The main aim of this study was to investigate how participating in student activities and the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness predict daily integration among higher education students. We investigate integration from both a sociological (academic and social integration) and a psychological perspective (self-congruence), to better converge these perspectives in understanding the integration process. 135 first-year university students participated in a daily diary study spanning one week. The data was analyzed through linear mixed-effects models. We found that daily competence satisfaction and studying alone were positive predictors of academic integrations. For social integration, we found that daily autonomy, studying alone, and end-of-the-week (day 5) were a negative predictor, whereas daily relatedness, and participating in lectures and seminars were positive predictors. For self-congruence, competence and relatedness were positive predictors. Our findings show that there are different mechanisms leading to different forms of integration and potential dynamics between different forms of integration, suggesting that integration is multidimensional and broader in nature than generally operationalized.

Background. Attrition from STEM programs remains a persistent challenge for universities globally. To better support student success and socio-academic integration, universities have developed a range of curricular and co-curricular resources. Much emphasis has been placed on the benefits of these resources; however, less is known about how students recognize, access, and realize these benefits. Guided by a capital-mediated agency model, this asset-based focus group study examined how university-provided resources support undergraduate STEM students’ use of capital. We conducted four parallel focus groups with 21 students at a Norwegian university and analyzed narratives using thematic analysis. Results. Students described using both curricular and co-curricular resources to build personal/emotional, social, and human resource capital that helped them navigate academic and personal challenges. Curricular resources, including mandatory assignments, fieldwork, and laboratory activities, supported disciplinary training and opportunities to develop relationships with peers. Co-curricular resources, including tutoring rooms and student organizations, similarly provided academic and emotional support. Although students often initially accessed resources to address academic challenges, they frequently described emergent social benefits. Recognition of these social benefits appeared to link resource use with decisions to invest in them. Across participants’ accounts, social capital and sense of belonging appeared to operate reciprocally: relationships formed through resource engagement fostered belonging, while belonging strengthened students’ willingness and capacity to continue engaging with peers, resources, and their academic communities. Conclusions. These findings extend the capital-mediated agency model by identifying students’ recognition of resource benefits as a meaningful process linking their use to investment. They also position students’ sense of belonging as an emergent and reciprocal outcome of engagement with both primarily academic and social resources. For institutions and instructors, the findings suggest that simply providing resources may be insufficient and that students must be able to recognize their relevance, access them, and use them in ways that generate meaningful academic and, critically, social outcomes. Designing and evaluating university resources to support these processes and build social capital may create learning environments that better support student agency, resilience, belonging, and persistence in STEM.