Psychological Mind-Set and Student Success: The Importance of Internal Locus of Control in Students Who Overachieve

Abstract

Improving student success outcomes such as persistence and graduation rates remains a priority for higher education institutions, scholars, and advocates. Recent scholarly work argues for more qualitative work in this area to develop a deeper understanding of the issue and to identify more effective ways to increase college completion rates across all populations. This study examines student success by focusing on an understudied population in the literature: overachievers. We define overachievers as students who matriculate in the lowest quartile of an institution’s standardized test score range but are selected and persist as honors students after their first collegiate semester. This phenomenological study highlights the prevalence of a strong internal locus of control among overachievers. Using Bean and Eaton’s student success model as a framework, we explore how our participants operationalized an internal locus of control to achieve academic success in college and consider how higher education institutions can promote this mind-set and its related practices among students on their campuses.

Keywords

academic performance persistence psychological mind-set student success success strategies

Introduction

Concerns regarding student success have dominated the discourse and research in higher education for decades. Researchers have produced large volumes seeking to explain the impact of various interventions on student outcomes (e.g., Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), the differences that exist for different student populations (e.g., Renn & Reason, 2012), and models for understanding student success including persistence to graduation (e.g., Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Tinto, 1993). In short, scholars have devoted significant effort to better understand how students succeed and how best to support them in achieving success at postsecondary institutions.

Despite considerable advancements in this area, issues related to degree completion among undergraduates persist. Thought leaders and leading governmental and higher education organizations continue to focus on undergraduate degree completion. In the past decade, with models predicting a shortage in the educated workforce, there have been renewed calls for creative solutions to improve graduation rates at colleges and universities (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Lumina Foundation, 2009, 2017; Obama, 2009). As a result, a number of large-scale consortia and partnerships have emerged to tackle the issue (e.g., Center for Public University Transformation, Frontier Set, University Innovation Alliance). Consistent with these broader calls has been an explicit focus on narrowing the difference in graduation rates for traditionally underrepresented populations (Lumina Foundation, 2009, 2017; Obama, 2009).

Additional work is necessary to better understand what enables students to succeed, including the role institutions can play in promoting degree completion for all students. Adopting a strengths-based perspective, the article advances our understanding of student success by examining the experiences of students who complete honors-caliber work despite matriculating in the bottom quartile of their entering college cohort. In short, this study addresses a gap in the literature by seeking to understand what makes overachieving students successful in college.

Literature Review

There exists significant research describing the relationship between various factors and student success. First, there is a substantial body of literature examining the link between personal and precollege characteristics and success in college. Nationally, there is a significant gap in college-going and completion rates by race and ethnicity. White and Asian students tend to graduate at a much higher rate than Black and Latinx students (Shapiro et al., 2017). One of the most significant factors predicting whether students will struggle in college is their parents’ level of educational attainment (Choy, 2001; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Warburton, Bugarin, & Nuñez, 2001). Students with a parent who completed a bachelor’s degree are more likely to persist and graduate from colleges and universities (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Warburton et al., 2001). Another significant factor is income level. Although it seems that parental involvement can mitigate the impact of a low-income background (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001), students’ socioeconomic background remains a strong predictor of whether a student will earn a bachelor’s degree (Astin, 1993; Cahalan & Perna, 2015; Kena et al., 2015).

There is substantial evidence that the quality of high school, its curriculum, and a student’s performance in these classes are predictive of student success (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2011; Pike & Saupe, 2002). For example, higher level of mathematics preparation in high school is a significant predictor of academic success in college (Adelman, 1999, 2006). Overall, high school academic performance remains one of the strongest predictors of first-year college grades (Pike & Saupe, 2002), although the effect dissipates over the college career. This scholarship has enhanced our understanding of the likelihood of college success based on students’ high school preparation, demographic information, and family/community backgrounds.

Many of these predictive factors are interrelated, especially race, socioeconomic status, family background, and high school preparation (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2005; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). For example, minority students and low-income students are less likely to have access to rigorous high school math opportunities (Hoffman, Llagas, & Snyder, 2003; Swail, Cabrera, Lee, & Williams, 2005). In addition, first-generation college students are more likely to be racial and ethnic minorities and from lower incomes (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Furthermore, first-generation students are less likely to access rigorous high school curricula such as Advanced Placement (High School Survey of Student Engagement, 2005) despite evidence that rigorous high school curricula can narrow the college persistence gap (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Warburton et al., 2001). This research highlights the complexity of improving student success outcomes and the continued need for scholarship that identifies success models that promote academic achievement, especially for students less likely to succeed.

A significant body of scholarship exists examining the contribution of colleges to student success. Vast reviews of the literature suggest that a range of institutional interventions designed to support students, especially as they transition to college, benefit student persistence, such as remedial programs, supplemental instruction, academic advising and counseling, and transition programs (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Key elements of a student’s socialization also impact persistence and graduation outcomes, including peer and faculty interactions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), although peer interactions tend to have the most significant impact (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). As Pascarella and Terenzini succinctly summarized in their work reviewing the literature on the impacts of colleges “the evidence consistently indicates that academic and social involvement in whatever form (but some more than others) exert statistically significant and positive net influences on student persistence and degree completion” (p. 440). Consistently, the research points to a relationship between students’ level of involvement and integration into the campus community and their success in persisting and graduating (Astin, 1993; Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

This research has informed reforms at colleges and universities seeking the best ways to support students. On the national level, the American Association of Colleges and Universities has assumed a leading voice urging institutions to adopt what they identified as “high-impact educational practices” to foster involvement and engagement in service to increased retention. Reviewing the scholarship on student success, American Association of Colleges and Universities identified 10 interventions that increase retention and engagement that lead to improved graduation outcomes (e.g., first-year seminars; living-learning communities, undergraduate research; Kuh, 2008). However, the research on their impact for all populations of students is mixed, suggesting that high-impact educational practices may not be the panacea for solving the student success puzzle (e.g., Johnson & Stage, 2018; Kilgo, Ezell Sheets, & Pascarella, 2015). In summary, there remain questions about what factors enable students to succeed in college as the previous spate of research has not successfully remedied the shortcomings of lagging retention and graduation rates.

Rationale for Study

Given the substantial extant scholarship on student success, this study employs a different lens to further our understanding of the phenomenon. Harper (2007) argues that the literature on student success is dominated by analyses of large data sets. Although these studies have tremendous value in advancing our understanding of student success, they can also muffle the voices of students and limit our understanding of the issue. He argues that “most students pass through institutions of higher education with untold stories of their navigational trajectories that could be instructive to educators and administrators” (Harper, 2007, p. 57).

In this study, we used a phenomenological framework to examine the student success trajectory of an understudied population: “overachievers.” We defined overachievers as students who matriculate in the bottom quartile of an institution’s standardized test score range but excel at an honors level as undergraduates. Because larger models do not adequately portray the experiences of outliers like overachievers, a qualitative study of this population is warranted. Furthermore, no previous studies have explicitly focused on this population of students. The success of these students is exceptional and therefore worth studying to glean insights into characteristics or experiences that promote college achievement.

Conceptual Lens

In addition to the considerable scholarship linking various precollege and college factors and student success outcomes, there is also substantial theoretical work in the field useful for conceptualizing this aspect of the student experience. Two major theoretical models helped guide the development of this study. First, Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Model that argues college students engage in an interactive process by which they assess their “fit” or how well they can integrate academically and socially into the institution based on their interaction with peers, faculty, staff, and the overall institutional culture. Although there have been a number of critiques of Tinto’s model (e.g., Braxton & Lien, 2000; Tierney, 1999), the general principle of academic and social integration were useful in framing questions to explore the experiences of overachievers.

Second, we incorporated Astin’s (1977, 1991) Inputs–Environments–Outputs (I-E-O) model. The I-E-O model posits that student success outcomes are a function of student characteristics (inputs) and the collegiate environment (environments). The I-E-O framework helped us to consider the types of entering characteristics (inputs) and experiences (environment) we should explore with students to understand how they navigated the college experience and subsequently succeeded academically. Although these frameworks served as the primary architecture for developing our protocol, we also relied on the work of scholars such as Terenzini and Reason (2005) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) that helped identify specific sociological factors worth investigating.

Despite the reliance on these frameworks to frame this study, the data did not align with their emphasis on sociological factors. Instead, participant responses emphasized the role of students’ psychological dispositions. As a result, the work of Bean and Eaton (2001) proved most helpful in interpreting the data due to the emphasis on the impact of psychological factors on student success. Bean and Eaton argue that while the contemporary focus on the sociological factors of student retention is helpful for understanding student retention, sociological student success models had not yet provided an “explanation of the mechanisms by which activities would lead to increased academic or social integration and reduced attrition” (p. 74). To provide a fuller account of student success and retention, Bean and Eaton (2000, 2001) emphasize the role of psychological dispositions interacting with sociological factors. Bean and Eaton (2001) explain that students enter the college environment with psychological attributes that have been shaped over time by “experiences, abilities, and self-assessments,” including self-efficacy assessments, normative beliefs, and past behavior (p. 75). As students interact with the college environment, particularly institutional actors such as faculty and staff, they engage in self-assessment processes that lead them to “connect particular experiences they have had at the institution with their general feelings about college” (p. 75). These self-assessments result in emotional reactions that can lead students to adapt strategies that enable them to integrate with the college environment, an outcome that echoes Tinto’s (1993) emphasis on academic and social integration.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to explore the academic success of a group we labeled “overachievers.” Because of the lack of previous research on this specific group of students succeeding in college, we employed phenomenology to identify elements of the student experience that may be unrepresented in the current literature on student success (Harper, 2007). Our sample was diverse in terms of race, gender, and precollege academic achievement but shared similar academic outcomes in college further justifying the use of phenomenology as our methodology (Creswell, 2007). The purpose of phenomenology is to capture the essential experience of participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Van Manen, 2018). Phenomenological studies ask participants: “What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?” (p. 61). Our study asked these types of broad questions of overachievers to understand their student experience and to identify the factors that contributed to their success.

