Management Science and Engineering ISSN 1913-0341 Vol.3 No.

4 2009
Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures 12/20/2009
Http://www.cscanada.org Http://www.cscanada.net
E-mail: cscanada.mse@gmail.com; caooc@hotmail.com

The Factors Influencing Students’ Performance at

Norhidayah Ali1
Kamaruzaman Jusoff (Corresponding Author)2
Syukriah Ali3
Najah Mokhtar4
Azni Syafena Andin Salamat5

Abstract: Many studies are carried out to explore factors affecting students’
performance (academic achievement). The purpose of this research is to identify and
examine factors that affect students’ performance at UiTM Kedah. A set of
questionnaires was distributed to the respective respondents. Several factors that
being discussed in this research are demographic, active learning, students’
attendance, involvement in extracurricular activities, peer influence and course
assessment. The data is analyzed using descriptive analysis, factor analysis, reliability
testing and Pearson correlation of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
After conducting factor analysis, all variables are grouped into five factors which
exclude peer influence. The researchers found that four factors are positively related
to students’ performance that are demographic, active learning, students’ attendance
and involvement in extracurricular activities. However, course assessment was found
to be negatively related to students’ performance. Further research on students’
performance can be conducted on a larger scale including all UiTM to obtain better
result.
1
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Peti Surat 187, 08400 Merbok,Kedah
Darul Aman, Malaysia. Fax: +604-4562234.
E-mail: norhidayah@kedah.uitm.edu.my /norhidayah74@yahoo.com
2
Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Fax: +603-89432514.
E-mails: kjusoff@yahoo.com/ kamaruz@putra.upm.edu.my
3
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Peti Surat 187, 08400 Merbok,Kedah
Darul Aman, Malaysia. Fax: +604-4562234.
E-mail:syukriah@kedah.uitm.edu.my/ syukriah_ali@yahoo.com
4
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Peti Surat 187, 08400 Merbok,Kedah
Darul Aman, Malaysia. Fax:+604-4562234.
E-mails: najah@kedah.uitm.edu.my/m_najah@hotmail.com
5
Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Peti Surat 187, 08400
Merbok, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia. Fax: +604-4562234 .
E-mail: azni_syafena@kedah.uitm.edu.my/ azni_syafena@yahoo.com
* Received 14 October 2009; accepted 28 November 2009

81
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
Key words: student performance; active learning; attendance; extracurricular
activities; peer influence; assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

There are a large number of higher learning institutions in Malaysia that are governed by and under
supervision of Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia. As to date, Malaysia has 20 public
universities (http://www.mohe.gov.my) and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) is the largest
university in Malaysia, with a student population of over 100,000 and branch campuses in 14 states
throughout the country (http://www2.uitm.edu.my/).
Students are main assets of universities. The students’ performance (academic achievement) plays an
important role in producing the best quality graduates who will become great leader and manpower for
the country thus responsible for the countries economic and social development. The performance of
students in universities should be a concern not only to the administrators and educators, but also to
corporations in the labour market. Academic achievement is one of the main factors considered by the
employer in recruiting workers especially the fresh graduates. Thus, students have to place the greatest
effort in their study to obtain a good grade in order to fulfill the employer’s demand. Students’ academic
achievement is measured by the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). CGPA shows the overall
students’ academic performance where it considers the average of all examinations’ grade for all
semesters during the tenure in university. Many factors could act as barrier and catalyst to students
achieving a high CGPA that reflects their overall academic performance.
There are several ways to determine student academic performance which are cumulative grade point
average (CGPA), grade point average (GPA), tests and others. In Malaysia, researchers evaluate the
student academic performance based on CGPA (Ervina and Othman, 2005; Manan and Mohamad, 2003
and Agus and Makhbul, 2002). In addition, a study in the United States by Nonis and Wright (2003) also
evaluate student performance based on CGPA.
Most of the researches done in other countries used GPA as a measurement of academic performance
(Galiher 2006; Darling 2005; Broh, 2002; Stephens and Schaben 2002 and Amy 2000). They used GPA
because they are studying the student performance for that particular semester. Some other researcher
used test results since they are studying performance for the specific subject (Syed Tahir Hijazi and
S.M.M Raza Naqvi, 2006; Hake, 1998 and Tho, 1994).

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Many studies have been developed concerning the factors influence students performance such as
demographic, active learning, student attendance, extracurricular activities, peers influence and course
assessment. Studies have shown that demographic characteristics can influence academic excellence.
Among these characteristics are parents’ income, parent’s education and English result in Sijil Pelajaran
Malaysia (SPM).
Nasri and Ahmed (2007) in their study on business students’ (national students and non-national
students) in United Arab Emirates indicate that non-national students had higher grade point average
were more competent in English, which is reflected in higher average for high school English. Ervina
and Md Nor (2005) had discovered that not every subject taken by the students before entering the
university has a positive relationship with their final CGPA in the degree programme. In SPM level, five
subjects that are found to have positive relationships with the students final CGPA are English, Modern
Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, Physics and Principle of Accounts.

82
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
An investigation conducted by Agus and Makhbul (2002) indicated that students from families of
higher income levels perform better in their academic assessment (CGPA) as compared to those who
come from families of lower income brackets. Their studies found that most of students came from
families in the income bracket of between RM1,000 to RM4,000. Checchi (2000) also concluded family
income provides an incentive for better student performance; richer parents internalize this affect by
investing more resources in the education of their children. Once the investment is undertaken, the
student fulfill parents’ expectations by perform better in their studies. Based on the research done by him,
he demonstrated that children from richer families perform better than those from poorer families. On
the other hand, Syed Tahir Hijazi and S.M.M Raza Naqvi (2006) found that there is negative relationship
between student performance and student family income. Research done by Beblo and Lauer (2004) also
found that parents’ income and their labour market status have a weak impact on children’s education.
According to Ermisch and Francesconi (2001), there is significant gradient between each parent’s
education level and their child’s educational attainment. Relative to a parent with no qualifications,
mother’s education has a stronger association with her child’s educational attainments than the education
of the father. This result is supported by Agus and Makhbul (2002). They indicate that the level of
education of mother has been found to exert the strongest influence on academic achievement as
compared to level of education of father.
Active learning has received notably attention over the past several years. In the context of the
college classroom, active learning involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they
are doing (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Active learning involves the students to solve problems, answer
questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during class
(www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Cooperative_Learning.hml). Bonwell & Eison
(1991) concluded that active learning leads to better student attitudes and improvements in students’
thinking and writing. A study by Wilke (2003) also indicated students in both the treatment and control
groups demonstrated a positive attitude toward active learning, believed it helped (or would help)
students to learn the material. Felder et. al. (2000) recommended that active learning is one of the
teaching methods that work. Felder and Brent (2003), mentioned that as little as five minutes of that sort
of thing (active learning) in a 50-minute class session can produce a major boost in learning. According
to them, it (active learning) wakes students up: students who successfully complete a task own the
knowledge in a way they never would from just watching a lecturer do it. However, DeLong’s (2008)
study did not support the hypothesis that active learning based teaching methods will affect positive
change on student performance as measured by course final grade and non-intellectual learning factors
as measured by the TRAC-R (Test of Reactions and Adaptations to College-Revised), an overall
measure of college adjustment. He found that factors such as professor-student rapport and professor
understanding of non-intellectual factors may have influenced the current results.
Many researchers recognized that class attendance is an important aspect in improving student’s
performance. A study conducted by Collett et. al., 2007; Stanca, 2006; Chow, 2003; Rodgers, 2001;
Durden and Ellis, 1995; Romer 1993, found that attendance have small, but statistically significant,
effect on student performance. Marburger (2001) concluded that students who missed class on a given
date were significantly more likely to respond incorrectly to questions relating to material covered that
day than were students who were present. Moore (2006) indicated that class attendance enhances
learning; on average, students who came to the most classes made the highest grades, despite the fact that
they received no points for coming to class. Arulampalam et. al. (2007) found that there is a causal effect
of absence on performance for students: missing class leads to poorer performance. On the other hand,
Martins and Walker (2006) mentioned that there are no significant effects from class attendance. This is
also supported by Park and Kerr (1990) and Schmidt (1993) who found an inverse relationship between
students’ attendance and their course grades.
Many extracurricular activities have proven to be beneficial in building and strengthening academic
achievement, even if the activities are not obviously related to academic subjects (Marsh & Kleitman,
2002; Guest and Schneider, 2003 and Lauren Sparkes, 2004). One study on adolescents and
extracurricular activities found that adolescents who participated in extracurricular activities reported
higher grades, more positive attitudes toward school, and higher academic aspirations (Darling,

83
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
Caldwell and Smith, 2005). Total extracurricular activity participation (TEAP), or participation in
extracurricular activities in general, is associated with an improved grade point average, higher
educational aspirations, increased college attendance, and reduced absenteeism (Broh, 2002). There are
so many positive aspects on students can be seen from their involvement in extracurricular activities.
Advocates of extracurricular activities (Fretwell, 1931; Fozzard, 1967; Miller, Moyer & Patrick, 1956;
Sybouts & Krepel, 1984) claim that this informal aspect of education has a good deal to contribute to
developing good citizens, enabling pupils to communicate adequately, preparing them for economic
independence, developing healthy minds in healthy bodies, preparing them for family life, directing their
use of leisure time, developing a set of moral and ethical values, developing social competency,
discovering special interest and capacities and developing creative expression. Extracurricular
participation was positively associated with the success indicators like consistent attendance, academic
achievement, and aspirations for continuing education among public high school seniors in 1992 (NCES
Education Policy Issues, June 1995).
Darling et al (2005) conducted a longitudinal study concerning extracurricular activities and their
results showed that the students who participated in school-based extracurricular activities had higher
grades, higher academic aspirations, and better academic attitudes. Students involved in athletics are said
to build character, instill a respect for the rules, encourage team-work and sportsmanship, promote
healthy competition and perseverance, and provide a sense of achievement. (Smoll and Smith, 2002).
Organized sports also provide an opportunity for initiative, emotional regulation, goal setting,
persistence, problem solving and time management (Larson, Hansen and Moneta. 2006), which may
help to explain association found between sports participation and academic achievement (Mahoney and
Cairns, 1997 ; Marsh and Kleitman, 2002). Although researchers agree that extracurricular activities do,
in fact, influence academic performance, Borde (1998) shows that engagements in extracurricular
activities are unrelated to students’ performance. One study, conducted by the National Educational
Longitudinal Study, found that “participation in some activities improves achievement, while
participation in others diminishes achievement” (Broh, 2002). This is supported by Kimiko (2005), who
found that participation in athletics, television viewing and community service has a positive effect on
academic performance while participation in musical performance does not improve academic
performance. Involvement in sport activities also have been proven adversely affecting students
performance. Cited in Shernoff and Vandell (2007), some findings on sports participation and its
relationship to development and emotional adjustment have been negative or mixed. Sports have been
linked to developmental hazards such as delayed identity development (Larson and Kleiber, 1993),
increased level of school deviance (Lamborn et. al. 1992), higher rate of alcohol consumption (Eccles
and Barber, 1999), competition anxiety and self-centeredness (Smoll and Smith, 2002) and bodily injury
(Dane et. al. 2004).
Various studies had been done and found that peers influence does have impact on student
performance (Hanushek et. al, 2002; Goethals, 2001; Gonzales et. al., 1996; shown that peer influence
has more powerful effects than immediate family. Peer support was positively related to students’
cumulative grade point average. Wilkinson and Fung, (2002) concluded that; by grouping students in
heterogeneous learning ability (low ability students grouped with high ability students) will show an
improvement in learning process and outcomes. Top students can positively affect less able students.
Schindler (2003) who found that mixing abilities will affect weak students positively however the effect
for good students is negative. This is contradicting with Goethals (2001) who found that students in
homogeneous group (regardless of high ability or low ability) perform better than students in
heterogeneous group. Giuliodori, Lujan and DiCarlo (2006), covered that with peer interaction, students
could increase their ability on solving qualitative problem-solving questions. Peer instruction will also
promotes student’s participation and improve student’s performance. (Rao and Di Carlo 2000), Torke,
Abraham & Upadhya (2007).

3. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

84
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
In this section, the results and interpretation of information collected are presented. The data analysis is
divided into two sections, which are:-
Section 1- Analysis on respondents’ profiles and demographic variables. There are gender, age,
English result in SPM, parent’s income, father’s education and mother’s education level.
Section 2- Analysis on relationship of students’ performance and active learning, involvement in
extracurricular activities, peer influence and course assessment.
The questionnaires were distributed at random to the diploma students from Part II to Part VI
(Semester July – November 2008). Of the 500 questionnaires, 418 questionnaires are completed while
82 questionnaires were rejected. Of the 418 respondents, 62.2% are female and 37.8% are male.
Respondents are categorized to four groups. The result shows that 64.8% students age between 20 – 21
years old; 28.5% age between 18-19 years old; 6% age between 22-23 years old while only 0.7% are 24
years and above.
English grade in SPM level is categorized into eights grades. There are A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7
and E8. Result shows that 23.4% scored C5 in English grade in SPM level; 20.6% scored B3; 18.7%
scored B4; 12.2% scored C6; 11.5% scored A2; 9.6% scored A1; 3.8% scored D7 and 2% student scored
E8.
It was found that 42.8% of the students’ monthly parents’ income was below RM1000; 29.9% of it
was RM1000-RM2500; 12.4% was between RM2501 – RM4000; 8.9% of it was between
RM4001-RM5500 and only 6% was above RM5500.
We had found that 11.2% of the students’ fathers’ highest educational level was at primary level; 61%
at secondary level ( STPM, SPM and SRP holder); while 27.8% was at tertiary level (diploma, degree
and above and other certificates)
For mothers’ highest educational level 12% was at primary level; 68.7% at secondary level ( STPM,
SPM and SRP holder); while 19.3% was at tertiary level (diploma, degree and above and other
certificates)
Pearson Correlation Coefficient: Hypothesis Testing
There are five hypotheses that are being tested:
H1: There is relationship between demographic variables and students’ performance
H2: There is relationship between active learning and students’ performance
H3: There is relationship between student attendance and students’ performance.
H4: There is relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and students’
performance.
H5: There is relationship between course assessment and students’ performance
The table below is a summary of our hypothesis testing which indicates the relations of student
performance and the five independent variables.
Summary of Pearson Correlation

Hypothesis Variables Pearson Correlation Relationship

85
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
As per relationship between the independent variables, based on Pearson Correlation, the values of
relation between independent variables in our study are less than 0.7 indicating that correlations between
each of independent variables are not too high. Active learning and student attendance were significant
at 0.01 and 0.05 level respectively.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study is conducted to identify factors influencing performance of students at Diploma level in
UiTM Kedah. The researchers found that there are five factors influencing students performance that are
demographic, student attendance, active learning, involvement in extracurricular activities and course
assessment. The relationship of independent variables with dependent variables was also examined. The
CGPA is used as measurement for student performance. Of all factors, four factors found to be positively
related with students CGPA that are demographic, student attendance, active learning and involvement
in extracurricular activities whereas course assessment has shown a negative relationship. The findings
of the study were summarized and discussed in the following paragraphs.
The results indicate that demographic variables are observed to have the positive correlation with the
CGPA; that is 0.094. It means that those students whose parents are highly educated and have high
income have greater CGPA. This finding is supported by Checchi (2000) in his study on university
education in Italy. Checchi concluded that richer parents invest more resources in the education of their
children. Agus and Makhbul (2002) found that students from families of higher income levels perform
better in their academic assessment (CGPA) as compared to those who come from families of lower
income.
The results show that students who are actively engage in the learning process are observed to have a
positive correlation with the CGPA; that is 0.139, significant at 0.01 level. It means that students who are
actively engage in the learning process have greater CGPA. This finding is also supported by several
researchers such as Felder and Brent (2003), Wilke (2002), Laws et. al. (1999), Hake (1998) and
Bonwell & Eison (1991).
The researchers found that students who attend classes regularly obtained greater CGPA compared to
those who absent from class. This is proved by the result that student’s attendance has positive
relationship with CGPA; that is 0.108, significant at 0.05 level. Previous researches by Stanca (2006),
Rodger (2001), Marburger (2001), Romer (1993), Durden and Ellis (1995) also concluded with the same
finding.
The researchers found that students who were actively engage in extracurricular activities obtained
greater CGPA. This is proved by the result that involvement in extracurricular activities has positive
relationship with CGPA; that is 0.07. Even though the correlations of involvement in extracurricular
activities with academic performance have not been found to be statistically significant, there is strong
evidence showing that positive relationship does exist between the two variables; as in previous
researches by Galiher (2006), Kimiko (2005), Lauren Sparkes (2004), Marsh & Kleitman, (2002).
The researchers discovered that course assessment has negative relationships with the students’
CGPA; that is -0.027. This result is contradicted with the previous researchers such as Hanna (1993),
Blair (2000) and Rohm, Sparzo, & Bennett (1986), Dempster (1991) and Cotton (2001). This means that
the respondents of our study perceived that frequent course assessment do not help them to improve the
CGPA, the more frequent course assessment the lower the students’ CGPA.
Based on the findings and the discussion of this study, researchers have come out with several
recommendations in order to overcome the limitations and obtain a better result for further research.
These recommendations would also be useful to the administrators and lecturers. This research has been
done based on students from UiTM Kedah only. Generalization of the results to other universities should
be viewed with some caution. For future research, researchers suggest that the research should be

