See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277603454

Factors Influencing the Academic Achievement

of Students in the Preparatory and Secondary
Schools of the United Arab Emirates

Article in European Journal of Social Sciences · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 827

1 author:

Samir Dukmak
Al Ain University of Science and Technology
13 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samir Dukmak on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 1450-2267 Vol. 46 No 2 January, 2015, pp.132-148
http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com/

Factors Influencing the Academic Achievement of

Students in the Preparatory and Secondary
Schools of the United Arab Emirates

Samir Dukmak
Associate Professor, College of Education, Humanities & Social Sciences
Al Ain University of Science and Technology
PO BOX: 64141, Al-Ain, UAE
E-mail: samir.duqmaq@aau.ac.ae, samirduqmaq@hotmail.com

Fawzi F. Ishtaiwa
Associate Professor, College of Education, Humanities & Social Sciences
Al Ain University of Science and Technology
PO BOX: 64141, Al-Ain, UAE
E-mail: fawzi.ishtaiwa@aau.ac.ae

Abstract
This research investigated the factors that impact the scholastic accomplishment of students
in the preparatory and secondary education in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It was
guided by eight questions which were related to child and family socio-demographic
characteristics, students’ beliefs about their learning and goal orientation, parents’ support
of children’s learning, peer attitudes towards leaning, teacher-students’ interaction and
curriculum content. Seventy four students from the UAE preparatory and secondary
schools participated in the study. Six scales were developed for the purpose of the study.
Various statistical analyses such as t-test, chi-square and logistic regression were conducted
to identify the relationship between predictors and outcome measures. The results revealed
that students’ age was significantly related to their achievement. Furthermore, a significant
relationship was found between parents’ education and students’ academic achievement.
Moreover, high-achieving students significantly scored higher on children’s hope scale,
self-satisfaction and worth of education subscales, parental support of children’s learning
scale, teachers’ encouragement subscale and on the subject difficulty levels subscale. No
statistical significances were found in the study between other predictors and outcome
measures.

Keywords: Factors affecting achievement, Students achievement, high achieving-

students, low-achieving students.

1. Introduction
School life for students does not usually go smoothly and students may experience various obstacles
and difficulties that stand in their way to have a good level of academic achievement. According to
Leondari and Gialamas (2002), academic achievement of students declines during the early adolescent
period. Family and child socio-demographics, students’ beliefs about their goals, students’ belief about
learning, parental support, attitudes held by peers, teacher-students’ interaction, and the content of
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

curriculum are some of the factors which may influence students’ academic achievement at school.
There are different elements that may likewise add to students' scholarly accomplishment.
2. Previous Research
2.1 2.1 Factors Influencing Students’ Academic Achievement
2.1.1 Student’s Age and Gender
The level of students’ academic achievement can be associated with their age, gender, and the subject
matter. For example, in a study conducted in Nigeria (Ebenuwa-Okoh, 2010), it was found that age was
not a predictor of students’ academic achievement. With regard to the achievement of students and
gender, the results of some studies conducted in Pakistan, Nigeria and Iran contradicted each other as a
few of these studies showed that girls achieve academically better than boys (Farooq, Chaudhry and
Berhanu, 2011; Jabbar, Aziz, & Zeb, 2011; Hejazi, Lavasani, Amani & Was, 2012) while Udida,
Ukwayi, & Ogodo (2012) who conducted a study in Nigeria, found out that boys achieve academically
slightly better, in general, than their girl counterpart. In addition, girls engaged in rote learning modes
in order to please teachers, while boys drew in into more assorted, danger taking practices and they
were probably overlooked or rejected standard educator desires (Ridley & Novak, 1983). In a 12-year
longitudinal investigation about the science concepts, it was found that student girls had a tendency to
have fewer coordinated and fewer intricate concepts as measured by concept mapping. On the other
hand, boys overall, seemed to grow more significant applied understandings in later evaluations than
did girls (Novak & Musonda, 1991).
With regard to motivation, several studies indicated that girls are more improbable than boys to
build up an arrangement of motivational qualities that encourage accomplishment in math and science
in higher classes (Dweck, 1986; Fennema & Peterson, 1985; Steinkamp, 1984). According to Kahle
(1983), girls had less favorable attitudes towards science than their peer boys. Meece and Jones (1996)
indicated that girls had a lesser amount of certainty than boys in their capacity to do fine on science
assignments in the classroom. Contrasted and other branches of knowledge, math and science are for
the most part seen as manly areas of accomplishment (Jones, 1991; Kahle & Meece, 1994; Kelly,
1985). Girls discover science moderately more troublesome than boys do (Lim, 1996). In the other
hand, boys tend to achieve higher scores in science than girls (Caleon & Subramaniam, 2008).
Furthermore, according to Meece and Jones (1996), low-achieving student girls showed a lesser
amount of inspiration to study than did boy students. However, low-achievers of both boys and girls
had higher scores on Work-Avoidant scales than did high-achievers but boys with low academic
achievement showed higher levels of motivation than did girls with low academic achievement.

2.1.2 Parents’ Level of Education, Family Size, and Income

Students’ scholastic achievement may be impacted by the socio-demographic foundation of
their guardians such as the level of education, family size and family income (Juma, Simatwa, &
Ayodo, 2012: Udida et al., 2012). For example, in studies conducted in India and Nigeria (Selvam,
2013; Udida et al. 2012), students’ educational accomplishment was positively impacted by their
parents’ level of education while, Abigail and Ifeoma (2013), reported in their study that Nigerian
parents’ level of education did not significantly impact the mean scores of students’ achievement in
science. Moreover, a considerable association was found between parents’ level of education and
improved student’s accomplishment in mathematics in grade seven in the USA (Wang, 1996)
whereas in Pakistan, it was found that parents’ education did not have strong impact on students’
achievement in mathematics in preparatory grades. However, the relationship between fifth grade
students’ achievement in mathematics and their fathers’ education was negative (Saeed, Gondal, &
Bushra, 2005). In another study, Llorente (1990) reported that parents’ level of education was found
to influence students’ motivation to achieve more than their level of income.
With regard to family size and achievement, in a study conducted in Pakistan, family size was
found to influence students’ academic achievement (Jabbar et al., 2011). Another research conducted
in Kenya revealed that students of large size family showed poorer academic achievement than
133
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

students of smaller size family (Juma et al., 2012). However, some other studies (Joseph, 2009;
Makewa, Role & Otewa, 2012) reported no association between students’ academic accomplishment
and family size. With regards to family income and students’ achievement, several studies in Iran,
Pakistan and Nigeria, showed that family income significantly and positively affected academic
achievement of students (Jabbar et al., 2011; Shah, Atta, Qureshi & Shah, 2012; Udida et al., 2012;
Yousefi, Redzuan, Bate, Juhari & Talib, 2010).

