Social-Background Factors Affecting the Academic Successof First Year Sociology Students at The University of

Johannesburg, South Africa

Cecilia van Zyl-Schalekamp and Patrick Mthombeni

Department of Sociology, University of Johannesburg 2006, South Africa

KEYWORDS Performance. Home Language. First-Generation Students. Family Structure. Living/Study Space

ABSTRACT The objective of the research was to explore the role of social-economic factors in the academicachievement of first year students at a South African University. A survey was conducted with a sample size of 210students. The influence of the following variables were examined with inferential statistics: having English as ahome language; being a first-generation student; quality of high school attended; size of physical living/study spaceof a student and household structure. Chi-square tests showed that in this sample home language, type of highschool and living/study space impacted on students’ performance.

Address for correspondence:Prof Cecilia van Zyl-SchalekampUniversity of Johannesburg,PO Box 524Auckland Park 2006, South AfricaTelephone: 27 (11) 559 2879Fax: 27 (11) 559 3787E-mail: cjvzschalekamp@uj.ac.za

INTRODUCTION

Various aspects can affect students’ perfor-mance at university level, ranging from socio-economic, environmental to psychological fac-tors. This paper concentrates on social-back-ground factors that are outside the academicsetting: specifically home language, type of highschool attended, being a first-generation stu-dent, living/study space and family structure.Since the debates about the influence of socialfactors on academic achievement have beenongoing, especially in Western universities, it isessential to locate this paper and examine howthe University of Johannesburg first year Soci-ology students perform against this background.The objective was to quantitatively test wheth-er these factors are indeed affecting the aca-demic performance of students.

Numerous studies (Anderson et al. 2001; Gill-born 2001; Hicks 2003; Ishitani 2003; Barry 2006;Clarkson 2008; Hossler et al. 2008; Hossler et al.2009) point to the fact that the social backgroundof students affects how they perform academi-cally. However,most academic discourse on thefactors affecting the academic success of stu-dents is based on American and European stud-ies, therefore it is important to discuss such work

and compare it with the findings presented inthis study.

Literature Review

Home Language

The first area of focus is on the difference inacademic success between students with Englishas home language compared to those who do nothave English as first language. South Africa haseleven official languages with English dominat-ing as medium of instruction in universities. Themajority of students at the University of Johan-nesburg are using other languages at home. As aresult, most do not only have to master the con-tent of a course, but also have to grasp the lan-guage and the terminology before understand-ing the basics of the curriculum.

Language also constitutes a huge barrier forparents in participating in their children’s uni-versity education, when those children use adifferent language at school. Gillborn (2001: 23)affirms this notion, although the study wasbased in London, stating that parents who donot speak English cannot help their children withtheir studies or participate meaningful in theschools.

The communication process is a crucial ele-ment for students either for enabling understand-ing of the course content, or not at all. The Uni-versity of Johannesburg developed a WritingCentre to help students with writing problems,but challenges remain. Some students may loseinterest in a subject due to lack of comprehen-

© Kamla-Raj 2015 J Sociology Soc Anth, 6(1): 31-44 (2015)

32 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

sion. Student dropout rates, not only on a spe-cific subject, but on the whole programme, couldbe partly associated with the language of in-struction used at the institution.

Various studies such as those of Amelink(2005), Gray et al. (1996), Hagy and Staniec (2002),Kiang (1992) and King (2002) give priority to thelack of efficiency in English as being a majorcontributor to low academic achievement for stu-dents, especially those from non-English speak-ing homes. These authors reveal that the incon-sistency between the languages at school andat home creates a major upheaval for some stu-dents. They have to change languages (creat-ing double-consciousness) often in adapting todifferent settings, at home and on campus. Ac-cording to Crystal (2003: 15), “those (English-first language speakers) who have it as a mothertongue – will be more able to think and workquickly in it, and to manipulate it to their ownadvantage at the expense of those who do nothave it, thus maintaining in a linguistic guise thechasm between rich and poor”. This explainsexactly the current South African context, wherein universities, English-first language speakersconstitute small numbers. It could be argued thatthis enables them to continue achieving highmarks due to a clear understanding of the lan-guage in which the programmes in universitiesare presented.

Webb argued in 2000 that institutional mono-lingualism has increased, but there is limited lan-guage planning research and the absence of anycoordination of existing research projects, toolittle effective support for linguistic pluralismfrom important decision-makers, continued emo-tional resistance to the Black languages, and thelack of public support among public leaders gen-erally for the 11 language policy” (Webb 2000:13). These are just a few of the effects experi-enced by having one dominant language overothers. Unfortunately, students end up beingvictims of such a system.

One of the participants interviewed during aproject done by Leibowitz (2005) in South Africastated that:

It was hard for me because when . . . . I wasat high school most of the time we were usingthe first language. Just I think we were makinga sandwich [code-switching] with the secondlanguage. Now when we came to the universityI found it for me that it’s hard even to hear whatthe lecturer is saying (Leibowitz 2005: 672).

Another one gave a description which wasalso significant:

And then for me that is negative becauseyou see, our teachers, they don’t allow us tohave this critical evaluation and then when youcome here to varsity [university or college] youhave to analyse the work critically and thenwe have some difficulty. That is why you findmost of the Africans, when they are given work,they just plagiarise that, they are giving youback what is in the book, because they weretaught like that at high school (Leibowitz 2005:669).