86
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
extended to all UiTM students for better generalization of factors affecting students’ performance.
Studies in the whole UiTM or other Malaysians’ universities could also examine other factors such as
student effort and personality.
The researchers suggest that an “actual test” should be conducted so that the finding is not only based
on students’ perception but on real situation. For example, to see the relationship between student’s
attendance and performance, researcher should select sample size from students who have full
attendance and students with most absence and make comparison of their CGPA. The same observation
can be done on other factors as well.
This study provides some information regarding the issue of students’ involvement in extracurricular
activities and whether it benefit or hinder the academic performance of students. Further investigations
can be done on different extracurricular activities such as uniform bodies, sports, art and drama since
each activity may have different impact on students’ achievement. Active learning, students’ attendance
and involvement in extracurricular activities were found positively contributed to student’s performance
thus researchers suggest few actions to be taken by lecturers and administrators to help the improvement
of students’ CGPA. Lecturers are advised to improve their teaching method and encourage students to be
actively participating in class so that learning will be more effective. Students with high absenteeism rate
should be monitored and necessary actions should be taken against them to prevent any problems that
will detriment their CGPA. Lecturers and administrators should always remind the students that
extracurricular activities will indirectly contributed to their academic performance for instance through
developing healthy minds in healthy bodies, developing a set of moral and ethical values, developing
social competency and consistent attendance.

REFERENCES

Agus, A and Makhbul, Z.K. (2002). An empirical study on academic achievement of business students in
pursuing higher education: An emphasis on the influence of family backgrounds. Paper presented
at International Conference on the Challenges of Learning and Teaching in a Brave New World:
Issues and Opportunities in Borderless Education. Hatyai Thailand
Amy, S. (2000). Predictors of college adjustment and success: Similarities and differences among
Southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic and White students. Education Vol 120. No 4.
Anderson, G., Benjamin, D., and Fuss, M. (1994). The determinants of success in university Introductory
Economics Courses. The Journal of Economic Education. Vol. 25, 99-120.
Arulampalam, Wiji, Naylor, Robin A., & Smith, Jeremy. (2007). Am I missing something? The effects of
absence from class on student performance.
Beblo, M and Lauer, C. (2004). Do family resources matter? Educational attainment during t Bonwell, C.
C. and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No.1, George Washington University, Washington DC.
Borde, S.F. (1998), Predictors of student academic performance in the Introductory Marketing course.
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 73. No. 5.
Broh, B. A. (2002, January). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who
benefits and why? [Electronic version]. Sociology of Education. v. 75.
Checchi, D. (2000).University education in Italy. International Journal of Manpower, Vol 21 No ¾, pp.
177-205.

