Academic Resilience: Adversity and traumatic experience in an educational context at university

Academic Resilience: Adversity and traumatic experience in an educational context at university

Astthor Odinn Olafsson

2018

Resilience is a process whereby individuals bounce back or beat the odds despite the significant threat that can jeopardise their development. Academic resilience pertains to student´s success after educational adversity and their coping behaviour in challenging circumstances. Recently academic resilience became a validated psychological construct, and the present study uses this Academic Resilience Scale (ARS) to measure students response to academic adversity in a university sample with three analysis. The primary analysis: estimated the Life Event Checklist (LEC) or traumatic experienced and academic resilience which is unresearched. The findings indicated that students´ who have experienced a traumatic life event(s) and stressful situations are showing slightly more academic resilience than those who have not experienced a traumatic life event and stressful situations. A second analysis: academic resilience in a relationship with the life event, brief resilience, self-esteem, self-efficacy, perceived stress, and academic performance. Both self-efficacy and brief resilience predicted academic resilience. Third analysis: same parameters from the second analysis was utilised but now in a relationship with traumatic experienced and displayed that traumatic students had a more tendency for brief resilience, self-efficacy, self-esteem but perceived more stress than nontraumatic student´s. These results show that the academic resilience could be used as an intervention in the educational environment to enhance student´s coping behaviour and facilitate them to adjust more effectively in challenging circumstances.

academic resilience
traumatic experience
resilience nontraumatic experience
stress
self-esteem
self-efficacy
academic performance

Participants
The sample was based on an internet survey of 154 Lancaster University students from 29 different nationalities who enrolled either as an undergraduate at first year (n = 47), second year (n = 49), third year (n = 30), Master student (n = 19) or PhD student (n = 3). Subsequently, five participants were excluded because of not being a student. The final sample contained 149 participants between the ages of 18 and 52 years old (M = 21.21; SD = 3.66). Majority of participants ethnicity was 51.6% British, 10.5% Chinese, 3.3% Indian, 2,6% South Korean and 2.6% Cypriot and other nationalities were in the minority. The principal investigator was not able to obtain gender because of a technical problem.
Materials
Academic Resilience Scale-30 (ARS-30)
ARS-30 (Cassidy, 2016), measures academic resilience and is developed to estimate university students. Participants answer 30 statements of an imaginative vignette where a comment or feedback from a tutor about a low grade on an assessment that was presented. Participants imagine themselves being in that position and their response is confined to a statement:
„You have received your mark for a recent assignment, and it is a ‘fail.’ The marks for two other recent assignments were also poorer than you would want as you are aiming to get as good a degree as you can because you have clear career goals in mind and don’t want to disappoint your family. The feedback from the tutor for the assignment is quite critical, including reference to ‘lack of understanding’ and ‘poor writing and expression,’ but it also includes ways that the work could be improved. Similar comments were made by the tutors who marked your other two assignments.“
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale 1 (very likely) to 5 (very unlikely). Items include, “ I would not accept the tutors´ feedback”; “I would just give up”; and” I would blame the tutor.” Following the guidelines provided by Cassidy (2016), 9 of the items were reverse-coded (e.g., “I would not accept tutors´ feedback”). The author of the scale report high internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.90). The ARS-30 has a theoretical range of 30-150, with higher scores indicating greater academic resilience (Cassidy, 2016). The internal consistency of ARS-30 in the current study was (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85).
Life Event Checklist-17 (LEC-17)
LEC-17 (Blake, Weathers, Nagy, Kaloupek, Charney, & Keane, 1995) is a measure of traumatic experiences and stressful situations which range from single stressful life experience to aggregates across multiple incidents. Participants respond to 17 items on 5-point nominal scale 1 (happened to me) 2 (witnessed it) 3 (learned about it) 4 (not sure) and 5 (does not apply). Example of questions, “Natural disaster (for example, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake)”; “Assault with a weapon (for example, being shot, stabbed, threatened with a knife, gun, bomb)”; “Sudden, unexpected death of someone close to you.” The measurement is usually used in a clinical setting to assess PTSD (Gray, Litz, Hsu, & Lombardo, 2004).
In the present study, the measurement is merely utilised to examine if participants have experienced traumatic and stressful situations. Other than that, internal consistency of recent studies (Bae, Kim, Koh, Kim, & Park, 2008) is (Cronbach alpha = 0.66), LEC-17 also shows external reliability from r = .44 to r = .55, suggesting significant correlation with other measures that assess traumatic experiences and stressful situations in supporting of the scale´s construct validity (Gray, Litz, Hsu, & Lombardo, 2004). The internal consistency of LEC-17 in the current study was (Cronbach´s alpha = .90).
Subsequently, the life event variable was divided into two variables (1 = Traumatic and 2 = Nontraumatic). Previous studies assigned participants who scored 1 (happened to me) as only traumatic individuals and 0 was assigned if any other responses option was endorsed and recorded as nontraumatic individuals (Gray et al., 2004). In the current study, participants who responded to 1 (happened to me) and 2 (witnessed) were combined as traumatic based on the effect of witnessing a traumatic event; it can not be ruled out how intense and excessive this experiences might be (American Psychiatric Associations, 2013). On the other hand, participants who based their responses on 3 (learned about it), 4 (not sure) and 5 (does not apply) was registered as nontraumatic.

