RESOURCES AS INDICATORS OF STUDY ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE1
Optimism, Academic Self-efficacy and Peer Social Support as Indicators of Study Engagement and Academic Performance in First-year University Students
Irene Snijder
Student number: 2509205
Supervisor: Dr. F. RutgerKappe
Second assessor: Ph.D. Meta Aurelia
Master thesis Work and Organizational Psychology
June 6, 2017
VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam
Abstract
Whereas study is comparable to work and students are the employees from the future, it is crucial to investigate the predictors and consequences of study engagement among students. Therefore, this present study tried to answer the research question if study engagement mediates the relationship betweenoptimism, academic self-efficacy and social support, and dependent variables academic performance and leave intention. The present cross-sectional study examined this relationship among 140 first-year University students using online- and hardcopy questionnaires. A mediating role for study engagement was found in the relationship between academic self-efficacy and leave intention among Dutch first-year University students. Future research should extend this study by including more participants and various other predictors that are associated with study engagement and academic performance.
Optimism, Self-efficacy and Social Support as Indicators of Study Engagement and Academic Performance in First-year University Students
Several studies investigated the wellbeing of students and found that a considerable amount of
Universitystudents experience high levels of stress (Cotton, Dollard, & Jonge, 2002; Jacobs & Dodd, 2003;Stoeber, Childs, Hayward, & Feast, 2011). Students experience high levels of stress due to academic overload,theburden to succeed, and the strong desire to obtain high grades to differentiate from other students(Tosevski, Milovancevic, & Gajic, 2010). In addition, financial pressures contribute to the stress levels ofUniversity students as well(El Ansari & Stock, 2010; Friedman, 2014). More specifically, first-yearUniversity students experience a lot of changes and challenges when moving to another city. As they haveto deal with financial concerns and pressures, and having to adapt to University, they are easily affectedby stress (El Ansari & Stock, 2010; Friedman, 2014; Kotzé & Niemann, 2013; Yorke, 2006).
Higherstress levels negatively affect the educational performances of University students (Schaufeli, Martínez,Marques, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Stewart, Lam, Betson, Wong, & Wong, 1999).Eventually, higherlevels of stress in students are associated with higher dropout rates (Cotton et al., 2002;
Kuh, Cruce,Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008).
As shown within the organizational psychology literature,high levels of stress increase the risk of exhaustion and even of burnout (Bakker et al., 2005; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Maslach & Leiter, 2001). Subsequently, the contrary of burnout is engagement (Maslach & Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli, Taris, Le Blanc, Peeters, Bakker, & De Jonge, 2001).Work engagement is described as experiencing a state of mind that is positive and fulfilling, and is a measure for wellbeing among employees (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Higher levels of engagement are indicators of lower turnover intentions and better performance in organizational context (Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Even though students are not employed at the University, the structured activities like attending class and preparing assignments are comparable with ‘work’, since they are aimed towards a specific goal (Salanova et al., 2010). When students are involved and committed to their studies, they experience engagement (Salanova et al., 2010; SchaufeliSalanova, 2007; Stoeber et al., 2011). Hence, study engagement, comparable to work engagement, can be described by vigorous feelings, dedication to one’s studies and the absorption in study-related tasks (Schaufeli, Martínez, et al., 2002).As a consequence of vigor, dedication and absorption, higher levels of engagement in students are associated with better performances (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003; Salanova et al., 2010).
Since engagement is positively related to performance, and negatively related to leave intention, among both employees as well as students (Salanova, Schaufeli, Martínez, & Bresó, 2010; Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Van Marcke, 2008), indicators of study engagement, academic performance and leave intention are interesting and important to universities (Friedman, 2014).In organizational context, the ‘drivers’ of work engagement and performance, are defined as job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Bakker, Demerouti, de Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003; Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). Autonomy, feedback, social support, job control and task significance are examples of job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Moreover, personal resources such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, hope and optimism, are also contributing to work engagement and performance (Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). In study context as well, personal- and study resources are meaningful in predicting study engagement, academic performance and are important for wellbeing (KotzéNiemann, 2013; Ouweneel et al., 2011; Ouweneel et al., 2013).
This present study investigates the influence of study engagement on academic performance and leave intentionamong Dutch first-year University students. Also, the effects of optimism, academic self-efficacy and peer social support, treated as ‘student resources’, on study engagement are investigated. Eventually, the research question concerning the mediating role of study engagement in de relationship between student resources and academic performance and leave intention,is examined. Resources, engagement and performance among students are already investigated(Bresó, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2011; Ouweneel et al., 2011; Ouweneel, Schaufeli, & Le Blanc, 2013; Siu et al., 2014; Kuh et al., 2008). However, the relationship between student resources, and academic performance and leave intention as dependent variables, mediated by study engagement, has not been studied so far.Investigating these relationships provides more knowledge on how to improve study success and prevent dropout among University students. The results of this study can show practical relevanceby creating training programs in which student resources are used to improve students’ engagement and performance.