87
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
Chow, Henry P. (2003). Exploring the predictors of educational experience and academic performance
among university students in Regina. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. Edmonton: Spring
2003. Vol. 49, Issue. 1
Coakes, Sheridan J. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 12 for Windows. John Wiley &
Sons Australia, Ltd.
Collett Peter , Gyles,Nikole ,and Hrasky, Sue (2007). Optional formative assessment and class
attendance: Their impact on student performance. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education.
Smithfield: 2007. Vol. 4
Dane, S., Can, S., Gursoy, R & Ezirmic, N. (2004). Sport injuries: Relation to sex, sport, injured body
region. Perceptual and Motor Skills. v. 98.
Darling, N., Caldwell, L. L., & Smith, R. (2005). Participation in school-based extracurricular activities
and adolescent adjustment. [Electronic version]. Journal of Leisure Research. v.37.
DeLong, Danielle R. (2008). The effect of active learning exercises on academic performance and
nonintellectual learning factors. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. A dissertation submitted to the
school of graduate studies and research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Psychology.
Durden, G. C., and L. V. Ellis. 1995. The effects of attendance on student learning in principles of
economics. American Economic Review 85 (2): 343–46.
Eccles, J. S. & Barber, B.L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What
kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research. V.14(1).
Ermisch, J and Francesconi, M (2001). Family matter: Impacts of family background on educational
attainment. Economica Vol. 68. pp. 137-156
Ervina Alfan and Md Nor Othman. (2005). Undergraduate students’ performance: The case of
University Malaya. Quality Assurance in Education. Vol. 13 No 4. pp. 329-343.
Felder, R.M, Woods, D.R., Stice J.E. and Rugarcia A. (2000). The future of Engineering Education II.
Teaching methods that work.
Felder, Richard M. and Brent, Rebecca. (2003) . Learning by doing. Chemical Engineering Education,
37(4).
Fozzard, P.R. (1967). Out-of-class activities and civic education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Fretwell, E.K. (1931). Extracurricular activities in secondary schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Galiher, Sean (2006). Understanding the effect of extracurricular involvement. A Research Project
Report Presented to the School of Education Indiana University South Bend In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Education.
Giuliodori M.J., Lujan H.L. & DiCarlo S.E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on
qualitative problem-solving questions. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 168-173.
Goethals G. R. (2001). Peer effects, gender, and intellectual performance among students at a highly
selective college: A social comparison of abilities analysis. Williams Project on the Economics of
Higher Education. DP-61, 1-20.
Gonzales, N.A., Cauce A.M., Friedman R.J., & Mason C.A. (1996). Family, peer, and neighborhood
influences on academic achievement among African-American adolescents: One-year
prospective effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(3), 365-387.

88
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
Guest, Andrew and Schneider, Barbara. (2003). Adolescents' extracurricular participation in context:
The mediating effects of school, communities and identities. Sociology of Education, 76, 2.
Hake, R. (1998) Interactive-engagement vs. traditional engagement “A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for Introductory Physics courses. American Journal of Physics. v.66 no.1.
Hanushek E.A, Kain J.F., Markman J.M. & Rivkin S.G. (2002). Does peer ability affect student
achievement? Revised Publication Version Journal of Applied Econometrics.
Isa, M. Md., The, H.Y and Yeoh, K.K. (1992). An evaluation of the performance of economics students:
The Case of University Malaya. Paper presented at national Seminar on Revising Economic
Programmes in Universities, 12-13 October.
Kimiko Fujita. (2005). The effects of extracurricular activities on the academic performance of junior
high schools. The Master’s College.
Lamborn, S. D., Brown B.B., Mounts, N.S & Steiberg, L. (1992). Putting school in perspective; The
influence of family, peers, extracurricular participations, and part-time work on academic
engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Larson, R. W. & Hansen, D.M & Moneta, G (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences
across types of organized youth activities. Development Psychology. v42.
Larson, R. W. & Kleiber, D. (1993). Daily experience of adolescents. In P.H. Tolan & B. J. Cohler (Eds.).
Handbook of clinical research and practice with adolescents New York; Wiley.
Lauren Sparkes. (2004). Academic achievement and academic motivation and its relationship to
extra-curricular activities and parental involvement in high school students. San Anselm College.
Manan, S.K. & Mohamad, R. (2003). Kajian mengenai pencapaian akademik pelajar-pelajar di UiTM
Shah Alam: Satu analisa perbandingan antara jantina. Social and Management Research Journal.
Vol 1. No 1.
Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the development
of antisocial patterns. Child development. v.71.
Mahoney, J. L. & Cairns, R.B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout?
Developmental Psychology. v.33.
Marburger, D. R. 2001. Absenteeism and undergraduate exam performance. Journal of Economic
Education 32 (Spring): 99–110.
Marburger, Daniel R. 2001. Absenteeism and undergraduate exam performance. Journal of Economic
Education. Washington. Vol.. 32, Iss. 2.
Marsh, H. W. & Kleitman, S. (2002). Extracurricular school activities. The good, the bad, and the
nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review v.72.
Martins, Pedro and Walker, Ian. Student achievement and university classes: Effects of attendance, size,
peers and teachers. Institute for the Study of Labor. December 2006. pp 1-26.
Miller, E.G., Moyer L.F. & Patrick M.N. (1956). Planning student activities. Englewood: Prentice-Hall.
Moore, Randy (2006). Class attendance: How students' attitudes about attendance relate to their
academic performance in introductory science classes. Research & Teaching in Developmental
Education. Canandaigua: Fall 2006. Vol. 23, Iss. 1.

