Page 146 - Secondary school students’ university readiness and their transition to university Els van Rooij

Pro les of student engagement
Figure 5.3 Students’ standardised scores on achievement and academic adjustment in university, per latent pro le
e results of the ANCOVA – we accounted for the e ects of age, gender, and 5 coursework in secondary school (science vs. humanities/social sciences) –
showed that the pro les di ered signi cantly in the number of attained credits,
F(4, 67) = 2.83, p = 0.03: Intellectually highly disengaged students had earned
signi cantly less credits than intellectually engaged and overall highly engaged students. e pro les also di ered in overall academic adjustment, F(4, 73) = 3.35, p = 0.01: behaviourally and cognitively disengaged learners were signi cantly less academically adjusted than overall highly engaged learners. Looking into the speci c dimensions of academic adjustment, we saw signi cant di erences between the pro les on performance, F(4, 73) = 5.14, p < 0.01: Intellectually highly disengaged learners and behaviourally and cognitively disengaged learners scored signi cantly lower than overall highly engaged learners, which means that the latter had less problems in exerting academic e orts that were su cient and e cient than the former two groups. Although the groups’ average GPAs varied from 6.40 for the intellectually highly disengaged and 7.53 for the overall highly engaged, this di erence was not signi cant. e adjustment dimensions motivation (i.e., motivation to do academic work), application (i.e., applying yourself to academic work in university), and environment (i.e., satisfaction with the academic environment at university) also did not show signi cant di erences between the pro les. e amount of variance in achievement and academic adjustment explained by pro le membership was quite small. e adjustment dimension performance was a ected most by class membership (η2 = 0.22).
145