Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Latent profiling university students’ learning

strategies use and effects on academic
performance and retention

Cheon-woo Han, Susan P. Farruggia & Bonnie J. Solomon

To cite this article: Cheon-woo Han, Susan P. Farruggia & Bonnie J. Solomon (2018): Latent
profiling university students’ learning strategies use and effects on academic performance and
retention, Higher Education Research & Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1498460

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1498460

Published online: 18 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1498460

Latent profiling university students’ learning strategies use

and effects on academic performance and retention
a
Cheon-woo Han , Susan P. Farruggiab and Bonnie J. Solomonb
a
School of Education, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA; bVice Provost Office for Undergraduate
Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Students’ learning strategies predict and explain academic Learning strategies; goal
performance and success in university. This study employed engagement; student
Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to identify students’ unique patterns success; latent profile analysis
of learning strategies in university. A total of 2502 first-year US
university students participated in this study. LPA identified four
profiles: low strategy use, high strategy use, moderate strategy use,
and goal-engagement strategy use. A series of ANOVA tests
revealed that students in the high strategy use profile earned
higher grades than did students in the other profiles. However,
there was no significant difference between the high strategy use
and goal-engagement strategy use profiles for other academic
outcomes. The distribution of profiles varied by gender, but not
by race/ethnicity or financial need. Interventions designed to
increase students’ academic success in university should include
components that target the development of learning strategies,
particularly students’ academic goal engagement.

Introduction
An understanding of the factors that predict success in university is critical to developing
effective supports for first-year university students. It is well established that university
academic success can be predicted by earlier academic performance, such as secondary
school grades (Hoffman & Lowitzki, 2005; Noble & Sawyer, 2004; Power, Robertson, &
Baker, 1987), scores on US standardized tests such as SAT or ACT (Kim, 2002;
Vasquez & Jones, 2006), or university entry scores in Australia (McKenzie & Schweitzer,
2001). A separate body of literature has explored how student and family background
characteristics, such as financial resources, student employment status, or status as first-
generation in university, impact academic success (e.g., Chen & DesJardins, 2008; Ishitani,
2006; McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001).
A growing area of focus has been the role of noncognitive factors in academic achieve-
ment (Robbins et al., 2004; Robbins, Oh, Le, & Button, 2009; Weinstein, Acee, & Jung,
2011), and research has found that students’ noncognitive factors are indeed associated
with both academic performance and other desired outcomes, such as career choice
(Pajares, 1996) and university retention (Robbins et al., 2009). There are a wide range
of noncognitive factors, many with corresponding theoretical underpinnings, identified

CONTACT Cheon-woo Han chan@uttyler.edu; cheonwoo.han@gmail.com

© 2018 HERDSA
2 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

in the literature, such as commitment to obtaining a degree (Simons, Van Rheenen, &
Covington, 1999), academic self-confidence (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001), use of learn-
ing strategies (Weinstein et al., 2011), and academic and social integration into the insti-
tution (Archer, Cantwell, & Bourke, 1999).
Recently, Farrington et al. (2012) developed a theoretical model that conceptualizes how
noncognitive factors affect academic success within a school and sociocultural context. This
model brings together a wide range of theory and research into one overarching framework.
In the model, they hypothesized that students’ academic mindsets are positively associated
with social skills, academic perseverance, and learning strategies, which in turn, are associ-
ated with academic behaviors and ultimately academic performance.
Farruggia, Han, Watson, Moss, and Bottoms (2016) have tested a modified version of
this model with US university students and found that students’ noncognitive factors –
academic mindsets and learning strategies in particular – do predict academic perform-
ance and success. Further, they found that first-year students’ use of learning strategies,
which included time management, self-regulated learning, and academic goal engagement,
was the strongest direct predictor of academic performance. The present study utilizes the
Farrington et al. (2012) theoretical framework to better understand the role of learning
strategies in student success while acknowledging the individual theoretical underpinnings
behind many of the included constructs.
Learning strategies could improve students’ academic achievement by inducing more
efficient and active learning. Although conceptualized slightly differently across research
areas and domains of applicability, there is general agreement that learning strategies
involve the use of cognition, self-regulation, motivation, metacognition, and behavior to
help learners succeed in cognitive tasks such as memorizing, understanding, and applying
knowledge (Weinstein et al., 2011; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008). Considerable research has
shown that students who use effective learning strategies tend to be more successful acade-
mically (e.g., Nota, Soresi, & Zimmerman, 2004; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). From among
many potential learning strategies, the current study focused on time management, self-
regulated learning, and academic goal engagement, as previous research has demonstrated
that these mediate the relationship between academic mindsets and academic performance
among first-year university students (Farruggia, Han, Solomon, & Palbusa submitted for
publication).