Context

The site for this study was a large research-intensive university located in the Midwestern United States. The university enrolls roughly 40,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate students. A predominantly White institution, roughly three fourths of the student body identifies as White. The institution has long engaged in efforts to recruit and retain racially minoritized and first-generation students through specific enrichment and bridge programs. In the past decade, the university further ramped up efforts to promote student success, especially those from minoritized backgrounds, including an initiative to integrate student support services and residential life. The average ACT score for admitted freshmen is 26; students scoring less than 24 are in the lowest quartile of entering students.

Sample

Because we studied the phenomenon of students overachieving beyond expectations, we selected a purposeful sample of 15 undergraduate students who matriculated to the institution in the bottom quartile of standardized test scores (ACT range: 16–23) who then excelled academically in college. We defined academic excellence as qualifying for the institution’s honors program by finishing the first semester in the top 10% of one’s disciplinary college. We recruited participants from this group who maintained an adequate grade point average for the honors program through their senior year. This population is small, yet diverse in terms of race, ethnicity and gender. The participants were also diverse in terms of socioeconomic status and included several first-generation college students (see Table 1). Our participants mirrored the overall population of overachievers at the institution in terms of demographic and academic performance with the exception of race and ethnicity; there was a greater proportion of underrepresented minorities in our sample (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Demographics of Individual Participants in Study.

Pseudonym	Race/ethnicity	Gender	First generation	Major
Antonio	Black	Male	Yes	Business
Grace	White	Female	No	Natural science
Heather	White	Female	Yes	Business
Jacqueline	Black	Female	No	Business
Karleigh	Black	Female	No	Social science
Kayla	Black	Female	Yes	Engineering
Leah	White	Female	No	Business
Mackenzie	Latinx	Female	No	Education
Megan	White	Female	No	Education
Mia	Multiple	Female	Yes	Natural science
Niya	Black	Female	Yes	Social science
Noah	Not reported	Male	Yes	Social science
Patience	Black	Female	No	Social science
Patricia	Latinx	Female	Yes	Business
Tianna	Black	Female	Yes	Natural science

Table 2.

Comparison of Study Sample With Population of Overachievers.

	Study participants	Population of overachievers^a
Current GPA	3.64	3.50
ACT composite	21.5	21.6
Gender
Male	13%	16%
Female	87%	84%
Race/ethnicity
White	27%	49%
Black	47%	27%
Latinx	13%	12%
Multiple	7%	5%
Asian	0%	5%
Other	7%	2%
First generation	53%	34%

Note. GPA = grade point average.

^aAll honors program students who matriculated in the lowest 25th percentile by standardized test scores and remained in good academic standing with honors through graduation.

Data Collection

The research team developed a semistructured interview protocol broadly addressing the psychological and sociological factors related to college student transitions and success. The protocol included questions about participants’ family background, high school background, college transition, peer relationships, faculty/staff relationships, and the factors that they perceived led to their success. We were careful not to ask leading questions, although we prepared a series of additional probes to be explored based on participant responses. When appropriate, we used these prompts to explore participant experiences in greater depth. Using the protocol, we conducted interviews with each participant that lasted approximately 1 hour. After each interview, the recordings were transcribed for analysis.

Data Analysis

Using the constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998), we created categories and developed themes emerging from participant responses. Members of the research team independently reviewed transcripts and engaged in initial open coding to identify meaning units (Giorgi, 2006) remaining attentive to themes that emerged inductively. We met regularly to compare codes and reconcile as needed. Throughout the process, we consulted relevant literature on student success, including theoretical work on student retention, self-efficacy, and mind-set (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Our analysis yielded patterns that both corresponded with and challenged the literature. Using our initial codes, we then revisited the data collapsing our patterns into major themes and subthemes (Saldaña, 2013). To ensure trustworthiness, we generated thick, rich description (Creswell, 2007) as a means of preserving the voice and experiences of our participants. Each researcher kept a separate journal to catalog initial perceptions regarding the data that were discussed regularly to inform subsequent coding and theme development for generating findings.

