Sense of Purpose and Progress Towards Degree in Freshman College Students

Abstract

This study examined whether first-time full-time freshman students’ sense of purpose predicted their progress towards a degree. Freshman students (N = 421, 62.2% females) completed self-report measures of sense of purpose and academic commitments within the first month of starting college; a year later, the data on first-year progress towards a degree were matched with their responses. Structural equation modeling showed that while a sense of purpose did not directly predict progress towards a degree, awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose both had indirect positive effects on first-year GPA, academic standing, and retention through degree commitment. Additionally, altruistic purpose had indirect positive effects on first-year GPA through academic identity. The findings highlight that a sense of purpose may play an important role in persistence and attainment of a degree among college students.

Keywords

purpose in life academic identity degree commitment persistence altruistic purpose awakening to purpose

For several decades, student attrition has been the most persistent and critical concern in higher education with the first year of college having the highest dropout rate (Burke, 2019). To address this concern, several student retention theorists have emphasized the importance of examining the factors that promote first-year students’ retention, which is defined as students’ continued enrollment from the first year to the second year (e.g., Bean, 1980; Tinto, 1975). A review of research and theoretical models on retention has revealed numerous factors that contribute to the first-year students’ academic success and persistence (Woosley & Miller, 2009). Among many theories and models, Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure continues to be the most widely used theory due to its comprehensive framework that focuses on multiple factors that influence students’ retentions, such as students’ pre-college characteristics, goals and commitments, institutional experiences, and integration (Burke, 2019; Woosley & Miller, 2009). A factor closely related to Tinto’s (1993) concept of students’ own goals and commitments is sense of purpose.

Damon et al. (2003) defined purpose as people’s stable and generalized intention to achieve something that gives meaning to their life and contributes to matters beyond the self. Centered on Damon et al. (2003) definition of purpose, Sharma et al. (2018) developed the Sense of Purpose Scale, consisting of three sub-scales: awareness of purpose, awakening to purpose, and altruistic purpose. Sharma et al. (2018) defined awareness of purpose as the extent to which people are clear and conscious about their purpose in life; awakening to purpose as the extent to which people are actively engaging in the process of gaining clarity and exploring their purpose in life; and altruistic purpose as people’s resolve to make a positive difference in society. Based on Sharma et al.’s (2018) conceptualization of these three sub-scales, Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018) examined the relationship between sense of purpose and degree commitment, but there is a lack of research on the relationships between sense of purpose and actual progress towards degree. The goal of this study is to examine the role of sense of purpose (awareness of purpose, awakening to purpose, and altruistic purpose) in predicting first-time full-time freshman students’ self-reported academic commitments as well as their actual progress towards a degree. Through conducting this study, we hope to shed light into the direct and indirect relationships between college students’ sense of purpose and first-year GPA, academic standing, and retention. We will use the results of this study to provide clear recommendations for college counselors, educators, and student affairs personnel on promoting students’ retention through strengthening their sense of purpose.

Sense of Purpose and Academic Outcomes

Research has consistently shown the important role of sense of purpose in impacting college students’ identity (Chickering, 1994), degree commitment (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018), motivation (Sharma & De Alba, 2018), persistence (Hill et al., 2016), and retention (Conner et al., 2012). Apart from general sense of purpose, altruistic purpose in particular is most positively related with college students’ personal development and persistence (e.g., Damon et al., 2003; Hill et al., 2010; Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018). Leppel (2005), in fact, found that students who want to pursue education to benefit society instead of only gaining financial success are more likely to persist in college. Hill et al. (2010) also reported that among different types of purpose, prosocial purpose orientation is significantly related with students’ personal development and positive college outcomes. Other scholars have similarly concluded that students’ aspirations to contribute positively to their community play an important role in influencing their college persistence, intellectual development, social integration, academic performance, and shared academic values (Grosset, 1991; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1993). However, students who lack the resolve to make a positive difference in society are found to be more likely to withdraw prior to degree completion (Attinasi, 1989; Leppel, 2005).

A construct similar to purpose is career calling, which is also shown to be positively related to college students’ vocational identity, career maturity, hope, and self-efficacy with regard to making career decisions (Duffy & Dik, 2013). A recent study on career calling and college preparation showed that only the purposeful work subscale that focused on students’ resolve to help others and serve a greater good positively predicts college preparation behavior (Shin et al., 2018). This finding implied that students who see their career as a means to serve others, feel a greater sense of purpose in life, and are more motivated to move towards accomplishment of their educational and career aspirations (Shin et al., 2018). A recent study by Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018), also demonstrated that altruistic purpose plays a key role in predicting students’ degree commitment. Although, Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018) study explored the relationship between sense of purpose and degree commitment, research has not yet focused on examining the relationship between students’ sense of purpose and other academic commitments.

Academic Commitments and Progress towards Degree

Apart from the high rate of students dropping out after first-year of college, the first-year also serves as a crucial time period for students to lay a positive foundation for subsequent college outcomes (Woosley & Miller, 2009). As per Tinto’s (1993) theoretical model, first-year students’ entry characteristics, goals, and commitments impact their commitment to achieve college degree and subsequent commitment to the institution. In the present study, we have examined the role of academic commitments, which we have conceptualized as academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment in predicting first-year students’ GPA, academic standing, and retention.