The above quotes do not only explain thelow academic achievement of English second-language speakers, but also the reason why mostcannot critically engage with their work. Theyare expected to communicate in a language theydo not even know how to use. Therefore, theyhave to think in their indigenous languages andtry to translate their thoughts into English tocreate meanings in their minds.

Quality of High School

Most studies maintain that students fromschools with lower fees tend to perform poorercompared to those from schools which were moreexpensive to attend. The Clarkson (2008) studyalso showed a positive relationship betweenprevious schooling (meaning the type of schoolthe student attended) and current academicachievement. In this paper any school chargingfees above R6000 per annum, is regarded as ahigh-fees institution. The focus on fees is basedon the premise that schools which charge highfees can provide adequate resources to stu-dents, such as good teachers, computer class-es, science laboratories, technical courses, andsmaller teacher/pupil ratios.

What has been evident is the fact that mostBlack schools in South Africa do not chargemuch in terms of school fees. A large number ofblack students, which now comprises the major-ity of the student population in universities,come from schools either located in townshipsor urban areas. Most high schools where thesestudents come from cannot offer good techno-logical infrastructure and some of the studentsstruggle when they get into universities. Accord-ing to Lubienski and Lubienski (2006: 8), some(often private) schools in the USA are thoughtto be better resourced, on average, and private

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 33

school teachers and administrators are requiredto receive a certain level of training. If such fac-tors are linked to better student achievement,then the expectation is that students fromschools with higher fees should perform rela-tively well.

South African History of School Fees

In the South African context, many privateand schools attended by White learners hadbeen well resourced before 1994, and continuedthis pattern compared to schools which weredesignated for black students. Hence, these priv-ileged schools had good pass rates, low teach-er-pupil ratios, high teacher qualifications andteacher salaries, demonstrated greater effective-ness in terms of their outputs in order to attractfamilies willing to pay tuition. In saying so, there-fore, “White” schools tend to offer more facili-ties and opportunities to students compared toschools for other “races”, and consequently at-tract a lot of families who earn more.

After the first democratic elections in 1994,inequalities had to be redressed and the educa-tion system had to be restructured. The newgovernment had to decide on balancing relianceon public and private resources for educationand made massive resource re-allocations toBlack schools. The racially defined Departmentsof Education were replaced with a single educa-tion system and nine years of education wasmade compulsory for all (Fiske and Ladd 2003:4; Van der Berg 2007: 849). Yet a division be-tween public and private-type (formerly Whitepublic) schooling was created as the govern-ment has decided to encourage public schoolsto increase school fees. The private and private-type schools continued to flourish and produc-ing different students compared to those in pub-lic schools (Fiske and Ladd 2004).

What has been noticed in South Africa post-1994, is an increase in the number of Black stu-dents enrolling in former White schools, insearch of a better education. These schools areusually situated in former Whites-only suburbs,and many children are ferried from the town-ships to these schools. In addition, Bell andMcKay (2011) have found that access to afflu-ent former White schools in Sandton, Johan-nesburg, is now determined by income and so-cio-economic status, and they refer to this as‘class apartheid’. Anderson et al. (2001) infer

that as some families can send their children tobetter quality schools, the traditional townshipschools will end up with the learners from fami-lies who are financially less able or motivated. Inthese schools there may be little emphasis onindependent thinking and decision-making andself-regulation (Fraser and Killen 2003).

According to Fiske and Ladd (2003: 4), feespolicy remains a topic of current debate. Duringthe past few years, the South African Depart-ment of Education has experienced mountingproblems, like undelivered text books and poorsanitation facilities, which some scholars referto as a sign of failure for the ordinary citizens.

First-generation Students

First-generation students are those fromhouseholds where neither of their parents stud-ied at tertiary level. Students who have some-one in the family who attended university be-fore them, tend to have better knowledge ofwhat is happening and expected from them. Thesestudents have an advantage: their parents orrelatives may help them in managing student life,getting financial help and how to deal with studyand examination pressures. According to Ishi-tani (2003: 434), first-generation students in theUSA had lower critical thinking abilities, lesssupport from their family in attending college/university, and spent less time with their peersand talking with their teachers in high schoolabout their future expectations at university lev-el. Therefore, universities being places wherestudents are constantly required to think criti-cally, creates the dilemma that these studentsare faced with a huge challenge.

Confidence and ways to deal with emotionalstress proved to be some of the coping mecha-nisms for a number of the students in the newuniversity environment. For most first-generationstudents, as found by Amelink (2005: 34), theirdaily experiences with academic and student ser-vices on college campuses influence their aca-demic success. All students have to possess an-alytical and problem-solving skills, learn aboutother cultures and races, how to satisfy studyrequirements, and simultaneously deal with ex-ternal commitments. Unfortunately, for first-gen-eration students, there is no one to guide themthrough such problems; rather they have to fig-ure out themselves how to proceed with their stud-ies while experiencing those problems.

34 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

Hicks (2003: 6) emphasises that first-genera-tion university students often experience a formof culture shock when they begin their studies.They may feel that they do not fit in socially andthat their families cannot offer them a lot of sup-port. Non-first-generation students had an ad-vantage, since they knew what to expect, andwhom to ask for help. Hick’s point is very impor-tant for a proportion of Black South African stu-dents, as well as most foreign students fromAfrica.

These foreign students bring their own val-ues, ways of life and different academic expecta-tions. Possessing these preconceived ideas,they often experience conflicts in values. Hicks’(2003) study in the USA is very relevant, be-cause it conceptualises experiences similar tothose at the University of Johannesburg, andwas done with similar methods as the one athand, viz distribution of a questionnaire to stu-dents electronically. In short, Hicks’ (2003: 09)results confirmed the incorrect perceptions thatstudents may have about attending university.Some of the results showed that students un-derestimated the value of outside help (externalhelp from family members) in their academicprogress; also that university became a sourceof extra stress for those students.

Orbe’s (2004:138) research (also in the USA)was qualitatively based, thus it was able to cap-ture both the feelings and opinions of these first-generation university students. They were atfirst year level, when these students were askedabout any differences that exist between themand non-first-generation students. One of themgave the following response:

Those kids have their own computers in theirrooms… you stand in a queue at computer labforever – late at night whenever you can get ona computer. But they can get up whenever theywant and work on their computer. Don’t know…they just have that extra edge on everything. Imean they get their books right then and there,but we have to wait until the financial aidcheques come in. So, we have to usually spendextra money on the new books. I don’t know…It’s a lot of small things (Orbe 2004:138).

A few issues can be deduced from the abovequote recorded by Orbe (2004: 138). The first isthe resources that non-first-generation studentshave at their disposal and the financial burdenthey have to carry. These are just a few prob-lems; others include constant fights with family

members. The same point was mentioned byAmelink (2005:40), that first-generation studentsreceive less support from their families who donot see university as a priority. One more quotefrom Orbe’s (2004: 142) work proving this pointwas provided by a student regarding communi-cation:

I try to – to be honest with you – avoid act-ing like I’ve got all this new information in myhead because they don’t like it. I have a broth-er and we usually talk about different things. Ican’t remember the specific topic, but I askedhim, “Where did you read that? Where did youget that statistic from? “He just got up irate!“The big college woman wants proof!” Hethinks I’ve changed, [and am] trying to actbetter than the rest of them.

Therefore, three matters emerge regardingfirst-generation students. Firstly, there is a hugechasm between home and university. Secondly,there is little known on how first-generation stu-dents deal with university studies in conjunc-tion with cultural identity, race/ethnicity, age,family structure, socio-economic status, sexual-ity and gender. Lastly, first-generation studentslack a sense of communication and belonging;at home they may be viewed as being ‘betterthan everyone’, or put under pressure to suc-ceed. At university they experience a cultureshock day by day, simultaneously trying to bet-ter their marks.

Living/Study Space

The focus in this paper is on the physicalsize of the study or living space at home or anyaccommodation in which the student resides.The need is to find if there is a relationship be-tween the actual size of the room and students’academic achievement. Most literature empha-sises the learning space at school or in the uni-versity, and not at home or the accommodationwhere the student resides. This includes Laiqaet al. (2011: 707) who maintain the opinion thatthe school facilities are important, both symbol-ic and functional, in support of the educationalprocess. But, what about at home?

The important factor introduced by Laiqa etal. (2011: 706) is the fact that space plays animportant role in students’ academic achieve-ment, therefore, “space can also impact on hu-man and cultural behaviour, being an importantfactor in architecture… shape, scale, proportion,

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 35

colour, texture and quality of illumination affectthe quality of space”. Research, although thefocus has been placed at the school level andnot the place of residence, points out that build-ing conditions related to human comfort haveeffects on students’ academic achievement. Sup-porting this notion is Bacolod and Tobias (2005)and Lawson (2001), stating that the supply ofbasic services such as “electricity in learningspace enhances the concentration of studentsand teachers” (Laiqa et al. 2011: 709). What needsto be remembered is that space is not static andabsolute, meaning it is constructed out of socialrelations. What some people will consider as astandard room conducive to a learning environ-ment, others may not see as fit surroundings forstudying.

In order to appreciate the writings outlinedon the integration of space into learning, thereis a need to understand how learning itself isunderstood, how it takes place and the intersec-tionality of the two with space. Space on its ownincorporates various dimensions, not only thesize in measurement is integral, but also thingslike furniture, heating, etc. In certain instances,students’ concentration may be distracted easi-ly by various things found in the learning space,while at the same time, changing a few thingslike enlarging the physical space, may increasetheir concentration. A study by Montgomery(2008: 134) showed that “it is not merely a roomin which learning takes place. The space itself,the people within it and their movement and or-ganisation are all social constructions”. Spaceas a variable in this paper is chosen becausemost Black students have less physical spaceavailable to them, whether in their parents’ homesor lodging. In a study partly focusing on homeeducational resources by Strickland and Shu-mow (2008), the USA had lower scores thanthree other G8 countries for immigrant studentshaving a place to study and a desk. Guo andHarris (2000) mention that the homes of poorstudents are likely to have structural faults, in-adequate facilities like electricity and sanitation,and the neighbourhoods of these homes couldbe in high-crime areas. There seems to be a con-siderable gap in the academic discourse regard-ing living/study space and students’ academicperformance, especially in developing coun-tries. Consequently, part of the aim of this pa-per is to investigate any relationship betweenstudy space and the academic achievement ofstudents.