Limitations

The study has a few limitations. As the methodology selected is qualitative and the study was conducted on a single campus, the results are not generalizable to other contexts. Instead, the goal of the research is to deepen our understanding of the phenomenon of overachievers and potentially expose misconceptions in the prevailing literature. An additional limitation is the bias of the research team in interpreting participants’ experiences. As detailed earlier, we endeavored to limit our bias through careful analysis, but recognize that our preconceptions and assumptions impact the interpretation of the data. Finally, our participant recruitment yielded an overrepresentation of minority students. We view this overrepresentation as a positive aspect of our study given minority students are often underrepresented in the literature, yet recognize that a more representative sample might have yielded different results.

Findings

The dominant theme that emerged from our analysis was the role of participants’ psychological perspective in facilitating students’ academic achievement. Although there was variance in terms of participants’ views of their intelligence and ability, the participants consistently articulated a mind-set characterized by an internal locus of control. In describing their thought process and approach to collegiate challenges, the participants used language focusing on their ability to impact the outcome through behavioral modifications. Consistently, participants expressed a positive view of their intelligence in these domains, describing failure as a consequence of insufficient effort or ineffective strategies.

In the following sections, we report the data demonstrating the participants’ adoption of an internal locus of control and share three specific domains in which participants operationalized this mind-set to positively impact their college experience.

Internal Locus of Control

Participants in this study consistently attributed much of their success to having the correct mind-set. For the participants in this study, that mind-set was a belief that success was a function of their own efforts. One of our participants, Noah, described his mind-set this way: “I had a good GPA out of high school, but I think it’s more work ethic. I cared about my grades. I wanted to do well. I had goals of accomplishing things and going somewhere in life.” Similarly, Antonio stated “if I want it enough and if I work hard enough and if I study and if I, you know, go through the right steps, I can be successful in any environment I go to.” For the participants, work ethic was paramount in enabling them to achieve their academic goals.

Similar to Noah and Antonio, another one of our participants, Mia, underscored how her mind-set of working hard empowered her to succeed despite challenging circumstances. When asked to what she attributed her success, she replied:

I would say hard work. I don’t think college is easy … I think that you come into college, you have to work hard. It’s not just going to be easy and handed to you, you have to try. I would say hard work is what got me to where I am today … I’ve always thought that way. I guess that’s another thing about being first gen or coming from a single parent home. I always knew I wanted to have a better life for myself and my future family. I knew I had to work hard to get there. So I kind of had that mind-set ever since probably high school.

Many of the participants, like Mia, came from disadvantaged backgrounds but remained steadfast in the belief that they could succeed if they implemented the correct behaviors and practices. Consistent with an internal locus of control, participants reflected on their likelihood of success as a personal responsibility. One of the participants, Jacqueline, described it in the following way:

I would say having a drive. I feel like freshman year, being on my own, I learned very quickly you have to want to do it yourself. It’s not like your parents are there telling you, “You need to get up, you need to go to class.” It’s really on you. No one’s really checking for you and stuff like that. So I would say the biggest thing is having a drive and unfortunately I don’t feel like that’s something that can be taught. I feel like you either have the drive and you’re motivated to want to do better and want to get your degree or you don’t.

For these high-achieving students, they perceived a direct correlation between the amount of effort they expended and the success they achieved. Even when reflecting on struggles, the students tended to interpret the outcomes in light of their own efforts and actions.

These statements align with Bean and Eaton’s (2001) model that highlights the importance of an internal locus of control. As they described, “students who have an internal locus of control are likely to act in such a way as to achieve academic or social successes because they link, for example, studying and attending classes with academic achievement” (Bean & Eaton, 2001, p. 77). In contrast, students with an external locus of control are more likely to attribute success or failure to either the environment or a teacher not liking them (Bean & Eaton, 2001). Niya succinctly conveys the concept of an internal locus of control in describing how she overcame obstacles in college:

My story is that barriers will present themselves, they’re always going to present themselves whether it’s barriers like cultural differences, ethnicity, whether it’s maybe not knowing a concept other high schools may have taught their students, but you cannot allow them to deter you. When there’s a mob that’s present, what do you do? You can’t walk through the mob, so you climb it. I want other students to know that you can do it.

Niya’s quote exemplifies how our participants reflected on challenges and, in turn, their success. External challenges did not deter them from achieving their academic goals. Instead, they felt empowered to affect their success through effort and changes to their behaviors.

Examples of Employing an Internal Locus of Control

In addition to describing their approach to college consistent with the perspective of an internal locus of control, participants often described behaviors or approaches to challenges that were synonymous with this mind-set. Next, we describe three domains in which participants manifested an internal locus of control: (a) experimenting with study practices, (b) accessing campus resources, and (c) developing relationships with faculty and staff.

