Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 18;3(2):26. doi: 10.1007/s43545-023-00614-w

Socio-economic factors affecting the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional bivariate and multivariate analysis

Sumaia Rahman 1, Al Muktadir Munam 1, Ahammad Hossain 1,✉, A S M Delwar Hossain 1, Rejvi Ahmed Bhuiya 2
PMCID: PMC9847448  PMID: 36685659

Abstract

Education is considered the most significant factor in producing human resource developments in terms of social, cultural, technological, economic, and overall national perspectives. Higher education is influenced by several factors that affect the quality of students’ education and outcomes. Most students in Bangladesh study at private universities from various socioeconomic conditions. Some of the factors have restricted their ability to attain higher education and as a result, impacted their academic performance. The goal of this study was to explore those socioeconomic factors affecting the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh. The primary dataset was collected through an online survey from three private universities in Bangladesh named Varendra University (VU), Daffodil International University (DIU), and City University (CU). The Chi-square tests indicate that the age, gender, studying on a subject of their own choice, getting the right direction to make studying comfortable, consulting with the teacher about learning, family status, etc. variables significantly impacted their cumulative grade point average (CGPA). Relationships with parents and the opportunity to share opinions with parents were also significantly associated with their results. According to the multinomial logistic regression model age, gender, employment status, choice of own study field, getting the right direction, previous academic result, consultation with teachers, father's annual income, family status, and relationship with parents are found to be statistically significant determinants of academic performance. Considering the reality and outcomes of this study, to improve academic performance, parental involvement needs to be increased, and they must provide financial and material support to their offspring for their academic success. Moreover, for achieving a satisfactory CGPA, the students need to build friendly relationships with their parents and have regular consultations with their teachers as well.

Keywords: Academic performance, Private university, Students, Bangladesh

Introduction

Bangladesh was a country of poverty, famine, drought, low income, and poorly educated people. Despite so many problems, the people of Bangladesh have begun to make progress in various fields, including education, medicine, and economics. At present, as the poverty rate is decreasing in Bangladesh, on the other hand, the literacy rate is increasing (World Bank 2018). Bangladesh's higher education sector is one of the fastest-growing private sectors (Tasnima 2008). In addition to government educational institutions, many private educational institutions, such as schools, colleges, and universities, have been established. Private universities have proved to be innovative and effective institutions in Bangladesh, just like readymade garments industries and microfinance institutions (Shamsul Haque 2014). To consolidate the growth already achieved, everybody involved needs to work together as this subsector has an important role to play in developing a long-term manpower plan for the critical skills required for the economy in Bangladesh (Alam et al. 2007). At present various factors affected the academic performance of students and these include students' behavior, socioeconomic conditions, institutional characteristics, family background, and other demographic factors (Amin et al. 2010; El Ansari and Stock 2010; Imran 2017).

The term socio-economic condition/factors generally encompasses two variables: social and economic conditions. The word “Socioeconomic Status” (SES) refers to a person’s relative place in society in terms of family money, political power, educational background, and professional prestige (Parson et al. 2001; Hossain et al. 2022). It is a consolidated proportion of an individual or family’s monetary and social position compared with others in light of pay, instruction, and occupation (Kessler et al. 2005; Saifi et al. 2011). Social class, economic status, unemployment, ethnicity, homelessness, detainees, and refugees were also covered by this list (Hossain et al. 2017a, b; Wales et al. 2018; Turner & Flemming 2019).

In 2001, research was attempted to determine the association between socioeconomic status and students’ academic performance, and discovered that it has a very significant impact on their achievement (Mirza et al. 2001). A parent's money or the social position has a positive impact on a student's exam result (Considine & Zappalà 2002). The measurement of students' previous educational outcomes is the most important indicator of students’ future achievement, this means that the student’s academic success in future endeavors will be better if they have a better previous appearance (Durden and Ellis 1995). The background of a student’s family and socioeconomic level is important both within and outside of the classroom (Mirza et al. 2001). The socioeconomic status of a family is determined by family income, parental education, parental occupation, and social status in the community, which includes community contacts, group affiliation, and the community’s perception of the family (Chen et al. 2018).

In different studies, self-efficacy plays a significant role in academic achievement by increasing motivation to succeed as well (Schunk 1991, 1994; Bandura 1997; Pietsch et al. 2003). It is often regarded as one of the most important non-intellectual determinants of accomplishment in academic contexts. The relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance has regularly been found to be positive in meta-analyses (Multon et al. 1991; Honicke and Broadbent 2016). Motivation has been well documented in the literature as one of the key aspects of students’ academic performance (Pintrich 2000; Pintrich and Schunk 1996; Garcia 1995; Bandura 1986). Researchers have focused on individual student characteristics including motivational orientations that affect students’ chances of persisting (Girelli et al. 2018; Dresel and Grassinger 2013; Suhre et al. 2013). It is challenging and rewarding to develop and implement programs that move students from probation to good standing and finally to graduation (Heisserer and Parette 2002). Lacking motivation in a particular class, students frequently miss class and their grades plummet (Brewer and Burgess 2005). Students may suffer from poor academic performance as a result of improper course selection or wrong advice (Babad 2001). There may be a chance of making a mistake regarding course selection if personal motivations, interests, and objectives do not match those of friends, family, or faculty (Ahmed et al. 2015).

Due to family problems, a student may lose focus on studies and have limited motivation and determination to succeed (Simon and Tovar 2004). In addition to simple family problems, severe family problems like illness, death, or a break-up between family members can contribute to a more significant adverse effect. A student’s family problems will likely hinder their ability to concentrate and study, resulting in poor academic performance and eventual academic probation (Ahmed et al. 2015). However, mental health problems may affect a student’s ability to concentrate and motivate them to study (Olson 1990; Lucas 1991; Trombley 2000). Three types of interventions can have a positive effect on students’ GPAs and these are academic skill instruction, advising and counseling programs, and comprehensive support programs (Pascarella 2006).

