2

Journal of School Psychology
46 (2008) 53 83
Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding

of students' everyday academic resilience
Andrew J. Martin a,, Herbert W. Marsh b
a
b
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia

Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University, United Kingdom
Received 6 April 2006; received in revised form 7 January 2007; accepted 26 January 2007
Abstract
Academic buoyancy is developed as a construct reflecting everyday academic resilience within a
positive psychology context and is defined as students' ability to successfully deal with academic
setbacks and challenges that are typical of the ordinary course of school life (e.g., poor grades,
competing deadlines, exam pressure, difficult schoolwork). Data were collected from 598 students in
Years 8 and 10 at five Australian high schools. Half-way through the school year and then again at
the end of the year, students were asked to rate their academic buoyancy as well as a set of
hypothesized predictors (self-efficacy, control, academic engagement, anxiety, teacherstudent
relationship) in the area of mathematics. Multilevel modeling found that the bulk of variance in
academic buoyancy was explained at the student level. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling showed that (a) Time 1 anxiety (negatively), self-efficacy, and academic
engagement significantly predict Time 1 academic buoyancy; (b) Time 2 anxiety (negatively), selfefficacy, academic engagement, and teacherstudent relationships explain variance in Time 2
academic buoyancy over and above that explained by academic buoyancy at Time 1; and (c) of the
significant predictors, anxiety explains the bulk of variance in academic buoyancy.
2007 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Academic buoyancy; Academic resilience; High school students; Engagement; Motivation
This article was accepted under Dr. Pianta's editorship.

Corresponding author. Faculty of Education and Social Work, A35 Education Building, University of
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
E-mail address: a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au (A.J. Martin).
0022-4405/$ - see front matter 2007 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
54
A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383
We define academic buoyancy as students' ability to successfully deal with academic

setbacks and challenges that are typical of the ordinary course of school life (e.g., poor grades,
competing deadlines, exam pressure, difficult schoolwork). As we argue below, academic
buoyancy is distinct from the traditional resilience construct as well as constructs reflecting
everyday hassles and coping. Notwithstanding this, it draws on these three research domains
to map onto the under-recognized notion of everyday resilience. The present study aims to
examine predictors of this everyday academic resilience, academic buoyancy. In assessing this
construct and in identifying salient predictors across time, we hope to provide some guidance
and shed some light on factors to target in counseling efforts that seek to enhance students'
ability to deal with the inevitable ups and downs of everyday life in the academic context.
Why buoyancy? Why not resilience?
A critical aspect to our study is that buoyancy is proposed to be quite distinct from
resilience. To underscore this distinction, we propose the two differ in definitional terms, in
terms of the samples to which they relate, the operational differences, methodological
distinctions, and indeed the interventions that respond to them. In terms of definitional- and
sample-related differences, resilience has typically been characterized in terms of acute
and chronic adversities that are seen as major assaults on the developmental processes
(e.g., see Garmezy, 1981; Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001;
Werner, 2000). The studies that deal with academic resilience tend to be focused on ethnic
groups situated in adverse conditions and situations (e.g., poverty Overstreet & Braun,
1999; gang violence Catterall, 1998), chronic underachievers (e.g., Finn & Rock, 1997),
and indeed, the interaction of ethnicity and underachievement (e.g., Gonzalez & Padilla,
1997). Other research touches on the issue of resilience in the academic setting for students
with learning disabilities (e.g., Margalit, 2004; Meltzer, 2004; Miller, 2002). Hence,
traditional constructions and operationalizations of resilience refer to a relatively small
number of individuals who experience quite extreme adversity.
Also in relation to definitional- and sample-related distinctions, we propose that the traditional resilience concept does not address the many individuals who are faced with setbacks,
challenges, and pressures that are part of the ordinary course of life. This, we contend, reflects
an everyday resilience or a buoyancy that is relevant to the many who must negotiate the ups
and downs of everyday life as distinct from acute and chronic adversities relevant to traditional
constructions of resilience. Indeed, the positively-oriented buoyancy concept aligns with recent
developments in positive psychology that hypothesize about the scope for positive dimensions
of individuals' lives to address aspects of their lives that are not so adaptive. A positive focus
along these lines has the capacity to not only reflect a healthy end-state but also is a means to
achieve psychological growth and improved well-being over time (see Fredrickson, 2001).
Positive psychologists refer to this as the broaden and build theory of positive emotions
(Fredrickson, 2001). The broaden and build theory proposes that positive emotions and
processes provide the potential to broaden individuals' momentary thoughtaction repertoires
and also increase individuals' capacity to enhance their personal resources. Hence, a focus on
key principles underpinning academic buoyancy would encompass building on strengths and
emphasizing proactive rather than reactive approaches to setback and challenge. It would also
emphasize key catalysts to enhanced educational outcomes that include healthy school
55
environments, adaptive intrapersonal factors, positive motivation and engagement, and

