Resilience Building in Students
Resilience Building in Students
Resilience Building in Students
academic selfefficacy
Cassidy, SF
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01781
Title Resilience building in students : the role of academic selfefficacy
Authors Cassidy, SF
Type Article
URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/37224/
Published Date 2015
USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright
permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read,
downloaded and copied for noncommercial private study or research purposes. Please check the
manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: usir@salford.ac.uk.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 27 November 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01781
Garmezy and Masten (1991, p. 459) refer to resilience as “the 2010) work on mindset has led to the identification of two
process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation types of mindset, fixed and growth. A fixed mindset describes
despite challenging circumstances.” Abiola and Udofia (2011) individuals with fixed beliefs regarding their level of intelligence
offer a fuller account, discussing resilience in terms of inner and ability, which they believe remain stable. A growth mindset
strength, competence, optimism, flexibility, and the ability to instead describes individuals who view their intelligence and
cope effectively when faced with adversity, minimizing the ability simply as a basis for development and believe that
impact of risk factors, such as stressful life events, and enhancing challenges, including failure, are opportunities to develop their
the protective factors, such as optimism, social support, and capacity for success through effort and practice. The influence
active coping, that increase people’s ability to deal with life’s of mindset is emphasized further by Snipes et al. (2012), who
challenges. consider a growth mindset to be a major contributory factor
Although seemingly diverse, most definitions of resilience in the development of grit. Despite noted dissimilarities—
feature adaptive, resourceful and innovative enabling responses Duckworth considers resilience to be only one factor explaining
to adversity, threat or challenge as a core element. As such, grit (Perkins-Gough, 2013)—there are clear overlaps between
resilience is considered an asset or strength, a desirable and academic resilience and the constructs proposed by Duckworth
advantageous quality, characteristic or process that is likely to and Dweck, and their relevance is illustrated by Farrington et al.
impact positively on aspects of an individual’s performance, (2012) who reports that the combination of a growth mindset and
achievement, health, and wellbeing (Bartley et al., 2010). grit in students is been associated with higher academic grades.
As is common with many psychological constructs—self- Another construct, closely related to academic resilience,
efficacy for example (Bandura, 1997)—, there is debate around proposed by Martin and Marsh (2008, 2009) is academic
the existence and relevance of a global resilience construct. buoyancy. Described as the “capacity to overcome setbacks,
Instead, there is a strong argument for resilience to be challenges, and difficulties that are part of everyday academic
considered—and measured—as a context-specific construct. life.” (Martin, 2013, p. 488) it is seen as distinct from academic
Riley and Masten (2005) explain the need to contextualize resilience, which instead relates to the capacity to overcome
resilience on the basis that judgments about risk and adversity significant adversity that threatens a student’s educational
relate directly to events and contexts, as do evaluations of development. Martin (2013) does present evidence that whilst
competencies and outcomes. Both Liddle (1994) and Waxman buoyancy and resilience are related, buoyancy better predicts
et al. (2003) refer to the need to contextualize resilience in order low-level negative outcomes and resilience better predicts major
to generalize findings from resilience studies and in order to negative outcomes, which aligns with Martin and Marsh’s (2008)
consider specific practical implications for building resilience. earlier description of buoyancy as reflecting “everyday” academic
The present study examines resilience in the context of education resilience.
and learning (i.e., academic resilience), considering resilience as Waxman et al. (2003) suggest that studying resilient students
an asset and seeking to identify factors that may contribute to will provide important implications for improving the education
resilience promoting interventions for students, suggested by of students at risk of academic failure and evidence already exists
Zautra (2009) to have long-term benefits. supporting the relevance of academic resilience. McLafferty et al.
(2012) reported that both resilience and emotional intelligence
Academic Resilience predicted coping at university, with resilience as the only
Wang et al. (1994) refer to academic resilience as an significant unique predictor of coping subscales for grades,
increased likelihood of (academic) success despite environmental attendance, and studying. Furthermore, Abiola and Udofia
adversities. Resilient students are described by Alva (1991) (2011) reported higher perceived stress, anxiety and depression in
as those who maintain high motivational achievement and low resilience medical students following completion of a major
performance even when faced with stressful events and professional examination.
conditions that place them at risk of poor performance and by Waxman et al. (2003) note that resiliency refers to factors
Waxman et al. (2003) as those who succeed at school despite the and processes that limit negative behaviors associated with
presence of adverse conditions. stress and result in adaptive outcomes in the presence of
As is the case with general resilience, work focussing on adversity. They discuss the value of resilience studies that identify
academic resilience has led to the emergence of apparently differences between resilient and non-resilient students and that
distinct yet related concepts and constructs, each aiming to focus on alterable factors to design more effective educational
address a seemingly similar issue. Although drawing some interventions. They suggest that focusing on educational
explicit distinctions between their own constructs and resilience resilience and those factors that can be altered to promote
(Perkins-Gough, 2013), both Duckworth and Dweck provide resilience may help address the gap in achievement between those
significant contributions to the field of academic resilience with students who are successful and those who are at risk of failure.
their work on “grit” and “mindset.” Duckworth describes grit Like Wagnild (2009), Waxman et al. (2003) further suggest that
as an individual’s tendency to sustain interest, passion, effort rather than being fixed, academic resilience can be promoted
and persistence toward achieving long-term future goals (despite by focussing on alterable factors including social competence,
challenges and failures) and reports grit as a better predictor of problem-solving skills, autonomy, a sense of purpose (Bernard,
academic success than IQ (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth, 1993), motivation and goal orientation, positive use of time,
2013) or talent (Duckworth and Quinn, 2009). Dweck’s (2006, family life, and learning environment (McMillan and Reed,
1994). The potential for building resilience, together with Munro toward academic development—stating that students’ beliefs in
and Pooley’s (2009) suggestion that resilience may mediate their efficacy to regulate their own learning and master academic
adversity and success in university students and Hamill’s (2003) activities determine their aspirations, level of motivation and
prioritizing of self-efficacy over other resilience factors, provides academic accomplishment—there is a lack evidence-based detail
the major premise for the present study examining academic accounting for exactly what high self-efficacious individuals do
self-efficacy (ASE) as a factor influencing student responses to that impacts positively on academic outcomes; as noted by Hamill
academic adversity. (2003), despite an abundance of self-efficacy focussed research,
relatively little work has examined how self-efficacy relates to
Resilience and Self-efficacy resilient behaviors exhibited in response to adversity.
