How to promote academic success among first-year students in higher education?

Van Rooij et al.’s (2018) review study shows that secondary-school GPA is the most consistent and universal predictor of performance in higher education. Recent studies from different higher education contexts confirm this picture (Abdelfattah et al., 2022; Landaud et al., 2024; Martín-Raugh et al., 2023; Meeter, 2023; Silva et al., 2022; Steenman & Kool, 2026; Willoughby et al., 2023).

Does this mean that students with lower secondary-school results are inevitably less successful? The answer is nuanced. According to the researchers, school results are strong predictors because they reflect not only cognitive ability, but also factors such as study skills, motivation and self-regulation. These results therefore provide an important indication, but not a fixed outcome. They can help you provide timely support to students who may need additional guidance.

Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic background are associated with differences in academic success, but explain only part of the variance (Van Rooij et al., 2018). These characteristics are particularly relevant because they may point to differences in access to resources, social support and study conditions. In other words, demographic characteristics can help us to understand differences in students’ experiences and potential barriers during the transition to higher education, without making claims about the success of individual students.

• Gender: On average, female students achieve better academic results and are less likely to drop out than male students. However, when factors such as motivation, self-regulation and prior education are taken into account, the effect of gender appears to be limited.
• Age: Among traditional first-year students, age is generally not a significant predictor of academic success.
• Socioeconomic status (SES): Students from higher-SES backgrounds perform better on average. Students from lower-SES backgrounds more often experience financial and practical barriers that may make studying more difficult. Self-regulation skills, effective learning strategies and motivation can partly compensate for these disadvantages.
• Ethnic background: Students from under-represented ethnic groups and students studying in a non-dominant language are, on average, at greater risk of delayed progression or dropping out. These differences are often related to broader factors such as SES, social capital and access to support.

A learning environment that takes diverse backgrounds into account, combined with support for motivation, self-regulation and study skills, can support students in their studies and promote academic success.

Van Rooij et al.’s (2018) review study shows that the level of education previously completed is positively associated with average academic results (GPA), the number of credits acquired (ECTS) and the extent to which students continue their studies.

The type of secondary-school programme students have followed also appears to be relevant. Students who have followed a science-oriented programme, as well as students who have completed a more extensive programme in subjects such as mathematics, Greek or Latin, more often achieve favourable results in terms of GPA, credits and persistence.

This shows that students enter higher education with varying levels of prior knowledge, skills and learning experiences. It is therefore important to gain insight into these differences and to adapt teaching accordingly where necessary.

In addition to cognitive skills, personality characteristics also influence academic success. Whereas cognitive skills indicate what a student ‘can’ achieve, personality influences how students actually approach their studies and realise their potential in practice (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004). Within the widely used Big Five model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1997), conscientiousness is one of the strongest predictors of academic success among first-year students.

Students who score highly on conscientiousness plan their studies carefully, work systematically towards their goals and persevere when they encounter difficulties. Students who score lower do not necessarily have fewer skills, but often experience greater difficulty with planning, organisation and sustaining study activities over a longer period.

A related concept is procrastination, or “the voluntary delay of an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007). Students who systematically postpone study activities are at greater risk of falling behind (Van Rooij et al., 2018).

By providing clear expectations, sufficient structure and interim monitoring, you can support students in developing effective study habits and reducing procrastination.

Students who study out of interest or curiosity, or because they attach personal value to their programme, are generally more engaged and make a more sustained effort in their studies. Their expectations about their chances of success, the value they attach to the programme and their intention to persist are also associated with academic success (Fokkens-Bruinsma et al., 2021; Van Rooij et al., 2018). In other words, a programme that aligns with students’ interests, expectations, abilities and career aspirations can strengthen their motivation. Experiencing competence, autonomy and relevance provides an important foundation for academic success.

Another important motivational factor is academic self-efficacy: students’ confidence in their ability to study successfully and complete academic tasks effectively (Bandura, 1997). Students with higher academic self-efficacy generally sustain their efforts more effectively and are more willing to take on challenges.

Research also shows that students who enter higher education with higher levels of academic self-efficacy, academic self-concept, motivation, positive study attitudes and time-management skills generally perform better at the end of their first year in higher education (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; De Clercq, Galand et al., 2021; Fonteyne et al., 2017; Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013; Richardson et al., 2012; Robbins et al., 2004; Van Rooij et al., 2018; Vermunt & Donche, 2017; Willems et al., 2019; Willems et al., 2021). These findings highlight the importance of a learning environment that supports motivation, confidence and self-regulation. A safe learning environment in which students can practise, make mistakes and work together can strengthen this confidence (self-efficacy) (Schepens et al., 2025).

The learning environment, and the way students experience it, also plays an important role in first-year students’ academic success (Van Rooij et al., 2018). During the transition to higher education, students encounter new expectations and greater responsibility for their own learning process. Clear learning outcomes, transparent assessment criteria, explicit communication about expectations and a manageable workload support students in planning, monitoring and evaluating their learning process. In other words, students are more likely to succeed when they clearly understand what is expected of them and know which learning activities and learning strategies are needed to achieve the intended learning outcomes.

Van Rooij et al. (2018) also report that a higher perceived workload is associated with a lower average academic result, whereas more contact hours are positively associated with both GPA and the number of credits acquired (ECTS). These findings suggest that it is not so much the size of the workload that determines academic success, but rather the extent to which students receive sufficient structure, guidance and learning opportunities to manage that workload. For first-year students, who are still becoming familiar with the expectations of higher education, regular contact time can therefore provide important support.

There also does not appear to be a single most effective teaching method for first-year students. Academic success seems to be associated instead with a considered combination of clear structure, active processing of the subject matter, frequent formative assessment and feedback. Regular feedback moments give students insight into their progress and the steps needed to continue developing.

The extent to which the learning environment is inclusive and supportive is also important. Learning environments that reduce avoidable barriers and identify and follow up on signs of difficulty at an early stage increase the likelihood that students will be able to participate successfully in education and continue their studies.

Psychosocial factors, such as social connectedness, academic integration and psychological well-being, play a role in first-year students’ academic success.

Social connectedness, or sense of belonging, refers to the feeling of being connected to the educational institution, fellow students and lecturers, and to the experience of being seen, accepted and valued (Strayhorn, 2019). This sense of belonging is positively associated with students’ well-being (Pittman & Richmond, 2008), academic performance (Binning et al., 2020; Marksteiner et al., 2019; Walton & Cohen, 2011) and continuing their studies after the first year (Binning et al., 2020; Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Thomas, 2012). Positive relationships with fellow students, support from students’ social environment and contact with lecturers and the academic community can also strengthen motivation, engagement and persistence, whereas a lack of connectedness can contribute to dropping out (Van Rooij et al., 2018; Fokkens-Bruinsma et al., 2021).

Psychological well-being is another important factor. Stress, uncertainty, emotional problems and limited resilience can undermine concentration, motivation and study behaviour, thereby affecting attendance, self-regulation and persistence (Van Rooij et al., 2018). Recent research by Granada-Granada et al. (2025) shows that academic stress is negatively associated with academic outcomes among first-year students.

A learning environment that promotes social connectedness and accessible support can therefore contribute to both the well-being and the academic integration and success of first-year students.

The learning strategies students use in their first year are associated with their academic success. A distinction is generally made between cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies.

Cognitive strategies concern the way students process subject matter. A deep learning strategy focuses on understanding the subject matter, processing information critically and making connections with existing knowledge or previous experiences. Surface learning strategies, by contrast, are primarily focused on reproducing information, for example through memorisation.

Metacognitive strategies include planning, monitoring and evaluating one’s own learning process (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Students who plan their study time purposefully, monitor deadlines and adjust their approach to studying in a timely manner are better able to organise their learning process independently. Effective time management in particular appears to be associated with better academic results in the first year (Fokkens-Bruinsma et al., 2021; Van Rooij et al., 2018).

Explicit support for developing metacognitive skills is therefore important in the first year of higher education. This involves gradually building students’ capacity for self-regulation and progressively giving them more responsibility for their own learning process (ECHO tip 2025). In other words, students need to develop the ability to consciously choose an appropriate learning strategy, monitor its effects and adjust their approach where necessary.

Behavioural student engagement refers to concrete study behaviour, such as regular attendance, active participation in educational activities, effort invested, time spent on study tasks and completing assignments on time (Van Rooij et al., 2018). Recent studies also confirm a positive association between attendance, engagement and academic performance. However, physical presence in itself does not automatically mean that students are actively participating in the learning process (Jaklová Dytrtová et al., 2026). It is therefore worthwhile designing contact sessions in an active way, for example by asking students to apply, practise, discuss and process subject matter.

Although attendance is associated with academic success, observational research alone does not allow us to conclude that compulsory attendance directly increases students’ chances of passing. The emphasis therefore need not lie exclusively on attending classes, but primarily on creating a learning environment in which attendance leads to active and meaningful engagement with the learning process.