Time Perspective and Grade Expectations as Predictors of Student Achievement and Retention in the First Year of Community College

Abstract

The authors examined three motivational factors (first-year grade expectations, present-focused time perspective, and future-focused time perspective) as predictors of achievement and retention outcomes for students (N = 844) in their first semester at a predominately Hispanic-serving community college, accounting for student background characteristics. In this correlation research study, instructors administered surveys to students in a required first-year orientation course. Survey data was then merged with institutional data. The results of the multiple regression analysis suggested that first-year grade expectations, present-focused time perspective, age, ethnicity, first-generation status, and academically underprepared status were statistically significant predictors of first-semester GPA and explained 9.0% of the variation, whereas future-focused time perspective, sex, and economically disadvantaged status were not. First-year grade expectations and economically disadvantaged status significantly predicted second-semester retention; the other study predictors did not. This study expands research on malleable motivational factors educators could target to support students in their first year of community college.

Keywords

time perspective expectations for success motivation community college achievement retention demographics

Achievement and retention of community college students is a significant and enduring issue with a multitude of studies emphasizing the formidable odds confronting students as they strive to earn a certificate or degree (de Brey et al., 2019; McFarland et al., 2019). Moreover, research shows that many students begin struggling academically and motivationally during the first weeks of community college (Hatch & Garcia, 2017), with studies showing attrition of approximately one third after the first semester (Fike & Fike, 2008) and one half after the first year (National Student Clearinghouse, 2019). Although researchers have identified a host of factors that help to predict college student achievement and retention in the first year and beyond (see Seidman, 2012), more research is needed that focuses on identifying malleable motivational factors (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016; Robbins et al., 2009) that are both causative in nature and amendable to change through educational intervention (Weinstein & Acee, 2018) such as students’ expectations for success (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) and future time perspective (Lens et al., 2012).

A long history of research has suggested that students’ expectations for success on course tasks influence their motivation and achievement on those tasks (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). More specifically, confidence in one’s ability to succeed energizes action towards academic goals and facilitates achievement. However, less is known about broader expectancy measures that assess students’ overall predictions of their success across multiple courses. Broader expectancy measures (e.g., first-year grade expectations) may be particularly useful in predicting broader academic outcomes (e.g., GPA), and this notion is supported by the principal of compatibility (see Ajzen, 2011) which posits that attitudinal predictors are stronger when they correspond in their level of specificity with behavioral outcomes.

Future time perspective—the degree to which students think about the future and connect the future to present tasks—is another factor that has been found to influence students’ motivation and achievement in college (Andre et al., 2018; Husman & Shell, 2008). Students’ future time perspective results from the array of future goals one has and can thus be formulated and modified through goal setting (Lens et al., 2012). The lack of a well-developed future time perspective could be the result of a multitude of factors that detract from future thinking and goal setting, including an orientation toward past or present thinking (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Research has shown that many college students, particularly those in community colleges, face a myriad of life demands (David et al., 2013) that may require a present-focused time perspective to manage immediate concerns and commitments; leaving little time and energy for future thinking and academic goal pursuit. A gap in the research on future time perspective theory is that it fails to consider students’ present time perspective in conjunction with their future time perspective. In the current study, we used an academic time perspective instrument (Weinstein et al., 2008) that measured both present-focused and future-focused time perspectives, so we could examine how these variables may relate to academic outcomes. Research in this area could help to inform college-transition interventions that aim to help students develop a stronger future-focused time perspective and better manage present concerns.

Most motivation research linking students’ expectations for success and future time perspective to academic achievement has focused on predicting grades in a course, or success on a specific task. Few studies have examined the role these motivational factors play in predicting measures of success that are more global, such as GPA and retention, especially for students enrolled in community colleges. Examining the nature of these relationships could help to inform intervention research and practice aimed at motivating students in college and helping them develop more adaptive time perspectives and expectations for success.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine students’ first-year grade expectations, academic time perspective (present-focused and future-focused), and the role these factors play in predicting achievement and retention outcomes for students in their first semester at an inner-city, predominately Hispanic-serving, community college, accounting for student background characteristics (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, first-generation status, economically disadvantaged status, and academically underprepared status).

Literature Review

Two theories that are particularly relevant for this study are expectancy-value theory and future time perspective theory. Expectancy-value theory explains why students’ expectations for success influence student motivation and success, whereas future time perspective theory explains why students’ perceptions of time influence motivation and academic goal attainment.

Expectancy-Value Theory

Eccles et al. (1983)expectancy-value theory proports that students’ expectations for success and subjective task value are key proximal determinants of their achievement-related goals and behaviors. Empirical evidence supports that college students are more motivated towards academic goals and tasks that they believe they can accomplish and perceive as valuable (Hood et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2019). Research has also shown that expectancies tend to be strong predictors of academic achievement, whereas subjective task values tend to be strong predictors of interests and course-enrollment decisions (Robinson et al., 2019). This literature review is specifically focused on expectations of success because of our interest in using students’ first-year grade expectations to predict academic achievement and retention.

