SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2

Predicting College Student Success: College Engagement and Perceived English Language Proficiency

Yeşim ÇAPA AYDIN
Oya YERİN GÜNERİ
Funda BARUTÇU YILDIRIM
Pınar ÇAĞ
Pages
229–240
Publication Date
2016-03-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings indicated that, engagement with the instructors, peers and campus events and perceived English proficiency were positively associated with academic gains.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz The purpose of the present study was to test a model predicting student gains and academic success (GPA) through perceived English language proficiency and student engagement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of the study were 1109 college students enrolled in a large state university in Turkey where medium of instruction is English.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings indicated that, engagement with the instructors, peers and campus events and perceived English proficiency were positively associated with academic gains.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler

Özet

Öz The purpose of the present study was to test a model predicting student gains and academic success (GPA) through perceived English language proficiency and student engagement. The participants of the study were 1109 college students enrolled in a large state university in Turkey where medium of instruction is English. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the data gathered through a web-based survey instrument. Findings indicated that, engagement with the instructors, peers and campus events and perceived English proficiency were positively associated with academic gains. While engagement with the instructors, peers, academic tasks, and campus events were positively related to personal gains; engagement in campus events was also positively associated with social-cultural gains. Finally, engagement with the peers, campus events, and academic tasks, and perceived English proficiency appeared as significant predictors of GPA. In conclusion, for the both variables of academic gains and academic achievement, students’ engagement with the peers, campus events and perceived English proficiency level were appeared as common significant predictors. Engagement with campus events was also a significant predictor of all outcome variables.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, Y. Ç., GÜNERİ, O. Y., YILDIRIM, F. B., ÇAĞ, P. (2016). Predicting College Student Success: College Engagement and Perceived English Language Proficiency. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 229–240. https://ajindex.com/articles/6208

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Arkın, İ. E. (2013). English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study in a Turkish university context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427 - 445. Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-15.
  2. Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianath, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153-160.
  3. Bowman, N. A., & Hill, H. L. (2011). Measuring how college affects students: Social desirability and other potential biases in college student self-reported gains. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150, 73-85.
  4. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing and linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
  5. Cheng, D. X. (2001). Assessing student collegiate experience: Where so we begin? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 525-538.
  6. Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-49.
  7. Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24, 1-23.
  8. Errey, R., & Wood, G. (2011). Lessons from a student engagement pilot study. Australian Universities' Review, 53(1), 21-34.
  9. Gizir, C. A. (1998). A study on the problems of the METU senior students. Unpublished master's thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-191.
  10. Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure, 59(1), 5-13.
  11. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford. Koljatic, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). A longitudinal assessment of college student engagement in good practices in undergraduate education. Higher Education, 42, 351-371.
  12. Kramer, G. L. (2007). Fostering student success: What really matters? In Kramer & Associates (Eds.), Fostering student succes