Publication: Academic resilience in European countries: The role of teachers, families, and student profiles
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2021-07-02
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Public Library Science
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Academic resilience is a student’s ability to achieve academic results significantly higher than would be expected according to their socioeconomic level. In this study, we aimed to identify the characteristics of students, families, and teacher activities which had the greatest impact on academic resilience. The sample comprised 117,539 fourth grade students and 6,222 teachers from 4,324 schools in member states of the European Union that participated in the PIRLS 2016 study. We specified a two-level hierarchical linear model in two phases: in the first level we used the students’ personal and family background variables, in the second level we used the variables related to teaching activity. In the first phase we used the complete model for all countries and regions, in the second phase we produced a model for each country with the highest possible number of statistically significant variables. The results indicated that the students’ personal and family variables that best predicted resilience were the reading self-confidence index, which increased the probability of student resilience by between 62 and 130 percentage points, a feeling of belonging to the school, which increased the chances of being resilient by up to 40 percentage points, and support from the family before starting primary school (Students from Lithuania who had done early literary activities in the family setting were twice as likely to be resilient than those who had not). The teaching-related factors best predicting resilience were keeping order in the classroom, a safe and orderly school environment (increasing chances of resilience by up to 62 percentage points), and teaching focused on comprehension and reflection, which could increase the probability of resilience by up to 61 percentage points.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
1. García Sanz MP. La evaluación de programas en la intervención socioeducativa. [The evaluation of programs in socio-educational intervention] Murcia: DM; 2003.
2. Barragán AB, Pérez-Fuentes MC, Martos Á, Simón MM, Molero MM, Martínez-Sánchez A, et al. Intervención y variables del personal docente y el centro escolar que modulan el rendimiento académico del alumno [Intervention and variables in the teaching staff and the school which modulate student academic performance]. European Journal of Child Development, Education and Psychopathology. 2016; 4(2): p. 89–97.
3. Carrillo E, Civís M, Blanch TA, Longás E, Riera J. Condicionantes del éxito y fracaso escolar en contextos de bajo nivel socioeconómico [Determinants of school success and failure in low socioeconomic contexts]. Revista de Estudios y Experiencias en Educación. 2018; 2: p. 75–94.
4. Jensen E. How poverty affects classroom engagement. Faces in Poverty. 2013;: p. 24–30. [Google Scholar]
5. Henderson N, Milstein MM. Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Corwin Pres; 2003.
6. Cordero JM, Manchón C. Factores explicativos del rendimiento en educación primaria: un análisis a partir de TIMSS 2011. [Explanatory Factors for Achievement in Primary Education: An Analysis Using TIMSS 2011]. Estudios sobre evaluación. 2014; 27: p. 9–35.
7. Aldridge JM, Fraser BJ, Fozdar A, Ala’i K, Earnest J, Afari E. Students’ perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity. Improving Schools. 2015; 19(1): p. 5–26. [Google Scholar]
8. Doll B. Enhancing Resilience in Classrooms. In Handbook of Resilience in Children. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2013. p. 399–409.
9. Howard S, Johnson B. What Makes the Difference? Children and teachers talk about resilient outcomes for children ‘at risk. Educational Studies. 2000; 26(3): p. 321–337.
10. Matin A. Motivation and Academic Resilience: Developing a Model for Student Enhancement. Australian Journal of Education. 2002; 46(1): p. 34–49.
11. McTigue E, Washburn E, Liew J. Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers. The Reading Teacher. 2009; 62(5): p. 422–432.
12. Steward D, Sun J, Patterson C, Lemerle K, Hardie M. Promoting and Building Resilience in PrimarySchool Communities: Evidence from a Comprehensive ‘Health Promoting School’ Approach. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2004; 6(3): p. 26–33.
13. Yeager D, Dweck C. Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educational Psychologist. 2012; 47(4): p. 302–314.
14. García-Crespo FJ, Galián B, Fernández-Alonso R, Muñiz J. Educational resilience in reading comprehension: Deteminant factors in PIRLS-Europe. Revista de Educación. 2019; 384: p. 65–89.
15. OECD. PISA in Focus n° 1, Does participant in pre-primary education translate into better learning outcomes at school? Paris:; 2011.
16. Choi A, Calero J. Determinantes del riesgo de fracaso escolar en España en PISA-2009 y propuestas de reforma Determinants of the risk of school failure in Spain in PISA-2009 and proposals for reform]. Revista de Educación. 2013; 362: p. 562–593.
17. Erberber E, Stephens M, Mamedova S, Ferguson S, Kroeger T. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are academically successful: Examining academic resilience crossnationally. IEA’S Policy Brief Series. 2015; 5.
