For my proposal, I opted for a qualitative study, specifically phenomenology.  I ultimately selected phenomenology because I wanted to explore the experience of “bouncing back” in depth, without limitations or predetermined hypotheses.  That said, this is a subject that could easily be approached (if you could get a large enough sample size) through quantitative methods.  The studies on academic buoyancy that originally brought me to this subject were all quantitative.  In the most recent from 2013, authors Martin and Marsh assessed academic buoyancy using the Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS).  They measured academic resilience using the Academic Risk and Resilience Scale (ARRS).  In this study they also used the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES) to measure their dependent variables, including anxiety, failure, avoidance, uncertain control, self-handicapping, and disengagement.

Since these scales have been developed and tested primarily in Australia (and never used in the U.S.), I think one of the easiest ways to approach a study of academic buoyancy and academic resilience quantitatively would be to repeat Martin and Marsh’s study with American students, using the same scales.  Would the results be the same with American students, or would they differ?  How?

I think I could also study academic buoyancy quantitatively by comparing students who exhibited resiliency at NC State with those who did not.  For example, in my study I am interested in students who finished their first year at NC State with a GPA below 2.5, but by their senior year had raised it to 3.5 or above.  What if I compared these students with a peer group who started off with a low GPA and never brought it back up?  Would the resilient group be distinguished by certain factors (i.e.. gender, SES, SAT scores, majors, etc.) when compared with the non-resilient group?

Furthermore, I could compare these groups based on their responses to the surveys we use at NC State. For example, did the resilient group respond differently to the Incoming Freshmen Survey than the non-resilient group, and what does that indicate about differences in their preparation, intentions, and expectations for their college experience?  Or, how do these groups respond differently on the Graduation Senior Survey?  Do resilient students indicate higher satisfaction with the university, faculty and/or support services than non-resilient students?  Obviously, there are many ways to approach academic buoyancy and resilience – I wonder what I would choose a year from now when I’ve made it through both Qualitative and Quantitative Methods I?

Reference

Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring
‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity.
School Psychology International, 34(5), 488-500.

In the first draft of my literature review, my research questions were listed as follows:

As I begin my readings on Qualitative Research Methods, I’ve already decided against my initial choice of method (case study) in favor of either a narrative or phenomenological study.  Although I like the case study approach, I don’t think it will be appropriate for my study of students who bounce back from poor academic performance to become high achievers.  What I am really “getting at” in my study is a deep exploration of how and why these students turned things around academically.  I want to hear their stories to get an in-depth understanding of what changed for them, who or what played a role in this change, and their perceptions of the change.  Do they perceive themselves differently now than they did when they started college?  And who or what was most helpful as they made the switch from low- to high-achiever?  Encouragement (or ultimatums) from parents?  University resources or faculty or advisers?  Their friends?  What mattered, and when did it matter?

So, all these questions point me towards narrative research or phenomenology.  As I imagine it, the data would be collected through semi-structured interviews, either one-on-one or in focus groups.  There would be a set of interview questions, but I would want the interviews to be open enough to allow for participant stories and clarifying questions.

I’m not totally sure which yet, but I do know that my data analysis will include coding strategies and/or narrative analysis.  I hope to be able to identify common themes among participants.  For example, did faculty or advisers provide essential guidance that encouraged this transition?  Were there resources at the university that were commonly mentioned as being critical to the students’ success?  What resources or people or challenges are brought up by participants, again and again?  I know that my data analysis will need to lead to the interpretation and clarification of these themes.

After a ten year gap in my formal education, writing the literature review was a challenge.  I’m glad to have gotten through the first draft, however, and I believe it will be easier the next time around.  And if not easier, at least I hope to improve with each attempt.  Also, there definitely were some lessons learned during this first draft that I believe I can build on in the future:

• Struggling with theory – Finding a theoretical foundation for my study was  one of my biggest challenges.  I did find a few that interested me, but finally settled on Weidman’s Model of Undergraduate Socialization.  In the end, developing an initial understanding of this theory might be one of the most important things that I take away from this class.  I really like this theory, and I could see basing other studies, including my dissertation, within this framework.
• Not reading enough early on – I read a lot of the literature surrounding my topic.  Or at least it felt like it at times.  But in hindsight I needed to read more, and sooner.  Lesson learned.
• Organizing my literature review – Figuring out what to include, and in what order, was a challenge.  I will definitely benefit from the feedback for this draft, because as thoughtful as I attempted to be, I’m sure there were disorganized or jumbled passages.  And I can see now how a literature review for a dissertation can be so long!  I was confused at times with how much or how little to include, when there is so much literature on certain topics.
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative – Since I haven’t taken any methods courses yet, I struggled early on with how I would approach this study. By the time I started my literature review, I had settled on a qualitative study, but I’m not sure if I would choose the same in a year or two.  I will really benefit from taking my methods courses (even if I am nervous about Quant!). It is difficult to create a study without a strong grasp of methodology.

In addition to learning more about a great theory, I enjoyed learning more about academic resilience, academic buoyancy, positive psychology and student achievement.  While I may not stay with the exact same topic through my dissertation, there was a lot here that I really could build on in the future.  And Dr. Gayles was right – it is much more enjoyable to approach my research from a positive standpoint!

This journal entry is intended to highlight any themes or patterns that are emerging in my research so far, as well as any potential frameworks or flaws that may be useful to explore.  Since my previous entry, I have not done much additional reading of the literature, but I have begun assembling my research in the Introduction and Problem Statement.  Here are my thoughts at this point:

Themes and patterns: The main two themes, or ideas, that are particularly relevant in my research thus far are academic resilience and academic buoyancy.  An overall interest in why students persist and succeed frames all of my research thus far.  Also highlighted is the importance of cognitive and emotional attributes such as emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping.  Less of the focus has been on institutional factors, which is where I’d like to direct my study.  Finally, there is a true international aspect to my research thus far.  Important studies in my literature review took place in Australia, England, New Zealand and Italy, and many of the U.S. studies have a multicultural focus.

Frameworks: What surprises me so far is the diversity of paradigms and methods used.  While all the studies on academic buoyancy and some on academic resilience are done within a post positivist, quantitative framework, many of the academic resilience studies are done from a constructivist, and sometimes transformative, paradigm.  What is strange is that in some ways, they seem to be taking place within two different worlds, since the authors site different previous studies.  It is as if two separate dialogues are taking place at the same time.

Flaws: I don’t know if I’m seeing flaws as much as gaps at this point.  For example, no research has been done on Martin’s concept of academic buoyancy in the U.S., and very little with university students.  At the same time, I’m unable to find literature within traditional student development/retention sources that distinguishes students who “bounce back” or exhibit resilience after previous failure.   This is one of the aspects of my study that really excites me, but it also means I have to cast a wider net for my literature review.  Also, while not a flaw, I’m less interested in pursuing this subject from the psychological framework that runs through much of the literature.  I much prefer a more sociological perspective that looks at how a student’s faculty, advisors, family, and social group contribute to their transformation.