In addition, effective communication with the teacher in the classroom and the office is crucial to a student’s understanding of confusing topics and grey areas. Students’ poor communication skills appear to affect their ability to perform well in class (Chowdhury 2001; Farooqui 2007). Generally, a student’s performance in the past, or his or her educational background, tends to influence his or her performance in the future (Ahmed et al. 2015). This paper aims to find out the socio-economic factors that affect the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh. For that reason, in this paper, bivariate and multivariate analyses are carried out to determine the significant factors that affect academic performances. The association between current university CGPA and the socio-economic factors like students’ age, gender, extroversion/introversion status, social media activation status, fathers’ occupation, mothers’ occupation, parents’ income, relationships with parents’, opinions shared with parents, family status and so on are checked using Chi-square test and multinomial logistic regression analysis.

Objectives of the research

This study aims to investigate the socio-economic factors which are hindering the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh.

Research Questions: This study is conducted to answer the following questions:

  1. Which socioeconomic factors affect the academic performance of private university students?

  2. Which socioeconomic factors are significantly and non-significantly associated with academic performance?

Research methodology

Study design

The current study was a cross-sectional design to investigate the socioeconomic factors that affect the academic performance of private university students. As a community–based countrywide sample survey was not feasible during the COVID–19 pandemic’s post–wave, data were collected online between January and July 2021. The information was widely shared through social media. The questionnaire included several items, including the context of the study, the purpose, the procedures, the confidentiality agreement, and consent. The survey took approximately 6–7 min to complete. To confirm the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, 50 samples were used in a pilot test before data collection, and these data were not included in the final study.

Sample

The Cochran technique was used to discover an ideal sample size given the probability of picking a choice, desired confidence level, and the allowed percentage of error in the population. It is particularly effective in circumstances involving large populations and so the following equation was used to compute the sample size (Kamruzzaman et al. 2021; Borg et al. 2022; Hossain and Munam 2022).

n=z2pqd2=1.962×0.5×1-0.50.032722=897.0684≈897

Here, n = number of samples, z = 1.96 (95% confidence level), p = the probability of picking a choice = 50% or 0.5 (for highly dispersed populations), q = (1 − p), d = allowed error percentage = 3.272% or 0.03272.

According to the calculation, a sample size of 897 was determined. An online questionnaire survey was conducted with approximately 2300 students from three private universities in Bangladesh. After removing incomplete, biased, and ineligible data from the responses submitted, 897 were reviewed. They were studying in different departments and in different semesters. The respondents were 622 male students (69.3%) and 275 female students (30.7%).

Measures

A total of 51 questions were asked in three categories throughout the entire questionnaire. The three categories are—personal information (17 questions/33.33%), family information (14 questions/27.45%), and academic information of the students (20 questions/39.21%). Data were collected from the three private university students in Bangladesh, e.g., Varendra University (VU), Daffodil International University (DIU), and City University (CU). Of 897 participants of the online survey, 637 (71.0%) were from VU, which is located in the Rajshahi division, 184 (20.5%) were from DIU and 76 (8.5%) were from CU, both located in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.

Data analyses

A cross-sectional bivariate and multivariate analysis were employed to check the significant factors affecting the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh. At 1, 5, 10, and 15% levels of significance, the Chi-square test was employed to evaluate the bivariate relationship (Kamruzzaman et al. 2021; Sarwar et al. 2019; Hossain and Munam 2022). The linear regression analysis has recently been examined in a variety of sectors, including public health, economics, finance, business, environmental science, social sciences, and others (Hossain et al. 2012, 2015a, b, c, 2016; Rahman et al. 2016; Hossain et al. 2017a, b; Tasnim et al. 2019). Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) methods were used in this study due to the categorical character of the dependent variables (Hossain et al. 2019; Kamruzzaman et al. 2021; Hossain and Munam 2022). For MLR analysis, current university CGPA was considered as the dependent variable, and other variables like social, academic, demographic, and economic variables were considered as the factors. MLR models were estimated to compute odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals to determine the influencing factors associated with academic achievement among students. A two-sided level was used to determine statistical significance, with p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p < 0.10 being judged significant at the 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively Table 1.

Table 1.

Category level of letter grade (Current university CGPA)

Letter grade Numerical grade Category level
A +  80% and above Satisfactory (excellent)
A 75% to less than 80%
A − 70% to less than 75%
B +  65% to less than 70% Satisfactory (moderate)
B 60% to less than 65%
B- 55% to less than 60%
C +  50% to less than 55% Non-satisfactory
C 45% to less than 50%
C − 40% to less than 45%
F Less than 40%
Open in a new tab

IBM SPSS version 25 was used to perform different types of statistical analyses, including frequency distributions, bivariate analyses, Chi-square tests, and multivariate analyses. Chi-Square tests were used to analyze the bivariate association between current university CGPA and socioeconomic factors. Current university CGPA and socioeconomic factors were also analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. In multivariate logistic regression, current university CGPA is considered as the dependent variable and socioeconomic factors are considered as the explanatory variables. To analyze the data, the following category level of dependent variable was used:

Bivariate association between current CGPA and its associated attributes

Table 2 provides the students’ personal information related attributes: age, gender, self-employment, extrovert or introvert, everyday routine following, studying on the subject of their own choice, getting the right direction to make study comfortable, spending hours on social media every day, content reading on social media, and their association with the current CGPA. Usually, students between the ages of greater than and equal to 23 years (88.8%) had a satisfactory performance than those who were 19 to 22 years old (84.7%). Among the male students, 84.4% and among the female students, 87.6% had satisfactory academic performance. Academically 83% of self-employed students and 86% of non-self-employed students performed satisfactorily. Among the extrovert students, 85.4% and among the introverted students, again 85.4% did better academically. Students who were following the everyday routine always or frequently among them, 86.7% of students did satisfactory results than those students (84.1%) who were following the everyday routine sometimes or never. Among the students who were studying the subject of their own choice, 13.7% did not achieve satisfactory results. Besides, students who were not studying the subject of their own choice, among them 19.3% students did not achieve satisfactory performance. Among students who were always/sometimes getting the right direction to make their studies comfortable with them, 86.7% of students did satisfactory results, and those who were getting fewer/very fewer or never got the right direction to make their studies comfortable among them 80% of the students outperformed their peers. Of students who had low addiction to social media, 86% of the students did a satisfactory academic performance to those who had medium addiction among them, 83.5% of students did satisfactory results to those who were highly addicted; among them, 85.2% of students did satisfactory results. Students who read entertainment content performed well 85.2%, students who read news content did well 84.4%, and students who read study content, technical content, and other content did well 86%.

Table 2.

The cross table of students’ personal information related attributes with χ2 test statistics and p-value

Variable name Variable levels Current CGPA in university Column total (%) χ2 P-value
Non-satisfactory (%) Satisfactory (moderate) (%) Satisfactory (excellent) (%)
Age 19–22 years 113 (15.4) 376 (51.1) 247 (33.6) 736 (82.1) 5.85 0.053
 >  = 23 years 18 (11.2) 99 (61.5) 44 (27.3) 161 (17.9)
Gender Male 97 (15.6) 344 (55.3) 181 (29.1) 622 (69.3) 10.465 0.005
Female 34 (12.4) 131 (47.6) 110 (40.0) 275 (30.7)
Self-employment Yes 29 (17.1) 95 (55.9 46 (27.1 170 (19) 3.078 0.215
No 102 (14.0) 380 (52.3) 245 (33.7) 727 (81)
Extrovert/introvert Extrovert 60 (14.6) 216 (52.4) 136 (33.0) 412 (45.9) 0.117 0.943
Introvert 71 (14.6) 259 (53.4) 155 (32.0) 485 (54.1)
Everyday routine following Always/ frequently 60 (13.3) 246 (54.7) 144 (32.0) 450 (50.2) 1.553 0.460
Sometimes/ never 71 (15.9) 229 (51.2) 147 (32.9) 447 (49.8)
Studying the subject of own choice Yes 104 (13.7) 399 (52.7) 254 (33.6) 757 (84.4 4.394 0.111
No 27 (19.3) 76 (54.3 37 (45.4) 140 (15.6)
Getting the right direction to make study comfortable Always/ sometimes 98 (13.4) 384 (52.5) 250 (34.2) 732 (81.6) 7.808 0.020
Fewer/very Fewer/never 33 (20.0) 91 (55.2) 41 (24.8) 165 (18.4)
Spending hours on social media every 3ay Low addicted 90 (14.0) 336 (52.3) 217 (33.7) 643 (71.7) 2.540 0.637
Medium addicted 33 (16.5) 111 (55.5) 56 (28.0) 200 (22.3)
Highly addicted 8 (14.8) 28 (51.9) 18 (33.3) 54 (6.0)
Content reading on social media Entertainment 40 (14.8) 138 (50.9) 93 (34.3) 271 (30.2) 1.915 0.751
News 32 (15.6) 114 (55.6) 59 (28.8) 205 (22.8)
Others/study content/technical 59 (14.0) 223 (53.0) 139 (33.0) 421 (47.0)
Open in a new tab

The bivariate analysis shows that students’ age was significantly associated with their academic performance (p = 0.053). Students’ gender was significantly associated with their academic performance (p = 0.005). Studying the subject of their own choice is associated with the academic performance of the students of private universities at a level of 12% significance. Getting the right direction to make the study comfortable was associated with the academic performance (p = 0.020) of the students at a private university. It was found that academic performance was not significantly associated with the participants’ self-employment status, their introverted or extroverted character, everyday routine following, spending hours on social media, and content reading on social media.

Table 3 provides the students’ family related attributes: father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, father’s annual income, mother’s annual income, family status, relationship with parents, sharing opinions with parents, getting proper educational support from family, and their association with the current CGPA. Students (87.7%) whose fathers did other jobs, like farmers, drivers, actors, and so on, did satisfactorily performance compared to those students whose fathers were businessmen, government employees, and private employees. Of students whose mothers did other jobs like small cottage businesses and so on, 88.9% showed satisfactory academic performance compared to those students whose mothers were government employees, housewives, and private employees. Of students whose father’s annual income was 60,000 BDT to 2,00,000 BDT among them, 86.9% of students did the satisfactory academic performance, whose father’s annual income was 2,00,001 BDT to 5,00,000 BDT among them, 86.3% of students did satisfactorily; and those whose father’s annual income was greater than equal to 5,00,001 BDT, among them, 77.6% of students the did satisfactory academic performance. Of students whose mother’s annual income was 10,000 BDT to 1,00,000 BDT, among them, 87% of students had the satisfactory academic performance; for those whose mother’s annual income was 1,00,001 BDT to 2,00,000 BDT, among them, 83.3% of students had the satisfactory academic performance; and those whose mother’s annual income was greater than equal to 2,00,001 BDT, among them, 85.6% of students had a satisfactory academic performance. Of students who lived in a joint family among them, 88.7% students did satisfactory results, and those who lived in a single-family or nuclear family among them, 84.1% of students did satisfactory results. Of students who had a very friendly relationship with their parents among them 86.7% students did satisfactory results, for those who had a friendly relationship with their parents among them 85.8% students did satisfactorily, and who had a less friendly relationship with their parents among them 79.8% students did a satisfactory academic performance. Of students who always or frequently shared their opinions with their parents among them 86.1% students did satisfactory results and the students who never or sometimes shared their opinions with their parents among them 83.7% did a satisfactory academic performance. Students who were always or frequently getting proper educational support from family among them 85.3% students did satisfactory results and who were sometimes/never getting proper educational support among them 86% students did well. The bivariate analysis shows that students’ family status was associated with their academic performance at the significant level of 12%. Students’ relationship with their parents was significantly associated with their academic performance (p = 0.027). Besides, sharing opinions with their parents was significantly associated with their academic performance (p = 0.099). It was found that participants’ academic performance was not significantly associated with their father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, father’s annual income, mother’s annual income, and getting proper educational support from the family.

Table 3.

