Family Impact on Students’ Motivation[1]
Published in the
Second
International Conference
On Administrative
Sciences Proceedings
Organized by CIM
KFUPM, April 2004
ABSTRACT:
This study tries to identify the impact of some family important variable on students’ motivation and their GPA in King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.
Several studies had stressed the importance of studying students’ motivation as an approach to improve their academic performance and enhance the corporation image.
The family and society changing values and cultures have a great impact on the students’ motivation and their academic integration and performance.
This study based on a survey method for collecting data. A questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 727 KFUPM students representing the three largest colleges in the university.
The questionnaire was consisted of several items. The items are related to some students and family demographic characteristics in addition to items about students GPA and their desire to study.
The original questionnaire was translated to Arabic and from Arabic back to English by a professional translator in the university and reviewed by the researcher.
Results showed that students tend to attribute their academic success to internal factors such as hard working while they attribute their failure to external factors such as family problems.
INTRODUCTION:
Motivation is an important subject in management, organizational behavior and psychology in general. Motivation was defined by Greenberg and Baron (2003) as: “The set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behavior toward attaining some goal.” (P. 190). The same researchers maintained that motivation was a multifaceted subject. This implies that people may have several different motives operating at once (Greenberg & Brown, 2003).
Operationally, motivation refers in this study, to students' desire to study and achieve high grades as measured by their Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA).
Cumulative GPA refers to the total quality points the student had achieved
in all courses he had taken since his enrollment at the university, divided by
the total number of credit hours assigned for these courses.
Thus, family impact on students' motivation refers to any positive or negative impression or effect that Saudi families exercise on their children while studying in the university.
The grades a student earns in each course are calculated as follows:
Percentage Grade Grade’s Code GPA (Out of 4.00)
95-100 Exceptional A+ 4.00
90 – less than 95 Excellent A 3.75
85 – less than 90
80 – less than 85 Very Good B 3.00
75 – less than 80 Above average C+ 2.50
70 – less than 75 Good C 2.00
65 – less than 70 High Pass D+ 1.50
60 – less than 65 Pass D 1.00
Less than 60 Fail F 0.00
Motivation is consisted of intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions. However, the new trend in organizational behavior was to emphasize the importance of intrinsic factors or intrinsic motivation within a cultural perspective (Lyengar & Lepper, 1999, Venkatesh, 1999).
Ryan & Deci (2003), for example, defined intrinsic motivation as “the inherent tendency to seek novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (P.51). However, as the same researchers insist, maintenance and enhancement of intrinsic motivation requires supportive conditions, as it can be fairly disrupted by various unsupportive conditions.
While intrinsic motivation implies doing an activity for its inherent satisfaction, external motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome and compliance with an external regulation, control or any social agent influence (Ryan & Deci, 2003).
No doubt, that it is important to investigate the different aspects of motivation within a specific organizational culture. However, the organizational culture was not detached from the general culture (e, g., societal values, traditions, attitudes and home environment).
Accordingly, one applied aspects of this topic was university students’ motivation as influenced by family structure, functions, values and other psychological dimensions such as self-confidence. Lumsden (1994), for example, stated the role of the significant others (parents and home environment) in students’ motivation as a main factor which shapes the initial constellation of students’ attitudes they develop toward learning. He stressed that “When children are raised in a home that nurtures a sense of self-worth, competence, autonomy, and self-efficacy, they will be more apt to accept the risks inherent in learning.” (P.2). Gottfried, Fleming and Gottfried (1994) supported this trend and emphasized that their study “strongly suggest that parental motivational practices are causal influences on children’s academic intrinsic motivation and school achievement” (P.110). Accordingly, there was a need to instruct parents on motivational practices such as encouragement of persistence, effort, mastery of subject area, curiosity and exploration (Gottfried et al., 1994).
In fact, the impact of family on students’ motivation and school
achievement is an old issue that was stresses by McClleland, for example, since
1953. He emphasized the influence of the family on learning the achievement
need. Recent studies in
Ryan and Deci (2000) maintained that research had revealed that external negative impacts such as threats, deadlines, directives, pressured evaluations, and imposed goals diminish intrinsic motivation. Consequently, the same researchers have for example, reported that studies showed that autonomy-supportive parents, relative to controlling parents, have children who are more intrinsically motivated.
Therefore, it was very important to study the family impact on students’ motivation within a specific culture, which was in this study, the Saudi culture.
Several researchers such as Bank, Slavings and Biddle (1990) had called for
more research and studies in order to investigate the impact of family and
peers on students’ motivation and academic persistence. Other studies in
several countries such as
Cross-cultural studies, however, showed differences in the above variables and on how they influence the students' academic performance. Chen & Lan (1998), for example, stressed that cultural background not only influences family beliefs about the value of education, but may affect how academic expectations are communicated by parents and perceived by their children.
