The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Academic

Success of First-Generation College

Sophomore Students
Mui Vuong Sharon Brown-Welty Susan Tracz
The purpose of this study was to analyze the
effects of self-efficacy on academic success of
first-generation college sophomore students. The
participants in the study consisted of college
sophomores from 5 of the 23 California State
University campuses. An online College SelfEfficacy Inventory was employed to measure
participants self-efficacy levels. The study explored
four areas: the relationship between self-efficacy
scores and academic success as defined by GPA
and persistence rates, the academic success and
persistence rates between first-generation and
second-and-beyond-generation college sophomore
students, the effects of the demographic factors
of gender and ethnicity on self-efficacy, and the
relationship between institution size and selfefficacy. Findings show that self-efficacy beliefs
affect GPA and persistence rates of sophomore
students and second-generation college sophomores
outperform their first-generation peers.

Applying to a college or university and being

accepted is a major accomplishment for
many young people. However, matriculating
through those institutions and graduating is
an even more significant accomplishment.
Many factors may influence students to be
successful and persist in college or to leave,
and among these are self-efficacy achievement
(Choi, 2005; Pajares & Schunk, 2001), firstgeneration college status (Horn & Nunez,
2000; Ting, 2003), gender and ethnicity, and
institutional characteristics such as size (Tinto,

1982). A considerably large group of students

who experience high attrition rates are college
sophomores. A phenomenon known as the
sophomore slump is defined by Feldman
and Newcomb (1969) as sophomore students
dissatisfaction with their personal college
experience, resulting from students struggles
with achieving competence, desiring autonomy,
establishing identity, and developing purpose
(Flanagan 1991; Lemons & Richmond, 1987).
The second year in college is also a period of
time when academic performance is no longer
satisfying for its own sake, which oftentimes
involves a sophomore identity crisis affecting
a students social, academic, and personal self
(Margolis, 1976).

First-Generation College Students

With the growing diversity of students in
higher education, a large body of research has
been focused on students who are first in their
families to attend college. Billson and Terry
(1982) defined first-generation students as
those college students who do not have at least
one parent who earned a bachelors or higher
degree. The federal regulation definition of
first-generation is:
an individual both of whose parents did
not complete a baccalaureate degree;
in the case of any individual who
regularly resided with and received
support from only one parent, an

Mui Vuong is interim director of the Educational Opportunity Program, Summer Bridge Program and Renaissance
Scholars Program; Sharon Brown-Welty is Professor of Educational Research and Administration; and Susan Tracz
is Professor of Educational Research and Administration; each at California State University Fresno.
50

Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

individual whose only such parent did

not complete a baccalaureate degree.
(Higher Education Act of 1965,
Sec.402B[6]g1[a])
Research has indicated that these firstgeneration students experience distinct barriers
in gaining access to postsecondary education
and thus have difficulty remaining enrolled
and attaining a degree (Horn & Nunez,
2000). Ting (2003) found that first-generation
students were at a higher risk for attrition
than were second-generation college students.
According to Ting, they tend to have lower
first-semester GPA and higher dropout rates
than do other students. Hoffman (2003) noted
first-generation students were about twice as
likely to drop out of a 4-year institution as
compared to those students whose parents
have a college degree.
Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) also
found that first-generation students often
have lower high school GPA, SAT scores,
and educational aspirations than do those
students whose parents have a college degree.
These students weak academic backgrounds
may result from their personal and family
experiences. Further, they are more likely to
come from low-income families, enroll as parttime students, and commute to school (Ting,
2003). Ting pointed out that even when the
parents are aware of the importance of higher
education, first-generation students usually are
not familiar with the college admission and
financial aid application process.

The Sophomore Slump

The sophomore slump phenomenon emerged
during the late 1950s and is related to
adjustment stressors experienced by students
during their second year of college (Cuseo,
2005). It is especially challenging for firstgeneration college sophomore students because
both the academic and student affairs sides of
January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

the institution offer limited services to these

students. Paradoxically, a study by Juillerat
(2000) revealed that these students have some
of the highest expectations of any class level
group on campus. Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler
(1995) further suggested that the academic and
social integration are positively influenced by
the meeting of expectations for academic and
career growth. These expectations contrast with
the belief by many university administrators
that once entering freshmen succeed through
the first year, program services are no longer
necessary as they move into the second year
of college.
Coupled with the sophomore slump
experience, many first-generation students
encounter even greater challenges. This group
of students is confronted with multifaceted
barriers and obstacles; their struggles include
achieving competence, desiring autonomy,
establishing identity, and developing purpose
(Chickering, 1969); yet they have not been
studied.