Eccles et al. (1983) distinguished ability beliefs (i.e., perceptions of one’s present ability in an academic domain) from expectancies for success (i.e., appraisals of the probability for future success on an academic task), while recognizing their interrelatedness. They also likened expectations for success to Bandura’s (1997) concept of self-efficacy beliefs, because both constructs concerned students’ judgments about their confidence to succeed on an academic task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In general, students with high expectations for success on a task are more likely to engage in the task, put effort towards it, persist in the face of difficulty, and accomplish the task (see Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Similarly, researchers have found self-efficacy to be predictive of student motivation, use of learning strategies, use of metacognitive strategies, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990). Moreover, research has shown that expectations for success uniquely predict performance, even after controlling for prior achievement (Cassidy, 2012; Eccles et al., 1983; Meece et al., 1990). Research on expectations for success and self-efficacy has illustrated the benefits of helping students develop confidence in their capabilities to accomplish academic tasks, particularly as it pertains to college success. However, less is known about the effects of students’ expectations for success more generally, as most studies have examined students’ expectations for success in a specific course. For this study, we opted to measure expectations for success broadly by asking students to indicate the grades they expected to earn in their first year of community college, given that our focus was on college achievement and retention overall, rather than a specific task or course.

Future Time Perspective Theory

There are two major lines of research on time perspective that have been applied to postsecondary educational contexts. Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) conceptual model of time perspective depicts time perspective as a fairly stable individual difference variable, and their measurement instrument differentiates past-positive, past-negative, present-fatalistic, present-hedonistic, and future time perspectives. Future time perspective theory, on the other hand, emphasizes future time perspective as a dynamic and malleable motivational factor that can be shaped through future thinking and goal setting (Simons et al., 2004). Given our focus on malleable motivational factors, the current study emphasizes research on future time perspective theory, but also points out limitations with this theory because it does not adequately take into account students’ present-focused concerns that might detract from future thinking. What follows is a brief review of future time perspective theory and discussion of research gaps related to measuring students’ present-focused time perspective.

The psychological literature has addressed future perceptions and their impacts on human behavior for over 80 years (e.g. Lewin, 1936). Aligned with expectancy-value theory, yet varying in scope and emphasis, future time perspective theory acknowledges the influence students’ expectations for success, subjective task value, and goals have on student motivation and emphasizes students’ perceptions of time as another critical variable that influences the motivational process (Husman & Lens, 1999; Husman & Shell, 2008). Future time perspective captures the level of importance students place on the future, how far out into the future they project, their capabilities to set goals and make plans for the future, and the extent to which they make instrumental connections between activities in their present lives and the attainment of their future goals (Husman & Shell, 2008). Lens et al. (2012) conceptualized future time perspective as a cognitive-motivational characteristic resulting from personal goal setting and with motivational consequences. Researchers have operationalized future time perspective in multiple ways (Andre et al., 2018), with basic elements consistent across definitions, including an individual’s perception of the future as it relates to the present. For the current study, we utilized Husman and Len’s (1999) operational definition of future time perspective as “ … the degree to which and the way in which the chronological future is integrated into the present life-space of an individual through motivational goal-setting” (p. 114).

Research has shown that students’ future time perspective is predictive of their motivation and achievement in college courses (Husman & Shell, 2008). Research has also identified connections between future time perspective and other motivational constructs that contribute to students’ academic success such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Lens et al., 2012), learners’ attributions, achievement motivation, and self-regulation (Shell & Husman, 2001). Andre et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of 28 independent studies and found small-to-medium effect sizes between future time perspective and educational outcomes including behavioral outcomes (e.g., GPA and learning engagement), attitudinal outcomes, behavioral intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Accordingly, in this study, we expected future time perspective to play an important role in motivating students to succeed during their first year of community college.

One limitation of the literature on future time perspective theory is that it does not differentiate future and present time perspectives. Working outside of future time perspective theory, Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) differentiated two types of present time orientations. Present-hedonistic time orientation reflects a pleasure-seeking disposition towards life (example items: “taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring” and “I do things impulsively”). Present-fatalistic time orientation refers to a hopeless disposition toward the future due to a perception that life circumstances are outside of one’s control (example item: “you can’t really plan for the future because things change so much”). Using Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) time perspective measure, research has suggested negative relationships between present time orientations and postsecondary academic engagement and GPA, and positive relationships between future time perspective and these outcomes (Barnett et al., 2020). However, as we mentioned previously this work examines time perspective as a stable individual difference characteristic. Working within future time perspective theory, Husman and Shell (2008) have used reverse-coded items to measure future time perspective that from our perspective could be interpreted to represent a present-focused time perspective, because they address the relative importance of present versus future concerns (example item: “immediate pleasure is more important than what might happen in the future”) and perceived disconnectedness of the future to the present (example item: “what one does today will have little impact on what happens ten years from now”). However, Husman and Shell (2008) did not systematically design their survey to examine a present time perspective dimension. Also, their survey items did not address the academic context, and meta-analytic research has suggested that domain-specific measures of future time perspective are stronger predictors of educational outcomes than domain-general measures (Andre et al., 2018). Given that students in community college may face myriad non-academic demands (David et al., 2013) that may direct their focus towards present matters and detract from future thinking, and because research has shown that many college students prioritize gratification in the present over future goal attainment (Bembenutty, 1999), it may be particularly important to differentiate future and present time perspectives.