2.1.3 Hopefulness/Student's Beliefs about their Goal Orientation

Students’ beliefs about their goal orientation can be measured by their hope, and hope concentrates on
the people’s faith that they can attain significant goals in life. Research found that self-respect or self-
worth and hopefulness forecasted dissimilar results (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies., 2007). Snyder
(2000, p. 8) defined hopefulness as ‘a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively
derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet
goals)’. Dispositional confidence offers trustworthiness to musings that are agnatic in nature; quality
hope stresses agency and also pathways thought (Snyder, 2000). Albeit both hope and dispositional
optimism are centered around the future, optimism alludes to the faith that optimistic events are prone
to happen later on; ‘that good rather than bad things will happen’ (Scheier & Carver, 1985, p. 219).
Interestingly, hope incorporates the capacity to produce and execute arrangements for what's to come
(Bailey, Eng, Frisch, & Snyder, 2007). As Bailey et al. (2007, p. 168) explain, ‘Optimism theory posits
that outcome expectancies determine goal-directed behavior, whereas hope theory posits that efficacy
expectancies (Agency) are equally necessary determinants of goal-guided behavior’. In backing of this
peculiarity, Bryant and Cvengros (2004) discovered that hopefulness and optimism to load on distinct
factors. High hope people have a summed up anticipation of progress such that any obstruction of
goals is seen as impermanent in light of the fact that new ways to accomplish goals are regularly
effortlessly created (Cheavens, 2000). High-hope people have what it takes to adapt more adequately to
boundaries to the accomplishment of goals and show large amounts of capability over an extensive
variety of human effort or attempt (Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002). With regard to the difference
between low- and high-achievers in goal orientation, Hejazi et al. (2012) found that approach-mastery
goal orientation is absolutely and fundamentally associated with scholarly accomplishment. Boon
(2007) found that low- and high-achievers were significantly different from each other in goal
orientation and self-efficacy as students with low academic achievement had lower dominance goals
and self-viability than students with high academic accomplishment. Previous studies indicated that the
academic achievement of students is affected by the beliefs that they hold about themselves (Ames,
1990; Dweck, 1988). Achievement goals are considered motivational factors related to students’
achievement. Weiner (1990) identified goal orientation theory as “a major new direction, one pulling
together different aspects of achievement research” (p. 629). According to Ames (1990), achievement
goals are “an integrated pattern of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of
behavior represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement-
type activities.” (p. 261). The accomplishment of goals incorporates the goal to create and enhance
capacity and the goal to exhibit and demonstrate capability. For instance, for a few individuals the goal
of staying away from negative judgments from others or abstaining from looking idiotic may be
prevailing (Middleton & Midgley, 1997).
Past research on goal orientation recommends that in the event that students are to succeed they
are required to follow assignments and accomplish goals (Leondari & Gialamas, 2002). An assignment
goal orientation is connected with positive accomplishment beliefs that prompt versatile instructive
results, while achievement goals are connected with negative accomplishment beliefs that regularly
prompt maladaptive behavior including low errand engagement, less industriousness, and the
infrequent appropriation of a defenseless reaction (Ames & Archer, 1988). Perceived competence is an
achievement belief that is considered as a motivational contrast and connected to both implicit theories
and achievement goals (Dweck and Leggett, 1988). For instance, students with either an assignment or

134
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

a performance-approach goal orientation and who are sure about their capacity to succeed at an
assignment, demonstrate very comparative behavior. They acknowledge the sensible test of the
assignment and will hold on with an end goal to effectively finish it. Then again, students with
performance-avoidance goals who question their capacity, attempt to maintain a strategic distance from
errands saw to be testing, show diminished performance, negative impact, and low ingenuity when
experience difficulties. (Ames & Archer, 1988; Nolen, 1988).

2.1.4 Student’s Beliefs about Learning

Students’ beliefs about learning can influence their ability to learn. The beliefs that students can have
about themselves and about others help them to see the world and understand new encounters (Purkey,
2000). Academic self-efficacy beliefs concentrate on the certainty that students require to do well in
school (Bandura, 1986). According to Pajares (2001), students who are confident that schools have
value and see learning as an end in itself can connect with the world with optimism and see their
accomplishments as esteemed and merited. These attitudes should be fostered and supported in school.
According to Alamdarloo, Moradi and Dehshiri (2013), students’ concepts of learning as gaining
information, remembering and using information, a duty, a personal change and learning as the
development of social competence were all significantly related to academic achievement.

2.1.5 Parental Support of their Children’s Learning

Students’ achievement can also be impacted by the support they receive from their parents (Diaz, 2003;
Dryfoos, 1990; Miller, 1980). For example, parental involvement in the educational process of their
children was found to have a significant effect in improving their academic performance (Rafiq, Fatima,
Sohail, Saleem & Khan, 2013; Selvam & Panneer, 2013). Furthermore, Diaz (2003) believes that
mothers’ good academic preparation for their children and a positive cultural environment are the most
effective elements standing out as factors influencing students’ academic achievement. Parental
expectations were also found to have an obvious influence on their children’s academic achievement
(Marchesi & Martin, 2002). Moreover, family cohesion (Caplan et al., 2002) and family relations (Buote,
2001) were found to be predictors of children academic performance. Concerning the relationship
between the children’s level of achievement and the support offered to them by their parents, it was
found that low achievement among children is significantly linked with parents’ less support for
achievement (Boon, 2007). Additionally, parenting style was found to be associated with children’s level
of achievement as parents’ authoritative style of parenting was associated with students with high
achievement, and child rearing style that was characterized by neglect was associated with low-achieving
students.

2.1.6 Peers’ Attitudes towards Learning

Students are so greatly influenced by each other whether they are at school or out of school. Buote
(2002) reported that there is a positive interaction between students' academic accomplishment and the
association with their companions. For example, students who fail in school can be those who are
rejected by their peers (Montero, 1990). Students can learn from their peers through various
mechanisms such as reinforcement, modelling, and direct teaching. The interaction of students with
their peers helps them acquire social competencies such as how to control aggressive behaviour and
express pro-social practices (Castejon & Perez, 1998). However, and according to Berndt (1999), if
peers are disruptive in school, students become disruptive too and if peers have high grades, students
can also have high grades. Moreover, if the relationship between students and their peers is
characterised by positive features more than the negative ones, then students have higher academic
achievement.