Experimenting with study practices

Consistent with an internal locus of control, our participants believed that they could find the right kind of study practices with sufficient trial and error. Many of the participants detailed a period of experimentation with various study techniques before identifying a set of practices that enabled them to succeed academically. For example, Tianna believed in her academic aptitude yet struggled initially when she entered college:

I think that my first exam was Chem, and I got like a 60% and I’d never gotten anything lower than an 80 or anything in high school. So that was interesting to me, but I think that was scary actually. I remember crying and calling my mom. Like “I’m not cut out for this.” But after that, I just realized that I had to work hard … So I think it was just the amount of time I put into it that led to success.

Tianna’s experience with failure, combined with her strong sense of self-efficacy, prompted her to experiment with different study practices hoping that changing her study behaviors would lead to an improved outcome:

I tried different things. For math, I was like, “I think I shouldn’t just read over stuff.” I would just do more practice problems. I would go to Poofers, look up old practice problems. I wouldn’t just do the ones they gave us. And I would go to office hours and ask if she could give me anything else. I actually started going to both lectures. I would go to the lecture on Monday … It was Monday, Wednesday, Friday, I think. I would go to the one at 1:50 and the one at 3:00. I would learn it in the first one … I’m like, “I’m good at math. I know I should be doing better. So I’m just going to do all I can to do better.” I would go to the first lecture and learn it and write down notes. I would go to the second lecture and just listen … They kind of taught differently.

In this example, we see Tianna’s willingness to experiment with various study techniques depending on the class. For her, focusing on her effort and remaining nimble to try different study techniques were keys to being successful. We see this theme echoed in the following quote from Mackenzie:

I guess I wasn’t afraid to try new strategies, just because I’ve always been bad at history. I had to take a history class where he just lectured, and we had to write down what you thought was important. I remember I started off first trying to write down every word he said, and then by the end of the semester I actually learned the skill of picking the most important topics, and not even writing down what he said, but writing down what he was talking about, which was kind of a skill, you kind of just had to fail a couple times, learn how to develop. I feel like that was mainly a lot of my college experience—just trying things and realizing, “Okay you did bad on this exam. You clearly weren’t studying the right material” or “You only give yourself a couple nights to study versus a week in advance” so honestly just little failures is what led me to try different things.

Mackenzie’s struggle with history led her to try different strategies. The key to Mackenzie’s success, she clearly states, is “trying different things” after experiencing academic failures. Many of our participants shared insights similar to Tianna and Mackenzie. Bean and Eaton (2001) refer to this practice as “adaptation” which is the “process by which a student becomes integrated into the new school environment” (p. 77). Adaptation functions through the adoption of coping behavior that allows students to thrive in an environment for which they initially may not be suited.

Accessing campus resources

In addition to experimenting with different study practices, many of our participants described frequent engagement with campus resources. Antonio attributed much of his success to his innate ambition and drive, but he also credited his use of various campus resources in aiding him in his academic journey. Describing his college transition, Antonio shared:

I’m gonna come in and focus on the academic side. I’m gonna use all the resources that are available to me … going to help rooms, going to the writing center and having my papers reviewed, That’s how I operated. I used every resource that was available. I signed up for tutoring and everything else you could think of.

Niya expressed an approach similar to Antonio. “I know that in order for me to be successful, I’m a hard worker, I’m going to use the resources no matter what, because I want to be successful.” Another participant, Karleigh, knew that in order to be successful and overcome challenges in her academic career, she had to leverage the resources available on campus.

For math, it’s like if you don’t know it, you don’t know it. I spent so many hours in the [math tutoring center]. The other thing I did was, right after a lecture, if I felt like I wasn’t understanding, I’d just go straight to the library instead of going to my dorm and just chill out for a second. I’d go straight to the library and rewrite my notes and make sure I was understanding right then and there instead of sitting on it.

Consistently, the participants described taking ownership of their academic performance and one of the ways in which many of them overcame initial failures or shortcomings was by availing themselves of support services. Tutoring centers enabled many of our participants to not only achieve their academic goals, but increased their self-efficacy which as Bean and Eaton (2001) argue, should be a primary goal of the institution. While Bean and Eaton specifically identify other institutional features such as service learning, learning communities, freshmen orientation seminars, and mentoring programs as developing students’ self-efficacy and locus of control, we found that tutoring centers functioned similarly by aiding students with immediate knowledge acquisition as well as confidence to achieve academically.

Developing faculty relationships

Another domain in which students’ exhibited an internal locus of control was their pursuit of faculty and staff relationships. For the most part, our participants held positive perceptions of faculty and their importance to student success. Consistent with a mind-set with an internal locus of control, we observed that many of our participants initiated the relationships with faculty, reaching out to them to access support.