Campus Size
Still another facet related to student adjust
ment is the size of the campus the student
attends. Research (Tinto, 1982) has shown
that students at small colleges face different
problems related to attrition and graduation
than do their counterparts at larger institu
tions. Campus size has both positive and
negative impacts. Generally, smaller campuses
offer more opportunities for studentfaculty
interaction, which tends to increase student
persistence. However, smaller campuses
provide limited academic opportunities by
offering fewer numbers of academic courses
relative to larger institutions. In addition,
smaller campuses offer fewer opportunities for
social interaction.
Restricted academic and social oppor
tunities generally are associated with decreased
persistence and graduation rates (University of
51

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

California, Office of the President [UC], 1994).

According to Tinto (1982), small colleges may
increase the likelihood of studentfaculty
and studentstudent interaction; however,
the range of possible student communities or
subcultures in which to establish membership
is restricted. Research literature also suggests
that challenges specific to each institution may
exist: small campuses may have more success
in retaining graduates from small high schools;
whereas larger institutions tend to be more
successful in retaining students from large high
schools (UC).

Academic Self-Efficacy
The construct of self-efficacy is defined as an
individuals perceived capability in performing
necessary tasks to achieve goals (Bandura,
1997).
Whatever other factors serve as guides
and motivators, they are rooted in the
core belief that one has the power to
produce desired effects by ones actions,
otherwise one has little incentive to act
or to persevere in the face of difficulties.
(Bandura, 2002, p. 2)

Banduras social cognitive theory states selfefficacy belief influences the decisions people
make and the courses of action they pursue
(Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Individuals are
more inclined to engage in tasks about which
they feel competent and confident and shun
those that they do not.
According to Solberg, OBrien, Villareal,
Kennel, and Davis (1993), college self-efficacy
is operationally defined as a students degree
of confidence in performing various collegerelated tasks to produce a desired outcome, such
as passing an examination. College students
with high self-efficacy approach difficult tasks
as challenges to be triumphed rather than
as threats to be avoided (Pajares & Schunk,
2001). In contrast, college students who doubt
52

their capabilities may believe that the matter is

too difficult to accomplish. Such a belief often
fosters stress and depression, and thus these
individuals narrow their vision to effectively
solve problems. Self-efficacy has been found to
influence academic domains including college
student academic achievement and thus is
relevant to postsecondary academic success
as it is found to influence how much effort is
put into performing a task, persevering on the
task, and as a result, affecting the level of ones
achievement (Choi, 2005; Pajares & Schunk).
Clearly, the confidence that college students
have in their academic capability becomes a
critical component of their academic success.
Ample research indicates that academic selfefficacy is positively related with GPA and
persistence rates in college (Bong, 2001;
Pajares & Schunk; Zimmerman, 2000).
Moreover, self-efficacy acts as mediation
on the influence of other variables that
predict academic achievement, which is to
say that it acts as a filter between variables
such as previous achievement and mental
ability on academic achievement (Pajares &
Schunk, 2001). Empirical data also indicate a
correlation between academic self-efficacy and
perceived college stress and their joint effect on
academic success for immigrant and minority
students who come from first-generation
background (Solberg & Villarreal, 1997).
Self-efficacy is the single strongest predictor
of GPA when examining academic success
models, even taking into account high school
academic performance and demographic
variables (Solberg & Villarreal). Therefore,
developing and fostering a sense of self-efficacy
may influence students GPAs and hence may
increase persistence rates of college students.
Chickerings Vectors of Development Theory.
Based on Chickerings (1969) theory, there
are seven vectors that address the emotional,
interpersonal, ethical, and intellectual aspects
of development. The seven vectors are not
Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

sequential but build upon one another

and include: (a) developing competence,
(b)managing emotions, (c) moving through
autonomy towards interdependence, (d)devel
opi ng mature interpersonal relationships,
(e) establishing identity, (f ) developing pur
pose, and (g) developing integrity. Lemons
and Richmond (1987) maintained that, of the
seven vectors, four are especially significant
and are discussed in more detailed: achieving
competence, developing autonomy, establishing
identity, and developing purpose.
First-generation college sophomores
are required to establish a new standard of
competence in intellectual, manual, and
interpersonal skills that surpass those adequate
for high school and even the first year of college
(Pattengale & Schreiner, 2000). With respect
to the emotional independence component
of autonomy, the first-generation college
sophomores are expected to be self-reliant
and to not depend on the support or approval
of their parents and family (Pattengale &
Schreiner). How successful first-generation
college sophomore students establish a new
sense of competency and attain a healthy
interdependence within the campus commu
nity is greatly influenced by the development
of an identity. Furthermore, developing
purpose involves the search for direction and
commitment, where it encompasses not only
vocational choice but also life goals, lifestyle
choices, and recreational interests (Lemons &
Richmond, 1987). As noted by Chickering
(1969), many young adults are all dressed up
and dont know where to go; they have energy
but no destination (p. 15).

