Survey of Academic
Running head: SIX ACADEMIC ORIENTATIONS
Survey of Academic Orientations Scores and Persistence in College Freshmen
William B. Davidson
Angelo State University
Hall P. Beck
Appalachian State University
1
Survey of Academic
Abstract
This study examined whether six academic orientations as assessed by the Survey of
Academic Orientations played a role in the attrition of college freshmen. Using logistic
regression, the dichotomous variable of reenrolling or not was regressed on 522 students’
scores measuring
structure dependence, creative expression, reading for pleasure,
efficacy, apathy, and mistrust of instructors. Scores on two orientations, efficacy and
apathy, significantly predicted the reenrollment decision. The theoretical implications of
the results were discussed as well as possible interventions to improve retention.
2
Survey of Academic
Survey of Academic Orientations Scores and Persistence in Freshmen
A common thread through the extensive theoretical and empirical literature on
college retention is that students who immerse themselves in their studies are more likely
to persist. They do well in courses, recognize and internalize the value and applicability
of what is taught, and thereby experience “academic integration” (Bean, 1985; Tinto,
1975, 1987). Their psychological investment in the academic enterprise translates into a
commitment to persist, often enabling them to overcome obstacles along the way. While
widely-accepted models of retention correctly identify the crucial role played by
academic integration and goal (degree) commitment, only recently has attention been
directed to the psychological reasons why some students integrate academically and
others don’t. Bean and Eaton (2001-2002) proposed three types of psychological
processes mediate academic (and social) integration and form the foundation for retention
decisions: self-efficacy, coping techniques, and attributions. Presumably students
progress well toward integration and ultimately persist if they believe that they are
capable, if they cope with problems by approaching rather than avoiding them, and if
they see themselves (rather than external forces) as instrumental in their successes and
failures. The development of a psychological model of college student retention is an
intriguing and potentially fruitful approach, one that is likely to culminate in successful
intervention strategies.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the role of six psychological
variables in freshmen’s decision about persisting. The variables reflect students’
subjective views of important aspects of academics, including (a) themselves, (b) their
3
Survey of Academic
instructors, and (c) academic tasks. Students’ perceptions in these three areas are likely to
matter to the extent that their daily experiences activate them, which seems very
probable. With regard to the first area, self-views, we examined self-efficacy as it applies
to academic matters (as per the Bean and Eaton model). In the second domain, views of
instructors, we studied the role of mistrust. And in the third domain, academic tasks, we
focused on students’ neediness for structure, their inclinations toward being creative, and
their motivation to do academic work.
The selection of these six variables was guided by previous research that indicates
individual differences in each of them influence how well students adapt to academic
demands. Davidson, Beck, and Silver (1999) developed and validated a brief measure of
the six orientations and then investigated their role in important academic outcomes. See
Table 1 for specific definitions. For reasons specific to each orientation, three are
considered to make positive contributions to progression toward a degree (creative
expression, reading for pleasure, academic efficacy) and three are negative in that regard
(structure dependence, academic apathy, and mistrust of instructors). The close
connection between the orientations and students’ daily academic responsibilities make
them likely to play a role in academic integration and subsequent persistence. Davidson
et al. hypothesized that individual differences in these orientations would predict grades,
stress, and persistence. In subsequent research, they found that scores on the efficacy and
apathy orientations did significantly predict grades in first semester freshman (Beck &
Davidson, 2001). Those with high scores on efficacy and/or low scores on apathy did
better than their counterparts. Beck et al. recommended that the SAO be used as an “early
4
Survey of Academic
warning” device by colleges, because its predictive capability was present even after
controlling for precollege ability scores normally available on entering freshman (SAT,
high school class rank). In addition to the connection with grades, scores on three SAO
orientations also correlate with stress and coping processes in students (Davidson &
Beck, 2004). Students who score low in efficacy, high in structure dependence, or high in
mistrust tend to experience high levels of academic stress and then utilize maladaptive
coping techniques to deal with it. These three orientations clearly pick up on the “coping”
aspect of the Bean and Eaton model.
The current study explored the possibility that attrition in freshmen is related to
scores on the six orientations. Compared with those who drop out, students who reenroll
were expected to score higher on one or more of positive orientations of creative
expression, reading for pleasure, academic efficacy. Also, compared with persisters,
those who later dropped out were expected to score higher on one or more of the negative
orientations of structure dependence, academic apathy, and mistrust of instructors.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample was drawn from freshmen students attending a comprehensive
university in the Southwest with a student body of about 6,000. Some of the participants
were enrolled in freshman orientation courses in the fall (n = 222), and others completed
the survey as part of a university-wide assessment program during the third week of
classes in the spring (n = 381). Participation in the testing sessions was optional, but more
than 60% of the eligible students did so. The sample had the following characteristics:
5
Survey of Academic
55% women and 45% men; 73% were between 18-21 years old. The University
admission policy allows students to submit either ACT or SAT scores (or both). The
sample mean ACT composite score was 20.19 (SD = 3.55, n=343), and the mean SAT
total score was 963.29 (SD = 147.09, n = 286). Retention was ascertained by whether or
not the students enrolled for the next fall semester. Thirty-one percent of the sample did
not reenroll.