135
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

2.1.7 Teacher –Student Interaction

The positive interaction that is initiated between teachers and students can benefit students and
helps them learn (Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005), increases their academic achievement (Hawkins,
Graham, Sudweeks & Barbour, 2013), makes them adapt well in their class (Howes, Phillipsen, &
Peisner-Feinberg, 2000) and develops their cognitive skills (Jones & Gerig, 1994). According to Allen,
Gregory, Mikami, Lun, Hamre and Pianta (2013), emotional support, classroom arrangement and
educational support were predictors of higher achievement among students. Furthermore, emotionally
supportive interactions initiated between teachers and students were linked with lower level of
student’s aggression reported by the teachers (Merritt, Wanless, Rimm-Kaufman, Cameron, Peugh,
(2012). However, there are several factors that may influence teacher-students interaction such as
grouping of students. For example, it was found that students with high level of academic
accomplishment can accomplish higher and take in more when they are gathered with other students
with high academic accomplishment (Gentry & Owens, 2002; Grossen, 1996; Hollified, 1987; Page &
Keith, 1996). This is because in groups with students with mix abilities, it is hard to offer an
appropriate setting to educate everyone. According to Slavin (1987), students are different from each
other in various related issues including knowledge, skills, developmental stage, and learning rate.
Furthermore, students respond contrastingly to lessons as one lesson may be simpler for a few students
and more troublesome for the others.
In groups that have been classified according to students' ability, it was found that students with
high academic achievement see their own abilities more practically and feel that they are properly
challenged with their companions (Fiedler, Lange, and Wine-Brenner, 2002). On the other hand, low
achieving students can benefit from students with high-achieving students if they are put together in
the same group in the classroom (Secada, 1992). Past research results (Willson, 1999) demonstrated
that students with high academic achievement start a bigger number of interactions in blended capacity
classrooms than low-accomplishing ones. This finding was in line with a study directed by Dukmak
(2009) in the UAE.
Besides, for low-achieving students, it was found that scholastic significance and intrinsic
motivation were connected to high classroom engagement. This because the more students with low
academic achievement see schoolwork associated with their lives and with their future goals, the more
they get to be willing to learn in class and the more they view themselves to be scholastically involved
in the classroom activities (Crumpton and Gregory, 2011).

2.1.8 Students’ Attitudes towards Curriculum Content

The curriculum content in this context is related to whether students like the school work and
the courses or subjects taught to them and whether these subjects grab their interest. The degree of
difficulty that students encounter in the tasks and activities offered within these subjects are also
related to the curriculum content. According to Crumpton and Gregory (2011), the majority of low-
achieving students in their study felt that the course content they learnt in class is intriguing and
applicable to their lives. These students were also found to be intrinsically motivated and reported
higher levels of classroom engagement. Interestingly, Crumpton’s and Gregory’s study found no
positive link between classroom academic importance and intrinsic motivation, and academic
accomplishment among the low-achieving students. In addition, several studies investigated students’
attitudes towards the content of certain school subjects. For example, Ifamuyiwa and Akinsola (2008)
reported that attitudes to mathematics and the ability to handle numerical issues without apprehension
of disappointment can be better by improving the student’s self-concept and confidence in this matter.
Besides, self-teaching procedure was observed to be more successful in enhancing students' attitudes
towards arithmetic than helpful teaching techniques.
High-achieving students in general are motivated to study science than average and low-
achieving students because students with high academic achievement are outfitted with prevalent

136
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

psychological abilities, can better comprehend and acknowledge science more than the rest of students
(Caleon & Subramanian, 2008).
Reflecting on the above, this research investigated the association between UAE students’
scholastic accomplishment and their socio-demographics including their age and gender, as well as
their parents’ level of education, and family size and income. It additionally researched the distinction
between students' level of scholastic achievement and various issues including their beliefs about their
goal orientation and about their selves in relation to learning. Evaluating parental backing towards their
kids' learning is also explored in this study. What's more, this study analysed practices and attitudes
that peers hold towards learning and school, assessed student’s relations with teachers, and investigated
the extent to which students like or abhorrence the school work. The relationship between students'
academic accomplishment and their beliefs about learning were also examined in this study.

3. Research Questions
This research was sought to answer the following questions:
1. Is there any significant relationship between students’ scholastic achievement and their age and
gender?
2. Is students’ scholastic achievement significantly associated with their family’s size and income
as well as to their parents’ level of education?
3. Is there any significant difference between students’ level of academic accomplishment
4. and their beliefs about their goal orientation?
5. Is there any significant difference between students’ level of academic accomplishment and
their beliefs about learning?
6. Do parents support the learning of their children?
7. What is the attitude of peers towards learning and school?
8. Is there any significant relationship in the interaction between teacher and students, and
students’ level of achievement?
9. Is there any significant association between curriculum content and students’ level of
achievement?

4. UAE Demographics
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven semi-self-governing Emirates built up in 1971
and located on the Arabian Gulf, east of Saudi Arabia and North of Oman. As per the 1971 Constitution,
the Federal Supreme Council, the most astounding authoritative and official part of the country, is
included the leaders of all emirates (the seven Emirates). The market economy in the country is free
taking into account oil and gas generation, exchange, and light industries. The frugality offers a high pay
for each national individual, however this country economy is intensely dependent on overseas labourers
whether they are skilled or unskilled (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2003). As
indicated by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2006), the assessed occupant
populace of the country is approximately 4.5 million, of which just 21 per cent are nationals. Natives
utilized by the country’s official Authority and additionally are qualified to get help from the Ministry of
Labour and Social Welfare for all children who are less than 18 years old, singles, or experience any type
of disability. The work for females has expanded and developed as women are working now in
government services, instruction, non-governmental industries, and wellbeing administrations. Females
exemplify most essential and auxiliary teachers and health care specialists, and make up half of all
administration specialists (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 2003).

137
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

4.1 Education System in the UAE

The UAE offers all national students from pre-school to college free education at all levels, and almost
all schools in the country are gender isolated, and there is a segment of a broad private schools
administered by some national and international bodies. However, a few thousand students of both
genders seek courses of advanced education abroad and their educational expenses are covered by the
government. The current instructive structure that was set up in the early1970s is a four-level
framework enveloping 14 years of education that is extended from kindergarten (4-5 years) to
preparatory education (6-12 years) then to preparatory education (12-15) and finally reaching at the
secondary level of education (15-18 years). Preparatory school instruction is obligatory for all UAE
nationals. The policy followed by the UAE government regarding the teacher-student ratio is as
follows: 1:20 at kindergarten and preparatory levels, and 1:15 at intermediate and secondary levels.
However, the current ratio of teacher-student is well inside of this proposed extent (Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2006)

5. Research Method
5.1 Sample
The study sample comprised of 74 students, of whom 33 were boys and 41 were girls coming from
different Emirates in the UAE (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ras Al-Khaima, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain
and Fujairah). The age of these students ranged from 12 to 19 years (M =15.77, SD = 1.38). For the
whole study sample, the mean level of education for parents was some preliminary, with the extent
stretching out from illiteracy to graduate study. Intact families formed approximately 81.1% of the
sample. The vast majority of the mothers reported their occupation as housewives (75.5 %) and the rest
worked as instructors or employees. Then again, most of the fathers (67.6 %) worked in the armed
force or police (38.1%) or as employees (18.2%), and the rest worked in the area of business and not
very many in different occupations. The size of the family varied as the smallest families consisted of 4
members and the largest one comprised 16 individuals (M =9.59, SD =3.07). Families' consolidated
gross wage extended from 2500 to 30000 UAE Dirham (every 1 US $ = 3.65 Dirham).