Purpose and Method

The purpose of this research was to study
first-generation sophomore college students
to determine (a) whether academic success
as defined by GPA and persistence rates is
January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

a function of self-efficacy, (b) whether there

are differences in mean academic success and
persistence rates between first-generation and
second-and-beyond-generation students, (c)
whether there are differences in self-efficacy
between gender and ethnic groups, and (d)
whether there are differences in self-efficacy
depending on campus size. This study explored
the relationships between self-efficacy and
student success (GPA and persistence rates),
gender, ethnicity, generation status, and
institution size of college sophomores.

Sample
Five California State University (CSU) institu
tions were chosen to participate based on size
of their campuses: small (enrollment 8,000),
medium (enrollment 8,001 to 20,000), large
(enrollment 20,001). A comparison of some
of the characteristics of the five campuses that
participated in the study is found in Table 1.
The CSU system is one of the largest, most
diverse systems in the United States. The 23
CSU institutions provide access for the vast
majority of students seeking a baccalaureate
education in California (CSU Mission, 2006).
Widely known as an undergraduate teaching
institution, the CSU system enrolled a total
of 405,000 students at the time of this study
(CSU Comparative View, 2006).
The population of all second-year students
(Cohort Fall 2005) was asked by e-mail to
participate in the study. This e-mail contained
information about the College Self-Efficacy
Inventory (CSEI) online survey and the
importance of their participation in the
investigation of their sophomore experience
and their academic success, a guarantee of
confidentiality, and the actual CSEI online
survey. To provide a small incentive, students
who took the survey were advised they could
have their names put into a drawing for a
gift certificate at a bookstore at each of the
participating campuses.
53

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

7,800

Yes

CSU 2

Small

Rural

8,374

Yes

CSU 3

Medium

Suburban

12,535

Yes

CSU 4

Medium

Urban

20,371

Yes

CSU 5

Large

Urban

33,243

Yes

The sample of students (n=1,291)

consisted of all second-year students who
replied and completed the CSEI. The online
survey was posted and available 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week for 2 weeks. Every
2 days, an e-mail was sent out to remind
and encourage students to participate by
completing the survey. The response rate
was closely monitored on a daily basis for
potential technical problems. On the last
day of administration of the survey, another
e-mail was sent to simply remind the potential
respondent to complete the survey.
The population (N=6,316) included all
second-year students who were admitted to
the 5 selected CSU campuses and enrolled
with a minimum of 12 units every semester
or quarter they had attended. Campus
response rates are shown in Table 2. The
total number of responding students was
1,291. Of these students, 441 (34%) were
first-generation college, 730 (57%) were
second-and-beyond-generation sophomores,
and 120 (9%) did not respond to the question
about their generational status. Table 3 shows
the frequencies and percentages of ethnicity
of all students and responding students by
participating campuses.
54

Table 2.
Campus Student Response Rates

Size

Response
Rate (%)

OnCampus
Housing

Urban

A multitude of factors may interfere and

influence the likelihood for success of firstgeneration students from their second-year
to graduation from a university. Data were
collected on the scores of the three selfefficacy subscales: Self-Efficacy in Academic
Coursework (SE Course); Self-Efficacy in Social
Interactions with Faculty, Counselor, and Peers
(SE Social); and Self-Efficacy in Relationships
with Roommates (SE Roommate). To address
persistence issue, students were asked for two
percentages which represented the perceived
likelihood that they would complete the
current term (P current term) and return
the next term (P following term). These two
percentages were recorded as values from 1 to
6, and those values were used as the persistence
rates (P current term and P following term).
It is important to note that persistence rate is
not directly measured in this study. However,
research (Bean, 1980; Bers & Smith, 1991) has
shown that the intention to return is a strong
predictor of actual persistence; hence it is a
proxy measure for student persistence. The
two measures of self-reported GPA, previous

No. of Total
Responses

Total
Enrollment

Small

Data Collection

Institutions

Size

CSU 1

Setting

Campus

Table 1.
Comparison of CSU Campuses

CSU1

Small

550

150

27.20%

CSU2

Small

617

55

8.90%

CSU3

Medium

561

94

16.70%

CSU4

Medium

1,983

442

22.20%

CSU5

Large

2,605

550

21.10%

6,316

1,291

20.44%

Total

Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

part of the survey includes questions that

measure academic self-efficacy. The items for
the self-efficacy scores are measured using a
10-point Likert-type scale, with three subscales
including SE Course (range from 20 to 200),
SE Social (4 to 40), SE Roommate (2 to 20),
and SE total (range from 26 to 260). Questions
about getting along with family members/
roommates, making friends at school, and
communicating to professors, found within
the three subscales (SE Course, SE Social, and
SE Roommate), operationalize Chickerings
(1969) theory by addressing the emotional,
interpersonal, and intellectual aspects of
development through the seven vectors.
For example, efficacious college sophomore
students may have a belief that they have the

term GPA and overall GPA, were based on a

4.0 scale with greater GPAs indicating better
academic performance than lower GPAs.
Gender, ethnicity, and generation status were
also variables in this study.