Academic identity refers to students’ academic characteristics and social placement within academic environment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Using the theoretical lens of social identity, Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2014) developed the Academic and Athletic Identity Scale that captures the extent to which being academically engaged is central to students’ sense of self. Given the strong factorial validity and reliability of Yukhymenko-Lescroart’s (2014) scale, we have used this scale and conceptualized academic identity as the centrality of academic role, responsibilities, and commitments to students’ sense of self. In a qualitative study with Australian students, Jensen and Jetten (2016) found that students clearly describe and distinguish academic identity from other forms of identities, such as professional identity. Students further report that a strong academic identity supports their feelings of belonging in higher education and contributes to their academic achievement. Recently, van Rens et al. (2019) demonstrated a positive relationship between students’ academic identity and their GPA, satisfaction with the school experience, and total life satisfaction.

Next, degree commitment is defined as the value that students attach to earning their college degree, including their intention and estimated likelihood to earn their degree (Davidson et al., 2015). Research has shown degree commitment as a positive predictor of college students’ institutional commitment, academic integration, and social integration, all of which, in turn, contribute to college retention (Davidson et al., 2015). Studies have also demonstrated a positive relationship between degree commitment and first-year engineering students’ GPA and retention (García-Ros et al., 2019). In addition, a study with STEM and non-STEM students showed that degree commitment is positively related with students’ retention (Gansemer-Topf et al., 2017).

The present study has also focused on the role of institutional commitment, which can be operationalized as the level of confidence that students feel in their chosen institution, and the importance they give to graduating from that particular institution, as also being related to students’ retention (Pascarella et al., 1986). A study on first-year students’ transition experiences revealed that institutional commitment is the strongest predictor of students’ retention and academic performance, even when gender, ethnicity, and entrance exam scores are included in the regression analysis (Woosley & Miller, 2009). Woosley and Miller (2009) further reported that students who are committed to staying and completing their degree in the same institution have higher GPAs than those students who do not share these commitments. This finding is in accord with Tinto’s (1993) theory that a student’s commitment to graduating from their particular institution has a significant impact on their decision to persevere.

The Present Study

In sum, positive relationships have been shown between sense of purpose and academic commitments to pursue a degree (e.g., Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018) as well as academic commitments and students’ GPA, academic standing, and retention (e.g., García-Ros et al., 2019). Based upon relationships identified between (a) sense of purpose and academic commitments (e.g., Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018), and (b) academic commitments and progress towards degree (e.g., García-Ros et al., 2019), it is possible that significant indirect relationships can be found between sense of purpose and progress towards degree through academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment. The following hypothesized relationships between sense of purpose, academic commitments, and actual progress towards degree were made: (a) sense of purpose to positively predict academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment; (b) academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment to positively predict first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention; and (c) sense of purpose to positively predict first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention indirectly through academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment.

Method

Participants and Procedure

After obtaining an IRB approval, an invitation emails with the link to the survey were sent to 2000 first time full-time freshman students (62.2% females; 60.1% Hispanic, 15.4% Asian, 13.8% White, 4.1% Black, 3.1% multiracial/multiethnic, and 3.5% “other”) at one public university in the South West in September 2017 with three follow up emails. Responses were received from 421 students (73.9% females; 55.1% Hispanic, 20.0% Asian, 16.6% White, 3.6% Black, 1.7% multiracial/multiethnic, and 3.0% “other”; 21.1% response rate).

A year later, first year students’ GPA, good academic standing (showing whether the students were on probation/disqualification or not), and retention data were obtained from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. Average first-year GPA was 2.98 (SD = .87). In this sample, 81.2% of the students had good academic standing by the end of the first year and 84.3% of students were retained after the first year.

Measures

Sense of Purpose

Students completed the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale (SOPS-2, Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2020), designed to measure awakening to purpose (four items, e.g., “I am gaining clarity about my life’s purpose”), awareness of purpose (five items, e.g., “My purpose in life is clear”), and altruistic purpose (5 items, e.g., “I seek to serve society in many ways, large and small”) on a 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree response scale. This scale was validated for use with college students (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018), and reliability coefficients were reported to be .87 for awakening to purpose, 94 for awareness of purpose, and .88 for altruistic purpose.

Academic Identity

Students completed a five-item Academic Identity subscale (Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014, Study 2), measuring the centrality of academics (e.g., “Being a capable student”) to one’s sense of self on a 1 = not central to 7 = the central core scale. This scale was developed and validated for use with college students. Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2014) reported reliability coefficient to be .92-.93.

Degree Commitment

Students completed a three-items degree commitment scale (Davidson et al., 2015, Study 2). An example of a degree commitment item is “At this moment in time, how strong would you say your commitment is to earning a college degree, here or elsewhere?” with response options ranging from 1 = very weak to 5 = very strong. Davidson et al. (2015) reported reliability coefficient to be .76.