To address the lack of a present-focused time perspective construct in the future time perspective literature, Weinstein et al. (2008) developed an academic time perspective measure designed to differentiate future-focused and present-focused time perspectives in academic contexts. A present-focused time perspective refers to a stronger focus on immediate concerns and present circumstances over future thinking and academic goal striving resulting in a present life-space that is disconnected to the future (example items: “Because I am too busy taking care of the present, I do not think much about the future”, “I live for today and do not worry about the future”, “Final exams are too far away for me to think about them now”). Conceptually, present-focused time perspective and future-focused time perspective should be negatively correlated. The more students focus on present over future matters, the less developed their future time perspective. However, a present-focused time perspective is not the only time perspective that could detract from future thinking. For example, students’ ruminations about the past could also detract from future thinking (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Therefore, a low future time perspective does not necessarily equate to a high present time perspective, and these constructs could be viewed on two dimensions rather than polar ends of the same dimension. In line with this view, field-test results provided support for this measure and its ability to differentiate both factors (Weinstein et al., 2008). We used this instrument in the current study.

Methods

The primary purpose of this study was to examine academic time perspective and first-year grade expectations as predictors of students’ first-semester GPA and second-semester retention. We had one overarching research question: To what extent do first-year grade expectations and academic time perspective predict students’ first-semester GPA and second-semester retention, after accounting for student background characteristics (i.e., age, sex, ethnicity, first-generation status, economically disadvantaged status, and academically underprepared status)? We hypothesized that first-year grade expectations and future-focused time perspective would positively predict both outcomes, whereas present-focused time perspective would negatively predict both outcomes. A secondary focus of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the academic time perspective measure and its relationships with expectations for success and student background characteristics. We hypothesized that the academic time perspective measure would load on two separate dimensions corresponding to present-focused and future-focused time perspective. We hypothesized that students with higher first-year grade expectations would have higher future-focused time perspectives and lower present-focused time perspectives. No specific hypotheses were made as to the relationships between academic time perspective and student background characteristics, although they were examined for exploratory purposes.

Participants and Setting

Our sample comprised 844 students enrolled in a first-year orientation course at an inner-city, predominately Hispanic-serving community college in the South Central region of the United States. The institution enrolled 3,117 first-time-in-college students in the fall semester; therefore, our sample comprised 27% of this population. The institution offered 1- and 2-year certificates; associate degrees in science, applied science, arts, and teaching; continuing education credits; and pre-major pathways for transferring to 4-year colleges and universities. To be included in the study students had to be in their first semester of college and have completed the survey measuring their academic time perspective and first-year grade expectations. The students in our sample were for the most part traditionally aged (n = 776, 91.9%) but some were 25 and older (n = 68, 8.1%). There were more females (n = 469, 55.6%) than males (n = 375, 44.4%). Participants identified as Asian (n = 7, 0.8%), Black (n = 41, 4.9%), Hispanic (n = 547, 64.8%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (n = 5, 0.6%), White (n = 185, 21.9%), and some indicated multiple races and ethnicities (n = 59, 7.0%). There were more students identified by the institution as economically disadvantaged (n = 473, 56.0%) than non-economically disadvantaged (n = 371, 44.0%). More students were identified as continuing generation (n = 478, 56.6%) than first generation (n = 366, 43.4%). Our sample mostly consisted of students who were deemed academically underprepared by the institution (n = 683, 80.9%) though some were considered academically prepared for college-level work (n = 161, 19.1%). We chose this institutional setting to conduct our research because we wanted our results to be generalizable to populations historically underrepresented in the research literature, such as the population from which we sampled in this study.

Research Design and Procedures

We used a correlational research design in which data from paper-and-pencil surveys were combined with institutional data from the participating community college. Institutional data were obtained on students’ first-generation status, economically disadvantaged status, academically underprepared status, first-semester GPA, and second-semester retention. The surveys measured students’ academic time perspective, first-year grade expectations, age, sex, and ethnicity. Course instructors administered the surveys to students during the first week of the fall semester of a required first-year orientation course.

Measures

For student background characteristics, students were asked to report their age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The participating community college used one or more of the following standards to determine economically disadvantaged status: (a) annual income at or below the federal poverty line; (b) eligibility for aid to families with dependent children or other public assistance program; (c) receipt of Pell Grant or comparable state program of need-based financial assistance; (d) participation or eligible for Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs; (e) eligibility for benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 or the Health and Humans Services Poverty Guideline. A student was considered to be first-generation when the education level of both one’s father and mother was at a high school graduate level or lower. A student was considered academically underprepared if their placement test scores indicated that they did not have college-entry level skills in reading, writing, or math. Students were also considered academically underprepared if they were enrolled in a developmental education course.

To measure first-year grade expectations, students were asked: “In the courses you will take at [institution name] during your first year, on average, what grades do you expect to earn?” Students chose from the following six categories: A, A− to B+, B, B− to C+, C, and C− or below which corresponded to the following grade points, respectively: 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5 or below.

The Weinstein et al. (2008) measure of academic time perspective was used in this study. One item was removed because field-test and preliminary results suggested poor fit for that item, leaving 14 items (see Table 1). Students responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Two-Factor Solution for Academic Time Perspective Scale.