Time management strategies

Time management is generally defined in terms of clusters of behaviors that are deemed to
facilitate productivity and efficiency (Misra & McKean, 2000). Time management strat-
egies have been found to be positively associated with university students’ academic per-
formance around the globe, such as in the US (MacCann, Fogarty, & Roberts, 2012), Spain
(García-Ros, Pérez-González, & Hinojosa, 2004) and Australia (McKenzie, Gow, &
Schweitzer, 2004), no doubt because they help students manage competing priorities
(e.g., assignments, group projects, and part-time jobs). Poor time management behaviors
have been frequently discussed as a source of stress and poor academic performance (Steel,
2007; Wolters & Hussain, 2015). Time management strategies may be particularly impor-
tant for first-year university students because they are expected to function much more
autonomously than they did in secondary school (Clark, 2005).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3

Self-regulated learning strategies

Self-regulated learning refers to the degree to which students are ‘metacognitively, moti-
vationally, and behaviorally active participants of their own learning process’ (Zimmer-
man, 1989, p. 329). Students’ self-regulated strategic learning has received considerable
theoretical and research attention; studies conducted in Pakistan (Nausheen & Richard-
son, 2013), Italy (Nota et al., 2004), and Germany (Kehr, Bles, & von Rosenstiel, 1999),
for instance, have all highlighted the relationship between self-regulated learning and aca-
demic achievement. As a result, an emphasis has been placed on the need to develop these
skills for successful learning (Shell et al., 2005; Weinstein et al., 2011). Research on this
topic has revealed that, in comparison to poor self-regulated learners, good ones set appro-
priate learning goals, monitor and evaluate their goal progress more carefully, establish
more productive surroundings for learning, are more likely to actively seek help when
necessary, and are better able to adjust strategies when necessary. Self-regulated learners
are metacognitively active, planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning. These stu-
dents also use a variety of strategies during studying to help them understand, remember,
and organize information (Wolters & Hussain, 2015).

Academic goal engagement

The motivational theory of life-span development emphasizes that goal engagement – a set
of strategies used to pursue a goal (e.g., invest time and effort, focus attention on the benefits
of achieving the goal) – is important to success throughout the life span (Heckhausen,
Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Previous studies conducted in Germany, Finland, and the US
have demonstrated positive effects of goal engagement on life transitions (Haase, Heckhau-
sen, & Köller, 2008; Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001; Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, &
Nurmi, 2009), such as career attainment after secondary school (Haase et al., 2008). Sub-
stantial evidence also has supported that academic goal engagement is essential to achieving
desired learning outcomes and being successful life-long learners (Heckhausen, Chang,
Greenberger, & Chen, 2013). According to the theory, and its relevant studies
(e.g., Heckhausen et al., 2010, 2013), students with goals that are attainable under given
developmental and academic circumstances, and pose a moderate level of challenge, have
favorable outcomes such as university enrollment, performance, and completion.

The present study

While learning strategy use varies across students, it is expected that individual students
will be generally consistent with their own use. For instance, it is expected that students
are consistently low or high across strategies, given the strong associations among
different strategy types; students high in time management will typically be high in self-
regulated learning and goal engagement as well. Given the importance of learning strat-
egies for student success, it is worth exploring whether any notable patterns of strategy
use may exist beyond the expected variation where students are consistently high or
low in their use. Therefore, the current study aimed to: (1) determine if students
exhibit different patterns of learning strategies; (2) examine the association between
first-year university students’ learning strategies patterns and their academic outcomes;
4 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

and (3) determine if variation in learning strategies exists as a function of demographic