Waxman et al. (2003) proposes that academic resilience research
needs to examine indicators of resiliency in order to identify Present Study
what processes can promote protective mechanisms and calls Operationalizing academic resilience as students’ cognitive-
for more affective and motivational training for students to affective and behavioral responses to academic adversity, the
assess their impact on students’ affective and motivational present study seeks to establish examples of context-specific
outcomes. Aiming to provide a more “expansive” analysis of resilience factors and resilience responses to academic adversity.
the factors related to academic resilience, Martin and Marsh Self-efficacy has been identified as a key construct in previous
(2006) reported self-efficacy, planning, persistence, anxiety, and studies examining factors affecting academic achievement (e.g.,
uncertain control as predictors of academic resilience. Using class Cassidy, 2012), where high self-efficacy is commonly reported
participation (behavioral) and enjoyment at school (cognitive- as associated with better academic performance. What has not
affective) as educational outcome constructs and general self- been clearly established in these studies are the specific responses
esteem (global-affective) as a psychological outcome construct, of self-efficacious students to instances of academic adversity,
Martin and Marsh hypothesized that the outcome constructs when self-efficacy beliefs are particularly relevant because of
were consequential to students’ capacity to effectively deal with their association with increased motivation and perseverance
challenge, adversity and setbacks experienced in a school setting. (Bandura, 1997) and resistance to negative thought (Ozer and
As hypothesized, academic resilience was the strongest—relative Bandura, 1990). Hamill (2003) has explored this issue but using
to the other five motivational and engagement factors—predictor generalized measures of self-efficacy and coping responses in
of each of the outcome measures. Analysis to determine students’ the context of general stressful life events in a small sample
profiles according to academic resilience revealed that resilient of 16–19 year old students—limitations which Hamil partly
students were high in self-efficacy, persistence and planning and acknowledges. Hamil reported an association between self-
low in anxiety and uncertain control. Hamill (2003) also reported efficacy and resilience, adding support to the merits of the present
self-efficacy as an important characteristic that distinguished study and its aim of uncovering differences in context-specific
resilient and non-resilient 16–19 year old students. resilience responses adopted by self-efficacious and non-self-
The pursuit of those factors that distinguish resilient from efficacious students, and the study’s longer-term objective of
non-resilient individuals and the promotion of resilience have promoting resilient responses in students.
been at the center of existing research in the field resilience Riley and Masten (2005, p. 13) define resilience as “referring
(Hamill, 2003). There is sufficient evidence indicating that self- to patterns of positive adaptation in the face of adversity...,”
efficacy is one resilience factor worthy of further study in and describe resilience as requiring “that significant adversity
this respect. Self-efficacy emerged as a central facet in Albert or threat to adaptation or development has occurred” and “that
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, where is it described as “the functioning is okay, either because adequate adaptation was
belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course sustained over a period of adversity or because recovery to
of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, adequate functioning has been observed.” In order to represent
1995, p. 2). In educational studies, individual differences in the key constituents of resilience (i.e., adversity and positive
perceived self-efficacy have often been shown to be better adaption) in a context-specific and authentic manner to serve the
predictors of performance than either previous achievement or purposes of the study, an academic adversity case vignette and a
ability (Cassidy, 2012). response to academic adversity scale (Academic Resilience Scale-
Like resilience, self-efficacy is context specific and seems 30) were developed [see Section Academic Resilience Scale-30
particularly important when individuals face adversity, when (ARS-30)].
positive self-efficacy beliefs are associated with increased The content of the case vignette was intended to
motivation and perseverance (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., represent adversity in a context-specific academic setting
2001) and an increased likelihood of rejecting negative thoughts that undergraduate students would consider authentic despite
regarding own capabilities (Ozer and Bandura, 1990). its hypothetical nature. The vignette describes academic failure
Self-efficacy is considered to be the foundation of human and its wider impact as an example of authentic adversity for
agency (Bandura et al., 1999) and is referred to as an students. Although there is some debate in the existing literature
important protective factor regulating human functioning and on the specific effects of, and perceptions of, negative feedback
emotional wellbeing through cognitive, motivational, affective, (e.g., Kluger and DeNisi, 1996), reference in the vignette to
and selective processes (Hamill, 2003). And whilst Bandura failure and the wider negative impact of such failure was
(1993) does describe how self-efficacy operates to contribute considered to be sufficient to instill academic adversity. There
Vignette group N; Total Mean Age (SD) n; Males n; Females n; Year 1 n; Year 2 n; Year 3
as he is aiming to get as good a degree as he can because he constructs such as Duckworth’s “grit,” which has its basis in long-
has clear career goals in mind and doesn’t want to disappoint term goals, suggests that a three factors solution presents an
his family. The feedback John received from the tutor for the interpretable solution to the ASR-30.