Brief Resilience Scale-6 (BRS-6)
The resilience of participants was assessed with the BRS-6 and participants responded to 6 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), on items such as “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”; “It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event”, and “I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life.” Three items were reverse-coded (e.g., “I have a hard time making it through stressful events”) to follow the structure of prior studies. The internal consistency of (Cronbach alpha 0.80-0.91). A higher score indicating greater resilience (Smith, Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher & Benard, 2008). The internal consistency of BRS-6 in the current study was (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.39).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem-10 (RSE-10)
Self-esteem was measured with RSE-10 (1965) by evaluating both positive and negative feeling about the self. Participants answer ten items on 4-point Likert scale 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). Example of items are, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; “I feel I do not have much to be proud of”; “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” Five items were reverse-coded (e.g., “At times I think I am no good at all”). Reported (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84-0.86) (Tinakon & Nahathai, 2012). A higher score indicates greater self-esteem. The internal consistency of RSE-10 in the current study was (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.87).
Student Self-Efficacy-10 (SSE-10)
Self-efficacy was assessed with SSE-10 which is an estimation of the student´s belief in their capabilities to carry out, organise and perform a task successfully. The previous study by (Rowbotham & Schmitz, 2013) used a different way to measure with a four-point response format 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Exactly true). Participants in the current research respond to 10 items on 4-point Likert scale 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). Item example, “ I am convinced that I am able to successfully learn all relevant subject content even if it is difficult”; When I try really hard, I am able to learn even the most difficult content”; “I know that I can stay motivated to participate in the course.” Reported (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.84), and external r = .70 reliability and implying that students self-efficacy correlates significantly with similar measures of self-efficacy showing construct validity (Martin & Marsh, 2006; Cassidy, 2016). Scores ranged from 10-40 with higher scores representing higher student self-efficacy (Rowbotham & Schmitz, 2013). The internal consistency of SSE-10 in the current study was (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.85).
Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS-14)
Perceived stress was evaluated with PSS-14 which is a measure of stress quite general and consequently relatively free of content specific to any sub-population group. Participants respond to 14 items on 5- point Likert scale 0 (Never) to 4 (Very often). Related items are, “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”; In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and “stressed”?”; In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?”. Following the guidelines provided by Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein (1983), seven items were reverse-coded (e.g. “In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems”). Internal consistency of previous studies is between (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.70) (Lee, 2012) and (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.82) (Andreou, et al., 2011). A higher score indicates greater stress. The internal consistency of PSS-14 in the current study was (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.82).


Academic Performance
Academic performance derives from average grade from each participant, undergraduates at first year provided merely two marks at the second year and master students provided only part 1 mark. Both undergraduates at a second and third year offered part 1 mark and part 2 mark. These average grades were combined and used as a measure of their academic performance. Not all participants gave permission for obtaining their average grades, but hundred and three participants approved this inquiry. The undergraduate at first year with part 1 mark was (M = 62.6; SD = 10.0) and part 2 mark was (M = 71.9; SD = 2.33). The undergraduate at second year with part 1 mark with two participants was (M = 63.0; SD = 8.56 and part 2 mark (M = 63.5; SD = 9.42). The undergraduate at third year with part 1 mark was (M = 62.6; SD = 6.41) and part 2 mark (M = 63.7; SD = 7.05). Masters mark with merely part 1 mark (M = 68.7; SD = 5.41). The combination of these marks are measured as Academic Performance (See Table 1.).
Cronbach alpha threshold

Each questionnaire met Cronbach alpha level or internal consistency where the criterion is at .70 or above (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), apart from Brief Resilience which showed (Cronbach´s alpha = 0.39), even though will not be excluded.
Procedure
The methodology was pre-registered before data collection (see Appendix 1). After a review and approval from Lancaster University´s Psychology Department´s Research Ethics committee, the study commenced. Hundred and fifty-four participants were collected and answered an internet survey on Qualtrics (2018) but were reduced to a hundred and forty-nine. Participants were immediately informed of the purpose of the study without revealing the research hypothesis to prevent social desirability or to avoid demand characteristics. Participants were also enlightened that their data will be anonymised and treated as confidential and only used to understand who has taken part in the study. In the following, participants were given an explanation of possible risks in two measures, and for ethical issues, participants were told in advance that they would be asked about whether they have experienced any traumatic or difficult life events. For example in LEC-17 questions like “sexual assault (rape, attempted rape, made to perform any type of sexual act through force or threat of harm” among other questions in relation to recalling of events that were related to traumatic experience and could cause some inconveniences. Second, PSS-14 with a question such as “in the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of your control?” could cause some inconveniences also in association to antecedent stress or stress that the participant perceived at the moment.
Participants were made aware that participating in the study is entirely voluntarily and informed about the rights to withdraw at any time during the study without being penalised or being in debt to the Lancaster University by any means. Participants were also informed about the benefit of participating in the survey by contributing to a better understanding of academic achievement and how different events can affect the academic process (See Appendix 2). Therefore, after participants agree to participate in the study, the demographics were obtained such as which university participants study at, if participants responded to at Lancaster University, they were asked for permission of acquiring their average grade with dichotomous yes and no. Then records of age, nationality, student status (Undergraduate 1,2,3 year, Master, PhD, Other or Not a student), and what major they are studying (See Appendix 4). The participants were approached at the university campus regardless of locations and responded to six measurements with 87 items on an Ipad owned by the principal investigator(See Appendix 5,6,7,8,9,10).
In the debrief part of the research, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the study hypothesis along with short details of the literature behind this review. Additionally, contact information such as the principal investigator or supervisor if any questions were provoked afterwards about the research itself or anything related to the process of the study. If participants wish to discuss with someone outside of the study, information about the head of the Psychology department was also tangible.

Lancaster University

data/SPSS.sav

Olafsson2018

Ellie Ball

Open

None

English

Data

LA1 4YF

Dr Neil McLatchie

MSc

Developmental Psychology

149 participants

Correlation
Linear regression