Relationship of Factors of Academic Success and Psychological Well-being for College Honors Students

              THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
FOR COLLEGE HONORS STUDENTS
By
MARY WALKER
Bachelor of Science in Business Management
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
2004
Master of Science in Human Relations
University of Oklahoma
Tulsa, Oklahoma
2007
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate College of
Oklahoma State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
July, 2012ii
THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
FOR COLLEGE HONORS STUDENTS
Dissertation Approved:
Dr. Diane Montgomery
Dissertation Adviser
Dr. YoonJung Cho
Dr. Katye Perry
Dr. Laura Barnes
Outside Committee Member
Dr. Sheryl A. Tucker iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY..............................................................................1
Background to the Problem ..............................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................9
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................11
Research Questions ........................................................................................................11
Definition of Key Terms ................................................................................................11
Summary ........................................................................................................................12
II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ................................................................13
Framework Development ...............................................................................................18
Factors of Academic Success .........................................................................................21
Psychological well-being ...............................................................................................24
Giftedness and Psychological well-being ......................................................................30
Summary ........................................................................................................................32
III. METHOD ...................................................................................................................35
Population and Sample ..................................................................................................35
Procedure .......................................................................................................................36
Instrumentation ..............................................................................................................36
Data Analyses ................................................................................................................42
Summary ........................................................................................................................42
IV. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................44
Description of Sample....................................................................................................44
Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................45
Group Classification ......................................................................................................50
Multivariate Analyses of Variance ................................................................................51
Summary ........................................................................................................................55
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................57 iv
Summary of the Study ...................................................................................................57
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................58
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................62 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................67
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................77
Appendix A – IRB Approval.. .......................................................................................77
Appendix B – Factors of Academic Success Scale.. ......................................................78
Appendix C – Survey Instrument Used for Data Collection ..........................................81
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table……………………………………………………………………………….Page
1. Modified Items for the Factors of Academic Success Scale…………………...47
2. Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations…………………………..50
3. Pairwise Comparisons for the Academic Obstacles Scale……………………..53
4. Pairwise Comparisons for the Academic Facilitators Scale …………………..55
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure………………………..…………………………………………………….Page
1. Group Classification Based on Low-Medium-High Perceptions……………...51
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Although honors programs have been part of American colleges since the 1920’s, these special opportunities for academically advanced students were developed and became central to many colleges and universities in the 1950’s (Floyd & Holloway, 2006; National Collegiate Honors Council, n.d). Created with the specific issues facing honors students as a guide, these specialized academic programs are currently offered in a variety of collegiate settings, including public universities, community colleges, private religious colleges, two-and four-year schools, and research-focused and teaching-focused universities. One common goal of all honors programs according to the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) is a commitment to academic excellence. This academic success is accomplished by personal attention for students, top faculty, and greater academic experiences, such as seminars and travel, research opportunities, time for enhanced relationships with peers and faculty, as well as the possibility of financial assistance.
Honors programs at large public universities offer smaller class sizes and a large variety of honors courses, specialized academic counseling, peer and faculty interaction promoting a strong sense of community, access to honors housing and events, and 2
potential opportunities for study abroad and internships (Oklahoma State University, n.d.; Texas Tech University, 2011; University of Oklahoma, 2010). At Christ College, a religious college, an interdisciplinary approach emphasizes the humanities and student support through regular colloquia, debates, theatrical productions, and close mentoring relationships with program alumni (Bratt, 2010). Miami Dade College, a community college, provides honors students with enriched learning and support, including financial aid packages, attendance and participation at regional and national conferences, mentoring, travel and internships, and transfer counseling (Floyd & Holloway, 2006). As these honors programs offer specialized support services to meet the academic needs of honors students, administrators of other programs are now concerned with needs beyond the academics, such as psychological and physical health and safety (Balduf, 2009; Noble & Childers, 2008; Shepard, Nicpon, & Doobay, 2009).
College students who are enrolled in honors programs are a unique group of high ability, high achieving students who qualify for the special programs according to past and current grades, test scores, activity in community service, international student exchange programs, and specialized academic options (Schrader & Brown, 2008; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). College honors students are expected to respond to specialized faculty, become interactive in decreased class size, achieve minimum grade requirements, and choose among the options of varied academic tracks. These expectations place psychological pressures on such learners that may lead to a host of difficulties that result in terminating school persistence. Understanding how program components relate to the well-being of honors students may alleviate or prevent such pressures. Honors students may have been academically accelerated through high school entering college early. As early admissions, they experience 3
higher entrance criteria, but may not necessarily have positive academic or occupational outcomes (Shepard et al., 2009). College honors students are a specific population of students that have been described as displaying a host of psychological responses for college academic pressures, such as compulsivity, perfectionism, kindness, clear thinking, insecurity, obsessiveness, sentimentalism, and non-conformity (Kodman, 1984; Rice, Leever, Christopher, & Porter, 2006).
With the advanced education and development opportunities offered to college honors students through honors programs, there is a focus on student support services. Sometimes, gifted and honors students can be missing essential skills necessary to be successful in collegiate academic settings (Balduf, 2009). Grobman (2006) suggests that because honors students possess high ability, they often do not have to work hard to be successful and earn high grades in their school experiences before college, and thus do not obtain necessary study skills for academic success in college. Time management problems, lack of self-discipline, and poor study skills are all obstacles honors students may face throughout their college careers (Balduf, 2009; Coleman & Freedman, 1996).
These specialized college students experience more than academic concerns, including social, emotional, and developmental concerns, and supportive services have been created with the hopes of facilitating student experiences (Noble & Childers, 2008; Shepard et al., 2009). However, what these support services include may make the difference in psychological adjustment for students. Programs are often concerned with ensuring adequate access to technological or library resources. Additionally, the peer interaction taking place among honors students is a key area of concern for honors program faculty and staff, as well as the interactions between faculty and students. Obstacles, such as lack of resources, or too 4
high demands with not enough time for completion, may have an impact on their psychological well-being. The main interest of this study is to find out how these programming aspects, more (high) facilitators or fewer (low) obstacles, relate to psychological adjustment and well-being for honors students.
Background to the Problem
As shown throughout research, there is a strong connection between psychological well-being and academic performance (Pedrotti, Edwards, & Lopez, 2008; Pittman & Richmond, 2007; Shankland, Genolini, Franca, Guelfi, & Ionescu, 2010). According to Pittman and Richmond (2007), students who were better adjusted were shown to perform better academically. The promotion and enhancement of psychological well-being can lead to further academic success. The underlying concern is to find what may trigger or block psychological well-being and adjustment, and learn how to use this knowledge to advance our concern for students into action promoting their success.
According to Bowman (2007), in order for students to be productive, they need to have necessary skills and resources. Many colleges and universities have changed curriculum and teaching styles to offer more resources for students, including teaching about motivation, learning-strategies, self-regulation, and smaller group learning, (Nilsen, 2009). These resources can be viewed as academic facilitators and are meant to enhance student learning and psychological well-being. Other academic facilitators include time, access to technology, and positive interactions with others, including peers, staff, and faculty. By understanding students’ perceptions of academic facilitators and obstacles, and the relationship these perceptions have to psychological well-being, educators will be able to make decisions about academic facilitators and obstacles to best suit students’ needs. 5
Factors of Academic Success
Generally, there are two broadly different ways to augment the academic success of college students. One way is to diminish or eliminate obstacles that prevent success. An obstacle is a negative factor that hinders or impedes academic performance. The other method has been to facilitate success by providing resources. Academic facilitators are characteristics that can potentially enhance performance and productivity. In a study conducted by Howard and Jones (2000), a seminar was offered to freshmen students to decrease the obstacle of insufficient preparation, training, and background needed to study by teaching critical thinking skills, writing skills, and experiences aimed at enhancing several areas, including being prepared for college and overall confidence as a student. Findings showed the seminar to be effective in enhancing students’ overall perceptions of efficacy related to college. Coleman and Friedman (1996) found that interventions regarding time management and study skills contributed to positive adjustment.
Resources, including providing students with a way to develop socially and emotionally through an intellectual community, have helped many students adjust psychologically (Noble & Childers, 2008). The Optimal Match program at the University of Washington emphasizes transitional, social, and emotional support for incoming students, thus enhancing their psychological adjustment. While collecting information about this program’s effectiveness for students transitioning to college life, Noble and Childers (2008) found that students felt well served by the programs being offered, including transition programming, advising, faculty and staff interactions, and psychological support. This program offers increased academic facilitators including social support, information services, knowledge, skills, and training, and enhanced relationships with staff and faculty, 6
The mere act of attending college may cause distress for some students, due to structured activities with specific goals (such as grades or degree attainment). However, these same structured activities and goals may cause other students to thrive in the academic setting. Understanding the influence that academic facilitators and obstacles may play for students will be helpful in understanding the psychological adjustment to college that these students experience. Academic facilitators and obstacles can be situational, social or organizational, or personal, individual factors.
Several recent studies have attempted to examine the link between student psychological adjustment and academic performance. According to some of these studies, it is reasonable to find that students may perform poorly due to feelings of exhaustion, irritability, frustration, detachment, and cynicism, also known as burnout (Salanova et al., 2010). Academic obstacles will contribute to burnout. However, the link between burnout and performance is somewhat weak and has mostly been limited to organizational research (Garman, Corrigan, & Morris, 2002; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
On the other hand, engagement has been linked to academic performance (Salanova et al., 2010). Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, and Schaufeli (2003) found a positive relationship between engagement and performance. There are both behavioral and psychological aspects of engagement. Behaviorally, engagement manifests itself through a combination of intentions and successful academic and social integration within the study environment (Tinto, 1993). Psychologically, student involvement with university studies and an exertion of physical and psychological energy devoted to academics shows engagement (Astin, 1984). This engagement can contribute to academic success. There is a need to 7
understand the role that perceptions of academic facilitators and obstacles play in burnout and engagement, or psychological adjustment.
Although there is evidence of a link between psychological adjustment and academic performance, there is a lack of literature to show a connection between student perceptions of academic facilitators and obstacles and psychological adjustment. This link is important for educators to understand, as students with a more positive psychological adjustment may have more positive academic performance and success. For students who have high perceptions of academic facilitators and low perceptions of academic obstacles, their psychological well-being may be higher than students with lower perceptions of academic facilitators and higher perceptions of academic obstacles. This connection needs to be explored.
Academic facilitators and academic obstacles are not exclusive of one another. Salanova et al. (2010) suggest both academic facilitators and academic obstacles can exist in the perceptions of a successful student, and both can contribute positively to psychological well-being and academic success. There is a positive association between obstacles and facilitators, rather than a negative association as may be expected. By understanding how these associate, determinations about altering academic facilitators or obstacles as necessary can be made.
