Academic performance of first-year bachelors students at university

6. Discussion

This section will draw together the major themes emerging from the analysis. The discussion will be guided by the following questions:

• Why do sole-European students with lower school achievement from lower-decile schools show higher levels of university performance when compared with similar students from other schools?
  
• Why is the taking of a gap year beneficial to some students, but not others?
  
• Are there particular reasons why Pasifika students’ results are different from other ethnic groups?

The section also includes a short discussion of low achieving students in general, and some comments on the likely effect that the uneven geographic distribution of students with particular demographic characteristics might have on individual institutions.

Why do sole-European students with lower school achievement from lower-decile schools show higher levels of university performance when compared to similar students from other schools?

The focus for this question is on students who progress directly to tertiary education. The question explores the patterns seen in figure 5 for the overall result and figure 10 for the breakdown by ethnic group.

Figure 5 shows the overall patterns, averaged over all ethnic groups. Students who come from low-decile schools, who progress directly to tertiary education, and who have medium to high school achievement, show lower levels of tertiary academic performance than their peers in other schools.

When considered by ethnic group (figure 10), this pattern is seen broadly to apply to all students except sole-European students. Sole-European students from low-decile schools with NCEA achievement scores under 50 out-perform most other students with equivalent school achievement if they start university directly after leaving school. In addition, sole-European students from mid-decile schools also out-perform students from high-decile schools in the low to mid achievement score range. Mid-decile school students from other ethic groups may also out-perform high-decile school students in their tertiary studies, but mostly not significantly so.

It is suggested that this higher tertiary academic performance by lower decile school students can be accounted for (in part) by the fact that in high-decile schools, students do better at school than their actual ability suggests. In other words, in high-decile schools, the NCEA achievement score may be over-estimating their ability. As a consequence, when school achievement is controlled for, the high-decile school students’ actual performance in tertiary education lags behind other students. For students with above-average school achievement, there is little difference in tertiary academic performance, since for these students their performance is relatively insensitive to school characteristics (Smith and Naylor 2001).

Minority ethnic group students¹⁴, with above-average school results, don’t seem to perform as well, but the reasons for this are not as clear. Various hypotheses have been proposed in the literature. While this study is not able to account for the difference, it is clear is that it is a real effect. But minority ethnic group students’ performance is lower only among those who attended low-decile schools (figure 10 and figures 12 to 15). In other words, there is an ethnic group–school interaction.

The evidence for these two propositions will be briefly outlined.

Over-estimating ability

There is evidence from Australia that suggests students from non-government schools¹⁵ do not do as well at university as government school students, once academic performance at school is controlled (Win and Miller 2005). This is attributed to non-government students’ school scores over-estimating their actual academic ability, because of superior resources and more attentive coaching by teachers, resulting in higher scores (Win and Miller 2005). Wealthier parents may also pay for extra coaching and assistance for their children. Birch and Miller (2007) found a similar result for socio-economic status. When they controlled for school achievement, they found that students’ predicted first year university marks were highest for middle socio-economic-status students, then lower for those from the lowest socio-economic status, and the lowest was seen for the highest socio-economic-status students. They attributed this to the correlation between income and attendance at government or non-government schools.

Similar results have been reported in the United Kingdom. There, students from Local Education Authority (LEA) schools had a significantly higher chance of obtaining a good degree¹⁶ compared to students from Independent schools, after controlling for school performance. In particular, for the same likelihood of gaining a good degree, the average Independent school student needed about one grade higher at A-level than the LEA-educated student for each of their three A-level subjects (Smith and Naylor 2001).

Another Australian study, at Monash University, also found similar results. The ‘pecking order’ of school results, from private, to Catholic, to Government schools, was ‘neatly reversed’ when considering the students’ university results (Dobson and Skuja 2005). In all studies, children from more privileged families obtained on average higher school results, but did not perform as well at university, given their level of school achievement.