In a study, which examined the differences in willingness to conform to parents' expectations of academic achievement as perceived by American, Chinese-American, and Chinese high school students the researchers found that Chinese students were more willing to accept their parents' advice and cared more about fulfilling academic expectations than did American students. Students in all three groups had similar feelings of independence. The views of Chinese-American students reflected the influence of both their Chinese heritage and the American culture in which they resided. Consequently, the two researchers concluded that parents' expectations have a powerful effect on children's academic performance and that high achieving children tend to come from families which have high expectations for them, and who consequently are likely to 'set standards' and to make greater demands at an earlier age.
In addition, the two researchers had quoted Vollmer
(1986), who concluded that there is a strong correlation between parental
expectations and children's school performance: "Many empirical studies
have found positive linear relationships between expectancy and subsequent
academic achievement" (p. 15).
On the other hand, Gonzalez-Pienda; Nunez; Gonzalez-Pumariega; Alvarez; Roces and Garcia (2002) concluded that:
(a) Academic self-concept was the variable that most positively affected by parental involvement; this was relevant because students' self-concept had a powerful effect on academic achievement and
(b) The relationship between parental involvement and causal attribution coincides, to some extent, with that obtained by Hokoda and Fincham (1995).
In both studies, parents' expectations about their children's capacity were congruent with the kind of causal attributions children make about their own achievements (i.e., the higher the capacity expectations are, the greater was the students' tendency to make internal attributions about success, and fewer internal ones about failure).
However, Kim (2002) had emphasized that to study parents' involvement in education is to identify one aspect of the process by which family background makes a difference in a child's academic success. Kim had quoted Coleman (1988), who suggested that family background might be analytically separated into at least three distinct components: financial (physical) capital (family income or wealth), human capital (parent education), and social capital (relationship among actors).
With respect to children's educational achievement, Kim (2002) maintained that, there is a direct relationship between parental financial and human capital and the successful learning experience of their children. However, he stressed that while both of these factors are important determinants of children educational success, there remains a substantial proportion of variation in educational success, which was unaccounted for by these variables alone.
Kim explained this variance by what he called the “social capital” which mediates the relationship between parents' financial and human capital, on the one hand, and the development of the human capital of their children on the other.
On the same line, Iverson & Walberg (1982) had revised 18 studies of 5,831 school-aged students on a systematic research of educational, psychological, and sociological literature. Accordingly, they had concluded that students’ ability and achievement are more closely linked to the socio-psychological environment and intellectual stimulation in the home than they are to parental socio-economic status indicators such as occupation and amount of education.
In
In another pilot
study, which was based on a random stratified sampling which included final
years students in KFUPM (70 participants), I found that about 15.71% of the students
had joined the university because their families’ forced them to do so.
In other pilot studies done in KFUPM by my senior students as a part of their course work, we found that family problems are blamed by the students as the second cause for their low academic performance and/or dismissal.
This observation had led the researcher to explore this issue especially if we know that the influence of the Saudi family on its children, even when they reach university level, is relatively strong especially in social issues such as marriage, divorce, education and traveling. Thus, a more comprehensive study is needed in order to investigate the impact of the Saudi family on students’ desire to study (motivation) and on their GPA.
OBJECTIVES of the Study:
1- To investigate the Saudi family impact on students'
desire to study.
2- To investigate the Saudi family impact on students' GPA.
3- To investigate the relationship between the family impact on students' desire (to
study) and some
parents and students' demographic characteristics.
4- To prepare a data bank for more studies and research in
the area of students academic development aspect in KFUPM.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND
PROPOSAL APPROACH FOR ITS SOLUTION:
Low motivation and deficiency in academic performance might be considered as only symptoms to more complicated problems. These problems are, in fact, rooted in the family structure, functions and values.
Thus, understanding the impact
of family values and culture in general on students’ motivation would lead,
partially indeed, to improve students’ motivation and hence their performance.
Nevertheless, this did not mean
to minimize the impact of other external factors such as: Peers influence,
academic orientation programs, academic policy, administrative policy,
rewarding and punishment's methods nor to neglect the impact of the internal
factors.
However, this study will focus
on extrinsic motivational factors mainly family impact on students desire to
study.
Attribution Theory and
students’ motivation:
Attribution refers to attempts
to understand the causes of others’ behavior. Therefore, it was a highly
rational process in, which individuals try to identify the causes of others’
behavior following orderly cognitive steps. However, attribution was also
subjected to several forms of errors-tendencies that can lead people into
serious misjudgments concerning the causes of others’ behavior (Baron &
Byrne, 1997).
While counseling students in
KFUPM Guidance and
Accordingly, this implies that
some students commit, what was known as, the actor self-serving error. This
error was a biased tendency since we attribute our own behavior mainly to
situational factors when we fail and to internal factors when we succeed.
However, we tend to do the opposite when we try to explain the others’
behavior.
To investigate this bias, I
usually ask students during counseling sessions, whether the family attributed
excuses (causes) they present to me in order to justify dropping a semester for
example, are real causes or just rationalization!
In responding to this question,
most students tend to come to reality and tell the truth. Thus, they blame
firstly themselves (behavior) as the main cause for their failure.
