Understanding psychological and contextual influences on self-regulatory learning among at risk undergraduate students: a mixed methods study.

Abstract

Background: Slow academic progression rates among undergraduate students is an increasing concern in South African Higher Education and Training Institutions. The aim of the study was to understand the psychological and contextual barriers to success of undergraduate students identified as At Risk of academic failure in a public South African university. Equally important, to examine how Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) abilities and or lack thereof facilitated learning experience and attainment of personal goals in the academic context. Methodology: Using a case study mixed methods research design, the study adopted a sequential exploratory strategy. In phase one, the qualitative approach conveniently selected 23 academically At Risk undergraduate students, post first year. Data collection process through the sociodemographic information sheet and in-depth individual interviews explored the experiences and challenges of the At Risk students as they navigate the system following academic failure, which were thematically analysed. In phase two, the quantitative approach administered questionnaires to a relatively larger sample of 452 conveniently selected At Risk students. Data collection process using the sociodemographic information sheet, 81-item Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the 16-item procrastination scale investigated the aspects of SRL that influenced performance. The MSLQ was subjected to factor analysis. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 25) techniques (descriptive tests, Independent samples ttest, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, hierarchical regression). Results: Qualitative findings revealed high feelings of psychological distress, despondency, fear of failure and procrastination tendencies. Participants found the practices of the early warning (Robot) system as stigmatising and intensified their feelings of shame and despondency. Participants expressed difficulties in maintaining motivation due to experiencing academic failure and exclusions. Academic exclusion often led to degree changes, lateral transfers within and across colleges while financial exclusion impacted negatively on their housing conditions. Fear of failure, lack of self-confidence in approaching assessments increased maladaptive procrastination that inhibited optimal academic functioning. Furthermore, the vast majority had never consulted with their lecturers and preferred approaching their peers for academic support despite being less effective. At Risk students further attributed poor engagement with the University’s intervention programmes to the lack of clarity regarding the nature of support offered and how these services would be of benefit to their academic success. Quantitative results revealed that At Risk students differ significantly in their motivational goal for their academics, execution of learning strategies and levels of procrastination tendencies in relation to the four distinct sociodemographic factors (degree programmes, colleges, funding and residential groups). In particular, very strong significant differences were found between the four-year degree and three-year degree programme groups in relation to MSLQ constructs. The four-year degree programme group reported the task value as a motivating factor to engage and the good management of time and study environment, peer learning and help seeking behaviours as important learning resources for success as compared to three-year degree programme group. Also, the college groups differed significantly in levels of procrastination tendencies. The College of Humanities (CHUM) group reported higher academic procrastination tendencies as compared to the College of Agriculture, Engineering and Sciences (CAES) and the College of Law and Management Studies (CLMS). Pearson correlation results showed significant positive correlations between the MSLQ constructs, in terms of participants’ motivational beliefs (extrinsic goals, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance), learning strategies (elaboration, critical thinking, organisation, metacognitive SR) and the management of learning resources (time and study environment, effort regulation, peer learning and help seeking). The procrastination scale correlated negatively with most MSLQ, except for the insignificant result in control of learning beliefs and peer learning subscales. The higher procrastination tendencies were associated with the participants’ lower levels of motivational beliefs for the degree, inability to effectively employ various learning strategies and resources that promote performance. Conclusion: The study provided valuable descriptions of the students’ experiences and barriers to success, indicating the broader ramifications of failing and becoming At Risk that led to degree changes by lateral transfers within/ another college and financial exclusions. The psychological effects identified were shame, guilt, despondency, reduced self-efficacy beliefs for learning and performance, maladaptive procrastination. These constructs persistently and perpetually challenged their efforts to engage effectively with academic activities and ultimately increased their vulnerability to academic failure and hence the pattern of At-Risk status.