Improving student success outcomes such as persistence and graduation rates remains a priority for higher education institutions, scholars, and advocates. Recent scholarly work argues for more qualitative work in this area to develop a deeper understanding of the issue and to identify more effective ways to increase college completion rates across all populations. This study examines student success by focusing on an understudied population in the literature: overachievers. We define overachievers as students who matriculate in the lowest quartile of an institution’s standardized test score range but are selected and persist as honors students after their first collegiate semester. This phenomenological study highlights the prevalence of a strong internal locus of control among overachievers. Using Bean and Eaton’s student success model as a framework, we explore how our participants operationalized an internal locus of control to achieve academic success in college and consider how higher education institutions can promote this mind-set and its related practices among students on their campuses.
AdelmanC. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment.
Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
2.
AdelmanC. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college.
Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
3.
AstinA. W. (1977). Four critical years.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
4.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: McMillan.
5.
AstinA. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
6.
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
7.
BeanJ.EatonS. B. (2001).
The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention,
3(1), 73–89.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories (5th ed.).
New York, NY:
Pearson.
10.
BraxtonJ. M.LienL. A. (2000). The viability of academic integration as a central construct in Tinto’s interaction college student departure. In BraxtonJ. M. (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 11–28).
Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
11.
BraxtonJ. M.MilemJ. F.SullivanA. S. (2000).
The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education,
71(5), 569–590.
12.
BraxtonJ. M.SullivanA. V. S.JohnsonR. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (
Vol. 12, pp. 107–158).
New York, NY:
Agathon.
13.
CahalanM.PernaL. W. (2015). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States.
Washington, DC:
The Pell Institute and Penn AHEAD.
14.
ChoyS. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment.
Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
15.
ChrispeelsJ. H.RiveroE. (2001).
Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education,
76(2), 119–169.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 5 approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
17.
DuckworthA. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance.
New York, NY:
Scribner.
18.
DuckworthA.PetersonC.MatthewsM. D.KellyD. R. (2007).
Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(6), 1087–1101.
19.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.
New York, NY:
Random House.
20.
EpsteinD. (2019). Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world.
New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
21.
GiorgiA. (2006).
Concerning variations in the application of the phenomenological method. The Humanistic Psychologist,
34, 305–319.
22.
GorskiP. C. (2016).
Poverty and ideological imperative: A call to unhook from deficit and grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching,
42(4), 378–386.
23.
HarperS. R. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess student trajectories and college impact. In HarperS. R.MuseusS. D. (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in institutional assessment (pp. 55–68).
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
24.
High School Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). What we can learn from high school students.
Bloomington:
Indiana University.
25.
HoffmanK.LlagasC.SnyderT. (2003). Status and trends in the education of blacks (NCES 2003-04).
Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
JohnsonS. R.StageF. K. (2018).
Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates?The Journal of Higher Education,
89(5), 753–781.
27.
KenaG.Musu-GilletteL.RobinsonJ.WangX.RathbunA.ZhangJ.VelezE. D. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144).
Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
28.
KilgoC. A.Ezell SheetsJ. K.PascarellaE. (2015).
The link between high-impact practices and learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education,
69, 509–525.
29.
KuhG. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter.
Washington, DC:
American Association of Colleges and Universities.
30.
KuhG. D.KinzieJ.BuckleyJ.BridgesB.HayekJ. C. (2011).
Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report (Vol. 116). John Wiley & Sons.
31.
KuhG. D.KinzieJ.SchuhJ. H.WhittE. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
32.
KuhG. D.SchuhJ. H.WhittE. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
33.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE.
34.
Lumina Foundation. (2009). Lumina Foundation’s strategic plan: Goal 2025.
Indianapolis, IN:
Lumina Foundation for Education.
35.
Lumina Foundation. (2017). Lumina Foundation strategic plan for 2017 to 2020.
Indianapolis, IN:
Lumina Foundation for Education.
36.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
37.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement: 2005 annual survey results.
Bloomington:
Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington.
38.
NunezA.Cuccaro-AlaminS. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education.
Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
39.
ObamaB. (2009, February 24). Remarks of President Barack Obama address to joint session of congress.
Washington, DC:
Obama White House.
40.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research.
San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
42.
PikeG. R.SaupeJ. L. (2002).
Does high school matter? An analysis of three methods of predicting first year grade. Research in Higher Education,
43, 187–207.
43.
RennK. A.ReasonR. D. (2012). College students in the United States: Characteristics, experiences, and outcomes.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
44.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.).
London, England:
SAGE.
45.
ShapiroD.DundarA.HuieF.WakhunguP.YuanX.NathanA.HwangY. (2017, April). Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates by race and ethnicity—Fall 2010 cohort (Signature Report No. 12b).
Herndon, VA:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
46.
SwailW. S.CabreraA. F.LeeC.WilliamsA. (2005). Latino students and the educational pipelines: A three-part series. Part III: Pathways to the bachelor’s degree for Latino students.
Stafford, VA:
Education Policy Institute.
47.
TerenziniP. T.ReasonR. D. (2005). Parsing the first year of college: Rethinking the effects of college on students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
48.
TerenziniP. T.SpringerL.YaegerP. M.PascarellaE. T.NoraA. (1996).
First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education,
37(1), 1–22.
49.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integrity versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68, 80–91.
50.
TintoV. (1975).
Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research,
45, 89–125.
51.
TintoV. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
52.
Van ManenM. (2018). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.).
New York, NY:
Routledge.
53.
WarburtonE.BugarinR.NuñezA. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-153).
Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