In the present study it also appears that students from high-decile schools generally have depressed tertiary academic performance relative to other students when controlling for school achievement¹⁷. It is also likely that, if the achievement scores for high-decile students over-estimate ability, then low-decile school students’ achievement scores may under-estimate ability, at least for some students. The same attributes that are seen as boosting students’ achievements in high-decile schools, will be lacking in low-decile schools and will depress the achievement scores of some students. When controlling for achievement at school, these low-decile school students, on average, perform significantly higher than would be expected compared to the average result.

Is this a self-selection effect? That is, are only the more motivated students from low-decile schools with below average school achievement choosing to progress to bachelors study? Certainly students with lower school achievement are less likely to go on to tertiary study (Engler 2010); the lower school grades might be more de-motivating for students from low-decile schools than other schools.

However, this is not likely to be a self-selection effect for the reason that there is no difference in the likelihood of progressing onto bachelors study between students from the different school decile categories for students from the lower end of the school achievement score range (Engler 2010, figure 2). For sole-European students, for which the effect is most prominent, there is no difference in the likelihood of progressing on to tertiary study across the entire range of school achievement.

This suggests that this phenomenon may result from schooling factors, with high-decile schools doing better than low-decile schools at getting students of modest ability through school assessments.

Low-decile school students’ under-achievement

Next we look at the causes for the under-performance in other ethnic groups generally, and particularly for minority ethnic group students from low-decile schools.

Spenner et al (2004) reviewed the minority achievement gap, and concluded that while family background, parental involvement, prior ability and cultural capital acquired during the middle- and high-school years produce a moderate reduction in the achievement gap, over half of the gap remains unexplained. They cite research that suggests that minority achievement differences emerge as early as pre-school and kindergarten. Nora and Cabrera (1996) quote Tinto, who reasoned that rather than socio-economic background, the reason minority students fared worse was because of differences in academic preparedness, arising from prior educational experiences at elementary and secondary school, which favoured non-minority students. To date, no-one has been able to demonstrate clearly why minority groups have lower levels of educational achievement. It is likely that more than one factor is at work, and the list will undoubtedly include various difficult-to-measure psychological factors as well. That there is at least a school effect is supported by this present study, which shows that it is only minority ethnic group students from low-decile schools who show educational under-performance. As was discussed previously (pages 13–14), there are a number of characteristics of low-decile schools that contribute to a poorer preparation for tertiary study.

Why is the taking of a gap year beneficial to some students, but not others?

The results underpinning this question are seen in figure 7, figure 11, and figures 12 to 15.

Figure 7 shows the results controlling for achievement score and gap year status, and indicates significant improvement in academic performance for gap-year students up to achievement scores of 50. There is some suggestion in the figure that taking a gap year decreases academic performance for some students with high school achievement, but the difference is minor and not significant.

Figure 11 shows the data controlling for school decile, averaged across all ethnic groups. Students who do not take a gap year show the pattern discussed in the previous section; for students who do take a gap year, academic performance is improved for students from all schools. However, those from low-decile schools out-perform (or equal) students from other schools, including most other students who did not take a gap year.

Figures 12 to 15 show the data further controlled for ethnic group. Only European and sole-Pasifika do not show this general pattern of results. The particular case of sole-Pasifika is considered in the next section.

Similar results have been observed in Australia, where taking a one-year break between high school and university was found to have a positive impact on students’ tertiary academic performance, and this was also stronger for students on the lower-end of the marks distribution (Birch and Miller 2007). Their study however, did not include variables for school effects, socio-economic background, or ethnicity. Birch and Miller (2007) suggest that taking a gap year for travel or work appears to motivate students for study when they commence university. They also say that since it mostly benefits low-achieving students, there may be some merit in encouraging some students to take a break before starting tertiary studies, particularly if they are expected to have below-average performance, or are unsure of their future direction. This may be occurring already in some institutions. Fitzsimmons et al (2005) say that, for over thirty years, Harvard has recommended students take a gap year, proposing it in their letter of admission. They also suggest that Harvard’s high overall graduation rate of 97 per cent is in part due to so many students taking time off before starting their tertiary study, although they present no evidence to support this. It may equally be due to highly selective admission criteria.

