the influences of course effort and outside activities on

Th nfl n f r ff rt nd t d t v tn r d n ll r

Soren Svanum, Silvia M. Bigatti

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 47, Number 5, September/October2006, pp. 564-576 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/csd.2006.0063

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Indiana University Purdue Univ Indianapolis (26 Aug 2014 10:51 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v047/47.5svanum.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v047/47.5svanum.html

564 Journal of College Student Development

The Influences of Course Effort and Outside Activities on Grades in a College CourseSoren Svanum Silvia M. Bigatti

The influences of course effort and outside (family, job, social) activities on grades earned in a college course were examined for 230 urban college students. Multiple measurements of hours of work, social and family activities, and course effort were collected over a semester. Path modeling revealed that cumulative GPA and course effort had significant and independent predictive paths with grades. Outside activities did not directly influence course grade. Job activities, however, negatively influenced course grade indirectly through reduced course effort and mediated the influence GPA exerted on course grade. Thus, work demands lessened course effort and lessened GPA-indexed potential for course success. Cumulative GPA positively influenced effort, and effort mediated part of the relation between cumulative GPA and grades.

Researchthatattemptstounderstandcollegesuccesshasincreasinglyemphasizedadynamic,activeprocessandtherelationsamongmanydifferent behaviors that influenceoutcomes.Furthermoretheseoutcomesoccurwithinandareinsomedegreeinfluencedbyanenvironmentalcontextthatincludesextracurriculardemands of work, family, and socializing.Successincollegemustbeinsomesignificantdegree a joint product of these reciprocalinfluencesthatlikelyvaryoverasemesterandoveracollegecareer. Althoughthecollegeexperienceproducesa tapestry of individual changes not justconfinedtocourselearning,coursegradesandgrade point averages (GPAs) represent one

importantthreadthathasreceivedconsiderable attention as a measure of academiclearning, one significant element of schoolsuccess. Understanding factors that influencegrademeasured success has generatedconsiderable empirical interest over thepastfew decades (Pascarella &Terenzini, 2005).PascarellaandTerenzinisupporttheattentiongiven to grades as measures of success, as“gradepointaveragesarethelinguafrancaoftheacademicinstructionalworld,thekeytostudents’standingandcontinuedenrollment. . .andtoemploymentopportunities”aftergraduation(p.396).Thepresentstudyfocusesupongrademeasuredsuccess,andweattemptedtoexplainvariationingradesbyexaminingstudentbehaviorsincourseeffortinconjunctionwiththeimpactofoutsideactivities.

Course EffortIntuitivelyanimportantcomponentofcoursesuccess is effort. Effort is defined by suchactivities as lecture attendance, assignmentreading,andstudying.Oncollegecampuses,aswellasinotherareasofperformance,itisadeeplyheldbeliefthatpersistenteffortandhard work will pay off and lead to highergrades and better learning. Contemporarymodelsofstudentlearningemphasizestudentengagementandeffortasimportantvariablesincoursesuccess(e.g.,Astin,1993).Studentsin turn view course effort as an importantcomponentofcourseperformance,andwhenstudents receive lower course grades thanexpected,theyoftenattributethistoafailure

Soren Svanum is Associate Professor and Silvia M. Bigatti is Assistant Professor, both in the Department of Psychology

at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.

September/OctOber 2006 ◆ vOl 47 nO 5 565

Course Effort Predicts Grades in a College Course

to include somemeasurementof effort intocoursegradeassessments(Gaultney&Cann,2001). Howeverpersuasive thespeculationthateffortandgradesarerelated,empiricalresearchamonguniversitystudentsthathasexaminedthe relation of course effort to grades hasproduced mixed findings. For example,Schuman and colleagues (Schuman,Walsh,Olson,&Etheridge,1985)attemptedtorevealtherelationbetweenstudyeffortandcollegegrades. In their initial study, 424 undergraduates were interviewed at midterm,providing information concerning hoursstudied and lecture attendance. Indices thatsummarizedstudyeffortwereweaklyassociatedwithsemesterGPA,accountingforbutaverysmallamountofsemesterGPAvariation.Theirsubsequentstudiesemployedmethodological modifications designed to morepowerfullytestthehypothesisthatstudyeffortand grades were related. In study two, therelationbetweenstudyeffortandgradeswasassessedwithinasingleclass.Thethirdstudyemployedtimediariesofstudyactivityduringonepointinthesemester,andinafinalstudy,studyeffortwasassessedseveraltimesoverthesemester, and semester GPA served as thecriterionvariable.Insum,fourseparatestudiesincluding875studentswereconducted,eachemployingsomewhatdifferentmeasuresandapproaches to the researchquestion.Resultswereconsistentinthattheyrevealedverylittleifanyrelationbetweenstudyeffortandgrades.Reports of class attendance, however, weresignificant predictors of grades. Similarly,Plant,Ericsson,HillandAsberg(2005)foundmodestrelationsbetweensemesterGPAandattendance and semester GPA and studyenvironment(quietwithnodistractionsversusnot)butnorelationbetweenstudytimeandsemesterGPA. When effort has been found to predictgrades, the magnitude of relation between

