Chronotype as a predictor of academic success of university freshmen
Claire E Ferguson1, Laura A Kaneta1, Ailin Li1, Philip P Nelson1, Moses Satralkar2, and Andrew SID Lang1*
1Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK, USA
2Redbridge International Academy, Bengaluru, India
*corresponding author: alang@oru.edu
Abstract
An individual’s endogenous circadian rhythm or chronotype tends to become later during adolescence, with peak lateness typically experienced during the freshman year of college, and slowly shifting earlier thereafter. Studies evaluating the impact of a student’s chronotype on academic performance have shown that early chronotypes have an academic advantage over late chronotypes. However, it is not clear how this advantage depends on the time of the student’s class and whether this advantage persists into the late afternoon or evening. We obtained the course grades by time of class and morningness-eveningness scores of 402 traditional first-time freshmen (aged 17-19) years to examine the impact of both time of class and chronotype on academic performance. We found that the strength of the effect of chronotype on grades was most significant for early morning classes (p = 0.02), with a one point change in MEQ score associated with a change in grade point average of 0.12 points, even when controlling for gender (p = 0.03). As the time of day progressed, the advantage early types have over late types became less significant with parity in grades for all chronotypes observed for classes with start times 15:00 – 18:00. For definite morning types, our model predicts a decline in academic performance over the course of the day and into the evening, and that definite morning types would be at a severe disadvantage in classes that started later than 18:00. However, none of our 18-19 year old freshmen identified as definite morning types, so this is only likely to be a problem for older non-traditional students who tend to have earlier chronotypes. Thus, our typical class demographic, of young traditional students in morning classes and more mature non-traditional students in evening classes, seems counterproductive in regards to preparing students for academic success.
INTRODUCTION
Among college students, ideal sleep/wake times are generally shifted later by two to three hours; however, the requirements of work and start times of classes generally do not change (Evans, Kelley, & Kelley, 2017). In fact, while educational and medical research supports later start times as a benefit to high school education academic performance (van der Vinne et al., 2015) and undergraduate students’ academic performance (Edwards, 2012; Meltzer et al., 2014; Wahlstrom et al., 2014), little has been done to make significant changes to American-based educational systems. That is, no American system has adopted later start times past 09:00 for adolescents or young adults, nor has research shown that college academic advisors recommend that students with later sleep/wake patterns take later classes.
There are numerous factors that affect one’s ability to perform well academically. While some of these factors, such as intellectual dispositions, genetics, and learning styles are out of one’s control, some, such as choosing class times, are within one’s control (Zerbini & Merrow, 2017). Numerous researchers have investigated the effects of parental involvement, personality, physical activity, and many other variables with individuals’ academic achievement (Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014; Poropat, 2014; Aadland, 2017; Hair, Hanson, Wolfe, & Pollak, 2015). Another factor that affects one’s academic achievement is one’s own biology. The specific biological factor that will be explored in this study is an individual’s chronotype, referring to individual differences in their circadian rhythms, such as sleep/wake tendencies. Patterns in the relationship between chronotypes and academic achievement have been substantiated in past research, and the objective of this study is to investigate whether chronotypes, measured by the Morningness Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) are a predictor of academic success, as measured by GPA of college freshmen, both overall and by time of day. The goals of this study are to confirm past findings, add new findings to the overall body of research, and to apply chronobiological principles to a college university setting.
What are chronotypes and how are they measured?
Morningness/eveningness chronotypes refer to one’s preference for morning or evening activities, and one’s energy and effectiveness in doing those activities (Preckel, Lipnevich, Schneider, & Roberts, 2011). Horne & Östberg (1976) explained it as a diurnal preference, or one’s preference during certain times of the day to perform mental and physical tasks. The morning chronotype indicates that one has an easier time awakening in the morning and is more alert and effective during the morning hours as compared to the evening. The evening chronotype indicates that one prefers to sleep in later in the morning and performs more effectively later on in the day and into the evening (Preckel et al., 2011). One’s chronological typology is not static throughout one’s life, but tends to be somewhat dynamic as one moves through various developmental stages throughout the lifespan (Beşoluk, 2011). Furthermore, in early childhood and middle adulthood through late adulthood, morning types tend to be more prevalent; however, adolescents and young adults tends to be more evening types (Košćec et al., 2001).
Many tests exist for measuring and differentiating chronotypes, but the test most frequently used in chronobiological research is the 19-item Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ; Natale, Grandi, Fabbri, Tonetti, Martoni, & Esposito, 2006; Horne & Östberg, 1976). The MEQ enables differentiation between the two chronotypes using five categories: definitely morning type, moderately morning type, intermediate type, moderately evening type, and definitely evening type. Individuals respond to these 19 items and an overall score is calculated with a range of 16-86. Higher scores correspond to a morning preference (> 59) and lower scores correspond to an evening preference (<41). Scores in the range of 42-58 correspond to an intermediate preference between morning and evening. Each type has an approximate sleep onset and awakening time. Definite evening types sleep onset is around 02:00-03:00 and their wake-up time is around 10:00-11:30. Moderate evening types sleep onset is around 00:45-02:00 and their wake-up time is around 08:30-10:00. Intermediate types sleep onset is around 22:45-00:45 and their wake-up time is around 06:30-08:30. Moderate morning types sleep onset is around 21:30-22:45 and their wake-up time is around 05:00-06:30. Definite morning types sleep onset is around 21:00-21:30 and their wake-up time is around 04:00-05:00.
Why do chronotypes matter for academic success?
Past research has indicated that the morning chronotype lends itself to a potential for academic success much more easily than does the evening chronotype. For example, the evening chronotype has been associated with problems with attention and task focus (Calvallera, Boardi, Guidici, & Ortolando, 2011). Additionally, research conducted by van der Vinne et al. (2015) and Randler and Frech (2009) revealed that morning chronotypes scored significantly higher on exams in the early and late morning when compared to evening types’ exam scores. However, morningness does not always outperform eveningness in an academic setting. It has been found that the most effective way to draw out success from individuals is to have them perform tasks at times of day corresponding to each individual’s chronotypic tendency. As such, morningness/eveningness chronotypes correspond with higher performance on measures of mindfulness, memory, and executive functioning at optimal times for each chronotype (i.e., the morningness chronotype corresponds with higher performance during the morning than the evening, and the eveningness chronotype corresponds with higher performance during the evening than the morning; Calvallera et al., 2011). Furthermore, when individuals were given tasks that assessed crystallized intelligence (e.g., tasks of vocabulary and general knowledge), chronotype did not contribute to differences in scores. However, fluid intelligence (e.g., problem solving, logic and reason) was impaired when an individual completed those tasks during off-hours (i.e., an individual with an evening preference who took a test that assessed fluid intelligence in the early morning would score significantly lower when all other factors were held constant; Zerbini et al, 2017). Zerbini and Merrow (2017) reported that chronotype and sleep are the two biological factors that impact academic success.
Previous research has shown that for high school students with an average age of 14.1 years, early chronotypes received significantly higher grades during classes before 12:15 (early morning and late morning), but there was no significant difference between early and late chronotypes for classes between 12:45-15:00 (early afternoon; van der Vinne et al., 2015). In fact, the authors recommended that testing be delayed to the early afternoon hours in order to equalize the opportunity for academic success by both early and late chronotypes. Furthermore, in a comprehensive meta-analysis by Preckel et al. (2011), morningness showed a positive correlation with academic achievement and eveningness showed a negative correlation with academic achievement. These findings were representative of both high school and university settings, showing a flexibility of being a morning person and a dysfunctional quality for eveningness. Recent research also supports delaying the onset of school for individuals with lower MEQ scores (evening preference) with positive results for academic performance (Gable & Owens, 2014; Owens, Belon, & Moss, 2011). A delayed start time has been associated with physiological and psychological benefits such as an increase in sleep duration and mood and a decrease in depression and daytime sleepiness (Boergers, Gable, & Owens, 2014).
Natale and Cicogna (1996) reported significant differences between subjective alertness/sleepiness and chronotype among university students (mean age = 23.02). Subjective alertness is believed to greatly affect one’s performance in any area (academic, athletic, etc.). When students were asked to rate their level of subjective sleepiness/alertness on the Stanford Sleepiness Scale, the researchers found that between the hours of 08:00-09:00 and 21:00-22:00, ratings of sleepiness had the greatest discrepancies between the three chronotypes (early, intermediate, and late) – early chronotypes rated their least amount of subjective alertness and late chronotypes rated their most amount of subjective alertness between 08:00-09:00. In contrast, late chronotypes rated their second-to-least amount of subjective alertness and early chronotypes their most amount of subjective alertness between 21:00-22:00. As such, individuals with early chronotypes may perform better in classes between 08:00-09:00 when compared with late or intermediate chronotypes.
Some research shows a slight disposition for morning times for women (Tankova, Adan, & Buela-Casal, 1994; Kerkhof, 1985)
MATERIALS AND METHOD
The standard MEQ questionnaire was converted into an electronic form and 690 responses were collected from students in a required introductory college success course, adding questions to capture age, gender, US citizenship status, college classification (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), academic college, and academic major. The data was filtered and only data for students who self-identified as true freshmen and self-identified as being between 17 and 19 years old was retained. Based on these exclusions, a dataset of MEQ scores for 402 traditional first-time freshmen (aged 17-19 years) were used. Age and classification were filtered to try to keep the data as consistent as possible based on research by Roenneberg et al (2004) which reported that the greatest shift in one’s sleep/wake cycle occurs at age 19.
Once the semester was over, GPAs were added to the dataset for each student (GPA on a 4.0 scale; A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0) as a measure of academic performance. Each students’ GPA was calculated (mean 3.20, standard deviation 0.76) and student GPAs by time of class (07:00 – 07:59, 08:00 – 08:59, … , 18:00 – 18:59) as determined by class start time. For classes that had different start times on different days, the start time corresponding to longest class duration was selected. The majority of the two-hour final exams for participants’ classes were held at roughly the same hour (within an hour) as class times except for classes that had start times 15:00 – 15:59 whose finals are always scheduled to begin at 09:45 at our institution for final exam scheduling reasons. As the grades were retrieved and stored, the data was de-identified to ensure confidentiality. The protocol of this study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The final dataset is available as Open Data (CC0) via figshare (Lang et al., 2018).
RESULTS
The dataset (Lang et al., 2018) consists of MEQ Scores and first-semester GPAs by class starting time of 402 first-time college freshmen aged 17-19. MEQ scores can range from 16-86; however, the scores in this study range from 17-68 with a mean of 47 and a standard deviation of 9. It is interesting to note that none of the 402 students identified as definite morning types (see Table 1).
Type
Range
N
%
Female
Male
definite evening
16-30
12
3%
7
5
moderate evening
31-41
95
24%
65
30
intermediate
42-58
258
64%
171
87
moderate morning
59-69
37
9%
22
15
definite morning
70-86
0
0%
0
0
Table 1. Demographics and MEQ scores for the 402 subjects in this study.
The effect of chronotype on overall GPA
Analyzing the data for significant explanatory variables for academic performance, it was found that gender had a significant effect on overall GPA (t = -2.08, p = 0.039), with males having, on average, GPAs 0.16 points lower than females. No other variables (student’s college, student’s major, international vs. US citizen), except MEQ, had any significant effect on GPA. The effect of MEQ score on GPA is illustrated in Figure 1 below which shows that, in general, early types have higher GPAs than later types, with a one point change in MEQ score associated with an increase in overall GPA of 0.12 points:
GPA = 2.64 + 0.12 * MEQ (p = 0.017), (Equation 1)
even when controlled by gender
GPA = 2.68 + 0.12 * MEQ – 0.17 * Gender (p = 0.026). (Equation 2)
These finding are in agreement with the findings of previous studies performed in both high-school and university settings (Borisenkov et al., 2010; Beşoluk et al., 201; Enright & Refinetti 201; Escribano et al., 2012; Kolomeichuk et al., 2016; Medeiros et al., 2001; Preckel et al., 2013; Rahafar et al., 2016; Randler & Frech, 2009; Smarr, 2015; Smarr & Schirmer, 2018; van der Vinne et al., 2015; Vollmer et al., 2013; Zerbini et al., 2017). [CHECK TO SEE IF WE NEED TO CITE ANY OF THESE IN THE INTRODUCTION].
Figure 1. Average GPA as a function of MEQ score for 402 first-time college freshmen aged 17-19. There is a small but significant correlation between the two variables (p = 0.017), indicating that early chronotypes tend to have higher GPAs.