89
 Norhidayah Ali, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Syukriah Ali, Najah Mokhtar & Azni Syafena
Andin Salamat /Management Science and Engineering Vol.3 No.4 2009 81-90
Nasri and Ahmed. (2007). Factors affecting business students’ performance: The case of students in
United Arab Emirates. Journal of Education for Business.
NCES Education Policy Issues. (June 1995). Extracurricular participation and student engagement.
Nonis, S.A. and Wright, D. (2003). Moderating effects of achievement striving and situational optimism
on the relationship between ability and performance outcomes of college students research in higher
education. Research in Higher Education. Volume 44, Number 3. pp. 327-346(20).
Park, K. H., and P. M. Kerr. (1990). Determinants of academic performance: A Multinomial Logit
Approach. Journal of Economic Education 21 (Spring): 101–11.
Rao SP and DiCarlo SE. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in
Physiology Education, 24(1), 51-55.
Rodgers, J. R. A panel-data study of the effect of student attendance on university performance. J Rohm,
R.A., Sparzo, F.J., & Bennet, C.M. (1986). College student performance under repeated testing and
cumulative conditions: Report on five studies. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 99-104.
Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic Perspectives 7: 167–174.
Schindler. B.R (2003). Educational peer effects quantile regression evidence from Denmark with
PISA2000 data. Paper presented at EALE2003 Conference.
Schmidt, Robert M. (1983). Who maximized what? A study in student time allocation. American
Economic Review. v.73 no. 2.
Sekaran, Uma (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 4th Edition. John
Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Shernoff D. J. and Vandell D.L. (2007). Engagement in after school program activities: quality of
experience from the perspective of participants.
Smoll, F. L. & Smith R.E. (Eds.) (2002). Children and youth in sport: A biopsychological perspective.
Dubuque. IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Stanca, Luca. (2006). The effects of attendance on academic performance: Panel data evidence for
Introductory Microeconomics. Journal of Economic Education, Heldref Publications.
Stephen,s Larry J. and Schaben, Laura A. (2002). The Effect of interscholastic sports participation on
academic achievement of middle level school students. NASSP Bulletin 86 34-41.
Sybouts, W. & Krepel, W.J. (1984). Student activities in the secondary schools. Westport: Greenwood.
Syed Tahir Hijazi and S.M.M. Raza Naqvi. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance. A case of
private colleges, Bangladesh. e- Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3. No.1.
Tho. (1994). Some evidence on the determinants of student performance in the University of Malaya
Introductory Accounting course. Accounting Education. Vol. 3 No.4, pp.331-40.
Wilke, R. Russell. (2003). The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a Human Physiology
course for nonmajors. Advances in Physiology Education v.27 (4)
Wilkinson, I.A.G. (2002). Introduction: Peer influences on learning: Where are they? International
Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 395-401.
http://www.kedah.uitm.edu.my/
www.mohe.gov.my
http://www2.uitm.edu.my/
www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Cooperative_Learning.html#PublicatIions-Active

90