gradesandefforthasbeenunexpectedlyweakand complex. In their study of effort andgrades,MichaelsandMiethe(1989)includedmeasuresofstudyhabitsinadditiontostudyhours.Thestudyhabitstheyexaminedwererewritingstudynotes,studyingwithoutnoise,“cramming”versusnoncramming,havingaroutine time to study, and studying in thelibrary.Theyfoundcorrelationsbetweenthevarious measures of study effort and cumulativeGPAinthemagnitudeofr=.03to.18.Theirhighestcorrelationwaswithstudytime,which predicted cumulative GPA even afterstatistically controlling for other study variables. However, the relations between studytime and cumulative GPA were varied andunevenlyobserved.Forexample, study timewas not associated with grades for thosestudents who crammed nor for juniors orseniors.RauandDurand(2000)alsoexaminedsimilarrelationswithinatypicalcollegesampleofdorm residents in a less select institutionthantheSchumanetal.(1985)study(lowerSAT scores, high school GPA, and collegeGPA).Theseauthorsincludedamorecomplexmeasure of effort, academic ethic, in theiranalysis.Academicethicincludedweeklyhoursof study, time spent studying on weekends,timespentstudyingintheevenings,patternsof studying for exams, priority of study orsocializing in their lives, concentration, andattitude toward academic challenges. Inessence,academicethicdefinedstudents“whoseeacademicworkasacallingfromthosewhodonot”(Rau&Durand,p.30).Theseauthorsfound a modest relation of r=.25 betweensemesterGPAandacademicethic.Fortheseauthorsaswell,therelationbetweensemesterGPAandacademicethicwascomplex.Dividing academic ethic into six categories, theyfoundsimilarsemesterGPAs(approximately2.4)forthoseinthefirstthreecategories,andafterasuddenjump,similarlyhighersemesterGPA(approximately2.8)forthoseinthelast


Svanum&Bigatti

threecategories.

Outside ActivitiesThe relation of the demands of outsideactivities,suchasemploymentandsocialandfamilyresponsibilities,tocollegeperformancehasreceivedconsiderablescholarlyinterestbutlittle prospective empirical research.Thisinteresthasbeenencouragedbythegrowthofthepercentageofundergraduatestudentswhoworkwhileattendingcollege(NationalCenterfor Educational Statistics, 1997), and thegrowthofthis“newmajority”setofstudentswho by definition are older, more likelyemployed,andmorelikelytohavesignificantfamilyobligationsincomparisontostudentson more traditional, residential campuses.Bean and Metzner (1985) have proposed aconceptualmodelofnontraditionalstudentattrition, and within their model, students’grades were assumed to be indirectly influencedbytheseoutsideactivitiesthroughtheirimpactonstudybehaviorsandcourseattendance.However,attemptstodemonstratethatoutside activities influencegradeshavebeensparse and contradictory as well.This isunfortunategiventhechangingdemographicsofthestudentpopulation. Employment. Rau and Durand (2000)found no relation between job hours andsemester GPA; in contrast, Plant and colleagues (2005) found that working wasassociatedwithlowersemesterGPA.Intheirreview of a decade of research in the area,Pascarella andTerenzini (2005) found thatmorehoursofworkwereassociatedwithmorecomplaints from students regarding theirability to perform well in their coursework.Thus,studentsclearlybelievethatthedemandsofworkinfluenceacademicperformance,butstronganddirectevidenceofsuchaneffectislacking. Social Activities. One problem withmeasuring how social activities and perfor

mance in college are related is that collegestudents engage in a wide variety of socialactivities. Pascarella andTerenzini (2005)reviewedalargebodyofresearchthatdemonstratedthatsocialinteractionswithpeersmayenhance the learning and performance ofcollege students when these interactions arerelatedtotheacademicenvironment.Typicalactivitiesinthiscategoryarethosethatinvolveintellectualdiscussionsonavarietyofsubjectssuchaspolitics,religion,science,etc.Ontheotherhand,severalwelldesignedstudiesusingobjectivemeasuresofperformancesuggestedthat thosewhoparticipate in student clubs,organizations, and sororities or fraternitiesachieve lower academic performance andlearning. Students who joined these groupsdid more poorly on objectively measuredlearning than thosewho remained independent (Pascarella &Terenzini, 1998), butwhether this is because of selection or aconsequence of the social milieu or thequantity of outside social activities of somestudents is unclear.Thus, in various waysoutsidesocialactivitiesdoappeartoinfluenceorindexacademicperformancebutthewaysinwhichthisoccursisunclear.Inthepresentstudy, we examined social activities in thebroadest sense, in terms of hours of timestudentsdevotedtotheseactivities,andthenassessed this in relation to other outsideactivities,courseeffort,andcoursegrades. Family Responsibilities. Family responsibilities are often viewed by students asnegatively influencing their college career.Bean and Metzner (1985) reported on theresults of studies that examined familyresponsibilitiesandattritionamongnontraditionalstudentsandfoundthatstudentswhodropped out of college frequently reportedfamilyresponsibilitiesasafactorrelatedtothewithdrawal.Although family responsibilitiesmaynegativelyinfluencepersistenceincollege,theymayhaveadifferenteffectongrades.For