	Time perspective factors
Item	Present focused	Future focused
Because I am too busy taking care of the present, I do not think much about the future.	0.78	−0.05
I do not think much about the future.	0.73	0.01
I live for today and do not worry about the future.	0.70	−0.08
I think it is more important to think about the present than it is to think about the future.	0.54	−0.14
Thinking about what I want in the future does not help motivate me to do my coursework now.	0.54	0.09
Final exams are too far away for me to think about them now.	0.53	0.02
For me, two months is a very long period of time.	0.49	0.02
I do not create goals for the future.	0.47	0.12
I think about how my coursework will help me to reach my future goals.	−0.05	0.72
When my coursework is difficult, thinking about my future goals helps me to continue working.	0.01	0.72
I think about how what I am doing today relates to my future goals.	0.04	0.68
I think about where I want to be 5 or 10 years from now.	0.12	0.60
I plan now for how I will finish all of my course projects and papers this semester.	−0.23	0.56
I think that attending my classes this semester will help me reach my future goals.	0.19	0.46

Note. N = 844. Boldface item loadings are above .45.

For achievement and retention, first-semester GPA was an average of students’ course grades per credit hour and could range from 0 to 4. Second-semester retention was defined as enrolling in the subsequent semester after their first semester of college. For students who did not enroll, it was unknown whether they dropped out, stopped out, were forced out, or transferred to another college or university.

Data Analysis

We used multiple regression to examine predictors of students’ first-semester GPA because this outcome was continuous, ranging from 0.00 – 4.00. We used logistic regression to examine predictors of second-semester retention, as this outcome was dichotomous (1 = retained, 0 = not retained). For all analyses, dichotomous predictor variables were coded as follows: age 25+ (yes = 1, no = 0), male (yes = 1, no = 0), first-generation (yes = 1, no = 0), economically disadvantaged (yes = 1, no = 0), and academically underprepared (yes = 1, no = 0). Race/ethnicity was dummy-coded with White, non-Hispanic as the reference group: Hispanic (1 = yes, 0 = no), Black, non-Hispanic (1 = yes, 0 = no), and other race/ethnicity (1 = yes, 0 = no). Students who identified as Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or chose multiple races/ethnicities were collapsed into the category of other race/ethnicity. Future-focused time perspective, present-focused time perspective, and first-year grade expectations were continuous variables. To examine the dimensionality and factor loadings of the 14-item academic time perspective measure, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring and Promax (oblique) rotation, which allowed the factors to correlate. With 60.29 students per item, we had a more than adequate sample size to conduct the EFA (Price, 2017).

Results

In this section, we present factor and reliability analyses regarding the academic time perspective instrument. We also report descriptive statistics, including bivariate relationships among the study variables. Finally, we report the results of the multiple regression analysis predicting first-semester GPA and the logistic regression analysis predicting second-semester retention.

Academic Time Perspective Measure

Inspection of the scree plot and item loadings for each factor suggested a 2-factor solution with all eight present-focused time perspective items loading on the first factor and all six future-focused time perspective items loading on the second factor (see Table 1). Present-focused time perspective explained 33.75% and future-focused time perspective explained 13.78% of the item variation. The item loadings on each factor suggested a simple structure with all item loadings above .45.

Higher scores on present-focused time perspective may reflect a stronger focus on immediate concerns and circumstances over future thinking and goal striving as well as a present life space that is disconnected to the future. Higher scores on future-focused time perspective may indicate a higher tendency to think about the future, set future goals, and use the future to motivate oneself to act in the present. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients suggested strong reliability for future-focused time perspective (M = 2.07, SD = 0.73, α = .79) and present-focused time perspective (M = 3.93, SD = 0.73, α = .81) and the Pearson correlation between future-focused and present-focused time perspectives was negative and moderate in size (r = −.41, p < .01), which further corroborated the EFA results that suggested these scales can be examined as two dimensions.

First-Year Grade Expectations

Students expected to earn the following grades in their first year of community college: A (n = 155, 18.4%), A− to B+ (n = 423, 50.1%), B (n = 184, 21.8%), B− to C+ (n = 76, 9.0%), C (n = 6, 0.7%); zero students chose the C− and below category. The numerical values were assigned to each category of this variable, respectively: A = 4, A− to B+ = 3.5, B = 3, B− to C+ = 2.5, C = 2. First-year grade expectations was then used as a continuous variable in analyses (M = 3.38, SD = 0.44). It is interesting to note that many students overestimated their level of achievement given that students’ mean first-semester GPA was 2.23 (SD = 1.18), and 90.3% of students expected to earn a grade of B or higher (i.e. at least a 3.00 GPA) in their first year of college.

Bivariate Relationships Among Study Variables

Our hypothesis that academic time perspective would have statistically significant correlations with first-year grade expectations was confirmed (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix of Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Age 25+	1
2. Male	−.06	1
3. Hispanic	−.06	−.05	1
4. Black, non Hispanic	.03	.02	−.31**	1
5. Other race/ethnicity	.02	.00	−.41**	−.07*	1
6. First generation	−.01	.02	.01	−.05	.02	1
7. Economically disadvantaged	.05	−.07*	.23**	.01	−.05	−.04	1
8. Academically underprepared	−.02	−.04	.20**	−.00	−.05	−.02	.12**	1
9. First-year grade expectations	.03	−.09**	−.07	−.03	.07*	.03	−.07*	−.14**	1
10. Present-focused time perspective	−.07*	.25**	.06	−.03	−.06	.03	−.05	.05	−.11**	1
11. Future-focused time perspective	.09**	−.22**	.03	.04	.06	.01	.09*	.04	.24**	−.41**	1
12. First-semester GPA	.13**	−.07*	−.12**	−.08*	.04	−.07*	−.06	−.14**	.12**	−.15**	.06	1
13. Second-year retention	.06	−.02	−.01	−.05	−.03	−.06	.08*	−.01	.07*	−.01	.04	.41**	1

Note. N = 844. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are reported.

*p<.05. **p<.01.

As expected, first-year grade expectations correlated positively with future-focused time perspective and negatively with present-focused time perspective. For exploratory purposes, we also examined how student background characteristics correlated with each of the motivational variables. Females had significantly higher first-year grade expectations and future-focused time perspective scores, and significantly lower present-focused time perspective scores than males. Students who were age 25+ had significantly higher future-focused time perspective and significantly lower present-focused time perspective scores. Students who were identified by their institution as economically disadvantaged had significantly higher future-focused time perspective scores and significantly lower first-year grade expectations. Also, students who were identified by their institution as academically underprepared had significantly lower first-year grade expectations. To examine relationships between the dummy-coded race/ethnicity variables, separate multiple regression analyses were run with the dummy-coded variables as predictors of each motivational factor. Race/ethnicity did not have a statistically significant relationship with present-focused time perspective or first-year grade expectations. However, race/ethnicity had a statistically significant relationship with future-focused time perspective (F(3,840) = 3.375, p < .05, R² = .01). Students who identified as White, non-Hispanic had significantly lower future-focused time perspective scores compared to those who identified as Black, non-Hispanic (b = 0.27, SE = 0.13, β = 0.08, p < .05) and Hispanic (b = 0.15, SE = 0.6, β = 0.10, p <. 05).

Predicting First-Semester GPA

On average, students earned a first-semester GPA of 2.23 (SD = 1.18), with 16.5% of students earning a GPA between 0–.99, 18.2% between 1–1.99, 32.0% between 2–2.99, and 33.3% between 3–4. A multiple regression analysis enabled us to examine unique relationships between each motivational factor and GPA accounting for student background characteristics. First-semester GPA was regressed on eleven predictors; the model was statistically significant (F(11,832) = 7.44, p < .01) and explained 9.0% of the variation in the outcome. Table 3 shows the regression coefficients, standard errors, and standardized regression coefficients (which serves as a measure of effect size for each predictor-outcome relationship).

Table 3.

Regression Analyses Predicting First-Semester GPA and Second-Semester Retention.

	First-semester GPA			Second-semester retention
Predictors	B	SE	β	b	SE	OR
Student background characteristics
Age 25+	0.48	0.14	0.11**	0.52	0.33	1.68
Male	−0.08	0.08	−0.04	0.01	0.17	1.01
Hispanic	−0.35	0.10	−0.14**	0.08	0.21	1.09
Black	−0.75	0.20	−0.14**	−0.53	0.37	0.59
Other race/ethnicity	−0.20	0.16	−0.05	−0.25	0.31	0.78
First generation	−0.17	0.08	−0.07*	−0.28	0.16	0.76
Economically disadvantaged	−0.05	0.08	−0.02	0.37*	0.17	1.44
Academically underprepared	−0.28	0.10	−0.10**	−0.09	0.21	0.92
Motivational predictors
First-year grade expectations	0.21	0.09	0.08*	0.39*	0.19	1.48
PTP	−0.19	0.06	−0.12**	0.05	0.12	1.05
FTP	−0.02	0.06	−0.01	0.06	0.12	1.06

Note. N = 844. PTP = Present-focused time perspective; FTP = Future-focused time perspective.

*p<.05. **p<.01.

We found that present-focused time perspective and first-year grade expectations had statistically significant relationships with first-year GPA, after accounting for the other study variables, whereas future-focused time perspective did not. As hypothesized, present-focused time perspective was negatively related to first-year GPA and first-year grade expectations positively predicted GPA. Our hypothesis that future-focused time perspective would be positively related to GPA was not supported. Several student background characteristics were found to have statistically significant relationships with GPA, accounting for the other variables in the model. Students who were younger (18–24), Hispanic, Black, first-generation, or academically underprepared had significantly lower first-year GPAs compared to their respective counterparts. Sex and economically disadvantage status did not have statistically significant relationships with GPA. Comparing the regression results to the bivariate correlations in Table 2 reveals the same pattern of statistically significant results with one exception: the statistically significant negative bivariate relationship between being male and GPA was not supported after accounting for the other study variables using regression analysis.

Predicting Second-Semester Retention

Of the 844 students enrolled for their first time in college during the fall semester, 622 (73.7%) enrolled in the following spring semester, and 222 (26.3%) did not. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the 11 study variables as potential predictors of second-semester retention. The overall model was statistically significant (χ²(11) = 20.60, p < .05, R²_Cox&Snell = 0.02) and explained approximately 2% of the variation in the outcome (i.e., the log odds of retention). Only two of the predictors had statistically significant relationships with retention; first-year grade expectations and economically disadvantaged status were both positively related to second-semester retention (see Table 3). This supported our hypothesis concerning first-year grade expectations. Our hypotheses that present-focused and future-focused time perspectives would predict retention were not supported. These results aligned with the bivariate correlations reported in Table 2. It should be noted that first-semester GPA had a statistically significant positive relationship with second-semester retention (see Table 2); however, GPA was not entered as a predictor of retention because our goal was to examine entry-level predictors.

