The central goal of this study is to clarify to what degree former education and students' personal characteristics (the 'Big Five personality characteristics', personal orientations on learning and students' study approach) may predict study outcome (required credits and study continuance). Analysis of the data gathered through questionnaires of 1,471 Universities of Applied Sciences students make clear that former Education did not come forth as a powerful predictor for Credits or Study Continuance. Significant predictors are Conscientiousness and Ambivalence and Lack of Regulation. The higher the scores on Conscientiousness the more credits students are bound to obtain and the more likely they will continue their education. On the other hand students with high scores on Ambivalence and Lack of Regulation will most likely obtain fewer Credits or drop out more easily. The question arises what these results mean for the present knowledge economy which demands an increase of inhabitants with an advanced level of education. Finally, implications and recommendations for future research are suggested.
LINK
The central goal of this study is to gain insight into students' study approach, their personal reasons and the relations between them regarding students who continue or withdraw from the educational system within one year. Results of our questionnaire study show that students who continue their educational careers show higher scores on a meaningful integrative study approach when entering Higher Education, than students who withdraw. Our questionnaire on personal reasons for withdraw revealed three scales: (1) perception and experience of educational and organizational aspects, (2) pragmatic and personal circumstances and (3) loss of interest in the future occupations. Personal reasons for continuing also produced three scales: (1) perception and experience of learning environment quality, (2) pragmatic and personal orientation and (3) future occupational identity. Withdrawing students' scores on meaningful integrative study approach are negatively related to perception and experience of educational and organizational aspects, whereas the superficial study approach positively correlates with pragmatic and personal circumstances. With regard to students who continue, high scores on the meaningful integrative study approach relate positively to all three reasons: future occupational identity, perception and experience of learning environment quality and pragmatic and personal orientation.
In this PhD thesis, we aimed to improve understanding of the study progression and success of autistic students in higher education by comparing them to students with other disabilities and students without disabilities. We studied their background and enrollment characteristics, whether barriers in progression existed, how and when possible barriers manifested themselves in their student journey, and how institutions should address these issues. We found autistic students to be different from their peers but not worse as expected based on existing findings. We expect we counterbalanced differences because we studied a large data set spanning seven cohorts and performed propensity score weighting. Most characteristics of autistic students at enrollment were similar to those of other students, but they were older and more often male. They more often followed an irregular path to higher education than students without disabilities. They expected to study full time and spend no time on extracurricular activities or paid work. They expected to need more support and were at a higher risk of comorbidity than students with other disabilities. We found no difficulties with participation in preparatory activities. Over the first bachelor year, the grade point averages (GPAs) of autistic students were most similar to the GPAs of students without disabilities. Credit accumulation was generally similar except for one of seven periods, and dropout rates revealed no differences. The number of failed examinations and no-shows among autistic students was higher at the end of the first semester. Regarding progression and degree completion, we showed that most outcomes (GPAs, dropout rates, resits, credits, and degree completion) were similar in all three groups. Autistic students had more no-shows in the second year than their peers, which affected degree completion after three years. Our analysis of student success prediction clarified what factors predicted their success or lack thereof for each year in their bachelor program. For first-year success, study choice issues were the most important predictors (parallel programs and application timing). Issues with participation in pre-education (absence of grades in pre-educational records) and delays at the beginning of autistic students’ studies (reflected in age) were the most influential predictors of second-year success and delays in the second and final year of their bachelor program. Additionally, academic performance (average grades) was the strongest predictor of degree completion within three years. Our research contributes to increasing equality of opportunities and the development of support in higher education in three ways. First, it provides insights into the extent to which higher education serves the equality of autistic students. Second, it clarifies which differences higher education must accommodate to support the success of autistic students during their student journey. Finally, we used the insights into autistic students’ success to develop a stepped, personalized approach to support their diverse needs and talents, which can be applied using existing offerings.
LINK