characteristics such as race/ethnicity. The learning strategies included in this study were
time management, self-regulated learning, and academic goal engagement. As discussed
above, previous research on learning strategies suggests that each of these skills is
related to academic performance (Clark, 2005; McKenzie et al., 2004; Nota et al., 2004;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Shell et al., 2005). However, few studies have explored
more than one learning strategy simultaneously (Weinstein et al., 2011). In addition,
little research has explored distinct patterns underlying individual differences in university
students’ use of learning strategies. This simultaneous examination recognizes that stu-
dents may use different learning strategies to different extents, and, therefore, may not
be uniformly high or uniformly low; rather, they may have a specific profile or pattern
of strategy use.
This study then assessed whether the various patterns are differentially associated with
student academic performance and retention. As noted above, previous research suggests
that more strategy use is beneficial for student success. However, the relative importance of
different learning strategies has not yet been examined, and it could be that some learning
strategies are more strongly associated with university performance than others, or that
different patterns of strategy use have differential associations with academic performance.
Finally, this study aimed to determine if there are differences in patterns/profiles of learn-
ing strategies use based on student characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, univer-
sity generational status, and financial need. Previous research has investigated differences in
the use of learning strategies by gender (e.g., Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) and race/
ethnicity (e.g., Purdie, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996), with no clear consensus about the differ-
ences based on these characteristics. Thus, the current study explored differences in
profiles of learning strategies based on university students’ demographic information, in
order to determine if certain groups of students are more likely than others to employ
certain patterns of learning strategies. This study focused exclusively on first-year university
students because an extensive body of research has identified that experiences during a stu-
dent’s first year are particularly important to academic attainment and retention at an insti-
tution (McKenzie et al., 2004; Noble, Flynn, Lee, & Hilton, 2007).
To achieve the above aims, this study addressed the following research questions. First,
how many different meaningful profiles of learning strategies use among first-year univer-
sity students can be identified through Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)? Second, are there
observed meaningful differences in academic success based on profiles of learning strat-
egies use? Finally, are there differences in the distribution of profiles based on students’
demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, financial need, university genera-
tional status and gender?

Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a required first-year writing course at a large public uni-
versity in the US. Among the 2897 students present in class the day the survey was admi-
nistered, 2822 students (97%) participated in the survey. However, 320 participants were
excluded from the analyses because they were not first-year students (excluded students
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 5

were predominantly transfer students). The final sample of 2502 first-year college students
included in the study represent 83% of the 2014 entering first-year cohort. Participants
(1326 females; 53%) ranged from 16 to 32 (M = 18.49, SD = .51) and the sample was eth-
nically diverse: 9% African American, 28% Asian American, 33% Latino/a, 28% White,
and 3% other (international, multi-race, or unknown). Approximately half of the partici-
pants were first generation in university (47%), defined as neither parent completing a 4-
year university degree, and eligible for a Federal grant (PELL; 46%), an indicator that the
student is from a low-income background.

Measures
Demographic variables
Student background information included age in years when the student started at the uni-
versity, gender (1 = female, 0 = male), race/ethnicity (1 = African American, 2 = Asian
American, 3 = Latino/a, 4 = White, 5 = other), university generation status (1 = first
generation/neither parent completed university, 0 = non-first generation/one or both
parents completed 4-year university), and financial need as defined by PELL-eligibility
(1 = PELL-eligible, 0 = not PELL-eligible).

Learning strategies use

The student survey included time management strategies, self-regulated learning strategies,
and academic goal engagement. In order to assess participants’ use of time management strat-
egies, Britton and Tesser’s (1991) Short-Range Planning Subscale (6 items) was used with a 4-
point response scale (α = .88) that ranged from 1 = never to 4 = very often. The Self-Regulated
Strategy Use subscale (7 items) of the Student Perception of Classroom Knowledge Building
Scale (Shell et al., 2005) measured participants’ use of self-regulated learning strategies on a 5-
point response scale (α = .85) from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always. The Selective
Primary Control subscale (3 items) of the Optimization in Primary and Secondary Control
(OPS) Scale (Heckhausen et al., 2010) assessed academic goal engagement on a 5-point
response scale (α = .83) from 1 = not at all true of me to 5 = very true of me.

Student success
The indicators of academic performance and retention for this study included partici-
pants’ first-semester grade point average (GPA) on a 4.0 scale where 4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C,
1 = D, and 0 = F, writing course letter grade (on the same 4.0 scale), number of credits
earned in the first year (based on 120 credits required for graduation), and first-to-
second year retention (1 = yes, 0 = no). The GPA reflects the semester in which the
student completed the survey.

Procedure
All procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Data were
collected from two sources: a student questionnaire and institutional data. Researchers
administered the questionnaire to participants during their writing courses. The writing
course is the only common class among all the first-year students at the university so
access to all first-year students is feasible. Once consent forms were signed, students
6 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

were asked to complete the survey. Participants’ demographic information and academic
success variables were downloaded from the university data warehouse.

Overview of data analysis strategies

Latent profile analysis
Much of the previous research on learning strategies was undertaken using a variable-cen-
tered analytic approach, such as mean-level change, differential continuity, and/or
regression techniques. Although variable-centered approaches can identify the mean
level and variability of each variable in a sample, they may fail to capture the inter-
relations among complex constructs (Han, Farruggia, & Moss, 2017).
A person-centered approach, in contrast, involves a shift in the unit of analysis from the
overall sample to the individual (Han, 2016). Rather than examining each learning strategy
in isolation and assuming a similar association between the use of that strategy and academic
outcomes across the entire sample, person-centered techniques consider the pattern of learn-
ing strategies endorsed by each individual and how specific combinations of strategies are
synergistically related to outcomes of interest (Wormington & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2017).
With a person-centered approach, individuals who are similar with regard to their use of
learning strategies can be grouped to identify distinct patterns of learning strategies use.
Among the possible person-centered analytic methods, this study adopted LPA to explore
and differentiate meaningful student profiles of learning strategies use. In LPA, model fitting
begins by the user setting the number of potential classes to be estimated. Based on the user-
defined number of classes, the model determines the best possible group membership for each
individual based on similarities across individuals’ response patterns.
To identify the optimal model (i.e., number of classes), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likeli-
hood ratio test (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001) can be used to compare the fit of
models that specify different numbers of clusters (K vs. K-1). A small p-value associated
with the LMR test supports the retention of a more complex solution (i.e., a solution con-
taining more clusters). Other fit statistics in LPA are Akaike Information Criterion (AIC;
Akaike, 1974), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwartz, 1978), and sample-size
adjusted BIC (adjusted-BIC). Lower values of these statistics are indicative of better
model fit (Vrieze, 2012). In addition, entropy values are examined with .80 as the
lowest threshold for successful model convergence (Jung & Wickrama, 2008).
Missing data was handled using the MLR (maximum likelihood estimation with robust
standard error) estimator, which yields unbiased estimates when the pattern of missing
data is completely at random (Yuan & Bentler, 2000). The final profiles were examined
for differences in the student success measures: first term GPA, first-year earned
credits, writing class grade, and first-to-second year retention. They were also examined
for differences in profile membership based on student background characteristics.

Results
Descriptive analysis
Correlations, means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas for the learning strategies
use scales are presented in Table 1. All three constructs were significantly correlated with
each other and scales demonstrated adequate reliability.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 7

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, coefficient alphas, and correlation.

TMT SRL AGE
TMT
SRL .43***
AGE .33*** .35***
M (SD) 2.58 (.83) 3.29 (.81) 4.34 (.65)
Cronbach’s α .88 .85 .83
Note: TMT = time management; SRL = self-regulated learning; AGE = academic goal engagement.
***p < .001.

Latent profile analysis

To identify the number of distinct response patterns underlying participants’ learning
strategies use (i.e., the number of learning strategies use profiles represented in this
sample), a series of LPAs was conducted. To avoid two common problems – too many
latent classes and failure to account for dependence among variables – each model was
estimated with 5000 initial stage starts with 20 initial stage iterations and 500 final stage
optimizations. As shown in Table 2, model fit improved when moving from one to four
profiles. However, the addition of a fifth profile led to a trivial decrease in both AIC
and BIC, as well as an increase in the adjusted-BIC. Moreover, the number of participants
falling into this fifth profile was too small (n = 22, less than 1%) to be meaningful.
Additional support for a four-profile model is shown in Table 3. Values along the diagonal
reflect the average probability that participants were correctly categorized in the given
latent profile, whereas the off-diagonal values reflect the average probability that partici-
pants were miscategorized. For example, a participant whose most likely membership
was in Profile 1 had a 96% chance of being correctly categorized, and only a 4% chance
of being incorrectly categorized in Profile 4.
Figure 1 shows the mean levels of time management, self-regulated learning, and goal
engagement for each of these four latent profile groups. Profile 1 (n = 290, 11.6%) was
labeled as ‘low strategy use’ because students in this group reported low levels of use
across all three learning strategies subscales. Profile 3 (n = 738, 29.6%) was character-
ized as ‘high strategy use’ because students in this group reported high levels of use
across all three subscales. Profile 2 (n = 1029, 41.2%) was characterized as a ‘moderate
strategy use’ group who responded to all learning strategies around the mean scores.
Finally, Profile 4 (n = 438, 17.6%) was named ‘goal engagement strategy use’ as students
in this group reported high levels of academic goal engagement but more moderate
levels of time management and self-regulated learning. This was the one profile
group where participants were not consistent with their responses to the learning strat-
egies indicators.