As noted previously, work engagement is a positive and fulfilling state of mind, positively linked to organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti & Bakker, 2007; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Also, higher levels of work engagement are associated with lower levels of turnover intention (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Work engagement is identified by vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor is explained by having “high levels of energy and mental resilience while working” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 295), dedication is the way one is strongly involved in their task, and absorption is a state in which someone is concentrated to a certain extent in one’s work, that time passes by quickly (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002). According to Bakker and Schaufeli (2008) the interest of employers in employees with high levels of work engagement rises. Engaged employees are passionate about their work and experience high levels of energy (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002). Moreover, they are often more creative, more productive and open for special efforts (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). As a result of positive emotions, better health, and providing their engagement towards others, engaged employees tend to perform better (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Bakker et al. (2004) found, in a study amongst 146 employees of different companies, that the ratings of colleagues about each other’s performances are higher among engaged employees. A study among 190 Dutch employees from different organizations, in which performance was measured using peer-ratings (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2006), confirmed the positive relation between engagement and performance.
Afterthe association between engagement and performance is confirmed (Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker et al., 2006; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), the antecedents of work engagement are evaluated. To predict the level of engagement and performance, it is necessary to investigate the factors that contribute to engagement. According to various studies,job resources and job demands operate as the fundamental predictors of work engagement (i.a. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; SchaufeliSalanova, 2007). The association between job resources, job demands and work engagement is an element of the Job Demands-Resources model of work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). See Figure 1 for an overview of this model. Both engagement as burnout are included in the model in Figure 1, whereas in the original Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model only burnout was included (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2000; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, et al., 2001).Initially, the field of psychology used to focus merely on mental illness rather than wellbeing. Positive psychology and positive organizational behavior alternated this by focusing on positive states, traits and behaviors of employees in organizations (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Therefore, work engagement is included in this model.
Figure 1. Expanded Job Demands-Resources model according to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004). Strain equals burnout, and motivation equals engagement. Figure is from the article of Bakker and Demerouti (2006, p. 313).
According to the job demands-resources model, job demands are the “aspects of the job that are physical, psychological, social, or organizational that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker et al., 2003, p. 344). Examples of job demands are a high workload, a physical environment that is not pleasant, unfavorable working hours and emotional demands. Job demands are the initiators of thehealth impairment process. The health impairment process addresses job strain and stress, due to job demands, which are negatively associated with organizational outcomes (Figure 1). Performance, organizational commitment, absenteeism, and turnover are examples of organizational outcomes (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003;Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007;Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romà, & Bakker, 2002). For example, strain is positively associated with exhaustion and health problems (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Job resources on the other hand, “refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (1) functional in achieving work goals; (2) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (3) stimulate personal growth and development” (Bakker et al., 2003, p. 344; Bakker et al., 2004). Autonomy, feedback, social support, job control and task significance are examples of job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The motivational process assumes the potential of job resources to positively influence work engagement and organizational outcomes. Job resources encourage learning and development, which reinforces intrinsic motivation in employees. Moreover, job resources serves as an extrinsic motivator, by encouraging achieving work goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In addition to job resources, personal resources are involved in predicting engagement and organizational outcomes (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli, 2007). Personal resources are parts of the self, which are related to resiliency and the ability to control the environment successfully, and are positively related to work engagement. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience are examples of personal resources (Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).
Previous studies show that job- and personal resources serve as important specific contributions to engagement, performance and wellbeing (Barbier, Hansez, Chmiel, & Demerouti, 2013; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). For example, personal resource optimism proves to be beneficial to wellbeing and engagement(Alarcon, Bowling, & Khazon, 2013; Avey et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Likewise, high levels of energy and a high amount of self-efficacy are indicators of engaged employees (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002). Furthermore, social support proves to be a strong predictor of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Haines, Hurlbert & Zimmer, 1991). Encouraging social support tend to raise beneficial influence on mental health. High levels of support, from supervisor, non-work or co-worker, are negatively associated with high strain and positively associated with higher levels of work performance (Sargent & Terry, 2000).
The above reported literature is based on organizational context. Furthermore, associations between resources, study engagement and performance are also found in study context. From a psychological point of view, students are involved in structured activities that are aimed towards a specific goal. Completing an assignment in order to graduate, or attending class to pass exams are examples of such activities. Considering that these activities are comparable to ‘work’, students are similar to employees (Salanova et al., 2010; SchaufeliSalanova, 2007; Stoeber et al., 2011).Concerning that students “devote their physical and psychological energy to the academic experience” (Astin, 1984, p. 518),students experience study engagement, similar to work engagement among employees(Salanova et al., 2010). Engagement in students is described as “feeling vigorous, being dedicated to one’s studies, and being absorbed in study-related tasks” (Ouweneel et al., 2011, p. 142; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martínez, et al., 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002).Study engagement is associated with lower levels of perceived stress (Gan, Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2007; Stoeber et al., 2011).Because of the challenges students face, motivation due to positivity and study engagement lead to higher-level performances (Kuh et al., 2008; Siu et al., 2014; Tosevski et al., 2010). In other words, the more engaged students are, the better they perform (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003). All the three aspects of engagement; vigor, dedication and absorption, show a positive relationship with academic performance (Schaufeli, Martínez, et al., 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002). Eventually, academic performance serves as an indicator of students’ future success (Chen, 2005).
Comparable to job resources in organizational context, are study resources in study context. Personal- and study resources are meaningful in predicting study engagement and are important for wellbeing (KotzéNiemann, 2013; Ouweneel et al., 2011; Ouweneel, Schaufeli, & Le Blanc, 2013). In a study among 391 Dutch University students, personal resources as self-efficacy and optimism are found to be predictors of study engagement (Ouweneel et al., 2011). In line with research of Ouweneel et al. (2011), self-efficacy and optimism show positive associations with study engagementamong 103 Hong Kong University students (Siu, Bakker, & Jiang, 2014). Optimism is explained as the way in which someone believes that something good will happen to them (Scheier & Carver, 1985). According to Scheier and Carver (1992), optimists have the ability to cope with difficult and stressful events in which they experience less distress and a positive impact on their wellbeing. Optimism also shows to contribute to higher levels of performance in a study among 1032 (r = .16, p < .01) and 232 (r = .23, p < .01) employees in the United States (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). This contribution occurs, because high levels of optimism can change the interpretation of an undesirable situation, and turn it into an opportunity for learning and development (Youssef & Luthans, 2007).Personal resource self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Self-efficacy has shown to positively influence engagement and wellbeing, because high levels of self-efficacy generate more willingness to spend energy and effort on task- or assignment completing (Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2007; NiemivirtaTapola, 2007; Ouweneel et al., 2011). Also, self-efficacy causes more task involvement and absorption (Ouweneel et al., 2011).Chemers, Hu and Garcia (2001) showed, in a study among first-year University students from the United States, a positive relation between academic self-efficacy and performance(r = .34, p < .001). They explain this relationship by the increasing use of cognitive activities and strategies that are very specific, and the positive impact that efficacy has on coping abilities. In line with research of Chemers et al. (2001), a study of Elias and Loomis (2002) among 138 University students in the United States, found that academic self-efficacy is a significant predictor of academic grades (r = .52, p < .01). Furthermore, in a research investigating the psychosocial and study skill factors and college outcomes, self-efficacy has been found to be one of the strongest predictors (r = .50) of academic performance(Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, & Langley, 2004). A study of Bresó, Schaufeli and Salanova (2011), consisting a self-efficacy intervention among students, presented a positive relationship between self-efficacy, study engagement and performance (Llorens et al., 2007; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005).Besides personal resources optimism and self-efficacy as predictors of study engagement, study resource social support is also found to predict study engagement. A study among 149 students from the United Statesshowed that social support, especially from friends, contributes as a buffer against stress (Jacobs & Dodd, 2003). Cotton et al. (2002) confirmed the findings that social support is found to be an important factor in reducing psychological distress among students, and has beneficial consequences for student wellbeing.
With the JD-R model as a basis, this present study investigates the influence of optimism, self-efficacy and social support on academic performance, mediated by study engagement.These relationships were investigated among first-year University students in the Netherlands. All the used variables were treated context-specific, since this research operates in a study setting. Self-efficacy was treated as academic self-efficacy, social support as peer social support, engagement as study engagement and performance as academic performance. In the current research, optimism, academic self-efficacy and peer social support together were treated asstudent resources. To measure the dependent variable academic performance, the current study usedself-reported GPA and obtained credits. Leave intention was also measured as a dependent variable.
Prior research proved the predictive value of resources on academic performance (Ouweneel et al., 2011), therefore the following hypotheses were conducted:
Hypothesis 1: Optimism is positively related to GPA (1a), credits (1b) and negatively related to leave intention (1c)
Hypothesis 2: Academic self-efficacy is positively related to GPA (2a), credits (2b) and negatively related to leave intention (2c)
Hypothesis 3: Peer social support is positively related to GPA (3a),credits (3b) and negatively related to leave intention (3c)
As engagement showed to positively relate to performance and negatively relate to turnover among employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), and study engagement showed to achieve the sameamongst University students(Kuh et al., 2008), the following hypotheses were used to investigate the direct associations between study engagement and academic performance and leave intention:
Hypothesis 4: Study engagement is positively related to GPA (4a), credits (4b), and negatively related to leave intention (4c)
Inspired by the mediating role of work engagement between job resources and organizational outcomes in the JD-R model (W. B. Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), the subsequent hypotheses show the expectations of the mediating role of study engagement: