Identifying Key Factors Affecting Degree Outcome for Students - Literature review Example

Identifying Key Factors Affecting Degree outcome for A Deterministic Study Literature Review Introduction Historically, learning new lessons or being educated is associated with a definitive outcome for students (Dunlosky, et al., 2013). In such context, Dunlosky, et al. (2013) conducted research among university students and found that they mostly believe that results in degree examinations or degree outcome are core objective for learning. While determining divergence of degree outcome, Dunlosky, et al. (2013) had found that all students do not get similar outcome, despite being exposed to similar kinds of teaching experience. On the other hand, consideration of research works of Jacoby, Wahlheim and Coane (2010) reveals the fact that degree outcome is directed by learning abilities of students. Then again, while conducting research on consumer memory, Janiszewski, Noel and Sawyer (2003) had found that outcome driven learning is influenced by personal characteristics of individuals. It is evident from the argument that function of intrinsic characteristics and learning abilities are identified by many scholars as learning outcome drivers. In this paper, the researcher will conduct literature review on these two factors in order to understand their influence on degree outcomes of students. Discussion Intrinsic Characteristics Hatala, Brooks and Norman (2003) pointed out that education system might expose students to new knowledge areas, but it is the student who is responsible for grasping the lessons learned in classroom. According to them, each student is different in terms of intelligence, cognitive mapping, thinking process, ability to handle complex problems and internal characteristics. In a similar way, Taylor and Rohrer (2010) found that range of intrinsic characteristic such as, ambition for reaching success, persistence to stick to the goal, motivation to achieve above average performance, eagerness to learn new lessons, ability to show interest only for outcome driven learning, self-efficacy and level of engagement. Pauk and Ross (2010) found that with higher maturity, students are able to use their personal characteristics in more learning outcome driven manner. Although these research works are contextual, these research scholars still focused on reaching a conclusion through experiments, instead of determining intrinsic characteristics variables that can influence outcome driven learning for students. In such context, Pintrich (2004) used social-cognitive theoretical foundations to define intrinsic characteristics of students, during learning process. According to Pintrich (2004), intrinsic characteristics are defined as behavioural aspects of learners that cannot be controlled by exogenous variables like, teaching or exposing them to new knowledge areas. In order to understand how internal characteristics can influence the degree outcome of students, Pintrich (2004) used the term academic self-regulation, which is representative of self-regulatory characteristics of students that decide their success or failure in academic programs. Pintrich (1995, p. 7) defined academic self-regulation as, “a way of approaching academic tasks that students learn through experience and self-reflection.” It is evident from the definition that students who get positive degree outcome, effectively use self-regulative learning (SRL) characterized by adjustment of intrinsic characteristics. Consideration of research works of Hartwig and Dunlosky (2012) and Gurung (2005) reveal the fact that intrinsic characteristics of students play an important role in shaping efficacy of cognitive components in learning process and developing motivational profiles. Now the question is whether it is possible to develop a matrix of separate identifiable intrinsic characteristics that influence degree outcome for students or is the matrix too ambiguous to form. Well and Schunk (2005) and Chyung, Moll and Berg (2010) partially succeeded in separating intrinsic characteristics of students that affect their self-regulative learning (SRL). Some intrinsic characteristics are identified as self-efficacy, intrinsic goal orientations, perception towards task values, rehearsal, help seeking, elaboration as well as ability to adjust with study environment. The problem is that different study subjects need a separate combination of intrinsic characteristics. For example, achieving good performance in mathematical degree program needs integration of calculative mindset and logical reasoning; whereas, in case of marketing degree program, students need to use more of their imaginative ability (Pereis, Dignath and Schmitz, 2009). As part of intrinsic characteristics, most of the researchers selected self-efficacy and goal orientation as most important parameters. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) argued that these two factors control dynamics of entire matrices of intrinsic characteristics of students. Self-efficacy- Bandura (1995, p. 2) defined self-efficacy as “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.” This intrinsic characteristic helps students to perceive a greater self-image blended with high degree of motivation, ability to put in hard work and aspiration to become successful. Such intrinsic characteristics allow students to build an open mind while learning lessons in educational program and to put greater effort in order to grasp the lessons so that they can get positive degree outcome in near future. Self-efficacy is being performed through four levels such as, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, mastery experiences and physiological states. Goal orientation- Chyung, Moll and Berg (2010) pointed out that there can be two types of goal orientation such as, intrinsic and extrinsic. In case of intrinsic goal orientation, motivation to learn is being directed by internal reasons such as, wanting to know more, being curious about the subject, wanting to challenge personal weakness and assessing own intelligence. In case of extrinsic goal orientation, external reasons direct learning process of students such as, getting good marks in examinations, performing better than others, seeking rewards from teachers or proving own status in front of others. Lyke and Kelaher Young (2006) had suggested that students with extrinsic goal orientation tend to achieve better degree outcome as opposed to students with intrinsic goal orientation. It has been found by Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci (2006) that students with extrinsic goal orientation use surface level learning technologies in order to obtain good marks; but, such learning techniques do not enable them to gain in-depth knowledge. Considering the research works of Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci (2006), it can be said that learning abilities of students not only direct their ability to achieve positive degree outcomes, but also decide their