Family Structure

Family structure also plays a significant rolein students’ academic performance. Accordingto Bankston and Caldas (1998: 717), single-head-ed families are six times more likely to be poorcompared to other families. Therefore, studentsin such environments will not only have to dealwith the absence of the father or mother figure,but the financial constraints it entails as well.According to Mulkey et al. (1992), family struc-ture has an effect on school performance. Thisnotion is also supported by Bankston and Cal-das (1998: 716), adding that apart from socio-economic status, family structure has its owneffects on educational success. These authors(1998) found that the performance of USA stu-dents from single-parent families was affectednegatively by the ‘unbalanced’ home structure.

Biblarz and Gottainer (2000) took the familystructure topic further, focusing not only on sin-gle-mothers, but divorced single-mother fami-lies. This means that the father is available, butdoes not have any involvement in the children’sschooling. Therefore, given such a situation,divorced single mothers tend to hold lower oc-cupations, and be financially stressed. As a re-sult, students in such families may tend to per-form poorly. There are mixed findings on wheth-er students with widowed single mothers per-form better than those from divorced singlemothers.

However, the focus in this paper is on thedifferences between students with single moth-ers/fathers and those with intact families (bothparents present). However, it will be erroneousto regard single-headed households as homo-geneous. Families use different strategic survivaltactics and to make sure that their children stayat school. Some of the factors identified by Pongand Dronkers (2003: 682) are also found on theentire spectrum of single-headed families. Thesame point is maintained by Milne et al. (1986:125), that the literature on one-parent familiesalmost exclusively addresses father absence (themost prevalent pattern) and relates it to a num-ber of child outcomes, including cognitive per-formance. These authors also bring a very cru-cial element into this discussion: the complexityof the issue in cases where it intersects withrace and sexuality, complicating the issue evenfurther. Especially in South Africa, many Blackstudents come from single-mother households

36 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

where living conditions may be totally differentcompared to those households where both par-ents are present.

Such students may have to apply for finan-cial aid to be able to pay for studies and otherresources to facilitate the learning process.Therefore, when looking into the issue of sin-gle-parent families, it is advisable to go beyondthe economic status of such a household anddetermine the sociological perspectives into theissue. This paper aims at identifying exactly that,to locate a discussion beyond the financial sta-tus of single-headed households.

According to Jones in a newspaper article inthe Mercury on the 5th of April 2011, “single-parent households have become the norm inSouth Africa, while nearly 100 000 children livein child-headed households”. Snyders et al.(2006) maintain that single-headed householdsare not always suffering because there may beother adults present, or a co-habiting partner.“These household types are important to con-sider because they are such a common experi-ence, but also because they have been found toimprove economic well-being outcomes, at leastin the short-run, for female-headed families”.Therefore, the situation is not always as nega-tive as some authors have stated.

METHODOLOGY

This paper reports on the findings of a quan-titative study conducted to test the associationbetween certain variables and the academic suc-cess of first year Sociology students. In gather-ing the data, a questionnaire was distributed tostudents through an E-learning system calledEdulink, available free for students. The ques-tionnaire consisted of 66 questions designedby the Sociology honours students of 2011, each

testing relationships between their individualchosen variables. Hence, the questions guidingthis particular paper, are those concerning cer-tain social-background factors. The effects ofthe variables were investigated by formulatinghypotheses. Academic success as the depen-dent variable was defined in terms of the aver-age mark for all the subjects an individual first-year Sociology student attained for the semes-ter in question. The average mark obtained wasgrouped into three categories; fail, average andgood performance.

At the time the University of Johannesburghad a populationof 43 958 undergraduate stu-dents and, 1210 students taking Sociology as afirst year subject. Table 1 indicates the race andgender distribution of the sample and the popu-lation of first-year Sociology students in 2011.Only 210 first year students successfully com-pleted the survey; 26.2% of these were maleswhile 73.8% were females, which correspond-swith the gender proportions in the totalpopulation.Similarly, the racial distribution of thesample also corresponds with the racial distri-bution of the population. African students madeup the majority of the sample (77.6%), followedby White students at 16.2 per cent, coloureds at4.3 per cent and Indians/Asians making up 1.9per cent. Thiscompares very well with the racialdistribution in of first year students in the De-partment of Sociology. In 2011,77.0 per cent offirst years were African, 13.8 per cent were Whiteand the Indians and coloureds combined madeup 9.2 per cent of the total population of firstyear sociology students.

Hypotheses

There is a significant difference between stu-dents with English as home language and those

Table 1: Race and gender distribution of the sample and the population

Gender Race Sample Population

Sample N % N % N %Sample Male 55 26.2 Female 155 73.8 Total 210 100 African 163 77.6 932 77.0Population N % White 34 16.2 167 13.8 Male 343 28.3 Coloured 9 4.3 60 5 Female 867 71.7 Indian/Asian 4 1.9 51 4.2Total 1210 100 Total 210 100 1210 100Source: Department of Sociology, University of Johannesburg: Annual Report

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 37

who do not have English as a home language,regarding their academic success.

There is a significant difference between stu-dents who had attended schools with higherschool fees and those who attended schoolswith lower school fees, regarding their academicperformance.

There is a significant difference between stu-dents who are first-generation students at uni-versity and those who are not, regarding theiracademic success.

There is a significant relationship betweensize of living/study space and the academic suc-cess of students.

There is a significant difference between stu-dents who have a single parent and those withanother type of parenting situation regardingtheir academic success.

Testing of the Hypotheses

All five hypotheses were tested using chi-square based on the level of measurement of thevariables; nominal and ordinal. The independentvariables tested were home language, type ofhigh school, first-generation students, living/study space and family structure. All of thesevariables were tested with the dependent vari-able academic success, which was defined interms of three categories on the questionnaire;fail <50%, average 51%-64% and good perfor-mance e”65%.

Home Language

English as home language was determinedby asking the question; what language do youpredominantly (mostly) speak at home? Is En-glish your mother tongue? Academic successwas measured by using the question: “Thinkingof the last semester, please indicate your marksfor each of the subjects you were registered for.”For both variables the level of measurement wasordinal, hence the Chi-square test was chosento test for a significant relationship between thetwo variables.

Most students indicated that they speakSotho at home, while only 22.4% predominantlyspeak English. When the mother tongue vari-able was tested against academic success, thechi-square produced a p-value of 0.023 (Table2). Since the p-value was smaller than 0.05 thatled to rejection of the null-hypotheses, home

language was found to influence academicsuccess.

The results can be taken as valid since 0cells 0% have an expected count less than 5,with a minimum of 5.29.

Quality of high school attended in terms of fees

School fees paid at high school was inves-tigated using the question: “What were theschool fees charged by your high school inyour matric year?” While academic success re-mained the same as the above test with threecategories; fail <50%, average 51%-64% andgood performance e”65%. Both variables wereon the ordinal level. The p-value of the Chi-square test was 0.008 (Table 3) smaller than 0.05,hence the rejection of the null-hypotheses.Therefore, there is a significant difference instudents who had attended schools with high-er school fees and those who had attendedschools with lower school fees regarding theiracademic performance.

First-generation Students

First-generation students were identified bythe statement: “Please indicate the highest level

Table 2: Chi-square test between English as moth-er tongue and academic performance

Value df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 7.578a 2 0.023Likelihood ratio 8.880 2 0.012Linear-by-linear 7.475 1 0.006 AssociationN of valid cases 210

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 5.29

Table 3: Chi-square tests for fees paid at schooland academic performance

Value df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 7.578a 2 0.023Likelihood ratio 8.880 2 0.012Linear-by-linear 7.475 1 0.006 AssociationN of valid Cases 210

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 5.70.

38 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

of your parent’s/guardian’s education”. (Stu-dents had the opportunity to choose either Fa-ther’s educational level or Mother’s educationallevel). Therefore this study is comparing bothtypes of students. First-generation studentswere measured at a nominal level of measure-ment, while academic success was ordinal, re-sulting in the choice of a Chi-square test. Thechi-square tests performed resulted in the non-rejection of the null-hypothesis, that there is nosignificant difference between students who arefirst-generation and those who are not, regard-ing their academic success. The p-value was0.208 (Table 4) with 10 cells (41.7%) having anexpected count of less than 5 and the minimumexpected count being 0.57.

Size of Living/Study Space

Living/study space was operationalised withthe question: “Due to the size (space) of myroom/study area I find myself struggling tostudy”. Academic success was measured at or-dinal level as living/study space, resulting inchoosing the Chi-square test. The p-value was0.038 (Table 5), less than 0.05; therefore we re-ject the null-hypotheses that there is no signifi-

cant relationship between size of living/studyspace and the academic success of students.

Single-parent Households and OtherParenting Situations

Household situation was investigated bythe following question: “Under whose care wereyou during the last semester?” Students hadthe following options: single mother, single fa-ther, mother and father, guardian/care giver, noadult, or by specifying in case it was a differentoption. For data analysis purposes, the respons-es were recoded into three categories combin-ing some of the options. Therefore, single moth-er and single father were combined in one op-tion, both parents another, while other or noparents were combined as those students with“other forms” of family structure. Table 6 showsa p-value of 0.13 leading to the non-rejection ofthe null-hypotheses.

RESULTS

Home Language

The results showed a significant differencein academic performance between students whospeak English as first language and those whodo not. Just over 17 % (17.6%) indicated thatEnglish was their mother tongue, while 82.40%replied that it was not. The results show thatthose 82.40% for whom English is a second lan-guage, performed on average 15.6% worse com-pared to those with English as first language(29.7%). Figure 1 indicates the difference in stu-dents’ performance with regard to home lan-guage. Therefore, 66% of the students with En-glish as their mother tongue had a good perfor-mance compared to 34% of the students whosaid No. In comparison, a large proportion of

Table 4: Chi-square tests for mother’s and fa-ther’s educational level and student’s academicachievement

Value df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 30.797a 14 .006Likelihood ratio 32.605 14 .003Linear-by-linear 6.409 1 .011 AssociationN of valid cases 210

a. Ten cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5.The minimum expected count is 0.57

Table 5: Chi-square test for living spaceandacademic performance

Value df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 20.001a 14 .130Pearson Chi-square 16.358a 8 0.038Likelihood ratio 15.711 8 0.047Linear-by-linear 8.321 1 0.004 associationN of valid cases 210a. Three cells (20.0%) have expected count less than5. The minimum expected count is 3.4

Table 6: Chi-square test for single-parent house-holds

Value df Asymp.Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 20.001a 14 .130Likelihood ratio 22.334 14 .072Linear-by-linear .025 1 .874 associationN of valid cases 209

a. 14 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5.The minimum expected count is .14.

those who failed (86%),were those who speakEnglish as a second language. This demon-strates that there is a significant difference be-tween students with English as home languageand those not, regarding their academic success.

Quality of High School

In terms of significant difference in type ofschool attended regarding fees and academicsuccess, the tests performed resulted in the re-jection of the null-hypothesis that there is nosignificant difference in students who hadschools with higher school fees and those whoattended schools with lower school fees regard-ing their academic performance. Therefore,there was a significant difference between stu-dents from high-paying schools and those fromlow-paying schools on how they academicallyperform at the University of Johannesburg. AsFigure 2 elaborates further, (a) the higher theamount paid in high school, the better the stu-dent’s performance. While on the other side (b),the results showed that the highest proportionof students who failed, were those from low paidhigh schools.

The above results also correspond with the lit-erature that the majority of the students from publicschools where there is a lack of resources, are strug-gling in higher educational institutions. Some highschools do not offer the basic technological require-ments for succeeding in universities.

First-generation Students

The third factor examined was the differencebetween first-generation students and those who

are not, regarding academic success. The chi-square tests performed resulted in the rejectionof the alternative hypothesis that there is sig-nificant difference between students who arefirst-generation and those who are not, regard-ing their academic success. The p-value was0.208; the data showed the following in compar-ison with the literature review: there is no linkbetween the findings and the literature outlinedearlier.

Hence, the findings showed different results;most of the students who indicated to be first-generation were performing well. Therefore, theresults were inconclusive. From the p-value, itshowed no significance difference.

Living/Study Space

Figure 3 indicates the relationship betweensize of living/study space and academic suc-cess. The p-value was 0.038, resulting in the re-jection of the null-hypothesis that there is nosignificant relationship between the size of liv-ing/study space and the academic success ofstudents. Therefore, from the data gathered atthe University of Johannesburg, living/studyspace does affect the academic success of firstyear sociology students. Although the litera-ture did not address this aspect, it is obviousfrom these findings that there is a relationshipbetween these two variables.

The statement which appeared on the ques-tionnaire was: “Due to the size (space) of myroom/study area I find myself struggling tostudy”. The answer categories were 1 Strongly

Fig. 1. Home language and academic performance

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 39

Key: English mother tongue; 2 English no mother tongue

disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Partially agree, 4 Agreeand 5 Strongly agree. Therefore, living/studyspace is a third factor proved in this paper tohave an effect on the academic success of firstyear sociology students at the University of Jo-hannesburg.

Family Structure

The last variable which was tested is the dif-ference in academic success between studentsfrom single-parent families, intact families andother types of households. Students answered

the question; “Under whose care were you dur-ing the last semester?” The p-value was 0.130,bigger than 0.05 resulting in the rejection of thealternative hypothesis that there is a signifi-cant difference between students who have asingle parent and those with other type ofhouseholds regarding their academic success.The data showed that students from single-par-ent families do not perform significantly less well,compared with those from both parents or fromother family structures. From Figure 4 (1 repre-sents students from single-parent households,2 represents students with both parents, while 3

40 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

Fig. 2. Relationship between academic performance and fees paid in high school

represents students who had other types of fam-ily structure and those who had no parents), thethird group showed higher academic perfor-mance compared to the other two. Thus, amongstthe sample of 210 students, 28.2 % who had “oth-er” types of family structure, or those with noparents, were performing better than those fromthe other two categories.

Combining single mother and father-parent-ed families into one category for analysis, mayhave obscured some important differences inthe academic success of students from differentfamily structures. Most existing research on ed-ucational outcomes for children focussed onsingle-mother families, since that is usually themost prevalent situation in single parenting. Itis for example known that children from female-headed households are more likely to be atschool in South Africa, and those without moth-

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 41

Fig. 3. Sze of living/study space limiting academic success

Fig. 4. Single parent households and academicsucess

Key: students from single-parent households; 2 studentswith both parents; 3 students who had other types offamily strutue or no parents

42 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

ers are more likely to drop out (Nimubona andVencatachellum in Heaton et al. 2014). Ander-son et al. (2001) found a strong positive rela-tionship between the education of mothers andthe schooling of their children. In South Africa,the monthly Child Support Grant also aids moth-ers in keeping their children at school.

In many quarters there is some idealised viewof intact families which provide the optimal op-portunities for educational success of children.In reality, in many countries of the world, thehousehold situations have had to adapt to day-to-day realities. South Africa’s long history ofmigrant labour, the Group Areas Act, and the im-pact of HIV/AIDS, partly explain the relativelyhigh number of students reportedly coming from“other” types of households, and the coping ca-pabilities of such households over a long time.Many grandparents had to step in to care forgrandchildren, and with most receiving a socialgrant, there is some level of social security.

Regarding success at university studies,people have proved themselves to be resilientand resourceful, and especially literature andreports about single mothers abound with per-sonal accounts of continuous support, encour-agement and sacrifice for their children.

DISCUSSION

Much research has focused on factors con-tributing to, or inhibiting the academic successof pupils and students on various levels of learn-ing, from primary to tertiary education. A largenumber of studies specifically focused on con-ditions specific to learning as an individual pro-cess, learning environments, to nutritional sta-tus, types of teaching models, methods of as-sessment, and student expectations and percep-tions. The vast majority of studies have beenconducted in developed countries, or those re-ferred to as the Global North.

It is also known that success in learning de-pends on factors other than those in the imme-diate learning environment, for example, the de-velopmental status of a country, socio-econom-ic factors, demographic variables, and broadpatterns of gender and age relations.

Given that the University of Johannesburgis situated in a particular context of historicaland race relations, it was decided to centre thisstudy on social-background factors external tothe academic setting, which could impact onsuccessful learning outcomes.

Hence, this paper concentrates on social-background factors that are outside the academ-ic environment: specifically home language, typeof high school attended, being a first-genera-tion student, living/study space, and family struc-ture. The objective was to quantitatively testwhether these factors are indeed affecting theacademic performance of students.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper presented socialbackground factors that may affect the academ-ic success of first year Sociology students.

On home language, the focus was on thelanguage the student speaks at home and thelanguage used for academic purposes. Qualityof schooling was measured by the fees paid athigh school and it was observed that studentswho have a background of using different edu-cational resources, tend to perform better thanthose who did not. First-generation studentswere defined as those students whose parentsdid not have a university qualification. This cat-egory of students has to deal with a number ofproblems: these factors range from shying awayfrom challenges, the fear they will not be able tomeet expectations, and fears of inadequate per-formance. Household structure is defined as thepresence of one or more parents. With space,the focus point was to determine how crowdedthe space is where students reside and study.

From the findings it was clear that three outof five of the identified variables were the mainfactors affecting the academic success of firstyear Sociology students. These factors are homelanguage, type of high school and living/studyspace. The objectives of this paper were to testwhether the proposed factors mentioned are in-deed affecting their academic performance, tospecify any significant difference that existsbetween them and academic performance, orestablishing any existing relationship with aca-demic performance. Unfortunately, the restrict-ed nature of the study due to the small samplesize, the fact that the cross-sectional study wasconducted among a single cohort in a singleprogramme, and that only the first semestermarks were used, limits the generalisability ofthe findings quite severely. Further researchtaking a longitudinal focus and employing morethan one cohort, is therefore essential.

ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS 43

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several educational researchers emphasisethe importance of conducting longitudinal stud-ies in any kind of educational research. It couldbe added that this is especially important inSouth Africa, where political transition andchanges in educational policy are of fairly re-cent origin, in order to closely monitor areas ofconcern and success. Better use can be made ofexisting annual household surveys, by includ-ing questions on factors such as repeatedgrades, and age of schooling completion.

For university students, institutions of highereducation should be cognisant of the back-ground characteristics, as well as educationaland other needs of previously excluded stu-dents. This includes the pressing issue of “hun-gry students”, which is a fairly recently and ad-dressed phenomenon in some universities.

Research found that particularly, first yearstudents at two South African universities, hadunrealistic expectations and perceptions of ter-tiary study, as well as differences between theperceptions of lecturers and students regardingsuccess factors in study. These are the kinds ofstudies that should receive much more atten-tion. Even institutions that have student learn-ing support programmes in place may be plac-ing emphasis and funding onto less efficient ef-forts at improvement of educational outcomes.

A last word: in the whole process of educa-tional integration in South Africa, matters ofmaintaining cultural identity should be treatedwith great sensitivity.

REFERENCES

Amelink CT 2005. Predicting Academic SuccessAmong First-Year, First Generation Students. PhDDissertation, Unpublished. USA: Virginia Polytech-nic Institute and State University.

Anderson KG, Case A, Lam D 2001. Causes and conse-quences of schooling outcomes in South Africa: Ev-idence from survey data. Social Dynamics: A Jour-nal of African Studies, 27(1): 37-59.

Bacolod M, Tobias JL 2005. School Quality and Achieve-ment Growth: Evidence from Philippines. From< h t t p : / / w w w. s o c s c i . u c i . e d u / ~ m b a c o l o d /cedu_schlrank.pdf.> (Retrieved on 15 August 2011).

Barry T 2006. The Effect of Socio- economic Status onAcademic Achievement. PhD Thesis. Wichita: Wich-ita State University.

Bankston, CL, Caldas SJ 1998. Family structure,schoolmates, and racial inequalities in schoolachievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family,60(3): 715-723.

Bell J, McKay TM 2011. The rise of ‘class apartheid’in accessing secondary schools in Sandton, Gauteng.Southern African Review of Education, 17: 27-48.

Biblarz TJ, Gottainer G 2000. Family structure andchildren’s success: A comparison of widowed and di-vorced single-mother families. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 62: 533-548.

Clarkson LMC 2008. Demographic data and immi-grant student achievement. Theory into Practice,47: 20-26.

Crystal D 2003. English as a Global Language. 2nd

Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fiske EB, Ladd HF 2003. Balancing Public and Private

Resources for Basic Education School Fees in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Working Paper SeriesSAN03-03, USA: Sanford Institute of Public Policy.

Fiske EB, Ladd HF 2004. Elusive Equality: EducationReform in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Washing-ton DC: Brookings.

Fraser WF, Killen R 2003. Factors influencing academ-ic success or failure of first-year and senior universi-ty students: Do education students and lecturers per-ceive things differently? South African Journal ofEducation, 23(4): 254-260.

Fraser WF, Killen R 2005. The perceptions of studentsand lecturers of some factors influencing academicperformance at two South African Universities. Per-spectives in Education, 23(1): 25- 39.

Gillborn D 2001. Race equality and education policy.Education Review, 15(01): 21-26

Gray MJ, Vernez G, Rolph E 1996. Student access andthe “new” immigrants: Assessing their impact oninstitutions. Change, 41-47.

Guo G, Harris KM 2000. The mechanisms mediatingthe effects of poverty on children’s intellectual de-velopment. Demography, 37(4): 431-447.

Hagy AP, Staniec FO 2002. Immigrant status, race andinstitutional choice in Higher Education. Econom-ics of Education Review, 21: 381-392.

Heaton TB, Amoateng AY, Dufur M 2014. Race differ-ences in educational attainment of youth aged 7-18in post-apartheid South Africa: The role of familystructure, resources and school quality. SA Review ofSociology, 45(1): 101-121.

Hicks T 2003. First Generation and Non-First Genera-tion Pre-College Students’ Expectations and Per-ceptions about Attending College. Faculty WorkingPaper, School of Education Paper 10, USA: Fay-etteville State University.

Hossler D, Ziskin M, Moore III JV, Wakhungu PK 2008.The Role of Institutional Practices in College Stu-dent Persistence. November. Paper presented at the2008 Annual Forum of the Association for Institu-tional Research (AIR) in Seattle, WA.

Hossler D, Ziskin M, Gross JPK, Kim S, Cekik O 2009.Student aid and its role in encouraging persistence.In: JC Smart (Ed.): Higher Education: Handbook ofTheory and Research. New York: Springer.

Ishitani T 2003. A longitudinal approach to assessingattrition behaviour among first-generation students:Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics.Research in Higher Education, 44(4): 433-449.

Kiang P 1992. Issues in curriculum and community forfirst-generation Asian Americans in college. NewDirections for Community Colleges, 80: 97-112.

44 CECILIA VAN ZYL-SCHALEKAMP AND PATRICK MTHOMBENI

King JE 2002. Crucial Choices: How Students’ Finan-cial Decisions Affect their Academic Success. Amer-ican Council on Education: Washington DC. From< h t t p : / / w w w . a c e n e t . e d u . b o o k s t o r e / p d f /2002_crucial_choices.pdf.> (Retrieved on 15 Au-gust 2011).

Laiqa R, Shah RU, Khan SM 2011. Impact of qualityspace on students’ academic achievement. Interna-tional Journal of Academic Research, 3(2): 706-711.

Lawson BR 2001. The Language of Space. Boston:The Architectural Press.

Leibowitz B 2005. Learning in an additional languagein a multilingual society: A South African case studyon university-level writing. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4):661-681.

Lubienski ST, Lubienski C 2006. Charter, Private, Pub-lic Schools andAcademic Achievement: New Evi-dence from NAEP Mathematics Data. USA: Na-tional Centre for the Study of Privatisation in Edu-cation, Research Report.

Milne AM, Meyers DE,Rosentha, AS, Ginsburg, A 1986.Single parents,working mothers, and the education-al achievement of school children. American Socio-logical Association, 59(3): 125-139.

Montgomery T 2008. Space matters: Experiences ofmanaging static formal learning spaces. Active Learn-ing in Higher Education, 9(2): 122-138.

Mulkey LM, Crain RL, Harrington AJ 1992. One-par-ent households and achievement: Economic and be-

havioural explanations of a small effect. Sociologyof Education, 65: 48-65.

Orbe MP 2004. Negotiating multiple identities withinmultiple frames: An analysis of first-generation col-lege students. Communication Education, 53(2):131-149.

Pong SL, Dronkers J, Thompson GH 2003. Familypolicies and children’s school achievement in sin-gle- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriageand Family, 658: 681-699.

Snyders AR, McLaughlin DK, Findeis J 2006. House-hold composition and poverty among female-head-ed households with children: Differences by race andresidence. Rural Sociological Society, 71(4): 591-624.

Soudien C 2010. The reconstitution of privilege: Inte-gration in former white schools in South Africa. Jour-nal of Social Issues, 66(2): 352-366.

Strickland MJ, Shumow L 2008. Family matters: Ex-ploring the complexities of families of immigrantadolescents and achievement in four G8 countries.The Open Family Studies Journal, 1: 39-48.

Van der Berg S 2007. Apartheid’s enduring legacy: Ine-qualities in education. Journal of African Econo-mies, 16(5): 849-880.

Webb VN 2000. Constitutional Principles and Chal-lenges for Language Policy and Language Planningin Tertiary Education. Keynote Lecture at the Sem-inar on Language Policy at the Tertiary Level. Sep-tember. Potchefstroom University for Higher Edu-cation, Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa.