Theory of Academic Performance

Students have the capability for extraordinary academic achievement in a University environment. This
proposition diver among different students. Down-to-the-earth accomplishments happen in day-to-day
practice in University settings. At the beginning of the semester, the teachers and administrators take a
turn to inspire the students to pursue their dreams to come out with flying colors at the end of their
study. Since accomplishments are a shared vision of the entire academic community, a theory of
performance is applicable in many learning contexts. The theory of academic performance (ToP)
emanates from Elger (2007), and the author described ‘perform’ as an ability to produce a valued result
and ‘performer’ as an individual or a group that engages in collaboration while the level of performance
as the location in an academic journey. According to Elger (2007), there are six components of
performance levels, and they are: level of knowledge, levels of skills, level of identity, personal factors,
and fixed factors and proposed three axioms for effective performance as performer’s mindset,
immersion in an enriching environment, and engagement in reflective practice. The theory of
performance challenges educators to improve their performance through empowerment to help others
learn effectively and grow. This type of learning will foster quick success and produce knowledge that
will influence society. Inferring from the study of Wiske (1998), performance indicates learning-for-
understanding. Higher academic performance produces results that lead to an increase in academic
quality. This process creates an environment where performance exceeds the expectations of the
academic community stakeholders. There will also be a decrease in cost; that is, the financial resources
involved in producing the desired result will be reduced. Higher academic performance will also increase
capability, capacity, knowledge, skills, and motivations. This development is a good signal for the
university publicity and acceptance. Applying the academic performance theory to the Private University
results, the performer will need to stabilize the students at the forefront and encourage the backing
students to improve drastically. The performer can set a challenging goal for the student from the
beginning of the semester and allows failure as part of the rubrics to motivate high performance. This
intervention should be a gradual process.

Walberg's Theory Of Educational Productivity

The study is anchored on the theory of educational productivity by Herbert J. Walberg. Walberg’s theory
tackles about the influences on learning that affects the academic performance of a student. It is an
exploration of academic achievement wherein Walberg used a variety of methods on how to identify the
factors that affects the academic performance of a student. He analyzed his theory with the help of
different theorists and integrated his study with over 3000 studies. In his theory, he classified 11
influential domains of variables, 8 of them were affected by social-emotional influences namely,
classroom management, parental support, student-teacher interactions, social-behavioral attributes,
motivational-effective attributes, the peer…show more content…

The variables are reflected with different representation. In the first three variables (ability, motivation,
and age) reflect characteristics of the student. The fourth and fifth variables reflect instruction (quantity
and quality), and the final four variables (classroom climate, home environment, peer group, and
exposure to media) represent aspects of the psychological environment. He explained that these
variables has a certain effects that might cause problems with the academic performance of students if
it will not be properly guided. Giving importance with a certain variable can mean a big impact with the
student’s academic performance.
Several studies have been done to identify problems that affects student’s academic performance. The
students’ academic performance depends on a number of socio-economic factors like students’
presence of trained teacher in school, teacher-student ratio, attendance in the class, sex of the student,
family income, mother’s and father’s education, , and distance of schools (Amitava Raychaudhuri,…show
more content…

Students are most essential asset for any educational institute. The social and economic development is
directly linked with student academic performance. The students’ performance plays an important role
in producing the best quality graduates who will become great leader and manpower for the country
thus responsible for the country’s economic and social development. Student academic performance
measurement has received considerable attention in previous research, it is challenging aspects of
academic literature, and science student performance are affected due to social, psychological,
economic, environmental and personal factors. These factors strongly influence on the student
performance, but these factors vary from person to person (Irfan Mushtaq and Shabana Nawaz.

Astin and the Roots of Student Involvement Theory

Astin’s research and theory of involvement (1977, 1984) spurred

many studies regarding student involvement in higher education. Not

to be confused with the term “motivation,” which refers primarily to a

psychological state, Astin noted that involvement includes both physical and psychological energy.
Although motivation is a necessary

aspect of involvement, Astin asserted that the behavioral aspects of

involvement, such as what an individual does and how she or he

behaves, are also essential; this facet of involvement comprises the first

point of Astin’s involvement theory. The theory has four other basic

ideas: (a) involvement occurs along a continuum; different students

exhibit different levels of involvement in different activities at different

times; (b) involvement has both quantitative aspects, how much time

a student spends doing something, and qualitative aspects, how

focused the student’s time is; (c) the amount of personal development

and learning that can occur is directly proportional to the quality and

quantity of student involvement; and (d) the effectiveness of educational polices, practices, or programs
is directly related to the policy,

practice, or program’s commitment to increasing student involvement

(Astin, 1984, p. 298).

In his landmark book, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years

Revisited, Astin (1993) addressed the impact that involvement in clubs

and organizations has on students. He reported that elected student

offices, public speaking ability, leadership abilities, and interpersonal

skills have statistically significant correlations with hours per week

spent participating in student clubs and organizations. Later, Astin

(1996) found that the three most powerful forms of involvement are

academic involvement, involvement with faculty, and involvement

168

NASPA Journal, 2006, Vol. 43, no. 1

with student peer groups. Astin stated that the strongest single source

of influence on cognitive and affective development is a student’s peer

group; the greater the interaction with peers, the more favorable the

outcome (p. 126). He proposed that the power of the peer group can

be found in the capacity of peers to involve each other more intensely in experiences (p. 126).
Interaction with peers has also been shown

to contribute to seniors’ growth in interpersonal competence, cognitive complexity, and

humanitarianism (Kuh, 1995; Terenzini et al.,

1996).

Some researchers have used the Student Development Task and

Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) to study student development and

involvement. The SDTLI instrument was developed to collect students’ self-reported behaviors,
attitudes, and opinions on psychosocial

topics that specifically relate to Chickering and Reisser’s theory, particularly establishing and clarifying
purpose, developing mature interpersonal relationships, and academic autonomy (Martin, 2000).

Studies that have used the SDTLI (Cooper, Healy, & Simpson, 1994;

Martin, 2000; Stanford, 1992; Williams & Winston, 1985) are particularly relevant to the present study
because they too explore student

development in relation to involvement in student organizations and

leadership positions during college.

Involvement in clubs and organizations has been shown to correlate

positively with several areas of psychosocial development. Specifically,

college juniors who are members of student organizations score higher than nonmembers on such
factors as educational involvement,

career planning, lifestyle planning, cultural participation, and academic autonomy (Cooper et al., 1994).

Research has also shown that first-year students who join student

organizations have higher scores on developing purpose than those

who do not join (Cooper et al., 1994). In fact, the strongest association found thus far between
involvement and psychosocial development is the positive connection between student involvement
and

establishing and clarifying purpose (Martin, 2000; Stanford, 1992).

Studies have also explored the effect of participation in clubs and organizations on students’
development of mature interpersonal relationships. Researchers have hypothesized that participation in
extracurric169

NASPA Journal, 2006, Vol. 43, no. 1

ular activities would be positively related to the development of competence and mature interpersonal
relationships (Hood, 1984; Martin,

2000). Tests of this hypothesis, however, have yielded conflicting

results. Some studies have concluded that students’ participation

extends their capacity for mature interpersonal relationships by

increasing their tolerance of and acceptance for other people and by

raising their self confidence (Abrahamowicz, 1988; Hood, 1984).

Conversely, a more recent study found no statistically significant relationship between involvement in
extracurricular activities and the

development of mature interpersonal relationships (Martin, 2000).

The difference in these results may be attributable to the sample population and study design in each
case. Whereas the studies by

Abrahamowicz (1988) and Hood (1984) involved relatively large sample sizes at large institutions, Martin
(2000) studied 89 students, 90

percent of whom were Caucasian, attending a small, religiously affiliated private liberal arts college. The
findings of Martin’s study are
therefore limited in their generalizability. Martin further suggested in

her discussion that perhaps students filling out a questionnaire in a

group meeting in the first week of their freshmen year were more likely to give both superficial and
socially acceptable responses than

seniors, who responded by mail (p. 302).