However, this did not imply
that some students do not face real family problems and other external
problems, which hinder their abilities and motivation.
Questions of the study:
This study was a
descriptive-exploratory study, which attempts to answer the following questions:
1-
What
was the relationship between students' demographics characteristics (e.g.,
educational levels, age, regions, residence) and their GPA?
2-
Was
there any relationship between parents' demographic characteristics (e.g., education, religiosity, family status) and
their siblings (students) GPA?
3-
Was
there any relationship between the way that the students reared and their GPA?
4-
Do
students face family problems?
5-
Was
there any relationship between polygamy and students' GPA?
6-
What
types of family problems the students face and how these problems are related
to their GPA?
7-
What
was the relationship between students' family problems and their GPA?
8-
What
was the relationship between students' family problems and dropping a course or
a semester?
9-
What
are the parents' expectations about their siblings' success? And,
What was the relationship between
family expectations and students' GPA?
10-
What
are the tribes' expectations about the students' success?
11-
What
was the relationship between students' tribal expectations and their GPA?
12-
Do
Saudi families encourage their children (students) to succeed?
13-
Do
Saudi parents follow up their siblings (students) educational status in the
university?
14-
What
was the father impact on students' desire to study and its relationship with
students' GPA?
15-
What
was the mother impact on students' desire to study and its relationship with
students' GPA?
16-
What
was the family financial status impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students' GPA?
17-
What
was the traditional values impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students' GPA?
18-
What
was the modern values impact on students' desire to study and its relationship
with students' GPA?
19-
What
was the parents' expectations impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students' GPA?
20-
What
was the family conditions impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students' GPA?
21-
What
was the peers' impact on students' desire to study and its relationship with
students' GPA?
22-
What
was the labor market impact on students' desire to study and its relationship
with students' GPA?
23-
What
was the academic policy impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students' GPA?
24-
What
was the teaching method impact on students' desire to study and its
relationship with students GPA?
These questions could lead to
generating hypotheses, which could be tested in other studies.
Furthermore, related factors to
students’ motivation such as parents' impact, market and peers impact, would be
analyzed and explained by using the attribution perspective (Weiner, 1986).
Generally, students’ motivation
looked at in this study as a combination of an emotional aspect (desire) and a
cognitive aspect (ability).
Sampling:
A random stratified clustered sample was drawn from the three largest
Colleges of the university (KFUPM). These colleges are:
1-
2-
3- College of Applied Engineering (CAE).
The size of the total sample was
1114 students. This sample size may represent about 10% of the total population
of the university. The distribution of the total sample based on colleges was as follows:
Table 2: Distribution of the
students according to the three colleges:
|
Colleges |
Sample size |
% |
Total |
|
C.I.M. |
455 |
41.2 |
|
|
C.O.E. |
346 |
31.3 |
|
|
Applied |
304 |
27.5 |
|
|
|
|
100% |
1114 |
Students' demographic
characteristics:
The students' demographic
characteristics refer to the description of variable related to the questions
of this empirical study. Accordingly, characteristics such as academic status
(educational levels), age, housing and region are taken in consideration.
Data analysis and results
- Family impact on students'
academic (educational) success:
The results showed that the Saudi
family impact on students' academic success was not decisive. Accordingly,
17.76% of the students said that their families' impact (influence) on their
success was "very high", while 32.6% said that this influence was
"high". However, 5.3% said that this impact was "very low"
and 12.6% said that this impact was "low".
Interestingly, 32.6% said that this
impact was "normal". I must mention that this item measures students'
belief (attitude) towards this issue (family impact). The next item deals also with students'
belief about the Saudi family encouragement to students' as a factor in their
educational success.
- Family encouragement to
students: The majority of the students said that their
families' encouragement to succeed in their education was either very high
(17.5%) or high (33.1%). However, 10.9% said that the family encouragement was
"low" and 3.9% said that it was "very low". On the other
hand, 34.5% said that their families' encouragement was just "normal".
In fact, students' study and
success both influenced by several other factors besides family impact. The
following item (question) addresses some of these other factors
- Do you believe that your
actual academic status was attributed to:
1)
Family encouragement.
2)
Family frustration.
3)
Family problems.
4)
Self-desire to succeed regardless of family impact.
5)
Family pressure to succeed.
6)
Other factors.
Among the above stated factors,
number 4 (Self-desire to succeed) was the most selected factor 44.0% followed
by factor number 1 (Family encouragement) (38%). These two factors followed by
factor number 5 (Family pressure to succeed) with a relatively low percentage
6.9%. However, family problems' impact was no higher than 3.9% besides family
frustration 2.5%.
These results indicate that the
students attribute their success mainly to self-desire (internal factor) and
than to their families encouragement and pressure (external factors).
However, the family impact was
positive since 38% of the respondents attributed their success to their family
encouragement.
- Do parents follow up their
children's education at the university level?
This question aimed to find out if
the students' parents or at least one of them follows up their children's
education in the university
Interestingly, the majority (54%)
of the respondents responded to this question positively while (46%) responded
negatively.
I should note that some parents do
not follow up their children education at the university level because of their
low level of literacy. Another reason, might be attributed to some parents'
belief that students at the university level are mature enough to be
independent and responsible for their education.
- Family impact on dropping a
semester: Did some students have to drop a whole
semester because of their family conditions (circumstances)?
The majority of the respondents
said no. However, 10.9% said yes. This result indicates that the family impact
on students' failure (dropping a whole semester) was around 11%.
The next item, was a question to
the students who had dropped a semester because of their families' problems,
whether they have dropped it once, twice or more than twice?
The results showed the distribution
of the students, who dropped a semester, as follows:
1-
79.9% dropped one semester.
2-
14.9% dropped two semesters and,
3-
5.2% dropped more than two semesters.
-Family impact on students'
desire to study:
In addition to the previous items,
the students asked to rate several factors which possibly influence their
motivation (desire to study) according to the following scale:
Positive
= 1, No impact =
2, Negative = 3
These factors as stated in the
questionnaire are:
- The fathers' impact:
The majority of the students
(77.8%) said that their fathers' impact on their desire to study was positive
and 3.8% only said that their fathers' impact was negative. Yet, 18.4% said
that their fathers did not have any impact on their desire to study.
- The mothers' impact:
The majority of
the students (81.3%) said that their mothers' impact on their desire to study
was positive and 1.3% only said that their mothers' impact was negative while
17.4% said that their mothers did not have any impact on their desire to study.
Interestingly, the
mother's positive impact on students' desire to study was higher than their
father's positive impact (81.3% VS 77.8%). This result may lead us to assume
(hypothesize) that the mother's positive impact on students' motivation was
higher than their fathers' positive impact in the Saudi family.
- The family financial situation
impact:
The majority of
the respondents said that the impact of their family financial situation was
positive while 8.7% said that this factor did not have any impact. In fact, I
had met some students during counseling sessions in the
- The family traditional values
impact:
Slightly more than half of the
respondents (50.7%) reported that their family traditional values had a
positive impact on their desire to study while 45.8% reported that these values
did not have any impact. Only 3.4% reported that these values had a negative
impact on their desire to study.
- The family modern values
impact:
Unlike family traditional
values impact, family modern values had a more positive impact on the
respondents' desire to study. Accordingly, 54.9% of the respondents reported
that their families' modern values had a positive impact and only 2.4% reported
a negative impact for these values.
Nevertheless,
42.7% reported that their families' modern values did not have any impact on
their desire to study. However, one may argue to what extent the students' had
understood the differences between traditional and modern family values?
The trend was in
general more positive towards modern values than towards traditional values.
However, this issue needs more clarification and further investigation.
- The family expectations
impact:
Again, it was
interesting to notice that the family expectations' impact on students' desire
to study was highly positive 82.2% while only 4% reported that this factor had
a negative impact on their desire to study. The percentage of the students who
believe that this factor did not have any impact (neutral) on their desire to
study was 13.8%.
- The emotional
stability impact:
Most of the
respondents (69.7%) reported that emotional stability had a positive impact on
their desire to study while 12.3% reported that this factor had a negative
impact. On the other hand, 18% reported that this factor did not have any
impact on their desire to study. One may
argue to what extent the students had understood this item, too.
- The peers' Impact:
The peers' impact
on students desire to study was according to the majority of the respondents
(54.7%) positive. However, some peers' impact was negative while 37.8% said
that their peers did not have any impact on their desire to study. Again, some
students had revealed during counseling sessions, hat their peers had influenced
them negatively.
- The market impact:
The majority of
the respondents (59.7%) affirmed that the market impact on their desire to
study was positive while 11.9% said that the market impact was negative.
However, 21.4% believed that the market did not have any impact on their desire
to study.
- The
university academic policy impact:
There was a
split opinion about the academic impact on students' desire to study.
Therefore, 39.5% of the respondents reported that the university academic
system impact on their desire to study was negative while 35.8% mentioned that
this system had a positive impact. However, 24.7% mentioned that this system
did not have any impact.
- The teaching
methods impact:
Apparently,
most of the students 40.4% perceive that the teaching methods have a negative
impact on students' desire to study while 31.7% mentioned that teaching methods
had a positive impact. Still, 27.9% reported that this factor did not have any
impact.
It was
noted, that the above results showed that both the university academic policy
and the teaching methods, are perceived and evaluated negatively by KFUPM's
students. This conclusion may draw the university policy makers for introducing
positive changes on these two important issues.
- The family conditions' impact
on students' achievement:
The students'
school achievement in this study, was defined and measured by their GPA. The
majority of the respondents 48.6% reported that their "families'
conditions" have a positive impact on their school achievement while 15.2%
reported that their families' conditions" have a negative impact.
