Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews

eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884

https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITY LEVEL
Maryam Munir1, Muhammad Shabbir Ali2, Asif Iqbal3, Muhammad Faisal Farid4, Muhammad Siddique5*
1
Visiting Lecturer, University of Education Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan; 2Associate Professor Education, University of
Education Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan; 3Associate Professor Education, University of Education Faisalabad Campus,
Pakistan; 4Assistant Professor Education, University of Education Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan; 5*Ph.D., Scholar,
University of Education Lahore Pakistan.
Email: *[email protected]
nd nd th
Article History: Received on 22 May 2021, Revised on 2 June 2021, Published on 10 June 2021
Abstract
Purpose of the study: The objectives were to investigate and correlate the learning environment of students and the
performance of students at the university level.
Methodology: The study was descriptive. The study population consisted of the students currently studying at GC
Women University Faisalabad. The data were computed using descriptive as well as inferential statistics. The self-
developed instrument, Learning Environment and Performance Survey [LEPS], was used.
Main Findings: When the learning environment improves the performance of the students also increases strongly. The
result showed the weak positive relationship of the learning environment with the performance of urban areas students.
On the other hand, there were strong positive relationships of the learning environment with the performance of rural
students.
Applications of this study: The study may be applied to investigate and improve the students' learning environment.
Novelty/Originality of this study: The female students had a better learning environment and significantly improved
their achievement scores. Rural students had an insignificant difference in their learning environment and performance.
Keywords: Learning Environment, Performance of Students, Students' Achievement, Demographic Differences.
INTRODUCTION
The teacher must generate a classroom environment that is most favorable to enhance learning. In this way, the
instructors promote awareness among students. It enhances learning and reduces behavioral difficulties, and establishes a
healthy environment. Stone (2005) explored that environment is all the things around your surroundings. It may be the
sounds, feelings, smells, and everything. A classroom also has an environment where the learning process of students
complete. It is a survival skill for teachers to create a safe and healthy environment and boost the student's learning
environment. Ullah (2020) investigated that the modern scientific view discloses teaching as difficult work. The basic
components of the classroom environment are educational, social, and physical. These are essential for promoting a
smooth process of education in the school.
According to Stone (2005), six classroom environments make the multifaceted nature of classroom situations. First,
there is a broad range of events that are performed in the classroom setting. The students discuss, read, and write. They
form friends, celebrate functions, argue, and play their games. The teacher plays the role of coach as well as a guide to
settling disagreements among students. They direct students, discuss students' parents regarding the problems, and trace
out the solution. The students discuss with the teacher a story, do personal writings, and play math games in small
groups. It guarantees that being a teacher is seldom tedious, but impulsively can also be grueling. Classrooms are public
places. In classroom premises, students' behaviors are apparent by their colleagues. Teachers discuss those students in
different understanding. Finally, the students in classes are similar to families, which recall previous events positively or
negatively.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The classroom learning environment is the collaboration between the instructor and his pupils and students (Adigwe,
2004). It is the students' learning through considerations of the relations between the activities of teachers and students
and the nature of the variables that affect student outcomes during the learning process. It was measured with the help of
a questionnaire named (WIHIC) by Aidridge and Fraser (2008) and Aldridge, Laugksch, & Fraser (2006). The main
dimensions are active interest, and participation in class discussions makes students active in performing extracurricular
activities. It is a reflection of students' behavior in the class. It has dependent on the characteristics he or she brings to the
classroom experience that will ultimately lead to such behaviors for better academic achievement scores, such as
students discuss with one another for the solution of problems.
It is described as the collaboration of students instead of competition among students to perform learning tasks to
achieve a common goal, such as teamwork, learn from other students.

877|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
In this dimension, the teacher treats the students equally to enhance their achievement of students. The student is a key
player in the classroom climate and needs equal praise and attention. Students' positive behavior to help, support, and
support one another in classroom learning activities, become friendly to class members, and work well with other class.
The inquiry method is used for investigation and problem-solving statements (Fraser, Aldridge, & Adolphe, 2010). Other
dimensions include affiliation, rule clarity, innovation, order, and organization. The dimensions that are based on
meteorological and geographical features are called ecological dimensions. They are physical design and architectural
features (Weintsein & Mignano, 2007). According to Khan, Ullah, 2021; Ullah, (2020), the environment depends on
participants' nature, while the leading aspects of an environment are measured as typical characteristics of members.
The beliefs, values, and meanings of the group that are collectively accepted are called culture. While working on the
learning environment, Ullah (2020) investigated many aspects of the environment that are significant for learning
activities. According to Stone (2005), the creation of a stimulating and successful classroom environment enhances lives.
Teachers may make the present better than the past and the future better than the present within the classroom settings.
When students are curious, think, explore experiments and ask questions, they learn best and discover new things.
Historical Background of Learning Environments Research
The researchers in the past (Dorman, 2002; Walker, 2004;) revealed that the learning environment is a newly initiated
area in the educational field for 50 years. Therefore, the advancement was made to formulate, judge, and investigate the
healthy learning environment of the classroom (Fraser, 2015; Ullah, 2020).
The research in that area started with the work of prominent researcher Moos. Moos (1974) developed three aspects.
They were personal development, relationship, and system change to categorize the human environment. Moos (1974)
developed an instrument to access a psychosocial classroom learning environment. The name of that instrument was
"Classroom Environment Scale". Stone (2005)) developed a theory named "need-press theory" to demonstrate the needs
of the individual while working in the environment. They are innate requirements, the personal and specific needs of
individuals.
Academic Performance or Achievement Score
According to (Khan, Ullah, 2021; Ullah, 2020), the performance is the outward demo of thoughtful notions, services,
thoughts, and information of an individual that grades signify the achievement score of students. According to Kobal and
Musek (2001), academic performance represents the arithmetical scores of students' knowledge and the degree that he
gains in schoolwork and the educational system. The achievement score of students may be achieved efficiently if all the
factors affect students' educational presentation. Achievement outcome has been considered as a function of two
characteristics, "skill" and "will "and these must be considered "and these must be considered individually because
keeping the will alone may not assure success if the skill is lacking.
In all educational systems, performance is considered one of the significant factors of students' learning. Therefore,
academic achievement is the main research area is now a day. In their effort to investigate the achievement score of
students, many questions come to a researcher's mind. First, to locate aspects that affect the performance of students in
the classroom. These factors are helping to improve students' academic achievement. According to (Aremu & Oluwole,
2001; Ozcinar, 2006), students' learning outcomes and achievement scores can be judge through family status, institute,
motivation, and society.
Self-esteem is an important element of good mental health. The concept of Self-esteem is broadly used in psychology. It
is the sense of individuals of his or her self-confidence, self-respect, and worth. It is the degree to which a person
admires or likes themselves (Blascovich & Tomaka, 2014). Different studies had a positive relationship between self-
esteem and the academic achievement score of students.
Predictors of Academic Performance and Learning Environment
Socio-economic Status
The socio-economical of families' such as financial resources, level of education, and occupational and professional
status of parents is highly correlated with the academic achievement score of students (Sirin, 2005), which in turn
forecasts the durability of students in educational institutions (Marjoribanks, 2005). Parental involvement enhances the
children's progress (Gamoran, Turley, Turner, & Fish, 2012). The support of parents creates an environment suitable for
the growth of learners (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). This idea supports the capital resources of the parents as a good
interpreter of the child's academic achievement than social investment (Schlee, Mullis, & Shriner, 2009).
Parental Involvement
Another best predictor of institutional adjustment in adolescence age is parental involvement (Carlson, 2006). It
arbitrates the awareness of motivation and skills (Chouinard, 2007). These skills influence the students' involvement in
their career decisions and their studies. The parents who were well aware of the child's academic growth promote
positive contexts of learning that enable the growth of mastery goals (Sideridis, 2005).

878|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
Motivational factors
The factors related to students' motivation are the utmost forecasters of academic achievement (Covington, 2016). The
studies regarding meta-analyses are identified associations between academic goals, skills related to academic learning,
and academic results (Robbins et al., 2004). Furthermore, they revealed a strong association between students'
motivations and academic-related skills (Crede & Kuncel, 2008).