Discussion and Implications

Given the dearth of motivation research on students in urban, Hispanic-serving community college settings, this study helps to identify motivational factors that may be important for students in these settings and provides possible directions for future intervention research and practice. We utilized an academic time perspective scale capable of differentiating present-focused and future-focused time perspectives because we thought this differentiation would be important for students in community colleges who tend to experience relatively higher everyday life demands. Overall, our study indicated that academic time perspective and first-year grade expectations are important motivational factors for students in their first semester of coursework. Supporting our hypothesis, we found that a present-focused time perspective was negatively related to first-semester GPA. This finding suggests that researchers and educators should examine ways to help students with a present-focused time perspective manage their present concerns and circumstance in ways that facilitate academic goal striving. We also found that students who held higher first-year grade expectations received higher first-semester GPAs and were more likely to enroll the next semester. However, this was coupled with the fact that many students held grade expectations that were not matched by reality. This suggests that educators and researchers should investigate ways to help students develop more positive yet realistic expectations for their college-level achievement. The findings from this study align with previous theory and research suggesting that college students’ expectations for success, self-efficacy (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016) and time perspective (Lens et al., 2012) help to explain variation in student academic outcomes. Contrary to our hypothesis and prior research (Barnett et al., 2020; Fong & Kim, 2019; Husman & Shell, 2008; Perkins et al., 2015), future time perspective was not related to academic outcomes in this study.

Our findings extend research on future time perspective theory by suggesting that a present-focused time perspective may be a more salient negative predictor than future time perspective is a positive predictor of first-semester GPA. Students’ focus on present concerns and circumstances may have interfered with their academic goal pursuit and overshadowed future goals that could motivate them in college. A present-focused time perspective may emerge from different antecedent conditions such as the prioritization of short-term pleasure over long-term goal pursuit and self-regulatory struggles with academic delay of gratification (see Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004). Alternatively, or concomitantly, a student might be more present-focused due to life demands that require a focus on present circumstances to satisfy basic needs. Research suggests that 75% of students attending a 2-year postsecondary institution for the first time enroll part-time (McFarland et al., 2019) and may experience additional barriers to success (David et al., 2013), such as time constraints and lack of social and institutional support. Students in community college are also more likely to live at home, and Hispanic students are more likely to be expected to work while living at home and attending community college (McGlynn, 2004). Research has also suggested that students in 2-year colleges are more likely to be identified as academically underprepared (McFarland et al., 2019) and struggle with effort regulation (Moore, 2007). In the current study, 81% of the students in our sample were identified as academically underprepared, 56% as economically disadvantaged, and 65% as Hispanic. Future research is needed to examine institution type and sample demographic characteristics as moderators of the relationship between time perspectives and academic outcomes.

Interventions targeting future time perspective have focused on future goal setting and connecting coursework to future goals (Puruhito et al., 2001). For students with a strong present-focused time perspective, it may also be important to help them balance and regulate present concerns and circumstances. Understanding the reasons for a more present-focused time perspective would be crucial to provide appropriate support. For example, students who have nonacademic demands that interfere with academic goal striving (Acee et al., 2017) might benefit from instruction on time management strategies or increased access to non-academic support such as affordable childcare. Alternatively, a student who has an attitude to live for today without concern for the future might benefit from engaging in goal setting (Chase et al., 2013; Morisano et al., 2010) and task value interventions (Acee et al., 2018; Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018), as these interventions can help students assign greater value to academic goal striving. It may also be useful to consider sex and age when developing time perspective interventions because we found that males and younger students had significantly lower future-focused and higher present-focused time perspectives.

It is unclear why future-focused time perspective did not predict academic outcomes in this study. Although research has linked future thinking and goal setting with motivation (Lens et al., 2012), studies have also suggested that positive fantasies of the future can detract from motivation when those fantasies are not contrasted with reality to form binding goal commitments that are feasible (Oettingen, 2012). It is possible that students who were concerned with the future, yet had ill-defined future goals, responded favorably to items on the future-focused time perspective measure contributing to the observed null effect.

In terms of first-year grade expectations, our findings align with past research showing a tendency for students to overestimate their grades (Khachikian et al., 2011; McCann et al., 2013). Nevertheless, students with higher first-year grade expectations were more likely to earn higher first-semester GPAs, accounting for the other study predictors. This finding aligns with research that has suggested students’ expectations for success facilitate motivation and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), even when controlling for prior achievement (Cassidy, 2012; Eccles et al., 1983; Meece et al., 1990). Theory and research (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) have suggested that when students believe that success is possible, they are more likely to exert effort, persist in the face of difficulty, and believe that academic outcomes are within their locus of control. Facilitating expectations for success and perceived control over academic outcomes may be particularly critical for students transitioning into college for the first time (Haynes et al., 2006). When examining students with first-generation and academically underprepared statuses, we found students from these groups had significantly lower first-year grade expectations. To support students with low expectations for success, community colleges may look to research on self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002), which has shown that setting proximal, process goals and self-evaluating goal progress are two strategies critical to both skill development and confidence building (Kitsantas et al., 2004).

In the current study, we found that students with higher first-year grade expectations were more likely to have lower present-focused and higher future-focused time perspectives. These finding align with and help to extend expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), which purports that expectancies influence future goal setting and striving but fails to consider relationships with time perspective. When students believe academic success is less likely, they may tend to focus on present matters over future academic goal attainment. Future intervention research should examine ways to leverage expectancies and time perspectives to support students in college while considering the potential reciprocal interactions among these motivational factors.

