INTRODUCTION

1. In heavily-enrolled university courses (including Introduction to Psychology), drop-out rates range from 15% at top-tier institutions to 40%+ at community colleges (Twigg, 2005). (126 students started this study; 21(17%) dropped out of the class.) ACT or SAT score, high school rank, high school GPA, social class and non-minority status are all relatively good predictors of academic success, but these are variables over which instructors have no control. Instructors may hope to influence students’ • Interest • Motivation • Study habits, etc. This study attempted to influence “locus of control,” which is considered both malleable and a good predictor of grades (Findley & Cooper, 1983). INTRODUCTION All were students at a small university in the Midwest; all were taught by the same instructor in 4 sections of Introductory Psychology; most were Caucasian and native English speakers. All completed the Academic Locus of Control (ALOC) Scale (Trice, 1987) in both early September and late November. Experimental group (16 men and 38 women) read a brief summary of the Locus of Control concept. They also examined items on the Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1988) and noted which were written in an external vs. internal direction. • For example: “Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck” versus “Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job.” Students also answered questions like this one: As a student, what factors (related to grades earned and how much you learn) can you control? Name three that you think are important. Control group students (18 men and 32 women) completed an assignment on the concept of “multiple intelligences” (Gardner, 1983). This assignment was designed to be equivalent to the Locus of Control assignment in terms of: • Due at the same time of the semester • The amount of credit that could be earned • The difficulty of the concepts (The mean grade on this assignment was 28.4 (versus 30.5 for the experimental group); t(97) = 1.35, ns.) PARTICIPANTS & METHOD Initial equivalence The 2 groups did not differ on academic capability (as measured by ACT scores (t(82) = .26, ns))) or previous academic experience (measured via prior credits completed (t(102) = .39, ns)) or current academic workload (as measured by # of credits currently attempted, (t(102) = 1.21, ns)). BUTthe experimental group had a more “internal” locus of control at the outset (M = 9.7 experimental versus 11.6 control; t(102) = 2.10; p = .02 (2-tailed)). Hypothesis 1: More “internal” students were expected to earn higher grades. Since “internal” scores on the ALOC are lower, negative correlations were expected. (All comparisons are 102 dfand 2-tailed tests.) • Pre-test Academic LOC scores were correlated with : • Course grade (r = -.28, p < .01) • Semester GPA (r = -.30, p < .01) • Cumulative GPA (r = -.19, ns) • Post-test Academic LOC scores were correlated with: • Course grade (r = -.23, p < .02) • Semester GPA (r = -.26, p < .01) • Cumulative GPA (r = -.22, p < .02) Thus, more “internal” students (in both groups) did better not only in this course, but had higher grades for the semester as a whole. A more internal locus of control was also associated with a higher cumulative GPA, as these students were followed over the next few years. Hypothesis 2: “Control” students were expected to show no change in ALOC scores. For this group (n = 49), the average LOC score was 11.6 early in the semester and 13.2 at the end of the semester (t(48) = 3.37, 2-tailed, p = .001. While no change was expected (due to the lack of an intervention), these students became significantly more “external” over time. Hypothesis 3: The experimental group was predicted to show increasing “internality.” For these students (n = 54), the pretest mean was 9.74 while the post-test mean was 9.81(t(53) = .19, ns). The pattern of results is, thus, contrary to prediction; the group did not improve (become more “internal”) over time. This overall pattern of results can also be summarized using a 2x2 (group x session) mixed ANOVA: The experimental group exhibited more internal scores than the control group (F (1,102) = 11.6, p = .001). Posttest scores were more external than pretest (F (1,102) = 7.7, p = .007). The interaction indicated increasing externality of posttest scores only for the control group (F (1,102) = 6.4, p = .01). RESULTS Hypothesis 4:Experimental group was expected to be more successful academically. This possibility was examined for course grade, semester GPA, cumulative GPA and # of credits completed. All differences were in the expected direction, but none were significant, using simple t-tests. However, academic success is clearly influenced by factors other than Academic Locus of Control. Linear regression analyses explored the effect of group membership while controlling for academic aptitude (ACT scores) and academic experience (number of prior credits). Both ACT scores and group membership significantly predicted academic success. ACT scores group (E vs. C) Course grade β = .549, p< .001 β = .225, p = .015 Semester GPA β = .489, p< .001 β = .226, p = .02 Cumulative GPA β = .431, p< .001 β =.251, p = .013 Academic experience (# prior credits) was not a significant predictor of any of the above. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION The results of the linear regression indicate thata brief “locus of control” assignment results in a) maintaining an initial (more internal) locus of control, as the semester progresses, b) earning higher grades in the short-term (course grade and semester GPA), and c) earning higher grades even long-term (in subsequent semesters). Experimental group’s cumulative GPA was a B- average, while Control group’s cumulative GPA was a C+ average. Students, on day one, hope to earn either an A or a B in the class . This is “unrealistic optimism” (Weinstein, 1980; Cann, 2005) since, in the typical Intro to Psych course, half of the class will earn a C or worse. To maintain a positive self-image, students likely adopt a more external locus of control (e.g., the tests are too tricky; the instructor is not fair). The “locus of control” exercise – while brief – may have been effective in reminding students of the way in which they DO have control over academic outcomes. Future research could be useful in a) replicating this effect, and b) exploring the mechanisms by which this happens. REFERENCES Cann, A. (2005). Predicting course grades: Accurate for others but biased for self. Teaching of Psychology, 32(4), 242-244. Findley, M. J. & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: a literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 419-427. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.Basic Books, New York, NY. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs, 80 (1), Whole No. 609. Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340. Trice, A. D. (1987). Academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1043-1046. Twigg, C. A. (2005). Increasing Success for Underserved Students: Redesigning Introductory Courses.National Center for Academic Transformation, Saratoga Springs, NY. Weinstein, N.D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820. For More Information, contact: Linda Tollefsrud, 1800 College Drive, Rice Lake, WI 54868 or linda.tollefsrud@uwc.edu. Linda Tollefsrud University of Wisconsin Colleges Empowering Students via Locus of Control