example,Lichen(1983)studied383studentsat a state university and determined that asfamilyresponsibilitiesincreased,sodidgradeperformance. Specifically, subjects marriedwith children had higher GPAs than thosemarried without children, who had higherGPAs than those not married and withoutchildren. These findings may contradictstudentreportsofthenegativeinfluencefamilyresponsibilitieshaveonschoolperformanceormay simply index older and more maturestudents who are more motivated or moreskilled(Trueman&Hartley,1996)thantheiryounger, nonmarried counterparts. In thepresent study we were interested in a moredirect test of the extent to which familyresponsibilitiesreportedoverasemesterwouldrelatetocoursesuccess,courseeffort,andotheroutsideactivities. The aims of the present study were to:(a)prospectivelyexaminetherelationsbetweencourseeffortandgrademeasuredperformanceinacollegecourse;(b)examinehowoutsideactivitiesarerelatedtocoursesuccess;(c)determine if study effort and cumulative GPAcontributeindependentlytothepredictionofcoursegradeandifefforthasdifferentbenefitsdependinguponcumulativeGPA;and(d)testaconceptualmodelthatpositsthatfamily,job,and social activities influence course successthrough effort, independent of cumulativeGPA.

MEthOdParticipants

Initially,195femalesand63malesenrolledinthreesectionsofaonesemestercoursetaughtby the same instructor during an academicyear.However,26 studentswithdrew,and2wereassignedanincomplete.Ofthe26whowithdrew,12didsowithoutattemptinganyexams,andmostotherswithdrewaftertheirsecondexam.Theircollectiveperformanceat

thetimeofwithdrawalwas59%,oragradeof“D.”Wecomparedthese studentsonthemeasuresobtainedfromschoolrecords,asnotall students who withdrew completed studyquestionnaires.Thesestudentsdidnotdifferfrom their counterparts who stayed in thecourseindemographiccharacteristicsoryearin school.They did have a slightly lowercumulativeGPA(2.5vs.2.7),t(254)=2.15,p<.05, than their counterparts who completedthecourse.Allsubsequentanalyseswereconducted on the 172 female and 58 malestudentswhocompletedthecourse.Missingdatawereencounteredwitheightparticipantsonsomemeasures(e.g.,onestudentdidnothaveacumulativeGPA),andinotherinstancessingleitemresponsesweremissing.Hence,thesamplesizerangedfrom210to230,dependingupontheanalyses. Allbut2ofthe230studentswereundergraduates; the large majority (85%) hadalreadycompletedayearormoreofcollege.Most(84.3%)wereCaucasian,12.6%identifiedasAfricanAmerican,1.3%asAsian,and1.7% as Latino.The mean age was 24.8(SD=7.4). In terms of credit hours, most(87%)wereregisteredfor9ormoresemesterhours,withanaveragesemesterloadof12.1hours (SD=3.5). About one third of thestudentshadmajorsintheschoolsofLiberalArtsandScience,25%hadnotyetidentifiedtheirundergraduatemajor,andtheremainingstudents were spread across many undergraduateschoolsincludingEducation,Nursing, SocialWork, and General Studies. Formost students, thiscourse likely representedanelectiveinbehavioralscienceneededforanundergraduatedegree.

ProceduresStudents enrolled in an upper division psychologycourse ina largeMidwesternurbanuniversity served as study participants.Thiscourseisacademicallydemandingandattracts


Svanum&Bigatti

students from many majors, thus providingheterogeneity with regard to student backgrounds, ability, and grades. Students wereinformedthatsurveyresponseswouldnotinanywayinfluencetheirgradeandwouldnotbe available to the instructor during thesemester.Courseexaminationswerecompletedatadesignateduniversitycomputerlaboratory.Followingcompletionoftheexamination,andpriortoanyperformancefeedback,studentscompleted computeradministered surveyitems.

MeasuresWeobtainedinformationoncumulativeGPAatthebeginningofthesemester,yearinschool,anddemographicsfromuniversityrecords. Course Grade.The primary dependentvariableswerefinalcoursegradesdeterminedbyperformanceonfouroffiveexamsoverthesemesterandcourseeffort.Wescaledcoursegrades in 12 units from A=4.0, A–=3.7,B+=3.3, to D–=.7, F=0. Some students

whodidnotcompleterequiredexamsanddidnotformallywithdrawfromthecourseearned“F”grades. Course Effort.Wedevelopedtwomeasuresofeffort,studyeffortandcourseattendance,whichcombinedtoproduceanoverallcourseeffort variable. We measured study effortfollowingthecompletionofeachexamwithfour single items that assessed thedegreeofcompleted textbook readings, the extent oftextbookreview, studyguideuse, andhoursstudiedfortheexam.Textbookitemsusedascale ranging from0=none to4=all of the assigned material. Similarly, study guide useranged from 0 = none to 4 = extensive use.Students reported an estimate of the totalnumber of hours of test preparation. Postexamination survey item responses wereconvertedintozscores,andtheoverallmeasureof study effort (a=.80) was obtained bycombining items thatmeasure the extentofreadingofassignedmaterial,extentofreviewoftextbook,studyhours,andstudyguideuse.

tABlE 1.