failed assignment is quite critical, including reference to “lack
of understanding” and “poor writing and expression,” but it Procedure
also includes ways that the work could be improved. Similar The study was carried out in accordance with the
comments were made by the tutors who marked John’s other recommendations of the British Psychological Society Code
two assignments. of Ethics and Conduct and the Research, Innovation and
Scoring of positively phrased items was reversed so that a high Academic Engagement Ethical Approval Panel, University of
ARS-30 score indicated greater academic resilience. Cronbach’s Salford with written informed consent from all subjects in
alpha for the combined (α = 0.89, N = 432), personalized accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
(α = 0.88, n = 224) and vicarious vignette (α = 0.85, After completing the GASE scale, participants were randomly
n = 208) all reached acceptable levels indicating internal assigned to one of the adversity vignette conditions and
reliability and construct validity (Nunnally and Bernstein, completed the ARS-30 (personal or vicarious). Data collection
1994). Analysis of the relationships between ARS-30 scores and was anonymous to improve the validity of responses. A median-
ASE and differences between personal and vicarious responses split approach was used to create discrete groups according
to adversity further supported the construct validity of the to scores on the GASE. Participants with scores equal to or
ARS-30 as a measure of academic resilience (see Section below the GASE sample median of 148 were assigned to the
Results). lower ASE group, while participants scoring above the median
Exploratory factor analysis [principle component with oblique were assigned to the higher ASE group. Whilst the median-split
(promax) rotation] was conducted to explore the structure of approach is criticized on the basis of loss of statistical power
the ARS-30. Sampling adequacy was verified (KMO = 0.91) and and the potential for spurious outcomes in cases of multiple
whilst initial analysis revealed seven factors with eigenvalues of variables (MacCallum et al., 2002; Irwin and McClelland, 2003),
1.0 or above (Kaiser, 1960) explaining 55.75% of the variance, the approach has received support in terms of producing
the scree plot inflection (Cattell, 1966) supported retention of meaningful findings that are understood by, and accessible to,
only three factors (Hatcher, 1994; Stevens, 2002). The three a wider audience where statistical power and effect are not
factor model explained 40% of the variance with all items— necessarily reduced (Farrington and Loeber, 2000). Thus, the
except one, which loaded at 0.29—loading above 0.3 (Field, 2014). use of dichotomization here is defended on the basis that
Interpretation of Item-factor clustering suggests that factor 1 correlational and regression analysis were also performed for
represents positive or adaptive responses to adversity, factor the main analysis using GASE scores as a continuous variable;
2 represents negative or non-adaptive responses to adversity that the mean difference between groups (30.3) provided, it is
and factor 3 represents long-term future aspirations. Thus, suggested, sufficient numerical distance between groups; and the
factors 1 and 2 may simply represent two aspects of the same wish to illustrate, in a meaningful way, distinctions between
underlying generalized academic resilience construct. This is groups in terms of specific responses to adversity.
partly supported by Schmitt and Stults (1985) and Spector et al.
(1997) who report that reverse-phrased items commonly load RESULTS
on different factors, even in the absence of multiple constructs,
and by the inter-factor correlation (−0.45) between factors 1 Significant positive correlations between ASE and academic
and 2. That factor 3 aligns with closely associated and relevant resilience were observed for the combined vignette groups
TABLE 3 | Zero order correlations and regression analysis with academic self-efficacy (ASE) as a predictor of academic resilience.
(medium effect size r = 0.34, Cohen, 1988) and for the personal resilience was significantly greater in the personal vignette group,
(large effect size r = 0.51) and vicarious vignette groups (small where the effect size was large (d = 0.86), than in the vicarious
effect size r = 0.21) separately. Academic self-efficacy was a vignette group, where the effect size was small (d = 0.30) (see
significant predictor of academic resilience explaining 26.2% of Figure 1).
variance in resilience in the personal vignette group, 4.6% in the Both lower and higher ASE groups scored higher academic
vicarious vignette group, and 14% in the combined groups (see resilience when responding to the vicarious vignette than when
Table 3). responding to the personal vignette, though the effect size was
A 2(vignette: personal vs. vicarious) × 2(ASE: lower vs. larger for the lower ASE group (large ES d = 1.21) than for the
higher) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was conducted to higher ASE group (medium ES d = 0.71).
examine differences in academic resilience between personal and Table 5 shows ASR-30 (personal vignette) mean item scores
vicarious vignette groups as a function of ASE (see Table 4). by ASE group (lower and higher). A One-way MANOVA was
There were significant main effects for vignette group performed on these data with ASE group (lower vs. higher) as the
[F(1, 427) = 101.91, p < 0.001, d = 0.96], such that the vicarious independent variable and ASR-30 item scores as the dependent
vignette group reported significantly higher academic resilience variables. There was a significant multivariate effect [F(1, 222) =
(M = 128.51, SD = 11.47) than the personal vignette group 2.971, p < 0.001] and significant univariate effects. Significant
(M = 116.25, SD = 14.07), and for ASE group [F(1, 427) = 38.26, univariate effects are denoted by “∗ ”and reflect scores indicating
p < 0.001, d = 0.58], with the higher ASE group reporting significantly higher academic resilience for the higher ASE group
significantly higher academic resilience (M = 126.16, SD = on all items except items 1, 6, 14, 26, and 29, where any differences
11.99) than the lower ASE group (M = 118.20, SD = 15.20). were non-significant (p > 0.05). Effect sizes were medium (d ≥
A significant interaction effect [F(2, 427) = 10.9, p < 0.001, d = 0.5) for 12 of the items and small (d ≥ 0.2 < 0.05) for the
0.33] indicated that the influence of ASE on increasing academic remaining 13 items where a significant group difference was
reported.
Table 6 shows ASR-30 (vicarious vignette) mean item scores
TABLE 4 | Mean academic resilience scores by vignette group and by ASE group (lower and higher). A One-way MANOVA was
academic self-efficacy (ASE) Group. performed on these data with ASE group (lower vs. higher) as the
independent variable and ASR-30 item scores as the dependent
Vignette group Mean (SD) academic resilience Effect size d
variables. The multivariate effect was non-significant [F(1, 205) =
Lower ASE Higher ASE Total 0.659, p > 0.05]. Significant univariate effects were only found
for items 6, 11, 15 and 24 (p < 0.05) and reflect scores indicating
Personal 110.96 122.14 116.25 0.86 significantly higher academic resilience for the higher ASE group,
(13) (12.87) (14.07) although effect sizes were small or minimal (d < 0.2).
n = 118 n = 106 N = 224 Table 7 shows ASR-30 mean item scores by vignette group. A
One-way MANOVA was performed on these data with vignette
Vicarious 126.75 130.15 128.51 0.30
group (personal vs. vicarious) as the independent variable and
(13.05) (9.54) (11.47)
ARS-30 item scores as the dependent variables. There was a
n = 100 n = 107 N = 207
significant multivariate effect [F(1, 430) = 14.929, p < 0.001]
Total 118.20 126.16 – 0.58 and significant univariate effects. Significant univariate effects are
(15.20) (11.99) denoted by “∗ ” and “∗∗ ” and reflect scores indicating significantly
N = 218 N = 213 higher academic resilience for the vicarious group on all items
except items 5 and 19 where academic resilience was significantly
Effect Size d 1.21 0.71 0.96 (2 × 2) 0.33 lower in the vicarious group (with minimal or small effect size)
TABLE 5 | Academic resilience scale (personal vignette) item summary statistics by academic self-efficacy (ASE) group.
1. I would not accept the tutors’ feedback 0.76 0.69 0.07 0.06
(1.1) (1.1)
2. I would use the feedback to improve my work 4.67 4.92 0.30* 0.57
(0.56) (0.27)
3. I would just give up 0.72 0.22 0.50* 0.68
(0.88) (0.57)
4. I would use the situation to motivate myself 4.08 4.41 0.33* 0.35
(0.90) (0.93)
5. I would change my career plans 0.99 0.58 0.41* 0.53
(0.94) (0.96)
6. I would probably get annoyed 2.53 2.48 0.05 0.04
(1.10) (1.30)
7. I would begin to think my chances of success at university were poor 2.05 1.65 0.40* 0.37
(1.12) (1.10)
8. I would see the situation as a challenge 3.61 4.19 0.58* 0.60
(0.99) (0.95)
9. I would do my best to stop thinking negative thoughts 3.72 4.12 0.40* 0.42
(0.94) (0.94)
10. I would see the situation as temporary 3.66 3.98 0.32* 0.34
(0.86) (1.01)
11. I would work harder 4.50 4.86 0.36* 0.57
(0.78) (0.42)
12. I would probably get depressed 1.87 1.50 0.37* 0.30
(1.14) (1.30)
13. I would try to think of new solutions 4.04 4.24 0.37* 0.51
(0.79) (0.69)
14. I would be very disappointed 3.23 3.26 0.04 0.03
(1.05) (1.15)
15. I would blame the tutor 0.80 0.56 0.24* 0.27
(0.96) (0.81)
16. I would keep trying 4.37 4.80 0.43* 0.72
(0.70) (0.47)
17. I would not change my long-term goals and ambitions 3.97 4.38 0.41* 0.43
(0.98) (0.92)
18. I would use my past successes to help motivate myself 4.07 4.58 0.51* 0.59
(0.99) (0.73)
19. I would begin to think my chances of getting the job I want were 1.99 1.24 0.76* 0.67
poor (1.14) (1.10)
20. I would start to monitor and evaluate my achievements and effort 3.86 4.13 0.28* 0.48
(0.94) (0.94)
21. I would seek help from my tutors 4.03 4.64 0.61* 0.69
(1.12) (0.57)
22. I would give myself encouragement 3.85 4.29 0.45* 0.49
(0.94) (0.86)
23. I would stop myself from panicking 3.20 3.76 0.56* 0.51
(1.14) (1.10)
24. I would try different ways to study 3.85 4.23 0.38* 0.41
(0.97) (0.90)
(Continued)
TABLE 5 | Continued
25. I would set my own goals for achievement 4.00 4.31 0.31* 0.38
(0.82) (0.81)
26. I would seek encouragement from my family and friends 3.58 3.77 0.19 0.14
(1.33) (1.35)
27. I would try to think more about my strengths and weaknesses to 3.92 4.29 0.38* 0.44
help me work better (0.86) (0.82)
28. I would feel like everything was ruined and was going wrong 1.80 1.22 0.58* 0.48
(1.22) (1.22)
29. I would start to self-impose rewards and punishments depending 2.66 2.90 0.24 0.19
on my performance (1.22) (1.30)
30. I would look forward to showing that I can improve my grades 4.07 4.56 0.49* 0.58
(0.94) (0.73)
and items 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17, where any differences were and Waxman et al. (2003), both self-efficacy and resilience
non-significant (p > 0.05). Effect sizes were large (d ≥ 0.8) for were measured as context-specific constructs and in relation
one item, medium (d ≥ 0.5) for seven items, small (d ≥ 0.2) for to—it is argued here—an authentic adverse situation and
12 items, and minimal (d < 0.2) for the remaining three items relevant adaptive responses. In both general and context-specific
where a significant group difference was reported. terms, findings support the relevance of self-efficacy beliefs to
Figure 2 shows that while the difference in mean academic individual psychological resilience; having positive self-efficacy
resilience scores between the personal and vicarious vignette beliefs is likely to contribute toward increased resilience in
groups was significant [t(430) = 9.908, p < 0.001], with a large students.
effect size (d = 0.96), there was no significant difference in ASE Once a relationship between ASE and academic resilience
scores [t(432) = 0.356, p > 0.05]. was established, further analysis sought to identify differences
between lower and higher self-efficacy students in their specific
Age, Gender, and Year of Study Analysis responses to adversity. As anticipated, higher self-efficacy
Gender and year of study analysis did not reveal any significant students reported significantly higher academic resilience for
differences in academic resilience (p > 0.05). Correlational both case vignettes, although a significant interaction effect
analysis did not reveal any significant association between age indicated greater influence of self-efficacy for the personal
and academic resilience (p > 0.05), although a small significant vignette, where the effect size was large, than for the vicarious
correlation between age and ASE [r(429) = 1.58, p < 0.001] was vignette, where the effect size was small. The greater influence
reported. of self-efficacy on personal resilience is unsurprising in light
of Bandura’s (1993) account of self-efficacy as a mechanism
DISCUSSION of personal agency that makes causal contributions to own
functioning. Analysis of responses to individual items on the
Overall results support the hypothesis that ASE is associated Academic Resilience Scale-30 (personal vignette) showed that the
with, and a predictor of, academic resilience. Significant positive higher self-efficacy group scored significantly higher on 25 of the
correlations between ASE and academic resilience were reported 30 items, with small to medium effect sizes reported (see Table 5).