Being a leader in a student organization has been shown to be associated with higher levels of
developing purpose, educational involvement, life management, and cultural participation (Cooper et al.
1994;

Hernandez et al., 1999; Kuh, 1995). In addition, specific leadership

responsibilities in an organization have been found to correlate positively with developmental gains in
interpersonal competence, practical competence, cognitive complexity, and humanitarianism

(Hernandez, 1999; Kuh, 1995, p. 129). Participants credited the tasks

of leadership—planning, organizing, managing, and decision-making—with promoting growth among

student leaders (Kuh, 1995).

Existing studies on involvement in higher education suggest that further research is needed on student
participation in clubs and organizations, not because of what has already been discovered through

research, but rather because of what has not been explored (Cooper et

al., 1994). Many involvement studies have looked broadly at student

participation in a variety of areas including residence life, employ170

NASPA Journal, 2006, Vol. 43, no. 1

ment, athletics, and extracurricular activities (Martin, 2000). Such

overviews not only provide valuable information about higher education but also bring to light the need
for additional research within these

categories. Rather than focusing on “extracurricular activities,” a term

that encompasses many areas of campus life, researchers need to direct

their investigations to identify the impact of specific types and levels

of involvement (Gellin, 2003). Most current research addressing the

connection between student involvement and student development

does not specify how the level of students’ involvement (being a member, a leader, founding an
organization) affects developmental gains

(Hernandez et al., 1999; Kuh, 1995; Terenizini et al., 1996). What are

the developmental differences between a student who only attends a

club’s monthly meeting and a student who holds a leadership position

in that organization?

The present study used a random sample of college students who

completed the SDTLI at the beginning of their first-year, the beginning

of their sophomore year, and at the end of their senior year in college.

This method allowed for an assessment of the relationship between

student involvement and development resulting from students’ firstyear experience and development
resulting from the sum total of their

college experience.

This study focused on a complex research question. Specifically, to

what extent do varying levels of involvement in student clubs and

organizations coincide with the development of students at the beginning of their sophomore year and
the end of their senior year along

three of Chickering and Reisser’s vectors: moving through autonomy

toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, and establishing and clarifying
purpose?

It was hypothesized that students who reported higher levels of

involvement with student organizations would report greater levels of

development for each testing occasion. In particular, it was hypothesized that students who occupied
leadership roles would show greater

development than students who were not members of organizations,

who had only attended a meeting, or who were members of an organization but did not lead it.

Organizational theory offers a frame of reference within

which to interpret the behavior of individuals (students, faculty

members, student affairs professionals) and groups in relation to

the college as a complex organization. More specifically,

organizational theory guides efforts to interpret and analyze

individual and group behavior and processes such as resource

allocation, policy making, personnel management, leadership,

institutional renewal, reorganization of administrative units,

and termination of programs.

Organizational theory is an eclectic discipline and

incorporates concepts from sociology, social psychology,

anthropology, and philosophy (Morgan, 1986; Peterson, Cameron,

Mets, Jones & Ettington, 1986; Pfeffer, 1982). In rec-mt years,

derivative models from business and education have peen developed

to extend theories about organizational behavior to cifferent

organizational settings.

The term "organizational behavior" is a personification, an

attempt to give human chars teristics to inanimate elements of

colleges and universities (Weick, 1979). A student affairs

office does not perform, however. Rather, the people in the

office are responsible for what is accomplished. In this paper,

organizational behavior refers to the relationships among actors,

the actors' attitudes and beliefs, actions, and events in a college or university. Identifying the actors, the
actors'

roles, and the relationships between actors and actions is

difficult as institutions of higher education are increasingly

influenced by external agencies and constituent groups such as

those identified in the opening paragraph. Multiple

constituencies add to the complexity of an environment

characterized by competing values and preferences of faculty,

'0.

professional staff, administrators, and students (Cohen & March,

1974; Raldridge, Curtis, Ecker & Riley, 1977). Some

organizational theories (e.g., political model) explicitly

acknowledge the relationships among external groups and behavior

in institutions of higher education; thus, organizational theory

can offer insights about the context in which student development

and student affairs work takes place.

