Content uploaded by Rex Flejoles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rex Flejoles on Jul 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1653
Retention Rate of the Bachelor of Science in
Information Technology Students and Their
Academic Performance
Helen N. Perlas1*, Rex P. Flejoles2, Dr. Remia S. Entusiasmo3,
Dr. Lilanie N. Cubita4
1Iloilo Science and Technology University Miagao Campus, Miagao, Iloilo
Philippines, helen.perlas@isatu.edu.ph
2Iloilo Science and Technology University Miagao Campus, Miagao, Iloilo
Philippines
3Iloilo Science and Technology University Miagao Campus, Miagao, Iloilo
Philippines
4Iloilo Science and Technology University Miagao Campus, Miagao, Iloilo
Philippines
Abstract
State universities and colleges, as well as their stakeholders, place
a high priority on academic achievement and retention rates. This
study sought to ascertain the retention rate and academic
performance of the “Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
(BSIT)” students at the “Iloilo Science and Technology University
Miagao Campus”. The Office of Campus Registrar and Admission
provided the information needed to calculate the retention rate. A
total of four (4) batches were examined in this study: batch 2018
(AY 2014-2015 to AY 2017-2018), batch 2019 (AY 2015-2016 to AY
2018-2019), batch 2020 (AY 2016-2017 to AY 2019-2020), and
batch 2021. (AY 2017–2018 to AY 2020–2021). The average grades
of individuals who graduated in the indicated batch served as the
basis for academic performance, for which the pertinent statistics
were gathered from the same office. “Percentage, mean, standard
deviation, Chi-Square, and one-way ANOVA were the statistical
techniques used”.
Keywords: Retention Rate, Graduation Rate, Academic
Performance, Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
Introduction
Educational institutions could be described in many ways. One of which is
through its program offerings, particularly on students’ academic
performance and the number of graduates. With the existence of the
“Bachelor of Science in Information Technology (BSIT)” degree at “Iloilo
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1654
Science and Technology University (ISAT U) Miagao Campus” for two (2)
decades, a study on the said aspects would provide a formal document
aside from a contribution on what is the University at this time.
Academic performance has to be given importance because it leads to
one's job performance in the future (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005). It
should be noted that numerous factors influence students' academic
performance, which consequently ensures on-time completion of the
degree: teaching and learning process, the infrastructure of the
university, family, and peers, and financial capacity (Razak et al., n.d.).
For students to graduate, they must comply with the set academic
requirements and maintain at least a passing grade, although continuous
improvement in academic performance is expected. Students’
completion of educational goals speaks of the success not only of
students but also of their school. “It indicates satisfactory performance
since academic success is composed of scholarly achievements and skills,
impressive test scores, extracurricular accomplishments, and student
leadership” (Williams, 2018).
The number of graduates is relevant to the retention rate. Because it
ensures a steady stream of income from tuition payments, the retention
rate is crucial for private educational institutions. Because institutional
assistance is based on the size of the student body, it is also beneficial to
public institutions and colleges. Policy and programme continuity is
provided by enrollment management, which helps students stay enrolled.
The activities involved in managing enrollment include finding the right
students, offering financial aid, easing the transition to college through
orientation programmes, using institutional research to collect and
analyse data about students, using appropriate interventions for students
in need of training or guidance, conducting research to identify the factors
associated with student retention, assisting with job placement, and
enlisting the help of allies (College Student Retention, 2021).
To ensure the continued viability of certain program offerings, it is
deemed necessary for the administrator to take a look at the retention
rates of its students. It may indicate good or poor educational aspects.
Hence, this study was conducted.
Literature Review
2.1. Retention Rate
In academe, retention rate refers to the fraction of students who remains
in the current semester or year from the previous semester or year. As an
example, Burrell (2020) referred to it specifically to freshmen students
that continue at the same school for their sophomore year of college. In
a different educational set up, it measures the percentage of first-time
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1655
undergraduate students who return to the same institution the following
fall (“Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates”, 2020).