For example, Mia had struggled initially with her classes and opted to reach out to a professor for help.

I didn’t do as well as I wanted on the first physics exam so I met with her [faculty instructor] and she was able to meet with me. We met weekly or biweekly just to go over stuff in class and the interactions.

Mia went on to say that even in limited interactions, the faculty were supportive and helped boost her confidence as a student:

I haven’t made any super strong connections with any professors or faculty, but the interactions I’ve had had been really supportive … I feel like the interactions I’ve had with faculty and staff made me feel confident. I know in one of my courses when I went to my professor because I wasn’t happy with how my exams and stuff were going, she was like “you’ve got to not be so hard on yourself. You’re actually doing pretty well for this class. This is a pretty difficult class, just keep trying.” I got better. I feel like the people here are supportive if you know where the support is or where to go.

Mia derived both practical and psychological benefits from these interactions. Although the faculty played a role in nurturing the relationship, like several participants in our study, Mia reported initiating relationships with faculty members. Again, this behavior of taking proactive steps to cultivate relationships with faculty and staff is consistent with an internal locus of control (Bean & Eaton, 2001).

Similar to Mia, Jacqueline described realizing that to succeed in college, she needed to reach out to faculty members:

So I’m thinking in my head like okay, maybe I’m kind of figuring out this college thing, like being able to talk to teachers and going to office hours. I feel like sometimes maybe when professors see that you’re really willing and really like trying to do better and learn the material, they’re more inclined to help. And so, I just kind of took that same approach with all of my classes.

For Jacqueline, reaching out to faculty helped in the short term with classes but also catalyzed a relationship with faculty that extended beyond the initial assistance with classroom learning.

These interactions underscore the role faculty can play in boosting student success through limited interactions. Bean and Eaton (2001) argue that “when a mentor validates a student’s strengths and perspectives, the student can become more successful” and that a “mentor acting alone has the capacity to reinforce students’ beliefs about themselves in a positive way while helping them succeed in meeting their academic and social needs on campus” (p. 84). It is clear that these overachievers benefited from finding ways to initiate contact with faculty instead of waiting for external circumstances to create these connections. As Mia shared in the form of advice to others: “there are people here [that] are super nice and friendly. And the faculty do care. They’ll help when you need it, you just have to ask for it.” This sentiment exemplified the distinct approach to student success prevalent among the participants: there are ways to succeed, if you are willing to take the initiative.

Discussion, Implications, and Future Directions

In this study, we sought to understand the factors that contributed to the success of overachieving students. The most prevalent characteristic among our participants was an internal locus of control. This psychological orientation manifested in students’ approach to the challenges of their college transition. Consistently across the group of participants, they articulated a sense of empowerment to achieve; they believed that their effort and willingness to adopt productive behaviors would lead to academic achievement.

The findings of this study align with Bean and Eaton’s (2001) model of retention that emphasizes the role of psychological factors in promoting student success. Although we found evidence of the other psychological processes outlined in their model (i.e., positive self-efficacy, coping processes, and attributional behavior), the possession of an internal locus of control was most pronounced in participants’ reflections on their college experience. At various times, our participants struggled to maintain a positive sense of self-efficacy due to the challenges they faced, but they persevered by focusing on changes they could make. Their ability to discover a success strategy was rooted in a powerful sense of their capacity to improve outcomes by changing their behavior. In short, their coping behaviors and positive self-efficacy were tied to and seemed to be a manifestation of their strong internal locus of control. Anchored in self-belief and a willingness to adapt their behaviors, participants developed strategies that enabled them to succeed academically.

Recently, the role of psychological factors in promoting student success has had a renaissance among higher education practitioners. The popularity of Duckworth’s (2016) work on grit and Dweck’s (2006) work on growth mindset have impacted how practitioners consider ways to encourage student success. Although we see evidence of these concepts in the experience of the participants in our study, the framework falls short of fully describing the mind-set we observed. Admittedly, the majority of our participants spoke often of hard work,drive, and ambition as key contributors to their success, language that is reminiscent of Duckworth’s research on grit (Duckworth, 2016; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). However, we observed a divergence from these concepts in the interaction between the participants and the institution. One concern with grit ideology is the dismissal of the role of inequality in the student success puzzle (Yeh, 2017). As articulated by Gorski (2016), grit “can only lead to strategies that sidestep the core causes of those disparities, requiring students to overcome inequities they should not be experiencing” (p. 383). Although working hard was critical to student success, our participants benefited greatly by leveraging resources designed to support their success. Based on the participants’ narratives, it seems unlikely that they would have succeeded to the same degree absent the campus resources integral to our participants’ experience. Thus, the concept seemed inadequate for describing the psychological disposition of our participants.

Reflecting on the concept of growth mind-set (Dweck, 2006), we observed similar deficiencies with its applicability to the participants in our study. Although initially attractive as a potential explanation for understanding how the participants succeeded as college students, the data did not fully support this viewpoint. Frequently, participants in our study referred to themselves as “smart,” clinging to a fixed assessment of their intelligence as a reason to persevere. For example, Tianna exemplified this fixed mind-set when recounting how she overcame her initial failures: “I know I’m a smart person, I just know that … My best is just the best. I feel like I should be getting four points all the time.” This language is inconsistent with Dweck’s (2006) research on growth mind-set. At a minimum, the findings of this study suggest that conceptualizing mind-set as a duality between fixed and growth may be inadequate. Despite exhibiting behaviors consistent with a growth mind-set such as persevering through failure via hard work, participants’ stubborn refusal to change their self-assessment of intelligence, consistent with a fixed mind-set, seemed to work as a protective factor against experiences of failure. Thus, the findings of this study suggest that some elements of fixed and growth mind-sets may be present simultaneously. In the case of overachievers and academic success, it appears that a combination of a fixed view of themselves as intelligent and the adoption of growth mind-set behaviors like experimenting with study techniques contributed to achievement.

This focus on self and the extent to which the participants themselves could make changes that would lead to improved outcomes is most synonymous with Bean and Eaton’s (2001) model that underscores the importance of adopting an internal locus of control. The possession of an internal locus of control played a significant role in how the participants engaged the college environment to achieve academically. Although much of the higher education literature focuses on programmatic interventions as promoting retention and student success such as high-impact educational practices (e.g., Kuh, 2008), many of our participants did not participate in these types of initiatives nor mention them as playing a significant role. The consistent theme that emerged from the participants was a mind-set that focused on what they could do to be successful such as altering their approach to studying or accessing resources like tutoring or faculty relationships.

Our participants described key instances where they realized a change in their academic practices was needed in order to achieve their goals. This behavior is reminiscent of Epstein’s (2019) work on range. This concept of “range” is the process of experimenting with different ideas and practices in order to find something in which one can excel. Range suggests that successful people will try multiple strategies to find one that aligns with their talents and abilities. Although not a concept advanced in the higher education literature, Epstein’s concept of range aptly describes the adaptive process adopted by participants to find systems that enabled them to succeed. When considered collectively, the psychological orientation of internal locus of control manifested in the concept of range describes the strategies employed by our participants to identify college success strategies.

An important question remains: how do students develop an internal locus of control? Knowing how vital this psychological orientation was to the success of this group of students, further research is necessary to better understand how students develop this perspective and how institutions can better facilitate the development of this mind-set among its students. Within higher education, there have been significant efforts to bolster support services for students, as was true of the institution in this study; however, there appears to be a necessary condition (i.e., internal locus of control) for students to best benefit from the available support.

One potential practice to be adopted by institutions is finding ways to incorporate the language and philosophy of an internal locus of control into their culture. There have been similar efforts related to other psychological mind-sets like growth mind-set (Dweck, 2006) and grit (Duckworth, 2016). As demonstrated in this study, encouraging students to adopt a mind-set synonymous with an internal locus of control may yield a greater impact. Institutions can promote these practices by adopting language and explicit instruction in first-year seminars and transition experiences like orientation programs as well as framing tutoring and support services with this psychological approach in mind. Furthermore, providing faculty and staff with professional development opportunities to deepen their understanding of internal locus of control and its related behaviors may be crucial to ensure that appropriate messaging is reaching students. With the appropriate psychological framing, faculty and staff may be more inclined to encourage positive behaviors and students success strategies for all students instead of linking success to innate ability or past performance. If faculty and staff view struggling students as having potential but not yet identifying a successful range as described by Epstein (2019), then they may be more likely to encourage struggling students to experiment with strategies until they identify a set of behaviors that lead to academic success.

Conclusion

This article describes the critical role students’ view of themselves and their agency in altering academic outcomes play in determining student success. By studying overachievers, this research details the perspective of an understudied population of students who successfully navigated the college transition despite an entering academic profile suggesting they may struggle. Although there were other factors not explored in this article, the most prevalent commonality among the overachievers was a mind-set synonymous with a strong internal locus of control. These students leveraged the belief that changes in their behavior would yield improved academic outcomes. As a result, the students adopted a number of successful strategies including experimenting with study strategies, accessing available resources and developing faculty relationships to boost their performance that resulted in persistence within the honors program at their institution. These findings emphasize the foundational role of psychological disposition in empowering students to engage in successful academic strategies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Justin P. Micomonaco

Author Biographies

Justin P. Micomonaco, PhD, is an assistant dean in the Honors College at Michigan State University. His current research focuses on issues related to honors education, student success and undergraduate research experiences.