The cross table of students’ family related attributes with χ2 test statistics and p-value

Variable name Variable levels Current CGPA in university Column total (%) χ2 P-value
Non-satisfactory (%) Satisfactory (moderate) (%) Satisfactory (excellent) (%)
Father’s occupation Business 42 (15.3%) 143 (52.2) 89 (32.5) 274 (30.5) 3.921 0.687
Govt. service 32 (16.4%) 107 (54.9) 56 (28.7) 195 (21.7)
Private job 16 (16.8%) 50 (52.6) 29 (30.5) 95 (10.6)
Others 41 (12.3%) 175 (52.6) 117 (35.1) 333 (37.1)
Mother’s occupation Govt. service 10 (19.6%) 26 (51.0) 15 (29.4 51 (5.7) 3.606 0.730
Housewife 112 (14.1%) 421 (53.1) 260 (32.8) 793 (88.4)
Private job 6 (23.1%) 14 (53.8) 6 (23.1) 26 (2.9)
Others 3 (11.1%) 14 (51.9) 10 (37.0) 27 (3.0)
Father’s annual income 60,000–200,000 Tk 49 (13.0%) 205 (54.5) 122 (32.4) 376 (41.9) 6.321 0.176
200,001–500,000 Tk 52 (13.8%) 200 (53.1) 125 (33.2) 377 (42.0)
 >  = 500,001 Tk 24 (22.4%) 52 (48.6) 31 (29.0 107 (11.9)
Mother’s annual income No Income/Unemployed 108 (14.4%) 401 (53.5) 241 (32.1) 750 (83.6) 4.512 0.608
10,000–100,000 Tk 6 (13.0%) 20 (43.5) 20 (43.5) 46 (5.1)
100,001–200,000 Tk 7 (16.7%) 20 (47.6) 15 (35.7) 42 (4.7)
 >  = 200,001 Tk 10 (16.9%) 34 (57.6) 15 (25.4) 59 (6.6)
Family status Nuclear family 104 (15.8%) 336 (51.1) 217 (33.0) 657 (73.25) 4.309 0.116
Joint Family 27 (11.3%) 139 (57.9) 74 (30.8) 240 (26.75)
Relationship with parents Friendly 76 (14.2%) 300 (56.2) 158 (29.6) 534 (59.5) 10.999 0.027
Very friendly 35 (13.3%) 136 (51.5) 93 (35.2 264 (29.5)
Less friendly/ don’t know 20 (20.2%) 39 (39.4) 40 (40.4) 99 (11)
Sharing opinions with parents Always/ frequently 90 (14.0%) 356 (55.2) 199 (30.9) 645 (72.0) 4.627 0.099
Never/ sometimes 41 (16.3%) 119 (47.2) 92 (36.5) 252 (28.0)
Getting proper educational support from family Always/ frequently 115 (14.7%) 414 (52.9) 253 (32.4) 782 (87.2) 0.058 0.971
Sometimes/never 16 (13.9%) 61 (53.0) 38 (33.0) 115 (12.8)
Open in a new tab

Table 4 provides the students’ academic information related attributes: SSC result, HSC result, counseling needed before university admission, a consultation with the teacher about learning, attending class regularly at school/college, enjoying the class or not, and their association with current CGPA. The study found that the students who did well (achieved A + , A, and A − grades) in the SSC exam, among whom 85.7% did a satisfactory academic performance at university, and among those who did not do well (achieved B and C grades) in the SSC exam, among whom 78.8% did a satisfactory academic performance at university. With that, the participants who did well (achieved A + , A, and A − grades) in the HSC exam, among whom 86.6% had a satisfactory academic performance at university, and the participants who did not do well (achieved B and C grades) in the HSC exam, among whom 82.8% had a satisfactory academic performance at university. The participants who thought that counseling is needed before university admission, among whom 84.4% of students, did satisfactorily than those who thought that counseling is not needed before university admission, among whom 86.6% of students did satisfactory results academically. Of the participants who consulted with the teacher about their learning, 91.3% of participants achieved satisfactory results compared to those who sometimes or never consulted with the teacher about their learning. Furthermore, students, who always or frequently attended class at school or college, among them 85.5% students did satisfactory results compared to those who occasionally or never attended class at school or college. Among students who enjoyed their class found that 85.7% of students did satisfactory results, and those who did not enjoy the class among them found 83.7% of students did a satisfactory academic performance at university. The bivariate analysis shows that students’ academic performance was significantly associated with their HSC results (p < 0.01). Students’ academic performance was associated with the consultation with their teacher about learning at a significance level of 14%. Besides, students’ academic performance was associated with their regular class attendance at school or college at a significant level of 15%. Students’ academic performance was associated with their class enjoyment at a significance level of 15%. It was found that participants’ academic performance was not associated with their SSC results and counseling was needed before their university admission.

Table 4.

The cross table of students’ academic information related attributes with χ2 test statistics and p-value

Variable name Variable levels Current CGPA in university Column total (%) χ2 P-value
Non-satisfactory (%) Satisfactory (moderate) (%) Satisfactory (excellent) (%)
SSC result A + , A, A − 124 (14.4) 456 (52.8) 284 (32.9) 864 (96.3) 2.494 0.287
B, C 7 (21.2) 19 (57.6) 7 (21.2) 33 (3.7%
HSC result A + , A, A − 82 (13.4) 295 (48.2) 235 (38.4) 612 (68.2) 31.201 0.000
B, C 49 (17.2) 180 (63.2) 56 (19.6) 285 (31.8)
Counseling is needed before university admission Yes 76 (15.6) 253 (52.1) 157 (32.3) 486 (54.2) 0.943 0.624
No 55 (13.4) 222 (54.0) 134 (32.6) 411 (45.8)
Consultancy with the teacher about learning I do counseling 15 (8.7) 94 (54.3) 64 (37.0) 173 (19.3) 7.087 0.131
I don’t do counseling 27 (17.8) 78 (51.3 47 (30.9) 152 (16.9)
Sometimes I do counseling 89 (15.6) 303 (53.0) 180 (31.5) 572 (63.8)
Attend class regularly at school/college Always/frequently 125 (14.5) 462 (53.6) 275 (31.9) 862 (96.1) 3.858 0.145
Sometimes/never 6 (17.1) 13 (37.1) 16 (45.7) 35 (3.9)
Enjoy the class or not Yes 108 (14.3) 411 (54.4) 237 (31.3) 756 (84.3) 3.910 0.142
No 23 (16.3) 64 (45.4) 54 (38.3) 141 (15.7)
Open in a new tab