A special case of retention rate is referred to as the graduation rate. The
graduation rate measures the fraction of those who graduated.
Specifically, it refers to the percentage of first-time undergraduate
students who complete their program at the same institution within a
specified period ("Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates",
2020).
It can be detrimental to their initial university retention rate when a
student leaves or transfers to another institution after their rookie year.
The likelihood that a student will stick with their studies and graduate
from college in a timely manner depends on a number of variables. Since
they are undertaking a life experience that no one in their family has done
before, first-generation college students frequently have poorer
retention rates. First-generation college students are less likely to
persevere through their struggles as college students without the help of
individuals who are close to them. (Burrell, 2020).
In terms of student retention, there are two extremes. When a student
enrols every semester up until graduation, pursues full-time study, and
completes their degree in around four years, this is considered normal
progression and is typical of a stayer or retained student. A dropout, also
known as a leaver, is a student who enrols in college but leaves before
receiving their degree and never attends that institution again. Students
who start their studies at one institution and subsequently transfer to
another are considered to be between these two extremes. Transferring
appears to the student to be typical advancement. From the perspective
of the school where they initially registered, the student has left (College
Student Retention, 2021).
A study by Al-Rahmi, Othman, and Musa (2015) explored the factors that
impact the retention rate of IT students. The study found that student
engagement, academic performance, and course quality were significant
predictors of student retention. Another study by Shukor and Yusof
(2018) investigated the relationship between students' satisfaction with
their academic experience and their retention rate. The study found that
student satisfaction was a significant predictor of retention.
2.2. Academic Performance
Students’ performance in their academics is referred to as academic
performance. Although it is a broad concept, it is usually presented with
a numerical value referred to as their grade.
Several studies validate differences in academic performance according
to certain factors, such as between gender (Ceballo, McLoyd, &
Toyokawa, 2004; Sparks-Wallace, 2007; Farooq, Chaudhry, Shafiq, &
Berhanu, 2011; Hofferth & Moon, 2012; Lepp, Barkley, & Karpinski, 2015;
Musa, Dauda, & Umar, 2016; Reilly, Neumann, & Andrews, 2019).
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1656
Moreover, academic performance is influenced by several factors such as
faculty attributes (Sikhwari et al., 2015) and related to certain aspects
such as the use of technology (Chen & Peng, 2008; Lepp et al., 2015; Ng
et al, 2017).
A study by Hapsari, Prihanto, and Marufi (2019) examined the factors that
influenced the academic performance of IT students. The study found
that students' self-efficacy, study habits, and motivation were significant
predictors of academic performance. Another study by Abdelaziz, Al-Badi,
and Al-Khanjari (2016) examined the relationship between academic
performance and retention of IT students. The study found that academic
performance was a significant predictor of student retention.
A study by Alhazbi and Iahad (2020) investigated the impact of blended
learning on the academic performance of IT students. The study found
that blended learning positively influenced student academic
performance and retention.
Overall, these studies suggest that academic performance, student
engagement, satisfaction with the academic experience, and course
quality are critical factors in the retention rate of IT students.
2.3. Admission, retention and graduation
Admission, retention, and graduation are crucial factors in evaluating the
effectiveness of higher education institutions. Many researchers have
conducted comparative studies on these factors to identify the critical
predictors of student success.
A study by Strayhorn (2018) compared the impact of financial aid, campus
involvement, and academic support on graduation rates. The study found
that these factors were critical predictors of graduation rates.
First, admission, a study by Chen and Soldner (2013) compared the
admission rates of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds,
races, and high school resources. The study found that socioeconomic
status, race, and high school resources significantly impacted college
admission rates.
Second, retention, several studies have compared retention rates among
different groups of students. A study by Tinto (1993) compared the
retention rates of students who received academic and social support to
those who did not. The study found that students who received support
were more likely to persist in their studies.
