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
• Cheng, D. X. (2001). Assessing student collegiate experience: Where so we begin? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 525-538.
• Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-49.
• Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24, 1-23.
• Errey, R., & Wood, G. (2011). Lessons from a student engagement pilot study. Australian Universities’ Review, 53(1), 21-34.
• Gizir, C. A. (1998). A study on the problems of the METU senior students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
• Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191.
• Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure, 59(1), 5-13.
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.
• Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42, 351-371.
• Kramer, G. L. (2007). Fostering student success: What really matters? In Kramer & Associates (Eds.), Fostering student success in the campus community (pp. 433-448). San Fransicco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35, 24-32.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5-20.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Assoc., (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success. National Postsecondary Educational Cooperative.
• Kuh, G. D., Pace, C. R., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38, 435-454.
• Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. (2001). Do computer enhance or detract from student learning? Research In higher Education, 42, 87-102.
• Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 211-233.
• Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College [e-mail]: A Study of comfort and the use of technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 625-31.
• Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non‐academic outcomes: Same‐sex and opposite‐sex peer effects and the mediating role of school engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 183-206.
• Lloyd, J., Dean, L. A., & Cooper, D. L. (2007). Students' technology use and its effects on peer relationships, academic involvement, and healthy lifestyles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(3), 879-893.
• Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.
• Moran, E. T., & Gonyea, T. (2003). The influence of academically-focused peer interaction on college students' development. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED478773).
• NSSE (2006). About NSSE.http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm (December 21, 2001).
• Odeh, A. Y. (2012). Use of information resources by undergraduate students and its relationship with academic achievement. Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services, 62(3), 222-232.
• Önen, E. (2014). Öğrencinin Okula Bağlılığı Ölçeği: Türk ortaokul ve lise öğrencileri için uyarlama çalışması [Student Engagement Instrument: Adaptation study for Turkish secondary and high school students]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(42), 221-234.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty-years of research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209.
• Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student success. Journal of college student development, 44(1), 18-28.
• Ren, W. H. (2000). Library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic information searching. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26, 323-328.
• Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher Education, 46, 235-249.
• Schweinle, A. S., Reisetter, M. & Stokes, V. (2009). Elements of engagement for successful learning. The Qualitative Report, 14(4), 774-806.
• Soria, K. M., Fransen J., & Nackerud, S. (2013). Library use and undergraduate student outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success. Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 147-164.
• Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2014). Stacks, serials, search engines, and students' success: First-year undergraduate students' library use, academic achievement, and retention. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 84-91.
• Toutkoushian, R. K., & Smart, J. C. (2001). Do institutional characteristics affect students’ gains from college? The Review of Higher Education, 25, 39-61.
• Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.
• Zhao, C.M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115- 137.
• Whitmire, E. (2011). The relationship between undergraduates’ background characteristics and college experiences and their academic library use. College & Research Libraries, 62, 528-540.
• Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2010). Uncovering meaningful correlation between student academic performance and library material usage. College & Research Libraries, 72 361-370.