Instrument
Participants completed the CSEI, which
consists of two parts (Zajacova, Lynch, &
Espenshade, 2005). The first part collects
demographic and academic-related informa
tion that includes age, gender, family income,
institution affiliation, previous term GPA,
overall GPA, ethnicity, intent of completing
the current term (P current term), and the
intent of continuation of enrollment for the
following term (P following term). The second

Table 3.
Ethnicity of All Students and Responding Students at Participating Campuses
(n and %)
Institution and Size
Ethnicity

CSU1Sm

CSU2Sm

CSU3Med

CSU4Med

392 (7%)

267 (4%)

1,123 (12%)

89 (5%)

2,336 (9%)

5 (3%)

0 (0%)

24 (5%)

48 (9%)

366 (6.5%)

800 (12%)

2,675 (29%)

7 (13%)

39 (41%)

2,125 (38%)

1,948 (29%)

1,269 (14%)

5263 (30%)

7,465 (28%)

Respond

73 (49%)

15 (27%)

20 (21%)

160 (36%)

178 (32%)

All

66 (1.00%)

67 (1.00%)

64 (0.70%)

139 (0.80%)

107 (0.04%)

African
American

Alla

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

All

Hispanic

All

Native
American
White

Respondb
Respond

Respond
All
Respond

Unknown

All
Respond

Intl
All
(NonRes)
Respond

14 (9%)

1 (0.007%)

1 (0.200%)

4 (4%)

0 (0%)

2,405 (14%)
82 (18.5%)

2 (0.005%)

CSU5Lg

3,330 (12%)
96 (17%)

1 (0.002%)

1,933 (34%)

2,695 (40%)

2,255 (25%)

6,431 (37%)

7,922 (30%)

41 (27%)

25 (46%)

18 (19%)

129 (29%)

133 (24%)

636 (11%)

807 (12%)

1,269 (14%)

16 (11%)

7 (13%)

13 (14%)

108 (2%)
NA

1,882 (11%
45 (10%)

87 (1%)

475 (5%)

401 (2%)

NA

NA

NA

4,323 (16%)
94 (17%)
1371 (5%)
NA

Frequencies and percentages of all students at participating campuses.

Frequencies and percentages of sophomore students at participating campuses who responded to the survey.

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

55

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

capability to learn mathematics. However, they

may also believe that despite their perceived
capability they will not earn a good grade in
the class because they do not have a positive
relationship with the instructor (Wilder,
1993). Furthermore, Chickerings seventh
vector involves developing integrity and may be
related to skills such as honesty and openness
needed to interact on a college campus, as
measured by SE Roommate. The perceived
capability of college sophomore students in
performing necessary tasks to achieve their
academic goals are rooted in the core belief that
students have the power to produce desired
outcomes and persevere in the face of academic
challenges (Bandura, 2002).
The CSEI was tested for validity and
reliability in previous studies (Solberg et al.,
1993; Solberg & Villareal, 1997; Zajacova
et al., 2005). A study with a sample of 164
Mexican American and Latino American college
students was conducted to establish an internal
consistency reliability using coefficient alpha,
and the estimates were .93 for the total CSEI and
.88 for each of the SE Course, SE Social, and
SE Roommate subscales, respectively (Solberg
et al.). Findings also indicated that CSEI was
found not to be sensitive to differences in
acculturation, gender, or class level. The subscales
(SE Course, SE Social, and SE Roommate) were
found to have strong internal consistency and
demonstrated good convergent and discriminant
validity. A pilot study of the instrument used in
this study was conducted, and some formatting
changes were made to accommodate the online
survey as a result of the pilot study.

Data Analysis
To study whether academic success was
a function of self-efficacy, four regression
analyses were run. The four regression models
run on all students used previous term GPA,
overall GPA, persistence rates (P current
term and P following term) as the dependent
56