5.2 Instrumentation
A battery of questionnaires was used to measure the factors that may influence students’ scholastic
achievement in the UAE setting. The six scales that have been used in this study have been constructed
and designed to fit the UAE cultural context. They have been designed utilizing information from past
observations and interviews of instructors, students and their families, and from surveying related
theoretical and empirical studies. In addition, these scales were reviewed and judged by four experts
specialising in related field such as psychology, special needs education and the UAE society. These
experts also assess the validity of items in each scale to make sure they measure what they are intended
to. For reinforcing the content validity of the scales, the statements that they were unanimously agreed
upon by experts were only used. The construct validity of all scales was tested using both factor analysis
with a principal components matrix and a varimax rotation. The following are the scales used for this
study.

5.2.1 Family Data Sheet

This short questionnaire asks students’ respondents and their parents brief questions related to their
demographic characteristics. The child’s demographic information was related to their age, gender, and
school academic accomplishment represented by Grade Point Average. On the other hand, the parents’
demographic information was related to their education, residence locations (Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
Sharjah, Ras Al-Khaima, Ajman, Umm Al Quewain & Fujairah), and family size and income.

138
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

5.2.2 Children's Hope Scale

This is a 6-item Likert type scale which was designed to study the beliefs held by children with regard
to their goal orientation. It is mirrored in two parts which are agency thought and pathways thought
(Snyder, Hoza, Pelham, Rapoff, Ware, Danvosky, Highberger, Rubinstein & Stahl, 1997). The
thoughts related Agency are represented in the children’s initiated perception and sustained action
towards a preferred goal. On the other hand, thoughts related to Pathways are represented in the ability
that children may have to create roads to those goals. The test-retest of the scale showed good signs of
internal consistency and stability. The factor analysis revealed that the scale two parts (agency &
pathways) are factorally identifiable and the correlations between them was positive and ranged from
.50 to .70. Thus, the total score of this scale was utilized in this research. The Cronbach alphas of the
scale scores for each age group varied as reached between .72 and .86.

5.2.3 Beliefs about Learning Scale (BLS)

This 9-item Likert type scale was designed to examine the beliefs that students recognized about the
self with regard to learning. The scale investigates the educational value and how can positively is
reflected on self-esteem taking into consideration personal qualities, gratification, and pride. In
conducting factor analysis for the scale, two factors were generated which explained 46.1% of the
variance and the items loading ranged from .50 to .71. This was occurred utilizing a principal -
component analysis and the varimax rotation of eigenvalues was more than or equal to 1.0. Factor 1
which was related to the worth of education describes how education echoes definitely on self-respect
in terms of individual qualities, gratification, and pride which justified 26.54 % of the variance. Factor
2, which was related to self-satisfaction reflected gratification and pride as a result of being educated, it
rationalized 19.48 % of the variance. Cronbach alpha for the total scale score is .79.

5.2.4 Parental Support of Children’s Learning Scale (PSCL)

This 9- item Likert type scale was developed for the purpose of evaluating the support offered to
students by their parents in learning. The scale is actually investigates the level of support and
encouragement offered by parents to their children towards learning and completion of school. It also
examines how much parents are involved in their children’s schoolwork as this may include offering
them help in homework and taking part in the various activities arranged by the school. This also
includes parents’ emphasis on the worth of education. Factor analysis was conducted on the scale items
utilizing a principal - component analysis with a varimax rotation of eigenvalues more than or equal to
1.0. As a result, the scale produced two factors and the loadings on the items ranged between .42 and
.84. Factor 1 is related to parents' encouragement that is reflected in parents' encouragement of their
children to study and complete school and it explained 43.70% of the variance. Factor 2 is related to
parents’ involvement and reflected in participation in children’s schoolwork and their emphasis on the
importance of education for their children which explained 24.14% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha
for the total scores of the scale is .78.
5.2.5 Peers’ Attitudes towards Learning Scale (PALS)
This 6-item Likert type scale was developed to investigate the attitudes and practices held by peers’
towards learning with respect to the level of attempt utilized by peers in various issues related to
learning, whether they like or dislike school, and attitudes held by peers towards students scholastic
interest. This may incorporate the endorsement versus ridiculing students when they concentrate on,
and to what extent students prefer imitating their companions in learning. The conduction of factor
analysis on the scale items, utilizing a principal - component analysis with a varimax rotation of
eigenvalues more than or equal to 1.0, resulted in generating two factors that explained 58.6% of the
variance with items loadings ranging from .45 to .78. Factor 1, peer attitudes towards learning
including peers love to school, explained 31.94 % of the variance. Factor 2, peers modelling reflected
in making efforts to be like peers in studying and being diligent that explained 26.66% of the variance.
Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale is .70
139
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

5.2.6 Teacher –Student Interaction Scale (TSIS)

This 7-item Likert type scale was developed for the purpose of studying the relationship between
students and teachers. The scale items were built in a way to reflect various issues related to discipline
including reward, blame or punishment and encouragement that can be directed to students on class
participation. The emotional support and affection provided by teachers to students is also reflected in
the scale items. A factor analysis was carried out on the scale items employing a principal - component
analysis with a varimax rotation of eigenvalues more than or equal to 1.0. It was found that the scale
generated two factors that explained 53.7% of the variance with items loadings ranging from .52 to .76.
Factor 1, teachers’ support including loving and caring, explained 30.57% of the variance. Factor 2,
teachers’ encouragement such as reward explained 23.09% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the
total scale is .74.
5.2.7 Curriculum Content Scale (CCS)
This 6-item Likert type scale developed to examine the student’s level of like or dislike of schoolwork and
courses. The scale’s items also investigated the difficulty level of academic tasks and whether the
topic/subject material is appealing or uninspiring. Factor analysis was conducted on the scale’s items
employing a principal - component analysis with a varimax rotation of eigenvalues more than or equal to
1.0. It was found that the scale generated two factors that explained 61.41% of the variance with items
loadings ranging from .66 to .87. Factor 1 which is the subject difficulty levels explained 34.90% of the
variance. Factor 2 which is the subject interest explained 26.50% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the
total scale is .78.
5.3 Data Collection Procedure
A sample of 130 students with an age range between 12 and 19 was selected from schools using a
stratified random sampling procedure. The school sample included nine individual schools that were
randomly selected from the UAE’s seven Emirates taking into consideration three preparatory
standardization variables which are gender, grade level, and Emirates. With a help from the schools’
administrative staff, several classes were randomly chosen from each school as the entire students from
these classes were asked to complete the study questionnaire. Out of the 130 selected students, only 74
students returned the questionnaires. The return rate for this study was 57%.
All the six scales explained above, with an extra section that dealt with student’s characteristics
including student’s age, gender, grade level, scholastic achievement represented in the student’s
classroom average, parents’ educational level, family size and family income, were all organized in one
main questionnaire.
5.4 Statistical Analyses
The selected student sample was classified into two groups: students with high and low academic
accomplishment. The cut off scores for the two groups of students (students with high and low
academic accomplishment) were based on classroom Grade Point Average (GPA). High achievers
were identified as such if their school average was among the top 27 percentile in their classes whereas
low achievers were identified as such if their school average was among the lower 27 percentile in their
classes. Therefore, the subsequent statistical analysis was performed on 74 students of whom 37 were
with high academic achievement and 37 were with low academic achievement.
For the purpose of simplifying the examinations of data, the number of predictor variables
considered was reduced. This was carried out via finding variables significantly related to the academic
achievement of students utilizing t tests, and chi-square analyses. Subsequently, logistic regression was
employed to investigate the relationships between students with high and low school accomplishment,
and several variables such as student and parents’ characteristics, students’ beliefs about their goal
orientation, students’ beliefs about learning, parental support of students’ learning, peers’ attitudes
towards learning, teacher–student interaction, and curriculum content.
140
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