Psychological well-being
Psychological well-being is the convergence of aspects of positive psychological functioning, including self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989b). According to Ryff (1989b), single-item indicators of well-being are not as reliable as multi-item scales. Well-being is multifaceted, focusing on students’ search for meaning and direction in life and 8
the realization of potential (Seifert, 2005). Understanding of students’ psychological well-being may assist educators in understanding how best to help guide students, and to allow them to pursue their life meaning and direction.
Self-acceptance, the first component of a multidimensional psychological well-being scale, focuses on positive attitudes toward oneself as a characteristic of positive psychological functioning. Ryff (1989b) describes this criterion as a central feature of mental health, and a characteristic of maturity, self-actualization, and optimal functioning. Positive relations with others, another component of psychological well-being, demonstrates the ability to have greater love, deeper friendship, and more complete identification with others (Ryff, 1989b). This ability of intimacy is central to well-being. The third component of a multidimensional measure of psychological well-being is autonomy, or a focus on self-determination, independence, and behavior regulation. Internal evaluation processes are also central to autonomy (Ryff, 1989b).
Environmental mastery, the fourth component of this psychological well-being scale, focuses on one’s ability to choose or create environments that may enhance or be suitable for healthy psychological conditions (Ryff, 1989b). This ability is seen as a central component of positive psychological functioning. Purpose in life, the fifth component of psychological well-being, demonstrates maturity through an emphasis and clarity of meaning in life. Goals, intentions, and a sense of direction are all aspects of life purpose (Ryff, 1989b). The sixth component, personal growth, focuses on continuous expansion and growth as a person (Ryff, 1989b). Individuals open to new experiences will likely experience continued personal growth. 9
There are several relationships that must be understood, including the connection between students’ perceptions of factors of academic success and psychological well-being. Students who perceive high obstacles and low facilitators may have a harder time adjusting psychologically. Once these relationships are understood, educators can take action to increase facilitators or decrease obstacles as necessary to improve psychological adjustment and well-being for college honors students.
Statement of the Problem
There is an abundance of literature connecting psychological adjustment and academic achievement. However, there is little known about the relationship between the perceptions of factors of academic success and psychological well-being among college students. Factors of academic success include academic facilitators and academic obstacles that will interfere with student performance. By understanding the connection between the perception of factors of academic success and psychological well-being, educators can work to decide the most appropriate action to take to enhance psychological adjustment.
Conceptual Framework
The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) is a model primarily used in organizational settings which includes two main areas of focus centered on burnout and engagement. The first focus is on effort-driven processes that begin with demands and end with negative outcomes. The second is on a motivational process beginning with resource availability and ending with positive outcomes. In a study conducted by Salanova et al. (2010), researchers replaced demands and resources with obstacles and facilitators to better target an educational perspective of the JD-R model. Researchers were interested in seeing if student well-being (burnout vs. engagement) was a 10
mediator between perceived obstacles and facilitators with future academic performance. Obstacles included negative factors hindering performance, and facilitators included positive factors enhancing performance (Salanova et al., 2010).
Results found in the study presented by Salanova et al. (2010) showed engagement as a mediator between perceived obstacles (associating negatively with) and facilitators (associating positively with) and future academic performance. Student burnout was not found to have a significant effect on future academic performance. These findings suggest that students who feel engaged and have high facilitators and low obstacles may have higher future academic performance. Additionally, students who perceive many obstacles and few facilitators feel burned-out, but this feeling of burnout does not predict future academic performance (Salanova et al., 2010).
What has not been investigated is the connection between academic facilitators and obstacles and psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is a theory of positive psychological functioning focusing on one’s capacity to develop and function effectively. The most widely accepted form of this theory focuses on six dimensions of psychological needs, self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), one’s psychological need satisfaction is influenced by demands, obstacles, and affordances in their sociocultural contexts. In other words, each of the six dimensions must be satisfied in an educational setting, and the level to which these are satisfied will be influenced by the academic facilitators and obstacles affecting each student.
11
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the perception of factors of academic success, defined as academic facilitators and obstacles, with psychological adjustment for college honors students. This study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the findings of this study may add to current literature on student psychological adjustment focusing on a specific population of honors students. Students were classified into three groups for academic facilitators and three groups for academic obstacles, based on low-medium-high perceptions of each. The connection between academic resource perception and psychological well-being were expected to emerge. Practically, findings of this study may shed light on enhancing facilitators, reducing obstacles, and effects on psychological adjustment.
Research Question
1. Are there mean group differences in psychological well-being among college honors students who are classified as having low-medium-high levels of perceived obstacles and low-medium-high levels of perceived facilitators?
Definition of Key Terms
Several variables were used throughout this investigation. The degree to which students perceived the impact of academic facilitators and academic obstacles were self-reported by participants, as well as their psychological well-being. These terms are defined below.
Academic Facilitators. Academic facilitators are positive factors that enhance academic performance. Examples include access to sufficient materials, student services, flexible timetable, economic resources, and tutoring (Salanova et al., 2010). 12
Academic Obstacles. Academic obstacles are negative factors that hinder or impede academic performance. Examples include overload, anxiety, lack of information regarding tasks, and insufficient access to materials (Salanova et al., 2010).
Psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is a convergence of aspects of positive psychological functioning, including self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989b).
Summary
This study was concerned with perceptions of academic facilitators, academic obstacles, and psychological well-being of college honors students. The focus of this research was to examine differences in the way factors of academic success are perceived, and the relationship these perceptions have with psychological well-being. College honors students, the targeted population of this study, are a complex group of students, as they are known to be academically successful, yet are not necessarily well-adjusted psychologically. This research attempts to show the connection between college honors student perceptions of factors of academic success and psychological adjustment.
With the findings of this study, educators may be able to see a meaningful difference in the perceptions of facilitators and obstacles and the connection to psychological adjustment and well-being. This observable difference may provide an understanding behind necessary actions to take regarding increasing academic facilitators or decreasing academic obstacles to best facilitate positive psychological adjustment for college honors students. 13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
College honors students are a complex type of student, combining enhanced academic ability and motivation with specific personality traits (Neumeister, 2004). Some have been described as compulsive, perfectionistic, kind, clear thinking, insecure, obsessional, sentimental, aesthetic, and possibly non-conforming (Kodman, 1984; Rice et al., 2006). These students, although academically successful, can lack positive psychological well-being and adjustment when entering college, due to personal, social, and educational factors. Literature focusing on college honors students is lacking (Rinn & Plucker, 2004) and essentially ignores the psychological adjustment of college honors students.
Around since the 1920’s, but taking shape in the 1950’s, honors programs at colleges and universities have become a major resource for gifted college students (National Collegiate Honors Council, n.d). Public and private universities, community and religious colleges, and two- and four-year schools offer honors programs, and keep the needs of the college honors student in mind. These programs extend across all types of campuses and aim to benefit college honors students by providing appropriate resources and opportunities. The common goal of all honors programs according to the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) is a commitment to excellence, provided 14
through personal attention for students, top faculty, greater academic experiences including seminars and potential travel, research opportunities, enhanced relationships with peers and faculty, as well as the possibility of financial assistance. Each program may have different entrance and retention requirements, student resources, and academic focuses. Other goals include shaping students’ minds and hearts, developing uniqueness, leadership, and critical thinking, preparing the future workforce, and expanding and liberating student thinking (Bratt, 2010).
Students participating in honors programs have not only had to meet certain criteria to be included in an honors program, including standardized test scores and high school or college GPA, but they also must continue to meet criteria including grade requirements and honors class participation to stay enrolled in an honors program. Because there is no firm definition of giftedness, local decision and circumstances will play a role in which students are able to participate in honors programs (Robinson, 1997). Beyond test scores, high motivation and creativity play a role in the success of college honors students. Therefore, many students enter the honors program after proving to be academically successful during their first semester or year at college. Attrition can occur in honors programs, with students realizing the demands of the program may be too much for them to handle. Because of the influx of entering students and attrition rates, honors programs continue to see fluctuation in enrollment (Robinson, 1997).
Most college honors programs offer special courses for honors students, and students must maintain minimum enrollment in these honors courses in order to continue enrollment in the program. Smaller classes and a variety of honors courses are a benefit for college honors students, along with specialized academic counseling, peer and faculty interaction 15
promoting a strong sense of community, access to honors housing and events, and potential opportunities for study abroad and internships (Oklahoma State University, n.d.; Texas Tech University, 2011; University of Oklahoma, 2010). According to German (1995), honors programs should be instrumental in the social and academic development of college honors students. In many cases, however, there are specific challenges that may interfere with this continued success in an honors program. Social obligations, personal characteristics or needs, and organizational issues may cause problems for college honors students, regardless of their previous academic success.
College honors programs are much more than just specialized courses. Peer groups, honors housing, shared activities, and interaction with faculty and staff all contribute to the experience that comes along with being a college honors student (Robinson, 1997). The philosophical core of honors programs is the notion that while gifted students have similar academic and developmental needs of general college students, they need an environment that is specifically designed for their needs. Austin (1986) describes honors programs as having at least two instructional components, including a two year general program targeting the fulfillment of general education requirements, and a departmental honors program that occurs after a major has been selected by students.
In the first component of honors programs described by Austin (1986), honors courses make up about 20-25% of the students’ coursework. The emphasis is on depth of content and understanding, intensity, and conceptualization. Small enrollment in these courses is usually an added benefit for students, and the faculty teaching these courses are often more mature and adept to seminar-style courses. The departmental honors program focuses on courses within a students’ major academic area and usually requires completion 16
of a research project, creative product, or thesis, often accomplished through independent study (Austin, 1986). There are honors contracts, which allow students to contract a non-honors course into an honors course by working directly with faculty to enhance the course to meet their own academic goals. With each of these aspects in an honors program come different needs encountered by the college honors student. Educators must understand how to identify these needs and how to meet these needs.
The gifted student is at risk for losing his or her way during the college experience due to several reasons. These students may lack the ability to study challenging material, as college may be their first exposure to difficult material. The first grades received that are less than perfect may trigger a sense of failure in the student. There is an adjustment period to both academic and social changes, and if students do not adjust well, this can lead to negative experience and performance during college (Robinson, 1997). Academic advising is suggested as a way to combat these occurrences, but if educators can find appropriate ways to enhance the psychological adjustment to college for these honors students, then there may be a more positive adjustment experience.
Just as there are honors programs for the gifted college student, programs are set in place during primary and secondary education to aid the gifted K-12 student. International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programmes provide academic and intellectual support for gifted students in primary and secondary schools (Shaunessy, Suldo, Hardesty, & Shaffer, 2006). With the support provided, however, come certain pressures for the students to be successful. These programs place emphasis on learning experiences aimed to foster achievement, thematic, transdisciplinary, and complex curriculum, opportunities for affective development, and a more meaningful and deep understanding (Shaunessy et al., 2006). 17
Similar to the honors programs at colleges and universities, these programs target the whole student, not just the academic portion. IB programs are also designed to target the psychological adjustment of these gifted students, by encouraging a cohort-type arrangement, emphasizing peer relations and development.