Lastly, graduation, graduation rates in higher education have been a
subject of interest for many researchers. A study by Stinebrickner and
Stinebrickner (2014) compared the graduation rates of students with
different family incomes, parental education, and student abilities. The
study found that these factors significantly impacted graduation rates.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1657
These comparative studies have shown that admission, retention, and
graduation are all critical factors in student success in higher education.
The predictors of each of these factors may differ depending on the
student's background and context, but they all have a significant impact
on a student's academic journey.
Objectives of the Study
3.1. General Objective
This study aimed to describe the retention rate and academic
performance of BSIT students who graduated from 2018 to 2021.
3.2. Specific Objectives
Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What is the retention rate of the BSIT students who graduated from
2018 to 2021?
2. What is the academic performance of the BSIT students who
graduated from 2018 to 2021?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the batch and the number
of graduates?
4. Is there a significant difference in the academic performance of the
BSIT students when grouped according to batch?
3.3. Hypotheses
In line with the aforementioned problems, the following null hypotheses
were tested at the 0.05 level of significance.
1. There is no significant relationship between the batch and the number
of graduates.
2. There is no significant difference in the academic performance of the
BSIT students when grouped according to batch.
3.4. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1658
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the study showing the relationship
among the variables.
Methodology
4.1. Research Design
As a popular research strategy in educational studies that tries to describe
and analyse the features of a particular population or phenomenon, this
study used a descriptive research design. There are a number of reasons
why researchers decided to employ a descriptive research methodology
in this study on the retention rate of Bachelor of Science in Information
Technology (BSIT) students and their academic performance.
First off, when the research issue is exploratory and there is little existing
knowledge on the subject, a descriptive research approach is appropriate.
Descriptive research design is advantageous when a study tries to
discover the features of a population or phenomenon without the
researcher having any predetermined preconceptions, according to
Creswell & Creswell (2017). A descriptive research design enables the
researcher to gather data and give a thorough explanation of the patterns
and trends in the data. In the case of this study, the objective is to
characterise the retention rate and academic performance of BSIT
students.
The second benefit of a descriptive research approach is that it works well
in real-world situations like educational institutions. According to Johnson
and Christensen (2014), studies carried out in natural settings, where the
researcher gathers data from existing records or conducts surveys or
questionnaires, are ideally suited for descriptive study design. In the case
of this study, the researcher may gather information from BSIT students'
records that are already on file at the educational facility. This type of
research is excellent for descriptive research design because it enables
the researcher to gather information from a natural environment and
characterise the features of the population being studied.
Thirdly, a descriptive research design can help with developing study
hypotheses. Descriptive research design, according to Merriam and
Tisdell (2015), is a helpful tool for developing hypotheses for future
Dependent Variables
Independent Variables
BSIT Students
•Batch 2021
•Batch 2020
•Batch 2019
•
Batch 2018
Retention Rate
Academic Performance
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1659
research because it enables the researcher to spot patterns or links in the
data that point to potential topics for additional exploration. In the case
of this study, the researcher may find links or patterns in the data that
point to areas requiring more research, or they may develop hypotheses
for more research that can more thoroughly evaluate these relationships
or patterns.
4.2. Respondents and Sampling Plan
The respondents of this study were the BSIT graduates of (4) batches from
batch 2018 (AY 2014-2015 to AY 2017-2018), batch 2019 (AY 2015-2016
to AY 2018-2019), batch 2020 (AY 2016-2017 to AY 2019-2020), and batch
2021 (AY 2017-2018 to AY 2020-2021) of Iloilo Science and Technology
University Miagao Campus.
4.3. Instrument and Data Gathering Procedure
The data needed for this study were obtained from the Office of the
Campus Registrar and Admission. Enrollment statistics of the BSIT
covering four (4) batches were retrieved: batch 2018 (AY 2014-2015 to AY
2017-2018), batch 2019 (AY 2015-2016 to AY 2018-2019), batch 2020 (AY
2016-2017 to AY 2019-2020), and batch 2021 (AY 2017-2018 to AY 2020-
2021). In addition, the average grades of the graduates for the identified
batches were requested.