6. Results
6.1 Child and Family Socio-Demographics
In regard to individual dispositional variables, chi-square findings revealed that gender was not linked
with scholastic achievement (x2=.29, df=1, p<.37). However, significant differences were obtained
between students with high and low academic achievement regarding age, t(72 )= 3.19, p < .002, with
high achievers being younger than low achievers. As for parental variables, significant differences
were discovered between students with high and low academic achievement in favour to mothers’
education, t(63) = -3.30, p < .002, and fathers’ education t(59) = -3.45, p < .001. In fact, the mothers’
and fathers’ level of education of students with high academic achievement was higher than their
counterparts. No considerable differences were discovered between high and low achievers in
connection with family size or income.

6.2 Hopefulness
Regarding the mean differences between students with high and low academic achievement on the
Children’s Hope Scale, t-test found that students with high academic achievement scored considerably
higher than their counterparts, t(72) = -2.34, p<.02. In fact, high achievers reflected their beliefs in their
abilities to create workable paths to goals more than their counterparts. They also had higher self-rated
beliefs about initiating and sustaining movement toward those goals (see Table1).

6.3 Parental Support of Children’s Learning

In identifying the association between students with high versus low school accomplishment and their
parents’ support of their learning, t-test was employed and the results found a statistical significance
difference between groups on parents’ participation in their children’s school assignments, t(69)= -
3.25, p<.002. High achievers reported higher levels of parents’ involvement in their schoolwork and
the emphasis of their parents on the importance of education for their children compared to their
counterparts. No significant differences were found between students with high and low academic
achievement in regard to parents' encouragement of their children to study and complete school as
shown on the test subscales (see Table 1).

6.4 Peers’ Attitudes towards Learning

Regarding the relationship between students with high and low scholastic accomplishment and their
peers’ attitudes towards learning, t-tests results found no statistical significant differences between
these variables. See Table 1 for the results of subscales.

6.5 Teacher –Student Interaction

In analysing teacher–students interaction, the results indicated statistical significance between the two
groups on the teachers ‘encouragement, t (68) = -2.14, p< .03. High achievers reported higher levels of
teachers’ encouragement and rewarding system compared to low achievers. No statistical significant
differences were discovered between students with high and low academic achievement on teachers’
support scale (see ‘Table 1).

6.6 Curriculum Content

In analysing curriculum content, results indicated a statistical significance differences between the two
groups on the subject difficulty levels subscale, t(70) = -3.05, p< .003. High achievers reported higher
levels of teachers’ encouragement and reward compared to low achievers. No statistical significant
differences were discovered between students with high and low academic achievement on the subject
interest subscale (see Table 1).

141
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of scholastic achievement by child and parents’ socio-
Demographics, children's beliefs about their goal orientation, beliefs about learning, parental
support of children’s Learning, peers’ attitudes towards learning, teacher-student interaction, and
curriculum content.

High Achievers Low Achievers

(n=37) (n=37)
Variables M SD M SD
Child’s Age 15.32 1.34 16.29 1.24
Father’s Level of Education 10.51 3.88 6.86 4.35
Mother’s level of Education 10.08 4.14 6.54 4.50
Family Income 14865.09 12403.91 111111.11 6641.61
Family Size 9.15 2.64 10.11 3.47
Children’s hope scale 26.37 5.50 23.52 4.80
Beliefs about learning 6.25 1.56 5.32 1.59
Parental support of children’s learning, 6.15 2.05 4.46 2.29
Peers’ attitudes towards learning 10.07 3.38 11.45 2.93
Teacher–student interaction 15.38 3.15 13.58 3.89
Curriculum content 12.51 3.2 9.96 3.85

6.7 Beliefs about Learning

The differences between students with high and low achievement, in regard to beliefs about learning
using the Belief about Learning Scale (BLS), were investigated employing t-test. The results indicated
that the students with high academic achievement scored higher than their counterparts on the self-
satisfaction subscale which reflected self-gratification and pride as a result of being educated, t(71) = -
2.51, p<.01. This means that, according to the logistic regressions, and among all the variables studied,
self-satisfaction was the most salient predictor of high scholastic achievement in students (rp = .77; p<.
01) (see table 2). Nonetheless, no statistical significant differences were found between students with
high and low academic achievement on the worth of education subscale.

Table 2: Logistic Regression Predicting Scholastic Achievement

Variables B rp OR
Child’s age -.35 -.65 .52
Mothers’ education .38 .11 1.11
Fathers’ education .41 .11 1.12
Children’s Hope Scale (CHS) .26 .18 1.19
Self-satisfaction for being educated .28 .77* 2.18
Parents’ involvement in children’s schoolwork .36 .38 1.46
Teacher support including loving & caring .25 -.08 .91
Subject difficulty .34 .13 1.14
Model Χ² 30.009***
Age is coded: Age in Years. Mothers’ and Fathers’ level of Education is coded in Years. Children's Hope Scale (CHS) is
coded: 6-point scale ranging from 6 to 30. Self-Satisfaction is coded: 5-point scale ranging from 3 to 15. Parents’
involvement is coded: 5-point scale ranging from 2 to 10. Teachers support is coded: 5-point scale ranging from 4 to 20.
Subject difficulty is coded: 5-point scale ranging from 4 to 20. * P < .01