variables. Predictor variables were the scores

from the self-efficacy subscales: SE Course,
SE Social, and SE Roommate.
A Hotelling T was also run to determine
the differences in the means of previous term
GPA, overall GPA, P current term, and P
following term between first- and second-andbeyond-generation students. The Hotelling
T test was used to investigate if there was
a difference in mean self-efficacy between
sophomore college students who were the first
in their family to attend college in comparison
to their counter peers whose parents have
a college degree. After, multivariate tests,
independent t tests were run.
In addition, a 2 9 multivariate ANOVA
was used to examine the effects of gender
and ethnicity on the three self-efficacy
subscales. The ethnic groups were African
American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Mexican/
Chicano, Southeast Asian, Hispanic/Latino,
Native American, White, Multi-ethnic, and
Other. The multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) test addressed three primary
questions: (a) Was there a difference in mean
SE (Course, Social, and Roommate) between
male and female students? (b) Was there a
difference in mean SE (Course, Social, and
Roommate) among the nine ethnic groups?
(c)Was there an interaction between gender
and ethnicity on SE (Course, Social, and
Roommate)? After the multivariate test,
individual univariate ANOVA tests of the three
self-efficacy subscales were conducted.
Lastly, a one-way MANOVA was used to
examine the relationship between institution
size and self-efficacy. The multivariate analy
sis was used to determine if there was a
difference in mean of SE (Course, Social, and
Roommate) between the small, medium, and
large institution sizes. In addition, each of the
three self-efficacy subscale variables (Course,
Social, and Roommate) was separately tested
using a univariate one-way ANOVA.
Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

Results
Self-Efficacy and Student Success
The first two of the analyses used academic
success indicators as the outcome or dependent
variables. In exploring the relationship between
self-efficacy and student success, four regression
models were run using all student data. In all
models, the independent variables were SE
course, SE roommate, and SE social. The four
regression models used previous term GPA,
overall GPA, P current term, and P following
term as the dependent variables. The results
for these four regression models appear in
Table 4.
In summary for all students, SE course was
a significant predictor of all four dependent

variables or measures of academic success. SE

roommate, on the other hand, significantly
predicted previous term GPA and P following
term, and SE social did not significantly
predict any measures of academic success.
For first-generation students, all models were
significant for course only.
To explore the relationship between
first- and second-and-beyond- generation
college students as relating to academic
success, Hotelling T was calculated using
the four indicators of academic success
as the dependent variables: previous term
GPA, overall GPA, P current term, and P
following term. The multivariate results were
significant, F=7.13(4, 1139), p<.001,
Wilkss lambda=.98, Hotellings Trace=0.25.

Table 4.
Multiple Linear Regression Results Predicting Academic Performance
From SelfEfficacy Variables
Dependent Variables
Previous Term
GPA

Overall
GPA

Persistence
Rate
(Current
Term)

50.99

65.83

13.41

13.73

df

3, 1156

3, 1146

3, 1185

3, 1185

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Adjusted R2

11.5%

14.5%

3.0%

3.1%

10.37

11.54

4.47

3.27

.40

.19

.17

.13

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

SE Social

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Independent Variables

Persistence
Rate
(Following
Term)

Overall Model

SE Course

SE Roommate
t

2.16

1.98

0.07

0.07

0.029

0.049

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

57

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

Table 5.
GPA and Persistence Rates (Means and Standard Deviations)
Dependent Variables

SD

1st Generation

2.93

0.627

414

4.79

<.001

2nd Generation

3.12

0.636

730

1st Generation

2.93

0.532

414

4.39

<.001

2nd Generation

3.08

0.558

730

1st Generation

5.58

0.684

414

1.95

0.051

2nd Generation

5.92

0.503

730

1st Generation

5.87

0.532

414

0.61

0.54

2nd Generation

5.85

0.659

730

Previous GPA

Overall GPA

Persistence Rate (Current Term)

Persistence Rate (Following Term)

Note. Persistence rate: 1=0%, 2=20%, 3=40%, 4=60%, 5=80%, 6=100%.

In all, significant and approaching signifi

cant cases for second-and-beyond-generation
werehigher than for first-generation students.
Table 5 shows the GPA means and standard
deviation of first-generation and second-and
beyond-generation students.
Test of significant differences between
first-generation and second-and-beyondgeneration college students were run. No
significant differences were found on any SE
variables, so these results are not reported in
this paper and subsequent analyses were run
on all students.
The second two sets of analyses used selfefficacy measures as the outcomes or dependent
variables. An additional analysis was conducted
to determine if there were significant differences
for gender, for ethnicity, and for the interaction of
gender and ethnicity on the dependent variables
of the three self-efficacy subscales. A 2 9
MANOVA was run. The MANOVA results for
gender were not significant, F=.85(3, 1169),
p=.47, Wilkss lambda=.998, Hotellings
58

Trace=.002. The MANOVA results for

ethnicity were significant, F=3.09(24, 3513),
p<.01, Wilkss lambda=.939, Hotellings
Trace=.064. Further, the MANOVA results
for the interaction of gender and ethnicity
were not significant, F=1.38(24, 3513),
p=.102, Wilkss lambda=.972, Hotellings
Trace=.028.
To follow up, three 2 9 ANOVAs,
one for each of the SE variables, was run. A
significant difference for SE course by ethnicity,
F=5.28(8, 1171), p<.001, was found. There
was a significant difference for SE social by
ethnicity, F=4.81(8, 1171), p<.01. There
was also a significant difference for roommate
SE, F=2.82(8, 1171), p=.004. Pairwise post
hoc tests were run, and Table 6 shows the
probabilities for multiple comparisons between
ethnicity groups for SE course, SE social, and
SE roommate where significant differences
were found.
To explore the differences between institu
tion sizes on self-efficacy, a one-way MANOVA
Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