Multivariate association between current CGPA and socio-economic factors

Table 5 presents a summary of the multinomial logistic regression of the university’s current CGPA and its associated factors. Private university students who studied a subject of their choice performed better academically than students who did not study a subject of their choice. Students who always or sometimes got the right direction to make their studies more comfortable were more likely to have better academic performance than those students who got fewer or very few right directions to make their studies comfortable. Besides, students who consulted with their teacher about learning were more likely to have better academic performance than those who consulted with their teacher occasionally. Students who always or frequently attended classes regularly while in school or college had a greater likelihood of having better academic performance than those who sometimes or never attended classes at school or college. Participants who enjoyed their classes had better academic results than those who did not. Students whose father’s annual income was 60,000 BDT to 2,00,000 BDT and 2,00,001 BDT to 5,00,000 BDT, their children’s academic performance was more likely better than those students whose father’s annual income was greater than equal to 5,00,001 BDT. Students who had a friendly or very friendly relationship with their parents had better academic performance than those who had a less friendly relationship with their parents. As well, participants who always or frequently shared their opinions with their parents had better academic results than those who sometimes or never shared their opinions with their parents. Age, gender, self-employment status, studying on a subject of their choice, getting the right direction to make study comfortable, HSC or equivalent result, counseling with the teacher about learning, father’s annual income, family status, and relationship with parents are all statistically significant determinants of academic performance. Whereas regular class attendance at school or college, enjoying the class and discussing ideas with parents are not significant predictors of academic performance, details are given in Table 5.

Table 5.

Multinomial logistic regression analysis of university current CGPA and its associated factors

Variable Current university CGPA (ref = non-satisfactory)
Satisfactory (moderate) Satisfactory (excellent)
OR p. value 75% CI for OR OR p. value 75% CI for OR
Age group (ref: >  = 23 years)
19–22 years 0.607* 0.094 0.431–0.856 0.634 0.169 0.433–0.928
Gender (ref: female)
Male 0.778 0.301 0.589–1.029 0.501*** 0.009 0.379–0.685
Are you self-employed? (ref: no)
Yes 0.795 0.362 0.596–1.062 0.603* 0.076 0.435–0.837
Are you currently studying the subject of your choice? (ref: no)
Yes 1.330 0.278 0.983–1.801 2.136** 0.012 1.509–3.022
Are you getting the right direction to make your studies comfortable? (ref: fewer/very fewer/never)
Always/sometimes 1.098 0.725 0.810–1.488 2.099** 0.015 1.478–2.980
HSC or equivalent exam result (ref: B, C grade)
A + , A, A- Grade 0.863 0.508 0.668–1.115 0.331*** 0.000 0.245–0.445
Do you consult with your teacher about learning? (ref: sometimes I do counseling)
I do counseling 1.758* 0.071 1.227–2.518 2.285** 0.012 1.562–3.344
I don’t do counseling 1.135 0.653 0.821–1.570 0.966 0.913 0.675–1.383
Attend class regularly at school and college (ref: sometimes/never)
Always/ frequently 1.509 0.441 0.816–2.788 0.543 0.253 0.294–1.004
Do you enjoy your class? (ref: no)
Yes 1.132 0.675 0.805–1.591 0.703 0.259 0.490–1.007
Father annual income (ref: >  = 500,001 Tk)
60,000 Tk–200,000 Tk 1.937** 0.028 1.369–2.740 2.072** 0.030 1.408–3.048
200,001 Tk–500,000 Tk 1.781* 0.053 1.263–2.512 1.976** 0.040 1.348–2.897
Family status (ref: joint family)
Nuclear family 0.618* 0.054 0.464–0.824 0.660 0.124 0.484–0.900
Relationship with parents (ref: less friendly/ don’t know)
Friendly 1.850* 0.078 1.238–2.766 0.938 0.863 0.613–1.435
Very friendly 1.713 0.179 1.080–2.716 1.117 0.796 0.684–1.823
Sharing opinions with parents (ref: never/ sometimes)
Always/ frequently 1.026 0.921 0.760–1.386 0.655 0.137 0.472–0.908
Open in a new tab

OR***, OR**, and OR* indicate the significant level at 1, 5, and 10% respectively

Results

From Table 6, some common significant factors from the bivariate and multinomial analysis that affect the academic grades of private university students at the 1, 5, 10, and 15% level of significance were found. The common factors include age, gender, subject of own choice, getting the right direction, and relationship with parents. Some non-significant factors were identified through bivariate and multinomial analysis, contrary to initial expectations. From bivariate analysis, self-employment status, extrovert-introvert characteristics, the habit of following a daily routine, spending time on social media, reading study content on social media, parents’ occupation, getting proper educational support, SSC result, and counseling before getting admitted into university were found to be non-significant. Moreover, attending regular classes at school and colleges, enjoyment of the class, and sharing opinions with parents were found to be non-significant in terms of excellent satisfactory results from multinomial regression analysis.

Table 6.

Significant factors from bivariate and multinomial regression analysis

Significant factors from bivariate analysis Significant factors from multinomial regression analysis
Factors P-value Factors P-value
Age 0.053 Age 0.094
Gender 0.005 Gender 0.009
Studying the subject of own choice 0.111 Self-employment status 0.076
Getting the right direction to make study comfortable 0.020 Studying a subject of own choice 0.012
Family status 0.116 Getting the right direction to make study comfortable 0.015
Relationship with parents 0.027 HSC or equivalent result  < 0.001
Sharing opinions with parents 0.099 Consultancy with the teacher about learning 0.012
HSC or equivalent result  < 0.001 Father’s annual income 0.03
Consultancy with the teacher about learning 0.131 Family status 0.054
Attend class regularly at school/college 0.145 Relationship with parents 0.078
Enjoy the class 0.142
Open in a new tab

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to investigate and find the socio-economic factors which are responsible for the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh. We have investigated and found some statistically significant factors and some non-significant factors as well which were found significant in previous studies.