7. Discussion
This research investigated the students’ scholastic accomplishment with regard to their age, and
gender, and in relation to their parents’ level of education, family size and family income. It also
investigated the students’ level of academic achievement in association with their beliefs about their
goal orientation and about themselves in relation to learning. The study also explored the support
offered to children by parents in learning as well as it examined the attitudes and behaviours held by
peers towards learning and school. Furthermore, the teacher-student interaction and the students’ level

142
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

of liking or disliking school were also investigated. In addition, the research investigated the
association between scholastic accomplishment of students and their beliefs about learning.
The findings of this research found that gender was not related to scholastic achievement which
was contradictory to previous studies (i.e. Caleon & Subramaniam, 2008; Dweck, 1986; Fennema &
Peterson, 1985; Novak & Musonda, 1991; Ridley & Novak, 1983; Udida et al., 2012). In these studies,
boys showed higher average scores of accomplishment in science and math subjects. The result of this
research proved to be also inconsistent with Farooq et al. (2011) and Hejazi et al. (2012) studies. In
their studies, girls did better than boys cumulatively and in mathematics and English. The current study
indicated statistical significant differences between students with high and low scholastic
accomplishment in regard to age, as high achievers were younger than low achievers. This was
inconsistent with a study conducted in Nigeria (Ebenuwa-Okoh, 2010) in which boys in only certain
ages (9, 13, & 17) showed higher achievement than those in other ages. As for parental variables, the
findings of this research displayed statistical significant differences between students with high and
low academic achievement in regard to parents’ education. This means that the mothers’ and fathers’
level of education of high achieving students were greater than their counterparts. This was consistent
with some studies (Selvam, 2013; Udida et al., 2012; Wang, 1996), but in Wang’s study it was found
that parents’ education strongly related to improved students’ achievement in math in grade seven.
This same result of this study was inconsistent with another study conducted in Pakistan (Saeed et al.,
2005), in which there was no relationship, in general, between fathers’ education and students’
achievement in math. This finding was inconsistent with a study conducted in Nigeria (Abigail and
Ifeoma, 2013) in which parents’ level of education was found not to significantly influence students’
achievement in science. However, there was a negative association between students’ achievement in
math in grade five and their fathers’ education. The results of this study revealed no statistical
significant differences between students’ high and low academic achievement in respect to family
income. Nonetheless, this was inconsistent with some studies (Jabbar et al., 2011; Udida, et al., 2012;
Yousefi et al., 2010; Shah et al., 2012). This study found no relationship between students’
achievement level and family size, and this was consistent with some previous research (Joseph, 2009;
Makewa et al, 2012) but was inconsistent with one study (Jabbar et al., 2011). Regarding the
association between students’ academic accomplishment level and their beliefs about their goal
orientation, the results of the current research found that students with high academic achievement
recorded substantially greater than their counterparts on Children's Hope Scale (CHS). This means that
students with high academic achievement reflected their beliefs in their abilities to yield practical paths
to goals more than their counterparts. They additionally had higher self-evaluated beliefs about starting
and supporting development toward those goals. These findings were in harmony with some previous
studies (Boon, 2007; Hejazi et al., 2012).
Corresponding to students’ beliefs about learning, the findings of this research indicated that
students with high academic achievement scored greater than their counterparts on the self-satisfaction
which reflected self-gratification and pride as a result of being educated. This was the most salient
predictor of high scholastic achievement in students. However, no statistical significant differences
were found between students with high and low academic achievement on the worth of education
subscale.
Consistent with previous studies (Boon, 2007; Rafiq et al., 2013; Selvam, 2013), the findings of
this research concluded that high-achieving students showed greater degrees of parents’ involvement in
their schoolwork and the emphasis of their parents on the importance of education for their children as
compared to their counterparts. Moreover, the findings of this research showed no statistical significant
difference between low- and high-achieving students and parents' encouragement of their children to
study and complete school. This result was also in harmony with a past research (Boon, 2007) in which
parents’ authoritative style of parenting was connected with students with higher levels of scholastic
accomplishment and parenting style of neglect was linked to students with lower levels of scholastic
accomplishment.

143
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

Inconsistent with previous research (Berndt, 1999; Buote, 2002; Castejon & Perez, 1998;
Montero, 1990), the current study revealed no significant differences between students’ level of
achievement and peers’ attitudes towards learning. According to Montero (1990), students who fail in
school can be those who are rejected by their peers.
Consistent with previous studies (Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005; Howes etal., 2000; Jones &
Gerig, 1994), the results of this study indicated statistical significance between students’ level of
achievement and the teachers’ encouragement for classroom participation. High achieving students
reported higher levels of teachers’ encouragement and rewarding as compared to low- achieving
students. Furthermore, the findings of this research revealed no differences between students’ level of
academic achievement and teachers’ support. This was contradictory to a previous research (Allen et
al., 2013) in which teacher’s emotional and instructional support was a predictive of higher students’
achievement. Another study (Merritt et al., 2012) was inconsistent with the result found in the current
study. The study conducted by Merritt et.al. (2012) indicated that emotionally supportive teacher-child
interactions were connected with lower level of child aggression as reported by teachers.
In connection with curriculum content, the results of this study showed a statistical significance
between students’ level of academic achievement and the subject difficulty levels. High achievers
reported higher levels of teachers’ encouragement and rewarding compared to low achievers. This was
in agreement with previous research finding (Caleon & Subramanian, 2008) which it was stated that
high-achieving student, for example, saw the science subject not difficult as seen by low- and average
achieving students. In addition, the current study reported no statistical considerable differences
between students with high and low accomplishment on the subject interest and this was contradictory
to past research findings (Crumpton & Gregory, 2011) in which the majority of low-achieving students
reported that the course content they learn in class is interesting and relevant to their lives.

8. Future Research and Limitations of Study

The findings of this research highlighted the factors which influence the academic achievement
of students in the preparatory and secondary education in the UAE. These factors were related to child
and family socio-demographics, students’ beliefs about their learning and goal orientation, parents’
support of children’s learning, peer attitudes towards leaning, teacher-students’ interaction and
curriculum content. The academic achievement of students is not only impacted by these factors as
other factors such as the UAE culture and life style can have a great impact on students’ academic
achievement. However, there is a dire need for future research to delve even deeper into the
relationship between students’ scholastic accomplishment and students’ culture, background and life
style. Future research should also examine the relationship between students’ scholastic
accomplishment and the attitudes held by parents towards education and schooling.
One of the most obvious limitations of this research lies in its relatively small sample (74
students) as this research might not be completely representational of the situation in the UAE. Another
limitation lies in the issue that the UAE is a multicultural and multilingual society; therefore, the issue
of a multicultural and multilingual was not dealt with in this research or in the data collection
instruments. This means that the respondents were not only UAE citizens, and as a result, there should
be discrepancies in the factors which influence the academic achievement of students in the
preparatory and secondary education in the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, the students’ average
in all subjects for one semester (middle of the academic year) was considered the only criterion to
judge the students as high or low achievers. The students’ average for a minimum of two consecutive
semesters should be used as a criterion for judging the students’ level of achievement. Moreover, other
criteria should be taken into consideration to judge the student’s level of achievement such as student’s
portfolio, student’s classroom interactions, and teacher’s judgment. However, future research should be
conducted on a larger sample to ensure better representation and consider more than one criterion to
judge student’s level of achievement throughout the academic year (not only one semester).

144
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

References
[1] Ames, C.A., 1990. “Motivation: What teachers need to know”? EBSCO Host, Academic Search
Elite (0161-4681).
[2] Ames, C., & Archer, J., 1988. “Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, pp. 260–267.
[3] Abigail, O. & Ifeoma, O., 2013. “Influence of family background on academic achievement of
secondary school biology students in Anambah State”. An International Multidisciplinary
Journal, Ethiopia, 7(3), pp.156-167.
[4] Alamdarloo, G.H.; Moradi, S. & Dehshiri, G.R., 2013. “The relationship between students’
conceptions of learning and their academic achievement”. Psychology, 4(1), pp. 44-49.
[5] Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R., 2013. “Observations of
effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with classroom assessment scoring system-secondary”. School Psychology
Review, 42(1), pp. 76-98.
[6] Bailey, P.C., Eng, W., Frisch, M.B., & Synder, C.R., 2007. “Hope and optimism as related to
life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, pp. 168-175.
[7] Bandura, A., 1986. “Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory”.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[8] Berndt, T., 1999. “Friends’ influence on students’ adjustment to school”. Educational
Psychologist, 34(1), pp. 15-28.
[9] Beyazkurk, D. & Kesner, J. E., 2005 “Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United States
schools: a cross-cultural study”, International Education Journal, 6, pp. 547–554.
[10] Boon, H.J., 2007. “Low-and high-achieving Australian secondary school students: Their
parenting, motivations and academic achievement”. Australian Psychologist, 42(3), pp. 2012-
225.
[11] Bryant, F.B. & Cvengros, J.A., 2004. “Distinguishing hope and optimism: two sides of a coin,
or two separate coins”? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, pp. 273-302.
[12] Buote, C. A., 2001. “Relations of autonomy and relatedness to school functioning and
psychological adjustment during adolescence”. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A.:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(1).
[13] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, 2003 “Country reports on human rights
practices-2002”. US Department of State, 31 March [online at
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18291.htm].
[14] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor, 2006 “Reports on human rights practices in the
UAE-2005”. US Department of State, 8 March [online at
http://www.uaeprison.com/human_rights_practices_report_uae_2005.htm].
[15] Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R., 2008. “Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted And
mainstream upper preparatory students in Singapore”. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(8), pp. 940-954.
[16] Caplan, S. et al., 2002. “Socio-emotional factor contributing to adjustment among Early
entrance college students”. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), pp. 124-134.
[17] Castejon, J.L. & Perez, A.M., 1998. “Un modelo casual-explicativo de las variables
psicosociales en el rendimiento academic”. [A causal-explicative model of psycho-social
bariables in academic performance]. Revista Bordon, 50(2), pp. 171-185.
[18] Cheavens, J., 2000. “Light through the shadows: Hope and depression”. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),
The Handbook of Hope: Theory, measures, and application (pp. 321-340). San Diego:
Academic Press.
[19] Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. & Davies, F., 2007. “The impact of hope, self-esteem, And
attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A Longitudinal
study”. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, pp. 1161–78.

145
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

[20] Crumpton, H.E. & Gregory, A. (2011). “I’m not learning”: The role of academic relevancy for
low-achieving students”. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, pp. 42-53.
[21] Diaz, A.L., 2003. “Personal, family, and academic factors affecting low achievement in
secondary school. Teacher, Psychopegagogy expert”. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology and Psychopedagogy, 1(1), pp. 43-66.
[22] Dryfoos, J. G., 1990. “Adolescents at risk”. NY: Oxford University Press.
[23] Dukmak, S., 2009. “Ability Grouping and Teacher-Students Interaction among High and Low
Achieving Students in Middle Preparatory Schools in the United Arab Emirates”. Journal of
Faculty of Education of UAE University, 26, pp. 1-30.
[24] Dweck, C.S., 1986. “Motivational processes affecting learning”. American Psychologist, 40,
pp. 1040-1048.
[25] Dweck, C.S, 1988. “Motivation processes affecting learning”. American Psychologist, 41, pp.
1040-1048.
[26] Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L., 1988. “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality”. Psychological Review, 95, pp. 256-273
[27] Ebenuwa-Okoh, E.E., 2010. “Influence of age, financial status, and gender on Academic
performance among undergraduates”. Journal of Psychology, 1(2), pp. 99-103.
[28] 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), pp. 1-14.
[29] Fennema, E. L., & Peterson, P., 1985. “Autonomous learning behavior: A possible Explanation
of gender-related differences in mathematics”. In L.C. Wilkerson & C.B. Marrett (Eds.),
Gender influences in classroom interaction, (pp. 17-35). New York: Academic Press.
[30] Fiedler, E., Lange, R., & Winebrenner, S., 2002. “In search of reality: unraveling the myths
about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted.” Roeper Review, 24 (3), pp. 108-11.
[31] Allen, J.P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A.Y., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R.C., 2013.
“Observations of effective teaching in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the CLASS-S”. School Psychology Review, 42 (1), pp. 76-98
[32] Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V., 2002. “Examining perceptions of challenge and
choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons
between gifted students and other students”. Gifted Students Quarterly, 46, pp. 145-155.
[33] Grossen, B., 1996. “How should we group to achieve excellence with equity”? Unpublished work.
[34] Hawkins, A.; Graham, C.R.; Sudweeks, R.R. & Barbour, M. K., 2013. “Academic
performance, course completion rates, and student perception of the quality and frequency of
interaction in a virtual high school”. Distance Education, 34(1), pp. 64-83.
[35] Hejazi, E., Lavasani, M.G., Amani, H. & Was, C.A., 2012. “Academic identity status, Goal
orientation, and academic achievement among high school students”. Journal of Research in
Education, 22(1), pp. 292-320.
[36] Ifamuyiwa, S. A. & Akinsola, M. K., 2008. “Improving senior secondary school students’
attitudes towards mathematics through self and cooperative-instructional strategies”.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(5), pp. 569-
585.
[37] Hollified, J., 1987. “Ability Grouping in elementary schools”. Clearinghouse on Elementary and
Childhood Education Urban IL., ERIC Identifier: ED290542.
[38] Howes, C., Phillipsen, L.C., & Peisner-Feinberge, E., 2000. “The consistency of perceived teacher-
child relationships between preschool and kindergarten”, Journal of School Psychology, 38, pp.
113-132.
[39] Jabbar, M.; Aziz, M.A.; & Zeb, S., 2011. “A study on effect of demographic factors on the
achievement of secondary school students in the Punjab, Pakistan”. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(1), pp. 1-13.

146
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

[40] Jones, M. G., 1991. “Gender differences in science competition”. Science Education, 75, pp.
159-167.
[41] Jones, M.G. & Gerig, T.M., 1994. “Silent sixth-grade students: characteristics, achievement and
teacher expectations”, Elementary School Journal, 95, pp. 169–181.
[42] Joseph, T.D., 2009. “Influence of family size and family birth order on academic Performance
of adolescents in higher institution”. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), pp. 110-114.
[43] Juma, L.S.A., Simatwa, E.M.W., & Ayodo, T.M.O., 2012. “Impact of family socio-Economic
status on girl students’ academic achievement in secondary schools in Kenya: A case study of
Kisumu East District”. Educational Research, 3(3), pp. 297-310.
[44] Kahle, J.B., 1983. “The disadvantaged majority: Science education for women. AETS
Outstanding Paper for 1983”. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
[45] Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J.L., 1994. “Research on girls in science: Lessons and applications. In
D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 542-556). Washington, DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
[46] Kelly, A., 1985. “The construction of masculine science”. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 6, pp. 133-154.
[47] Leondari, A.y, & Gialamas, V., 2002. “Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived
competence: Impact on students’ achievement behavior”. Psychology in the Schools. 39(3), pp.
279-291.
[48] Lim, C.T., 1986. “Attitude and learning behavior correlates of science performance of
secondary three students”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Singapore, Singapore.
[49] Llorente, M., 1990. Fracaso escolar y origen social. [School failure and social origin]. Tesina.
Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca.
[50] Makewa, L.N., Role, E. & Otewa, F., 2012. “Parental factors affecting academic Achievement
of grade six pupils in Kisumu City, Kenya”. International Journal of Asian Social Science,
2(11), pp. 1984-1997.
[51] Marchesi, A. & Martin, E. (eds). (2002). “Evaluacion de la educacion secundaria. Fotografia
deuna stapa polemica.” [Evaluation in secondary education. Snapshot from a controversial era].
Instituto IDEA, Madrid: SM.
[52] Meece, J.L. & Jones, M.J., 1996. “Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science:
Are girls rote learners”? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), pp.393-406.
[53] Merritt, E.G., Wanless, S.B., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Cameron, C., & Peugh, J.L., 2012. “The
contribution of teachers’ emotional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory
skill in first grade”. School Psychology Review, 41(2), pp. 141-159.
[54] Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C., 1997. “Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), pp. 710–718.
[55] Miller, D., 1980. “Family maladaptation reflected in drug abuse and delinquency”. In M. Sugar
(Ed.), Responding to adolescent needs. NY: S Medical & Scientific Books.
[56] Montero, M.C., 1990. “Prediccion de rendimiento academico. Estudio de las variables
intervinientes en una muestra de alumnos de 8º de EGB con seguimiento en 2º de BUP”.
[Predicting academic performance. A study of intervening variables in a sample of 8th grade
students with follow-up in 10th grade]. Tesis. Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca.
[57] Nolen, S.B., 1988. “Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study Strategies”.
Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), pp. 269-287.
[58] Novak, J., & Musonda, D., 1991. “A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept
Learning”. American Educational Research Journal, 28, pp. 117-153.
[59] Page, E.; & Keith, T., 1986. “The elephant in the classroom”, Intellectual Talent, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
[60] Pajares, F., 2001. “Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation”. The Journal of
Educational Research, 95(1), pp. 27-35.

147
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 46, January 2 (2015)

[61] Purkey, W.W., 2000. “What students say to themselves: Internal dialogue and school
Success”? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
[62] Rafic, H.M.W; Fatima, T.; Sohail, M.M.; Saleem, M. & Khan, M.A., 2013. “Parental
involvement and academic achievement”; A study on secondary school students of Lahore,
Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(8), pp. 209-223.
[63] Ridley, D., & Novak, J., 1983. “Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematics
enrollments: Do they give males a critical headstart toward science- and math-related careers”?
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XXIX, pp. 308-318.
[64] Saeed, M., Gondal, M.B., & Bushra, 2005. “Assessing achievement of preparatory grader
students and factors affecting achievement in Pakistan”. International Journal of Educational
Management, 19(6), pp. 486-499.
[65] Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S., 1985. “Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies”. Health Psychology, 4, pp. 219-247.
[66] Secada, W., 1992. “Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in Mathematics”.
In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching And learning. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
[67] Selvam, S.K., 2013. “A study on relationship between parental education and students’
achievement”. Education Research Journal, 3(3), pp. 75-82.
[68] Shah, M., Atta, A., Qureshi, M. I., & Shah, H., 2012. “Impact of socio economic status (SES)
of family on the academic achievement of students”. Gomal University Journal of Research,
28(1), pp. 12-17.
[69] Slavin, R., 1987. “Grouping for Instruction in the elementary School.” Educational
Psychologist, 21 (2), pp. 109-127.
[70] Snyder, C.R., 2000. “The past and possible futures of hope”. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, pp. 11-28.
[71] Snyder, C.R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W.E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L. Danovsky, M., Highberger, L., &
Stahl, K.J., 1997. “The Development and Validation of the Children's Hope Scale1”, Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 22(3), pp. 399-421
[72] Snyder, C.R, R &, K.L, Sigmon, D.R., 2002. In C.R. Snyder, & S.J. Lopez (Eds.). “Hope
theory”. Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). New York: Oxford University Press.
[73] Steinkamp, M., 1984. “Motivational style as a mediator of adult achievement in science”. In M.
Steinkamp & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol.2)(pp. 281-316).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[74] Udida, L.A., Ukwayi, J.K. & Ogodo, F.A., 2012. “Parental socioeconomic background as A
determinant of student’s academic performance in selected public secondary schools in Calabar
Municipal Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria”. Journal of Education and
Practice, 3(16), pp. 129-136.
[75] Wang, J., 1996. “Relationship between parental influences and student’s achievement in
seventh grade mathematics”. School Science and Mathematics Association. USA: ProQuest
Information and Learning Company.
[76] Weiner, B., 1990. “History of motivational research in education”. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, pp. 616– 622.
[77] Willson, J., 1999. “High and low achievers’ classroom interaction patterns in an upper
preparatory classroom”. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 29
November–2 December 1999.
[78] Yousefi, F., Redzuan, M., Bate, M.; Juhari, R., & Talib, M., 2010. “The effects of family
income on test-anxiety and academic achievement among Iranian high school students”. Asian
Social Science, 6(6), pp. 89-93.

148
View publication stats