Nevertheless,
35.7% said that their "families' conditions" did not have any impact
on their school achievement. This result, however, was partially explained by
the following facts:
(1) The majority of the students in KFUPM are
residents in the university campus.
(2) Some parents have low educational level.
(3) Students' GPA distribution.
The majority of
the students (63.9%) had a GPA that ranges between 2 and 2.99.
The University
policy regarding GPA was that the students must maintain a GPA of 2 and above.
- What is the relationship
between the students’ demographic characteristics
(e.g., academic status or levels, age,
regions, housing) and their GPA?
To study the relationship
between students GPA and certain students' characteristics, one-tailed Spearman
Correlation was applied. In addition, one-way analysis of variance was
conducted in order to study the significance of variance among different
variables. The results of the analysis are reported bellow:
1- GPA and Colleges: Significant correlation between GPA and colleges was
found (r = .086, P = .003). The analysis of variance showed a
significant difference among the colleges. The significance of correlation in
this case and other coming cases might be attributed to the sample large size.
Scheffe test showed that GPA in
the
2- GPA and academic status
(levels):
There was no relationship
between students' GPA and their academic status. However, one-way analysis of
variance showed that the difference between the four academic levels (First
year, second, third and fourth was significant.
3- GPA and age:
The students' age distribution was
according to four categories as mentioned above. There was a negative
significant relationship between GPA and the students' categories of age (r =
-.198, P=.000). The analysis of variance showed also a significant difference:
4- GPA and housing (residence):
The students who live in the
university campus score in their GPA higher than the students who live outside
the campus (r = .073, P= .01). Chi-square analysis showed a significant
difference in the GPA's of the students who leave in and outside the campus.
5- GPA and regions:
There was no significant correlation between the students' regions and their GPA. In Addition, there was no significant correlation between the students' place of residency (city, rural areas and Bedouin) and their GPA. However, one-way analysis of variance showed significant differences in the students GPA according to their regions.
However, Scheffe test did not showed significant differences among the regions except between region one (Eastern region) and region 2 (Western region). This difference might be attributed to the sample large size of the Eastern region.
6- GPA and
family status:
There was no significant
correlation between students' family status and their GPA. The analysis of
variance showed no difference among students' GPA based on their family status,
too. The students' GPA did not differ regardless whether the students are
married or not and live alone or with their families.
7- GPA and family richness: There was no significant relationship between
family richness and students GPA in KFUPM. The analysis of variance did not
show any students' GPA difference based on family richness.
8- GPA and family religiosity: There was no significant relationship between
family religiosity and students' GPA. The analysis of variance did not showed
any significant difference among students GPA based on their family
religiosity.
9- GPA and students' religiosity: There was a significant positive correlation between students'
religiosity and their GPA at .05.
However, the analysis of variance
did not showed any significant difference on students GPA based on their
religiosity.
10- GPA and students' rearing: this items tries to find out if there any
relationship between students GPA and the way in which they had brought up: by
both parents, mother only, father only, grand parents, other relatives and
other people.
There was no relationship between
the way the students brought up and their GPA.
11- GPA and father educational
status (level):
There was a significant positive
correlation between fathers' status of education and the students GPA.
The
analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the different
categories of fathers' educational status (level) as bellow.
Interestingly, Scheffe test showed
that the only difference between students GPA based on their fathers
educational status was between category 5 (university level) and category 4
(high school level). In all other categories, there are no significant
differences.
12- GPA and mothers' education
status (level): There was no
significant correlation between mothers' educational status and students' GPA.
The analysis of variance did not show any significant variance on this issue.
This result might raise a question about the role of mothers and their impact
on their children high education.
13- GPA and parent family
status: There was no
significant correlation between parents family status (parents live together,
divorced, one of them was dead and both parents are dead) and the students'
GPA.
However, the analysis of variance
showed a significant variation among parents' family status categories and
students GPA.
14- GPA and polygamy: There was no significant relationship
between polygamy and students' GPA. However, Chi-square showed significant
difference on the students' GPA based on their fathers' polygamy.
15- GPA and protection: This item tries to find out if there was any
relationship between students' GPA and protection versus maltreatment during
their childhood. The students asked to respond according to the following scale:
1 = extreme protection. 2 = not extreme
protection. 3 = normal treatment
4 = not severe maltreatment 5 = severe maltreatment.
(See item number 19 in the
questionnaire).
There was no significant
correlation between the way the students had been treated during their
childhood and their GPA. The analysis of variance did not show any significant
difference, too.
16- GPA and family problems: The students asked to respond whether they
are actually suffering from family problem or not (item number 20 in the
questionnaire). There was a significant correlation between students' GPA and
having (suffering) a family problem.
This result would lead to formulate
a hypothesis about the existence of a "negative relationship between students'
GPA and family problems". The analysis of variance showed a significant
difference on students' GPA based on having family problems or not.
17- GPA and other family
problems: This item (number
21 in the questionnaire) investigates the family problems that a student might
face while in the university. The list of these problems included:
1- Parents divorce.
2- A parent sickness.
3- A parent death.
4- Both parents death.
5- A relative sickness.
6- A relative death.
7- A big dispute between parents.
8- A big dispute among family
members.
9- A student dispute with a parent
or with both parents.
10- Bearing life cost.
The analysis of variance did not
showed any significant difference on the students' GPA based on the stated
problems.
18- GPA and parents'
expectations: Was there any relationship between students'
GPA and their parents' expectations?
To answer this question, the
students asked to respond according to a five-point scale whether their
parents' expectations are high and low. The results showed a significant
positive correlation between students' GPA and their parents expectations (r =
.27, P = .01).
The analysis of variance showed
significant differences between students' GPA and their parents' expectations.
20- Tribe (large family) expectations
and students academic success: Since
we assumed that the students live in a collectivist society, we asked whether
there was any relationship between the tribe (large family) expectations and
the students' academic success?
There was a significant positive
correlation between the tribe's expectations and the students' academic success
(r = .17, P = .01).
The analysis of variance showed
significant differences among students' academic success (means) based on
tribe's expectations.
22- Family impact on students'
academic success: The
students asked if they think that the impact of the Saudi family on the
students' academic success was very high, high, normal, low, or very low.
First, there was no significant
correlation between students' academic success and the degree of the family
impact.
The analysis of variance did not
show any significant difference between the different degrees of the family
impact and the students' academic success according to the students' belief.
Interestingly, one might note that
"family problems", as indicated above in item number 16, have a
negative impact on students' GPA, but the impact of the Saudi family on
students' academic success in the university (KFUPM) was insignificant.
Consequently, one may argue that
the actor-observer error plays a significant effect in this result.
23- Family encouragement and
students' academic success: The students asked to respond, according to
their belief, whether the Saudi family encouragement to the students to succeed
in their studies was very high, high, average, low or very low.
The results showed insignificant
correlation between family encouragement and the students' success in their
study.
24- Academic status and other
factors: The students asked
to indicate the determinant factor among the bellow stated factors (item number
26 in the questionnaire) for their actual academic status:
1- Family encouragement.
2- Frustration caused by the
family.
3- Family problems.
4- Self-desire to succeed
regardless of the family impact.
5- Family pressure to succeed.
6- Other variables.
The analysis of variance showed
significant differences on the students' responses to these factors.
Scheffe test showed how these
factors are interrelated. Interestingly, the majority of the students had attributed
their actual academic status firstly to the factor number four (self-desire to
succeed regardless of the family impact) and then to the factor number 1
(family encouragement). In fact, this was the attitude of the majority of the
students in the university.
Consequently, the following
observations were derived from the Scheffe test results:
1-
Family encouragement was stronger than frustration caused by the
family.
2-
Family encouragement was stronger than family problems.
3-
Family encouragement was stronger than family pressure for success.
4-
Self-desire to succeed was stronger than frustration caused by the
family.
5-
Self-desire to succeed was stronger than family problems.
6-
Self-desire to succeed was stronger than family pressure for success.
25- Parents' follow up: There was a split in the students' response
to this question. However, was there any relationship between students' GPA and
their parents' follow up to their education?
The results showed insignificant
correlation between the two variables.
However, Chi-square showed that
there was a significant difference in the GPA of the students based on their
parents follow up to their academic status in the university.
26- GPA and dropping semesters
because of family problems (conditions): The students’ majority
did not drop any semester. However, the students who dropped at least one
semester represented about 11%.
There was a significant negative
correlation between dropping a semester "because of family problems"
and students' GPA (r = -.232, P = .01).
The analysis of variance showed a
significant difference between the means of the students who dropped one
semester and the students who did not drop a semester.
Chi-square analysis showed a
significant difference in the students' GPA based on dropping a semester
because of family problems or not (P = .01).
27- GPA and the number of
dropped semesters: There was
a significant negative correlation between the students' GPAs and the number of
the dropped semesters by the students.
The analysis of variance showed
differences in the GPA means based on the number of the semesters dropped (1,
2, 3 semesters).
Scheffe test showed that group 1
which dropped only one semester performs better than other groups especially
better than the second group, which dropped 2 semesters. However, there was no
significant difference between the mean of group number 2 and the mean of group
number 3 because the size of the group three was less than 20 students. It was
very seldom to allow a student readmission in KFUPM if he dropped more than two
semesters without any serious excuse.
Parents and other factors' impact on students' desire to study and their
GPA:
- The fathers' impact on
students' desire to study and GPA: This item and the following items deal with the students' belief about
the impact of their family, family members and other factors on their desire to
study (items from number 30 to 42 in the questionnaire).
The students asked to rate the
impact according to a three-point scale:
Positive impact = 1 No impact = 2 Negative impact = 3
The results showed a significant
positive correlation between students' GPA and their fathers' positive impact
on their desire to study (r = .090, P = .02).
The analysis of variance showed
significant differences among the three categories of the fathers' impact on
the students' desire to study and their GPA.
Scheffe test showed that the first
group (students with fathers' positive impact) got higher GPA than the other
two groups (no impact and negative impact).
- The mothers' impact on
students' desire to study and GPA: Unlike the relationship between fathers' positive impact and students'
GPA and their desire to study, there was insignificant correlation between
mothers' impact on students' desire to study and their GPA. This implies that
the mothers' impact on their children academic status in the university neutral
even the majority of the students stated that their mothers’ impact on their
desire to study is positive.
- The family conditions' impact
on students' GPA :
Do family conditions have an impact
on students' GPA?
The results showed a significant
positive correlation between family conditions and students' GPA (r = .16, P =
.01).
The analysis of a variance showed
significant differences among the students' GPA based on the type of family
conditions impact (positive, no impact, negative). This result supported by
Scheffe analysis. Category one represented students who subjected to family
positive impact had higher GPA than students who had been subjected to negative
family conditions' impact (number 3) or no impact (number2).
- The family expectations' impact on students' desire to study and GPA: There was a significant positive correlation between family expectations impact and students GPA (r = .098, P = .01). This result supports the previous finding in this issue.
The analysis of variance showed significant differences among the students subjected to positive family expectation impact and students subjected to negative family expectations' impact or no impact. Scheffe's test supported this result and showed the direction of the impact.
- The family financial impact on
students' desire to study and GPA: There was a positive significant correlation between family financial
impact and students' desire to study. The impact, thus, was positive (r
= .055, P = .047). However, the difference among groups as the analysis of
variance showed was not significant but Scheffe tests showed significant
differences among the different categories (1, 2, 3).
- The emotional stability impact on students' desire to study and GPA: There was a significant positive correlation between students' emotional stability and their GPA (r = .155, P= .01).
The analysis of variance showed significant differences among the three categories of the impact (positive, no impact and negative impact).
Several students had to drop the whole semester or at least some courses because of experiencing emotional problems such as failed love affairs, failed engagements, disputing with parents or relatives. These observations collected from the Guidance and Counseling Center of KFUPM.
- The family traditional values'
impact on students' desire to study and GPA: There was no significant correlation between family traditional values
impact and students' GPA. The analysis
of variance did not show any significant difference, too.
- The family modern values'
impact on students' desire to study and GPA: There was no significant correlation between family modern values and
students' GPA.
Both traditional and modern values'
concepts are undefined in this study. The understanding of these two concepts
was up to the students' interpretations.
- The peer's impact on students'
desire to study and GPA: There
was no significant correlation between peer's impact and students' GPA. The
analysis of variance did not show any significant differences among the means
of the different categories.
- The labor market impact on
students' desire to study and GPA: There was no significant correlation between students' GPA and market
impact on students' desire to study.
- The university academic policy
impact on students' desire to study and GPA: There was a significant positive correlation between the university
academic policy and the students' desire to study (r = .185, P = .01).
The analysis of variance and
Scheffe test supported this result.
- The teaching methods' impact
on students' desire to study and GPA: There was a significant positive correlation between teaching methods'
(followed by instructors) impact and students' GPA in KFUPM (r = .090, P =
.05).
The analysis of variance showed
significant differences among the students' GPA based on the teaching methods
impact on their desire to study.
Discussion
The results of this study showed
that several factors have a strong positive impact on KFUPM students' desire to
study. These factors are listed and discussed below:
1- The father impact: The father impact
on the students' desire to study and on their GPA was very clear. Most of the
fathers in the Saudi society care about their children education at all levels
and they do interfere in their children education. This impact was partially,
attributed to the fact that most of the fathers of KFUPM students have high
levels of education relatively. Furthermore, the parents especially the fathers,
in the Arab culture, have a great impact on their children's, regardless of
their age, decision making.
2- The family financial status
impact: When the students'
family financial status was high, the students do not experience any pressure
to help their families financially. Therefore, they dedicate more time for
studying. It was worthwhile to note that the father was in the Arab family
usually the breed winner. Therefore, he was the finance provider.
3- The family expectations
impact: The family high
expectations exercise a desirable level of stress, which pressures (motivates)
students to study and to pay more attention to their education and future. This
result was supported by other empirical studies, which have found, as
indicated in the review of literature, positive linear relationships between
expectancy and subsequent academic achievement
4- The family conditions impact: This item was a very general concept, which
might include any negative aspect or any family related problem regardless of
its nature. The family context and impact are in the Arab culture very
important for the students' desire to study and succeed. If the family context
was not favorable, the student was usually disturbed. This was a negative
factor, which may lead to the students' failure in their study as noticed in
several cases, which consulted the University Guidance and Counseling Center
(GCC).
5- The emotional stability
impact: The students'
emotional stability was a very important factor, which motivates them to study.
Some students who had to drop and counseled in GCC found to suffer from
emotional disturbances.
The common observed
emotional disturbances among the students, which related to depression because
of love failure, lost of a parent, a relative, a friend and failure to meet
parents' high expectations.
6- KFUPM academic policy impact: While
counseling students in GCC, I had noticed that some students do complain about
the university academic policies. Therefore, I wanted to find out if this
factor had any significant impact on students' desire to study. In fact, the
impact was significant.
7- The teaching methods impact: This was another factor, which was unrelated
to family but it influences students' motivation. Teaching methods influence
students' attention, comprehension and achievement. Therefore, it had a strong
impact on students' desire to study.
However, the factors, which did not
have any significant impact on students' desire to study are:
1- The mothers: The mother in the Saudi culture did not have
a significant impact on the students' desire to study because of the mothers'
low educational level. The majority of the students' mothers in the sample have
less than college educational level. Therefore, they are unable to influence
their children education significantly.
2- The peers: while I noticed during counseling sessions
that some students complain about their peers' negative impact, the results of
this study did not showed any significant peers' impact on the students' desire
to study. Thus, peers' impact was not a major issue in students' motivation.
However, this factor's impact should not be ignored during counseling sessions
at the individual level.
3- The family traditional
values: The family
traditional values did not have any significant impact on the students' desire
to study. This result, might be attributed to, the ambiguity of this concept
because no operational definition is presented.
4- The family modern values: The same stated "rationalization"
applies for the findings related to modern values' impact.
5- The labor market: The labor market insignificant impact might
be attributed to the fact of less competition that KFUPM students' face in the
market. They were given priority in recruitment and selection because of their
abilities and skills as compared with other universities' graduates in the
country.
Regardless of the importance of these results, they cannot generalized to all Saudi students nor to the Saudi family at large.
Conclusion
This study showed that the family
may have a positive and/or a negative impact on students' motivation (desire to
study). However, the students tend to attribute their success, firstly, to
their self-desire (internal factors) then to their family support and
encouragement.
The family financial support,
encouragement and following up have positive impact on students' performance as
measured by their GPA. Nevertheless, the Saudi fathers' impact was more evident
than the Saudi mothers' impact because the former have higher education than
the latter. In addition, the Saudi fathers tend to interfere in their children
education more than the Saudi mothers do as a cultural pattern and as this
study showed.
This study showed that both parents
and tribes' high expectations had a positive impact on students' GPA. These
findings demonstrate that the Saudi students' education is still influenced by
their small, extended families and tribes (Aiylah, Osrah and Kabilah).
Interestingly, the study showed
that the university policy and the teaching methods had significant negative impact on the students'
desire to study.
Consequently, the students'
motivation (desire) was in reality influenced by internal and external factors.
These factors are mainly: self-desire, parents' impact, tribe impact,
university academic policy and teaching methods.
However, the students tend,
generally, to attribute their success to internal factors and their failure to
external factors.
References:
1. Bank, B., Slavings, R. and Biddle, B. (1990). Effects of Peer, Faculty and parental Influences on Students’ Persistence, Sociology of Education. 63, pp 208-225.
2. Baron, A. R. & Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology, 8th Ed., Allyn and Bacon. Boston.
3. Chen, H.& Lan. W. (1998). Adolescents' Perceptions of Their Parents' Academic Expectations: Comparison of American, Chinese-American, and Chinese High School Students. Adolescence, v33, i130, p.385.
4. Greenberg, J. & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in Organizations, 8th edition, Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
5. Gottfried, E. A.; Fleming, S. J.; Gottfried, W. A. (1994). Role of Parental Motivational Practices in Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation and Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 86, no1, 104-113.
6. Henderson, A. (1988). Parents are School's Best Friends. Phi Delta Kappan,
7. Iverson, B. K. & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Home Environment and School Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal of Experiential Education, 50, p.144-151.
8. Innis, C., Hartley, R., Polesel, J. & Teese, R. (2000). Non-completion in Vocational Education and Training and Higher Education. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.
9. Julio, A. G.; Jose. Carlos, N.; Soledad, G. P.; Luis, A.; Cristina, R.; Marta, G. (2002). A structural Equation Model of Parental Involvement, Motivational and Aptitudinal Characteristics, and Academic Achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 70 i3 p257(31).
10. Kim, E. (2002). The Relationship between Parental Involvement and Children's Educational Achievement in the Korean Immigrant Family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 33 i4 p529 (15).
11. Kritem, A. A. R.; Abou Rakba; Al-Aissawi, I. F.(1981). Saudi family: Role and changes and their impact on decision making (Arabic text), King Abdul Aziz University, College of Economics, Research Center.
12. Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR.
13. Lyengar, S. S. & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the Value of
Choice- A
Cultural–Perspective on Intrinsic
Motivation, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, vol. 76,
Wass3, pp 349-366.
14. Pintrich, P., Donald, B., & Weinstein C. (1994). Student
Motivation,
Cognition, and learning. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
16. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of Favorable User Perceptions-Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation. MWAS Quarterly, vol. 23, Issue 2, pp 239-260.
17. Weiner, B., (1986). An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and
Emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
18. Vollmer, F. (1986). The Relationship between Expectancy and Academic Achievement – How can it be explained? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 64-74.