According to a study in 2016, senior students (30–39 years) did better academic results than the middle (23–25 years) and young age (19–21 years) students (Christopher et al. 2016). In our study, students between the ages of greater than and equal to 23 years had better academic performance (OR = 0.607, p = 0.094) than those who were 19–22 years old. But yet this information contradicts certain other research that shows that young students perform better than older students (Lane and Porch 2002; Diaz 2003). Khan & Golder also found that age was not significantly associated with academic performance (Khan and Golder 2021).

Female students have been proven to outperform male students whereas Christopher found that the relationship between gender and the students’ performance was not statistically significant (Cullen et al 2004; Garkaz et al 2011; Christopher et al. 2016). In this study, the academic performance of female students (OR = 0.501, p = 0.009) was comparatively better than that of male students.

Family structure (i.e., nuclear or joint family) and the main source of income or father’s annual income did not significantly predict the academic performance of a student (Considine et al. 2002). But according to our study, fathers’ annual income (p < 0.05) and family status/structure (p < 0.10) were significantly associated with academic performance. According to some studies, students thought that consultancy with their teacher is necessary and necessary to do better academic performance (Chau et al. 2020; Le Thi Quynh and Nguyen Huu 2020). Consulting with teachers was found to be essential for demonstrating better academic performance (p < 0.05).

Students’ topic choice/self-proposal status had little impact on their academic performance (Murphy et al. 2013). According to our research, students who were studying the subject of their own choice (p < 0.05) performed well academically. Parental involvement in a child’s early education has been proven to be consistently connected with a child’s academic performance, as well as socializing their children (Stevenson and Baker 1987; Hara and Burke 1998; Marcon 1999; Hill and Craft 2003. The involvement of parents was also found to be significantly related to students’ academic performance (p < 0.01). McKenzie and Schweitzer showed that the most significant predictor of university performance was found to be students’ previous educational results (McKenzie and Schweitzer 2001). According to our study, the previous educational result was significantly associated with the student’s academic performance (p < 0.01).

According to a previous study, regular class attendance has a positive strong relationship with academic performance (Credé et al. 2010). But this statement contradicts the results of our research; because according to our research students’ attended classes regularly and also enjoyed the classes but did not perform well academically.

Our results support some previous work, e.g., in Bangladesh, powerless instructive foundation, off-base course determination, and family and individual issues have a positive impact on a student’s falling into scholarly probation which impacts their scholastic execution unfavorably (Ahmed et al. 2015). Different studies endeavor to clarify scholarly disappointment starting with the three components that intercede in instruction: guardians/family causal variables, instructors/scholarly causal components, and students/individual causal components (Díaz 2003). From this study, it is shown that academic performance was not significantly associated with spending hours on social media. But Chen found that there was a statistical significance in the differences in scholastic grades (p < 0.001) and educational gratification (p < 0.001) between excessive and non-excessive internet users (Chen 2012). In comparison with excessive users, non-excessive users had better grades and greater learning satisfaction. Additionally, internet users were found to be gloomy (p < 0.001), physically unwell (p < 0.001), and lonely (p < 0.001). In some ways, our research work is unique. Bayer (2012) only worked with student-related attributes, semester-related attributes, and social-behavioral data to predict students’ dropouts (Bayer et al. 2012; Mafiz et al. 2013). And he also found that student performance appears to be correlated with social habits, mainly with the frequency of communication.

But in this study, personal information, family related attributes, and academic information of students were analyzed. In the meantime, some of the studies investigated only the first-year or second-year students, or both. A dropout rate between the first and second years has been identified as one of the most significant indicators of university career quality (Perchinunno et al. 2021). But this study examined students from various academic sessions/years and socio-economic backgrounds. However, our study has some limitations. The research was based on data collected from three private universities in Bangladesh, with a limited sample size. It is recommended that future investigations be conducted with a larger population.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that a variety of factors, both significant and non-significant, influence the academic performance of private university students in Bangladesh. Socioeconomic variables appear to be particularly important in determining academic success. Additionally, the ability to choose one’s own subjects and having a supportive home environment, including a positive relationship with parents and access to academic support from university staff, were found to be beneficial to student performance. Conversely, regular attendance at prior academic institutions and a lack of guidance or direction were identified as hindrances to academic achievement. University teachers must provide complete academic support to students in areas such as proper course selection, guidance, motivating students to increase their academic participation, and so on. These findings have implications for the improvement of academic performance among private university students in Bangladesh and provide a foundation for future research in the field.

Acknowledgements

It is our sincere pleasure to express our gratitude to the study participants who provided their invaluable opinions.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

The corresponding author will provide the datasets which were collected from the respondent and analyzed as part of this study upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

It is declared that the authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study has been approved by Varendra University’s Ethical Review Committee (VU-ERC). During the study, the participants were informed of the objectives and their right to stay in the study or to opt-out of it if they felt uncomfortable. There was a consent process before the study began.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Contributor Information

Sumaia Rahman, Email: ononnaontora@gmail.com.

Al Muktadir Munam, Email: muktadir.munam@gmail.com.

Ahammad Hossain, Email: ahammadstatru@gmail.com.

A. S. M. Delwar Hossain, Email: delwar.hossain.vu@gmail.com.

Rejvi Ahmed Bhuiya, Email: azrejvi@ru.ac.bd.