long-term career orientation. Learning Abilities Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci (2006) found that learning abilities differ significantly from one student to another due to variety of reasons like, intelligence level, cognitive processing effectiveness, ability to concentrate, previous study experiences, ability to adjust with educational setting and attitude towards learning. Taking help of the previous discussion, it can be said that degree outcome of students might be regulated by their learning abilities, exhibiting close relationship with all four parameters of self-efficacy such as, mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences and affective states of mind. Among these four variables, mastery experience is probably most important in deciding the ability of a student to learn new lessons. According to Al-Alwan (2008), in case of mastery experience, students use their problem solving ability and logical sense in order to handle complex learning problems. In case of vicarious experiences, students might use their previous experience to shape learning strategies and as a result, their learning ability is offered an additional boost. In case of verbal persuasion, learning abilities of students might be directed by their verbal expression and language usage ability in order to process information from conversation. In case of affective states of mind, students might pay additional attention in learning lessons that are important for either intrinsic or extrinsic goal orientation (Bernold, Spurlin and Anson, 2007). Learning ability can be defined as cognitive processing ability of individuals to gather information from external sources, organize information, interpret meanings and finally, utilize the meanings to gather knowledge (Schunk, 2005). Different scholars have proposed different set of definition for learning abilities of students; but, most of them have dealt with cognitive process theory. Hardré and Sullivan (2008) also supported the fact that students can improve their learning ability by utilizing all four parameters mentioned by Bandura (1995) and according to them; improving learning ability would enable students to achieve better degree outcomes. Even so, Hardré and Sullivan (2008) pointed out that intervention of learning environment can affect learning abilities of students. According to these scholars, learning environment factors like, autonomy-supportive teaching style, clear communication of lessons by teachers, availability of teaching infrastructure, knowledge sharing with class and helping attitude of fellow students, can also enhance the learning abilities of students. Conclusion It is evident from the above argument that numerous factors work together in order to direct degree outcome of students. Hence, it will not be right to bluntly state that the degree outcome for students is a function of their intrinsic characteristics and learning abilities. It has been found by the researchers that to some extent, intrinsic characteristics and learning abilities influence degree outcomes of students; but, due to cognitive nature of the problem and subjectivity of learning process of students, it is very difficult to precisely predict the intrinsic characteristics that are pivotal in driving degree outcomes of students. Therefore, it can be surmised that there are additional factors, which may direct degree outcome of students. Similar argument holds true even for learning abilities of students because this is also directed by a number of endogenous and exogenous variables. Overall, it can be said that a further in-depth research is required in order to identify the key factors that may affect degree outcome for students. Word Count: 1525 Reference List Al-Alwan, A. F., 2008. Self-regulated learning in high and low achieving students at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University (AHU) in Jordan. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 1(1), pp. 1-13. Bandura, A., 1995. Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bernold, L. E., Spurlin, J. E. and Anson, C. M., 2007. Understanding our students: A longitudinal study of success and failure in Engineering with implications for increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), pp. 263-274. Chyung, S. Y., Moll, A. J. and Berg, S. A., 2010. The Role of Intrinsic Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and E-Learning Practice in Engineering Education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 10(1), pp. 22-37. Cleary, T. J. and Zimmerman, B. J., 2004. Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in Schools, 41(5), pp. 537-550. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. and Willingham, D. T., 2013. Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), pp. 4–58. Gurung, R. A. R., 2005. How do students really study (and does it matter)? Teaching of Psychology, 32, pp. 239–241. Hardré, P. L. and Sullivan, D., 2008. Classroom environments and student differences: How they contribute to student motivation in rural high schools. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, pp. 471-485. Hartwig, M. K. and Dunlosky, J., 2012. Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, pp. 126–134. Hatala, R. M., Brooks, L. R. and Norman, G. R., 2003. Practice makes perfect: The critical role of mixed practice in the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Advanced in Health Sciences Education, 8, pp. 17–26. Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N. and Coane, J. H., 2010. Test-enhanced learning of natural concepts: Effects on recognition memory, classification, and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, pp. 1441–1451. Janiszewski, C., Noel, H. and Sawyer, A. G., 2003. A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 138–149. Lyke, J. A. and Kelaher Young, A. J., 2006. COGNITION IN CONTEXT: Students’ Perceptions of classroom goal structures and reported cognitive strategy use in the college classroom. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), pp. 477-490. Pauk, W. and Ross, J. Q., 2010. How to study in college. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Pereis, F., Dignath, C. and Schmitz, B., 2009. Is it possible to improve mathematical achievement by means of self-regulation strategies? Evaluation of an intervention in regular math classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(1), pp. 17-31. Pintrich, P. R., 1995. Understanding self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pintrich, P. R., 2004. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and selfregulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), pp. 385-407. Schunk, D. H., 2005. Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), pp. 85-94. Taylor, K. and Rohrer, D., 2010. The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, pp. 837–848. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, L. and Deci, E. L., 2006. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), pp. 19-31. Read More