1887

External and Internal Barriers to Studying Can Affect Student Success and Retention in a Diverse Classroom

    Author: Laurence Clement1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 02 December 2016
    • ©2016 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of California, San Francisco, 1675 Owens St, Suite 310, San Francisco, CA 94143. Phone: 415-502-3097. Fax: 415-514-0844. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 351-359. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    350.07 Kb
  • HTML
    61.86 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    Although a majority of under-represented minority (URM) students begin their postsecondary education at community colleges, little is known about barriers to success and retention for transfer-bound science students. This study focuses on some of the barriers that affect these students’ ability to study adequately for a community college “gateway” course. It tests whether instructors’ expectations of study time were realistic for community college students and whether students reported facing external barriers, such as job and family responsibilities, or internal barriers to studying, such as lack of motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive abilities, all of which have been shown to impact academic success and retention. It also tests whether students who faced such barriers were less likely to succeed in and complete the course, as well as whether time spent studying was related to course success. The findings reported here show that community college students do not have enough available time to study and that external and internal barriers are both prevalent among these students. In addition, students who faced such barriers are more likely to fail or drop the class. Results also show that study time is positively correlated with retention, but not performance, as well as with some motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive dimensions of self-regulated learning. These findings lead to new questions, including whether student success in a community college class is associated with the use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies for students with no prior degrees, and whether increased course structure may improve success for college students with lower self-regulated abilities.

References & Citations

1. American Association of Community Colleges 2013 Students at community colleges [Online.] www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/studentsatcommunitycolleges.aspx
2. Cole JS, Bergin DA, Whittaker TA 2008 Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value Contemp Educ Psychol 33 609 624 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.10.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.10.002
3. Coley RJ 2000 The American community college turns 100: a look at its students, programs, and prospects Policy Information Report, Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ
4. Committee on Under-Represented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and I of M 2010 Expanding under-represented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads committee on underrepresented groups and the expansion of the science The National Academies Press Washington, DC
5. Cook E, Kennedy E, Mcguire SY 2013 Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses J Chem Educ 90 961 967 10.1021/ed300686h http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h
6. Credé M, Phillips LA 2011 A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire Learn Individ Differ 21 337 346 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002
7. Eddy SL, Hogan KA 2014 Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? Cell Biol Educ 13 453 468 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
8. Fletcher LA, Carter VC 2010 The important role of community colleges in undergraduate biology education CBE Life Sci Educ 9 382 383 10.1187/cbe.10-09-0112 21123677 2995748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-09-0112
9. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S 2011 Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology Science 332 1213 1216 10.1126/science.1204820 21636776 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
10. Hrabowski F 2011 Boosting minorities in science Science 331 125 10.1126/science.1202388 21233350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1202388
11. Johnson ML, Sinatra GM 2013 Use of task-value instructional inductions for facilitating engagement and conceptual change Contemp Educ Psychol 38 51 63 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003
12. Ley K, Young D 1998 Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared (developmental) and regular admission college students Contemp Educ Psychol 23 42 64 10.1006/ceps.1997.0956 9514688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0956
13. McKenzie K, Gow K, Schweitzer R 2004 Exploring first-year academic achievement through structural equation modelling High Educ Res Dev 23 95 112 10.1080/0729436032000168513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168513
14. Pintrich P, Smith D, Garcia T, McKeachie W 1991 A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning Ann Arbor, MI
15. Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, Garcia T, McKeachie WJ 2014 Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) Educ Psychol Meas 53 801 813 10.1177/0013164493053003024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
16. Pike G, Hansen M, Childress J 2014 The influence of students’ precollege characteristics, high school experiences, college expectations, and initial enrollment characteristics on degree attainment J Coll Student Retent Res Theory Pract 16 1 23 10.2190/CS.16.1.a http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/CS.16.1.a
17. Rau W, Durand A 2000 The academic ethic and college grades: does hard work help students to “make the grade”? Sociol Educ 73 19 38 10.2307/2673197 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2673197
18. Schmid C, Abell P 2003 Demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement as related to student success among Guilford Technical Community College students Commun Coll Rev 31 1 16 10.1177/009155210303100101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009155210303100101
19. Schraw G, Crippen KJ, Hartley K 2006 Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning Res Sci Educ 36 111 139 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
20. Schuman H, Walsh E, Olson C, Etheridge B 1985 Effort and reward: the assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study Soc Forces 63 945 966 10.1093/sf/63.4.945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.4.945
21. Zimmerman BJ 2008 Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects Am Educ Res J 45 166 183 10.3102/0002831207312909 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
22. Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M 1992 Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting Am Educ Res J 29 663 676 10.3102/00028312029003663 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663
23. Zimmerman B 1998 Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective Educ Psychol 33 73 86 10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077
2016-12-02
2019-11-13

Abstract:

Although a majority of under-represented minority (URM) students begin their postsecondary education at community colleges, little is known about barriers to success and retention for transfer-bound science students. This study focuses on some of the barriers that affect these students’ ability to study adequately for a community college “gateway” course. It tests whether instructors’ expectations of study time were realistic for community college students and whether students reported facing external barriers, such as job and family responsibilities, or internal barriers to studying, such as lack of motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive abilities, all of which have been shown to impact academic success and retention. It also tests whether students who faced such barriers were less likely to succeed in and complete the course, as well as whether time spent studying was related to course success. The findings reported here show that community college students do not have enough available time to study and that external and internal barriers are both prevalent among these students. In addition, students who faced such barriers are more likely to fail or drop the class. Results also show that study time is positively correlated with retention, but not performance, as well as with some motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive dimensions of self-regulated learning. These findings lead to new questions, including whether student success in a community college class is associated with the use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies for students with no prior degrees, and whether increased course structure may improve success for college students with lower self-regulated abilities.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/17/3/jmbe-17-351.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Student reports of expected, available, and actual study time. Student estimates of expected, available and actual study time do not match instructors’ recommended study time. Percentage of total responses to study time survey questions: how much time students thought they be studying for this class each week (estimate of class expectations, black bars), how much time they to study (available study time, grey bars) and how much time they studying (actual study time, white bars). Students were given four options: fewer than two hours per week, two to four hours, five to seven hours, more than seven hours. *Instructor estimate.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 351-359. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Perceived barriers, success, and retention. Students who perceive external and internal barriers are more likely to fail or drop the class. Percentage of respondents in groups 1, 2, and 3 who passed, failed (with a D or an F), or dropped the course at any time in the first 12 weeks of class. GP 1: no perceived barriers (chose option 1 exclusively in survey depicted in Table 2 , white bars); GP 2: perceived external barriers (chose options 2 or 3 exclusively, grey bars); GP 3: perceived internal barriers (chose option 5 exclusively, black bars). GP = group.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 351-359. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Study time and course success. Study time is related to retention but not to success in the class. Percent Pass (P), Fail (F), and Withdrawal (W) rates according to reported study times. P: passed the course with a C or above (black bars); F: failed the course (D or F, grey bars); W: dropped before the 12 week of class (white bars). Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient: −0.032, 0.745, 108.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 351-359. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1077
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error