Attrition does happen, whether in honors programs or in higher education in general. According to Yorke (2001), the three main reasons students are not successful in higher education include wrong choice of program, financial difficulties, and the quality of student experience. Although financial difficulties is a problem within itself, honors programs can target these other two attrition issues and find ways to combat them. According to Robinson (1997), academic advising is an important component of honors programs, and interpersonal relationships can work toward combating the wrong choice of program and the role this may play in attrition rates. Social components of an honors program, such as honors housing and peer mentoring, may lead students to have a more positive educational experience, thus working to avoid high attrition.
There are reflections in postsecondary institutions that demonstrate the importance, or lack of, often placed on honors programs or college honors students. For example, scholarships offered to students based on academic promise alone are often smaller and less numerous than scholarships based on financial need or athletics (Robinson, 1997). Many students, without the specialized support from colleges and universities, will fail to succeed at the level they are capable of, and will settle for second best, which in turn has an impact on our society (Robinson, 1997). It is necessary to provide college honors students with the factors of academic success that they need and require to be successful.
18
Framework Development
The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model was developed by Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli (2001) as a result of an investigation into 374 employees spread over 21 different jobs in three different occupational fields. Aimed at understanding organizational health and commitment, this model assumes that burnout will develop regardless of the type of occupation when job demands are high and job resources are limited (Demerouti et al., 2001). As suggested by these researchers, burnout will lead to dissatisfaction and even disengagement from work tasks. Demerouti et al. (2001) describe job demands as physical, social, or organizational job aspects that require sustained physical or mental effort, which in turn associate to physical or psychological cost.
Organizational resources are described as job control, potential for qualification, decision making, and task variety. Social resources include colleague, family, and peer support. When these resources are low, and demands are high, such as high workload or lack of organizational support, it becomes hard for employees to reach their work goals (Demerouti et al., 2001). This, in turn, leads to burnout and disengagement. Demerouti et al. (2001) examined the unique contribution of job demands and job resources in explaining workplace burnout.
In their study, Demerouti et al. (2001) provided participants with several theoretically-derived working conditions, and asked them to assess job demands and job resources for the hypothetical situation. There were five job demands including physical workload, time pressure, demanding contact with customers, unfavorable shift-work schedule, and physical environment. Six job resources included performance feedback, rewards, job control, participation in decision making, job security, and supervisor support. 19
Through structural equation modeling with a focus on direct effects, the researchers were able to test the JD-R model for the group as a whole, finding all job demands loading significantly on the latent-factor job demands, and all job resources loading significantly on the latent-factor job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Additionally, evidence showed a highly positive and significant coefficient path from job demands to exhaustion, and a highly negative and significant coefficient path from job resources to exhaustion (Demerouti et al., 2001). When examining the three occupational groups separately, the results were quite comparable. Overall results showed that high job demands can result in exhaustion, while a lack of job resources can result in disengagement.
After the establishment of the JD-R model, several studies have been completed to examine the effectiveness and robustness of this model across contexts. From teachers to organizational employees to leaders, this model has shown to be an effective tool time and time again. Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2007) applied this model to a group of 805 Finnish teachers, to examine whether high job resources would act as a buffer to the negative relationship caused by misbehaving students and job engagement. Results demonstrated that different combinations of job resources and pupil misbehavior explained significant amounts of the variance in vigor and dedication (Bakker et al., 2007).
Bakker, van Veldhoven, and Xanthopoulou (2010) followed up this study with an examination focusing on the interaction effects of job demands and job resources. Researchers studied 12,359 employees across 148 organizations to examine the interaction hypotheses of the JD-R model. More specifically, they proposed that the combination of high job demands and high job resources is a predictor of task enjoyment and organizational commitment. Their findings showed that 13 of 16 interactions for organizational 20
commitment were significant, and 15 of 16 interactions for task enjoyment were significant. All of these interactions were hypothesized work situations, in which both high job resources and high job demand were present (Bakker et al., 2010).
In 2011, Ellis and Pearsall examined the effects of an interaction of job demands and resources on cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes in teams. They used cross-training as the primary job resource. Participants were divided into 54 four-person teams, some of which were exposed to three different types of cross-training, including positional clarification, positional modeling, and positional rotation. Ellis and Pearsall (2011) found that when job demands were high, teams that had completed cross-training demonstrated higher mental model accuracy, more information allocation, and less tensions than teams that had not completed cross-training. The results showed that job demands and resources operate similarly at both the individual and team level.
Knudsen, Ducharme, and Roman (2009) applied an adapted version of the JD-R model to organizational leaders, rather than employees. By examining 410 organizational leaders of addiction treatment centers, the researchers found similar results as previous studies. More specifically, data revealed that performance demands were positively associated with emotional exhaustion, and long term planning, considered a job resource, was negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. This demonstrates the ability of this model to transcend disciplines and participant populations.
Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, and Salanova (2006) set out to determine the robustness of the JD-R model over differing occupational and national contexts. In their study of 654 Spanish employees and 477 Dutch employees, including employees from white- and blue-collar jobs, education and human services jobs, and customer service jobs, participants 21
volunteered to participate via paper-and-pencil surveys and electronic surveys. Every participant indicated their level of agreement for several questions in both the job demands and job resources categories. Results demonstrated that the JD-R model kept its structure over different nationalities, occupations, operationalizations, and data collection techniques.
Although there is evidence in the literature that demonstrates a connection between organizational obstacles and facilitators and psychological well-being, there is a gap in application of this idea to educational settings. According to empirical data, organizational obstacles negatively affect psychological well-being, while organizational facilitators positively affect psychological well-being (Brown & Mitchell, 1993; Schneider & Bowen, 1993). Salanova et al. (2010) used the theoretical basis of the Job Demands-Resources Model to create a similar model to be used in academic settings to measure academic obstacles and facilitators. This inventory, while fairly new, has already demonstrated usefulness in finding out the relationship between student perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators and academic achievement (Salanova et al., 2010). Focusing on academic facilitators and academic obstacles, labeled as factors of academic success, Salanova et al. (2010) set out to determine the usefulness of this alternate model in academic settings.
Factors of Academic Success
College students at all institutions usually have a similar set of developmental issues, including the need to establish their identity, seek autonomy, and achieve competence regardless of their academic talent (Noldon & Sedlacek, 1998). Supportive services for college students are designed with these developmental issues in mind. Successful adjustment to college largely reflects the extent to which students receive required services (Noldon & Sedlacek, 1998). At Miami Dade College, students admitted into the honors 22
program are provided with financial and support services. Enrichment activities include attendance and participation at regional and national conferences, internships, mentoring assignments, study travel tours, university transfer counseling, a personalized educational plan, and early registration (Floyd & Holloway, 2006). Additionally, all students admitted into the honors program are offered a fellow scholarship award which provides students with in-state tuition, a stipend, and book allowance. This is renewable as long as students keep a minimum GPA of 3.5 (Floyd & Holloway, 2006).
Based on the theoretical framework described above, Salanova et al. (2010) developed an inventory of academic facilitators and academic obstacles that interfere with student performance. Based on a qualitative study involving 40 university students, the recall of past situations that influenced the students’ academic achievement resulted in an overall list of 35 academic obstacles and 31 academic facilitators. After all redundant items were removed, the final list included 24 academic facilitators, and 30 academic obstacles (Salanova et al., 2010). According to Salanova et al. (2010), both academic obstacles and facilitators positively affect future academic performance. There was also a positive association found between academic obstacles and facilitators, as they are not mutually exclusive of one another. This could be a result of an active search for facilitators when an obstacle is experienced, according to Eriksen, Olff, and Ursin (2000).
What has not been examined, however, is what role these academic facilitators and academic obstacles may play in the psychological adjustment of college honors students. Academic facilitators will include anything that enhances the performance and productivity of the student. These can include social factors such as positive interactions with peers, organizational factors including access to the library and other necessities, and personal 23
factors including adequate preparation to be successful in academic work (Salanova et al., 2010). According to McClung and Stevenson (1988), students identified several facilitators in their honors programs, including small classes, content and level of the classes, quality of interaction and teaching, peer interaction, and access to faculty. Other benefits also included prescheduling and special honors housing. Robinson (1997) outlines several facilitators needed for student success, including access to information about research opportunities, scholarships, internships, mentorships, and alternative ways to meet course requirements if offerings are limited.
Academic obstacles, those experiences that may interfere with continued academic success, may also be experienced by college honors students. These can be simple things, such as lack of time to complete projects, or financial hardship. However, more complex obstacles may interfere, such as the negative stereotyping that may occur towards students enrolled in an honors program (McClung & Stevenson, 1988). Emotional barriers, such as fear and anxiety, can also hinder academic performance, as well as adjustment, for students. According to Kannan and Miller (2009), emotions such as fear and anxiety, although sometimes a barrier to academic achievement, can be re-directed into motivation for students to be successful. In their study, Kannan and Miller (2009) found students that overcame fear and anxiety to be successful in college. College instructors, especially those working with at-risk youth, including gifted student populations, must be aware of emotional obstacles that may arise, and understand how to deal with them to have a positive influence on students’ academic experience.
24
Psychological well-being
Psychological well-being (PWB) has been examined time and again throughout various contexts and cultures. The interest in PWB initially stemmed from the notion that the field of psychology has devoted so much energy and attention to human unhappiness (Diener, 1984) that an imbalance occurred. According to Ryff (1989b), early research in this area of PWB was lacking fundamental definition of the features of PWB. It is suggested by Ryff (1989b) that PWB is a multidimensional construct, and single item measures are not sufficient. Pulled from positive psychologists including Maslow (1968), Rogers (1961), Jung (1933), and Erikson (1959), Ryff’s (1989b) perspective of PWB integrates multiple perspectives into a more parsimonious summary. Ryff (1989b) has pinpointed six core dimensions of PWB, as outlined in further detail below. These six core dimensions have been used to evaluate countless research ideas and concepts throughout varying contexts, with numerous groups of participants.
In a study conducted by Ryff (1989b), the main objective was to denote what constitutes positive psychological functioning. The sample of 321 men and women completed the six scales of PWB consisting of 32 items (16 positive and 16 negative) each. Item-to-scale correlations were computed and items that correlated highly with scales other than their own were deleted. This resulted in internal coefficients for the resulting 20-item scales as follows: self-acceptance, .93; positive relations with others, .91; autonomy, .86; environmental mastery, .90; purpose in life, .90; and personal growth, .87. After a retest of 117 participants, test-retest, over a six week period, reliability coefficients for the 20-item scales were as follows: self-acceptance, .85; positive relations with others, .83; autonomy, .88; environmental mastery, .81; purpose in life, .82; and personal growth, .82. This 25
examination was the first attempt to operationalize the six dimensions of the PWB scales. Initial psychometric properties were sound, and were later followed-up with further research (Ryff, 1989b).
