Do Students Admitted to Universities Through Different Channels Have Differences in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Performance? Comparison of Students From the Multi-Star Project, Individual Application Channel, and Exam-Based Channel Author:Nellie S. Cheng, Jin-Long Wang
Research Article
For decades, the Taiwanese university admission system consisted of only one channel—the Joint College Entrance Examination—for admitting students into universities. This single-channel system received widespread criticism; for example, it was criticized for imposing enormous stress on students and for preventing students from exploring their interests and alternative career paths. Consequently, the multichannel entrance system was launched in 2002 to replace the single-channel paradigm and provide multiple options for students to be admitted into universities. Among the available admittance channels, most high school students are admitted into universities through three main channels: the multistar project, individual application channel, and exam-based channel. This study focused on these channels. These three channels were developed to meet distinct policy goals, and each challenge has unique procedures and criteria. The multistar project was designed to reduce the urban–rural gap and promote the communization of senior high schools. Therefore, students with good academic performance, regardless of the standing of their high school, have favorable chances of entering the university of their choosing. The individual application channel involves a similar application process to that in the United States and European countries. This channel requires students to prepare a personal portfolio supporting an application to a specific program. In-person interviews are usually mandatory during the process to facilitate proper consideration by the program faculty; compared with the other two channels, this channel is considered more effective at matching students’ interests and competences with a department’s selection criteria. Finally, the exam-based channel largely duplicates the old system of the Joint College Entrance Examination in which students list their desired programs and the exam score is the only criterion used to determine whether a student is qualified. All students are required to take the General Scholastic Ability Test in late January or early February; however, for students who choose the exam-based channel, an additional and considerably more difficult exam (Advanced Subjects Test, AST) is required in early July. Students who choose the multistar project channel are informed of their results in late March. The interview process for the individual application channel takes place in April, and students are informed of their results in May. For students who use the exam-based channel, the admission results are announced in early August.
This study used self-regulated learning characteristics to interpret differences in academic performance. Among the three entrance channels, the multistar project channel emphasizes the high school GPA (grade point average), requiring applicants to maintain a high level of academic performance. The exam-based channel requires students to prepare for an additional and more difficult exam, requiring students to maintain their study skills and efforts longer. During this preparation time, students who choose the two other channels already know their admission results and are relieved of this burden. The researchers hypothesized that students who choose these two channels (multistar and exam-based) would have better self-regulated learning characteristics and academic performance in college. However, because the individual application channel is the most effective at matching students and programs, the researchers also hypothesized that students who choose the individual application channel would have stronger academic motives for their chosen majors in college.
The study sample comprised 4542 college students, of whom 513 were admitted through the multistar project channel, 1929 were admitted through the individual application channel, and 2100 were admitted through the exam-based channel. Student data were collected through the student affairs system of a single university in Taiwan. The researchers adopted the nine variables of the framework of self-regulated learning proposed by Sitzman and Ely (2011). The researchers first explored the internal structure of the variables and used them to derive four self-regulatory factors, namely goal momentum, self-regulatory mechanism, academic motivation, and engagement time, which were then used to test the hypotheses. Goal momentum, including self-efficacy, goal setting, and metacognitive strategies, represents the process of planning, executing, and monitoring progress toward goals. Self-regulatory mechanism, including time management, learning environment structure, attention, and attribution, reflects an individual’s self-regulating actions during the learning process. Because academic motivation and engagement time could not be categorized into a common factor, they were added to the regression analysis individually. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to derive a predictive model of how these self-regulatory factors predict academic performance (GPA in college). Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to test the hypotheses: first, that students from the multi-star project and exam-based channels would outperform students from the individual application channel in terms of self-regulatory characteristic variables (except academic motivation) and academic performance, and second, that students from the individual application channel would have more academic motivation than would students from the two other channels.
The results demonstrated that among the four self-regulatory learning factors (goal momentum, self-regulatory mechanism, academic motivation, and engagement time), goal momentum and engagement time significantly predicted academic performance; this pattern appeared to be consistent across the three groups of students. Goal momentum and engagement time differed among the three groups. Specifically, as hypothesized, students admitted through the multistar project and exam-based channels outperformed those admitted through the individual application channel. Students admitted through the multistar project channel had higher academic performance than did those admitted through the exam-based channel, and in turn, students admitted through the exam-based channel had higher academic performance than did those admitted through the individual application channel. However, academic motivation (including the evaluation of their values and interest for their majors) did not differ among the three groups.
The individual application channel aims to enhance self-exploration among students, and in theory, it best matches students and programs; nevertheless, the results of this study do not support this proposition. In addition, the study revealed that students admitted through the individual application channel had a slightly higher rate of changes in majors (p < .01 in chi-square analysis) than did those admitted through the two other channels. Thus, contrary to the policy goal of matching students and programs, the students admitted through the individual application channel did not have stronger academic motivation, and a higher percentage of these students changed their majors. The individual application channel is the most commonly employed channel to admit students into universities in the United States and European countries; the Ministry of Education in Taiwan intended for this to be the dominant or even only channel for future admissions. The results of this study did not support the superiority of the individual application channel in the Taiwanese higher education context as measured by GPA; instead, the results for this channel were less favorable regarding students’ self-regulatory characteristics and academic performance.
The establishment of the multichannel entrance system was revolutionary and upheld a noble goal of both allowing students to better tailor their self-development and career paths and giving universities more power to choose suitable students for their departments. However, the revision of public policies to meet the needs of society takes time and multiple adjustments. A new version of the multichannel entrance system will be implemented in 2022; a notable improvement is being negotiated based on negative feedback regarding the current version. For example, students who choose the multistar project and individual application channels have nearly 3 to 4 months of “nonstudying time” because their application procedure ends earlier. The new version has shortened this non-studying time by revising the timetable. For any policy to improve, it must include a dynamic feedback and revision process. A policy aimed at correcting one problem may create a new set of problems. Although some channels are designed to match students with applied programs, the traditional approach of students choosing programs based not on their interests but on the reputation of the university might still be common. This unexpected behavior during application to programs might have affected the channels through which students enter a program. Additional qualitative studies aimed at identifying the means through which students select an entrance channel are required to further determine effective means of designing policy to better persuade students to choose a major based on their own interests and competence.
Do Students Admitted to Universities Through Different Channels Have Differences in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Performance? Comparison of Students From the Multi-Star Project, Individual Application Channel, and Exam-Based Channel
下載