Organizational theories are abstract representations of

experience. No single perspective or view of organizational

behavior can account for or explain everything that takes place

in a student affairs division. Just as student development

theories (psychosocial, cognitive- 'ntellectual, moral-ethical)

illuminate certain aspects of students' growth and behavior but

do not explain other aspects, so it is with organizational

theories. Therefore, using multiple interpretations to analyze

organizations and individual behavior increases the number of

meaningful insights into student affairs work that can be

ii generated.

In practice, theoretical concepts from various models and

perspectives are mixed with experience in a practitioner's mind

and become theories-in-use (Argyris & Schon, 1978), highly

personalized and unique patterns of understanding. Familiarity

with varied interpretations of organizational behavior increases

the possibility that an individual's theories-in-use will enable

1 her or him to generate more accurate interpretations of events

and actions than are possible with any one organizational

perspective or any one theory based on the psychology of the

individual (Kuh, 1984a) .

Conceptual Framework

Understanding why a student does or does not do something to the best of their

ability is an issue concerned with student motivation and one that teachers and

educational professionals wrestle with on a day-to-day basis (Breeden, 2000; McLean,

1995; Orr, 1996). Teachers in particular are often exasperated by the apparent disinterest

many students exhibit at one time or another to the point that many rely on coercion and

reward incentives to get students to complete assignments, participate in activities and

prepare accordingly for assessments. Supporters of self-determination theory (SDT) have

argued that those teachers are only causing bigger problems in terms of motivation both

for themselves and their students (Hennessey, 2001; Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973).

Self-determination theory has guided many of the more recent investigations into student

behavioral tendencies. SDT is a general theory of motivation that evolved from early

studies in the 1970s aimed at examining the influence of extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation on individual behavior and the degree to which those different types of

motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) were able influence choices and action in subjects.

Though self-determination theory can be applied across a broad spectrum of issues and

research topics, in the last decade it has left its mark most notably in the field of social

psychology particularly with regard to education and student motivation. Developed by

Edward Deci, PhD and Richard Ryan, PhD of the University of Rochester, SDT at its

most fundamental level is based on three basic psychological needs (competence,

autonomy and relatedness) whose fulfillment or lack thereof determines the degree to

which a student will be able to achieve his/her highest potential for optimal functioning,

behavioral change and personal growth/reflection (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The theory

assumes that human beings are naturally in search of opportunities for personal growth,

expression of competence, participation in meaningful interpersonal relationships, and

autonomy in one’s choices and actions. The purpose of the theory is aimed at providing a

framework that can help explain the different types of motivation and what things can

affect that motivation including contextual and environmental influences. It also looks at

how different degrees of internalization of influences create a continuum of self-

determination that makes some individuals more intrinsically motivated (autonomous)

while others are obviously more susceptible to extrinsic forces (controlled). At its core,
the theory deals with the internalization of values that each of us assigns to the people,

beliefs, goals, and events that we experience in life and how that history of internalization

commands our dependence on internal or external motivation throughout. Understanding

why we do or don’t do certain things in the context of “‘human needs and the selfdetermination of
behavior’ is the latest, and in many respects the most ambitious,

contribution to what some have termed the rebirth of motivational research” (Hennessey,

2001, p. 293). With respect to the late revival of interest in motivational research there

are many studies that have already tested SDT in the educational context with both

innovative approaches and intriguing results.

As for the current study, SDT provided the framework that would lead to a better

understanding of how student organizational skills effect or influence the fulfillment of

the basic psychological needs proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000) as imperative to the

progress of students toward optimal functioning and ultimate self-determination. This

study suggests that students’ organizational skills have the potential to influence factors

that may contribute to the fulfillment of students’ needs for competence, autonomy and

relatedness. SDT provided the framework that would help to show how the

organizational skills of a student could influence intrinsic self-motivation.