Academic Goal
The resources regarding resources to involvement and academic achievement took place based on the mobilization of
individuals (Covington,2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), the study skills are also known as academic-related skills
different study ways (Murray & Wren,2003), attitudes toward study, and learning patterns.
Academic achievement is also related to cognitive styles, goals, and motives (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003) and the
appointment of students with their school (Caraway et al., 2003). The deliberate conduct and positive affect also predict
the academic achievement of the students (Armitage, 2008).
The Objectives of Students
Contexts' characteristics influence the selection of objectives, and they are the dynamics between contextual factors and
individual factors. The characteristics related to context are parents' characteristics, families, characteristics of schools,
and student-teacher–interactions. All these characteristics are influenced by the objectives' choice (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). For example, the expansion of goals is related to parents' styles, the practices parental and they endorse the
growth of capabilities which lead to academic achievement (Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009).
The behavior of Teachers
Teachers' behaviors contribute to development regarding the instrumental and motivational mechanisms (Moreira et al.,
2010), and students select the supporting objectives (Stone, 2005). Student-teacher interactions are vital for advancing
academic achievement (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005) during the early years of schooling. Students make themselves
the most positive and motivated learners with the directions of their teachers the knowledge and skills are improved by
the students (Meece et al., 2006).
Personality dimensions
The personality dimensions are relevant to the motivation of individuals and their self-concepts. They are identified as
psychobiological and contemporary personality models Stone (2005). These personality factors are systematically
powerful forecasters of academic achievement.
Statement of the Problem
The environment is a prime factor that has a direct concern to educational attainment. It contains all those activities that
assist in the achievement of students' classroom setting. Also, a learning environment is a bond between the students and
teachers towards the attainment of goals. Quality of service is the concern of all educational processes. Unfortunately, in
the context of Pakistan, many indicators affect the quality of educational institutions. Lack of a healthy learning
environment and low service quality resulted in poor performance of students, which in turn makes the loss of resources.
Hence the present study intends to explore the relationship between the learning environment and performance of
students in public sector universities of Punjab.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Following objectives were kept in mind while conducting this research:
1 To investigate the learning environment of students at the university level.
2 To examine the performance of students at the university level.
3 To investigate the correlation between the performance of learners and the learning environment at the university
level.
4 To trace out the difference between male and female students' learning environment and their performance at the
university level.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses drawn based on the objectives were as under:
Ho23: There is no significant difference between students' learning environment and academic achievement scores based
on gender.
Ho25: There is no significant difference between students' learning environment and academic achievement score based
on location.

879|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
The Significance of Current Study
1. The study would be beneficial on the following grounds:
2. This would be a humble addition to the existing hoard of knowledge.
3. This study would be useful in improving the service quality and learning environment at the university level.
4. This study would be beneficial to compare the service quality of students at the university level.
5. This study would be beneficial to explore students' academic performance at the university level if the learning
environment and service quality are improved.
RESEARCH DESIGN
It was a descriptive research study based on a survey to explore the relationship among learning environment, service
quality, and Students' performance at the university level.
The population of the study
The study consisted of the students currently enrolled in GC University Faisalabad and GC Women University
Faisalabad. The students were taken from these universities who were enrolled in BS Honors and Masters Classes.
Sample of the Study
As the study explored the relationship between the learning environment and students' performance at the university
level, equal departments (three sciences and three arts departments) from these universities were selected. Due to the
gender and location of the respondents, they were distributed in male, female, urban, and rural categories. A total of six
hundred and fifty-eight students were selected randomly from those universities. From which 86 males and 572 were
female. Four hundred and fifty-seven students from urban areas and 201 from rural areas were randomly selected. Two
hundred and sixty-two science students and 398 art students were randomly selected.
Instrument and its Validity
The self-developed instrument, Learning Environment and Performance Survey [LEPS]. The instrument was pilot tested
for its validity. In addition, this instrument was validated independently by a panel of experts in the field. The experts
belonged to the field of education and research. They verified the face as well as the content validity of the instrument.
Reliability of the Instrument
The reliability of the instrument was 0.899.
Table 1: Item Breakup of Learning Environment
S. No Factors of the Scale Item Number
1 Physical 2,6,17,26,27,30
2 Cooperation 5,12,20,24,25
3 Academic 3,6,13,14,18,21,23,29
4 Presentation 1,7,9,11,19,28
5 Motivation 4,8,10,15,22
Table 1 showed that five factors have thirty items. They have subdivided into learning environment five items; Physical
six items; Cooperation 5 items; Academic 8 items; Presentation 6 items and Motivation 5 items.
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment and the performance of male students.
Table 2: Correlation of Learning Environment with Performance of Male Students
Location N Performance P-Value
Male 86 Learning Environment .107 .000**
**P<0.01
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of male students.
It revealed from table 2 that there is a significant relationship between the learning environment (.107) with the
performance of male students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation of the learning environment with the
performance of male students was rejected. It was concluded that when the learning environment increases, the
performance of students also increases. The results of "Pearson r (.107, P<0.01)" showed the weak and positive
relationship of the learning environment with the performance of male students.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment with the performance of female
students.

880|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
Table 3: Correlation of Learning Environment with Performance of Female Students
Location N Performance P-Value
Female 572 Learning Environment .053 .000**
**P<0.01
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of female
students. It revealed from table 3 that there is a significant relationship between the learning environment (.053) with the
performance of female students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation of the learning environment with the
performance of female students was rejected. The results of "Pearson r (.053, P<0.01)" showed the weak positive
relationship of the learning environment with the performance of female students.
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment with the performance of science
students.
Table 4: Correlation between Learning Environments with Performance of Science Students
Subject N Performance P-Value
Science 260 Learning Environment .134 .000**
**P<0.01
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of science
students. It revealed from table 4 that there is a significant relationship between the learning environment (.134) with the
performance of science students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation between the learning environment and
science students' performance was rejected. It is concluded that when the learning environment increases, the
performance of the students also increases. The result of "Pearson r (.134, p<0.01 & 0.05)" showed the strong positive
relationships of the learning environment with the performance of science students.
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment and the performance of art students.
Table 5: Correlation of Learning Environment with Performance of Arts Students
Subject N Performance P-Value
Arts 398 Learning Environment .052 .000**
**P<0.01
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of art students. It
revealed from table 5 that there is a significant relationship between the learning environment (.052) with the
performance of art students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation of the learning environment with the
performance of art students was rejected. Therefore, it is concluded that when the learning environment increases, the
students' performance also increases strongly.
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment and the performance of urban
students.
Table 6: Correlation between Learning Environments with Performance of Urban Students
Location N Performance P-Value
Urban 457 Learning Environment .073 .000**
**P<0.01
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of urban students.
It revealed from table 6 that there was a significant relationship between the learning environment (.073) with the
performance of urban students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation of the learning environment with the
performance of urban students was rejected. It is concluded that when the learning environment increases, the
performance of the students also increases. The result of "Pearson r (.073, P<0.01)" showed the weak positive
relationship of the learning environment with the performance of students.
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between the learning environment and the performance of rural students.
Table 7: Correlation between Learning Environment and Performance of Rural Students
Location N Performance P-Value
Rural 201 Learning Environment .122 .000**
**P<0.01

881|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
The correlation was run to see the relationship between the learning environment and the performance of rural students.
It revealed from table 7 that there was a significant relationship between the learning environment (.122) with the
performance of rural students. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation between the learning environment and rural
students' performance was rejected. It is concluded that when the learning environment increases, the performance of the
students also increases. The result of "Pearson r (.122, p<0.01 & 0.05 levels)" showed the strong positive relationships of
the learning environment with the performance of rural students.
Ho7: There is no significant difference between the learning environment and performance of male and female
students.
Table 8: Difference between Learning Environment and Performance of Male and Female Students
Gender N Mean SD Df t-value P-value
Males 86 107.6395 17.02864
656 -2.432 .017*
Females 572 112.2850 12.58502
*P<0.05
Table 8 revealed a significant difference between male (M= 107.6395, SD= 17.02864) and female students
(M=112.2850, SD=12.58502), t (656) =-2.432. So, the null hypothesis about the difference between the learning
environment and male and female students" was rejected. It was found that male and female students had a significant
difference in their learning environment and performance. The mean achievement score found that female students had a
better learning environment, and they gained a significant performance in their achievement scores at the university
level.
Ho8: There is no significant difference between the learning environment and performance of urban and rural
students.
Table 9: Difference between Learning Environment and Performance of Urban and Rural Students
Location N Mean SD df t-value P-value
Urban 457 111.4245 13.18456
656 -.735 .463
Rural 201 112.2537 13.66273
Table 9 revealed an insignificant difference between urban (M= 111.4245, SD= 13.18456) and rural students
(M=112.2537, SD=13.66273), t (656) =--.735. So, the null hypothesis about the correlation between learning
environment and performance of urban and rural students" was accepted. It was found that urban and rural students had
an insignificant difference in their learning environment and performance. The mean achievement score found that urban
and rural students showed equal performance under the learning environment at the university level.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
It was found that male and female students had a significant difference in their learning environment and performance.
The study supported the study of (Cloninger et al. 1993; Khan, Ullah, 2021; Ullah, 2020) that individuals' motivations
and self-concepts have been identified as personality dimensions and contemporary personality models such as the
psychobiological model of personality. Personality measurements have systematically been shown to be one of the
stronger predictors of academic performance. It was concluded that when the learning environment increases, the
performance of students also increases. The current study results showed the weak positive relationship of the learning
environment with the performance of female students. It was concluded that when the learning environment increases,
the performance of the students also increases. When the learning environment increases, the performance of the
students also increases strongly. The result showed the weak positive relationship of the learning environment with the
performance of students. There were strong positive relationships of the learning environment with the performance of
rural students. The mean achievement score found that female students had a better learning environment, and they
gained a significant performance in their achievement scores at the university level. It was found that urban and rural
students had an insignificant difference in their learning environment and performance. The mean achievement score
explored that female student have a better learning environment, and they gained a significant performance in their
achievement scores at the university level. It was found that male and female students had an insignificant difference in
their service quality and performance. The mean achievement score found that male and female students have equal
opinions on service quality and performance in their achievement scores.
The prior studies in the relevant field stressed on the socio-economical of families' such as financial resources, level of
education, and occupational and professional status of parents is highly related to student's academic achievement (Sirin,
2005), which in turns the forecasts the permanence of students in educational institutions (Marjoribanks, 2005). Parental
involvement enhances the children's progress. The factors related to students' motivation are the utmost forecasters of
academic achievement. The studies regarding meta-analyses are identified associations between academic goals, skills
related to academic learning, and academic results (Robbins et al., 2004). They revealed a strong association between
students' motivations and academic-related skills (Crede & Kuncel, 2008).

882|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
The resources regarding resources to involvement and academic achievement took place based on the mobilization of
individuals (Covington, 2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), the study skills are also known as academic-related skills,
different study habits (Murray & Wren,2003), and learning patterns.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study is limited to examine the association between learning environment and students' performance at the
university level, however, future studies can be conducted to analyze the relationship between learning environment and
vocational students at the diploma level as that also contribute a significant role in the state-building. In addition, the
association between learning environment and performance of in comparison to other developed and under-developed
economies can also be conducted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study is useful for top-level management at the university level in order to analyze the influence of the learning
environment on students’ performance.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS:
Maryam Munir: Data Analysis and its interpretation, Abstract and Conclusion writing, review of the article after
completion, and correspondence with the journal.
Muhammad Shabbir Ali: Data Collection, working on Literature, writing references and after completion of research
review the article
Asif Iqbal: Data Collection, working on Literature and after completion of research, its review.
Muhammad Faisal Farid: Data Collection, working on Literature and after completion of research, its review.
Muhammad Siddique: Data Collection, working on Literature and after completion of research, its review.
REFERENCES
1. Adigwe, J. C. (2004). School climate and chemistry classroom environment of senior secondary schools. Benin
Journal Educational Studies, 18(2), 83-89.
2. Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focused learning environments: Determinants and effects.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087904982
3. Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). School-level environment and outcomes-based
education in South Africa. Learning Environments Research, 9, 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-
9009-5
4. Armitage, C. (2008). Cognitive and affective predictors of academic achievement in schoolchildren. British
journal of psychology, 99, 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X181313
5. Aremu, A. O., & Oluwole, D. A. (2001). Gender and birth other as predictors of Normal pupil's anxiety pattern
in examination. Ibadan Journal of Educational Studies, 1(2), 58-66.
6. Astin, A. (1990). The environmental assessment technique: A way to measure college environments. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 52. 72-97.
7. Caraway, C., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of
failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 417 - 427.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10092
8. Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family Structure, Father Involvement, and Adolescent Behavioral Outcomes. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 68(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00239.x
9. Carr, M., Borkowski, J., & Maxwell, S. (1991). Motivational components of underachievers. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.108
10. Chouinard, M. M. (2007). Children's questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 72(1), 113-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00421.x
11. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and
character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archp
syc.1993.01820240059008
12. Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of
human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085551
13. Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. (2008). Study Habits, Skills, and Attitudes: The Third Pillar Supporting Collegiate
Academic Performance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x
14. Diseth, A., & Martinsen, O. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of
academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303225
15. Dorman, J. P. (2002). Classroom Environment Research: Progress and Possibilities. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qjer18/dorman. HTML

883|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 9, No 3, 2021, pp 877-884
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9385
16. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
109-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
17. Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M., & Adolphe, G. (2010). A cross-national study of secondary science classroom
environments in Australia and Indonesia. Research in Science Education, 40, 551–571. https://doi.org/10.100
7/s11165-009-9133-1
18. Gamoran, A., Turley, R. N. L., Turner, A., & Fish, R. (2012). Differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic
families in social capital and child development: First-year findings from an experimental study. Research in
Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.08.001
19. Khan, K. M., Ullah M. (2021). Mediating Role of Ethical Leadership Between Employees Empowerment and
Competitive Edge: A Case of Commercial Banks in Pakistan. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9(2),
219-221. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9223
20. Marjoribanks, K. (2005). Family environments and children's outcomes. Educational Psychology, 25, 647-657.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344704
21. McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as an agent in
integrating will and skill. Educational psychology, 25, 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_5
22. Meece, J. L., & Anderman, E. M., & Lynley, A. (2006). Classroom Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and
Academic Achievement. Annual review of psychology, 57, 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.56.091103.070258
23. Moreira, P. A. S., Pinheirob, A., Gomesc, P., Cotterc, M. J., & Ferreirac, R. (2010). Development and
Evaluation of Psychometric Properties of an Inventory of Teachers' Perceptions on Socio-Emotional Needs.
Psychology: Reflection and Criticism, 26(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000100008
24. Murray, C., & Wren, C. T. (2003). Cognitive, Academic, and Attitudinal Predictors of the Grade Point
Averages of College Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 407-15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360050201
25. Mynster, D. (1997). Classroom management. Retrieved on 3 March 2008, from www.AltaVista.com
26. Ozcinar, Z. (2006). The instructional communicative Qualification of parents with students. Cypriot Journal of
Educational Sciences, 1, (2), 29-48.
27. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study
skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
28. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
29. Schlee, B. M., Mullis, A. K., & Shriner, M. (2009). Parents' social and resource capital: Predictors of academic
achievement during early childhood. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(2), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.childyouth.2008.07.014
30. Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Goal Orientation, Academic Achievement, and Depression: Evidence in Favor of a
Revised Goal Theory Framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.103
7/0022-0663.97.3.366
31. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research.
Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417– 453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
32. Stone, R. (2005). Practices best classroom management: For reaching all learners. California: Corwin press, a
sage Publication company.
33. Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement
motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0073
34. Ullah, M. (2020). Women Empowerment and Social Development in Afghanistan through Micro Finance.
International Journal of Academic Research in business and Social Sciences, 10(12), 377-389
https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i12/8324
35. Walker, S. L. (2004). Learning Environment Research (Learning Environments Monograph No. 2). San
Marcos, TX: Texas State University-San Marcos, Geography Department.
36. Weinstein, C. S., & Mignano, A. J. (2007). Elementary classroom management: Lessons
From Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill Co.

884|https://giapjournals.com/hssr/index © Munir et al.