for both the personal and vicarious vignettes, although effect This level of analysis highlights specific examples of responses
size was large for the personal vignette group and small for to adversity where self-efficacious students responded in a more
the vicarious vignette group. Analysis of ASE as a predictor adaptive manner, providing a basis to better understand the
of academic resilience also led to significant results for each precise nature of the influence of self-efficacy on resilience and
of the vignette groups, with the greatest variance in academic offering a potential basis for interventions promoting resilience.
resilience (26.2%) accounted for in the personal vignette group Conversely, the items where there was no significant difference
compared to only 4.6% in the vicarious group. Although between self-efficacy groups are of little value in differentiating
previous studies have reported self-efficacy as an important resilient and non-resilient students, at least on the basis of
contributory factor for resilience (Hamill, 2003; Martin and ASE beliefs. Responses to these items could still be adaptive
Marsh, 2006), the present study offers additional insight into the or non-adaptive, conferring resilience or lack of it, but may be
context-specific interplay of these constructs. As advocated by determined by individual difference constructs or processes other
Pajares (1996) and by Riley and Masten (2005), Liddle (1994) than self-efficacy. Similar analysis of responses to the vicarious
TABLE 6 | Academic resilience scale (vicarious vignette) item summary statistics by academic self-efficacy (ASE) group.
1. He should not accept the tutors’ feedback 0.74 0.65 0.09 0.08
(1.11) (1.14)
2. He should use the feedback to improve his work 04.72 4.78 0.06 0.08
(0.70) (0.79)
3. He should just give up 0.18 0.16 0.02 0.03
(0.59) (0.62)
4. He should use the situation to motivate himself 4.43 4.53 0.10 0.10
(0.98) (0.96)
5. He should change his career plans 1.01 1.05 0.04 0.04
(0.94) (0.99)
6. He would probably get annoyed 1.25 0.90 0.35* 0.33
(1.17) (0.92)
7. He should begin to think his chances of success at university were poor 0.73 0.53 0.20 0.24
(0.94) (0.69)
8. He should see the situation as a challenge 4.24 4.29 0.05 0.06
(0.78) (0.77)
9. He should do his best to stop thinking negative thoughts 4.37 4.46 0.09 0.10
(0.90) (0.90)
10. He should see the situation as temporary 4.01 3.98 0.03 0.03
(0.94) (1.17)
11. He should work harder 4.43 4.67 0.24* 0.32
(0.83) (0.67)
12. He would probably get depressed 1.41 1.27 0.14 0.13
(1.10) (1.00)
13. He should try to think of new solutions 4.21 4.35 0.14 0.16
(0.88) (0.85)
14. He would be very disappointed 2.73 2.70 0.03 0.02
(1.24) (1.24)
15. He should blame the tutor 0.71 0.61 0.30* 0.34
(1.05) (0.67)
16. He should keep trying 4.73 4.83 0.10 0.15
(0.69) (0.61)
17. He should not change his long-term goals and ambitions 4.30 4.32 0.02 0.02
(0.91) (0.90)
18. He should use his past successes to help motivate himself 4.58 4.63 0.05 0.07
(0.68) (0.68)
19. He should begin to think his chances of getting the job he wants were poor 0.85 0.67 0.08 0.08
(1.13) (0.85)
20. He should start to monitor and evaluate his achievements and effort 4.29 4.42 0.13 0.16
(0.86) (0.79)
21. He should seek help from his tutors 4.75 4.86 0.11 0.20
(0.61) (0.50)
22. He should give himself encouragement 4.56 4.74 0.18 0.27
(0.70) (0.65)
23. He should stop himself from panicking 4.35 4.46 0.11 0.14
(0.80) (0.77)
24. He should try different ways to study 4.44 4.56 0.21* 0.16
(0.80) (0.66)
(Continued)
TABLE 6 | Continued
25. He should set his own goals for achievement 4.45 4.54 0.09 0.12
(0.74) (0.73)
26. He should seek encouragement from his family and friends 4.34 4.51 0.17 0.20
(0.82) (0.81)
27. He should try to think more about his strengths and weaknesses to help him 4.54 4.64 0.10 0.15
work better (0.70) (0.62)
28. He should feel like everything was ruined and was going wrong 1.05 0.80 0.25 0.22
(1.22) (1.10)
29. He should start to self-impose rewards and punishments depending on his 3.14 3.10 0.04 0.03
performance (1.18) (1.16)
30. He should look forward to showing that he can improve my grades 4.53 4.64 0.11 0.15
(0.76) (0.69)
adversity vignette revealed significant differences in only 4 of Whilst academic resilience was significantly higher for the
the 30 items, all with small effect sizes. This further supports vicarious vignette for both lower and higher self-efficacy groups,
the nature of self-efficacy as a mechanism for personal (human) the difference between personal and vicarious vignettes was
agency and illustrates the limited influence of self-efficacy beliefs greatest for lower self-efficacy students (see Figure 1). One
on the potential to perform academic advocacy roles, such as peer interpretation of this is that lower ASE students have more to gain
assisted learning mentors. than students with higher self-efficacy from reflecting on how
Results comparing responses to personal and vicarious they respond to adversity experienced by a peer and using this
vignettes revealed a significant difference and large effect to help promote more adaptive responses to personal adversity.