Table 6.
Pairwise Post Hoc Comparisons
Ethnic Group

0.015

0.026

0.002

0.048

0.022

0.017

0.000

0.001

0.045

0.003

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.044

0.002

0.001

0.001

SelfEfficacy Course by Ethnicity

1. African American

2. Asian/Pacific Islander

3. Mexican/Chicano
4. Southeast Asian

5. Hispanic/Latino
6. Native American

7. White

8. MultiEthnic

9. Other

SelfEfficacy Social by Ethnicity

1. African American

2. Asian/Pacific Islander

0.020

0.010

0.010

3. Mexican/Chicano

0.046

0.000

4. Southeast Asian

0.001

0.000

0.014

0.032

0.020

0.002

0.048

0.019

0.014

5. Hispanic/Latino

6. Native American

7. White

8. MultiEthnic

9. Other

SelfEfficacy Roommate by Ethnicity

1. African American

2. Asian/Pacific Islander
3. Mexican/Chicano
4. Southeast Asian
5. Hispanic/Latino
6. Native American
7. White
8. MultiEthnic
9. Other

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

0.040

0.012

0.000
0.043

0.001

0.005

0.004

59

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

was calculated. The MANOVA was significant,

F=4.42(6, 2370), p<.001, Wilkss lambda
=.978, Hotellings Trace=.023. A series
of univariate one-way ANOVAs were also
conducted to separately test the three sub
scale variables to explore the differences in
self-efficacy by institution size. There was
only one significant univariate difference,
F=9.29(2, 1186), p<.001, on the mean of
SE Roommate subscale by small (M=8.06),
medium (M=8.29) and large (M=7.78)
size campuses. Only one significant post hoc
difference was found between medium and
large size campuses (mean difference=.51,
p<.001).

Discussion
The multiple linear regression indicated that
both GPA variables were functions of selfefficacy. In addition, there were significant
differences in the academic success between firstgeneration and second-generation sophomore
students. First-generation students have lower
previous term GPAs and overall GPAs in
comparison to second-generation sophomore
students. Furthermore, a significant difference
was also found for academic persistent as
measured by the likelihood of completing
current term and approaching significant
difference was found for the likelihood of
staying enrolled the following term. Table 7
shows the summary of the findings for the
areas explored in this study.
The results of the present study revealed
that academic success as defined by both
GPA measures and both persistence rates (as
determined by the likelihood of completing
the current term and the likelihood to return
the following term) were functions of selfefficacy for all sophomores, particularly SE
course and SE roommate, which can be
associated with Chickerings (1969) third and
seventh vectors of moving through autonomy
60

toward interdependence and developing

integrity, respectively. In Chickerings theory,
students have the autonomy to make choices,
and making the right choices to persist in their
educational pursuit is more likely to succeed
academically as measured by SE course.
Overall, the results of this study show that
the perception college sophomore students
have about their capabilities influences their
academic performance and their persistence
to maintain a grade point average that allows
them to continue in their chosen program
of study as well as to stay enrolled until
graduation from the university. This study
further supports other research that academic
self-efficacy is positively related with GPA
and persistence rates (Bong, 2001; Pajares &
Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000).
In addition, this study found that there
are differences in academic variables, with
first-generation students faring worse, and
these results are consistent with those of other
researchers (Nunez & Cuccaro, 1998; Ting,
2003). However, there were no differences
in self-efficacy between first-generation and
second-and-beyond-generation sophomore
students. This seeming inconsistency may be
explained by the following research finding. A
possible explanation may be related to parental
influence, as research shows that parents of
children with high academic aspirations have
both direct and indirect influence on their
childrens self-efficacy (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Further research
in this area would be important.
Overall, the results of this study did not find
that first-generation college sophomore students
have different perceptions of their self-efficacy
than do second-generation college sophomore
students. There are studies suggesting that
minority students, many of whom are firstgeneration students, have lower perceptions
of competence than do nonminority students.
However, the findings of this study do not
Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

support that conclusion. Other researchers

have argued that much of the research has the
confounding variable of socioeconomic factor
(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
The research findings from the current

study show that self-efficacy beliefs affect

academic success as defined by GPA and
persistence rates of first-generation college
sophomore students. However, additional
research is required to examine the impact of