Institutional Commitment

Students completed a four-item institutional commitment scale (Davidson et al., 2015, Study 2). An example of an item is “How likely is it that you will reenroll here next semester?” with response options ranging from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely. Davidson et al. (2015) reported reliability coefficient to be .80.

Progress Towards Degree

Data on first-year students’ GPA, good academic standing (showing whether the students were on probation/disqualification or not), and retention were obtained in Fall 2018 from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

Data Analysis

Preliminary analyses included screening the data for missing values and estimating a measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine model fit and check the validity of the scales, in which the observed items of sense of purpose, academic identity, grit, and degree commitment were specified to represent their intended factors. The fit of the models were evaluated following the recommendation of Hair et al. (2019) with N > 250 and 12–30 observed items, using several fit indices with values of higher than .94 for a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), of lower than .08 for standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) with CFI above .94, and of lower than .07 for root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with CFI above .94. To obtain fit indices for the measurement model, Maximum Likelihood estimation method was used.

The main analysis was estimating structural equation modeling (SEM) to estimate direct and indirect effects. The structural model (see Figure 1) was built to examine (a) whether sense of purpose predicted academic identity, degree commitment, institutional commitment; (b) whether academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment predicted actual progress towards degree (i.e., first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention); and (c) whether sense of purpose predicted actual progress towards a degree directly and indirectly through academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment (i.e., mediation effects). Specifically, the model with three exogenous latent measures of purpose (awakening to purpose, awareness of purpose, and altruistic purpose), three latent mediators (academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment), and three observed outcome variables of progress towards a degree (first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention) was tested. Good academic standing (0 = no, 1 = yes) and retention (0 = not retained, 1 = retained) were specified as categorical outcomes. All latent variables were allowed to freely correlate. To assist with the convergence of the model, Bayesian estimation method was used. This estimation method does not have distributional assumptions; thus, it is appropriate for testing mediation effects. Recent recommendations in mediation literature (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2000; Rucker et al., 2011; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) suggested that the significance of the total effects is not required for testing the mediation effects. However, the significance of the paths between exogenous variables and mediators and between mediators and outcomes is required to test for indirect paths. Indirect effects through academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment would be possible, but not guaranteed, when the direct effects specified in (a) and (b) above are significant. Analyses were performed in Mplus, version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017).

Figure 1.

Hypothesized Structural Model Tested in the Current Study.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Missing data ranged from 0 to 3.3% on items and were deemed to be missing at random. The measurement model was specified with all items as indicators of their intended factors of awakening to purpose, awareness or purpose, altruistic purpose, academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment, which showed a good model fit: χ² (284, N = 421) = 619.56, p < .001, RMSEA = .053 with 90% CI of [.047, .059], SRMR = .051, CFI = .959, and TLI = .954.

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and Pearson’s correlations for all measured variables. Reliability estimates for all self-reported measures but institutional commitment were above .70 and ranged from .80 to .96. Reliability estimate for institutional commitment was .63. Correlations among the self-reported measures were all positive and significant. For the progress towards degree measures, there was a small positive correlation between altruistic purpose and first-year GPA, but other sense of purpose variables did not correlate significantly with these measures. Academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment, on the other hand, were all positively and significantly correlated with the three measures of first-year progress towards degree.

Table 1.

Pearson’s Correlations, Descriptive Statistics, and Cronbach’s Reliability Estimates for the Variables, N = 421.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Awakening to purpose	—
2. Awareness of purpose	.77***	—
3. Altruistic purpose	.48***	.42***	—
4. Academic identity	.26***	.22***	.25***	—
5. Degree commitment	.37***	.28***	.30***	.37***	—
6. Institutional commitment	.27***	.19***	.11*	.16***	.53***	—
7. First-year GPA	.01	.00	.14**	.26***	.29***	.13**	—
8. First-year good academic standing	.04	.01	.07	.16***	.24***	.18***	.79***	—
9. First-year retention	−.04	−.06	.00	.13**	.18***	.13**	.58***	.68***	—
Cronbach's $α$	.96	.90	.93	.90	.80	.63	n/a	n/a	n/a
M	4.85	4.64	5.96	4.79	4.52	4.25	2.98	0.81	0.84
SD	1.30	1.53	0.93	1.10	0.69	0.67	0.87	0.39	0.36

Note. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Structural Model

The structural model was built to examine the following direct and indirect effects: (a) whether sense of purpose predicted academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment; (b) whether academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment predicted actual progress towards degree (i.e., first-year GPA, first-year good academic standing, and first-year retention); and (c) whether sense of purpose predicted actual progress towards a degree directly and indirectly through academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment. Convergence of the model was achieved based on the potential scale reduction values. Results for this model are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. The structural model explained 15.5% in first-year GPA, 16.9% in first-year good academic standing, and 17.1% in first-year retention. Additionally, the model explained 9.0% in academic identity, 20.1% in degree commitment, and 8.0% in institutional commitment. Next, the structural paths were examined for each outcome.

Table 2.

Standardized Direct Effects for the Structural Model, N = 421.

