Studies reveal that learners who have more self-determined forms of motivation for doing school work were less likely to drop out of school than learners who had less self-determined motivation (Daoust and Vallerand, 1991; Vallerand, & Blais, 1988; Vallerand & Bassonette, 1991). Grolnick, (1990) have also linked intrinsic motivation and autonomous form of extrinsic motivation to positive academic performance. Vallerand and Bassonette (1991) found that learners who had greater intrinsic motivation and identified regulation showed more positive emotions in the
classroom, more enjoyment of academic work and more satisfaction with school than learners whose motivational profiles are less autonomous. They display innovative ways to regulate behaviour, and curriculum demands (Daoust and Vallerand, 1991).
Ryan and Connel (1989) revealed correlations between independent regulatory styles and enjoyment of school. They found that more controlling organizational styles to be associated with greater anxiety and poorer coping with failures. These learners may lack the confidence to initiate tasks because of the fear of failure and criticism from their teachers (Ryan and Connel, 1989). It appears that there is a definite link between learners’ intrinsic motivation and their ability to achieve their goals (Connell & Wellborn, 1990). According to Connell and Wellborn (1990), these learners also display deeper conceptual understanding and appear to be well adjusted than learners with fewer self-determined types of motivation. Research also shows that these self-determined types of motivation have a strong influence on learners’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy and their drive to persevere through educational challenges (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). Findings affirm that learners who feel more competent take more risks and are less fearful of mistakes and that they are more open to advice and guidance than the learner with low self-efficacy levels and who sees advice as criticism (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013).
Regardless of the efforts of scientists to determine the exact reasons why learners drop out of school, gaps are still found in the results and learners still drop out of school to this day (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). Researchers suggest that the push, pull and falling out factors could be a valuable tool to comprehend the universal problem of learner dropout in education (Jordan, 1994; Watt & Roessingh, 1994). High efficacious learners may prove to be more immune to the push, pull or falling out factors plaguing the South African education system.
3.3.1 The Push Factors
Scientists are of the opinion that some learners may be negatively affected by factors inside the school. These factors may be identified as those elements within the natural academic process which may have a negative impact on some learners. Elements like assessments, tests, examinations, homework, daily attendance, and adherence to school rules. Jordan (1994) explains that some learners tend to show vulnerability to push pressures from within the school especially if they struggle to meet the academic demands that are placed on them. The inability of these learners to cope with academic demands may lead to their intention to drop out of school (Jordan 1994; Watt & Roessingh, 1994).
3.3.2 The Pull Factors
Researchers believe that learners can also be pulled out of the education system. According to Jordan, Watt & Roessingh (1994), Pull factors may include out-of-school attractions like jobs and family. Research show that innate factors may cause learners to lose interest in learning and abort their schooling career. Dropout, therefore, may occur when factors, such as financial concerns, out-of-school employment, family needs, or even family changes, such as marriage or childbirth, pull learners away from school (Jordan, 1994; Watt & Roessingh, 1994).
3.3.3 Falling out factors
Watt and Roessingh (1994) represented a third component called falling out of school. They state that falling out, happens when a learner does not show significant academic advancement and becomes apathetic with school completion. According to Roessingh (1994), it is not necessarily an active or conscious decision, but rather a symptom of a lack of personal and academic support.
Also, more than push or pull factors, falling out factors signifies a process in school dropout whereby the learner gradually excels in actions of academic disengagement, yet without being forced out by the school (by push factors). These learners could also be enticed out of school by things they need or want (by pull factors) (Finn, 1989; Finn & Pannozzo, 1995). Eventually, these learners disappear or fall out from the education system.
3.3.4 Key Differences between Push, Pull and Falling Out Factors
Doll (2013) suggests that the key difference between push, pull, and falling out factors has to do with an agency that is employed to get the effect. With push factors, the school is the agent whereby a learner is removed from school as a result of a consequence. With pull factors, the learner is the officer or agent. Those attractions or distractions lure them out of school. Finally, with falling out factors, neither the learner nor school is the agent. Instead, circumstances exist that neither the school nor the student can change or improve, and as a result, the bond the learner has with the school gradually disintegrates (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). Although there seems to be a similarity between pull and falling out factors in terms of both involving an action of the learner, the distinct difference is that pull factors have a definite force working as an attraction or distraction that learners seek after, thus leading to dropout. Whereas falling out elements lack this attraction or distraction (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013).
According to research, pull factors revealed themselves differently for males and females (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). From this study, pull factors, such as “Got married or Had to work” , played the most defining role in the dropout. With women, pregnancy seems to be the most common reason for dropping out of school. Evidence show that more women suggested marriage as a dropout cause than men. Evidence also suggested that marital obligations and childbearing
had a stronger effect on dropout for young mothers (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). However, research shows that more men indicated that they did not enjoy school and wanted to find a job. Overall, evidence suggests men reported push factors at a rate more than double than that of women. Quite similar evidence regarding academic performance was gathered for males and females (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013).
Studies suggest that pull factors play the strongest role in dropout with females leading in this category (Cunningham, 2007; Glennie & Stearns, 2002). Doll et al. (2013) suggests that pull factors are mostly related to family and parenting that mostly lead to dropout. In this case, females usually score the highest as opposed to males scored higher relating to the push factors like failing tests, cannot cope with workload or not performing according to academic standards. Scientific evidence reveals that dropping out is thus a cocktail of influences exercised on learners and not just one reason (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013).