Table 7.
Summary of Findings
Dependent Variables/Independent Variables

Statistical Test

Findings

1a. Previous Term GPA / SelfEfficacy

Multiple Linear F Test

1b. Accumulative GPA / SelfEfficacy

Multiple Linear F Test

1c. Academic Persistence of Current Term / SelfEfficacy Multiple Linear F Test

1d. Academic Persistence of the Following Term /

SelfEfficacy

Multiple Linear F Test

2a. Academic Performance

Hotellings T

2b. GPA (Previous Term) / 1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

2c. GPA (Accumulative) / 1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

2d. Persistent Rate (Current Term) /

1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

2e. Persistent Rate (Following Term) /

1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

NS

3a. SelfEfficacy 1st and 2ndGeneration

Hotellings T

NS

3b. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) /

1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

NS

3c. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) /

1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

NS

3d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) /

1st and 2ndGeneration

Independent t Test

NS

4a. SelfEfficacy by Gender

2 9 MANOVA F Test

NS

4b. SelfEfficacy by Ethnicity

2 9 MANOVA F Test

4c. SelfEfficacy Subscale by Gender and Ethnicity

2 9 MANOVA F Test

NS

4d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) by Ethnicity

2Way ANOVA

4e. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) by Ethnicity

2Way ANOVA

4f. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) by Ethnicity

2Way ANOVA

5a. SelfEfficacy (Total) / Institution Size

OneWay MANOVA F Test

NS

5b. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Course) / Institution Size

OneWay ANOVA

NS

5c. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Social) / Institution Size

OneWay ANOVA

NS

5d. SelfEfficacy Subscale (Roommate) / Institution Size

OneWay ANOVA

Note. S=significant, NS=Not Significant.

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

61

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

self-efficacy on the following: gender, ethnicity,

and first-generation students.

Implications
The implications of this studys results and
other research findings suggest that curricular
practices that link students ideas across
courses and disciplines, connect what students
learn at school and their lives at home, and
relate academic topic to their social and
cultural experiences are powerful and effective
educational devices (Nieto, 2000). It is critical
that postsecondary institutions have an
understanding of strong predictors of academic
persistence and completion, particularly for
first-generation college sophomore students.
Institutions can help to develop students
aspirations by providing an environment that
is rich in high quality course curricula and
offering challenges that can be met by firstgeneration college sophomore students.
In addition, colleges and universities
must provide social support for faculty and
peer interaction. Social support is crucial in
developing mature interpersonal relationships,
establishing ideas, and developing purpose,
Chickerings (1969) vectors four, five, and six,
respectively. Research has shown that students
who have strong social networks that support
their academic and emotional development are
more likely to complete their bachelors degree
(Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
Universities should consider allocating
funding and resources to create and implement
programs specifically designed for sophomore
students. It is evident that the interaction
with faculty and the social networking with
peers are important factors in helping firstgeneration college sophomore students to
increase aspirations about their career and
educational goals and thus can positively
influence their self-efficacy perception, which
in turn, can have positive effects on their
academic success.
62

Limitations
Like many other studies, the current investi
gation has limitations. The limitations are as
follows:
1. Participation was voluntary and academic
performance such as GPA was self-report
ed, which may have resulted in grade
inflation or other inaccuracies.
2. Persistence was not directly assessed in
this study. The enrollment data for future
academic terms were not available for this
study, and the intention to return was used
as a proxy measure of student persistence
rates. The intention to return is a strong
predictor of persistence rates and has been
used as a proxy measure of persistence
rates in various studies (Bean, 1980; Bers
& Smith, 1991).
3. The aggregate response rate was lower
than ideal. The reason may be related to
the timing of the survey administration
and the fact that the five participating
campuses were based on both quarter and
semester systems. The response rates were
low in general, but the lower response
rates were at campuses where the academic
schedule was quarterly and students who
were at those institutions were on winter
break and may not have checked their
e-mail regularly.
4. However, although 1,291 (20.44%)
students responded, the vast majority of
sophomore students surveyed were either
too busy or did not deem the study to be
important enough for them to respond.
Although the percentages of ethnicity for
all students by participating campuses are
reported (see Table 3), the percentages
for all sophomore students were not
available and is also a limitation of this
study. Further, the sample sophomore
percentages may not always reflect the
demographics of the entire campus.
Journal of College Student Development

SelfEfficacy on Academic Success

5. It may be that first-generation students

who did not develop as theorized by
Chickerings (1969) first vector of develop
ing competency did not advance to the
sophomore year. Hence these students
did not participate in this study and
information about them could not be
examined here.
6. Because this study was based on theories
of intrinsic variables of Banduras (1997,
2002) self-efficacy theory and Chickerings
(1969) theory of student development,
many other important external variables
that may have influences on student
retention decision were not directly
measured. Such key variables include social
integration and institutional commitment.
However, several items, such as making
friends at school, communicating
concerns/issues with a counselor, and
communicating with professor, were
included in the instrument. These items,
to some extent, indirectly measured
student social integration, which has
been found to be positively influenced by
expectations for personal involvement,
which, in turn, influences subsequent
institutional commitment (Braxton et al.,
1995). Findings from this study indicate

that future research should examine other

potential sources of social integration that
may affect student persistence as students
go through Chickerings (1969) vectors of
development.