Path	Estimate (SD)	95% CI
Awakening to purpose → GPA	−0.14 (0.10)	[−0.34, 0.07]
Awakening to purpose → Good academic standing	0.01 (0.15)	[−0.29, 0.30]
Awakening to purpose → Retention	−0.10 (0.16)	[−0.41, 0.23]
Awakening to purpose → Academic identity	0.12 (0.10)	[−0.09, 0.31]
Awakening to purpose → Degree commitment	0.43^*** (0.10)	[0.23, 0.63]
Awakening to purpose → Institutional commitment	0.34^*** (0.11)	[0.12, 0.55]
Awareness of purpose → GPA	−0.07 (0.09)	[−0.26, 0.11]
Awareness of purpose → Good academic standing	−0.17 (0.14)	[−0.44, 0.09]
Awareness of purpose → Retention	−0.14 (0.15)	[−0.42, 0.15]
Awareness of purpose → Academic identity	0.04 (0.10)	[−0.15, 0.22]
Awareness of purpose → Degree commitment	−0.13 (0.10)	[−0.33, 0.06]
Awareness of purpose → Institutional commitment	−0.11 (0.10)	[−0.31, 0.09]
Altruistic purpose → GPA	0.09 (0.06)	[−0.03, 0.21]
Altruistic purpose → Good academic standing	0.01 (0.09)	[−0.16, 0.17]
Altruistic purpose → Retention	−0.08 (0.09)	[−0.26, 0.11]
Altruistic purpose → Academic identity	0.19^*** (0.06)	[0.07, 0.31]
Altruistic purpose → Degree commitment	0.17^** (0.06)	[0.04, 0.29]
Altruistic purpose → Institutional commitment	0.03 (0.07)	[−0.11, 0.15]
Academic identity → GPA	0.16^** (0.06)	[0.05, 0.26]
Academic identity → Good academic standing	0.13 (0.08)	[−0.04, 0.29]
Academic identity → Retention	0.12 (0.09)	[−0.06, 0.29]
Degree commitment → GPA	0.30^*** (0.09)	[0.12, 0.48]
Degree commitment → Good academic standing	0.37^*** (0.12)	[0.13, 0.59]
Degree commitment → Retention	0.38^** (0.14)	[0.11, 0.65]
Institutional commitment → GPA	−0.01 (0.08)	[−0.17, 0.15]
Institutional commitment → Good academic standing	−0.08 (0.10)	[−0.28, 0.12]
Institutional commitment → Retention	−0.11 (0.12)	[−0.35, 0.13]

Note. CI = Bayesian credible interval for estimate. One-tailed p value: **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Figure 2.

Final Structural Model. Note. Non-significant paths are not depicted for readability purposes. All factors were allowed to freely correlate. **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.

Direct Effects

Only four of nine paths between sense of purpose and measures of academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment were significant. Academic identity was predicted by altruistic purpose, β = .19, SD = .06, 95% CI [.07, .31], p = .001. Degree commitment was predicted by awakening to purpose, β = .43, SD = .10, 95% CI [.23, .63], p < .001, and altruistic purpose, β = .17, SD = .06, 95% CI [.04, .29], p = .004. Finally, institutional commitment was predicted by awakening to purpose, β = .34, SD = .11, 95% CI [.12, .55], p = .001. In cases where direct effects between sense of purpose and academic self-reported measures exist, indirect effects between sense of purpose and the measures of progress towards degree are possible.

First-year GPA was predicted by academic identity, β = .16, SD = .06, 95% CI [.05, .26], p = .003, and degree commitment, β = .30, SD = .09, 95% CI [.12, .48], p = .001. First-year good academic standing was predicted only by degree commitment, β = .37, SD = .12, 95% CI [.13, .59], p = .001. First-year retention was also predicted only by degree commitment, β = .38, SD = .14, 95% CI [.11, .65], p = .003. However, the measures of progress towards a degree were not directly predicted by sense of purpose.

Indirect Effects: Mediation Analysis

While direct effects between the three factors of sense of purpose and the measures of progress towards a degree emerged all non-significant, given the results of the structural paths reported above, indirect effects were possible between awakening to purpose and the three measures of progress towards degree through degree commitment, as well as between altruistic purpose and the three measures of progress towards a degree through academic identity and through degree commitment. Thus, it was possible that academic identity and/or degree commitment can play a role of mediators between sense of purpose and progress towards a degree. In the next step, this possible mediation effects were tested. Full results for total, direct, and indirect effects are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Standardized Results for Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects Between Sense of Purpose and Progress Towards Degree.

	First-year GPA			First-year retention
Effects	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	Estimate (SD)	95% CI
Between Awakening to Purpose and Progress Towards Degree
Total	0.01 (0.10)	[−0.20, 0.21]	0.15 (0.15)	[−0.13, 0.44]	0.04 (0.16)	[−0.26, 0.35]
Direct	−0.14 (0.10)	[−0.34, 0.07]	0.01 (0.15)	[−0.29, 0.30]	−0.10 (0.16)	[−0.41, 0.23]
Total indirect	0.14*** (0.05)	[0.06, 0.25]	0.14*** (0.05)	[0.05, 0.26]	0.14** (0.06)	[0.04, 0.27]
Specific indirect effects:
1. Through academic identity	0.02 (0.02)	[−0.01, 0.06]	0.01 (0.02)	[−0.01, 0.06]	0.01 (0.02)	[−0.02, 0.06]
2. Through degree commitment	0.13*** (0.05)	[0.04, 0.25]	0.15*** (0.07)	[0.05, 0.30]	0.16** (0.08)	[0.04, 0.33]
3. Through institutional commitment	0 (0.03)	[−0.06, 0.05]	−0.02 (0.04)	[−0.11, 0.04]	−0.03 (0.05)	[−0.14, 0.04]
Between Awareness of Purpose and Progress Towards Degree
Total	−0.11 (0.10)	[−0.30, 0.08]	−0.21 (0.14)	[−0.48, 0.06]	−0.17 (0.15)	[−0.46, 0.11]
Direct	−0.07 (0.09)	[−0.26, 0.11]	−0.17 (0.14)	[−0.44, 0.09]	−0.14 (0.15)	[−0.42, 0.15]
Total indirect	−0.03 (0.04)	[−0.11, 0.04]	−0.04 (0.04)	[−0.12, 0.05]	−0.03 (0.04)	[−0.13, 0.05]
Specific indirect effects:
1. Through academic identity	0 (0.02)	[−0.03, 0.04]	0 (0.02)	[−0.03, 0.04]	0 (0.02)	[−0.02, 0.04]
2. Through degree commitment	−0.04 (0.03)	[−0.12, 0.02]	−0.04 (0.04)	[−0.14, 0.02]	−0.05 (0.04)	[−0.15, 0.02]
3. Through institutional commitment	0 (0.01)	[−0.02, 0.03]	0.01 (0.02)	[−0.02, 0.05]	0.01 (0.02)	[−0.02, 0.07]
Between Altruistic Purpose and Progress Towards Degree
Total	0.17** (0.06)	[0.05, 0.29]	0.09 (0.09)	[−0.08, 0.25]	0.01 (0.10)	[−0.18, 0.19]
Direct	0.09 (0.06)	[−0.03, 0.21]	0.01 (0.09)	[−0.16, 0.17]	−0.08 (0.09)	[−0.26, 0.11]
Total indirect	0.08*** (0.03)	[0.03, 0.14]	0.08*** (0.03)	[0.03, 0.15]	0.08** (0.03)	[0.03, 0.16]
Specific indirect effects:
1. Through academic identity	0.03** (0.01)	[0.01, 0.06]	0.02 (0.02)	[−0.01, 0.06]	0.02 (0.02)	[−0.01, 0.07]
2. Through degree commitment	0.05** (0.03)	[0.01, 0.11]	0.06** (0.03)	[0.01, 0.13]	0.06** (0.04)	[0.01, 0.14]
3. Through institutional commitment	0 (0.01)	[−0.01, 0.01]	0 (0.01)	[−0.02, 0.01]	0 (0.01)	[−0.03, 0.02]

Note. CI = Bayesian credible interval for estimate. One-tailed p value: **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.

Mediation Analyses: Awakening to Purpose and Progress Towards Degree

Results of mediation analysis showed that indirect effects emerged through degree commitment between awakening to purpose and first-year GPA, β = .13, SD = .05, 95% CI [.04, .25], p = .001, between awakening to purpose and first-year good academic standing, β = .15, SD = .07, 95% CI [.05, .30], p = .001, and between awakening to purpose and first-year retention, β = .16, SD = .08, 95% CI [.04, .33], p = .003.

Mediation Analyses: Altruistic Purpose and Progress Towards Degree

Results showed that significant indirect effects emerged between altruistic purpose and first-year GPA through academic identity, β = .03, SD = .01, 95% CI [.01, .06], p = .004, and degree commitment, β = .05, SD = .03, 95% CI [.01, .11], p = .005. Additionally, indirect effects emerged through degree commitment only between altruistic purpose and first-year good academic standing, β = .06, SD = .03, 95% CI [.01, .13], p = .006, and between altruistic purpose and first-year retention, β = .06, SD = .04, 95% CI [.01, .14], p = .008.

Discussion

Sense of purpose has been shown to play an important role in college students’ self-efficacy, motivation, persistence, degree commitment, retention, and career success (e.g., Chickering, 1994; Hill et al., 2016; Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018). Although previous research examined the relationship between sense of purpose and degree commitment among college students (e.g., Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018), research has not yet focused on examining the relationships between sense of purpose and actual progress towards a degree. This study considered both self-reported academic commitments (academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment) and actual progress towards a degree to examine the mechanism by which first-time incoming freshman students make a decision to persevere towards degree completion and the role of sense of purpose in life in this process. Specifically, using structural equation modeling, this study examined whether sense of purpose can predict academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment among first-time, full-time freshman students, and whether academic commitments can play a role of mediators in the indirect relationships between sense of purpose and progress towards degree.

