Monthly Archives: November 2013

Final reflection on methods

Posted on by

Inspiration-Card-Maker_Template_025For 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.

Reflecting on my research problem and questions

Posted on by

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

1. How do students who have “bounced back” from poor academic performance to become high achievers describe this transformation?

  1. How do students describe the role of their pre­college experiences, abilities, aspirations and values in this transformation?
  2. How do students describe the role of their faculty, department, advisers and other university staff in this transformation?
  3. How do students describe the role of their college friends and peer group in this transformation?
  4. How do students describe the role of their parents in this transformation?
  5. How do students describe the role of non­college reference groups, including peers, employers and outside organizations, in this transformation?
  6. How do students describe the change in their goals, aspirations and values after this transformation?

By framing the questions around participants’ descriptions and perceptions, I believe that this research is well-suited for a qualitative study.  While I could have built a quantitative study around this issue of “bouncing back,” I was really interested in exploring the how and why students bounce back in a more in-depth way.  I wanted to get their narratives, descriptions, and perceptions of this transformation, and I felt I would get a richer, more complete picture through semi-structured interviews (rather than a survey with fixed multiple-choice questions).  For example, I don’t just want to know if parents play an important role in this transformation, I want to know how.  Furthermore, I like how qualitative research allows for the data collection and analysis to continue simultaneously.

While there have been no qualitative studies of academic buoyancy, there have been many on academic resilience.  One of the leading researchers on this topic is Erik Morales.  In his study of high achieving Dominican American students (2000), for example, Morales chose a phenomenological approach guided by the theoretical perspectives of phenomenology and symbolic interactionism.  Participants included five high achieving Dominican American students attending NYU.  The study paid particular attention to the protective factors that played a role in the development of a “resilience cycle” for the students.  The author conveyed qualitative validity mainly through a rich description of the site, the participants, and the themes they conveyed.  He included an in-depth discussion of two of the participants, including excerpts from their interviews, to provide an illustration of how the resilience cycle manifests itself.  According to Morales, these excerpts also provide the reader with “a taste of the students’ voices” (p. 12).

I thought that Morales was justified in his use and presentation of a phenomenological approach.  To begin with, he makes an excellent case for the need to explore the academic resiliency of low-SES minority students, Dominican American students in particular.  According to Morales, in 2000, minority students’ academic resilience had received “far less attention than have their failures” (p. 7).   Using phenomenology, he was able to develop a five-step “resilience cycle” which takes into consideration the relationship between risk factors and protective factors, and which highlights the importance of student’s awareness of these factors.  The model that he developed on the “resilience cycle” would not have been created without a phenomenological approach that emphasized students’ perceptions of this particular phenomenon.

This article was very useful to my research topic as I am proposing to study a similar construct (academic buoyancy) using phenomenology.  Academic buoyancy is a relatively new topic that has only been researched quantitatively, outside of the U.S.  It seems “ripe” for an initial, deeper exploration that a phenomenological study would provide.  Also, I appreciated how (within the constraints of a small, qualitative study) Morales was able to develop a useful model for understanding resilience as a cycle.  If I were to proceed with my study, I would want it to generate a practical, useable model or theory that would further our understanding of academic buoyancy.

Reference

Morales, E. E. (2000). A Contextual Understanding of the Process of Educational Resilience: High Achieving Dominican American Students and the “Resilience Cycle”. Innovative Higher Education, 25(1), 7-22.