Conclusion
The findings of this study revealed and
further supported the evidence that selfefficacy, as measured by SE Course, SE
Social, and SE Roommate subscales, has a
direct impact on GPA and persistence rates.
In addition, the social self-efficacy subscale
score was different for different ethnic groups
of college sophomore students. The results
of the current study also show that the SE
Roommate subscale score was different for
college sophomore students who were enrolled
at mid- and large-sized institutions. Overall,
the construct of self-efficacy was found to
influence the academic success, as measured
by GPA, and the likelihood to persist in firstgeneration college sophomore students.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Sharon Brown-Welty, 5005 N. Maple
Ave., MS ED 116, Fresno, CA 93740-8025; sharonb@
csufresno.edu

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context.
Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
269-290.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, C., & Pastorelli, C.
(1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on
academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and
test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher
Education 12, 155-187.

January/February 2010 vol 51 no 1

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community

college students: The influence of student intent and
academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education
32(5), 539-556.
Billson, J. P., & Terry, M. (1982). In search of the silken purse:
Factors in attrition among first-generation students. College
& University. 58(1), 57-75.
Bong, M. (2001). Between-and within-domain relations
of academic motivation among middle and high school
students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23-34.

63

Vuong, BrownWelty, & Tracz

Braxton, M. J., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations
for college and student persistence. Research in Higher
Education, 36(5), 595-611.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors
of college students academic performance. Psychology in the
Schools, 42, 197-205.
CSU Comparative View. (2006). CSUMentor. The California
State University. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://
www.csumentor.edu/select/compareview/
CSU Mission. (2006). CSUMentor. The California State
University. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www
.csumentor.edu/AboutMentor/history.asp
Cuseo, J. B. (2005). The sophomore-year experience. Retrieved
March 4, 2006, from http://soph-list@listserv.sc.edu
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of
college on students: Analysis of four decades of research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flanagan, W. J. (1991). Sophomore retention: The missing
strategy in small college retention efforts. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Higher Education Act of 1965. 20 U.S.C. 1070a11 (1965).
Retrieved January 2, 2006, from http://www.nrcys.ou.edu
/yd/programs/pdfs/hea1965.pdf
Hoffman, N. (2003). College credit in high school: Increasing
postsecondary credential rates of underrepresented students.
Change, 35(4), 43-48.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A.-M. (2000). Mapping the road to college:
First-generation students math track, planning strategies,
and context support (NCES 2000-153). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Juillerat, S. (2000). Assessing the expectations and satisfactions
of sophomores. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale (Eds.),
Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores
succeed (Monograph No. 31, pp. 19-29). Columbia: National
Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students
in Transition, University of South Carolina.
Lemons, L. J., & Richmond, D. R. (1987). A developmental
perspective of sophomore slump. NASPA Journal, 24(3),
15-19.
Margolis, G. (1976). Unslumping our sophomores: Some
clinical observations and strategies. American College Health
Association, 25, 133-136.
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high
school reform and college access success for low-income and
minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy
Forum and Pathways to College Network. Retrieved
September 15, 2005, from http://www.aypf.org/publications
/HSReformCollegeAccessandSuccess.pdf

64

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of

multicultural education. New York: Longman.
Nunez, A.-M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation
students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in
postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, H. D. (2001). Self-beliefs and school
success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement.
In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239-266).
London: Ablex. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.
des.emory.edu/mfp/PajaresSchunk2001.html
Pattengale, J., & Schreiner, L. A. (2000). What is the sophomore
slump and why should we care? In L.A. Schreiner & J.
Pattengale. (Eds.), Visible solutions for invisible students:
Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph 31, p. v-viii).
Columbia: National Resource Center for the First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition, University of South
Carolina.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in
education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Solberg, V. S., OBrien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis,
B. (1993). Self-efficacy and Hispanic college students:
Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95.
Solberg, V. S., & Villarreal, P. (1997). Examination of selfefficacy, social support, and stress as predictors of psycho
logical and physical distress among Hispanic college students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 182-201.
Ting, S. M. (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive
variables in predicting academic success of first-generation
college students. College & University, 78(4), 27-31.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student
attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and
cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
University of California, Office of the President. (1994).
Undergraduate persistence and graduation at the University of
California: Review of the literature on undergraduate persistence.
Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.ucop.edu
/sas/publish/ugpgrad2.pdf
Wilder, J. S. (1993). The sophomore slump: A complex
developmental period that contributes to attrition. College
Student Affairs Journal, 12, 18-27.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, M. S., & Espenshade, J. T. (2005). Selfefficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in
Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to
learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Journal of College Student Development