Sense of Purpose and Academic Commitments

Findings showed that sense of purpose emerged as a positive predictor of academic commitments. Specifically, awakening to purpose was a positive predictor of degree commitment and institutional commitment, and altruistic purpose emerged as a positive predictor of academic identity and degree commitment. Overall, these findings are consistent with previous research. Findings replicated the results from Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018), showing that both awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose are important predictors of degree commitment and that awareness of purpose is not a significant predictor of degree commitment among undergraduate students. In contrast to the Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018) study findings, who found that altruistic purpose was a stronger predictor of degree commitment in a sample of college students ranging from freshman to graduate students, the current study showed that awakening to purpose was more strongly related to degree commitment than altruistic purpose. In the current study, we employed a sample of first-time full-time freshman students, who were surveyed at the very beginning of their transitioning from high school to college. Therefore, one possible explanation is that compared to their older college counterparts, first time full-time freshman students, who are recent high school graduates, are more likely to engage in the process of thinking about what their purpose is. Our findings highlight the potential importance of the extent to which incoming freshmen are actively engaging in the process of exploring their purpose in life and gaining clarify about their long-term goals in their degree commitment. Combined with findings from Sharma and Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2018), it is plausible that, as students proceed with their college education, the importance shifts from awakening to purpose to the desire to make a positive difference in the society and the world (i.e., altruistic purpose), especially when continuing students have awakened to and formulated their purpose. Overall, findings in this study further highlight the importance of awakening to purpose dimension of purpose in life among incoming freshmen.

Academic Commitments and Progress Towards Degree

The present study showed that academic identity emerged as a positive predictor of first-year GPA. This finding is consistent with studies, such as van Rens et al.’s (2019) study that demonstrated that academic identity was positively related with GPA, satisfaction with the school experience, and total life satisfaction in a sample of Australian students. It also aligns with Jensen and Jetten (2016) report on the important role of academic identity in contributing to college students’ feelings of belonging and academic achievement.

Additionally, degree commitment, reported by first-time incoming full-time freshman students at the beginning of their studies, consistently predicted all observed indicators of actual progress towards a degree (i.e., first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention). This is consistent with previous findings (e.g., Davidson et al., 2015; Gansemer-Topf et al., 2017; García-Ros et al., 2019). For example, Davidson et al. (2015) showed that undergraduate freshman’s degree commitment was a positive predictor of institutional commitment, academic integration, and social integration. Similarly, in a study with STEM and non-STEM students, Gansemer-Topf et al. (2017) showed that degree commitment was significantly related to retention for both groups. Likewise, García-Ros et al. (2019) showed that degree commitment was positively associated with first-year GPA and first-year retention in a study with first-year engineering students.

Finally, institutional commitment, also positively and significantly predicted all three measures of first-year students’ GPA, good academic standing, and retention. This finding aligns with different scholars’ assertion on importance of institutional commitment in predicting college retention (e.g. Tinto, 1993; Pascarella et al., 1986) as well as empirical studies that have shown institutional commitment as the strongest predictor of students’ retention and academic outcomes (Woosley & Miller, 2009).

Sense of Purpose and Progress Towards Degree

Findings supported the hypothesis that sense of purpose can predict progress towards degree indirectly through the measures of academic commitments. Specifically, positive effects of awakening to purpose on all three outcomes were mediated by degree commitment. Overall, these findings indicate that first-time incoming freshman students with strong awakening to purpose are likely to have higher GPA, as well as higher rates of good academic standing and retention, because of a higher degree commitment reported at the beginning of the first year.

Similar to awakening to purpose, positive effects of altruistic purpose on all three outcomes were mediated by degree commitment. Additionally, the effect of altruistic purpose on first-year GPA was mediated by academic identity. These findings suggest that freshmen students with a strong altruistic purpose are likely to have strong academic commitments, which in turn lead to a higher GPA, good academic standing, and a higher likelihood of continuing with the degree. Overall, these findings point to the previous literature, highlighting the benefits of having goals focusing on helping others. For example, Hill et al. (2010) found that only prosocial purpose orientation was positively correlated with all measures of perceived personal development and service-learning participation during college among undergraduate students. Social integration, which can be seen in a form of aspirations to help local community, along with academic integration, has been suggested to be important in persistence, intellectual development, academic performance, and shared academic values (Grosset, 1991; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1993). When students desire to contribute positively to their community (e.g., by seeking to help others, promoting other people’s wellbeing, making a positive impact on others and a positive difference in the community), they are more likely to be socially and intellectually integrated and to persist until degree completion. When students do not desire to contribute to the local community, they are more likely to withdraw prior to degree completion. Interacting with others is important for students’ persistence in college (Attinasi, 1989). Students’ integration into a local community can affect their productivity. Through altruistic purpose, students might engage in activities that can provide them with a sense of achievement, and can contribute to the enjoyment of the college experience. This finding is also in line with the research on career calling, which has shown that students with altruistic aspirations to serve society feel more motivated to fulfill their educational and career goals (Shin et al., 2018).