Means, Standard deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Cumulative Course Family Social Job Course Variables GPA Efforta Activities Activities Activities Grade

Course Efforta .37**

Family Activities .04 .01

Social Activities –.05 –.07 –.14*

Job Activities –.17* –.30** –.02 –.14*

Course Grade .54** .48** .10 –.12 –.22**

Mean 2.70 0.00 15.10 8.70 24.00 2.40

Standard deviation 0.58 0.64 16.00 8.20 14.40 1.30

n 228 223 222 222 223 230

a Scores for course effort were computed from single items that assessed the degree of completed textbook readings, the extent of textbook review, study guide use, attendance at lecture and review session, and hours studied for the exam. these responses were coded numerically, converted to z scores, and averaged over the semester.

*p < .05. **p < .01.



Lectureattendancemeasuredthenumberoflecturesmissed,reviewsessionattendancewasadichotomousyesorno.Lectureattendanceand attendance at review sessions were alsoconverted into standardized scores andsimilarlycombined to summarize courseattendance. Outside Activities. As indices of outsideactivities,studentsalsoreported,followingthecompletionofeachexam,thenumberofhoursduringthepreviousweekthattheyworkedata paid job, engaged in social activities, andspentinfamilyresponsibilities.Averagedhoursof work, family responsibilities, and socialactivityeachservedasindicesoftheseoutsideactivitiesoverthesemester(seeTable1).

Statistical AnalysisTheregression/correlationanalysesdetailedbyCohen,Cohen,West,andAiken(2003)wereemployed, and statistical analyses were performedusingSPSS11.0.Equationmodelingwas facilitated by the computer programAMOS4.0(Arbuckle,1999).

RESultSReports of Activity over the Semester

Coursegradewasbaseduponthethreehighesttestscoresoutofthefirst fourexaminationsplusthefifth.Consequently,reportsofstudyeffort and outside activities following eachexamwereaveragedafterremovalofthesurveyresultscorrespondingtotheirlowesttestscoreoutofthefirstfour.Analysesconductedbasedon all five exams when available resulted inessentiallyunchangedfindings. Studentsreportedreadingabout75%ofcourseassignmentsandreported8.6hoursofstudyforeachexamination(SD=4.6).Lectureattendanceaveragedabout60%.Twentyonestudents (9%) reported that they were notemployedovertheentiresemester.Thosewhodidworkaveraged26.5hoursofworkperweek

(SD=12.8).Familyresponsibilitiesaccountedfor15.1hours(SD=16.0)andsocialactivitiesanother8.7(SD=12.8). Aims 1 and 2: Relations Among Course Performance, Effort, and Outside Activities Measured over the Semester. Attheendofthesemester,studentswereassignedgradesbasedupon predetermined point totals. Gradesranged from“A” to“F”andwereconvertedintostandardvaluesonafourpointscale.ThecourseGPAwas2.37,and21%ofthestudentsearnedan“A”grade,33%a“B,”21%a“C,”and25%earned“D”or“F.” Totalcourseeffortwasmoderatelyrelatedto course grade, r(223)=.48, p <.01;95%CI:r=.37to.57,aswereitscomponents,study effort, r(223)=.44, p<.01; 95%CI:r=.33to.54,andcourseattendancereportedover the semester, r(223)=.34, p<.01;95%CI: r=.22 to .45. Reports of socialactivities in hours, r(223)=–.12, p .05;95%CI:r=–.25to.01,andfamilyhoursofresponsibility, r(233)=.10, p .05; 95%CI:r=–.03to.23,wereunrelatedtofinalcoursegrade.Reportsaveragedoverthesemesterofhoursofworkactivitywerereliablyassociatedwith final grade, r(223)=–.22, p<.01;95%CI: r=–.34 to –.09, indicating thatincreasinghoursofjobactivitywasassociatedwith lessenedcourse success asmeasuredbyfinalgrade.SeeTable1forcorrelationsamongvariables. Aim 3: Relations of Study Effort and Cumulative GPA to Course Grade. StudyeffortandcumulativeGPAwerereliablyassociated,r(221)=.33,p<.01;95%CI:r=.21to.44,indicating that more successful students(higherGPAs)werethosewhotendedtostudymost. Cumulative GPA was also related tocourse performance, r(228)=.54, p <.01;95%CI: r=.44 to .63. Multiple regressionswere thenused todetermine if each contributed independently to course grade and ifstudyefforthaddifferentbenefitsdepending


Svanum&Bigatti

uponGPA.StudyeffortandcumulativeGPAwereenteredfirstfollowedbyaninteractionterm.BothstudyeffortandcumulativeGPAindependentlypredictedcoursegrade,andthetwovariablestogetheraccountedfor37%ofgrade variation, R=.61; F(2, 218)=131.5,p<.01.Additionally,asignificantinteraction,F(1, 217)=4.7, p<.05, indicated that students who had lower GPAs benefited mostfromincreasedstudyeffortincomparisontothosewithhighercumulativeGPAs. Aim 4: Modeling of Course Effort, Outside Activities, and Cumulative GPA. Theprimaryfocusofthisstudywastoassesstherelationofcourseeffort(studyeffortandattendance)togrades and to examine how course effort,outsideactivities,andcumulativeGPAjointlyinfluence course success. Accordingly, weproposed a model that included cumulativeGPAasanindexofbothabilityanddegreeofpast school success. We speculated thatcumulative GPA would influence grades

