Brief report:
Introduction
In 2006, questionnaire responses were collected from new undergraduates in the faculty of Business and Law.
This study, which had LJMU ethical approval, asked students to respond to questionnaires on three occasions: pre-arrival, two weeks into the first semester and at the end of November. The first questionnaire asked for demographic data, and about worries or concerns. The second focussed on aspects of personality
(Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Extraversion), general self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism. The third asked about satisfaction with their situation and how well they felt they had settled into university academically and socially. In 2012, information about their level mean marks and final degree award were added. The data set was investigated in relation to the current area of interest: the sophomore slump.
Description of the sample group
The sample consisted of 162 students, 58% of whom were Business students. Sixty-seven per cent were female, most were young students (85%). A small percentage (6%) had come through clearing and a similar percentage reported having special needs. Twelve per cent were from an ethnic minority. Forty-one per cent lived at home while the rest lived in shared student accommodation. Most (90%) expected to have a job, but by the end of the semester only 44% had some employment. At the start of L4, most (92%) expected to study for more than 16 hours per week but at the end of the term, only 72% reported doing so.
When data from results were entered, it was found that two-thirds of the sample had lower marks in the second year than they had achieved in the first year.
Cross-tabulations showed that:

76% LBS students in this sample experienced a lower second year mark, compared to half the Law students in the sample.

A greater proportion of non-slumping students (19%) attained a first class degree award compared to slumping students (8%). None of the students whose marks had not slumped in the second year were awarded a third class degree, but 7% of slumping students did get a third.

57% of male students slumped compared to 71% of female students.
Analyses
T-tests demonstrated that male students had significantly higher self-esteem, general self-efficacy and
Extraversion, while female students reported higher Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. The only significant difference between younger and older students was in optimism, where mature students indicated greater optimism.
Correlations showed a weak, positive link between Conscientiousness and higher level mean marks at both L5 and L6: students who were more conscientious achieved higher marks. However, no significant differences in personality variables were shown in relation to the final degree awarded.
Sue Darwent Academic Enhancement Unit Dec 2012

Comparison of the upper and lower quartiles of L5 slump
The split dataset retained a similar proportion of Business students (61%), although slightly fewer were female
(61%) compared to the total group.
Cross-tabulations showed that:

44% of highest slumping students had four or more A-levels compared to 22% of the non-slumping group

Mature students were hardly represented in either group

BME students formed 22% of the highest slumping group, but only 7% of the non-slumping group.

Female students formed 70% of the slumping group, and 52% of the non-slumping group
Analyses
L4, L5 and L6 mean marks did not correlate significantly with any of the psychological variables in either the slumping or non-slumping group.
In the highest slumping group, self-efficacy related strongly and positively with Conscientiousness and selfesteem and moderately with Extraversion, while Neuroticism correlated moderately strongly and negatively with self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism. All of these relationships are in the expected direction. In the highest no-slump group, there was a strong positive relationship amongst self-efficacy, self-esteem and
Extraversion, as well as a moderate relationship between Extraversion and Optimism. Conscientiousness and
Neuroticism did not significantly correlate with any other variables measured.
Optimism
Self-esteem
Self-efficacy
Extraversion
Self-efficacy
Self-esteem
Extraversion
Optimism
Relationship of variables in slump group Relationship of variables in non-slump group
T-tests showed a significant difference between groups in Neuroticism, in that the highest slumping students reported greater Neuroticism.
Limitations
The main limitation is small group size, particularly when the group is split, thus the outcomes will need to be supported by other studies before the findings can be accepted. The sample is skewed towards female students and therefore outcomes may not be representative of both genders.
Summary
Differences in the relationship of the personality variables are indicated between the highest slumping and highest non-slumping students. There is a strong grouping of self-efficacy, self-esteem and Extraversion, together with optimism in non-slumping students. For slumping students, these characteristics are represented, but modified particularly by Neuroticism. This suggests that slumping students worry more and this interacts negatively with their positive outlook, confidence and feelings of self-worth.
Sue Darwent Academic Enhancement Unit Dec 2012

The slump group contains a greater proportion of female and ethnic minority students, as well as students with higher entry qualifications. The latter group was surprising – however, it maybe that students with higher entry qualifications are lulled into a false sense of confidence in their abilities in the first year, and have difficulty re-adjusting to the greater challenge of L5. Female students are over-represented in the slump group, and female students are known to worry more, so are the characteristics of the slump group essentially attributable to gender?
Further research into gender differences in progression may help to indicate how resources, such as PDP or curricular activities, could be applied to allay anxieties and develop support networks to enhance confidence and diligence in academic work. The progress of ethnic minority students may also benefit from further investigation. Additionally it is intended that comparable data from 2007-8 will be similarly interrogated.
Sue Darwent Academic Enhancement Unit Dec 2012