There is little other published work on the effects of taking a gap year, and what is available does not provide insights into the results found in the present study, particularly the differences found between and within ethnic groups. In the present study, only Māori, Asian and ever-Pasifika students show an improvement after taking a gap year, and then only for students from low-decile schools (figures 12 to 15).

One possibility is that these results reflect differences in motivation between gap-year students and others. This may be because returning students have a stronger desire to succeed. In other words, there is a possible selection effect, in that students who are not motivated, or feel as if they will not succeed, are far less likely to consider tertiary study after their year off. The proportion of students in that group who will pass most of their courses naturally increases.

Obviously any cohort of students will include unmotivated students. Lowe and Cook (2003) have shown that a substantial minority of students in Ireland start university for reasons other than academic or vocational ones, particularly students progressing directly to tertiary study after leaving school. These students, citing parental pressure, wanting a break, and enjoying themselves, would not necessarily be those returning if they had taken a gap year.

As was discussed in the last section, for students with lower school achievement, those results for students from low-decile schools are likely to under-estimate their actual academic ability, while for high-decile school students, their school achievement is likely to be over-stated relative to their ‘true’ ability. If it is self-selection that is responsible for the gap-year improvement, and only really motivated students return to study, then perhaps the differences seen between low and high-decile school gap-year students are simply because of this distortion in the relationship between achievement at school and in tertiary education. Assuming the same number of motivated students in the low and high-decile school groups for those returning after a gap year, the low decile group will, on average, include students with higher ability, and will then show corresponding higher levels of academic performance in their tertiary studies.

There may be other effects contributing to the difference between students from different schools. High-decile school students may over-estimate their abilities, basing it on their school results, or there may be greater parental or peer pressure for them to return to their studies. These students may also have fewer financial concerns, including less concern about borrowing money for their studies. The overall effect would be for more of the high-decile students to return after taking a gap year, motivated and non-motivated, lowering these students’ overall success in their tertiary studies. These same reasons are also likely to contribute to there being fewer students from low-decile schools returning. In summary, the influences, motivations and pressures any particular student experiences in their decision to return to study are likely to vary, which somewhat explains the differences in tertiary academic improvement after a gap year between students from different schools and family backgrounds.

This still leaves unresolved the reason why European and sole-Pasifika students from low-decile schools don’t show better outcomes after taking a gap year, compared to similar students who do not take a gap year. It is not likely these groups are not as motivated as their peers. Clearly, other factors are involved. The case of Pasifika students generally is considered in the next section.

Are there particular reasons why Pasifika students’ results are different from other ethnic groups?

This question arises because of the number of differences between Pasifika students, particularly sole-Pasifika, and others in this study. Overall, Pasifika ethnic group students show significant differences in academic performance within their ethnic group, while other groups do not (figure 9). Sole-Pasifika students from low-decile schools show the lowest levels of tertiary academic performance compared to other students (figure 10). Sole-Pasifika students from low-decile schools do not benefit from taking a gap year (figure 15). Sole-Pasifika students — apart from those from high-decile schools who did not take a gap year — have significantly lower levels of academic performance. This occurs across almost the entire range of achievement scores (figure 16). And lastly, for sole-Pasifika students from high-decile schools, taking a gap year lowers academic performance, while a gap year for nearly all other students improves academic performance, or at least is not detrimental to their educational outcomes (figure 16).

The study data contains no information as to why these results may be occurring. Clearly the causes need to be specific to the Pasifika ethnic group, and/or the sole-Pasifika group. More than one factor will undoubtedly be involved. The literature provides some suggestions, but no definitive answers.

Do Pasifika have a particular learning style that disadvantages them? Schoeffel and Meleisea (1994) have shown that Pasifika cultural values shape the way children of Pasifika migrants learn. They tend to be passive students, they record and memorise, and they tend to avoid classroom interaction. The authors suggest that the values of Pasifika families condition their children in ways which disadvantage them in contemporary educational and wider social contexts (Schoeffel and Meleisea 1994). In an Australian study, Lizzio et al (2002) found that how a student perceives their learning environment influences learning outcomes, over and above the effect of the student’s academic performance at school. In particular, students who chose a reproducing or surface approach to learning (as opposed to one that entailed a deeper understanding of the material) achieved lower tertiary grades.

Are they particularly susceptible to parental pressure? Pasifika students have very high expectations on them to do well. Madjar et al (2009) found that all parents had high aspirations for their children, but especially Māori and Pasifika parents. Nash (2000) has shown that Pasifika students have extra-ordinarily high aspirations that bear little or no relationship to their scholastic achievements. In addition, they are subject to much family pressure to achieve scholastic success (Anae et al 2002, Franken et al 2008), and not just for themselves individually, but to bring status and honour to their extended families and the wider community (Madjar et al 2009). Incidentally, a similar finding has been found for Māori, where education is valued as both a personal gain and the development of the well-being of the community (Greenwood and Te Aika 2009). The pressure Pasikfia (and other) parents place on their children to do well could be behind the mismatch between aspirations and ability as observed by Nash (2000). On the other hand, Chemers et al (2001) found that students who have higher expectations for academic performance show higher performance, although this would need to be commensurate with ability.

Attending a mid or high-decile school seems to improve sole-Pasifika students’ performance in tertiary study—particularly if they are an above-average student—raising it to about the same level as other sole-ethnic groups, but only if they progress directly to tertiary study. The data shows that all minority ethnic groups benefit from taking a gap year, particularly students from low-decile schools, but for sole-Pasifika, a gap year seems to have no effect (for low-decile school students), and may be detrimental (for high-decile school students) to tertiary academic performance (figure 16). That attendance at a high-decile school is beneficial is reported by Ladd and Fiske (2001) for New  Zealand students. They report that peer effects, and being associated with motivated and successful students, helps academic performance. Thrupp and Luton (2006) report that lower-attaining pupils benefit socially and educationally in these situations, with the proviso that the most disruptive pupils are absent. But why does this benefit not persist for sole-Pasifika students after taking a gap year? As discussed earlier, the gap-year improvement is likely to be due, at least in part, to self-selection, with more motivated and higher ability students returning, rather than the gap year itself imparting some additional benefit. If the hypothesis is correct, it suggests that, overall, a greater proportion of sole-Pasifika gap-year students return, including those who are less motivated.

Some evidence about how a gap year might affect students comes from a recent study in Auckland (Madjar et al 2010). That study found that the period between the end of school and the start of university, the ‘summer months’, were particularly challenging for Pasifika students. These students were encouraged by their parents to ‘prepare for university’, and were discouraged from any external activities, such as paid work, that might lure them away from the goal of university education. During this period, the students experienced self-doubt and loss of confidence, especially once they received NCEA results, which were worse than they had expected. By not engaging in practical activities that might have provided them with monetary resources, nor developing skills for life beyond secondary school, their inactivity contributed to feelings of boredom, de-motivation and a loss of commitment to the challenge of university life. Madjar et al were not considering a gap year per se, but these same factors could well influence students during a gap year, perhaps more so, given the longer time involved. Of course, these considerations may also apply to other students, but Madjar et al found that Pasifika students were particularly susceptible to this effect.

Are sole-Pasifika students more likely to be first-generation tertiary students? Students who are the first in their family to attend tertiary education are known to have specific difficulties (Inman and Mayes 1999). They found that compared to students whose parents or siblings attended tertiary institutions, first-generation students were often less-prepared academically and psychologically, and had lower high-school grades. They are also reported to have a lower sense of self-efficacy, and lower self-esteem. They also usually come from poorer families. Leach and Zepke (2005) found that children in families with experience in tertiary education were more likely to consider tertiary education, and were better able to cope with the enrolment process. However, Inman and Mayes found that first-generation tertiary students don’t necessarily do worse in their studies.

Are family commitments greater for Pasifika students? Meyer et al (2009) found that academic performance at school was influenced by the child-care commitments of students, with performance suffering with almost any level of child-care responsibility. They found that Māori and Pasifika students, and students from low-decile schools, were more likely to be asked to care for siblings. Students stated that while this distraction from their studies was manageable during term time, during exam periods, the extra time commitment affected their ability to study and perform in the exams. This could also affect tertiary students, since it is unlikely that family expectations would change after leaving secondary school. Madjar et al (2010), in their Auckland study, also found that Pasifika students were more likely to be affected by family commitments, compared to other ethnic groups, and this was a source of stress in their studies.

Do institutional factors play a part in lower Pasifika¹⁸ educational achievement? There is little available literature on the experience of New Zealand students in this regard.  While there is much evidence from overseas, particularly the US, we need to be wary of assuming those findings would apply in the New Zealand context. However, Tuuta et al (2004) reviewed a programme to change the attitudes of New Zealand school teachers to Māori students, and reported the effect that ‘deficit thinking’ had on student outcomes. Those findings may resonate to an extent with the US studies in a tertiary context. Black students who attended predominately white colleges in the US are reported to experience considerable adjustment difficulties, including isolation, alienation, and lack of support, over and above that experienced by all first-year students. The way a student perceives and [sic] responds to events in the tertiary setting shapes their tertiary outcomes (Allen 1992).

Contrasting the under-performance of Pasifika students in this study, mention must be made of Asian students. Asian students are often portrayed as a model minority because they achieve academic, social and economic success through hard work and adherence to Asian cultural norms (Ting 2000, Lee and Kumashiro 2005). In the present study, Asian students’ academic achievements are similar to European results. Scott (2008) also found New Zealand Asian students to be on a par with European students’ likelihood to pass all first year courses.

Asian students are also characterised as employing rote-learning, memorisation and passivity (Kennedy 2002). Kember (2000) however, found that for Asian students, the rote-learning style was not, in fact, incompatible with deep approaches to learning, and an intention to seek understanding. Kember also found they did not resist forms of teaching other than traditional didactic ones, but did need time and support to adapt to them. Kennedy (2002) concluded that Chinese learning styles are more subtle and complex than they appear to be in some (Western) misrepresentations of them.

Lee and Kumashiro (2005) also suggest that the model minority stereotype is unhelpful, since it hides the diverse and complex experiences of these students. It also diverts attention away from racial inequities faced by these groups. More damagingly, it influences perceptions, such that students who are able to live up to the stereotype standards are held up as examples for others to follow, and those unable to meet them are deemed failures or substandard for their ethnic group. It parallels the idea of ‘deficit thinking’ mentioned earlier.

Clearly, there are no simple conclusions to be drawn for Pasifika student’s educational underachievement. This under-achievement is likely to become a more important concern. Pasifika population numbers are projected to increase over the coming years, which, because of the age structure of this group, will increase the demand for bachelors-level study (Engler 2009).

Low student achievement

This study has shown low rates of first year academic performance at university for some students, as measured by the probability of passing most first-year courses. This is particularly the case for students who progress directly to tertiary study after leaving school, and who have below-average school achievement. Overall, 63 per cent of students with below-average school achievement, who did not take a gap year, pass most of their first year courses. This compares to 71 per cent when they took a gap year and about 90 per cent for students with above-average school achievement. The low school achievement group makes up 18 per cent of the study population, so this level of under-achievement affects a significant proportion of the student population.

There is evidence that students have different motivations for attending university. Students from the University of Ulster were surveyed as to the importance of reasons for going to university (Lowe and Cook 2003). Most students agreed with statements relating to enhancing their academic and vocational prospects, but substantial minorities of students recognised parental pressure, enjoying themselves, and getting away from home as factors with which they identified. They also found that males were more likely to make reactive decisions, and students coming straight from school were also more likely to make choices for personal and social reasons rather than for vocational ones. So there may be some differences in the motivation for study of students between those that progress directly and those that take a gap year.

The situation may be exacerbated by the finding that students with below-average school achievement from high-decile schools may have school results which over-estimate the students’ academic ability. Students from these schools make up the majority of the university first year intake, so any factor that depresses these students’ academic performance will influence the overall outcome.

Are some students better prepared for study at university? Research has shown that students’ own aspirations are vital for educational success (Thiessen 2007). Meyer et al (2006) linked motivation and aspirations (Doing my best, versus Doing just enough) with the amount of effort New  Zealand students invested in gaining better results at school. Lack of motivation at school is reflected in lower achievement scores in NCEA. With a poor attitude to learning, even if the student reaches UE standard and progresses straight to university, a student may not have the right motivation and aspirations to succeed. It underscores the importance of the gap year as a circuit breaker, to reassess career aspirations and goals for some students, in particular those with ability whose school performance is depressed because of poor motivation or other factors.

What is clear is that many students are enrolling in university bachelors-degree courses with little chance of successfully completing their first year of study. This is in spite of these students all attaining NCEA level 3 and UE. It is also likely that most, if not all, of these students are capable of passing most of their courses. This study has shown that, under the right circumstances, students from any background, and any ethnic group, can show high levels of tertiary academic performance.

Geographic considerations

One factor not explored in this study is the geographic distribution of students with particular demographic characteristics. This study has shown that student performance can vary with ethnic group, so that disproportionate concentrations of particular ethnic groups in the regions may contribute to different outcomes for students in institutions across New  Zealand.

Pasifika people predominately live in urban areas, and in the Auckland region in particular. The Asian ethnic group has a similar distribution to Pasifika, with two thirds of people of Asian ethnicity living in the Auckland region. Māori live mostly in the North Island (87 per cent), and are more evenly distributed across the North Island regions. The uneven distribution of Pasifika in particular has implications for Auckland institutions, given the low levels of tertiary achievement for sole-Pasifika found in this study.

This study also found interactions between ethnic group and school decile. The make-up of the student population from low-decile schools will vary by region. In the Auckland region, low-decile students will have a higher proportion of Pasifika and Māori students, compared to low-decile groups in other regions. These differences in the students’ ethnic characteristics between the regions will have different impacts on institutions. Based on the results of this study, institutions with predominantly sole-European students in their low-decile school intake will have better student performance statistics than institutions where low-decile schools students are non-European, and particularly if they are sole-Pasifika.

Whether a student relocated or not to study at university is also likely to affect an institution’s student outcomes. A student may relocate because of personal choices, or because particular qualifications are not offered at local universities. Moving away from home involves sacrifices and costs not borne by students who do not have to relocate. A student needs motivation, commitment and financial resources, at least, to contemplate and undertake the relocation. Students who do relocate will therefore more likely be those with higher motivation, and being more motivated, as this study has found, will be more likely to succeed at university.

Footnotes

14. All those ethnic group categories other than sole-European.
15. In Australia these are independent, or Catholic, and private schools.
16. A good degree is defined as at least a first class or upper second class honours degree, compared to lower second class honours degree, third class honours degree or less.
17. It could be that high-decile students are disproportionally enrolling in the more difficult subjects. However, this is not the case, since, regardless of the difficulty of the qualification, students from all decile categories are more or less evenly represented. For low-decile school students, 21 per cent are enrolled in natural and physical sciences, compared to 24 per cent of mid-decile school students, and 23 per cent of high-decile school students. For society and culture, the respective proportions are 34, 31 and 31 per cent. The largest difference was for management and commerce, where 17 per cent of low-decile students enrolled in this subject, 19 per cent of mid-decile students, and 21 per cent of high-decile students.
18. And possibly also in other minority ethnic groups.