Table 2. Model fit for the different profile solutions.

Profiles AIC BIC Ad-BIC Entropy LMR
One profile 17102.95 17137.88 17118.82 N/A
Two profiles 16300.22 16358.44 16326.67 .62 785.62***
Three profiles 15892.82 15974.33 15929.85 .78 402.53***
Four profiles 15723.98 15828.78 15771.59 .81 171.37***
Five profiles 15619.84 15747.92 15801.03 .76 95.57***
***p < .001.
8 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

Table 3. Average latent profile probabilities for most likely latent profile membership (row) by latent
profile (column).
1 2 3 4
Profile 1 (Low) .96 .00 .00 .04
Profile 2 (Moderate) .03 .92 .03 .02
Profile 3 (High) .08 .00 .84 .08
Profile 4 (Goal engagement) .04 .05 .05 .90

Post hoc testing

Based on the 4-profile LPA model described above, each participant was assigned a class
outcome value reflecting the profile group to which he or she belonged, given his or her
particular response pattern. This class outcome variable was then exported from Mplus
7.4 to SPSS 24, and used in a series of analyses to explore significant differences among
the profiles in academic performance.
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significant effect of profile membership on
all continuous dependent variables: first-term GPA, first-year earned credits, and writing
class grade (Table 4). Scheffe’s post-hoc tests showed that all pairwise mean differences
between profiles for first semester GPA were significant. For earned credits during the
first year and writing class grade, we found a similar pattern, except that there was no sig-
nificant difference between the high strategy use and goal engagement strategy use profiles
for those two dependent variables.
Finally, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship
between profile group and retention. The relationship between these variables was signifi-
cant, χ 2 (3, N = 2495) = 24.23, p < .001. The low strategy use profile was different from all
others (low strategy use – 74.1%, moderate strategy use – 84.4%, goal engagement strategy
use – 84.7%, high strategy use – 86.5%); participants in the low strategy use group were less
likely than any other students to return to university the following fall.

Figure 1. Estimated mean scores for learning strategies subscales for each profile.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 9

Table 4. ANOVA results for each dependent variable.

DV df df error F Profile Means (SD)
First-term GPA 3 2486 17.29** Low 2.53 (1.03)d
Moderate 2.69 (.92)c
High 2.96 (.84)a
Goal engagement 2.81 (.84)b
Earned credits in the first year 3 2489 19.60** Low 22.04 (9.39)c
Moderate 24.20 (7.96)b
High 25.92 (7.09)a
Goal engagement 25.37 (7.51)a
Writing course grade 3 2152 11.03** Low 3.15(1.02)c
Moderate 3.23 (.91)b
High 3.46 (.83)a
Goal engagement 3.34 (.84)a
Note: Significantly different mean scores are indicated by differing letters.
**p < .001.

Profile membership differences

In order to explore differences in the distribution of profiles based on students’ demo-
graphic information – race/ethnicity, gender, university generation status, and financial
need – a series of chi-square tests was performed (Table 5). Profile membership varied
only by gender, χ 2 (3, N = 2502) = 76.16, p < .001. Female students were more likely to
have membership in the high strategy use profile than males, whereas male students
were more likely to have membership in the other profiles.

Discussion
The current study is situated within Farrington et al.’s (2012) framework and brings
together multiple learning strategies constructs and their associated theories. The frame-
work suggests that learning strategies, as part of a broader set of noncognitive factors, are
associated with academic performance. As a whole, the results provide support for Far-
rington et al.’s model. The three types of learning strategies were all associated with
each other, reflecting that they fit within the broader construct. Also, all four academic
performance indicators varied as a function of profile membership, indicating that

Table 5. Cross tabulation for profiles by participants’ demographic information.

Low strategy Moderate strategy High strategy Goal engagement
use (%) use (%) use (%) strategy use (%) χ 2 (p)
Race/ethnicity 18.02, p =.12
African American (n = 181) 7 38 32 23
Asian American (n = 614) 13 43 28 16
Latino/a (n = 745) 12 39 29 20
White (n = 581) 12 42 31 15
Other (n = 381) 11 40 29 20
Gender 76.16, p <.001
Male (n = 1176) 14 45 21 20
Female (n = 1326) 9 38 37 16
University Generation Status 3.78, p =.29
First-generation (n = 884) 12 42 28 18
Non first-generation (n = 998) 11 41 32 16
PELL Eligibility 1.38, p =.71
Yes (n = 1363) 11 42 29 18
No (n = 1139) 12 40 30 18
10 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