4.4. Data Analysis
To determine the retention rate, the percentage was used and described
based on the following scale arbitrarily assigned by the researchers: “very
low” for a percentage range of 1-20, “low” for a percentage range of 21-
40, “moderate” for a percentage range of 41-60, “high” for a percentage
range of 61-80, and “very high” for a percentage range of 81-100.
The mean grade of BSIT students who graduated in the identified
academic years was used to describe their academic performance. The
descriptions were based on the grading system from Memorandum No.
3/9/2007-14, but an adjustment to the range was made to cover two (2)
decimal places: “excellent” for a grade of 1.00-1.04, “outstanding” for a
grade range of 1.05-1.54, “very good” for a grade range of 1.55-2.04,
“good” for a grade range of 2.05-2.54, “fair/passing” for a grade range of
2.55-3.04, “conditional failure” for a grade range of 3.05-3.54, and
“failed” for a grade range of 3.55-5.00.
To determine the relationship between the batch and the number of
graduates, the Chi-Square test of independence was used. While one-way
ANOVA was employed to determine the difference in the academic
performance of BSIT students when grouped according to batch.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1660
Results and Discussion
5.1. BSIT Batch 2018 to 2021 Retention Rates
Figure 2 presents the enrollment data of the BSIT covering the four (4)
batches for the eight (8) semesters, from 1st semester of their 1st year to
the 2nd semester of their 4th year.
Figure 2. ISAT U Miagao Campus BSIT Enrollment for AY 2014-2015 to
2020-2021
Regardless of the batch, the figure depicts a decreasing trend in
enrollment. To describe the retention rate in terms of the number of
graduates, Figure 2 shows the results.
Figure 3. BSIT Batch 2018 to 2021 Retention Rates
Legend: 1-20 – Very Low; 21-40 – Low; 41-60 – Moderate; 61-80 – High;
81-100 – Very High.
235 231 217 206
123 121 118 110
290 280
250 233 220 214 207 204
128 123 108 104 92 88 89 83
76 75 60 58 54 54 53 53
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1st Year, 1st
Semester
1st Year, 2nd
Semester
2nd year, 1st
Semester
2nd Year, 2nd
Semester
3rd Year, 1st
Semester
3rd Year, 2nd
Semester
4th Year, 1st
Semester
4th Year, 2nd
Semester
2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
47%
70% 65% 70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2018 2019 2020 2021
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1661
The figure shows the retention rates of the BSIT students who graduated
from 2018 to 2021: “moderate” for batch 2018 (47%), while “high” for
batch 2019 (70%), batch 2020 (65%), and batch 2021 (70%). Based on the
obtained percentages, the retention rates were not equal among the
batches. In addition, batch 2018 seemed to have the least number of
graduates.
5.2. BSIT Batch 2020 to 2021 Academic Performance
Table 1 shows the average grades of BSIT students who graduated from
2018 to 2021.
Table 1. Average Grades of BSIT Batch 2018 to 2021
Category
N
M
Description
SD
Entire Group
450
2.02
Very Good
0.19
Batch 2021
53
1.95
Very Good
0.18
Batch 2020
83
2.08
Good
0.17
Batch 2019
204
2.02
Very Good
0.20
Batch 2018
110
2.00
Very Good
0.18
Legend: 1.00-1.04—Excellent; 1.05-1.54—Outstanding; 1.55-2.04—Very
Good; 2.05-2.54—Good; 2.55-3.04—Fair/Passing; 3.05-3.54—Conditional
Failure; 3.55-5.00—Failed.
When taken as a whole, the academic performance of BSIT graduates was
“very good” (M=2.02, SD=0.19). When grouped according to batch, their
academic performances were as follows: “very good” for batch 2018
(M=2.00, SD=0.18), batch 2019 (M=2.02, SD=0.20), and batch 2021
(M=1.95, SD=0.18), while “good” for batch 2020 (M=2.08, SD=0.17).
Based on the computed means, their academic performances seemed to
be different.
5.3. Relationship Between Batch and Number of Graduates
Table 2 shows the number of students who graduated and dropped in the
different batches.
Table 2. Number of Dropouts and Graduates for Batch 2018 to 2021
Status
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dropped Out
125a
86b
45b
23b
Graduated
110a
204b
83b
53b
Using the Pearson Chi-Square test, a significant relationship was found
between batch and number of graduates, ꭕ2(3)=33.846, p=0.000. It
implies that there were more graduates for batch 2019, 2020, and 2021;
while there were more dropouts in batch 2018.
5.4. Difference in the Academic Performance of the BSIT Batch 2018 to
2021
Table 3 shows the difference in the academic performances of graduates
when grouped according to batch.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1662
Table 3. The One-Way ANOVA Results on the Difference in the Academic
Performance
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Between
Groups
.614
3
.205
5.821
.001
Within Groups
15.680
446
.035
Total
16.294
449
There was a statistically significant difference in the academic
performance of BSIT graduates when grouped according to batch as
determined by one-way ANOVA (F(3,446)=5.821, p=0.001). A Scheffe post
hoc test revealed that the difference was between batch 2020 and 2018
as well as between batch 2020 and 2021. It means that the academic
performance of batch 2020 was lower than that of batch 2018 and batch
2021.
Conclusions
1. As expected, the enrollment showed a decreasing trend which
implies that in any batch the enrollment decreased every semester.
However, the retention rate showed an increase from batch 2018 to
the succeeding batches. A lot of factors may be attributed to this.
Perhaps, one of which is the implementation of the K to 12 curricula.
Originally, the last batch from the old curriculum would have been
the batch 2019 tertiary level. Hence, students who started in the
academic year 2015-2016 might be conscious to complete the
degree on time to avoid any undesirable consequences of the new
curriculum implementation. However, there was an extension of
accommodating students in the old curriculum directly in college,
which include the academic year 2016-2017 who graduated in 2020,
and 2017-2018 who graduated in 2021. Unlike in batch 2018, they
might have not worried about it since the details of the new
curriculum implementation might have not been clear yet. Another
factor may be attributed to the initiative of the University to
contribute to a higher retention rate.
2. The “good” to “very good” academic performance of BSIT students
who graduated in 2018 to 2021 showed an opportunity for
improvement in terms of academic excellence as stated in the
mission of the University. It calls for intervention on the part of the
administration to improve their academic performance. Several
factors may be taken into consideration since this study utilized the
average grade only. There is a possibility that only selected courses
may be given emphasis.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1663
3. There was a significant relationship between batch and the number
of graduates. This affirms the awareness of the students of batches
2019, 2020, and 2021 on the undesirable consequences of not
completing the degree on time. From another perspective, it may be
construed as effective actions of the University to help those
students in the old curriculum to graduate in college so that they may
not be troubled by the K to 12 implementations.
4. There was a significant difference in the academic performance of
the BSIT graduates when grouped according to batch. The academic
performance of batch 2020 was lower than that of batch 2018 and
batch 2021. Several factors may be attributed to this. From the
academic year 2016-2017 in which they were in their 1st year, up to
the academic year 2019-2020 during their 4th year, many new things
happened including (a) a change in BSIT curriculum, (b) several new
faculty members were hired, and (c) initial outbreak of coronavirus.
Recommendations
1. The administration must conduct an intervention program that
caters to the needs of students with enrolment issues to help them
complete the course on time. If it is possible to reach out to those
who dropped out from the program, a study may be done involving
them to come up with a proactive measure to avoid a very low
retention rate.
2. Faculty members may need to revisit their strategies to ensure the
better academic performance of their students. They may consider
doing research that explores alternative approaches for effective
learning of students.
3. The BSIT students must take their studies more seriously and value
an independent learning approach for the improvement of their
academic performance.
4. A different study is recommended to involve students with low
academic performance and identity the underlying reasons. Also,
further is recommended to use more variables to substantiate the
results of this study.