size, with students reporting significantly higher resilience Consistent with previous studies (Munro and Pooley, 2009;
for the vicarious adversity vignette (see Figure 2). This effect McLafferty et al., 2012), no significant differences in academic
was not explained by group differences in self-efficacy. That resilience according to age, gender, or year of study were observed
students advocate more positive adaptive responses to adversity in the present study. That females were heavily underrepresented
experienced by a peer provides potentially valuable insights for in the sample does limit confidence in this particular finding,
resilience building. In general terms, it supports the value of particularly in light of studies that do report greater academic
peer mentoring and peer assisted learning and lessens concerns resilience in female undergraduates (e.g., Allan et al., 2014).
that negative belief systems might impact negatively on academic
advocacy. In fact results suggest that students, including those Limitations
with lower self-efficacy, are likely to be a positive source of Although the study offers advances in applied academic resilience
encouragement and resilience for peers who are experiencing research and practice, some important limitations need to be
challenge and adversity. This is an important finding given considered when interpreting the results and conclusions of
continued growth in the implementation, evaluation and reputed the study. Resilience studies commonly operationalize adversity
benefits of peer assisted learning initiatives (Ginsburg-Block in terms of difficult or unpleasant situations or experiences.
et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2007; Romito, 2014). In more specific It is suggested that the case vignettes developed for the study
terms, results suggest that students are aware of what are and represent adversity in a relevant and authentic way for the
are not adaptive responses and have the potential to exhibit purposes of studying academic adversity. Others—Martin and
greater personal resilience than they may be currently exhibiting. Marsh (2008, 2009) and Martin (2013) for example—may
One aspect of interventions promoting resilience could involve argue that the vignette is not sufficiently traumatic, stressful or
highlighting this difference between personal and vicarious prolonged to adequately represent adversity as it is routinely
resilience and encouraging students to reflect on their own represented in resilience studies. The ARS-30 is a newly
reasons for advocating greater resilience for their peers and to developed measure of academic resilience and although findings
explore the potential to move toward greater personal adoption do support its reliability and validity, further development work,
of the responses advocated for their peers. Using examples of particularly examining its predictive validity, will add to its
differences in specific responses, where significant differences in integrity as a measure of academic resilience. Comparisons of
23 of the 30 items are reported (see Table 7), could be helpful in personal and vicarious resilience were made between subject
this respect, enabling students to focus on areas where responses groups, introducing individual difference error; within-subject
could be more adaptive. comparisons would provide a more robust basis upon which to
1. I would [He should] not accept the tutors’ feedback 0.73 0.69 0.04 0.04
(1.10) (1.13)
2. I would [He should] use the feedback to improve my work 4.79 4.75 0.04 0.06
(0.46) (0.75)
3. I would [He should] just give up 0.48 0.17 0.31** 0.44
(0.79) (0.60)
4. I would [He should] use the situation to motivate myself 4.23 4.49 0.25* 0.28
(0.93) (0.96)
5. I would [He should] change my career plans 0.80 1.03 0.23* 0.24
(0.97) (0.96)
6. I [He] would probably get annoyed 2.51 1.07 1.44** 1.27
(1.21) (1.06)
7. I would [He should] begin to think my chances of success at 1.86 0.62 1.24** 1.27
university were poor (1.11) (0.83)
8. I would [He should] see the situation as a challenge 3.88 4.26 0.38** 0.40
(1.10) (0.77)
9. I would [He should] do my best to stop thinking negative thoughts 3.91 4.42 0.51** 0.55
(0.96) (0.90)
10. I would [He should] see the situation as temporary 3.81 3.99 0.17 0.18
(0.94) (1.07)
11. I would [He should] work harder 4.67 4.56 0.11 0.16
(0.66) (0.76)
12. I [He] would probably get depressed 1.70 1.33 0.37** 0.32
(1.23) (1.05)
13. I would [He should] try to think of new solutions 4.22 4.28 0.07 0.07
(0.76) (0.86)
14. I would [He should] be very disappointed 3.25 2.72 0.53** 0.45
(1.10) (1.23)
15. I would [He should] blame the tutor 0.68 0.55 0.13 0.15
(0.90) (0.88)
16. I would [He should] keep trying 4.58 4.78 0.21** 0.31
(0.64) (0.65)
17. I would [He should] not change my long-term goals and ambitions 4.16 4.31 0.15 0.16
(0.97) (0.90)
18. I would [He should] use my past successes to help motivate myself 4.31 4.61 0.30** 0.37
(0.91) (0.68)
19. I would [He should] begin to think my chances of getting the job I 0.63 0.81 0.83** 0.17
want were poor (1.18) (0.99)
20. I would [He should] start to monitor and evaluate my achievements 3.99 4.36 0.37** 0.42
and effort (0.95) (0.82)
21. I would [He should] seek help from my tutors 4.32 4.81 0.49** 0.63
(0.95) (0.56)
22. I would [He should] give myself encouragement 4.06 4.65 0.60** 0.72
(0.93) (0.68)
23. I would [He should] stop myself from panicking 3.47 4.41 0.94** 0.97
(1.13) (0.78)
24. I would [He should] try different ways to study 4.03 4.55 0.53** 0.61
(0.95) (0.73)
(Continued)
TABLE 7 | Continued
25. I would [He should] set my own goals for achievement 4.15 4.50 0.35** 0.45
(0.83) (0.74)
26. I would [He should] seek encouragement from my family and friends 3.67 4.43 0.76** 0.69
(1.34) (0.81)
27. I would [He should] try to think more about my strengths and 4.09 4.59 0.50** 0.65
weaknesses to help me work better (0.86) (0.66)
28. I would [He should] feel like everything was ruined and was going 1.52 0.92 0.60** 0.50
wrong (1.25) (1.15)
29. I would [He should] start to self-impose rewards and punishments 2.77 3.13 0.35** 0.30
depending on my performance (1.26) (1.17)
30. I would [He should] look forward to showing that I can improve my 4.30 4.58 0.28** 0.35
grades (0.88) (0.72)
*p < 0.01 **p < 0.001, F(1, 430) for univariate tests.
