Abstract—Academic performance is a crucial indicator for evaluating college students' learning abilities and outcomes, which holds significant value for the design and improvement of course content and teaching methods. It is generally believed that there is a close relationship between college students' academic performance and their academic foundation, and the analysis of this correlation is an important field in educational research. This study focuses on the research findings and analytical methods of relevant literature published in this domain. Using Baidu Scholar and Google Scholar, we analyzed publication trends from 2013 to 2023 and selected 35 representative studies for detailed review. We found that research methods selected papers can be categorized into three types: quantitative analysis methods (including meta-analysis), qualitative analysis methods, and mixed analysis methods. The strengths and limitations of each approach were critically evaluated. Additionally, a keyword analysis using word cloud visualization revealed that meta-analysis is the most frequently employed technique, underscoring its growing prominence in this field. Based on these findings, we propose three fundamental principles for conducting correlation analyses between college students' academic performance and their academic foundation. Furthermore, we highlight three potential directions for innovative research in this area.  
 

Keywords—college students' academic performance, academic foundation, literature analysis, research methods, research principles 

Cite: Lianchuan Xiao and Fei Gao, "Is the Academic Performance of College Students Related to Their Academic Foundation? A Methodological Review of the Literatures," International Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 131-138, 2025.

Copyright © 2025 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).