Self-acceptance is the first of the core dimensions of PWB. According to Ryff (1989a), self-acceptance is defined as a central feature of mental health, and is a characteristic of self-actualization, optimal functioning, and maturity. This is a recurrent theme of positive functioning. Ryff (1989a) describes how several theorists have described the importance of self-acceptance as a theme of positive PWB. Ryff (1989a) describes Maslow (1968), Rogers (1961), Jung (1933), Allport (1961), and Erikson (1959) all referring to self-acceptance as a component of self-actualization, and include acknowledgements of acceptance of nature, others, and oneself. Also emphasized is a person seeing the self as a person of worth, having a sense of emotional security, and being able to recognize the whole self, including one’s good and bad side. More than just an acceptance of self, one must be able to accept one’s past life, along with all triumphs and disappointments. According to Ryff (1989a), the attitude one holds toward oneself is a central component of PWB.
Ranging a variety of contexts, self-acceptance has shown a strong connection to PWB in multiple samples. Macinnes (2006) examined a group of 58 participants diagnosed with severe mental health problems to find the connection between self-acceptance and psychological well-being. Findings supported a connection between self-acceptance and PWB, with the strongest result being an association between an increase in self-acceptance and an increase in PWB. An increase in self-acceptance also resulted in lowered anxiety (Macinnes, 2006). The findings presented by Macinnes (2006) show a connection between self-acceptance and overall PWB. Additionally, in a study of 81 women battling breast 26
cancer, Romero, Kalidas, Elledge, Chang, Liscum, and Friedman (2006) found that those women with a high self-acceptance demonstrated higher PWB.
The second core dimension of PWB is positive relations with others. Ryff (1989a) again describes several theorists’ points of view regarding the essentialness of this component. According to Ryff (1989a), Maslow describes how self-actualizers have strong feelings of empathy and affection for all human beings, are capable of greater love and deeper friendship, and have more complete identification with others than those who are not self-actualized. Ryff (1989a) also describes other important features including showing trust towards human nature, relating warmly to others, showing compassion, respect, and appreciation, and being capable of great intimacy in love. This ability to have positive relations with others is stressed throughout the positive functioning literature, and is held as a central component to PWB (Ryff, 1989a). Frazier, Mintz, and Mobley (2005) found an interesting relationship between religious involvement and positive relations with others in a sample of 86 African Americans ranging from age 65-89 years, where an increase in involvement correlated to increased positive relations with others.
Autonomy is the third core component of PWB. As described by Ryff (1989a), an internal locus of evaluation is an important aspect of the fully functioning person. This correlates to an individual looking to themselves for approval based on personal standards, rather than on the opinions of others. Jung (1933) describes an ability to be apart from convention, and clinging to one’s own fears, belief, and laws, as components of autonomy (Ryff, 1989a). When one is autonomous, one can regulate behavior from within, based on self-determination and independence. Because of this independence, autonomy is a central component to PWB (Ryff, 1989a). 27
Van Mierlo, Rutte, Vermunt, Kompier, and Doorewaard (2007) reported a relationship between high team autonomy and less emotional exhaustion, which leads to burnout, when the relationship is mediated by individual autonomy. In the examination of 733 members of 76 healthcare teams across the Netherlands, participants provided self-report measures of individual autonomy, team autonomy, and psychological well-being (Van Mierlo et al., 2007). Findings demonstrate that team autonomy was indirectly related to positive psychological well-being, through a relationship with individual autonomy and task design.
The fourth core component of PWB is environmental mastery, in which one is able to manipulate and control the environment. This can be seen through a management of activities in work, family relationships, and personal realms (Ryff, 1989a). According to Ryff (1989a), theorists have described environmental mastery as one developing interests outside of the self, and participating in a wide array of human activity, as well as the ability and desire to take advantage of environmental opportunities. One’s ability to choose or create environments that are suitable to one’s psychological conditions is a strong component of environmental mastery and PWB (Ryff, 1989a).
Helson and Srivastava (2001) examined environmental mastery (EM) and personal growth (PG) in relation to positive psychological functioning. In their study of 111 women, participants were divided into one of three groups: achievers, high on both EM and PG scales; conservers, high on EM scale, low on PG scale; and seekers, high on PG scale, and low on EM scale. Findings reiterated the notion that positive psychological functioning is a mixture of emotion regulation, personality, identity, and life experiences. 28
Another component of PWB is purpose in life, which includes goals of being productive and exercising leadership abilities (Ryff, 1989a). Discussed by Ryff (1989a), several theorists have strong beliefs about purpose in life, which includes one’s desire to live each moment fully, having a unifying philosophy of life and a clear comprehension of life’s purpose, and holding a sense of direction and intentionality. An underlying message with purpose in life is one’s ability to integrate past life experiences into a meaningful context, which evolves into being a major component of PWB.
McKnight and Kashdan (2009) provided a comparison of several different meanings of purpose in life, pulled from social, behavioral, biological, and cognitive literature. In order to illustrate purpose in life as making progress toward life goals, by going through a cognitive process of defining goals and creating personal meaning, McKnight and Kashdan (2009) aimed to demonstrate the consequences of purposeful living. Direct outcomes include physical and mental health, but more importantly, these outcomes stem from purposeful activities that require one to exercise character, courage, and justice, all while challenging established norms. According to McKnight and Kashdan (2009), a purpose is intrinsically motivating and rather effortless, and enhances one’s mood to continue engaging in purposeful activities, in turn enhancing positive psychological functioning.
The final core component of PWB is personal growth, which takes into account all of the previously mentioned core components of PWB. While the first five components may be considered end results of a positively functioning person, they are not meant to be static. The continued development of the person is emphasized as being a component to PWB (Ryff, 1989a). Having openness to experience is considered to be an aspect of PWB, and this will 29
aid a person to continue with personal growth. According to Ryff (1989a), a fully functioning person should always continue to grow and develop.
In 2008, Akin attempted to demonstrate the validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the Scales of Psychological well-being created by Ryff (1989b). Based on 1214 university student participants, the total variance explained was 68%, and factor loadings ranged from .30 to .94. Internal consistencies for the six subscales were strong, as follows: autonomy, .91; environmental mastery, .94; personal growth, .90; positive relations with others, .89; purpose in life, .96; and self-acceptance, .87 (Akin, 2008). Test-retest reliability, with the testing window being four weeks, showed strong reliability as shown: autonomy, .78; environmental mastery, .95; personal growth, .97; positive relations with others, .86; purpose in life, .90; and self-acceptance, .97. These findings demonstrate the ability of these scales to be valid and reliable across cultural and lingual contexts.
The Scales of Psychological well-being (PWB) have been used in college settings, as well. In 2006, Chang applied the Scales of Psychological Well-Being to a study involving perfectionism and college students. According to his examination of 265 college students, stress fully mediated the relations between perfectionism and three of the six scales, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. This study leads to the realization that the potential for perfectionism in college honors students is real and can influence psychological well-being (Chang, 2006). September, McCarrey, Baranowsky, Parent, and Schindler (2001) used these scales to measure PWB among Canadian university students, where a connection was made between PWB and high achieving students that scored highly on the imposter phenomenon (IP) scale. Students that had a high IP score with a low ability-30
confidence score demonstrated a lower score on PWB, which is consistent with the literature on high-achieving students (Clance & Imes, 1978; September et al., 2001),
Giftedness and Psychological well-being
Historically, giftedness and the effects this phenomenon has on psychological well-being have been examined in primary and secondary education (Neihart, 1999). While much literature has become available over the past several decades, there has been an ongoing debate among the researchers in this field, with conflicting views of adjustment. On one hand, researchers have demonstrated that gifted students have better adjustment than non-gifted peers (Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985). These findings suggest that gifted students have greater self-understanding due to cognitive capacities, and cope better with stress and conflict. However, there is an alternate view of adjustment for gifted students. Anxiety, stress, delinquency, negative social coping, or even incidence of suicide have also been described throughout the literature and shown to have a connection to giftedness and psychological adjustment (Baker, 1995; Jackson, 1998; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1983).
The ability to adjust refers to an individual’s ability to respond to environmental demands. According to Neihart (1999), positively adjusted people tend to cope effectively with the demands of life, while negatively adjusted people are more likely to lack coping strategies or have maladaptive coping. Early research on psychological adjustment focused on a global measure of adjustment and used the MMPI, the Rorschach, or a behavior checklist. During this period, giftedness was usually measured using IQ of the student, which differs from today’s description of giftedness taking into account much more than only an individual’s IQ. Several studies using these measurements found an array of results 31
including gifted participants showing greater psychological adjustment than non-gifted peers (Jacobs, 1971), or adjustment difficulties on the part of gifted students (Cornell, 1989). These opposing findings led to the need for research focusing on more specific areas of adjustment for students.
When investigating giftedness and self-concept, many studies found no differences between gifted students and non-gifted students in self-concept (Hoge & McSheffrey, 1991; Tong & Yewchuk, 1996). Others found a higher self-concept among gifted students (Ablard, 1997; Chan, 1988) and some found a lower self-concept among gifted students (Coleman & Fults, 1982; Lea-Wood & Clunies-Ross, 1995). These studies varied in age, gender, and educational placements, such as gifted classrooms versus non-segregated classrooms. Chan (1988) found that gifted students in full time, segregated classrooms had lower self-concepts than other gifted students in more part-time options.
In a study examining the psychological functioning of students participating in IB programs, Shaunessy et al. (2006) found the students had higher levels of psychological adjustment than their general education peers. Students had high perceptions of school climate, including student-teacher relations, and peer relations. The importance of peer relations within the IB program is seen clearly throughout the results of this study. Now that academic facilitators, such as peer relations, are shown to be positively correlated to psychological adjustment for K-12 gifted students, it is important to understand the connection between facilitators and psychological adjustment for college honors students.
In a study of 33 gifted adolescents and 25 average-ability students, Richards, Encel, and Shute (2003) compared the emotional and behavioral adjustment of gifted students to average-ability peers. Findings suggested that gifted adolescents self-reported similar 32
emotional adjustment as their peers. Also found was that gifted students reported fewer depressive symptoms, a better attitude towards teachers, greater self-reliance, and a greater sense of adequacy than their average-ability peers (Richards et al., 2003). These results demonstrated what other empirical research has demonstrated, that intellectual giftedness is often interpreted as a protective factor for gifted adolescents.
Of course, there is contradicting evidence presented in the literature about adjustment for gifted youth. Several sub-groups of the gifted adolescent population have been found to be maladjusted and are shown to be at-risk of emotional and behavioral maladjustment and educational under-achievement (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Robinson, 1996). These sub-populations include gifted adolescent females, students with differing cultural and lingual backgrounds, youth with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged students.
Summary
Overall, empirical evidence is lacking when it comes to college honors students. Literature is available to understand gifted students and their psychological adjustment through primary and secondary education, but there is a lack of evidence about the gifted student in post-secondary education (Rinn & Plucker, 2004). Identification of gifted students has been emphasized in some literature, focusing on the lack of standardized identification processes and differentiation of programs. Self-identification is a key area of the college honors student identification process. However, after identification has occurred, the initiative taken by honors programs and faculty is individualized, and the support for how to interact with these students to promote their academic success and psychological well-being is lacking (Rinn & Plucker, 2004). 33
Research over the past several decades has focused on precollege gifted and talented students, or even the gifted adult. However, one major area that had been ignored includes college students that are gifted, termed as college honors students, between the ages of 17 and 22 (Rinn and Plucker, 2004). This absence of information leads to the need for research to understand this segment of our student populations. Research on younger students provides evidence that gifted students learn differently (Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995) and have different emotional and social experiences (Marsh, Chessor, Craven, & Roche, 1995). With this being known, it is surprising that gaps in the literature occur around college honors students.
Literature describes K-12 gifted students as having obvious traits, whether intellectual or creative (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Piirto, 2007; Siegle & McCoach, 2010). Precocious language and thought, described often as having higher mental age, is one trait that is often attributed to gifted children. Early reading and advanced comprehension demonstrate a gifted student’s ability to think beyond his or her age and physical development, and shows a potential advancement in abstract thinking (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Logical thinking, early writing, math, music, and art, and motivation and persistence are all common characteristics of gifted children.
Giftedness has been described as affective characteristics including social skills, personal adjustment, and self-concepts beyond one’s age. A greater emotional stability and adjustment are often seen in gifted children (Ablard, 1997; Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971). However, gifted adolescents often demonstrate the reverse adjustment, and can struggle with emotional stability (Jackson, 1998; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1983). This brings about a concern for psychological adjustment of gifted students as they age. Independence, self-34
confidence, and internal control often characterize gifted children. They differ in learning styles, and are usually self-motivated, have superior humor, and high moral thinking and empathy (Davis & Rimm, 1998).
Gifted students in primary and secondary education have been examined in regards to performance, achievement, individual versus group performance and characteristics, aptitudes, attitudes, attributions, grief, school planning, policy, academic dishonesty, by subject, by age, by gender, and by socioeconomic status. The research on these students is available, with evidence provided of the special needs of these students. With so much emphasis put on these learners and how we can improve their academic experiences, it is a wonder that interest lacks once these gifted learners move on to post-secondary education.
35
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the perception of factors of academic success, defined as academic facilitators and obstacles, with psychological adjustment for college honors students. Specifically, knowing whether it is more beneficial to increase academic facilitators or decrease academic obstacles would allow educators to improve the opportunity for positive psychological adjustment on behalf of honors students. The main research question was “Are there mean group differences in psychological well-being among college honors students who are classified as having low-medium-high levels of perceived obstacles and low-medium-high levels of perceived facilitators?”
Population and Sample
The population represented by this research project is college honors students enrolled in a public comprehensive university in the Midwestern region of the United States. The total enrollment in the honors program at the time of data collection was 861 students. The sample included freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior college honors students. Participants were recruited from honors courses at the university. Instructors were contacted through email using an Institutional Review Board approved script requesting an opportunity to administer a paper and pencil survey to students during a 36
regularly scheduled class. Junior and senior level honors students were contacted directly via email with an invitation to participate. 389 students participated in this study, and all participating students were college honors students.
Procedure
Data collection was completed at a large Midwestern public university. The researcher, with the permission of course instructors, invited students to participate in this research project during regularly scheduled classes, using an administered paper and pencil survey. After approval by the Institutional Review Board (Appendix A: IRB approval), the researcher invited participants to complete several surveys, including the perceptions of academic obstacles scale, perceptions of academic facilitators scale, the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being, and a demographic questionnaire. Surveys were completed by participants during a regularly scheduled class time, or via an online survey for those contacted directly through email.
Instrumentation
The three instruments used were the Factors of Academic Success scale (FAS), including the perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators scales, the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB), and a demographic questionnaire (Appendix C).
Factors of Academic Success
A modified version of an inventory developed by Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez, and Breso (2010) was administered to measure students’ perceptions of factors of academic success. This inventory includes 25 academic obstacles and 30 academic facilitators, and is measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (greatly). Each participant was asked to indicate the degree to which they perceived each academic obstacle or academic facilitator affected their ability to participate in the honors program. Realizing that any given 37
facilitator or obstacle may not have any impact as such on a student, an option was included for participants to select 6 (not applicable). An example of an academic facilitator is the phrase Tolerance and group cohesion among colleagues. An example of an academic obstacle is the phrase Personal lack of planning and organization time.
Historically, obstacles and facilitators were measured in organizational work settings, and were known as job demands and job resources. Job demands include physical, social, and organizational job requirements that are based on physical or mental effort. Examples of job demands include physical workload, time pressure, and unfavorable shift work. Job resources include aspects in the same three categories that help workers achieve work goals, reduce job demands, and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2006). Examples of job resources include participation in decision-making and rewards.
The validity of the JD-R model has been most notably tested by Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli (2001). In their study of 352 employees, they offered a new two-factor model (the current JD-R model) as an alternative approach to the commonly used single factor model to measure job demands and resources. Confirmatory factor analysis of the proposed JD-R model showed a good fit to the data (GFI = .96), as opposed to the previously used single factor model (GFI = .89). All items (job demands and job resources) loaded significantly on the two factors proposed by the model. This model was adopted as a better predictor of work burnout or work engagement.
Llorens et al. (2006) tested the JD-R model on two groups of employees, Spanish (654 employees) and Dutch (477 employees). While the goal of the study was to examine the connection between job demands, job resources, and organizational commitment, the two 38
differing populations also allowed them to look into the robustness of the model across differing national and occupational contexts. Results showed that the JD-R model has the same basic structure across nationalities, occupations, operationalizations, data gathering, and homogeneous vs. heterogeneous samples.
Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2007) applied this model to a group of 805 Finnish teachers, to examine whether high job resources would act as a buffer to the negative relationship caused by misbehaving students, at the elementary, secondary, and vocational levels, and teacher job engagement. Results demonstrated that different combinations of job resources and pupil misbehavior explained significant amounts of the variance in vigor and dedication (Bakker et al., 2007). In this case, several job resources, including supervisor support, innovativeness, information, appreciation, and organizational climate, all worked towards counteracting the job demands laid on the teachers, thus avoiding burnout.
The first attempt by researchers to alter the JD-R model to be useful in an academic setting was successful. In their study of 527 college students enrolled in a comprehensive university, Salanova et al. (2010) used confirmatory factor analysis to examine their proposed model of academic facilitators and academic obstacles. Results showed a good fit for a two-factor model, postulating two underlying positively correlated constructs, academic facilitators and academic obstacles. Each construct had three levels of indicators, organizational, social, and personal (Appendix B). This study, focusing on the connection between academic facilitators, academic obstacles, and academic achievement, found a positive association between obstacles and facilitators, showing the two are not mutually exclusive of one another (Salanova et al., 2010). 39
Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being
Developed by Carol Ryff (1989b), the Psychological well-being (PWB) measure includes six scales which include autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. There are 14 items in each scale presented in a mixed format, which means the items from all six scales are intermingled, with a six-point response format, 1 being strongly disagree, and 6 being strongly agree. The autonomy scale has an internal consistency of .83, and is measured using both positively and negatively scored items. A high scorer on the autonomy scale is self-determining and independent, and able to resist social pressure. A low scorer is concerned with the evaluations of others, and conforms to social pressure in both thinking and acting. Items included in this scale are “Sometimes I change the way I act or think to be more like those around me,” and “I am not the kind of person who gives in to social pressures to think or act in certain ways.”
The environmental mastery scale includes both positively and negatively scored items. Cronbach’s alpha for environmental mastery is .86. A participant scoring high on this scale will show mastery over his or her environment, and will be able to choose contexts suitable to personal needs. A low scorer will have difficulty managing everyday affairs, and will lack a sense of control over the external world. “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live,” and “I get frustrated when trying to plan my daily activities because I never accomplish the things I set out to do,” are examples of items included in this scale. 40
The personal growth scale, the third of the psychological well-being scales developed by Ryff (1989b), has an internal consistency of .85. While using both positively and negatively scored items, this scale focuses on the feelings a participant has regarding his or her own development. Examples of items included in this scale are “I am the kind of person who likes to give new things a try,” and “I do not enjoy being in new situations that require me to change my old familiar ways of doing things.” A high scorer on this scale demonstrates feelings of continued development and growth. A low scorer lacks a sense of improvement or growth, and may feel bored and uninterested with life.
The positive relations with others scale measures a participant’ perceptions of his or her relationships, and has a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. A high scorer will demonstrate satisfying and trusting relationships, while a low scorer may demonstrate a struggle in building relationships with others, and is not willing to make compromises to sustain important relationships. Examples of items included in this scale are “I feel like I get a lot out of my friendships,”, “I often feel like I’m on the outside looking in when it comes to friendships,” and “I find it difficult to really open up when I talk with others.”
The purpose in life scale, with an internal consistency of .88, demonstrates the participant’s perception of their direction in life. Examples of items included in this scale are “I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality,” and “I tend to focus on the present, because the future nearly always brings me problems.” A high scorer on this scale has goals in life and has a sense of direction. A participant scoring low on this scale may lack direction and purpose, and does not see his or her life as having meaning.
The self-acceptance scale, the final of the six psychological well-being scales, demonstrates a participant’s attitude toward his or her own self. This scale has an internal 41
consistency of .91. A high scorer on this scale can acknowledge and accept multiple aspects of self, including positive and negative qualities. A low scorer may feel dissatisfied with self, and wishes to be different that what he or she is. Some items included in this scale are “I envy many people for the lives they lead,” and “When I compare myself to friends and acquaintances, it makes me feel good about who I am.”
The scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB) have been used in college settings. In 2006, Chang applied the scales of Psychological Well-Being to a study involving perfectionism and college students. According to his examination of 265 college students, stress fully mediated the relations between perfectionism and three of the six scales, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. This study leads to the realization that the potential for perfectionism in college honors students is real and can influence psychological well-being. September, McCarrey, Baranowsky, Parent, and Schindler (2001) used these scales to measure PWB among Canadian university students, where a connection was made between PWB and high achieving students that scored highly on the imposter phenomenon (IP) scale. Students that had a high IP score with a low ability-confidence score demonstrated a lower score on PWB, which is consistent with the literature on high-achieving students (Clance & Imes, 1978; September et al., 2001), Demographic Questionnaire
A 15-item demographic questionnaire was included in the survey. Basic information was collected, such as age, ethnicity, gender, and student classifications, such as year in school, full-time versus part-time student, and major. Based on Robinson’s (1997) findings that academic advising can help to combat student maladjustment to academic and social 42
experiences, questions regarding how many times and for what reasons students met with academic advisers each semester were included.
Data Analyses
Participants were classified into three groups for academic obstacles and three groups for academic facilitators, based on low-medium-high perceptions of each. Because of the anticipated interaction, categorized variables were determined to be more appropriate for this analysis, and cutpoints were specified based on the proportion of the data. An empirical split was employed to group participants according to even percentiles (33.3%, 66.6%, 100%) and cutoff points for each level of academic obstacle and each level of academic facilitator were calculated. Participants were split into three groups for the perception of academic obstacles including low (1-1.95), medium (1.951-2.56), and high (2.561-5.00). For the perception of academic facilitators, participants were also split into low (1-3.33), medium (3.331-3.87), and high (3.871-5.00) groups based on scale scores. The response of “not applicable” was dropped for analysis. Each participant was classified as having a low-medium-high score for both perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators. A three by three MANOVA (three levels each of perceived academic facilitators and perceived academic obstacles) with univariate follow ups and pairwise comparisons were employed to examine the relationships between the groups and psychological well-being.
Summary
A sample of 389 college honors students enrolled at a public comprehensive Midwestern university were recruited to participate in a research study regarding perceptions of factors of academic success and psychological well-being. Participants completed the perceptions of academic obstacles scale, the perceptions of academic facilitators scale, as 43
well as the six scales of psychological well-being. Analyses helped clarify the connection between the perceptions of factors of academic success and psychological well-being. 44
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the perception of factors of academic success, defined as academic facilitators and obstacles, with psychological adjustment for college honors students. A description of the sample is presented, followed by results including the reliability analyses and multivariate statistics for the variables included in this study, as well as a discussion about the research question guiding this study.
Are there mean group differences in Psychological well-being among college honors students who are classified as having low-medium-high levels of perceived obstacles and low-medium-high levels of perceived facilitators?
Description of Sample
A total of 389 college honors students completed a survey instrument including a scale modified from the inventory of factors of academic success (modified from Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez, & Breso 2010), the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989b) and a demographic questionnaire. Based on Robinson’s (1997) findings that college honors students are affected by peer groups, honors housing, shared activities, and interaction with faculty and staff, several questions were included focusing on social interactions among students and between students and faculty and staff.45
The sample included 225 females (57.8%) and 164 males (42.2%). This breakdown is fairly representative of the total enrollment of the College honors as of fall 2010 (χ2 = 1.43, p = .23). The sample was underrepresented in Native American students (Standardized Residual = -2.79) and overrepresented in Other / Multi-Racial students (Standardized Residual = 4.49). Participants from all undergraduate classifications participated, including Freshman (44.2%), Sophomore (30.1%), Junior (18%), and Senior (7.7%).
When asked about participation in gifted programs during primary and secondary school, 32.9% of participants reported having been involved in gifted programs from kindergarten through their senior year of high school. This was followed by 13.6% being involved from fourth grade through twelfth grade, and 10.3% from seventh grade through twelfth grade. A majority of participants, 56.8%, participated in gifted programs as seniors in high school, leading them directly into the Honors Program as undergraduate students.
Reliability Analysis
Internal consistency reliability was assessed using the data at hand for both the Factors of Academic Success (FAS) scale and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB) using Cronbach’s Alpha. Each reliability measure was evaluated based on a scale of >.95, desirable, >.8, adequate (Nunnally, 1967).
Factors of Academic Success
The inventory created by Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez, and Breso (2010) was modified and used to measure students’ perceptions of factors of academic success. The changes to the inventory were made to better accommodate the representative population of students at this specific university. Some items were deleted from the scale, especially if they were specific to another university. Some items were added or modified to better 46
represent the knowledge and perspective of the particular population used in this study. New items and wording were based on language used at this university with this undergraduate population, such as taking classes in major area rather than doing practical classes. Other items, which originally seemed to be targeting more than one facilitator or obstacle, were broken into multiple items to measure only one construct per item. This modified inventory included two subscales, academic facilitators including 30 items, and academic obstacles including 25 items. A detailed list of all changes made is included in Table 1.
Based on an analysis of the correlation matrix, a single variable was used to measure both the perceptions of academic facilitators and academic obstacles, rather than breaking perceptions down based on organizational, personal and social factors. For the perceptions of academic obstacles, one factor accounted for 72.6% of the variance among the sample. For the perceptions of academic facilitators, one factor accounted for 73.3% of the variance among the sample.
The academic facilitators subscale measured students’ perceptions of positive factors that enhance academic performance. This 30 item scale was measured on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (greatly). Realizing that any given facilitator or obstacle may not have any impact as such on a student, an option was included for participants to select 6 (not applicable). The Cronbach’s alpha (Table 1) result was .91 based on 356 valid cases showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967).
The academic obstacles subscale measured students’ perception of negative factors that hinder or impede academic performance. This 25 item scale was measured using the same Likert-type response format. The Cronbach’s alpha (Table 1) for this scale was .90 based on 349 valid cases, showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967). 47
Table 1. Modified Items for the Factors of Academic Success Scale
Original Item
Modified Item
Academic Obstacles
1. Agglomeration and insufficient photocopying service
Insufficient photocopying service
2. Overload (e.g. too many tasks to do everything well)
School work overload
4. Agglomeration and insufficient food services
Insufficient food services
7. Inappropriate transport to the University
Insufficient transportation to the University
11. Insufficient or inappropriate spaces
Insufficient student spaces (lounges, study rooms, etc.)
14. Limited information and insufficient student assistance service
a. Limited information about student assistance service
b. Insufficient student assistance services
24. Too many teachers per course
Teacher and Faculty roles are unclear (who id my adviser?, etc.)
Academic Facilitators
1. Library opened with a photocopy machine at nights during the exam period
Sufficient access to photocopying services
2. Photocopying service
Sufficient access to printing services
3. Access to students’ grants
Sufficient access to information on student grants
4. Access to computer labs
Sufficient access to computer labs
5. Information about the study program prior to enrollment
Sufficient information about the study program prior to enrollment
6. Information services for students
Sufficient information services for students
7. Sunny and properly lighted and ventilated classrooms
Properly lighted and ventilated classrooms 48
8. Practical with few students
Smaller class sizes
10. Timetable flexibility for doing practical classes
Timetable flexibility for taking classes in major area
12. Granted cultural activities
Access to cultural activities
13. Administrative services being located in the same building
Sufficient administrative services
16. Access to University-Enterprise Foundation service
Access to student employment services
17. Student association
Active student government association
19. Personality characteristics
My own personality characteristics
26. Tutoring time available
Sufficient access to tutoring if required
28. Feedback from teachers or colleagues
Constructive feedback from teachers or colleagues
Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being
This instrument, developed by Carol Ryff in 1989 and substantiated through various replication studies (Chang, 2006; September et al., 2001), includes six subscales of autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Each subscale included 14 items, totaling 84 items. These items were measured using a Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items from all six of the subscales were intermingled, and several items on each subscale were negatively worded, which resulted in reverse-scoring for those items. Reliabilities for each subscale were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha and can be found in Table 2.
The autonomy subscale measured the participant’s internal locus of evaluation and how an individual looks within for approval based on personal standards. Cronbach’s alpha 49
was calculated as .82 based on 362 valid cases showing adequate internal consistency (Nunnally, 1967). Questions 1, 19, 31, 43, 55, 61, and 73 were negatively scored and were reversed for data analysis. The 14 items on the environmental mastery subscale measured how one is able to manipulate and control the environment, in aspects of work, family relationships, and personal realms. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as .87 based on 342 valid cases, showing adequate internal consistency (Nunnally, 1967). Questions 8, 14, 26, 44, 62, and 74 were negatively scored and were reversed for data analysis. The purpose in life subscale measured goals of being productive and sense of life’s direction. Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was calculated as .91 for 362 valid cases, showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967). Items 11, 17, 29, 35, 41, 65 and 83 were negatively scored and were reversed for data analysis.
Self-acceptance, defined as a central feature of mental health, was a subscale that measured personal worth, sense of emotional security, and the ability for participants to recognize their whole selves. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at .93 based on 353 valid cases, showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967). Items 18, 24, 42, 54, 60, 66 and 84 were negatively scored and were reversed for analysis. Another subscale, positive relations with others, measured feelings of empathy and affection for all human beings and capability of greater love and deeper friendship. Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was calculated as .89 based on 345 valid cases, showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967). Questions 10, 16, 34, 46, 58, 64, and 76 were negatively scored and reversed for analysis. Personal growth was another subscale which measured the continual development of each participant. This component takes into account all of the five other subscales, which are not meant to be static, but to grow over time. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be .84 50
for 364 valid cases, showing adequate internal reliability (Nunnally, 1967). Questions 3, 21, 33, 57, 75 and 81 were negatively scored and were reversed for data analysis.
Table 2. Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Measure
M
SD
α
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Academic Obstacles
2.30
.67
.90
-
2. Academic Facilitators
3.58
.64
.91
.28**
-
3. Autonomy
4.29
.69
.82
-.13*
.07
4. Environmental Mastery
4.32
.75
.87
-.19**
.19**
.48**
5. Personal Growth
4.95
.59
.84
-.10
.24**
.39**
.51**
6. Positive Relations with Others
4.70
.82
.89
-.15**
.22**
.29**
.60**
.55**
7. Purpose in Life
4.89
.79
.91
-.10
.22**
.40**
.73**
.53**
.63**
8. Self-Acceptance
4.65
.89
.93
-.13*
.13*
.51**
.79**
.52**
.68**
.77**
Group Classification
The subjects were classified into three groups for academic facilitators and three groups for academic obstacles, based on low-medium-high perceptions of each (See Figure 1). With no theoretical reasoning to guide how to divide participants into these low-medium-high groups, an empirical split was employed. I placed the participants into groups according to even cutpoints for percentiles (33.3%, 66.6%, 100%), and cutoff points for each level of academic facilitator and each level of academic obstacle was calculated. Participants were split into three groups for the perception of academic obstacles including low (1-1.95), medium (1.951-2.56), and high (2.561-5.00). For the perception of academic facilitators, participants were also split into low (1-3.33), medium (3.331-3.87), and high (3.871-5.00) groups based on scale scores. The response of “not applicable” was dropped for analysis. Each participant was classified as having a low-medium-high score for both perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators.
51
Figure 1.
Group Classification Based on Low-Medium-High Perceptions
Perceptions of Facilitators
Low
Medium
High
Perceptions of Obstacles
Low
42
32
33
Medium
43
35
22
High
17
52
45
Multivariate Analyses of Variance
In order to examine the mean group differences in Psychological Well-Being among college honors students, a three by three factorial MANOVA was employed. Group differences on the two perceived academic success scales, facilitators and obstacles, were assessed for three levels each, low-medium-high. The six subscales of PWB were entered into the MANOVA as dependent variables. There was no significant interaction effect between the perception of academic obstacles and the perception of academic facilitators (Wilks’ Λ24, 902 = .913, p = .634, R2 = .087). However, both main effects were statistically significant, including the main effect for the perception of academic obstacles (Wilks’ Λ12, 454 = .899, p = .018, R2 = .101) and the main effect for the perception of academic facilitators (Wilks’ Λ12, 454 = .889, p = .008, R2 = .111).
Follow-up univariate tests were conducted for both of these main effects. There were significant univariate differences on four subscales of PWB based on the perception of academic obstacles. These included Environmental Mastery (F2, 232 = 7.484, p = .001), Positive Relations with Others (F2, 232 = 4.014, p = .019), Purpose in Life (F2, 232 = 5.521, p = .005), and Self-Acceptance (F2, 232 = 5.683, p = .004). There were no significant univariate differences for Autonomy (F2, 232 = 1.185, p = .308) or Personal Growth (F2, 232 = 1.594, p = .205). Based on the significant univariate F tests, follow-up pairwise comparisons were 52
conducted to see where the significant differences were within each subscale (See Table 3). The group perceiving low levels of academic obstacles were significantly higher on Environmental Mastery than both the medium (p = .008) and high (p = .001) groups. Self-Acceptance also followed a similar trend, with those scoring low on perceptions of academic obstacles being significantly higher than the medium (p = .024) and high (p = .007) groups. The group perceiving low academic obstacles scored significantly higher than those in the high (p = .015) group for Positive Relations with Others. This is similar to the Purpose in Life scale, with those in the low group for perceived academic obstacles scoring significantly higher than those in the high (p = .004) group. There were no statistically significant differences between the medium group and either the low and high groups for the Positive Relations with Others and Purpose in Life subscales.
53
Table 3.
Pairwise Comparisons for the Academic Obstacles Scale
A = Means between low and medium groups are significantly different B = Means between low and high groups are significantly different
Univariate tests were employed to measure the main effect of the perception of academic facilitators. There were significant univariate differences on Environmental Mastery (F2, 232 = 6.743, p = .001), Personal Growth (F2, 232 = 7.369, p = .001), Positive Relations with Others (F2, 232 = 6.276, p = .002), Purpose in Life (F2, 232 = 6.842, p = .001), and Self-Acceptance (F2, 232 = 3.076, p = .048) based on the perception of academic obstacles, but not for Autonomy (F2, 232 = .301, p = .740). Pairwise comparisons were conducted as a follow-up for each of the significant univariate F tests (See Table 4). The group perceiving high levels of academic facilitators were significantly higher on
Estimates
Variable
Group
M
SD
Autonomy
Low
4.42
.69
Medium
4.24
.68
High
4.22
.68
Environmental Mastery
Low A, B
4.60
.74
Medium A
4.20
.71
High B
4.25
.77
Personal Growth
Low
5.05
.60
Medium
4.90
.55
High
4.89
.62
Positive Relations with Others
Low B
4.89
.73
Medium
4.62
.83
High B
4.59
.88
Purpose in Life
Low B
5.03
.75
Medium
4.83
.73
High B
4.79
.89
Self-Acceptance
Low A, B
4.88
.74
Medium A
4.51
.86
High B
4.53
.99 54
Environmental Mastery than the low group (p = .001). Those perceiving high levels of academic obstacles were significantly higher on Personal Growth as compared to the low group (p = .001). The group perceiving high academic facilitators scored significantly higher than those in the low (p = .001) group for Positive Relations with Others. The Purpose in Life scale reflects the same trend, with those in the high group for perceived academic facilitators scoring significantly higher than those in the low (p = .001) group. There were no statistically significant differences between the medium group and either the low and high groups for the Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations with Others, and Purpose in Life subscales. There were no statistically significant group differences found for Autonomy or Self-Acceptance.
55
Table 4. Pairwise Comparisons for the Academic Facilitators Scale
A = Means between low and medium groups are significantly different B = Means between low and high groups are significantly different
Summary
In this chapter, results of data collection and analyses for this research study were presented. A description of the sample was presented first. This demonstrated a sample with variability representative of the population of college honors students enrolled in this Midwestern university. Next, the reliability for the academic obstacles scale, academic facilitators scale, and the six subscales of the Ryff Psychological Well-Being scale were described. Reliabilities of each of these scales showed at least a good level of internal reliability.
Estimates
Variable
Group
M
SD
Autonomy
Low
4.23
.73
Medium
4.29
.73
High
4.37
.62
Environmental Mastery
Low B
4.20
.80
Medium
4.28
.71
High B
4.54
.67
Personal Growth
Low B
4.80
.59
Medium
4.94
.55
High B
5.14
.53
Positive Relations with Others
Low B
4.54
.77
Medium
4.64
.80
High B
4.96
.78
Purpose in Life
Low B
4.74
.79
Medium
4.90
.77
High B
5.12
.69
Self-Acceptance
Low
4.57
.89
Medium
4.59
.83
High
4.85
.87 56
The group classification was described, showing how each participant was placed into a low-medium-high group for perception of academic obstacles, and into a low-medium-high group for perception of academic facilitators. Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) were employed to examine the mean group differences in Psychological Well-Being among college honors students, based on participants’ placement into low-medium-high groups of academic obstacles and facilitators. No significant interaction effect was found. There were, however, two significant main effects including the main effect for the perception of academic obstacles and the main effect for the perception of academic facilitators. Follow-up univariate tests were conducted for both of these main effects. There were significant univariate differences on four subscales of PWB based on the perception of academic obstacles, and five subscales of PWB based on the perception of academic facilitators. Follow-up pairwise comparisons were then conducted to see where the significant differences were within each subscale for both perceptions of academic obstacles and academic facilitators. There were significant differences, when focusing on academic obstacles, between low-medium-high groups for Environmental Mastery and Self-Acceptance, and significant differences between the low-high groups for Positive Relations with Others and Purpose in Life. For academic facilitators, only significant differences were calculated between low and high groups for Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations with Others, and Purpose in Life.
57
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the perception of factors of academic success, defined as academic facilitators and obstacles, with psychological adjustment for college honors students. This chapter provides a final summary of this study, discusses conclusions based on the analyses of data, and reviews theory, practice, and research recommendations.
Summary of the Study
This study examined the relationship between perceptions of academic obstacles, perceptions of academic facilitators, and psychological well-being for college honors students. An inventory created by Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez, and Breso (2010) was used to measure students’ perceptions of factors of academic success. The original inventory was modified based on the information being sought in this research and matching the characteristics of the population of participants. This inventory was changed into a scale with a Likert-type response format in order to capture varying perceptions.
At a university in the Midwestern region of the United States, course instructors teaching honors courses were contacted regarding the possibility of recruiting participants during a regularly-scheduled class period. Participants were invited to complete the 58
paper and pencil survey, which occurred during that same class period. The survey consisted of 25 academic facilitators, 30 academic obstacles, 84 items focusing on psychological well-being, and several demographic questions. Those whom did not wish to participate had the option of remaining seated until everyone participating had finished, or to leave the room upon declining the invitation. After an initial round of data collection was completed, the recruitment of participants was modified to include email solicitation in order to reach upper classmen students, as there are fewer honors courses offered past the sophomore level. The 389 participants ranged all undergraduate classifications and had a gender and ethnic breakdown that was mostly representative of the entire population of students enrolled in this particular Honors College.
Conclusions
The data analysis employed in this study was selected to explore the differences among groups of students based on their perceptions of academic facilitators, academic obstacles and their psychological well-being. Due to the multiple dependent variables, MANOVA was used to determine if there was a significant effect of perceptions of academic obstacles, academic facilitators, and their interaction. The conclusions found are:
1.) Perceptions of academic obstacles and academic facilitators each have a significant impact on psychological well-being for college honors students. As suggested in various findings (Brown & Mitchell, 1993; Schneider & Bowen, 1993), the way students perceive characteristics that enhance or hinder their ability to perform academically affects their psychological well-being.
2.) Environmental mastery, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance were all negatively impacted by the perception of academic obstacles. 59
Significant univariate differences were found for these four subscales of the PWB scale. These constructs, defined by Ryff (1989a), are central themes to positive functioning.
3.) Environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance were all positively impacted by the perception of academic facilitators, fitting well with previous findings. These five constructs have been stressed throughout the positive functioning literature (Ryff, 1989a). Significant univariate differences for these five subscales of the PWB scale were determined.
4.) Autonomy was not impacted significantly by either the perceptions of academic obstacles or perceptions of academic facilitators. Interestingly, this non-significant relationship is focused on an internal locus of evaluation, or looking to oneself for approval, and corresponds to the description of gifted students having a greater self-understanding and cope better with stress and conflict (Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985), as their sense of autonomy was not impacted by their perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators.
5.) Low-medium-high group differences were found for the perceptions of academic obstacles. Low-high group differences were found for the perceptions of academic facilitators. This corresponds to the varying findings throughout research on the gifted student population, with some finding positive adjustment among gifted students (Baker, 1995; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985), and others finding negative adjustment within this population (Baker, 1995; Jackson, 1998). This supports the group differences among these perceptions of academic obstacles and facilitators.
60
Perceptions of Academic Obstacles and Academic Facilitators
As suggested by Bowman (2007), students require necessary skills and resources in order to be productive. Also suggested is students who are better adjusted tend to perform better academically (Pittman & Richard, 2007). The findings in this study show a significant link between the perceptions of academic obstacles or facilitators and psychological well-being, providing a strong link between the theoretical background of this research and the information gained from this research.
There was no significant interaction effect between the perception of academic facilitators and academic obstacles. However, the main effect for the perception of academic obstacles was statistically significant, as well as the main effect for the perception of academic facilitators. These results enhance findings of Salanova et al. (2010) by showing the reliability of the perceptions of academic obstacles and academic facilitator scales.
Psychological well-being and Academic Obstacles and Facilitators
Students perceiving low levels of academic obstacles showed a strong connection to environmental mastery, and reported significantly higher levels of environmental mastery than their counterparts in medium and high groups. This connection between those seeing fewer obstacles to their academic success and high feelings of mastery over their own environment can possibly be explained by engagement (Salanova et al., 2010), but should be explored further to determine the exact relationship. Those in this low academic obstacle perception group also scored higher on self-acceptance than those in medium and high groups. Self-acceptance is related to positive adjustment, which supports a connection between low perceptions of academic obstacles and positive adjustment. These findings suggest that there is still a middle ground for these students when reporting their feelings of 61
environmental mastery and self-acceptance, which lines up with the literature on gifted students describing college honors students as potentially being maladjusted to university level academics and activities (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Robinson, 1996).
Those perceiving low levels of academic obstacles had significant differences from those students perceiving high levels of academic obstacles on positive relations with others, and purpose in life. These findings align with previous research regarding social issues with honors students (Robinson, 1997). The connection between high perceptions of obstacles and low positive relations with others supports the suggestions made throughout literature to enhance social support for honors students (German, 1995; Robinson, 1997), and demonstrates the need to continue this support throughout college.
Students with a high level of perception of academic facilitators differed significantly from students with a low level of perception of facilitators on environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. One of the most interesting aspects of these findings is that the significant differences only occur between high and low groups; the medium groups are virtually non-significant. This can coincide with the positive adjustment, and potentially reflect a more optimistic outlook based on this high perceiving group of academic facilitators. More research could potentially show an emotional aspect of the way students perceive characteristics that can help or hinder their progress.
The results found in this research study regarding the autonomy subscale provided an interesting finding. Research discusses at length the need for social support among gifted and honors students in order to be successful (Robinson, 1997; Shaunessy et al., 2006; Yorke, 2001). Robinson (1997) found that students entering honors programs in post-62
secondary schools may be experiencing challenging work for the first time, and may not hold the necessary skills to achieve academic success. The finding that autonomy is not significantly affected by perceptions of academic obstacles or academic facilitators leads to the need for further research focusing on social support and autonomy for college honors students, as well as the direct link between preparedness and autonomy.
Recommendations
Researchers have found that interventions at the student level to increase academic facilitators (preparation, study skills) and decrease academic obstacles (lack of preparation) have helped to enhance the student’s sense of efficacy regarding academics (Coleman et al., 1996; Howard & Jones, 2000). The findings of this research study corroborate this idea, and show the need for the implementation of these types of interventions at the post-secondary level.
With the unique population of college honors students, a lot is invested into their success both academically and personally during education. Understanding what will aide in the enhancement of psychological well-being will prove to be invaluable for honors programs and college honors students. The majority of those participating self-reported their previous participation in gifted education during primary and secondary school, and the largest percentage of these individuals had participated in a gifted program through their senior year of high school. The relationship between high school gifted programs and college honors programs cannot be denied. Administrators and faculty may be able to find a way to link these two times in a student’s life to best help them adjust to the needs of a college honors program.
63
Theoretical Implications
The major findings of this research study support the research in existence about psychological well-being, as well as honors students. Environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance were all central themes, whether negative or positive, to functioning (Ryff, 1989a). Autonomy was not impacted significantly by either the perceptions of academic obstacles or perceptions of academic facilitators, corresponding to the description of gifted students having a greater self-understanding and cope better with stress and conflict (Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985).
However, much is contributed to the literature based on the inclusion of the perceptions of academic obstacles and academic facilitators. The high reliabilities of these scales demonstrate the effectiveness of using them in research at the collegiate level, especially with honors students. The findings here can aid in the development and refinement of the Factors of Academic Success Scale, which may also be applicable to other groups of students outside of honors programs.
Perceptions of academic obstacles and academic facilitators each have a significant impact on psychological well-being for college honors students (Brown & Mitchell, 1993; Schneider & Bowen, 1993). Low-medium-high group differences were found for the perceptions of academic obstacles; low-high group differences were found for the perceptions of academic facilitators. These differences support the varying findings throughout the literature about adjustment among gifted students (Baker, 1995; Jackson, 1998; Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985). 64
The findings indicate no connection between perceptions of academic obstacles, academic facilitators, and autonomy. This brings to light an important aspect of student success based on psychological well-being that needs to be addressed with future research. By understanding how to impact autonomy, faculty and administrators can provide the best opportunities to help students become autonomous.
Practical Implications
The results of this research study provide implications for future practice in honors programs at colleges and universities. Understanding how students perceive academic obstacles or academic facilitators can help identify where those students may lie on certain aspects of psychological well-being. With this determination, targeting certain areas hindering a student in academic endeavors can drastically improve their overall college experience and academic success. The teaching of student skills should be incorporated into all orientation courses for all students, especially by targeting specific problem areas. If required, students with great need in certain aspects should be directed to a specific skills course, in which missing skills can be acquired and built upon to increase the psychological well-being of the student in need.
As an entire unit, any honors college or program would benefit from being able to understand how students perceive academic obstacles and facilitators. The understanding of these perceptions will aid those in the development of characteristics, even through an honors orientation class, that may help to prevent some of the problems honors students may have otherwise faced.
Future Research 65
This research study should continue on with further exploration of the relationship between academic obstacles, academic facilitators, and psychological well-being. More specifically, the findings warrant continuing research regarding the social aspect within college honors programs. Aligning with previous research regarding honors students and social issues (Robinson, 1997), those perceiving low levels of academic obstacles had significant differences from those students perceiving high levels of academic obstacles on positive relations with others and purpose in life. The connection between high perceptions of obstacles and low positive relations with others supports the suggestions made throughout literature to enhance social support for honors students (German, 1995; Robinson, 1997), and demonstrates the need to continue this support throughout college (Shaunessy et al., 2006; Yorke, 2001).
The finding that autonomy is not significantly affected by perceptions of academic obstacles or academic facilitators leads to the need for further research focusing on social support and autonomy for college honors students, as well as the direct link between preparedness and autonomy. Robinson (1997) found that students entering honors programs in post-secondary schools may be experiencing challenging work for the first time, and may not hold the necessary skills to achieve academic success. The literature on gifted students describes college honors students as potentially being maladjusted to university level academics and activities (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Robinson, 1996). Therefore, the connection between these perceptions and autonomy should be explored and defined.
Further exploration of the differences in perceptions of factors of academic success across gender is warranted. The findings of this study show no significant difference among males and females for the perception of academic obstacles (t = -1.68, p = .09). However, 66
males were significantly lower in perceived academic facilitators than females (t = -3.37, p = .001). Further research is needed to understand why obstacles are perceived similarly among both males and females but fewer facilitators are perceived among males.
Expanding the use of the factors of academic success scale to other student populations is an additional line of inquiry with potential benefits. According to Noldon and Sedlacek (1998), college students at all institutions, regardless of academic talent, usually have similar developmental issues. Multiple student populations, regardless of academic ability, should be explored to see if and how their perceptions influence their psychological well-being. Future research in this area will help identify ways to best enhance psychological well-being for all types of students.
67
References
Ablard, K. E. (1997). Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender. Roeper Review, 20, 110-115.
Akin, A. (2008). The scales of psychological well-being: A study of validity and reliability. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 8, 741-750.
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1-37.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Austin, C. G. (1986). Orientation to honors education. In P. G. Friedman & R. C. Jenkins-Friedman (Eds.), Fostering academic excellence through honors programs. (pp San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, J. A. (1995). Depression and suicidal ideation among academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 218-223.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274-284.68
Bakker, A. B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 3-16.
Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 274-294.
Bowman, R. F. (2007). How can students be motivated: A misplaced question? The Clearing House, 81, 81-86.
Bratt, K. (2010). Hearts and minds: Honors programs in North American Christian institutions. Journal of Education and Christian Belief, 14, 7-18.
Brown, K. A., & Mitchell, T. R. (1993). Organizational obstacles: Links with financial performance, customer satisfaction and job satisfaction in a service environment. Human Relations, 46, 725-757.
Chan, L. K. S. (1988). The perceived competence of intellectually talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 310-314.
Chang, E. C. (2006). Perfectionism and dimensions of psychological well-being in a college student sample: A test of a stress-mediation model. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 1001-1022.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 241-247.
Coleman, H. L. K., & Freedman, A. M. (1996). Effects of a structured group intervention on the achievement of academically at-risk undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 631-636. 69
Coleman, M., & Fults, B. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-119.
Cornell, D. (1989). Child adjustment and parent use of the term “gifted”. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 59-64.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Ellis, A. P. J., & Pearsall, M. J. (2011). Reducing the negative effects of stress in teams through cross-training: A job-demands resources model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 16-31.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18-164.
Eriksen, H. R., Olff, M., & Ursin, H. (2000). Coping with subjective health problems in organizations. In P. Dewe, M. P. Leiter, & T. Cox (Eds.), Coping, health and organizations (pp. 34-51). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Floyd, D. L., & Holloway, A. (2006). Prioritizing service to the academically talented: The college honors. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136, 43-52.
Frazier, C., Mintz, L. B., & Mobley, M. (2005). A multidimensional look at religious involvement and psychological well-being among urban elderly African Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 583-590. 70
Garman, A. N., Corrigan, P. W., & Morris, S. (2002). Staff burnout and patient satisfaction: Evidence of relationships at the care unit level. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 235-241.
German, R. E. (1995). Co-curricular involvement characteristics of Bowling Green State University honors students. Bowling Green Technical Reports, 143, 1-17.
Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptionally gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist’s view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 199-210.
Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). Three paths of adult development: Conservers, seekers, and achievers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 995-1010.
Hoge, R., & McSheffrey, R. (1991). An investigation of self-concept in gifted children. Exceptional Children, 57, 238-245.
Howard, H. E., & Jones, W. P. (2000). Effectiveness of a freshmen seminar in an urban university: Measurement of selected indicators. College Student Journal, 34, 509-515.
Jackson, P. S. (1998). Bright star – black sky: A phenomenological study of depression as a window into the psyche of the gifted adolescent. Roeper Review, 20, 215-221.
Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Rorschach studies reveal possible misinterpretation of personality traits of gifted students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 303-304.
Jung, C. G. (1933). Modem man in search of a soul (W. S. Dell & C. F. Baynes, Trans.). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Kannan, J., & Miller, J. L. (2009). The positive role of negative emotions: Fear, anxiety, conflict and resistance as productive experiences in academic study and in the 71
emergence of learner autonomy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 144-154.
Knudsen, H. K., Ducharme, L. J., & Roman, P. M. (2009). Turnover intention and emotional exhaustion “at the Top”: Adapting the Job Demands-Resources Model to leaders of addiction treatment organizations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 84-95.
Kodman, F. (1984). Some personality traits of superior university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 135-138.
Lea-Wood, S. S., & Clunies-Ross, G. (1995). Self-esteem of gifted adolescent girls in Australian schools. Roeper Review, 17, 195-197.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Brief report: Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-Resources Model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378-391.
McClung, J. J., & Stevenson, J. L. (1988). What do students say? Benefits of participating in honors, a survey of honors students. Forum for Honors, 18, 9-21.
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains health and well-being: An integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology, 13, 242-251.
Macinnes, D. L. (2006). Self-esteem and self-acceptance: An examination into their relationship and their effect on psychological health. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13, 483-489. 72
Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R. G., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285-319.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
National Collegiate Honors Council. (n.d.). What is Honors? Retrieved from http://www.nchchonors.org/whatishonors.shtml.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17.
Neumeister, K.L.S. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219-231.
Nilsen, H. (2009). Influence on student academic behavior through motivation, self-efficacy and value-expectation: An action research project to improve learning. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 545-556.
Noble, K. D., & Childers, S. A. (2008). A passion for learning: The theory and practice of optimal match at the University of Washington. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 236-270.
Noldon, D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1998). Gender differences in attitudes, skills, and behaviors among academically talented university freshmen. Roeper Review, 21, 106-109.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oklahoma State University. (n.d.). Advantages of the Honors College. Retrieved from http://www.okstate.edu/honors/advantages.html. 73
Pedrotti, J. T., Edwards, L. M., & Lopez, S. J. (2008). Promoting hope: Suggestions for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 12, 100-107.
Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late adolescence: The importance of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Educ