draw conclusions regarding this aspect of the study. Also, given and reliable construct measure or measures. Grotberg (1997)
the differences that emerged between responses to the personal for example summarizes the three aspects of resilience as: “I
and vicarious case vignettes, those parts of the analysis that have” (e.g., trusting and loving relationships, encouragement
combine resilience response data across the vignettes should be to be independent); “I am” (e.g., proud of myself, responsible,
treated with caution, focussing instead on analyses presented for hopeful); and “I can” (e.g., manage my feelings, solve problems).
the vignettes independently. Similarly, caring relationships, good problem solving and
intellectual functioning are identified by Masten and Coatsworth
Future Directions (1998) as factors promoting competency in individuals faced
Whilst the lack of consensus that exists in terms of with adversity. The second area of development should continue
conceptualizing and operationalizing resilience (Maclean, to address the issue of identifying key factors and constructs
2004; Friedland, 2005) is less pronounced within the narrower associated with resilience. Discussing building resilience in
field of academic resilience (see Dweck, 2010; Duckworth, 2013; vulnerable and disadvantage children and young people, Maclean
Martin, 2013), it is nonetheless suggested that there are two (2004) identifies several familiar “qualities” or factors associated
key areas of development necessary for increased impact of with resilience. These include initiative and insight, optimism,
future general and academic resilience research. The first should intellectual ability, placid temperament, trust, autonomy and
address how best to capture aspects of resilience in a valid decision making, humor, identity, social support, education,
attainment, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Maclean goes on to sources of stress or trauma emphasizes the importance of
raise the issue of the lack clarity surrounding how practioners can adopting such a process-focused view of resilience.
help individuals become more resilient; identifying associated
constructs, as Duckworth’s (2013) and Dweck’s (2006, 2010) have CONCLUSIONS
done with their constructs of grit and mindset, will assist the
development and implementation of interventions promoting The present study sought to identify factors that contribute, in a
resilience, both in general and academic contexts. Evaluating new meaningful way, to academic resilience and to examine how such
interventions is clearly a further avenue for research exploring factors influence specific, and meaningful, responses to academic
academic resilience. Other avenues include longitudinal cohort adversity. Consistent with previous studies (Hamill, 2003; Martin
studies examining the predictive value of academic resilience and Marsh, 2006), findings presented support ASE as predictive
against outcomes including achievement, student satisfaction, of academic resilience and go beyond earlier studies in identifying
retention and wellbeing. specific examples of responses to academic adversity, where
In light of a recent impetus for intrapersonal research in lower and higher self-efficacy students respond in a differentially
education (Network on Intrapersonal Research in Education, adaptive manner. As such, it is suggested that self-efficacy
2015), future studies should consider examining both inter- training, already shown to be effective in an educational context
individual and intra-individual variation in academic resilience. (Siegle and McCoach, 2007), offers one approach to building
Such studies would reveal the extent to which population data academic resilience in students. Illustrating how self-efficacy
can be generalized to patterns of resilience observed in individual influences specific responses to adversity, and the propensity
students (and vice-versa), and would be particularly valuable to advocate greater resilience for peers facing adversity, should
in helping explore process aspects of resilience, as opposed to form another—metacognitive—aspect of resilience building for
outcomes measures such as grade point average, in the evaluation students. As Martin and Marsh (2006) have stated, identifying
of interventions or where adverse situations occur and are time- the specific facets comprising academic resilience will support an
bound. Windle et al.’s (2011) description of resilience as the enhanced and more targeted approach to interventions aimed at
process of negotiating, managing and adapting to significant enabling students to cope with the demands of academic life.
REFERENCES Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav.
Res. 1, 245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Abiola, T., and Udofia, O. (2011). Psychometric assessment of the Wagnild Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn.
and Young’s resilience scale in Kano, Nigeria. BMC Res. Notes 4:509. doi: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
10.1186/1756-0500-4-509 Duckworth, A. (2013). The key to success? Grit. Ted Talks Education:
Allan, J. F., McKenna, J., and Dominey, S. (2014). Degrees of resilience: Interactive transcript. Available online at: http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_
profiling psychological resilience and prospective academic achievement in lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit?language=en
university inductees. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 42, 9–25. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2013. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., and Kelly, D. R. (2007).
793784 Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9,
Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican American students: 1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
the importance ofprotective resources and appraisals. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 13, Duckworth, A. L., and Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation
18–34. doi: 10.1177/07399863910131002 of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). J. Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174. doi:
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and 10.1080/00223890802634290
functioning. Educ. Psychol. 28, 117–128. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY:
Bandura, A. (ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. New York, NY: Random House.
Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadersh. 10,
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman. 26–29.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy Eachus, P. (1993). Development of the health student self-efficacy scale. Percept.
beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations can career trajectories. Child Dev. 72, Mot. Skills 77:670. doi: 10.2466/pms.1993.77.2.670
187–206. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00273 Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E. A., Nagaoka, J., Johnson, D. W.,
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., and Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy Keyes, T. S., et al. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of
pathways to childhood depression. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76, 258–269. Noncognitive Factors in Academic Performance—A Critical Literature Review.
Bartley, M., Schoon, M. R., and Blane, M. (2010). “Resilience as an asset for healthy Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
development,” in Health Assets in a Global Context, eds A. Morgan, M. Davies, Farrington, D. P., and Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization
and E. Ziglio (New York, NY: Springer), 101–115. in psychiatric and criminological research. Crim. Behav. Ment. Health 10,
Bernard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educ. Leadersh. 51, 44–48. 100–122. doi: 10.1002/cbm.349
Bourne, V. (2014). To what extent is mathematical ability predictive of Field, A. (2014). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th Edn. London:
performance in a methodology and statistics course? Can an action research Sage.
approach be used to understand the relevance of mathematical ability in Friedland, N. (2005). “Introduction – The ‘elusive’ concept of social resilience,” in
psychology undergraduates. Psychol. Teach. Rev. 20, 14–27. The Concept of Social Resilience, eds N. Friedland, A. Arian, A. Kirschnbaum,
Cassidy, S. (2012). Exploring individual differences as determining factors in A. Karin, and N. Fleischer (Haifa: The Technion. Samuel Neaman Institute,
student academic achievement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 37, 7–10.
793–810. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.545948 Garmezy, N., and Masten, A. S. (1991). “The protective role of competence
Cassidy, S., and Eachus, P. (2002). “The development of the General academic self- indicators in children at risk,” in Life-span Developmental Psychology:
efficacy (GASE) scale,” in Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Perspectives on Stress and Coping, eds E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, and K.
Annual Conference (Blackpool). H. Karraker (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 151–174.
Gilligan, R. (2001). Promoting Resilience: A Resource Guide on Working with Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.
Children in the Care System. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 543–578. doi: 10.3102/003465430660
Fostering. 04543
Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., and Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta- Parkinson, J. (2008). Review of Scales of Positive Mental Health Validated for use
analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted with Adults in the UK: Technical Report. Glasgow: NHS Health Scotland.
learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 732–749. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732 Perkins-Gough, D. (2013). The significance of grit: a conversation with Angele Lee
Grotberg, E. (1997). “The international resilience project: findings from the Duckworth. Educ. Leadersh. 71, 14–20.
research and effectiveness interventions,” in Psychology and Education in Pooley, J., and Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: a definition in context. Aust. Commun.
the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Convention, ed B. Bain Psychol. 22, 30–37.
(Edmonton: ICP Press). Riley, J. R., and Masten, A. S. (2005). “Resilience in context,” in Resilience in
Hamill, S. K. (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: the importance of efficacy beliefs Children, Families, and Communities: Linking Context to Practice and Policy,
and coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate Univ. J. Sci. 35, eds R. D. Peters, B. Leadbeater, and R. McMahon (New York, NY: Kluwer
115–146. Academic/Plenum), 13–25.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to using the SAS System for Factor Romito, A. (2014). “Peer Assisted Learning,” in The Essential Handbook
Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. for GP Training and Education, ed R. Mehay. Available online at:
Irwin, J. R., and McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of essentialgptrainingbook.com
dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. J. Mark. Res. 40, 366–371. doi: Schmitt, N., and Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items:
10.1509/jmkr.40.3.366.19237 the results of careless respondents? Appl. Psychol. Meas. 9, 367–373.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Siegle, D., and McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116 through teacher training. J. Adv. Acad. 18, 278–312.
Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on Smith, J., May, S., and Burke, L. (2007). Peer assisted learning: a case study into
performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback the value to student mentors and mentees. Pract. Evid. Sch. Teach. Learn. High.
intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119, 254–284. Educ. 2, 80–109.
Liddle, H. A. (1994). “Contextualizing resiliency,” in Educational Resilience in Snipes, J., Fancsali, C., and Stoker, G. (2012). Student Academic Mindset
Inner-city America: Challenges and Prospects, eds M. C. Wang and E. W. Interventions: A Review of the Current Landscape. San Francisco: Stupski
Gordon (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 167–177. Foundation. Available online at: http://www.impaqint.com/files/4-content/
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., and Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the 1-6-publications/1-6-2-project-reports/impaq%20student%20academic%20mi
practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol. Methods 7, 19–40. ndset%20interventions%20report%20august%202012.pdf
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19 Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., and Chen, P. Y. (1997). When
Martin, A., and Marsh, H. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and two factors don’t reflect two constructs: how item characteristics can produce
educational correlates: a construct validity approach. Psychol. Sch. 43, 267–281. artifactual factors. J. Manage. 23, 659–678.
doi: 10.1002/pits.20149 Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th Edn.
Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: exploring Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. Sch. Psychol. Wagnild, G. M. (2009). The Resilience Scale User’s Guide for the US English version
Int. 34, 488–500. doi: 10.1177/0143034312472759 of the Resilience Scale and the 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14). Worden, MT:
Martin, A. J., and Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an The Resilience Centre.
understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. J. Sch. Psychol. 46, Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., and Walberg, H. J. (1994). “Educational resilience
53–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002 in inner cities,” in Educational Resilience in Inner-city America: Challenges
Martin, A. J., and Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic and Prospects, eds M. C. Wang and E. W. Gordon (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum),
buoyancy: multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, 45–72.
correlates and cognate constructs. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 35, 353–370. doi: Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., and Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of Research
10.1080/03054980902934639 on Educational Resilience: Research Report. Washington, DC: Institute of
Masten, A. S., and Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in Education Sciences.
favorable and unfavorable environments. Am. Psychol. 53, 205–220. Windle, G., Bennett, K., and Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience
McLafferty, M., Mallet, J., and McCauley, V. (2012). Coping at university: the role measurement scales. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 9:8. doi: 10.1186/1477-
of resilience, emotional intelligence, age and gender. J. Quant. Psychol. Res. 1, 7525-9-8
1–6. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005). WHO Mental Health Declaration for
Maclean, K. (2004). “Resilience: what it is and how children and young people can Europe: Facing the Challenges, Building the Solutions. Denmark: World Health
be helped to develop it,” in Online Journal of the International Child and Youth Organization. Available online at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_
Care Network, Vol. 62. Available online at: http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/ file/0008/96452/E87301.pdf
cycol-0304-resilience.html Zautra, A. J. (2009). Resilience: one part recovery, two parts sustainability. J. Pers.
McMillan, J. H., and Reed, D. F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: factors 77, 1935–1943. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00605.x
Contributing to academic success. Clearing House 67, 137–140.
Munro, B., and Pooley, J. A. (2009). Differences in resilience and university Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares that the research was
adjustment between school leaver and mature entry university students. Aust. conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Commun. Psychol. 21, 50–61. be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Network on Intrapersonal Research in Education (2015). Learning Processes:
Theoretical and Conceptual Issues. Oxford: Department of Education, Copyright © 2015 Cassidy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
University of Oxford. of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edn. New reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor
York, NY: McGraw-Hill. are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance
Ozer, E., and Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: a with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted
self-efficacy analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 472–486. which does not comply with these terms.