Bibliography
1. Abdelaziz, A., Al-Badi, A., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2016). Investigating the
relationship between academic performance and retention of IT students.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(11), 846-
850.
2. Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Musa, M. (2015). Predictors of IT
students' retention: A case study. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 1-
6.
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1664
3. Alhazbi, S., & Iahad, N. A. (2020). Impact of blended learning on academic
performance and retention of information technology students. Journal of
Educational Technology and Society, 23(5), 79-90.
4. Burrell, J. (2020, August 26). What Is a Retention Rate for Colleges and
Universities? Retrieved from ThoughtCo:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-retention-rate-3570270
5. Ceballo, R., McLoyd, V., & Toyokawa, T. (2004). The influence of
neighborhood quality on adolescents’ educational values and school
efforts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 716-739.
6. Chen, Y. F., & Peng, S. S. (2008). University students’ internet use and its
relationships with academic performance, interpersonal relationships,
psychosocial adjustment, and self-evaluation. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
11, 467-469.
7. Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students' paths into
and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). US Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
8. College Student Retention. (2021, April 23). Retrieved from education:
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1863/College-Student-
Retention.html
9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
10. Farooq, M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., Shafiq, M., & Berhanu, G. (2011). Factors
affecting students’ quality of academic performance: A case of secondary
school level. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 7(2), 1-14.
11. Hapsari, R. M., Prihanto, A. A., & Marufi, A. (2019). Factors that influence
the academic performance of information technology students. Journal of
Education and Practice, 10(4), 64-71.
12. Hofferth, S. L., & Moon U. J. (2012). Cell phone use and child and adolescent
reading proficiency. Pyschol Pop Media Cult, 1(2), 108-122. doi:
10.1037/a0027880.
13. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage publications.
14. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported
grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and
review of the literature. Review of educational research, 75(1), 63-82.
15. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between
cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of U.S. college
students. SAGE Open, 1-9. doi: 10.1177/2158244015573169
16. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
17. Musa, A. K., Dauda, B., & Umar, M. A. (2016). Gender differences in
achievement goals and performances in English language and Mathematics
of senior secondary schools students in Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(27), 165-175.
18. Ng, S. F., Hassan, N. S. I. C., Nor, N. H. M., & Malek, N. A. A. (2107). The
relationship between smartphone use and academic performance: A case
of students in a Malaysian tertiary institution. Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 5(4), 58-70.
19. Razak, W. M., Baharom, S. A., Abdulah, Z., Hamdan, H., Aziz, N. U., & Anuar,
A. I. (n.d.). Academic Performance of University Students: A Case in a Higher
Learning Institution. Retrieved from Knowledge E:
Journal of Namibian Studies, 34 S2(2023): 1653-1665 ISSN: 2197-5523 (online)
1665
https://knepublishing.com/index.php/KnE-
Social/article/view/4285/8800#toc
20. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in
reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the national assessment
of educational progress (NAEP). American Psychological Association, 74(4),
445-458.
21. Sikhwari, T. D. (2015). Exploring Students' Views on Factors affecting
Academic Performance in a South African University. International Journal
of Education Science, 10(3, 442-450.
22. Shukor, S. A., & Yusof, S. A. (2018). Exploring students' satisfaction with their
academic experience: A predictor of retention. Journal of Applied Research
in Higher Education, 10(4), 319-332.
23. Sparks-Wallace, O. J. (2007). A study of gender differences in academic
performance in a rural county in Tennessee (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved
from https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2101
24. Stinebrickner, T., & Stinebrickner, R. (2014). A major in science? Initial
beliefs and final outcomes for college major and dropout. The Review of
Economic Studies, 81(1), 426-472.
25. Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students' sense of belonging: A key to
educational success for all students. Routledge.
26. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
27. Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates. (2020, April). Retrieved
from National Center for Education Statistics:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp
28. Williams, E. (2018, June 29). What Is the Meaning of Academic
Performance? Retrieved from Chron: https://work.chron.com/meaning-
academic-performance-17332.html