References

  1. Ahmed JU, Chowdhury MHK, Rahman S, Talukder AMH. Academic probation: an empirical study of private university students. SSRN Electron J. 2015 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2601259. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alam M, Haque MS, Siddique SF (2007). Private higher education in Bangladesh. IIEP-UNESCO.
  3. Amin R, Shah NM, Becker S. Socioeconomic factors differentiating maternal and child health-seeking behavior in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2010;9(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-9-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Babad E. Reviewed students course selection: differential considerations for first and last course. Res High Educ. 2001;42:469–492. doi: 10.1023/A:1011058926613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. London: Pearson; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. W. H. freeman & Company; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayer J, Bydžovská H, Géryk J, Obšívač T, Popelínský L (2012). Predicting drop-out from social behaviour of students. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining.
  8. Borg DN, Bach AJE, O’Brien JL, Sainani KL. Calculating sample size for reliability studies. PM R. 2022 doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brewer WE, Burgess ND. Professors’ role in motivating students. J Ind Teach Educ. 2005;42(3):3. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chau NH. Needs for consultancy of vietnam high school students. Archives Bus Res. 2020 doi: 10.14738/abr.83.7874. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen R. Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: A multilevel event history analysis. Res High Educ. 2012;53(5):487–505. doi: 10.1007/s11162-011-9241-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen Q, Kong Y, Gao W, Mo L. Effects of socioeconomic status, parent-child relationship, and learning motivation on reading ability. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1297. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chowdhury MR. To west or not to west? the question of culture in adopting/adapting CLT in Bangladesh. J Asiat Soc Bangladesh. 2001;46:183–194. [Google Scholar]
  14. Christopher MS, Redempta KM. Influence of demographic factors on academic performance among primary teacher trainees-a case study of Machakos teachers college. Int J Educ Stud. 2016;3(1):07–11. [Google Scholar]
  15. Considine G, Zappalà G. The influence of social and economic disadvantage in the academic performance of school students in Australia. J Sociol. 2002;38(2):129–148. doi: 10.1177/144078302128756543. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Credé M, Roch SG, Kieszczynka UM. Class attendance in college: a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Rev Educ Res. 2010;80(2):272–295. doi: 10.3102/0034654310362998. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cullen MJ, Hardison CM, Sackett PR. Using SAT-grade and ability-job performance relationships to test predictions derived from stereotype threat theory. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(2):220. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Díaz, A. (2003). Personal, family, and academic factors affecting low achievement in secondary school. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology and Psycho Pedagogy, 1.
  19. Dresel M, Grassinger R. Changes in achievement motivation among university freshmen. J Educ Train Stud. 2013 doi: 10.11114/jets.v1i2.147. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Durden GC, Ellis LV. The effect of attendance on student learning in principles of economics. Am Econ Rev. 1995;85:343–346. [Google Scholar]
  21. El Ansari W, Stock C. Is the health and wellbeing of university students associated with their academic performance? cross sectional findings from the United Kingdom. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2010;7(2):509–527. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7020509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Farooqui S. Developing speaking skills of adult learners in private universities in Bangladesh: problems and solutions. Australian J Adult Learn. 2007;47:94–110. [Google Scholar]
  23. Garcia T. The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning. New Dir Teach Learn. 1995;1995(63):29–42. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219956306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Garkaz M, Banimahd B, Esmaeili H. Factors affecting accounting students’ performance: the case of Students at the slamic azad university. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;29:122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.216. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Girelli L, Alivernini F, Salvatore S, Cozzolino M, Sibilio M, Lucidi F. Affrontare i primi esami: motivazione, supporto all’autonomia e percezione di controllo predicono il rendimento degli studenti universitari del primo anno. ECPS - Educ Cultural Psychol Stud. 2018 doi: 10.7358/ecps-2018-018-gire. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hara SR, Burke DJ. Parent involvement: the key to improved student achievement. School Commun J. 1998;8:9–19. [Google Scholar]
  27. Heisserer DL, Parette P. Advising at-risk students in college and university settings. Coll Stud J. 2002;36:69–83. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hill NE, Craft SA. Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. J Educ Psychol. 2003;95(1):74–83. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.95.1.74. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Honicke T, Broadbent J. The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: a systematic review. Educ Res Rev. 2016;17:63–84. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hossain A, Karim MS. Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety and Stress: A Case Study among Varendra University Students. Cambridge: Scholars' Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hossain A, Munam AM. Factors influencing facebook addiction among Varendra University students in the lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak. Comput Hum Behav Reports. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hossain A, Ali MA, Kamruzzaman M. Volatility analysis and forecasting volume Data of DSE. Cambridge: Academic Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hossain A, Kamruzzaman M, Ali MA. ARIMA with GARCH family modeling and projection on share volume of DSE. Econ World. 2015 doi: 10.17265/2328-7144/2015b.0708.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hossain A, Kamruzzaman M, Ali MA. Vector autoregressive (VAR) Modeling and Projection of DSE. Chinese Bus Rev. 2015;14(6):273–289. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hossain A, Kamruzzaman M, Ali MA. Econometric investigation of DSE’s portfolios through selective micro and macro economic indicators. J Stat Sci Appl. 2016 doi: 10.17265/2328-224x/2016.0506.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hossain A, Islam MA, Kamruzzaman M, Khalek MA, Ali MA. Forecasting carbon dioxide emissions in Bangladesh using Box-Jenkins ARIMA models. Int J Stat Sci. 2017;16:33–48. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hossain M, Islam M, Biswas B, Hossain M. The impact of students “Socio-economic condition on academic performance in public and national university of Bangladesh”. Asian Res J Math. 2017;7(3):1–16. doi: 10.9734/arjom/2017/37650. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hossain A, Bhuiya RA, Zulficar Ali M. The association between obesity and depression, anxiety, and stress disorders among university students at Rajshahi city in Bangladesh. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disorders. 2022 doi: 10.26502/jppd.2572-519x0172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hossain, A., Ali, M. A., & Ali, A. B. M. S. (2012). Time Varying Volatility Analysis and Forecasting Using ARIMA with Asymmetric GARCH models on Volume Data in Dhaka Stock Exchange. International Conference on Statistical Data Mining for Bioinformatics Health Agriculture and Environment 471–476
  40. Hossain, A., Mahamud, R., Bishwas, M. R., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2019). Evaluation of Facebook Addiction and its Associated Factors among Varendra University Students: A Cross Sectional Survey Study. 7th Int. Conf. on Data Science & SDG, 677–684