The effect of time of class, gender, and chronotype on GPA
When the overall semester GPA for each student was added to the dataset, the average GPA for each student by class time was also added, allowing for the analysis of the effect of class time on GPA by chronotype. By filtering the data into two subsets by chronotype (MEQ < 42, N= 107 & MEQ > 58, N = 37), it allowed for one to see if late types (MEQ < 42) had significantly lower grades the early types (MEQ > 58) in early classes (07:00 – 09:59), and similarly, if early types had significantly lower grades than late types in late afternoon classes (16:00 – 18:59). Analysis showed that indeed late types had significantly lower grades than early types in early classes, with mean GPAs of 2.91 and 3.43 respectively (t = -4.07, p < 10-4) but that early types still had higher GPAs than late types in late classes, with mean GPAs of 3.34 and 3.63 respectively, though not quite at a significant level (t = -1.82, p = 0.07). This confirms early work by Enright & Refinetti (2017) and Smarr & Schirmer (2018) who conclude that GPA increases for all chronotypes as the day progresses. However, by modeling the rate of increase of GPA by time of class by MEQ (see figure 2) it was found that GPAs are actually predicted to decrease over the course of a day for students with MEQ scores greater than 64. This high MEQ score, however, is quite rare for college freshmen. In fact, only 10 of 402 students in the dataset have MEQ scores higher than 64. Thus we conjecture that true definite morning types (MEQ > 69) will perform better in morning classes than in late afternoon/evening classes. However, in practice, this may be so rare as to be moot.
Figure 2. The rate of change of GPA by time of class by MEQ score. The rate of change becomes negative for MEQ scores > 64.
Plotting predicted GPAs for several MEQ scores illustrates (see Figure 3) the stark difference in academic success for each of the five chronotypes for early morning classes and the convergence of GPAs for all chronotypes for afternoon classes, again confirming the work of Enright & Refinetti (2017) and Smarr & Schirmer (2018). It is important to note that the top line, corresponding to the predicted GPA by time of day for a student with an MEQ score of 70, is an extrapolation of the model outside of the dataset (the highest MEQ score among the participants in this study was 68).
Figure 3. Predicted GPAs for several chronotypes (MEQ scores: 30, 36, 50, 64, and 70 going from bottom to top at 07:00). One can clearly see the significant lower grades for late chronotypes in classes taken early in the day as compared to the relative grade parity for all chronotypes for classes taken in the late afternoon.
One final note is we found the following significant relationship between GPA, gender (p = 0.008), time of class (p < 10-5) using military time, i.e. 4:00 pm = 16, and MEQ score (p < 10-5),
GPA = 2.45 + 0.01 * MEQ – 0.12 * Gender + 0.03 * Time (p < 10-9). (equation 3)
This model is interesting as it shows the relative strength of each effect (MEQ score, gender, and time of class) on GPA.
DISCUSSION
To increase the probability of an individual’s academic success, one’s MEQ score needs to be taken into consideration. However, many are unaware of their MEQ type and its impact. Implementing a required MEQ test to all incoming college freshmen and educating academic advisors on the benefits of correlating MEQ types with class start times would increase the likelihood of students performing at their peak. Additionally, offering a wider range of class start times would allow advisors to more easily recommend later classes to students with lower MEQ scores and earlier classes to students with higher MEQ scores.
For employers wanting their employees to pursue higher education, it is recommended that they allow their employees to take morning classes. With one’s MEQ score shifting more towards a morning type with age, employees would be able to maximize their peak performance in morning classes. In contrast, if high schools push for later start times it would help benefit students’ academic success.
[include in this section how academic advising could be improved by having incoming freshmen, or any student for that matter, take the MEQ, and based on their score, it recommends a time frame of when to take classes when possible (may not be possible for all classes, but for most gen eds that offer multiple sections, this could work).
[Also, evening classes for old folks is a bad idea. Maybe recommend employers who want their workers to get further education release their workers so that they can take morning classes, instead of having them take evening classes.]
References:
Aadland, K. N., Moe, V. F., Aadland, E., Anderssen, S. A., Resaland, G. K., & Ommundsen, Y. (2017, March). Relationships between physical activity, sedentary time, aerobic fitness, motor skills and executive function and academic performance in children. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 12, 10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.01.001
Borisenkov, M. F., Perminova, E. V. & Kosova, A. L. (2010). Chronotype, sleep length, and school achievement of 11-23 year-old students in northern European Russia. Chronobiol Int 27, 1259-1270.
Beşoluk, Ș. (2011). Morningness-eveningness preferences and university entrance examination scores of high school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 248-252.
Boergers, J., Gable, C. J., & Owens, J. A. (2014, January). Later school start time is associated with improved sleep and daytime functioning in adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(1), 11-17. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000018
Enright, T. & Refinetti R. (2017). Chronotype, class times, and academic achievement of university students. Chronobiology International, 34(4), 445-450. doi:10.1080/07420528.2017.1281287
Escribano, C., Diaz-Morales, J. F., Delgado, P. & Collado, M. J. (2012). Morningness/eveningness and school performance among Spanish adolescents: further evidence. Learn Individ Differ 22, 409-413.
Evans, M.D.R., Kelley, P., Kelley, J. (2017). Identifying the best times for cognitive functioning using new methods: Matching university times to undergraduate chronotypes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11(188), 1-11. doi: 10.3389.fnhum.2017.00188
Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2015, July 20). Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822-829. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475
Horne, J. A., & Östberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4, 97–110.
Kolomeichuk, S. N., Randler, C., Shabalina, I. et al. (2016). The influence of chronotype on the academic acheivement of children and adolescents: Evidence from Russian Karelia. Biol Rhythm Res. 47, 873-883.
Lang, A.S.I.D., Ferguson, C.E., Kaneta, L.A., Li, A., Nelson, P.P., Satralkar, M. (2018). Chronotype and Academic Performance by Time Of Day. figshare. Dataset.
doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6860699.v1
Medeiros, A. L. D., Mendes, D. B. F., Lima, P. F., Araujo, J. F. (2001). The relationship between sleep-wake cycle and academic performance in medical students. Biol Rhythm Res. 32, 263-270.
Natale, V. & Cicogna, P. (1996). Circadian regulation of subjective alertness in morning and evening ‘types.” Personality and Individual Differences, 20(4), 491-497. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00213-8
Preckel, F., Lipnevich, A.A., Schneider, S., & Roberts, R. (2011). Chronotype, cognitive abilities, and academic achievement: A meta-analytic investigation. Learning and Individual Differences. 21, 483-492. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.003
Preckel, F., Lipnevich, A. A., Boehme, K., et al. (2013). Morningness-eveningness and educational outcomes: The lark has an advantage over the owl at high school. Br J Educ Psychol. 83, 114-134.
Poropat, A. E. (2014, June 3). Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.013
Rahafar, A., Maghsudllo, M., Farhangnia, S., et al. (2016). The role of chronotype, gender, test anxiety, and conscientiousness in academic achievement of high school students. Chrobiol Int. 33, 1-9.
Randler, C., & Frech, D. (2009, October 16). Young people's time-of-day preferences affect their school performance. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(6), 653-667. doi: 10.1080/13676260902902697
Roenneberg, T., Kuehnle, T., Pramstaller, P.P., Ricken, J., Havel, M., Guth, A., et al (2004). A marker for the end of adolescence. Current Biology. 14, 1038-1039. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.039
Smarr, B. L. (2015). Digital sleep logs reveal potential impacts of modern temporal structure on class performance in different chronotypes. J Biol Rhythms. 30, 61-67
Smarr, B. L. & Schirmer, A. E. (2018). 3.4 million real-world learning management system logins reveal the majority of students experience social jet lag correlated with decreased performance. Scientific Reports. 8:4793. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23044-8
van der Vinne, V., Zerbini, G., Siersema, A., et al. (2015). Timing of examinations affects school performance differently in early and late chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 30, 53-60. doi:10.1177/0748730414564786
Vollmer, C., Potsch, F. & Randler, C. (2013). Morningness is associated with better gradings and higher attention in class. Learn Individ Differ, 27, 167-173
Wang, M., & Sheikh-Khalil, S. (2014, March/April). Does parental involvement matter for student achievement and mental health in high school? Child Development, 85(2), 610-625. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12153
Zerbini, G., & Merrow, M. (2017). Time to learn: How chronotype impacts education. PsyCh Journal, 6, 263-276. doi:10.1002/pchj.178
Zerbini, G., van dr Vinne, V., Otto, L.K.M., Kantermann, T., Krijnen, W.P., Roenneberg, T., & Merror, M. (2017). Lower school performance in late chronotypes: underlying factors and mechanisms. Scientific Reports, 7(4385), 1-10. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04076-y