Persistence in higher education and its relationship to other personality variables

A variety of personality variables can be theoretically connected to academic success in school at any age. Among these, persistence seems to be a central characteristic. In this study two questionnaires were administered to 181 Israeli college students who entered a four year teachers' college: (1) Persistence Scale in School (PSS); (2) The 16 Personality Factor Inventory (16PF). After four years of college the students were divided into the following two groups: those who completed their degree (PG-Persisting Group), and those who did not complete their degree (NGP-Non-Persisting Group). Comparison of the two groups showed that the PG group had a higher grade point average (GPA) than did the NPG. No other differences were found among the various demographic and personality variables used in the study. However, a significant interaction was found between the level of persistence and the GPA, indicating that the relationship between persistence and grades is not simple. The authors discuss the results and try to elucidate several variables that can explain persistence during university-level studies.

**********

A large increase in research into academic persistence has been recorded in recent years resulting in hundreds of new entries in the ERIC listings. Many of these are longitudinal studies dealing with minorities. Unfortunately, there is neither agreement on the definition of academic persistence, nor on the method used to assess academic persistence, which varies from study to study. Many of these studies define academic persistence as the ability of students to graduate from a program. It seems that a large number of these studies were aimed at predicting academic persistence in order to reduce the dropout rate from school, college, or a university. The prediction of academic persistence was achieved by assessing many demographic and program related variables; only a few studies tried to assess personality variables of the students involved in the studies, and that is the goal of the present study.

Tinto (1987) has a well-known theory based on a longitudinal model for student attrition. Trying to explain persistence in higher education, Tinto (1989) claimed that "over the last 15 years, the most consistent finding has been that positive interaction with faculty members has a direct bearing on whether students persist to earn a degree" (p. B2). Townsend, McNerny, and Arnold (1993) categorized research concerning transfer and degree completion rates into the following three types: (1) student-centered explanations--dealing mainly with academic and personal characteristics; (2) institutional-centered explanations--dealing with academic cultural practices, and cooperation; and (3) societal analyses--dealing with economic and political factors. A different approach was taken by Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) when they identified the following three areas that influence college attrition: (a) academic adjustment; (b) social adjustment; and (c) personal or emotional adjustment. Before describing the present study, a brief review of the literature will examine the following three areas, they seem to the authors as more appropriate to the topic: (a) academic variables; (b) non-academic school related variables; and (c) personality variables.

Academic Variables

Consistent findings across many studies show significant correlations between academic persistence and grade point average-GPA (Cejda & Rewey, 1998; Dubey, 1982; Mukherjee, 1974; Graham & Hughes, 1994; Pigge & Marso, 1992). More specifically, Ammons (1971) found that only the first semester GPA was the best predictor of persistence in junior college, while Steward & Jackson (1990) found similar results for black students after the first year. Other academic factors, but not grade related, were found by Wessell, Engle & Smidchens (1978) who claimed that students who made relatively early decisions of educational goals persisted more in school as compared to those who delayed their academic planning. Finally, commitment to the institution was found to have a strong direct effect on persistence by Pascarella & Chapman (19 83).

NonAcademic School related Variables

Considering non-academic variables in academic persistence, Barr & Rasor (1999) found that freshman affiliated with a student service on campus persisted longer and achieved more than other freshmen. Brown & Robinson (1997) claimed that academic preparation and aspirations, academic performance, and interactions with faculty and staff could differentiate between those who persisted and those who did not persist in school. Johnson & Richardson (1986) found the following variables to have a direct or indirect effect on persistence in school: practical value, academic integration, academic satisfaction, academic performance, and intent. Belcheir, Michener & Gray (1998) differentiated between older and younger successful students and found that for older students supportive family environment appeared to be critical. For younger students, getting involved with campus activities, seeing the value of education, and enjoying learning seemed to be the important factors. Social support networks are important in college adjustment (Hays & Oxley, 1986) and, feeling of insufficient social support can predict attrition (Mallinckrodt, 1988). Hopes of success in college can influence the level of persistence when those who have unrealistically high expectations tend to drop out of college more than those who have more realistic expectations (Shaw, 1968; Standing & Parker, 1964). Realistic adjustments to college life had similar results to those of realistic expectations, while those who overestimate their ability are more likely to drop out (Baker et, al., 1984; Baker & Schultz, 1992, Baker & Siryk, 1989). Various studies claimed that those students who showed more involvement and integration in college life persisted more in their studies (Astin, 1993; Ory & Braskamp, 1988; and Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).