Some of the risk factors are environmental issues that place students in danger (Morales, 2008). Risk factors include; inferior schools, a culture of violence, and/or lack of parental attention (Morales, 2008). He found that students have vulnerability areas that may create problems in a specific situation. Some vulnerability areas can be gender, class, and race/ethnicity. Statistics have indicated that females have surpassed men in terms of degree attainment at the baccalaureate and master’s level (Morales, 2008).
One of the biggest obstacles for females is the familial and social obligations which create stressful situations. Morales conducted a qualitative research on a sample size of 50 persons. Of the 50 participants 31 were female and 19 were male, with 30 self identifying as African American and 20 as Hipic (Morales, 2008). All of the study participants were attending predominantly White higher education institutions (Morales, 2008). The students were chosen because they were the individuals who could best help understand a given phenomenon—in this case the process of academic resilience (Morales, 2008).
The findings of the research concluded that females face more resistance than males. Borman and Overman (2004) investigated whether the allotment of an individual and school characteristics were associated with academic resilience differed due to race/ethnicity. They tested four models of risk factors in order to have a better picture of how schools might affect student resilient outcomes (Borman & Overman, 2004). The four risk factors included; effective schools, peer-group composition, school resources, and the supportive school community model.
Schools that have students of poverty and of color may fail to provide a supportive school climate, by having low academic expectations, or by delivering inadequate educational resources (Borman & Overman, 2004). The individual characteristics, school characteristics, and the interaction between both may contribute to a student’s risk of academic failure (Borman & Overman, 2004). There research began with 3,981 students and diminished to 925 after careful selection. The goal of the study was to reveal school effects, student’s attitudes, and behaviors that were related to resilience construct (Borman & Overman, 2004).
There research outcome was greater engagement in academic activities, efficaciousness in mathematics, a more positive outlook in school, and higher self esteem were characteristics of low SES (Socio Economic Status) students who achieved resilient outcomes in mathematics (Borman & Overnman, 2004). The results suggested that their economic status didn’t interfere with their academic resilience. McTigue, Washburn, and Liew (2009) explained that an academically resilient student needs to have a lot of self-regulation to maintain a positive attitude.
Their further explanation of factors in preschool that is important for predicting later reading success are usually alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness. Even though those are important skills to adhere the personality factor is one that has been overlooked (McTigue, Washburn, Liew, 2009). There argument was to provide a theoretical basis for the role of socioemotional development in reading (McTigue, Washburn, Liew, 2009). The promotion of student self-efficacy was demonstrated in six key principles. The first principle is creating an environment with acceptance and warmth (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009).
A safe environment allows students to feel comfortable and at ease in order to allow for knowledge to sink in. The second principle is literacy assessment should include measures of academic resiliency (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009). The key features are engagement and participation levels, self monitoring, and inquiries for help. Third principle involves; using direct modeling to promote literacy and self efficacy (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009). The fourth principle is effective feedback should be specific, accurate, and emphasize effort (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009).
Modeling is important in student self efficacy but is not complete without feedback (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009). Goal setting is the fifth principle and should be achieved after proper feedback. In the final principle teachers should promote self-evaluation by allowing the students to view their accomplished goals. In conclusion, McTigue, Washburn, and Liew (2009) believe it is important to take into consideration all aspects of student development (cognitive, language, social, emotional) in synchrony. Students needs all have the above to function better in school but not all children have the same learning capacities.
This report lacks to mention the children who might have mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, etc. and would need further attention than a regular student. Martin & Marsh’s (2008) study compares academic buoyancy to academic resilience. The differences are; the samples to which they relate, the operational differences, methodological distinctions, and the interventions that respond to them (Martin & Marsh, 2008). Academic resilience is characterized as “acute” and “chronic” adversities that are seen as a hardship to the developmental process (Martin & Marsh, 2008).
It also focuses on ethnic groups, interaction of ethnicity, and underachievement (Martin & Marsh, 2008). Their argument is that buoyancy on the other hand focuses on the hardships that people deal with on a day to day basis rather than from acute or chronic adversities. Academic buoyancy is recognized in two areas, “every day hassles” and “coping” (Martin & Marsh, 2008). This study understands that there are multiple reasons behind student’s academic success in school. No one person is the same or lives similar lifestyles; therefore there are multiple reasons for unsuccessful academics.
Gayles (2005) study was of three African Americans seniors in high School at one of the least affluent high schools in their area. In this research academic resilience signifies academic achievement when such achievement is rare for those facing similar circumstances or within a similar sociocultural context (Gayles, 2005). These students were the first in their families to graduate with honors, earned college scholarships, while they lives in non-affluent homes and community (Gayles, 2005). Gayles used open ended questions to and questions were directed towards the construction of the meaning of academic achievement.
His study showed that for the students diminished their own achievement because they didn’t feel they were better than others (Gayles, 2005). The motivations that lead to their success were from living in their affluent homes and trying to surpass that by parental advisement, if they wanted something they had to work at their education. In conclusion, each of these studies indicated different areas or reasons behind academic resilience. As previously mentioned, the situations that students are in make an impact on what academic route they take.
Some students may not overcome unsuccessful academics due to neglect in motivation or situational means. It is believed that with efforts and a strong set in mind academic resilience can overcome regardless of any situation. References Borman, G. D. , Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic Resilience in Mathematics among Poor and Minority Students: The Elementary School Journal. The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 104, No. 3, pp. 177-195. Gayles, J. (2005). Playing the Game and Paying the Price: Academic Resilience among Three High-Achieving African American Males.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly. Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 250–264. Martin, A. J. , Marsh H. W. , (2008). Academic Buoyancy: Towards an Understanding of Students' Everyday Academic Resilience. Journal of School Psychology. Vol. 46 Issue 1, p53-83, 31p Mc Tigue, E. M. , Washburn, E. K. , Liew, J. (2009). Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers. Reading Teacher. Vol. 62 Issue 5, p 422-432, 11p, 6 charts Morales, E. E. (2008). Exceptional Female Students of Color: Academic Resilience and Gender in Higher Education. Innovative High Education, 33:197–213.