Overall, our model of student background characteristics and motivational factors explained 9% of the variation in first-semester GPA, and much of the variation in GPA remained unexplained. Predicting GPA has long been a challenge for researchers (Astin, 1993), with student-level factors explaining as much as 25% of the variation in college GPA when high school GPA is included as a predictor and far less when it is not. Therefore, our findings are consistent with past research showing limited variation explained in GPA by student background characteristics and motivational and other psychosocial predictors (Robbins et al., 2004). The complexity of predicting GPA may in part be due to the myriad factors that influence students’ academic achievement that are challenging to account for in analyses such as, classroom-level factors, different patterns of courses taken, idiosyncratic conditions, and unique environmental and social circumstances. Nevertheless, the current study helps to show that motivational factors predict first-semester GPA and may warrant further investigations in which interventions are designed to target these motivational factors.

Results from our logistic regression model predicting retention confirmed our hypothesis that first-year grade expectations would positively predict students’ enrollment in the following semester. This aligns with research suggesting that students’ course enrollment decisions are, in part, influenced by their expectations for success (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Our hypothesis that academic time perspective would predict retention was not confirmed. The only student background characteristics predictive of retention was economically disadvantaged status. Surprisingly, those who were identified by the institution as economically disadvantaged were more likely to be retained to the next semester. The variable used in this study included students who received or were eligible for various forms of financial support. These programs may have facilitated students’ continued enrollment. However, to determine this, future research would need to incorporate more precise measures that differentiate the amount and type of financial support students receive. Overall, our regression model explained little variation in student retention. The limited significant correlations with retention in our study is not uncommon in similar studies (DeBerard et al., 2004) suggesting that retention is a complex construct and there is a need for further research on predictive models for retention, especially within 2-year postsecondary institutions where students are more likely to stop or drop out (McFarland et al., 2019). Similar to DeBerard et al. (2004), we found that first-semester GPA had the strongest bivariate relationship with retention, compared to the other study predictors. Future research should examine mediational relationships in which motivational factors work through academic achievement to influence retention.

Conclusion

The current study helps to shed light on how students’ first-year grade expectations and present- and future-focused time perspectives relate to academic achievement and retention in their first year at a predominately Hispanic-serving inner-city community college. Findings from this study could help inform researchers and educators about motivational variables to target in special programs and courses used to support and motivate students in their first year of college and beyond (see Agee et al., 2018) such as learning-to-learn, college success, and first-year experience courses and mentoring, advising, and academic coaching programs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the late Dr. Claire Ellen Weinstein, Professor Emeritus, the University of Texas, for her foundational work with this study. For their editorial support, we acknowledge Dr. Jae Hak Jung, Senior Analyst, Institutional Research, Lone Star College, and Dr. William J. Barry, Office of Strategy and Policy, The University of Texas.

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 iDs

Taylor W. Acee

Darolyn A. Flaggs

Author Biographies

Taylor W. Acee is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education at Texas State University. He conducts basic and applied research in the areas of college student motivation, emotion, learning strategies, and self-regulation.

Meagan A. Hoff recently earned her Ph.D. from Texas State University and is now professor of English at Collin College. Her research focuses on college student success and academic literacies with diverse student populations.

Darolyn A. Flaggs is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education at Kennesaw State University. Her research focuses on college students' perceptions of sense of belonging, racial climate, and motivation, and emphasizes understanding and supporting historically underserved students' path to persistence.

Breana Sylvester is executive director of Growing Curiosity Community School, a non-profit program with an anti-bias approach and pedagogical ties to the Montessori philosophy in Austin, Texas.

References

Acee

T. W.

Barry

W. J.

Flaggs

D. A.

Holschuh

Daniels

Schrauth

(2017). Student-perceived interferences to college and mathematics success. Journal of Developmental Education, 40(2), 2–9.

Acee

T. W.

Weinstein

C. E.

Hoang

T. V.

Flaggs

D. A.

(2018). Value reappraisal as a conceptual model for task-value interventions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381830

Agee

K. S.

Hodges

Castillo

A. M.

(2018). Program management. In Flippo

R. F.

and Bean

T. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategies research (3rd ed., pp. 293–314). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629810

Ajzen

(2011). Is attitude research incompatible with the compatibility principle? In Arkin

R. M.

(Ed.), Most underappreciated: 50 prominent social psychologists describe their most unloved work (pp. 151–154). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199778188.001.0001

Andre

van Vianen

A. E. M.

Peetsma

T. D.

Oort

F. J.

(2018). Motivational power of future time perspective: Meta-analyses in education, work, and health. PLoS One, 13(1), e0190492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190492

Astin

A. W.

(1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. American Council on Education.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Barnett

M. D.

Melugin

P. R.

Hernandez

(2020). Time perspective, intended academic engagement, and academic performance. Current Psychology, 39(2), 761–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9771-9

Bembenutty

(1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences, 11(3), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80002-8

10.

Bembenutty

Karabenick

S. A.

(2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012344.34008.5c

11.

Cassidy

(2012). Exploring individual differences as determining factors in student academic achievement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.545948

12.

Chase

J. A.

Houmanfar

Hayes

S. C.

Ward

T. A.

Vilardaga

J. P.

Follette

(2013). Values are not just goals: Online ACT-based values training adds to goal setting in improving undergraduate college student performance. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2(3–4), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.08.002

13.