learning strategies are associated with academic performance. The latent profile analysis
approach combined the three types of learning strategies but allowed for varying levels
of each when creating the profiles. Four distinct profiles groups were identified.
High strategy use students (30% of the sample) performed the best with respect to first-
term GPA, first-year earned credits, and writing class grade; however, goal engagement
strategy use students (18% of the sample) performed equally well for both first-year
earned credits and writing class grade. These findings support past research that demon-
strates the importance of learning strategies for academic performance in university
(Haase et al., 2008; Nota et al., 2004; Pintrich, Smith, García, & McKeachie, 1993;
Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011); however, they add to this body of research by suggesting
that concerted effort may be one of the most important elements of the learning strategies
construct. Those who were only moderately organized and moderately self-regulated in
their approach to learning, but who invested substantial time, energy, and effort toward
achieving their academic goals, performed as well – on two of the three academic perform-
ance measures – as those who were highly organized, highly self-regulated, and also
invested substantial time, energy, and effort toward achieving their goals.
That said, students in the goal engagement strategy use profile did not perform as well as
those in the high strategy use profile with respect to first-term GPA, and the reasons for
this are unclear, especially in light of their comparable performance on the other two
achievement measures. Perhaps time management and self-regulated learning are not as
important in small, intensive classes such as writing classes, or it may be that goal engage-
ment pays off more in writing classes than in other types of classes such as math or science
classes. Another possible explanation is that GPA is comprised of grades earned across
various courses in various majors. It may be that high goal engagement is not enough
to compensate for moderate time management and planning when managing multiple
courses. It may be enough to pass the courses, as indicated by credits earned, but there
could be a toll on the actual performance in some classes. More research is needed to
explore the ways in which learning strategies use may impact student performance
across different learning contexts and fields of study.
With respect to retention, high strategy use, moderate strategy use, and goal engagement
strategy use students were equally likely to be retained from their first year to their second
year of university; only students in the low strategy use profile were significantly different.
This suggests that academic performance outcomes are more sensitive than retention to
differences in learning strategies use among students. Emerging research suggests that
learning strategies do not have a direct effect on retention, but rather an indirect effect
on retention through performance (Farruggia et al., submitted for publication), which
may help to explain the present findings. Clearly, retention is not just about academic per-
formance, but also financial factors (Mestan, 2016), social influences (Archer et al., 1999),
student-university fit (Glennen, Martin, & Walden, 2000), sense of belonging (Wolf,
Perkins, Butler-Barnes, & Walker, 2017), etc., and one would not necessarily expect learn-
ing strategies to have an impact on non-academic predictors of retention. That said, low
strategy use students were less likely than any others to return for their second year of uni-
versity, suggesting either that students who employ low levels of learning strategies across
the board are also the students who are least likely to persist, or, more likely, that these are
the students who experience the lowest academic performance, which in turn negatively
impacts their persistence (Farruggia et al., submitted for publication).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 11

Profile membership did not vary significantly by race/ethnicity, university generation

status, or financial need, but it did vary by gender; females were more likely than males
to fall into the high strategy use profile, overall the most academically successful profile.
This finding highlights one potential explanation for why females in the US have better
academic performance in university than males (Wohlgemuth et al., 2007). The reason
for this gender difference in the use of learning strategies is unclear, and other studies
have found gender differences in learning strategies that favor males (e.g., Lee, 2002).
Clearly more research is needed to explore gender differences in the use of learning
strategies.
It was interesting to note the lack of differences between profile memberships as a func-
tion of race/ethnicity and financial need. Previous research has consistently found that, in
the US, Asian American and White students have higher levels of university retention
compared to African American and Latino/a students, and high-income students are
more likely to be retained than low-income students (e.g., Fischer, 2007; Ishitani, 2006;
Paulsen & St John, 2002). The present findings suggest that these differences are not a
result of the learning strategies that students use, as all demographic groups were
equally likely to fall into the more academically successful profiles.
Overall, these findings reinforce the importance of learning strategies for academic per-
formance, and suggest that some learning strategies may be more important than others.
In doing so, these findings also suggest paths for early intervention. Once identified, stu-
dents in the low strategy use or moderate strategy use profiles (roughly half of our sample)
may benefit from tailored support to promote the development and use of learning strat-
egies, focusing on goal engagement as a key target for improvement. Fortunately, previous
research has demonstrated that learning strategies are malleable and can be developed or
learned (Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008), and a number of studies have demon-
strated that university students can become more strategic and self-regulated in their
learning through brief interventions (Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996), semester long
courses (Hofer & Yu, 2003), and academic advising (Rubin, Chamot, Harris, & Anderson,
2007; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007).
Limitations of this study should be noted. First, time management, self-regulated learn-
ing, and academic goal engagement strategies were examined; however, other learning
strategies such as note taking and test preparation may be important as well (Lynch,
2010; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). Thus, future research should examine a broader
range of learning strategies and their relative impact on academic success. Second, partici-
pants were not asked to specify their academic goals, although they were asked to rate their
level of academic goal engagement. Some goals may be unrealistically high, thus posing
more than a moderate level of challenge. Future research should incorporate some
measure of the challenge or attainability of students’ goals in addition to their level of
goal engagement.
In conclusion, using Farrington et al.’s (2012) framework of noncognitive factors, this
study explored patterns of university students’ use of learning strategies and associations
between those patterns and academic success. One of the study’s strengths was to adopt a
person-centered approach, which allows for the simultaneous examination of multiple
indicators of learning strategies. Although it could be assumed that students would
have uniformly high or low profiles of learning strategies use, a group of students who
reported high levels of goal engagement and only moderate levels of the other learning
12 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

strategies were identified. Moreover, on multiple performance measures, this group per-
formed as well as the students who reported uniformly high levels of learning strategies
use. The current findings, consistent with Farrington et al.’s framework, suggest that
success in university can be promoted by fostering students’ use of learning strategies, par-
ticularly academic goal engagement. Therefore, identifying incoming students’ patterns of
learning strategies use may enable university staff to provide more tailored support to
promote the development and use of these skills.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by The Morris and Mayer Kaplan Family Foundation [grant number
6140] and an anonymous foundation grant.

ORCID
Cheon-woo Han http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1248-5634

References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
Archer, J., Cantwell, R., & Bourke, S. (1999). Coping at university: An examination of achievement,
motivation, self-regulation, confidence, and method of entry. Higher Education Research &
Development, 18(1), 31–54. doi:10.1080/0729436990180104
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405–410. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.405
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college
student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. doi:10.
1037//0022-0663.93.1.55
Chen, R., & DesJardins, S. L. (2008). Exploring the effects of financial aid on the gap in student
dropout risks by income level. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11162-
007-9060-9
Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: Challenges and strategies among first-year
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 296–316. doi:10.1353/csd.
2005.0022
Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-
regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training pro-
grammes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., &
Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive
factors in shaping school performance–A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: Consortium on
Chicago School Research.
Farruggia, S. P., Han, C. W., Watson, L., Moss, T. P., & Bottoms, B. L. (2016). Noncognitive factors
and college student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.
doi:1521025116666539
Farruggia, S. P., Han, C., Solomon, B. J., & Palbusa, J. (submitted for publication). Noncognitive
factors and college student success: Testing a hypothesized model.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 13

Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement
and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125–161. doi:10.1353/jhe.2007.0009
García-Ros, R., Pérez-González, F., & Hinojosa, E. (2004). Assessing time management skills as an
important aspect of student learning. The construction and evaluation of a time management
scale with Spanish high school students. School Psychology International, 25(2), 167–183.
Glennen, R. E., Martin, D. J., & Walden, H. M. (2000). Summer honors academy: A descriptive
analysis and suggestions for advising academically talented students. NACADA Journal, 20(2),
38–45. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-20.2.38
Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Köller, O. (2008). Goal engagement during the school–work tran-
sition: Beneficial for all, particularly for girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(4), 671–698.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00576.x
Han, C. (2016). Change and stability in achievement goals based on instructional tasks of a college class-
room. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(14), 999–1007. doi:10.12691/education-4-14-3
Han, C., Farruggia, S. P., & Moss, T. P. (2017). Effects of academic mindsets on college students’
achievement and retention. Journal of College Student Development, 58(8), 1119–1134.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136. doi:10.3102/00346543066002099
Heckhausen, J., Chang, E. S., Greenberger, E., & Chen, C. (2013). Striving for educational and career
goals during the transition after high school: What is beneficial? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42(9), 1385–1398. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9812-5
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development.
Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60. doi:10.1037/a0017668
Hofer, B. K., & Yu, S. L. (2003). Teaching self-regulated learning through a ‘learning to learn’
course. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1), 30–33. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_05
Hoffman, J. L., & Lowitzki, K. E. (2005). Predicting college success with high school grades and test
scores: Limitations for minority students. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 455–474.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2005.0042
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885. doi:10.
1353/jhe.2006.0042
Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth
mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. doi:10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2007.00054.x
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personality–
motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 837–855.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.837
Kehr, H. M., Bles, P., & von Rosenstiel, L. (1999). Self-regulation, self-control, and management
training transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 487–498.
Kim, M. M. (2002). Historically black vs. white institutions: Academic development among black
students. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 385–407. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0019
Lee, I. S. (2002). Gender differences in self-regulated on-line learning strategies within Korea’s
university context. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 101–111. doi:10.
1007/BF02504967
Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal
mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. doi:10.1093/biomet/88.3.767
Lynch, D. J. (2010). Motivational beliefs and learning strategies as predictors of academic perform-
ance in college physics. College Student Journal, 44(4), 920–927.
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Strategies for success in education: Time man-
agement is more important for part-time than full-time community college students. Learning
and Individual Differences, 22(5), 618–623.
McKenzie, K., Gow, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2004). Exploring first-year academic achievement
through structural equation modelling. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1),
95–112. doi:10.1080/0729436032000168513
14 C.-W. HAN ET AL.

McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic
performance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research &
Development, 20(1), 21–33. doi:10.1080/07924360120043621
Mestan, K. (2016). Why students drop out of the bachelor of arts. Higher Education Research &
Development, 35(5), 983–996. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1139548
Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). College students’ academic stress and its relation to their anxiety,
time management, and leisure satisfaction. American Journal of Health Studies, 16(1), 41–51.
Nausheen, M., & Richardson, P. W. (2013). The relationships between the motivational beliefs,
course experiences and achievement among postgraduate students in Pakistan. Higher
Education Research & Development, 32(4), 603–616. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.709485
Noble, J. P., & Sawyer, R. L. (2004). Is high school GPA better than admission test scores for pre-
dicting academic success in college? College and University, 79(4), 17–22.
Noble, K., Flynn, N. T., Lee, J. D., & Hilton, D. (2007). Predicting successful college experiences:
Evidence from a first year retention program. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 9(1), 39–60. doi:10.2190/6841-42JX-X170-8177
Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resi-
lience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 198–215.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543–578.
Paulsen, M. B., & St John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus
between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189–236. doi:10.
1353/jhe.2002.0023
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037//
0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
Power, C., Robertson, F., & Baker, M. (1987). Success in higher education. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-
regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88
(1), 87–100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.87
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial
and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2),
261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
Robbins, S. B., Oh, I. S., Le, H., & Button, C. (2009). Intervention effects on college performance and
retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: Integrated meta-
analytic path analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1163–1184. doi:10.1037/a0015738
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies.
Language Learner Strategies, 30, 29–45.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of
reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/
10573560600837578
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.
Shell, D. F., Husman, J., Turner, J. E., Cliffel, D. M., Nath, I., & Sweany, N. (2005). The impact of
computer supported collaborative learning communities on high school students’ knowledge
building, strategic learning, and perceptions of the classroom. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 33(3), 327–349. doi:10.2190/787L-BCBQ-20FN-FW6C
Simons, H. D., Van Rheenen, D., & Covington, M. V. (1999). Academic motivation and the student
athlete. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 151–161.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintes-
sential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 64–94.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 15

Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase success of first-
term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 478–504. doi:10.1080/
00220973.2010.512318
Vasalampi, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Adolescents’ self-concordance, school
engagement, and burnout predict their educational trajectories. European Psychologist, 14(4),
332–341. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.4.332
Vasquez, M. J., & Jones, J. M. (2006). Increasing the number of psychologists of color: Public policy
issues for affirmative diversity. American Psychologist, 61(2), 132–142. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
61.2.132
Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences
between the akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).
Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228–243.
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. doi:10.1002/tl.443
Wohlgemuth, D., Whalen, D., Sullivan, J., Nading, C., Shelley, M., & Wang, Y. R. (2007). Financial,
academic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation of students. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4), 457–475. doi:10.2190/86X6-5VH8-
3007-6918
Wolf, D. A. P. S., Perkins, J., Butler-Barnes, S. T., & Walker T. A., Jr. (2017). Social belonging and
college retention: Results from a quasi-experimental pilot study. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(5), 777–782.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigation grit and its relations with college students’ self-
regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 293–311.
Wormington, S. V., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2017). A new look at multiple goal pursuit: The
promise of a person-centered approach. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 407–445.
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance
structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200.
doi:10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:
Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation, an essential dimension of self-regulated
learning. In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.