Benjamin D. Espinoza is associate vice president of online education and an assistant professor at Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester, New York. His research explores faculty work, student success, critical perspectives in higher education, and organizational leadership.

References

Adelman

(1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Adelman

(2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Astin

A. W.

(1977). Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: McMillan.

Astin

A. W.

(1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Bean

Eaton

S. B.

(2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 73–89.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Completion by design (concept paper). Seattle, WA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.completionbydesign.org/s/article/Completion-by-Design-Concept-Paper-September-2010

Bogdan

R. C.

Biklen

S. K.

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

10.

Braxton

J. M.

Lien

L. A.

(2000). The viability of academic integration as a central construct in Tinto’s interaction college student departure. In Braxton

J. M.

(Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 11–28). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

11.

Braxton

J. M.

Milem

J. F.

Sullivan

A. S.

(2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.

12.

Braxton

J. M.

Sullivan

A. V. S.

Johnson

R. M.

(1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research ( Vol. 12, pp. 107–158). New York, NY: Agathon.

13.

Cahalan

Perna

L. W.

(2015). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute and Penn AHEAD.

14.

Choy

(2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

15.

Chrispeels

J. H.

Rivero

(2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119–169.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 5 approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Duckworth

(2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner.

18.

Duckworth

Peterson

Matthews

M. D.

Kelly

D. R.

(2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.

19.

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

20.

Epstein

(2019). Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

21.

Giorgi

(2006). Concerning variations in the application of the phenomenological method. The Humanistic Psychologist, 34, 305–319.

22.

Gorski

P. C.

(2016). Poverty and ideological imperative: A call to unhook from deficit and grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(4), 378–386.

23.

Harper

S. R.

(2007). Using qualitative methods to assess student trajectories and college impact. In Harper

S. R.

Museus

S. D.

(Eds.), Using qualitative methods in institutional assessment (pp. 55–68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

High School Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). What we can learn from high school students. Bloomington: Indiana University.

25.

Hoffman

Llagas

Snyder

(2003). Status and trends in the education of blacks (NCES 2003-04). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

26.

Johnson

S. R.

Stage

F. K.

(2018). Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates? The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 753–781.

27.

Kena

Musu-Gillette

Robinson

Wang

Rathbun

Zhang

Velez

E. D.

(2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

28.

Kilgo

C. A.

Ezell Sheets

J. K.

Pascarella

(2015). The link between high-impact practices and learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69, 509–525.

29.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.

30.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

Buckley

Bridges

Hayek

J. C.

(2011). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report (Vol. 116). John Wiley & Sons.

31.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

Schuh

J. H.

Whitt

E. J.

, & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Kuh

G. D.

Schuh

J. H.

Whitt

E. J.

, & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

34.

Lumina Foundation. (2009). Lumina Foundation’s strategic plan: Goal 2025. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.

35.

Lumina Foundation. (2017). Lumina Foundation strategic plan for 2017 to 2020. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.

36.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement: 2005 annual survey results. Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington.

38.

Nunez

Cuccaro-Alamin

(1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

39.

Obama

(2009, February 24). Remarks of President Barack Obama address to joint session of congress. Washington, DC: Obama White House.

40.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Pike

G. R.

Saupe

J. L.

(2002). Does high school matter? An analysis of three methods of predicting first year grade. Research in Higher Education, 43, 187–207.

43.

Renn

K. A.

Reason

R. D.

(2012). College students in the United States: Characteristics, experiences, and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

44.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

45.

Shapiro

Dundar

Huie

Wakhungu

Yuan

Nathan

Hwang

(2017, April). Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates by race and ethnicity—Fall 2010 cohort (Signature Report No. 12b). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

46.

Swail

W. S.

Cabrera

A. F.

Lee

Williams

(2005). Latino students and the educational pipelines: A three-part series. Part III: Pathways to the bachelor’s degree for Latino students. Stafford, VA: Education Policy Institute.

47.

Terenzini

P. T.

Reason

R. D.

(2005). Parsing the first year of college: Rethinking the effects of college on students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.

48.

Terenzini

P. T.

Springer

Yaeger

P. M.

Pascarella

E. T.

Nora

(1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22.

49.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integrity versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68, 80–91.

50.

Tinto

(1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.

51.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Van Manen

(2018). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

53.

Warburton

Bugarin

Nuñez

(2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

54.

Yeh

(2017, April 14). Forget grit. Focus on inequality. Education Week. Retrived from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/04/14/forget-grit-focus-on-inequality.html