18. García-Crespo FJ, Fernández-Alonso R, Muñiz J. Resilient and low performers students: Personal and family determinats en european countries. Psicothema. 2019; 31(4): p. 363–375. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.245
19. Martin AJ, Marsh HW. Academic resilience and the four Cs: Confidence, control, composure, and commitment. In Joint AARE/NZARE Conference; 2003; Auckland, New Zeland.
20. Vaknin-Nusbaum V, Nevo E, Brande S, Gambrell L. Developmental aspects of reading motivation and reading achievement among second grade low achievers and typical readers. Journal of Resarch in Reading. 2018; 41(3): p. 438–454.
21. Veas A, López-López JA, Gilar R, Miñano P, Castejón JL. Differences in cognitive, motivational and contextual variables between under-achieving, normally-achieving, and over-achieving students: A mixed-effects analysis. Psicothema. 2017; 29(4): p. 533–538. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.283
22. Waxman H, Huang S, Padrón Y. Motivation and learning environment differences between resilient and nonresilient latino middle school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1997; 19(2): p. 137–155.
23. Jacob BA. Where the boys aren’t: Noncognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2002; 21(6): p. 589–598.
24. Kobasa SC, Maddi SR, Kahn S. Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 42(1): p. 168–177. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.42.1.168
25. Postigo Á, Cuesta M, Fernández-Alonso R, García-Cueto E, Muñiz J. Temporal Stability of Grit and School Performance in Adolescents: A Longitudinal Perspective. Psicología Educativa. 2021; 27(1): p. 77–84.
26. Martín-Lagos MD. Educación y desigualdad: una metasíntesis tras el 50 aniversario del Informe Coleman [Education and inequality: a meta-synthesis after the 50th anniversary of Coleman’s report]. Revsita de Educación. 2018; 380: p. 186–209.
27. Fernández-Alonso R, Álvarez-Díaz M, Woitschach P, Suárez-Álvarez P, Cuesta M. Parental involvement and academic performance: Less control and more communication. Psicothema. 2017; 29(4): p. 453–461. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2017.181
28. Sandoval-Hernández A, Bialowolski P. Factors and Conditions Promoting Academic Resilience: A TIMSS-Based Analysis of Five Asian Education Systems. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2016; 17(3): p. 511–520.
29. Li H. The ‘Secrets’ of Chinese Students’ Academic Success: Academic Resilience among Students from HighlyCompetitive Academic Environments. Educational Psychology. 2017; 37(8): p. 1001–1014.
30. Cheung K, Sit P, Soh K, Leong M, Mak S. Predicting Academic Resilience with Reading Engagement and Demographic Variables: Comparing Shanghai, Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore from the PISA Perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2014; 23(4): p. 895–909.
31. Barber M, Mourshed M. Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead. In Report on the International Education Roundtable, 7 July 2009, Singapore.: McKinsey & Company, London; 2009. [Google Scholar]
32. Darling-Hammond L. Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education. 2017; 40(3): p. 291–309.
33. Hattie J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement: Routledge, London; 2009.
34. OECD. Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2005.
35. OECD. Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA. In PISA.: OECD Publishing, Paris; 2018.
36. Fauth B, Decristan J, Rieser S, Klieme E, Büttner G. Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 29: p. 1–9.
37. Kane TJ, Cantrell S. Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project About the Measures of Effective Teaching Project: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA; 2010.
38. Kunter M, Voss T. The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multicriteria analysis. In Kunter M, Baumert J, Blum W, Klusmann U, Krauss S, Neubrand M, editors. Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers.: Springer, New York, NY; 2013. p. 97–124.
39. Wagner W, Göllner R, Helmke A, Trautwein U, Lüdtke O. Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learning and Instruction. 2013; 28: p. 1–11.
40. Baumert J, Kunter M, Blum W, Brunner M, Voss T, Jordan A, et al. Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal. 2010; 47(1): p. 133–180. [Google Scholar]
41. Creemers B, Kyriakides L. The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools: Routledge, Abingdon; 2008.
42. Isac MM, Dinis da Costa P, Araujo L, Soto Calvo E, Albergaria-Almeida P. Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-Scale Assessments in Education—JRC Science and Policy Report: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; 2015.
43. Kunter M, Klusmann U, Baumert J, Richter D, Voss T, Hachfeld A. Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105(3): p. 805–820.
44. Lavy V. What Makes an Effective Teacher? Quasi-Experimental Evidence. CESifo Economic Studies. 2016; 62(1): p. 88–125.
45. Nilsen T, Gustafsson JE(), editors. Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes. Relationships Across Countries, Cohorts and Time: IEA Research for Education; 2016.
46. O’Dwyer LM, Wang Y, Shields KA. Teaching for conceptual understanding: A cross-national comparison of the relationship between teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement in mathematics. Large-scale Assessments in Education. 2015; 3(1): p. 3–30.
47. Rjosk C, Richter D, Hochweber J, Lüdtke O, Klieme E, Stanat P. Socioeconomic and language minority classroom composition and individual reading achievement: The mediating role of instructional quality. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 32: p. 63–72.
48. Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, Steca P. Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95(4): p. 821–832.
49. Klassen R, Wilson E, Siu AFY, Hannok W, Wong MW, Wongsri N, et al. Preservice teachers’ work stress, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment in four countries. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2013; 28(4): p. 1289–1309.
50. Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2001; 17(7): p. 783–805.
51. Barber M, Mourshed M. How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top; 2007.
52. Darling-Hammond L, Burns D, Campbell C, Goodwin AL, Hammerness K, Low EL, et al. Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World: Jossey-Bass, San Francisco; 2017.
53. OECD. More than the sum of their parts: Human resource policies for effective schools: OECD Reviews of School Resources, Paris; 2019.
54. Desimone L. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38(3): p. 181–199.
55. Ingvarson L, Meiers M, Beavis A. Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2005; 13(10): p. 1–28.
56. Yoon KS, Duncan T, Lee SW, Scarloss B, Shapley KL. Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance; 2007. Report No.: 033.
57. Scribner J. Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly. 1999; 35(2): p. 238–266.
58. Meissel K, Parr J, Timperley H. Can professional development of teachers reduce disparity in student achievement? Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 58: p. 163–173.
59. Martin MO, Mullis IVS, Hooper M. Methods and Procedures in PIRLS 2016: Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2017.
60. Mullis IVS, Martin MO. PIRLS 2016 Assessment Framework (2nd ed.): Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2015.
61. Fernández-Alonso R, Muñiz J. Diseños de cuadernillos para la evaluación de las competencias básicas [Booklet designs for the evaluation of basic skills]. Aula Abierta. 2011; 39(2): p. 3–34.
62. Peña-Suárez E, Fernández-Alonso R, Muñiz J. Estimación del valor añadido de los centros escolares. Aula Abierta. 2009; 37(1): p. 3–18.
63. Suárez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano L, García-Cueto E, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema. 2018; 30: p. 149–158. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2018.33
64. Vigil-Colet A, Navarro-González D, Morales-Vives F. To reverse or to not reverse Likert-type items: That is the question. Psicothema. 2020; 32(1): p. 108–114. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.286
65. Villegas G, González-García N, Sánchez-García A, Sánchez-Barba M, Galindo-Villardón MP. Seven methods to determine the dimensionality of tests: application to the General Self-Efficacy Scale in twenty-six countries. Psicothema. 2018; 30: p. 442–448. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2018.113
66. Mullis I, Martin M, Foy P, Hooper M. PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading: Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2017.
67. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences New York: Routledge; 2013.
68. Gelman A, Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
69. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling London: Sage; 2012.
70. Iñiguez-Berrozpe T, Marcaletti F. Modelos lineales multinivel en SPSS y su aplicación en investigación educativa [Linear multilevel models in SPSS and its application in educational research]. REIRE Revista d’Innovació i Recerca en Educació. 2018; 11(1): p. 26–40.
71. De la Cruz F. Modelos multinivel [Multi-level models]. Epidemiol. 2008; 12(3): p. 1–8.
72. Kreft IG, De Leeuw J, Aiken LS. The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate behavioral research. 1995; 30(1): p. 1–21. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_1
73. Rutkowski L, González E, Joncas M, von Davier M. International largescale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher. 2010; 39(2): p. 142–151.
74. Fernández-Alonso R, Suárez-Álvarez J, Muñiz J. Imputación de datos perdidos en la evaluaciones diagnósticas educativas [Imputation methods for missing data in educational diagnostic evaluation]. Psicothema. 2012; 24(1): p. 167–175.
75. Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Goh S, Prendergast C. PIRLS 2016 Encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in reading Boston: Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2017.
76. Marsh HW, Craven RG. Reciprocal Effects of Self-Concept and Performance From a Multidimensional Perspective: Beyond Seductive Pleasure and Unidimensional Perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2006; 1(2): p. 133–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x
77. Fernández-Lasarte O, Ramos-Díaz E, Goñi-Palacios E, Rodríguez-Fernández A. The role of social support in school adjustment during Secondary Education. Psicothema. 2020; 32(1): p. 100–107. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.125
78. Morales-Vives F, Camps E, Dueñas JM. Predicting academic achievement in adolescents: The role of maturity. Psicothema. 2020; 32(1): p. 84–91. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.262