Measures
Survey of Academic Orientations (SAO). The SAO (Davidson, et al., 1999) has
36 questions that measure six individual orientations, described in Table 1. Each of the
orientations is measured by six items, scored on a five-point scale (strongly agree to
strongly disagree). Three of the orientations are considered adaptive: creative expression
(“I am a very creative person.”), reading for pleasure (“Reading is on of my favorite
pastimes.”), academic efficacy (“Anytime that I really need a good grade on a test, I can
get it.”). And three of the orientations are viewed as maladaptive: structure dependence
(“I hate it when an instructor assigns a paper but does not give specific guidelines and
directions.”), academic apathy (“I try to work just hard enough to get the grade that I
need in a course.”), and mistrust of instructors (“Some instructors enjoy giving students
poor grades.”). Previous research cited in this article presented evidence of reliability
(internal and test-retest) and validity (expected relationships with personality variables
and academic outcomes).
Precollege ability. The student record system was searched for each participant’s
scores on the ACT or SAT. The students had scores for one or both tests, and some had
6
Survey of Academic
completed a test multiple times. The composite ACT score was converted to its SAT
equivalent, using a formula developed by the Educational Testing Service. When students
had scores for both tests, the higher was used. When students had multiple scores on the
same test, the most recent was used. Of the 566 students in the sample, 39 students did
not have test scores and were dropped from the analyses.
Results
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, internal reliability coefficients
(Cronbach alpha; Cronbach, 1951), and intercorrelations of the variables used to predict
the dichotomous retention score. The reliability coefficients are reasonable for scores on
five of the six SAO scales, given that each scale has only six items. The coefficient for
scores on structure dependence is somewhat lower than desired and interpretations of this
factor should be mindful of this shortcoming.
Prior to analyzing the retention scores, a preliminary multiple regression was
conducted to calculate Mahalanobis distance (to identify outliers) and examine
multicolliniarity among the seven predictors. Five participants with a Mahalanobis
distance greater than X2 = 24.32 were eliminated (the critical value of chi square at p <
.001 with df = 7). The Tolerance value for all the predictor variables was far above .1 (all
were greater than .8), indicating the multcolliniarity was not a problem.
Logistic regression was performed to determine which independent variables
predicted retention. The precollege abililty (SAT/ACT scores) variable was entered first
to control for its possible role in the other predictors. The results indicated that the overall
model fit was statistically reliable in distinguishing between those students who did or
7
Survey of Academic
did not return to school (Likelihood Ratio X2 = 55.53, p < .0001; Hosmer and Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit X2 = 4.39, p = .88). The model correctly classified 71.1% of the cases.
Regression coefficients are presented in Table 3. Wald statistics indicate that precollege
ability, academic efficacy, and academic apathy significantly predict retention. Students
who scored lower in ability, lower in efficacy, or higher in apathy were less likely to
return to school.
Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to examine whether freshmen’s views of
themselves, academic tasks, and their instructors might play a role in their persistence.
Scores on six academic orientations, which reflected these views, were tested as
predictors of those who enroll for their sophomore year versus those who do not. Two of
the orientations were statistically significant predictors of retention. Students who
reported low academic efficacy or high academic apathy were more likely to drop out
compared with their counterparts. These findings build upon an earlier study that found
that scores on the same two orientations in first-semester freshmen predicted their grade
point average at the end of the first term (Beck & Davidson, 2001). It was suggested that
SAO scores are useful as an early warning device for low grades. The current study adds
to this idea by indicating that scores on these two orientations may also foretell students’
decision to drop out.
The findings of this study complement previous theories and research on
retention. With regard to the academic efficacy variable, Bean and Eaton (2001-2002)
posited that this variable plays an important role in academic integration. Most
8
Survey of Academic
universities offer tutorials on a variety of topics (e.g., writing, test-taking, studying) or
supplemental instruction with the goal of building students’ academic skills and
performance, sense of efficacy, and the inclination to persist. The results of the current
study suggest that feelings of efficacy, whether derived from tutorials or other sources,
play an important role in freshmen’s decision to return to school for their sophomore
year. Ordinarily, people are more inclined to do the things they think they can do and
disengage from tasks that seem beyond them. Undoubtedly, skill-development is an
important source of efficacy, but there are other avenues to elevate this important
psychological quality. Bandura (1986) emphasizes experiences such as witnessing the
success of others who are similar to self, verbal persuasion, and setting progressive,
attainable goals. Self-efficacy is generally viewed as quite malleable, so there are many
ways it can be raised in students who suffer from low levels. The efficacy scale on the
SAO is a suitable diagnostic tool for identifying students who would prosper from an
efficacy-oriented intervention, such as those who score in the lower quartile of local
norms on this scale.
The other important, retention-related variable in this study is academic apathy,
which was a considerably stronger predictor of retention than was academic efficacy.
Students who score high on apathy find very little interest or enjoyment in their studies;
they lack intrinsic motivation. They report that they do just enough to get by, motivated
primarily by minimal goals. When they consider whether to persist in the academic
journey, they find few reasons other than the diploma. Because they evaluate the
psychological costs of earning a degree (e.g., boredom) to be much greater than others,
9
Survey of Academic
the decision to persist is harder to come by. The crucial question regarding these
underachieving students is how best to spark their interest in academic tasks. Antidotes to
apathy can be found in studies on self-determination and intrinsic motivation. According
this literature, people focus on and enjoy the process of mastery and attainment if they
believe that their academic decisions reflect what they want to do as opposed to what
others want for them (internal locus of causality) and if they feel a sense of freedom in
making decisions rather than feeling coerced, either by outside forces or by internal
pressures to succeed (volition) (Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003). To apply this principle to
apathetic students (such as those in the upper quartile of local norms on the SAO apathy
scale), it is desirable to discuss, clarify, and reinforce their self-designed degree
intentions and, as much as possible, include elective course options along with the usual
mix of required freshmen courses. Another lesson about apathy that can be gleaned from
studies on intrinsic motivation points to the importance of setting proximal goals to go
along with distal ones. This is akin to the “progressive goal” intervention suggested for
students with low efficacy. Not only does the attainment of a proximal goal instill
feelings of competence, it also causes a sense of satisfaction with the process (Karniol &
Ross, 1996).
The results of this study support the idea that students’ academic orientations play
an important role in their decision about whether or not to return to school for their
sophomore year. The specific way in which this occurs (for efficacy and apathy) remains
for further study. It is possible that the orientations operate by facilitating or impeding
academic integration, as proposed by Bean and Eaton. Another possibility is that they
10
Survey of Academic
directly affect the decision process, independent of other factors. Future research can
examine these and other possibilities by including measures of a full predictive model of
persistence.
Also, the findings can be placed alongside the previously-mentioned research on
SAO scores that finds them to be predictive of important academic outcomes, including
grades, and stress and coping. This short instrument can play an important diagnostic role
in identifying students who are at risk for various undesirable experiences, enabling
colleges to focus staff resources on those students most likely to profit from the
preventive interventions. To the extent that the orientations exert causal force on the
aforementioned outcomes, then interventions are likely to be successful.
Interpretations of the results should be mindful of three limitations. First, the
variable “academic integration” was not directly measured, so positing that self-efficacy
and apathy are precursors to it moves somewhat beyond the data. Additional research is
needed to test this assertion. Second, this study tabulated whether students reenrolled
following their freshmen year. Those who departed undoubtedly did so for a variety of
reasons. While some may have permanently dropped out of college, others may have
taken only a temporary break in their pursuit of the degree (sometimes referred to as
“stopout”) or possibly transferred to another school. Future research can clarify the role
of efficacy and apathy in the various categories of attrition. A third limitation concerns
the individualistic nature of a student’s decision. Each student weighs things differently
from others, based upon his or her own circumstance and various aspects of the particular
college. The identification of group trends merely raises the likelihood that variables such
11
Survey of Academic
as efficacy and apathy fit an individual student’s thinking process. Therefore, once a
diagnostic tool such as the SAO triggers this possibility, individual conversations with a
student should be used to confirm or disconfirm the idea.
12
Survey of Academic
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001-2002). The psychology underlying successful retention
practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice,
3(1), 73-89.
Beck, H. P., & Davidson, W. B. (2001). Establishing an early warning system: Predicting
low grades in college students from Survey of Academic Orientation scores.
Research in Higher Education, 42(6), 709-723.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychmetika,
16, 297-334.
Davidson, W. B., Beck, H. P., & Silver, N. C. (1999). Development and validation of
scores on a measure of academic orientations in college students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 59, 678-693.
Davidson, W. B., & Beck, H. P. (2004). Survey of Academic Orientation scores, stress,
and coping in college students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking
about the future and the past. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.),
Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 593-620). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.
Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, H. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-
13
Survey of Academic
determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375-392.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14