Abstracts - Earli

When learning seems (un)important: Future Time Perspective and post-secondary students’ selfregulatorystrategy use.Jenefer Husman, Arizona State University, USAChrista Lynch, Arizona State University, USAJonathan Hilpert, Arizona State University, USAWonsik Kim, Arizona State University, USAMary Anne Duggan, Arizona State University, USAWen-Ting Chung, Arizona State University, USAResearch on post secondary students’ Future Time Perspective (FTP) has focused on both itsdispositional (Shell & Husman, 2001) and situational (Simons, Dewitte, & Lens, 2000) aspects.Dispositional aspects of FTP include connectedness (tendencies to link the present and future),speed (how manageable the future seems), and extension (how far into the future thoughts extend).A situational construct within FTP is students’ Perceptions of Instrumentality (PI). PI is theperception that a particular activity is critical for the achievement of a valued future goal and isdependent upon the actual activity and students’ dispositional tendencies to make connectionsbetween the present and the future (Husman & Lens, 1999). This correlation study of 276university students provides evidence that students’ connectedness and PI account for 24% to 54%of the variance in their reported use of learning strategies. We also provide evidence that whencoursework has obvious connection with students’ future goals, the relationship between FTP anduse of learning strategies is stronger than when coursework is less instrumental. According to FTPtheory students’ perceptions of instrumentality are a product of their dispositional tendency to findconnections between the present and the future and the actual utility of an activity (Husman &Lens, 1999). The research discussed here provides some evidence for the proposed interactionbetween dispositional and situational aspects of FTP.Tinto’s theoretical perspective and expectancy-value paradigm: a confrontation to explainfreshmen academic achievement .Sandrine Neuville, University Catholic of Louvain, BelgiumMariane Frenay, University Catholic of Louvain, BelgiumJulia Schmitz, University Catholic of Louvain, BelgiumGentiane Boudrenghien, University Catholic of Louvain, BelgiumMany research have tried to understand the process leading students, who are entering for the firsttime into higher education, to succeed in their studies versus to fail (Pascarella, 2005 ; Cooke,Brakham, Audin & Bradley, 2004). In this respect, Tinto’s academic and social integration model(1982, 1987, 1997) is one of the most often cited model. This model postulates that studentsbackground characteristics, initial intentions and aspirations influence students persistence/dropoutin academic settings as well as academic results. The explanation Tinto proposes is organizedaround the concepts of academic and social integration, that is to say the student’s subjectiveperception to find his or her place harmoniously in the academic and social life of the academicinstitution. Unfortunately, even if this model is an integrative one, it doesn’t take into accountmotivational variables, such as students’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997 ; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003)and students’ subjective value of academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002 ; Neuville, Bourgeois& Frenay, 2004), when their impact on learning has been widely proved (Robbins et al. 2004). Thepurpose of this study, conducted with 2637 first-year university students from all Bachelorsprograms of a Belgian university, is to confront the explanatory power of these two literaturesconcerning students’ academic performance. Three structural equation models will be compared:1) the first one exclusively based on Tinto’s theoretical perspective, focussing on social and– 61 –