David

K. M.

Lee

M. E.

Bruce

J. D.

Coppedge

B. R.

Dickens

Friske

Hall

A. J.

Singleton

Swicegood

Thorman

(2013). Barriers to success predict fall-to-fall persistence and overall GPA among community college students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 21(1), 5–13.

14.

de Brey

Musu

McFarland

Wilkinson-Flicker

Diliberti

Zhang

Branstetter

Wang

(2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf

15.

DeBerard

M. S.

Spielmans

G. I.

Julka

D. L.

(2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1), 66–80.

16.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

(1983). Expectations, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). Freeman.

17.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

18.

Fike

D. S.

Fike

(2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552108320222

19.

Fong

C. J.

Kim

Y. W.

(2019). A clash of constructs? Re-examining grit in light of academic buoyancy and future time perspective. Current Psychology, ▪, ▪. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0120-4

20.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Priniski

S. J.

(2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 409–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725

21.

Hatch

D. K.

Garcia

C. E.

(2017). Academic advising and the persistence intention of community college students in their first weeks in college. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 353–390. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0012

22.

Haynes

T. L.

Ruthig

J. C.

Perry

R. P.

Stupnisky

R. H.

Hall

N. C.

(2006). Reducing the academic risks of over-optimism: The longitudinal effects of attributional retraining on cognition and achievement. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 755–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9014-7

23.

Honicke

Broadbent

(2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi-org.libproxy.txstate.edu/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

24.

Hood

Creed

P. A.

Neumann

D. L.

(2012). Using the expectancy value model of motivation to understand the relationship between student attitudes and achievement in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 72–85.

25.

Husman

Lens

(1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_4

26.

Husman

Shell

D. F.

(2008). Beliefs and perceptions about the future: A measurement of future time perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.001

27.

Khachikian

C. S.

Guillaume

D. W.

Pham

T. K.

(2011). Changes in student effort and grade expectation in the course of a term. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.637189

28.

Kitsantas

Reiser

R. A.

Doster

(2004). Developing self-regulated learners: Goal-setting, self-evaluation, and organizational signals during acquisition of procedural skills. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.4.269-287

29.

Lazowski

R. A.

Hulleman

C. S.

(2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832

30.

Lens

Paixão

M. P.

Herrera

Grobler

(2012). Future time perspective as a motivational variable: Content and extension of future goals affect the quantity and quality of motivation. Japanese Psychological Research, 54(3), 321–333. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00520.x

31.

Lewin

(1936). Psychology of success and failure. Occupations: The Vocational Guidance Journal, 14(9), 926–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-5892.1936.tb00275.x

32.

McCann

L. I.

Immel

K. R.

Kadah-Ammeter

T. L.

Priniski

S. J.

(2013). Student grade expectations at technical college, 2-, and 4-year institutions. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487423

33.

McFarland

Hussar

Zhang

Wang

Hein

Diliberti

Forrest Cataldi

Bullock Mann

Barmer

(2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf

34.

McGlynn

A. P.

(2004). Nurturing Hispanics to four-year degrees. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 69(5), 51–56.

35.

Meece

J. L.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.60

36.

Moore

(2007). Academic motivation and performance of developmental education biology students. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 24–34. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/42775630

37.

Morisano

Hirsh

J. B.

Peterson

J. B.

Pihl

R. O.

Shore

B. M.

(2010). Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018478

38.

National Student Clearinghouse. (2019). First-year persistence and retention for fall cohort. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SnapshotReport35.pdf

39.

Oettingen

(2012). Future thought and behaviour change. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–63. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10463283.2011.643698

40.

Pajares

(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543

41.

Perkins

Scherer

Palmer

Talley

(2015). Do time perspective and year in school influence GPA in African American college students? American Journal of Educational Studies, 7(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017704686

42.

Pintrich

P. R.

de Groot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

43.

Price

L. R.

(2017). Psychometric methods: Theory into practice. The Guilford Press.

44.

Puruhito

Husman

Hilpert

J. C.

Ganesh

Stump

(2011, October 12–15). Increasing instrumentality without decreasing instructional time: An intervention for engineering students [Paper presentation]. 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2011.6143091

45.

Robbins

S. B.

Lauver

Davis

Langley

Carlstrom

(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

46.

Robbins

S. B.

I. S.

Button

(2009). Intervention effects on college performance and retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: Integrated meta-analytic path analyses. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1163–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015738

47.

Robinson

K. A.

Lee

Bovee

E. A.

Perez

Walton

S. P.

Briedis

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2019). Motivation in transition: Development and roles of expectancy, task values, and costs in early college engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 1081–1102. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/edu0000331

48.

Seidman

(Ed.). (2012). College student retention (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

49.

Shell

D. F.

Husman

(2001). The multivariate dimensionality of personal control and future time perspective beliefs in achievement and self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(4), 481–506. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1073

50.

Simons

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Lacante

(2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000026609.94841.2f

51.

Weinstein

C. E.

Acee

T. W.

(2018). Study and learning strategies. In Flippo

R. F.

Bean

T. W.

(Eds.) Handbook of college reading and study strategies research (3rd ed., pp. 227–240). Routledge.

52.

Weinstein

C. E.

Acee

T. W.

Murphy

D. L

, & the CCLR Research Group. (2008, March 24–28). The design and field test results for the community college longitudinal retention (CCLR) study [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, United States.

53.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2

54.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2