  41. Imran M, Afshari M, Ghavifekr S, Razak AZA. Demography factors and students academic performance in secondary schools. Mojem Malaysian Online J Educ Manag. 2017;1(2):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamruzzaman M, Hossain A, Kabir E. Smoker’s characteristics, general health and their perception of smoking in the social environment: a study of smokers in Rajshahi city Bangladesh. J Pub Health. 2021;30(6):1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10389-020-01413-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kessler D, Peters TJ, Lee L, Parr S. Social class and access to specialist palliative care services. Palliat Med. 2005;19(2):105–110. doi: 10.1191/0269216305pm980oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Khan AA, Golder P. Factors affecting the academic performance of students: a reality of higher education level in Bangladesh. Int J Trade Commerce-IIARTC. 2021 doi: 10.46333/ijtc/9/2/2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lane A, Porch M. The impact of background factors on the performance of nonspecialist undergraduate students on accounting modules-a longitudinal study: a research note. Acc Educ. 2002;11(1):109–118. doi: 10.1080/09639280210153308. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Le Thi Quynh N, Nguyen Huu C. Needs for consultancy of vietnam high school students. Archives Bus Res. 2020;8(3):15–22. doi: 10.14738/abr.83.7874. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lucas JS. Evaluation of new probation intervention program at Harper College. Palatine: William Rainey Harper College; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mafiz AI, Ismail I, Bhuyan MAH. Effects of Socio-economic, demographic and internet exposure factors on school performance among selected students of Nilkhet high school. Bangladesh J Nutr. 2013;24:107–120. doi: 10.3329/bjnut.v24i0.14041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Marcon RA. Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. Sch Psychol Rev. 1999;28(3):395–412. doi: 10.1080/02796015.1999.12085973. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. McKenzie K, Schweitzer R. Who Succeeds at University? Factors predicting academic performance in first year Australian university students. High Educ Res Dev. 2001;20(1):21–33. doi: 10.1080/07924360120043621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Mirza M. Relationship of socio-economic stats with achievement. J Element Educ. 2001;1(4):18–24. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mozaffor M, Raheem E, Islam MS, Nurunnabi ASM, Hossain MS, Biswas C, Islam S, Arafat SMY. Suicidal behaviors among undergraduate medical students in Bangladesh. Res Develop Med Educ. 2022 doi: 10.34172/rdme.2022.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Multon KD, Brown SD, Lent RW. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. J Couns Psychol. 1991;38(1):30–38. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Murphy MJ, Seneviratne RD, Cochrane L, Davis MH, Mires GJ. Impact of student choice on academic performance: cross-sectional and longitudinal observations of a student cohort. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Olson MA. Characteristics of students on academic probation. Commun Junior College. 1990;14(4):331–336. doi: 10.1080/0361697900140406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Parson RD, Lewis H, Deborah S. Educational psychology: A practitioner- researcher model of teaching. Boston: Thomson Learning Inc.; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pascarella ET. How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. J Coll Stud Dev. 2006;47(5):508–520. doi: 10.1353/csd.2006.0060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Perchinunno P, Bilancia M, Vitale D. A statistical analysis of factors affecting higher education dropouts. Soc Indic Res. 2021;156(2–3):341–362. doi: 10.1007/s11205-019-02249-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Pietsch J, Walker R, Chapman E. The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. J Educ Psychol. 2003;95(3):589–603. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.589. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Pintrich RR. Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientations in learning and achievement. J Educ Psychol. 2000;92:544–555. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Pintrich RR, Schunk DH. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rahman ATMS, Kamruzzaman M, Jahan CS, Mazumder QH, Hossain A. Evaluation of spatio-temporal dynamics of water table in NW Bangladesh: an integrated approach of GIS and Statistics. Sustain Water Res Manag. 2016;2(3):297–312. doi: 10.1007/s40899-016-0057-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Saifi S, Mehmood T. Effects of socio-economic status on students achievement. Int J Soc Sci Educ. 2011;1(2):119–128. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sarwar, M. N., Hossain, A., & Ali, M. (2019). Impact of Depression, Anxiety and Stress on daily average Sleeping duration: A case study among Varendra University Students. 7th Int. Conf. on Data Science & SDG, Department of Statistics, University of Rajshahi. 285–293
  65. Schunk D. Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educ Psychol. 1991;26(3):207–231. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&#x00026;4_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Schunk DH. Self-regulation of learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Application. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shamsul Haque, M. (2014, May 29). Private universities in Bangladesh: An effective innovation in higher education. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/private-universities-in-bangladesh-an-effective-innovation-in-higher-education-26139
  68. Simon MA, Tovar E. Confirmatory factor analysis of the career factors inventory on a community college sample. J Career Assess. 2004;12(3):255–269. doi: 10.1177/1069072703261538. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Stevenson DL, Baker DP. The family-school relation and the child’s school performance. Child Dev. 1987;58(5):1348–1357. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01463.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Suhre CJM, Jansen EPWA, Torenbeek M. Determinants of timely completion: the impact of bachelor’s degree programme characteristics and student motivation on study progress. High Educ Res Dev. 2013;32(3):479–492. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.684374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Tasnim, S., Sarkar, P., Hossain, A., & Ali, M. A. (2019). A Classification Approach to Predict Severity of Crime on Boston City Crime Data. 7th Int. Conf. on Data Science & SDG, Department of Statistics, University of Rajshahi. 405–412
  72. Tasnima T. Determinants of quality in higher education?: Bangladesh perspective through Private Universities. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  73. Trombley CM. Evaluating students on probation and determining intervention strategies: a comparison of probation and good standing students. J College Stud Retent: Res Theory Pract. 2000;2(3):239–251. doi: 10.2190/4my9-lb3t-d5y0-apuq. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Turner V, Flemming K. Socioeconomic factors affecting access to preferred place of death: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Palliat Med. 2019;33(6):607–617. doi: 10.1177/0269216319835146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Wales J, Kurahashi AM, Husain A. The interaction of socioeconomic status with place of death: a qualitative analysis of physician experiences. BMC Palliat Care. 2018 doi: 10.1186/s12904-018-0341-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. World Bank. (2018). Bangladesh: Reducing poverty and sharing prosperity. Worldbank.Org; World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2018/11/15/bangladesh-reducing-poverty-and-sharing-prosperity

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The corresponding author will provide the datasets which were collected from the respondent and analyzed as part of this study upon reasonable request.

Articles from Sn Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES