Factors that Influence College Completion Intention of ...

Asia-Pacific Edu Res DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0099-4

REGULAR ARTICLE

Factors that Influence College Completion Intention of Undergraduate Students Darrin Thomas

Ó De La Salle University 2013

Abstract Universities are facing challenges in the area of student retention and graduation. A critical question is what schools can do to improve undergraduate students’ intentions to complete college. Dropout intention has been studied, yet the exploration of college completion intention has not been thoroughly examined. Using structural equation modeling, a model was developed to explain college completion intention of undergraduate students. The independent variables were perceived institutional support, academic self-efficacy, institutional commitment, classroom learning environment, and social support. A total of 260 university students participated. The model explains 37 % of the variance in college completion intention. The conclusion reached from the analysis is that the learning environment is a moderately powerful but indirect influence on students’ college completion intention. Furthermore, social support and perceived institutional support contribute to a student’s intention to complete college. Academic self-efficacy plays a smaller yet significant role in student’s college completion intention also. Institutions need to be places that develop positive experiences in the classroom as this is a major catalyst in the student’s intention to complete college. Keywords College completion intention Structural equation modeling Theory of planned behavior Undergraduate students Classroom environment

D. Thomas (&) Asia Pacific International University, PO Box 4, Muak Lek, Saraburi 18180, Thailand e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction Higher education is facing challenges in retention and graduation as documented in the United States (Lotkowski et al. 2004). Prior studies indicate that a person’s intention is a powerful predictor of their behavior (Ajzen 1991). Within education, studies have examined a student’s intention to drop out of college (Bean 1980, 1983; Cabrera et al. 1993; Tinto 1975). However, there has not been as much investigation into factors that influence a student’s intention to complete college. Reforms that ignore what encourages students to have the intention to complete college may be at risk of failure. Students have a diverse perception of their experience in the classroom, support from the institution, confidence to complete academic task, and support they receive socially from peers. The students’ perceptions of these factors could impact their desire to complete college. This study investigates Philippino undergraduate students’ perceptions of the following: intention to complete college, classroom learning environment (LE), academic self-efficacy (SE), institutional support (IS), and social support (SS). This study is timely as recent studies indicate that graduation rates are in decline (Bound et al. 2010). This decline in graduation rates indicates that there may be a decline in many students’ desire to finish school. Exploration of intention is a way of investigating college completion has not received much attention in the literature. This paper contributes to understanding undergraduate students’ college completion intention (CI) by employing the use of structural equation modeling. Employing structural equation modeling will help in understanding the relationships among the factors of this study and how they contribute to college CI. A conceptual model was proposed and tested on how students’ perceptions of the classroom,

123

D. Thomas

institution, support from friends, and their SEs to perform academic task are related to their intention to complete college. The purpose of this study is to explain these relationships to understand what measures to take to increase a student’s intention to complete college.

Theoretical Foundation In the following paragraphs, each of the constructs used in this study will be defined with relevant studies. The theory of planned behavior provides the foundation for college CI. Perceived IS, SS, academic SE, and the classroom LE are each defined. Lastly, there is a discussion on the relationships between these variables, which provide support for the formulation of the research hypotheses. Theory of Planned Behavior Intention is defined as the factors that contribute to a behavior (Ajzen 1991). Ajzen (1991) has identified seven factors that contribute to intention: subjective norms, normative beliefs, attitude toward the behavior, behavioral beliefs, perceived behavioral control, control beliefs, and actual behavioral control. Several studies indicate that the strength of these factors influence intention and powerfully influence behavior (Latimer and Ginis 2005; Kargar et al. 2010). Subjective norms are the social pressure exerted on an individual to do something (Ajzen 1991). This pressure can come from anyone a person knows and members of collectivist cultures are more sensitive to subjective norms than members of individualistic cultures (Ajzen 2001). Normative beliefs are a person’s perception of the beliefs of people within their social network (Davis et al. 2002). Attitude toward the behaviors is defined as what the persons thinks about a particular behavior (Ajzen 1991). Al-Rafee and Cronan (2006) found that individuals who associated feelings of happiness with a behavior were more likely to commit that behavior. Behavioral beliefs are the person’s subjective conviction that a certain behavior will lead to a certain consequence (Ajzen 1991). Cooke et al. (2007) concluded in their study on binge drinking that if measures are taken to modify beliefs toward drinking so that regret was associated with it, then binge drinking might decline at universities because of the modification of beliefs about drinking. Perceived behavioral control is an individual’s perception of the ease or challenge of performing a certain action. This antecedent is one of the strongest predictors of intention (Notani 1998). Control beliefs are defined as the factors that may encourage or discourage a particular behavior or action as perceived by the individual

123

(Ajzen and Driver 1991). Actual behavioral control is the skills a person has to perform a behavior (Ajzen 1991). College Completion Intention College completion intention (CI) is defined as the likelihood that students will make a decision to complete their undergraduate degree (Mallinckrodt 1988). There is little literature on college CI. In order to understand this construct, the literature from dropout intention was used as this is a closely related but different construct. Seminal studies have been conducted by Tinto (1975) and Bean (1980, 1983). Tinto (1975) found that there is a relationship between student’s goal commitment and commitment from the institution toward the student and that this relationship may influence a student’s dropout intention. Bean (1980, 1983) concluded that commitment from the students and their campus-wide experiences influence dropout intention. Cabrera et al. (1992) combined Tinto (1975) and Bean’s (1980, 1983) models into one. Cabrera et al. (1992) found that there was a great deal of similarity between these two models. Both models are providing a macrolevel perspective of the student’s dropout intention without examining the microlevel perspective of the experience of the classroom. As such, an examination of the microlevel of the classroom is needed and is a part of this study. Perceived Institutional Support Perceived institutional support (IS) is defined as the perception a student has that his institution of study cares about him (Eisenberger et al. 1986). The construct of IS is derived from organizational support theory which itself is derived from the norm of reciprocity and social exchange theory (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Gouldner 1960; Homans 1961). Organizational support theory states that a person will give humanlike characteristics to an organization and that a person will reciprocate the treatment he or she receives from an organization (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003; Eisenberger et al. 1986). Studies indicate that institutions need to provide for the social and emotional needs of their students (Lan Rong and Preissle 2009; Walsh et al. 2009). Fairness is another component as an institution that is considered unfair has a negative influence on the attitudes of the people who study there (Palloff and Pratt 2003). If students have the perception that the school they are attending is supporting them, then it may have a powerful influence on their desire to complete college. If schools make a deliberate effort to support students through providing support socially, emotionally, as well as enforcing policies consistently, then there could be a change in the graduation rates of many schools because the intentions of

College Completion Intention

the students might have been influenced by the actions of the school. Social Support SS is considered by many to be the positive relationships that individuals have with one another by which they assist one another (Dressler 1991; Kim 2010). Students who received encouragement from friends will often have a corresponding change in their GPA (Witkow and Fuligni 2011). Jacobson and Burdal (2012) concluded that support from peers influences the academic performance of students. Providing students with the resources they need for success, such as feedback on assignments, is also considered as another form of SS (Roberts and Lunds 2007). Students often need advice and counsel, and this information that is provided by friends and teachers in the educational setting is yet another form of SS (Palloff and Pratt 2003; Roberts and Lund 2007). The studies mentioned in the preceding paragraph indicate that students need support in many ways socially. Schools where students have access to practical support, information on how to deal with various issues in academic life, and a rich social network are those that are providing adequate SS (Deseve 2009; Kornish and Mann 2010). Students need to be supported socially. This need for SS may play a critical role in their intention to graduate from college. Academic Self-Efficacy Academic self-efficacy is defined as the perception a person has that they have the ability to accomplish various task related to school (Bandura 1986). Bandura (1977) identified four components of SE mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and emotional state. One study of students who have had positive success in math indicated that these students had higher math SE (Luzzo et al. 1999). People also develop SE through observing others or vicariously (Sigelman and Rider 2012), which is consistent with social cognitive behavior (Bandura 1989). Social persuasion often happens verbally when students receive encouragement. One study found that students who received verbal encouragement from other students had higher academic SE in comparison to those who did not receive verbal support (Bandura et al. 1996). The emotions of a person also affect their confidence to perform task. Cartoni et al. (2005) found in their study that anxiety impacts SE negatively. Studies indicate that students who have high academic SE are students who have experienced mastery before, and have seen others have success at a given academic task. In addition, these students with higher SE with

regard to academic task are also encouraged by others that they can perform a particular behavior, and they also have a positive emotional state. Students who have high academic SE often have high academic performance. This relationship between academic SE and performance is also an indication of a more positive intention to complete college (Lane et al. 2004). Classroom Learning Environment The classroom LE is characterized as the physical, social, intellectual, and instructional setting of a student’s learning (Liou and Cheng 2010). Fraser et al. (1996) divided the classroom environment into seven characteristics: involvement, teacher support, equity, investigation, cooperation, task orientation, and social cohesiveness. Hawthorn and Conrad (1997) posit that students who are actively involved in the classroom will have a more positive classroom experience. In addition, teacher support is known to influence academic achievement (Elias and Haynes 2008). Another component is equity, which means equal treatment for all students, and Alvarez and Mehan (2006) found in their study that students who are treated fairly have a higher likelihood to go to college and perhaps a higher intention to complete college. The classroom environment can also be influenced by having students work in cooperative groups (Jolliffe 2007). High task-oriented classroom can enhance self-esteem and attitudes of students (Chionha and Fraser 2009). From these studies, it appears that a positive classroom environment is one in which students are engaged with the teacher and each other. In addition, a classroom needs to be a place where there is a sense of fairness and opportunities to cooperate. As these factors are present, the experience of the LE may be beneficial to the students. A key component is the approach of the teachers in the classroom as they have a significant influence on the LE. Relationships Among the Constructs The relationships among academic SE, perceived IS, SS, classroom LE, and college CI may have never been studied as a whole. Studies indicate that college CI might be influenced directly by academic SE (Lane et al. 2004), perceived IS (Gansemer-Topf and Schuh 2006; Melese and Fenta 2009; Tinto 1999), SS (Nicpon et al. 2007; Skahill 2003), and the classroom LE (Bean 2005; Karp et al. 2012). Academic SE may be influenced by perceived IS (Sanchez 2006; Yost et al. 2010), SS (Vekiria and Chronak 2008), and the classroom LE (Luzzo et al. 1999; Sigelman and Rider 2012). Perceived IS could be influenced by the classroom LE (Schubert 1986). Classroom LE is an independent variable in this model and as such nothing influences it.

123

D. Thomas Fig. 1 Initial model

Aims of the Present Study

Method

The aim of this study is to explain the relationships among classroom LE, perceived IS, SS, academic SE, and how these variables influence college CI. The proposed model was tested using structural equation modeling which indicates how the model fits the sample population data.

Participants

Hypotheses From the literature review, the following hypotheses were developed: H1:

H2: H3: H4: H5: H6: H7:

H8: H9: H10:

Classroom learning environment would significantly influence perceived institutional support positively. Perceived institutional support would significantly influence social support positively. Classroom learning environment would significantly influence social support positively. Classroom learning environment would significantly influence academic self-efficacy positively. Perceived institutional support would significantly influence academic self-efficacy positively. Social support would significantly influence academic self-efficacy positively. Classroom learning environment would significantly influence college completion intention positively. Perceived institutional support would significantly influence college completion intention positively. Social Support would significantly influence college completion intention positively. Academic self-efficacy would significantly influence college completion intention positively.

Figure 1 provides a visual of the above hypotheses

123

Participants were undergraduate students at four colleges (three private and one public) in the Philippines. A total of 260 students participated in this study. Females comprised 67 % of the sample in the study compared to 33 % for men. These numbers with regard to gender are consistent with national demographics in the Philippines for undergraduate students. In addition, 31 % of the students were freshman, 31 % were sophomore, 27 % were juniors, and 11 % were seniors. Procedures This study used a cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected through the distribution of a survey to four colleges in the Philippines. Simple random sampling was employed as this is an assumption of structural equation modeling (Kaplan 2000). Data were collected in two ways. At two of the institutions, the data were collected by agents who were instructed with regard to the sampling method. At a later date, the survey data were retrieved from the institution. For the other two institutions, I collected the data myself. Communication was made with the administration of the school, and data were collected at a mutually agreeable time from the student sample population. Instruments The instrument was composed of two parts. In the first section, participants completed questions in relation to demographics. The second section was 52 Likert-type questions that measure perception of the variables of the study. All question in the second section were measured on


a five-point scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Classroom Learning Environment (LE) The LE scale was adapted from Fraser et al. (1996). The components of this scale are questions that assess investigation, teacher support, equity, involvement, cooperation, and task orientation. The reliabilities reported by Fraser et al. (1996) range from 0.81 to 0.93. Sample questions of this scale were ‘‘The teacher’s questions help me to understand’’ and ‘‘I know how much work I have to do.’’ An exploratory factor analysis was conducted during the pilot study to reduce the number of question employed in the present study. The factor analysis revealed a 13-item factor that explained 50 % of the variance which incorporated all characteristics of the original scale. The Cronbach Alpha for this modified 13-item scale was 0.91. Perceived Institutional Support (IS) The IS scale was adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1986). The components of this scale are questions that assess socio-emotional support, procedural justice, and discretionary choice. The reliability reported by Eisenberger et al. (1986) was 0.81. Sample questions for this scale include ‘‘I believe the college respects me as an individual’’ and ‘‘The college tries hard to be fair to the students.’’ The exploratory factor analysis of the pilot study reduced the number of question to 12. This one factor explained 67 % of the variance and incorporated all of the characteristics of the original scale. The Cronbach Alpha for the modified 12-item scale was 0.95. Academic Self-Efficacy (SE) The SE scale was adapted from Owen and Froman (1988). This scale assesses a student’s confidence to perform various academic tasks such as earning good grades, participating in class, and understanding concepts. Examples from the scale include ‘‘I understand most ideas presented to me in class,’’ and ‘‘I can earn good marks in most courses.’’ The number of questions was reduced to 11 during the exploratory factor analysis. This one factor explained 69 % of the variance and included all of the characteristics of the original scale. The Cronbach Alpha for the modified 11-item scale was 0.95. Social Support (SS) The SS scale was developed by the researcher based on literature. The components of this scale are questions that assess social network, esteem, practical support, and

informational support. The scale has eight items. Two sample questions from this scale are ‘‘I have people I can talk to at my college about personal matters’’ and ‘‘The relationships I have with my colleges friends are good.’’ The exploratory factor analysis of the pilot study produced one factor which explained 57 % of the variance. The Cronbach Alpha for this scale was 0.88. College Completion Intention (CI) The CI scale was also developed by the researcher based on literature. The components of this scale are questions that assess normative beliefs, controlled beliefs, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral beliefs, and attitude toward the behavior with regard to completing college. This scale has eight items. Sample questions from the instrument include ‘‘Completing college is a positive experience for me’’ and ‘‘I expect to complete college.’’ The exploratory factor analysis of the pilot study revealed an eight question factor that explained 57 % of the variance and included all of the characteristics of Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior. The Cronbach Alpha for this scale was 0.93. Data Analysis Blunch (2008) recommends a two-step approach when using structural equation modeling. This process involves first analyzing the measurement model, which entails determining if the latent variable adequately measures the manifest variables or survey questions, assessing normality, and multicollinearity. The second step is the analysis of the structural model, which means assessing the relationships between latent variables or the test of the research hypotheses.

Results Measurement Model Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the measurement model. This analysis measures how well the manifests variables relate to each other. If a particular manifest variable was weakly related to the others, then it was removed. Multivariate normality was assessed by examining Mardia statistic. The results of the Mardia statistic indicate that multivariate normality was a concern. The value of the Mardia statistic was 172.02 with a critical ratio of 27.52. In order to address the concern with multivariate normality, a bootstrap was performed, and the results reported are based on this process. The initial measurement model fit was x2 p \ 0.05, TLI = 0.85,

123

D. Thomas Table 1 Final correlations of latent variables

College completion

Self-efficacy

Social support

College completion

1

Institutional support

0.49

1

Self-efficacy

0.41

0.21

1

Social support

0.48

0.66

0.23

1

Learning environment

0.42

0.61

0.35

0.67

Self-efficacy

Social support

Table 2 Final correlations of latent variables 95 % confidence intervals

College completion College completion



1


1


[0.36, 0.62]

1

Self-efficacy

[0.26, 0.51]

[0.13, 0.32]

Social support

[0.32, 0.63]

[0.55, 0.77]

[0.14, 0.35]

1


[0.30, 0.53]

[0.48, 0.71]

[0.20, 0.48]

[0.49, 0.78]

IFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.86, and RMSEA = 0.062. These numbers indicated a poor fit of the model to the sample data. The Chi square is usually significant when the sample size is above 200 (Schumacker and Lomax 2004). The most common ways to determine the appropriateness of a manifest variable is the p value and factor loading. Statistical significance is expected and factor loadings to be at least above 0.5 (Hair et al. 2010). Survey question was also removed for non-normality, if it was highly correlated with other questions loading on the same latent variable ([0.8), and/or if a significant difference was identified in the residual covariance matrix (p [ 0.05). Through removing weak indicators, the fitness of the measurement model is improved as the accuracy of the measurement of the variables improves. In this study, 26 questions were removed from the measurement model leaving 35 questions in all. The final measurement model fit indices were x2 p \ 0.05, TLI = 0.90, IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.058. Each of these indices indicates an adequate fit of the model to the sample data (Kline 2005; Schumacker and Lomax 2004). The correlations between the latent variables were also adequate, and there was no indication of high correlations between latent variables. High correlations between latent variables lead to inaccurate results (Kline 2005). Table 1 shows the correlations between latent variables, and Table 2 lists the 95 % confidence intervals of the correlations. All values are significant at p \ 0.05. Structural Model The analysis of the structural model entailed assessing the statistical significance of each parameter in the model.

123


1 1

Table 3 shows the parameter estimates. Of the ten hypotheses of this study, seven were accepted. H1: Classroom learning environment significantly influenced perceived institutional support positively. H2: Perceived institutional support significantly influenced social support positively. H3: Classroom learning environment significantly influenced social support positively. H4: Classroom learning environment significantly influenced academic self-efficacy positively. H8: Perceived institutional support significantly influenced college completion intention positively. H9: Social support significantly influenced college completion intention positively. H10: Academic self-efficacy significantly influenced college completion intention positively. In addition, three other hypotheses were rejected. H5: Institutional support did not significantly influence academic self-efficacy positively. H6: Social support did not significantly influence academic self-efficacy positively. H7: Classroom learning environment did not significantly influence college completion intention positively. Table 2 provides the parameter estimates for the paths in the initial structural model. Table 4 shows the indirect effects. Indirect effects are calculated by determining the product of the direct effects that comprise them and are interpreted the same as path coefficients (Kline 2005). There is a strong indirect effect between classroom LE and college CI (r = 0.42, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.30, 0.53]). This indicates that the classroom experience may lack a direct influence, but it still is able to have an effect upon college CI through the other variables of the study. Another key indirect effect upon college completion intention is institutional support (r = 0.09, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.26]). The supported hypotheses are also reflected in Fig. 2. The r2 value of SS was 0.55, 0.37 for IS, 0.12 for SE, and

College Completion Intention Table 3 Initial parameter estimates

Hypothesis Parameter

Standardized regression p value weight [95 % CI]

Significant parameters H1

Classroom learning environment to institutional support

0.61 [0.48, 0.70]

\0.001

H2

Institutional support to social support

0.41 [0.25, 0.54]

\0.001

H3

Classroom learning environment to social support

0.42 [0.21, 0.57]

\0.001

H4

Classroom learning environment to academic self-efficacy

0.35 [0.20, 0.48]

\0.001

H8

Institutional support to college completion intention

0.29 [0.05, 0.52]

0.003

H9

Social support to college completion intention

0.22 [0.03, 0.50]

0.02

H10

Academic self-efficacy to college completion intention

0.30 [0.16, 0.43]

\0.001

Nonsignificant parameters H5

Institutional support to academic self-efficacy

-0.02 [-0.02, -0.16]

0.79

H6 H7

Social support to academic self-efficacy Classroom learning environment to college completion intention

-0.02 [-0.01, -0.17] -0.07 [-0.07, -0.23]

0.86 0.47

Table 4 Indirect effects Relationship

Standardized indirect effect [95 % CI]

Classroom learning environment on college completion intention

0.42 [0.30, 0.53]

Institutional support on college completion intention

0.09 [0.02, 0.26]

0.37 for CI with 95 % CIs of [0.36, 0.71] [0.23, 0.50] [0.04, 0.23], and [0.24, 0.50], respectively. This indicates that 55 % of the variance of SS was explained in the current model, 37 % of the variance of IS, 12 % of the variance of academic SE, and 37 % of the variance of college CI. The fit indices also indicate that the structural model was a good fit after the removal of the nonsignificant parameters (x2 p \ 0.05, TLI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.90, and RMSEA 0.058).

Discussion Accepted Hypotheses Based on the findings of the hypotheses, students—who are provided equally with opportunities to discuss ideas in the classroom and ask questions, are able to understand what they are required to do, and are allowed to solve problems in class—may have a higher perception of the classroom environment, as indicated by the students’ responses to questions about these concepts of the classroom environment. This positive perception of the classroom environment may increase the students’ perceptions of the support they are receiving from the institution (r2 = 0.61, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.48, 0.70]). This experience in the classroom could lead to students who perceive the school

as being fair, concerned about them, and willing to help them more than necessary. As such, how the teacher leads and influences the classroom reflects upon the institution. This is consistent with organizational support theory, which explains how the supervisor or teacher comes to personify the institution (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). In other words, a positive classroom environment may often lead a student to conclude that the institution is positively supporting him. This indicates that institutions should focus on providing quality teaching to their students. Perceived IS directly influences SS (r2 = 0.41, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.25, 0.54]). When the school is positively supporting the students through respecting their choices and providing community, the students may perceive that they have adequate support socially. This could show itself through the students who have a strong social network of friends who listen to them and respect them, which is a manifestation of SS. This may also indicate that institutions must make school-wide efforts in providing a strong sense of community and developing social capital at the institutional level. In addition to this happening across the school, it needs to first happen in the classroom as indicated in the model. Students need to get to know one another and the teacher in the classroom setting. When this commitment to students’ social needs is met, it explains a large proportion of their perception of the support they received socially. In this study, the classroom LE directly influences academic SE (r2 = 0.35, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.48]). The students’ perceptions of the classroom environment play a small role in their academic confidence. When a classroom is fair, provides opportunities to be involved, and has a caring teacher, this may change students’ perceptions of their ability to perform various academic tasks. This indicates that classrooms that provided investigative learning methods such as project-based or inquiry-based learning

123

D. Thomas Fig. 2 Final structural model

are those classrooms that could potentially enhance academic SE (Chu 2009; Saab et al. 2012). The amount of explained variance of academic SE is low (12 %), and further study is needed to more fully explain the same in this model. Students’ intentions to complete college are affected by their perception of the support from the institution (r2 = 0.29, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.48]), their academic SE (r2 = 0.30, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.16, 0.43]), and by the SS they received (r2 = 0.22, p \ 0.05, 95 % CI [0.03, 0.50]). As institutions make efforts to meet the social and emotional needs of the students and help the students beyond what are required by them, students may choose to reciprocate this through demonstrating a higher desire to complete college. Furthermore, students’ confidences in their ability to take notes, study independently, and earn good grades may influence their intention to complete college. If students have friends who respect them, help them in times of difficulty, and listens to them, then the students might have a higher intention to complete college. From this, schools need to provide an environment in which the classroom is the centerpiece of improving graduation rates. The classroom needs to be a social place as this influences the students’ intentions to complete school. In addition, the classroom environment also needs to be a place of challenge and open discussion. Lastly, the environment of the classroom also needs to be a place where rules are applied consistently as students have responded that fairness is important. Rejected Hypotheses Three of the ten hypothesized relationships were not supported by the data. In this model, there was no relationship between students’ perceptions of IS and their academic SEs. This indicates that the care and concern a school

123

shows toward a student does not affect the student’s confidence in performing various academic tasks. This contradicts several studies in education (see Sanchez 2006; Yost et al. 2010). This may be because whether the teacher is supportive of the student as indicated by the direct relationship between the LE and academic SE support directly from the institution is not so important is indicated by the students. The relationship of SS directly influencing academic SE was also not supported by the data. Friends who listen to a student and support the latter with encouragement did not make a difference in academic confidence in this study. This is inconsistent with Bandura (1977) who places verbal persuasion as a key component of SE. For the context of this study, it may be that verbal persuasion is needed, but it is the source of the verbal persuasion that makes the difference. Encouragement from friends may not matter as much as from teachers, and teacher support was a component of the classroom environment. A major finding of this study was that the classroom LE does not directly influence college CI. However, a closer examination of the model shows that the classroom environment indirectly influences college CI through the other three variables in the model, and the indirect effect of the LE on college CI is 0.42. This indicates that the classroom environment has a moderate indirect effect on a student’s desire to complete college. As the classroom provides an atmosphere that is fair, provides opportunities for critical thinking and engagement, and has a caring supportive teacher, this experience colors how the students see the school, their social relationships, and their ability to perform academically. These perceptions of the school, friends, and academic confidence are those that directly affect motivation to complete college in undergraduate students, and each of these constructs is directly influenced by the classroom LE.


Implications and Conclusion

Limitations

This study has important implications for teachers and schools. Teachers need to be aware that it is their classroom environment that is impacting students in many ways with regard to their desire to finish school. As such, the instructional design that the teacher develops needs to be the one that engages the students and provides opportunities for the development of relationships. This type of design could include student-centered projects and opportunities for discussion. A lecture-style method with a focus on the transmission of knowledge is not an approach that is going to help student to be involved, engaged, and supported in the ways that they need to be. At the institutional level, schools need to focus on supporting their teachers so that the teachers are able to provide the classroom environment that the students needed as indicated by them. Schools also need to focus on providing community and socializing opportunities for students. This development of community has an influence on the students’ intentions to finish college. Students need their voices to be heard regarding what is happening not only in the classroom but also at the school level. When a student knows that his voice is heard, it strongly improves his perception of the school. Institutions that help students to reach their personal goals will ensure that the students make a stronger commitment to finish school not just anywhere but at their current school. The significance of the results of this study suggest that schools in the Philippines and internationally need to make efforts to develop excellent classroom environments and provide superior IS for the students. Schools throughout the world can benefit their students by focusing on this core. However, at much more focused level, the results of this study imply that a negative experience in the classroom is the one that leads to negative perceptions of finishing college. As such, schools must begin intervention at the grassroot levels of the classroom as this is at the heart of the problems of retention. In conclusion, this present study has provided data on college CI of undergraduate students. This study suggests that graduation rates could be improved through improving students’ intentions to graduate and through teachers and schools being cognizant of the variables in this study. All of the variables in this study had a direct or indirect positive correlation with college CI. In other words, schools need to find ways to improve the classroom, the relationships, the academic confidence, and the IS of their campus(es) if they want to improve the desire of students to finish college. Future research should focus on validating this model in other contexts and searching for ways to further explain academic SE and college CI.

As with any such study, there were weaknesses in the design. This study employed a cross-sectional survey design. As such, it only provides a one-time glimpse of the students’ perceptions of the concepts of this study. In addition, the standardized questions were developed from the Western literature, and thus, there are concerns about cultural bias. Lastly, the results of the study are purely numerical in nature, and a more complete understanding of students’ perceptions of completing college could be developed through qualitative or mix methods.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operant attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13, 185–204. Al-Rafee, S., & Cronan, T. (2006). Digital piracy: Factors that influence attitude toward behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 237–259. Alvarez, D., & Mehan, H. (2006). Whole-school detracking: A strategy for equity and excellence. Theory Into Practice, 45(1), 82–89. Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–509. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1–60)., Six theories of child development Greenwhich, CT: JAI. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222. Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187. Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 6(2), 127–148. Bean, J. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215–244). Westport, CT: Praeger. Blunch, N. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. (2010). Why have college completion rates declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. American Economic Journal, 2(3), 129–157. Cabrera, A., Castaneda, M., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143–164.

123

D. Thomas Cabrera, A., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. (1993). College persistence: Structural equation modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123–139. Cartoni, A., Minganti, C., & Zelli, A. (2005). Gender, age, and professional-level differences in the psychological correlates of fear of injury in Italian gymnasts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(1), 3–17. Chionha, Y., & Fraser, B. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(1), 29–44. Chu, K. (2009). Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of teachers and the school librarian. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1671–1686. Cooke, R., Sniehotta, F., & Schuz, B. (2007). Predicting bingedrinking behavior using an extended TPB: Examining the impact of anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 42(2), 84–91. Davis, L., Ajzen, I., Saunders, J., & Williams, T. (2002). The decision of African American students to complete high school: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 810–819. Deseve, G. (2009). ‘‘Integration and Innovation’’ in the intelligence community: The role of a netcentric environment managed networks, and social networks. In S. Goldsmith & D. Kettl (Eds.), Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government (pp. 121–144). Harrisonburg, VA: RR Donnelley. Dressler, W. (1991). Stress and adaptation in the context of culture: Depression in a Southern Black Community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Elias, M., & Haynes, N. (2008). Social competence, social support, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 474–495. Fraser, B., McRobbie, C., & Fisher, D. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Gansemer-Topf, A., & Schuh, J. (2006). Institutional selectivity and institutional expenditures: Examining organizational factors that contribute to retention and graduation. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 613–642. Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A prelimnary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–172. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hawthorn, J., & Conrad, F. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education. Developing and sustaining high-quality programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and World. Jacobson, L., & Burdsal, C. (2012). Academic performance in middle school: Friendship influences. Global Journal of Community Practice, 2(3), 1–12. Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kargar, M., Tarmizia, R., & Bayata, S. (2010). Relationship between mathematical thinking, mathematics anxiety and mathematics

123

attitudes among university students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 537–542. Karp, M., Bickerstaff, S., Rucks-Ahidiana, Z., Bork, R., Barragan, M., & Edgecombe, N. (2012). College 101 courses for applied learning and student success. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Kim, H. (2010). The nature of theoretical thinking in nursing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Kornish, I., & Mann, D. (2010). The management of diabetes. In J. Suls, K. Davidson, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 426–442). New York, NY: Guildford. Lan Rong, X., & Preissle, J. (2009). Educating immigrant students in the 21st century: What educators need to know. Thousnad Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lane, J., Lane, A., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(3), 247–256. Latimer, A., & Ginis, K. (2005). The importance of subjective norms for people who care what others think of them. Psychology and Health, 20, 53–62. Liou, S., & Cheng, C. (2010). Organisational climate, organisational commitment and intention to leave amongst hospital nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 1635–1644. Lotkowski, V., Robbins, S., & Noeth, R. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ college_retention.pdf. Luzzo, D. A., Hasper, P., Albert, K. A., Bibby, M. A., & Martinelli, E. A. (1999). Effects of self-efficacy-enhancing interventions on the math/science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and actions of career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 233–243. Mallinckrodt, B. (1988). Student retention, social support, and dropout intention: Comparison of Black and White students. Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 60–64. Melese, W., & Fenta, G. (2009). Trend and causes of female students dropout from teacher education institutions of Ethiopia: The case of Jimma University. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 5(1), 1–19. Nicpon, M., Huser, L., Blanks, E., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., & Kurpius, S. (2007). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(3), 345–358. Notani, A. (1998). Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: A metaanalysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 247–271. Owen, S., & Froman, R. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA, April 6–8, 1988. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Roberts, E., & Lund, J. (2007). Exploring e-learning community in a global postgraduate programme. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 487–503). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2012). Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 7–23. Sanchez, R. (2006). The role of language fluency self-efficacy in organizational commitment and perceived organizational support. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9(2/3), 49–65.

College Completion Intention Schubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, possibilty. New York, NY: MacMillan. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginners’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sigelman, C., & Rider, E. (2012). Life-Span Human Development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Skahill, M. (2003). The role of social support network in college persistence among freshman students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(1), 39–52. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5–9. Vekiria, I., & Chronak, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs,

and computer use beyond school. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1392–1404. Walsh, C., Larsen, C., & Parry, D. (2009). Academic tutors at the frontline of student support in a cohort of students succeeding in higher education. Educational Studies, 35(4), 405–424. Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A. (2011). Ethnic and generational differences in the relations between social support and academic achievement across the high school years. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 531–552. Yost, Handley, D., Cotten, S., & Winstead, V. (2010). Understanding the links between mentoring and self-efficacy in the new generation of women STEM scholars. In A. Cater-Steel & E. Cater (Eds.), Women in engineering, science and technology: Education and career challenges (pp. 97–117). Hershey, PA: Engineering Science References.

123