Figure 1
A Conceptual Framework Linking Support Services and Motivational Pathways to Students’ Adjustment and Learning Outcomes.
Table 1
Learners’ Demographics.
| ITEMS | CATEGORY | FREQUENCY (N) | PERCENTAGE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programme of study | Education | 699 | 85.5 |
| Business | 119 | 14.5 | |
| Gender | Male | 323 | 39.5 |
| Female | 495 | 60.5 | |
| Age (Years) | Below 21 | 19 | 2.3 |
| 21–25 | 470 | 57.5 | |
| 26–30 | 183 | 22.4 | |
| 31–35 | 90 | 11.0 | |
| Above 35 | 56 | 6.8 | |
| Marital Status | Married | 177 | 21.6 |
| Single | 641 | 78.4 |
[i] Source: Field Data.
Figure 2
Means and Percentages of Support Services.
Figure 3
Measurement Model.
Table 2
Reflective indicator loadings and internal consistency.
| ITEMS | INDICATOR LOADINGS | CRONBACH’S ALPHA | COMPOSITE RELIABILITY (RHO_A) | COMPOSITE RELIABILITY (RHO_C) | AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED (AVE) | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support Services | Academic Service | 0.688 | 0.654 | 0.718 | 0.734 | 0.402 | 1.177 |
| Administrative Service | 0.847 | 1.195 | |||||
| Counseling Service | 0.489 | 1.084 | |||||
| Technical Service | 0.420 | 1.149 | |||||
| Academic Adjustment | AJ1 | 0.582 | 0.636 | 0.648 | 0.786 | 0.481 | 1.152 |
| AJ2 | 0.702 | 1.315 | |||||
| AJ3 | 0.776 | 1.408 | |||||
| AJ4 | 0.702 | 1.228 | |||||
| Motivational Pathway | Relatedness with Peers/Tutors | 0.867 | 0.705 | 0.750 | 0.833 | 0.626 | 1.451 |
| Students’ Autonomy | 0.761 | 1.362 | |||||
| Students’ Competence | 0.739 | 1.339 | |||||
| Learning Outcomes | Academic Achievement | 0.792 | 0.683 | 0.708 | 0.825 | 0.703 | 1.204 |
| Academic Engagement | 0.882 | 1.204 |
[i] Source: Field Study.
Table 3
HTMT Values.
| LEARNING OUTCOMES | LEARNERS’ ADJUSTMENT | MOTIVATIONAL PATHWAY | SUPPORT SERVICES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learners’ Adjustment | 0 | |||
| Learners’ Outcomes | 0.571 | 0 | ||
| Motivational Pathways | 0.732 | 0.605 | 0 | |
| Support Services | 0.093 | 0.104 | 0.171 | 0 |
[i] Source: Field Data.
Table 4
Path Coefficient.
| HYPOTHESIS | PATHS | BETA (β) | MEAN (M) | STD. DEVIATION | T STATISTICS | BOOT95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | ||||||
| H01 | SS -> L. Adj | –0.049 | –0.046 | 0.034 | 1.441 | –0.111 | 0.022 |
| H02 | SS -> Rel. | 0.089 | 0.098 | 0.039 | 2.284 | 0.021 | 0.172 |
| H03 | SS -> Comp. | 0.108 | 0.116 | 0.046 | 2.358 | 0.018 | 0.197 |
| H04 | SS -> Aut. | 0.110 | 0.117 | 0.040 | 2.777 | 0.037 | 0.190 |
| H05 | Rel. -> L. Adj | 0.269 | 0.271 | 0.045 | 0.269 | 0.185 | 0.362 |
| H06 | Comp-> L. Adj | 0.233 | 0.230 | 0.040 | 5.787 | 0.151 | 0.307 |
| H07 | Aut. -> L. Adj | 0.151 | 0.158 | 0.039 | 3.897 | 0.083 | 0.235 |
| H08 | L. Adj -> LO | 0.352 | 0.355 | 0.035 | 9.948 | 0.283 | 0.422 |
| Indirect Effect | |||||||
| H09 | SS -> Rel -> L. Adj | 0.024 | 0.027 | 0.012 | 2.054 | 0.005 | 0.050 |
| H010 | SS -> Aut -> L. Adj | 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.008 | 2.106 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| H011 | SS -> Comp -> L. Adj | 0.024 | 0.027 | 0.011 | 2.191 | 0.004 | 0.049 |
| Total Effect | |||||||
| SS -> L. Adj | 0.016 | 0.026 | 0.038 | 0.434 | –0.052 | 0.095 | |
[i] Note: SS-Support Services, Rel-Relatedness, Comp-Competence, Aut-Autonomy L. Adj-Learners’ Adjustment, LO-Learning Outcomes.
Figure 4
Structural Model.
Table 5
Coefficient of Determination (R2).
| CONSTRUCT | R2 | ADJUSTED R2 |
|---|---|---|
| Learners’ Adjustment | 0.276 | 0.273 |
| Learning Outcomes | 0.124 | 0.123 |
| Relatedness with Peers/Tutors | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Students’ Autonomy | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Students’ Competence | 0.012 | 0.010 |
[i] Source: Field Data.
Table 6
Predictive Relevance.
| Q2PREDICT | RMSE | MAE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learners’ Adjustment | –0,004 | 1,005 | 0,752 |
| Learning Outcomes | 0,004 | 1,002 | 0,792 |
| Relatedness with Peers/Tutors | 0,003 | 1,060 | 0,781 |
| Students’ Autonomy | 0,006 | 1,056 | 0,796 |
| Students’ Competence | 0,006 | 1,000 | 0,764 |
[i] Source: Field Data.
Figure 5
Importance Performance Map Analysis.