The direct effects of awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose on first-year good academic standing were very close to zero, suggesting full mediation. On the other hand, for first-year GPA and retention, although the direct effects of awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose were non-significant, they were non-zero, which intuitively suggest only a partial mediation. Traditionally, such effects (i.e., non-zero non-significant values of direct effects with significant indirect effects) have been explained as “full mediation” (see Little et al., 2007). However, recent studies have cautioned against using such terms (Little et al., 2007), because additional indirect effects could be detected even when the direct path between the predictor and an outcome is non-significant (e.g., see Rucker et al., 2011). Thus, there could be other variables that also mediate the positive effects of awakening to purpose on actual progress towards degree. Taken together, findings in this study showed that sense of purpose, specifically awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose, plays a significant role in the progress towards a degree and, in turn, in degree attainment among first-time full-time freshmen.

Practical Implications

The results of this study have shown that the more students awaken to their life’s purpose and aspire to make a positive difference in their community, the more likely they are to develop their academic identity and degree commitment, which contributes to their actual progress towards achieving their degree. The practical significance of this study lies in encouraging purpose-centered interventions and conversations that could support college students in the process of awakening to their purpose, making career and educational plans that align with their purpose, and exploring the value of college education in fulfilling their altruistic sense of purpose. In line with this implication, Chickering (1994) emphasized the importance of supporting college students to clarify their ultimate intentions and make educational plans within the framework of their life’s purpose. College student affairs personnel, college counselors, and faculty can play an important role in promoting students’ degree progress through inspiring them to awaken to their life’s purpose and altruistic aspirations in several ways. For example, Lund et al. (2019) found that high quality mentoring characterized by authenticity, engagement, and empowerment support students to understand their role in society and use their education to serve their communities. Hence, engaging in meaningful, purpose-centered dialogues and consistent mentoring could contribute to students’ purpose-development (Lund et al., 2019; Sharma & De Alba, 2018).

The present study has especially highlighted the important role of altruistic sense of purpose in contributing to students’ degree progress. Based on qualitative studies, Bronk (2012) and Sharma and De Alba (2018) concluded that encouraging students to participate in prosocial and community-based programs could enhance students’ feelings of confidence, meaning, and fulfillment, which could further strengthen their sense of purpose behind college education. Faculty members could, therefore, incorporate service-learning as the means to help students in applying what they learn to make a positive difference in society. Doing so could strengthen students’ confidence, motivation and college persistence (Leppel, 2005; Sharma & De Alba, 2018). In addition, faculty could support students to develop and reflect upon their academic goals in relation to their life’s purpose through reaffirming the underlying purpose behind the course content (Damon, 2008). Lastly, the college student personnel working with undergraduate freshman students should be aware that their academic identification matters in their academic success (i.e., GPA). More attention should be given to the dynamic between sense of purpose in life, academic identity, and a number of student outcomes in future studies.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study added to the body of literature on the effects of sense of purpose in life among undergraduate students on their progression towards degree, it also has limitations that should be addressed in the future studies. First, the cross-sectional nature of measures collected in Fall 2017 limits us from drawing causal inferences about the positive associations between sense of purpose, academic identity, degree commitment, and institutional commitment. While the structural relationships tested in the current study were in general consistent with the proposed relationships, the direction of the causal associations between sense of purpose and self-reported measured of academic commitment cannot be certain due to the cross-sectional nature of data. Therefore, future studies might consider using a panel data approach to measuring sense of purpose and academic commitments (i.e., measuring these self-reported measures at multiple points in time for the same individuals) because such data can allow for causal inferences. Nevertheless, the longitudinal nature and the use of the actual progress towards measures was a strength of the current study. Future research should extend current findings to further examine the relationships between sense of purpose and actual degree attainment by examining, for example, students’ 6-year graduation rates. The findings in the current and previous studies also suggest that interventions aimed at increasing college students’ sense of purpose should be designed and tested because sense of purpose has been shown to be related to a number of positive outcomes.

Nonetheless, the current study has its strengths: a longitudinal approach to track students’ actual progress towards degree, a novel use of sense of purpose in life in explaining progress towards degree, and the testing of the relationships between sense of purpose, academic commitments, and measures of actual progress towards a degree directly and indirectly through academic identity and degree commitment. No previous study considered sense of purpose in life using Sharma et al.’s (2018) conceptualization in exploring actual progress towards degree among first-time incoming freshman students. Additionally, the use of academic identity measure in relation to students’ progress towards degree was also novel.

Conclusions

The current study investigated how first-time full-time college students’ sense of purpose may affect progress towards degree through their academic commitments. The study results provide evidence for the important role of awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose of college students in influencing their progress towards degree and for academic identity and degree commitment in explaining these relationships. Findings showed that the awakening to purpose and altruistic purpose of college students was related to their first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention, and that degree commitment and academic identity mediated these effects. Overall, the more students gain clarity about their life’s purpose and aspire to make a positive difference in their community, the more likely they are to invest themselves as students and commit to finishing degree, and the more likely they are to graduate.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mariya A. Yukhymenko-Lescroart

Author Biographies

Mariya A. Yukhymenko-Lescroart is an Associate Professor of Research and Statistics in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at California State University, Fresno. She holds M.A. (2009) and Ph.D. degrees (2012) in educational psychology with focus on research methodology from the University of Connecticut; and M.A. degree (2019) in kinesiology – sport psychology from California State University, Fresno. Dr. Yukhymenko’s research focuses on the substantive-methodological synergy. For methodological interests, she is particularly interested in scale development and validation and in application of multilevel and structural equation modeling to the real-world-data analyses. Her substantive interests lie in the intersection of positive, educational, and sport psychology, with focus on positive development of college students and adults, and in providing methodological support to the research of other scholars. She enjoys active and creative recreational activities.

Gitima Sharma, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counselor Education and Rehabilitation at California State University, Fresno. Dr. Sharma pursued her Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Rehabilitation from the Pennsylvania State University. She has about 10 years of clinical experience in working with children, adolescents, and adults from diverse backgrounds to promote their mental health, wellness, and career success. As a member of Soka Gakkai International, a peace organization, Dr. Sharma has lead workshops and dialogues on human dignity, empowerment, humanism, and global peace. Dr. Sharma’s research interests include a) positive identity development; b) sense of purpose; c) passion for work; d) college access and persistence; and e) counselor education and supervision. So far, Dr. Sharma has published 11 manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals and engaged in more than 20 national, state, and local presentations. Her professional affiliations include American Counseling Association (ACA), Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES), and American Educational Research Association (AERA). She enjoys travelling and spending time with her two sons at the beach.

References

Attinasi

L. C.

Jr. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1989.11775035

Bean

J. P.

(1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976194

Bronk, K. C. (2012). A Grounded Theory of the Development of Noble Youth Purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), 78–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411412958.

Burke

(2019). Student retention models in higher education: A literature review. College and University, 94, 12–21.

Chickering

A. W.

(1994). Empowering lifelong self-development. NACADA Journal, 14(2), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-14.2.50

Conner

S. L.

Daugherty

D. A.

Gilmore

M. N.

(2012). Student retention and persistence to graduation: Effects of an introductory life calling course. Journal of College Student Retention, 14(2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.14.2.f

Damon

Menon

Bronk

K. C.

(2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2

Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: How young people find their calling in life. Free Press.

Davidson

W. B.

Beck

H. P.

Grisaffe

D. B.

(2015). Increasing the institutional commitment of college students: Enhanced measurement and test of a nomological model. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115578230

10.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006

11.

Gansemer-Topf

A. M.

Kollasch

Sun

(2017). A house divided? Examining persistence for on-campus STEM and non-STEM students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611671

12.

García-Ros

Pérez-González

Cavas-Martínez

Tomás

J. M.

(2019). Effects of pre-college variables and first-year engineering students’ experiences on academic achievement and retention: A structural model. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(4), 915–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9466-z

13.

Grosset

J. M.

(1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974435

14.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. (8th ed.). Cengage.

15.

Hill

P. L.

Burrow

A. L.

Bronk

K. C.

(2016). Persevering with positivity and purpose: An examination of purpose commitment and positive affect as predictors of grit. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9593-5

16.

Hill

P. L.

Burrow

A. L.

Brandenberger

J. W.

Lapsley

D. K.

Quaranto

J. C.

(2010). Collegiate purpose orientations and well-being in early and middle adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.12.001

17.

Jensen

D. H.

Jetten

(2016). The importance of developing students’ academic and professional identities in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 57(8), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0097

18.

Leppel

(2005). College persistence and student attitudes toward financial success. College Student Journal, 39, 223–241.

19.

Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 207–230). Psychology Press.

20.

Lund, T. J., Liang, B., Konowitz, L., White, A. E., & Mousseau, A. D. (2019). Quality over Quantity? Mentoring relationships and purpose development among college students. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 1472–1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22284.

21.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371

22.

Muthén

L. K.

, &., & Muthén

B. O.

, (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide. Eight Edition. Author.

23.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005). How college. Affects students: A third decade of research. Wiley and Sons.

24.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

Wolfle

L. M.

(1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal. Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1986.11778760

25.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

26.

Sharma

De Alba

(2018). Sense of purpose among female students belonging to minority ethnic and Buddhist backgrounds. Journal of College and Character, 19(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2018.1445644

27.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

(2018). The relationship between college students’ sense of purpose and degree commitment. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0045

28.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

Kang

(2018). Sense of purpose scale: Development and initial validation. Applied Developmental Science, 22(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1262262

29.

Shin

J. Y.

Kim

T. S.

Ahn

Seifert

(2018). Calling, career preparation behaviors, and meaning in life among South Korean college students. Journal of College Student Development, 59(6), 734–748. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0068

30.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

31.

Spady

W. G.

(1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214313

32.

Spady

W. G.

(1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model. Interchange, 2(3), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02282469

33.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089.

34.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

35.

van Rens

F. E.

Ashley

R. A.

Steele

A. R.

(2019). Wellbeing and performance in dual careers: The role of academic and athletic identities. The Sport Psychologist, 33(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0026

36.

Woosley

S. A.

Miller

A. L.

(2009). Integration and institutional commitment as predictors of college student transition: Are third week indicators significant? College Student Journal, 43(4), 1260–1272.

37.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

(2014). Students and athletes? Development of the academic and athletic identity scale (AAIS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000009

38.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. A., & Sharma, G. (2020). Examining the Factor Structure of the Revised Sense of Purpose Scale (SOPS-2) with Adults. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 1203–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09729-w.