independentofeffortandotherfactorsbecauseGPAcontainsacomponentoflearningability.The composite indices of study effort andcourseattendanceservedasanindexofcourseeffort, and averaged reported hours of jobactivity, family responsibilities, and socialactivityservedasobservedestimatesofoutsideactivities. We assumed that these outsideactivities may influence grades directly, ormore plausibly, influence grades throughcourse effort.Thus, we speculated that thepressuresofwork,family,andsocialactivitiesdiminish course effort and may negativelyinfluencegradesthrougheffort.EventhoughGPAwasmeasuredbeforeoutsideactivities,we hypothesized that the level of currentoutside activities would be associated withcumulativeGPA,reflectingacumulativeeffectthatoutsideactivitiesareassumedtohaveongrades. Our speculation was based on asuppositionthatwork,familyresponsibilities,andpossiblysocialactivitiesareratherconstant

FIGuRE 1. Path Model Predicting Course Grade from Cumulative GPA, Outside Activities, and Course Effort

Two-headed arrows are correlations, and one-headed arrows are standardized path coefficients. All paths are statistically significant (*p < .05; **p < .01).



overtime.Forexample,highfamilyresponsibilitywouldnegativelyinfluencegradesduringa given semesterbut alsohave a cumulativeeffect over time on GPA to the extent thatfamilydemandsarerelativelystableoverlongerperiodsoftime. Theproposedpathmodelwasfittedon213 study participants using maximumlikelihood estimation. Paths that were nonsignificantweretrimmed,andarevisedmodelwasretestedandispresentedinFigure1alongwith the obtained standardized regressioncoefficients.The chisquare goodnessoffitmeasure was non significant, c2(8)=13.7,p=.09,indicatingareasonablemodelfit.Theroot mean square error of approximation(RMSEA),awidelyrecommendedgoodnessoffitmeasure(MacCallum&Austin,2000)was.06(95%CI:.00to.11),indicatingthatthe model fit the observed data with areasonable although not excellent degree ofprecision (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).TheBollen GFI (Bollen, 1990), another widelyusedindex,was.98,againprovidingevidenceof a good fit.Taken together, these resultssuggestthatthemodelfitthedatareasonablywell,wasplausiblefromastatisticalstandpoint,and that interpretation of the model paths

wouldbereasonable. Overall,36%ofcoursegradevariationwasaccountedforbythemodel.CumulativeGPAplayedacentralpredictiveroleandaccountedforapproximately50%ofthetotalexplainedvariation,thelargestportionofwhichwasthedirect effect of cumulative GPA on coursegrades.Asanticipated,courseeffortwasalsopositivelyassociatedwithcoursegradeandhadadirecteffectongradethatwasslightly lessthan the direct effect for cumulative GPA.Family, job, and social activities were notfound to directly influence course grade.Table2providesanoverviewofthedirectandindirect effects of GPA, effort, and jobactivitiesoncoursegradeandoneffort. Familyandjobactivitieswerenegativelyassociatedwithsocialactivity,indicatingthatreportsofsocialactivitydecreasedasjobandfamilyresponsibilitiesincreased.Ofthethreeoutsideactivitiesmeasured,onlyjobactivityreliablyinfluencedcourseeffortindicatingthatreports of effort decreased as job activitiesincreased. In addition, cumulativeGPAwasreliablyassociatedwitheffort,indicatingthatstudents who had been more successful byGPAstandardstendedtoinvestmoreeffortinthecourseactivities.

tABlE 2.

Standardized direct and Indirect Effects of GPA, Job Activities, and Course Effort on Course Grade and Course Effort

Effect Direct Indirect Total

On Course Effort

of GPA .295 .000 .295

of Job Activities –.289 –.056 –.345

On Course Grade

of Job Activities .000 –.185 –.185

of GPA .411 .091 .502

of Course Effort .312 .000 .312


Svanum&Bigatti

Thus,courseeffortwasinfluencedbyGPAand job activities, and each represented thepotentialtoindirectlyinfluencecoursegrade.Totesttheseindirecteffects,theunstandardizedcoefficientsof these indirectpathswerecalculatedasaproductofthedirectpaths,andthe estimated standard error was computedfollowing the sample formula presented byGoodman(1960).Asastatisticaltest,criticalratios (CR) were calculated, and obtainedvalues equal to or greater than 1.96 wereconsidered statistically reliable.The indirectpathofjobactivities→effort→coursegradewas significant (B=–.11,CR=–3.5) aswastheindirectpathofcumulativeGPA→effort→coursegrade(B=.20,CR=3.6).Ineachinstance, then, jobactivitiesandGPAinfluenced course grade by an effect mediatedthrough effort.The indirect path of jobactivities → GPA → course grade was alsosignificant (B=–.10, CR=–2.7) indicatingthatasstudentsworkedmorehours,theywerelessabletorealizetheiracademicpotentialasexpressedintheirGPA.

dISCuSSIOn

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoprospectivelyexamine the relations among course effort,outside activities, and success in a collegecourse. Course effort was conceptualized asstudyeffort(readingofassignedmaterialandreview of textbook, study hours, and studyguideuse)andattendance(atbothlectureandreviewsessions).Successwasmeasuredbythefinal grade attained in the course.Theserelationswere examined throughcorrelationanalysis, regression, and through testing atheoreticalmodeloftheproposedrelationshipsbetweenthesevariables. Oneaimwastoprospectivelyexaminetherelationsbetweencourseeffortandsuccess,asinpreviousresearchtheserelationshavebeeneithernonexistent(Plantetal.,2005;Shuman

et al., 1985) or very modest (Michaels &Miethe,1989;Rau&Durand,2000).Thesepreviousfindingsarecertainlycounterintuitiveand inconsistentwith thewidelyheldbeliefthathardworkandeffortpayoff,particularlyin tasks that require skill and knowledgeacquisition. Such a pattern of findings,moreover,wouldquestiontheutilityofeffortsdesigned to increase course commitment,studentmotivation,andeffortthatarewidelyemployedinuniversitiestoday.Inthepresentstudy,however,themagnitudeofthisrelationwasmoresubstantial(r=.34to.48),suggesting that course success and course effortdefinedinvariouswaysareappreciablyrelated.Studenteffortdoesdeterminecoursesuccesstoanappreciabledegree,then,anduniversityprograms directed toward developing andencouraging systematic study, effort, andcourse commitment will likely result intangiblestudentgains. Theweakandmixedfindingsofpreviousstudiesmayberelatedtostudydesignandthemeasurementofeffort.Typically, researchersask students about their studyhabits atonepoint in the semester and then relate thismeasure to cumulative or semesterGPA. Inthe present study, students were queried atvariouspointsinonesemesterandspecificallyaskedabouttheireffortsforeachexaminthesame course; the grade obtained for thatspecificcoursewasexaminedastheoutcomevariable. Research that measures effort at asingle point may not capture the changingcharacter of effort over a semester. In thisstudy,thecorrelationobtainedbetweeneachsamplingofstudyeffortandthecorrespondingtestscorewasalwayshigherthanthecorrelationofstudyeffortmeasuredforanyoneexamandthefinalcoursegrade.Aswell,multiplemeasurements provide for more reliableestimates of measured behaviors (Epstein,1979)andallowforastrongtestofthehypothesisthateffortandoutsideactivitiesareasso



ciatedwithgrademeasuredperformance. Moreover,inthepresentstudygradesforasinglecoursewereusedandsuchaprocedurewouldreduceifnotremovegradevariabilitythatisobservedbetweencoursesandinstitutions,uneven tendencies forgrade inflation,andvariableassessmentpracticesofinstructors.Thatis,thewithincourseanalysesusedinthepresent study have an expected advantagebecausetheheterogeneousnatureofsemesterGPAtendstomaskrelationsthatcanbemoreclearlyobservedinperformancewithinasingleclass (Goldman&Slaughter,1976).Hence,useofgradesasadependentvariable inthisstudy should provide a reliable snapshot oflearningnotconfoundedbythesesourcesofmeasurementerror. WealsosoughttodetermineifefforthaddifferentbenefitsdependinguponcumulativeGPA. We suspected that more successfulstudents, i.e., those with higher cumulativeGPAs,shouldprofitmorefromagivenamountof effort than less successful students, i.e.,thosewith lower cumulativeGPAs. Instead,findingsshowedthatalthoughmoresuccessfulstudents exerted more course effort, lesssuccessfulstudentsreceivedmorebenefitfromeffortintermsoffinalgradethantheirmoreaccomplished counterparts.These resultssupport the commonly held belief thatpersistenteffortandhardworkdopayoffandleadtohighergradesandbetterlearning.Rauand Durand (2000) speculated that courseeffortwouldbealesssalientpredictorofgradesathighlyselectinstitutionsandsuspectedthatthe Schuman et al. (1985) generally nullfindingswererelatedtothisfactor.Theresultsfromthepresentstudyareconsistentwiththisreasoning. Ourtestofthetheoreticalmodelprovidesaninterestingportrayalofhowcourseperformance is jointly influencedbycourseeffort,outside activities, and previous success capturedbycumulativeGPA.First,asmentioned

above,previouslysuccessfulstudentsdemonstratedmorecourseeffortoverthesemester,andinthemodelcourseeffortinfluencedfinalgradeindependentofothervariables. CumulativeGPAinfluencedcoursegradedirectly,asexpected,giventhatweconceptualized it as a measure of learning ability inaddition to measuring past success.Thesefindings are not surprising and are quiteconsistent with findings from other studies(Plantetal.,2005).Moreover,aportionofthepredictive influenceof cumulativeGPAwasmediated through effort as well, suggestingthatoneofthestudentattributesattachedtocumulativeGPAisrelatedtostudents’abilitytoregulatecourseeffort.Thus,metacognitiveand motivational models of college success(e.g.,Pintrich&DeGroot,1990)thatdepicteffortregulationasanimportantcomponentforsuccessfindsupportinthesedata. Anotheraim,whichcanbestbedescribedwithinthetheoreticalmodel,wastoexaminehow outside activities are related to coursesuccess.Themodel suggested thatmore jobactivities were associated with lower courseeffortandlowercumulativeGPA.ThesignificantnegativepathbetweencurrentsemesterjobhoursandcumulativeGPAmayreflectthecumulativeeffectofemploymentongradesifoneassumesthatthosewhoworkmanyhoursthissemesterhavedonesopreviously.Thesecombinedfindingssuggestedthatlesssuccessfulstudents,i.e.,thosewithlowerGPAs,arealso thosewhohavemore jobactivities thatappeartolimitcourseeffort.Because“average”studentsbenefitmostfromcourseeffort,thejobactivitiesofmoreaveragestudentsmaybeespeciallydetrimentaltotheireducation.Thatis,higher levelsofoutsideemploymentmayhave a cumulative negative effect on gradesoveracollegecareerandmaybemostdeleterioustomoreaveragestudents.JobactivitiesalsoindirectlyinfluencedcoursegradethroughcumulativeGPAinamannerthatsuggeststhat


Svanum&Bigatti

highhoursofworklessenthestudents’successat fulfilling their academic potential aspredictedbytheircumulativeGPA. Also, because job activities were notmeasuredovertheperiodoftimeduringwhichthecumulativeGPAwasearned,theseinterpretations are speculative. Prospectivelymeasuringemploymentactivitiesandcollegeaccomplishment over time would provide amore suitable estimate of the cumulativeimpact of employment on grades. Furthermore, the causal direction may be that lesscollegemotivated or talented students aremorelikelytoengageinoutsideemployment,andtheobservedeffectsreflectaninteractionbetween student characteristics and discretionaryeffort.Amorecompleteunderstandingoftheserelationsshouldbeusefultocollegecounselorsandthosewhoprovidefinancialaidand advice about how to balance financialneed, employment, and college success.Althoughtheexactcausallinksarespeculative,the data from the present study do offerevidence thatextentof studentemploymentcansignificantlyimpactcollegegrades. Unexpectedly, family activities were notassociated with course effort or with finalgrade.This result is in contrast to studentreports that family responsibilities are oftenassociatedwithacademicdifficulties(Bean&Metzner,1985).Researchthatfocusesuponamoredetailedassessmentoffamilyresponsibilitiesmayuncoverrelationsnotcapturedbythesedata.Itisalsopossiblethatstudentselfreports informusmore about their implicittheories of college success and failure thanthey do about the causal paths observedobjectively. Finally,socialactivitiesappearedfungible,and as family and work demands increased,reportedsocialactivitiesdiminished.Onecanassume that students purposefully adjustedactivitiestomeetoveralldemandsandgoals,and social activitiesweremorediscretionary

thantheothers. The institutionwhere thepresent studywasconductedisanurbancampus,with14%minoritystudents,59%female,42%overage25, 42% parttime, 92% instate students,80% employed full or part time, and 44%taking longer than 6 years to earn theirbachelor’sdegree.Althoughstudentsmeetingthese characteristics are considered nontraditional,infactthesedemographicsreflectmoreandmorethetypicalAmericancollegestudent(Eckel&King,n.d.)orwhatthePewFoundationcalls“thenewmajority.”However,theseresultswillmostlikelygeneralizebesttosimilar settings and may not describe theinfluencesongradesfoundatmoretraditionalinstitutions where employment is far lesscommon and extensive and often morediscretionary, where university social life ismoreprominent,andatinstitutionsthatarehighlyselective. Additionally,asmallnumberofstudents(10%)whoenrolledinthecoursesubsequentlydroppedoutorwithdrew,andresultsarebasedupon those who completed the course.Theobservedfrequencyofwithdrawalinthisstudyis similar to the frequency of student withdrawals across the university. We can onlyspeculate as to how they may differ fromcompleters and how their data may havechanged the findings of the present study;however,excludingthese studentsmay limitthegeneralizabilityofthefindings. It is important to note that indices ofquantity, such as proportion of lecturesattendedandhoursofstudy,wereemployedinthisstudy.Althoughtheseindicesprovidedrobust associations with final grade in thisstudy,theydoonlycoarselyindexunderlyingprocesses of likely greater predictive andtheoretical importance.Forexample, lectureattendanceper se is relatively less importantintermsoflearningthanattentivelistening,effectivenotetaking,etc.Carefulandmultiple



measures of thequalityof course effortwilllikely produce more powerful models thatattempttoexplaincoursesuccess.Nonetheless,employingalinearequation,cumulativeGPA,studyeffort,lectureattendance,andexpectedgradeasmeasuredinthisstudyaccountedfor36% of final grade variation. Similarly, thecoursemeasurementofoutsideactivitiesmaynotcaptureimportantelementsthatdoinfactinfluenceacademicperformance.Forexample,typeoffamilyresponsibility(e.g.,childcare)or social activities (e.g., activities involvingalcohol consumption) may moderate theimpact outside activities have on grades.SvanumandZody(2001),forexample,havedemonstratedthatunmanageablealcoholusedoes negatively influence course grades incollege. More refined measures of outsideactivitymayrevealeffectsnotobservedinthisstudy.Further,thecentralroleeffortplaysincourse success found in this study is basedupon correlation data that cannot establishdirectional causality. Future research shouldexplorethisquestionwithexperimentaldesignsthat alter the course environment in wayshypothesizedtoincreasestudentengagementandeffort,andprospectivelyassesschangesinstudenteffortandtheexpectedoutcomeonlearning. Thevariablesfoundtoinfluencegradesinthis studyare largelymalleableand in somedegreediscretionary.Thus,thefindingsofthepresentstudyareencouraging,astheysupportthenotionthathardworkinacademicsleadstosuccess.EvencumulativeGPA,thestrongestpredictor,isavaluethatstudentscaninfluenceover time.The findings also suggest otheravenues through which one can accomplish

better grades, such as reducing work hours.For those who cannot afford to work fewerhours,acquiringtimemanagementskillsandstrategiesdesignedto lessenthe influenceofworkdemandsuponeffortmayresultinbetteroutcomes. Our findings fit well with theresearchonprogrammaticinterventions.Theseareprograms,suchaslearningcommunities,first year seminars, and remedial programs,thatuniversitieshaveadoptedinanefforttoincreaseretentionofundergraduatestudents.Typicalcomponentsoftheseprogramsinclude,amongothers,timemanagementskills,helpin identifying sources of financial aid, andmuchemphasisonstudyhabits that lead tosuccess.The body of evidence suggests thatthese programs have a positive impact onstudent retention and success in college(Pascarella&Terenzini, 2005).However, todate,mostcollegesdonotrequirestudentstotake these courses or participate in theseprograms, in spite of their proven success,possiblybecauseofthehighcostofimplementingthem(Pascarella&Terenzini,2005). Thus, results such as these can helpuniversities work with students to becomemore purposeful and effective learners andmore appreciative of how both effort andoutsideactivitiesmightaffectschoolsuccess,and in this way provide hope for studentsstruggling to succeedor thoseambitious forincreasingsuccess.

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Soren Svanum, Department of Psychology,

402 North Blackford, Indianapolis, IN 46202;

[email protected]


Svanum&Bigatti

REFEREnCESArbuckle,J.L.(1999).Amos 4.0[Computersoftware].Chicago:

Smallwaters.Astin,A.(1993).Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and

practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education.Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and theOryxPress.

Bean,J.P.,&Metzner,B.S.(1985).Aconceptualmodelofnontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research,55,485508,520528,530.

Bollen,K.A,(1990). Structural equations with latent variables.NewYork:Wiley.

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways ofassessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),Testing structural equation models (pp.136162).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Cohen,J.,Cohen,P.,West,S.G.,&Aiken,L.S.(2003).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(3rded.).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Eckel, P. D., & King, J. E. (n.d.). An overview of highereducationintheUnitedStates:Diversity,access,andtheroleofthemarketplace.Washington,DC:AmericanCouncilonEducation.RetrievedJune23,2005fromhttp://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2004_higher_ed_overview.pdf

Epstein,S.(1979).Thestabilityofbehavior:I.Onpredictingmostofthepeoplemuchofthetime.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37,10971126.

Gaultney,J.F.,&Cann,A.(2001).Gradeexpectations.Teaching of Psychology,28,8487.

Goldman,R.D.,&Slaughter,R.E.(1976).Whycollegegradepointaverage isdifficult topredict.Journal of Educational Psychology,68,914.

Goodman,L.A. (1960).On the exact varianceofproducts.Journal of the American Statistical Association,55,708713.

Lichen, M. (1983). Family ties as related to academicperformance of college students. College Student Journal, 17(3),308316.

MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Applications ofstructural equation modeling in psychological research.Annual Review of Psychology,51,201226.

Michaels,J.W.,&Miethe,T.D.(1989).Academiceffortandcollegegrades.Social Forces, 68,309319.

NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics.(1997).The condition of education 1997.(GPOPublicationNo.065000009978).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Pascarella,T.,&Terenzini,P.(1998).Studyingcollegestudentsinthe21stcentury:Meetingnewchallenges.Review of Higher Education, 21,151165.

Pascarella,E.T.,&Terenzini,P.T. (2005).How college affects students(2nded.).SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Pintrich,P.R.&DeGroot,E.V.(1990).Motivationalandselfregulatedcomponentsofclassroomacademicperformance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),3340.

Plant,E.A.,Ericsson,K.A.,Hill,L.,&Asberg,K. (2005).Whystudytimedoesnotpredictgradepointaverageacrosscollege students: Implications of deliberate practice foracademicperformance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30,96116.

Rau,W.,&Durand,A.(2000).Theacademicethicandcollegegrades:Doeshardworkhelpstudentsto“makethegrade”?Sociology of Education,73,1938.

Schuman,H.,Walsh,E.,Olson,C.,&Etheridge,B.(1985).Effortandreward:Theassumptionthatcollegegradesareaffectedbyquantityofstudy.Social Forces,63,945966.

Svanum,S.,&Zody,Z.(2001).Psychopathologyandcollegegrades.Journal of Counseling Psychology,48,7276.

Trueman,M.&Hartley,J.(1996).Acomparisonbetweenthetimemanagementskillsandacademicperformanceofmatureandtraditionalentryuniversitystudents.Higher Education, 32(2);199215.

the influences of course effort and outside activities on

Documents