Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
John Allan & Jim McKenna
Psychological Resilience: Human Performance, Wellbeing and HealthThursday 14 July 2011
Psychological resilience and academic achievement in
University Inductees
Finance UncertaintyHomesicknessAcademic work
FriendshipsExpectationsLove life
HE staffOther work
Slide # 2
Acknowledgements
Projects supported by Leeds Metropolitan University researchgrants in Higher Education Assessment, Teaching & Learning
John Allan Jim McKenna
The tightrope of Higher Education (HE)
Surviving
Thriving
Finance UncertaintyHomesicknessAcademic work
FriendshipsExpectationsLove
life
HE staff
Other work
• Resilience : Balance and shifting along a continuum
• Links to competence and growth
• New students – gender differences and achievement
Higher Education (HE) in the UK
2003-2008, universities induct 23% more students into HE
More students accessing HE
2003 - 2008
23%
“Staying the Course”, House of Commons, 2008
Higher Education (HE) in the UK
More students accessing HE
2003 - 2008
23%
WP students unable to draw on wider social networks
HE Statistics Agency, 2008
Higher Education (HE) in the UK
23%
Education Briefing Book, 2008
More students achieving in HE
1996/7 - 2006/72:1s & Firsts
7%
Higher Education (HE) in the UK
23%
Female students achieve in HE
7%
Higher Education Funding Council, 2007
12%
• 12% more females than males in HE
• 6% more females complete
• 4% more females gain “Good degrees”
(Firsts or 2:1)
Slide # 8
New HE students
More mental ill-health in HE students compared with age-matched controls, related in part to HE stresses
Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2006
1 in 10 don’t continue beyond first year, 2 in 10 don’t finish, despite £800 million since 2006
Staying the Course, House of Commons, 2008
Feelings of isolation, staff remoteness lack of timely & meaningful feedback
Kirk & Gleaves, 2009
Resilience
Maintaining internal well-being and adapting to the external environment
Personal growth
Bounce-back-ability
Bounce-beyond-ability
Capability in Uncertainty
“Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do” Piaget, 1963
Strong links to capability and competence in sports performance Mummery et al, 2004
Resilience
Maintaining internal well-being and adapting to the external environment
Personal growth
Bounce-back-ability
Bounce-beyond-ability
Capability in Uncertainty
“Knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do” Piaget, 1963
Strong links to capability and competence in sports performance Mummery et al, 2004
- in the context of Higher Education
Resilience as a trajectory
Norris et al (2009)
New students: Gendersocial
social
Bravado and pseudo-resilience?
New female students most anxious Cooke et al 2006
Characterised by mutuality and seeking help Jordan, 2006
Tend - Be-friend coping styles
Relational resilience (Hartling, 2003)
A higher variety of mental health issues Kleinfield, 2009
Reluctance for counselling - characterised by gender straitjacketing Pollack, 2006
Instrumental coping styles
Purpose
To profile the psychological resilience of inductees (sports students)
To establish relationship of baseline resilience with academic performance
Evaluate far transfer over the academic cycle
Design – Stage 1
Baseline of psychological resilience conducted over 4 consecutive years of 15 sports courses
Measuring Psychological Resilience
A validated scale for young people (Connor-Davidson Scale, CD-RISC, 2003)
‘How have you felt about yourself over the PAST MONTH?’
Provides a single score (range 0 to 100)
Baseline profiles (total score & 5 subscales)
I could deal with whatever came along Not at all true True nearly all
the time 0 1 2 3 4
Design – Stage 2
Two step cluster analysis for meaningful groupings rather than relationships between variables
Females
CD-RISCcontrol, trust spirit, changecompetence
Males
CD-RISCcontrol, trust spirit, changecompetence
Design – Stage 3
Clusters cross-tabulated with end of year grade classification
Males high Resilience
Males lowResilience
FemaleshighResilience
FemaleslowResilience
Fail
3rd
2:2
2:1
First
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80R
esili
ence
sco
re,0
-10
0
Results Stage 1: No mean resilience profile differences
n=710n=775
Mean age18.60 SD 1.48
CD-RISC and Subscales
(0-32)
(0-24)
(0-20)
(0-16)
(0-8)
Results Stage 1: Population Pyramid view
Results Stage 1: Males higher resilience
57% above mean
55% above mean
Results Stage 2: Four clusters of resilience: Means
High resilience
Low resilience
Control 10.40Trust 22.36Spirit 5.35Change 17.83Comp 29.09
Control 10.19Trust 22.40Spirit 4.81Change 17.56Comp 29.24
Control 7.50Trust 16.84Spirit 2.90Change 12.80Comp 22.40
Control 7.56Trust 16.74Spirit 3.23Change 12.72Comp 22.32
CD-RISC 84.20 (6.11) CD-RISC 85.04 (5.87)
CD-RISC 62.44 (6.91) CD-RISC 62.58 (8.19)
30.6% 454 26.5% 393
21.3% 317 21.6% 321
Clusters included all 15 sports courses, No cohort effect
% o
f Tot
al
Degree Classifications end of Year One
Results Stage 3: Clusters and subsequent achievement
% o
f Tot
al
Degree Classifications end of Year One
Results Stage 3: Clusters and subsequent achievement
Results Stage 3: Intra-cluster achievement
High resilience
Low resilience
75% fail, third and 2:2 categories
42% 2:1 & above, 12% fail or third
Over 8 out of ten fail, third or 2:2
Over 8 out of ten 2:2, 2:1 or above
Limitations
Self-report measure may only provide insight into a complex area – resilience single element, multiple routes to adaptability
Sophisticated profiling of inductees inc qualitative data
Time lapse of measures – longitudinal interim measurement required in the context of learning behaviours (near transfer evaluation)
Summary
Significant numbers and courses No gender profiles of resilience based on mean
scores for subscales or clusters Need to evaluate resilience and learning
behaviours in context (resilience x environment) 10% of high resilience males gain a third or fail Far transfer suggested for both clusters of
females for university assessment Relationship of resilience to first year
achievement outcomes (resilience not universally equated to end of year profiles)