constructive interests and attitudes key factors under investigation in the present study.
Moreover, the concept of buoyancy may align more with a positive psychology orientation that
typically tries to better understand the many and the healthy as opposed to resilience that is
often confined to extreme cases at the problematic end of the spectrum. Indeed, buoyancy may
be the positive psychology version of resilience.
A further sample-related distinction is relevant to the fact that the concept of academic
buoyancy also resolves a challenge presented by Martin and Marsh (2006) who had
previously studied more everyday academic resilience across the full range of school
students. Their challenge was that traditional definitions of resilience were confined to the
relative few who experienced extreme adversity and yet the reality was that multitudes of
students face less extreme but nonetheless problematic setbacks and challenges as part of
everyday life at school. That study was an important one in that it was one of the first to
examine this issue across the full range of students. By proposing the concept of academic
buoyancy, this study bridges the gap between traditional treatments of academic resilience
of acute, chronic, intense, and sustained adversity experienced by the relative few (e.g.,
Garmezy, 1981; Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001; Werner, 2000)
and Martin and Marsh's extension of the concept to address all students.
In substantive, operational, and methodological terms, we propose that buoyancy and
resilience are demarcated on two primary dimensions: differences of degree and differences
of kind. In terms of differences of degree we argue that whereas academic resilience may be
relevant to chronic underachievement, academic buoyancy is relevant to the more typical
experience of isolated poor grades and patches of poor performance; whereas academic
resilience may be relevant to overwhelming feelings of anxiety that are incapacitating,
academic buoyancy is relevant more to typical stress levels and daily pressures; whereas
academic resilience may be relevant to debilitation in the face of chronic failure or anxiety,
academic buoyancy is relevant more to threats to confidence as a result of a poor grade.
In terms of differences of kind we argue that whereas academic resilience might be
relevant to clinical types of affect such as anxiety and depression, academic buoyancy is
relevant more to low level stress and confidence; whereas academic resilience might be
relevant to truancy and total disaffection from school, academic buoyancy is relevant more
to dips in motivation and engagement; whereas academic resilience may be relevant to
comprehensive and consistent alienation or opposition to teachers, academic buoyancy is
more relevant to dealing with negative feedback on schoolwork.
Finally, in terms of intervention it is important to better understand buoyancy and how it
is distinct from resilience. If we recognize differences of degree between the two, then it is
probable that academic buoyancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for academic
resilience. That is, resilient students are likely to also be buoyant. This implies something of
a hierarchy. Thus, in facilitating students' resilience to more dramatic adverse academic and
life events it is important to help them deal with ongoing challenges and demands that
present themselves that is, develop their buoyancy. Indeed, if developing resilience is in
part about helping individuals offset risk (Martin & Marsh, 2006) then buoyancy may be
the first part of this and interventions might do well to reflect this.
Taken together, we propose that buoyancy and resilience differ on a number of bases.
Specifically, there are some clear definitional distinctions and following from this buoyancy
56
and resilience do not equate to fully overlapping samples. There are also operational and
methodological distinctions that are importantly recognized in attempting to characterize
the diversity of demands and challenges that are part of the ordinary course of students'
academic lives. Furthermore, the joint operation of these distinctions gives rise to distinct
intervention implications. However as detailed below, whilst a good deal of research has
provided substantial understanding of resilience, no research has specifically recognized
the cognate construct buoyancy and the factors that underpin it.
Academic buoyancy and everyday hassles and coping
In contextualizing academic buoyancy we recognize and harness the two cognate areas of
everyday hassles and coping. Everyday hassles are those stresses and strains that
characterize everyday frustrations in life (see Bobo, Gilchrist, Elmer, Snow, & Schinke, 1986;
French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2000; Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; Kohn,
Lafreniere, and Gurevich, 1991; Pearlin & Leiberman, 1979; Seidman, Aber, Allen, & French,
1996; Seidman et al., 1995; Seidman, Lambert, Allen, & Aber, 2003; Zeidner, 1992, 1994).
Buoyancy is akin to hassles in that it draws on students' everyday stresses and strains. However,
it is different from hassle-related research in that the hassle-related research focuses almost
exclusively on the stress of the situation and measurement around hassles predominantly
requires respondents to indicate the extent to which the hassles are a source of frustration (see
for example, the Daily Hassles Microsystem Scale: Seidman et al., 1995; the Student Stress
Inventory: Zeidner, 1990, 1992). That is, typically this research does not ask how individuals
deal with their hassles, it simply asks about the existence and extent of them. Buoyancy on the
other hand, is centered on an individual's response to their everyday challenges. Moreover,
given the adaptive and positive focus of the buoyancy concept, it maps more clearly and directly
onto the emerging positive psychology literature than does the hassle-related research.
Coping does relate more directly to individuals' responses to stressful and disruptive
transactions with the environment. Specifically, it refers to an individual's cognitive and
behavioral attempts to manage the demands of a stressful situation or environment (Fry &
Martin, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Speirs & Martin, 1999; Zeidner, 1994; Zeidner &
Hammer, 1990). Two of the classically defined coping responses are problem-focused
coping (i.e., referring to an individual's efforts to address the problem or stressor) and
emotion-focused coping (i.e., referring to an individual's efforts to address the emotions of
the stressful situation). Buoyancy is more aligned with problem-focused coping in that it
relates to individuals' efforts to deal with the problem or adversity.
It is proposed here that the hassle-related research and the coping research can be
integrated under the buoyancy concept. Specifically, it is proposed that academic buoyancy
as operationalized in the present study brings together key elements of the hassle-related
and coping research domains in that it: (a) explicitly addresses students' problem-focused
coping in response to (b) their everyday academic hassles, stressors, and strains.
Predictors of academic buoyancy
If, as we argue, the concept of academic buoyancy has merit and is a construct relevant to
many students, it will be useful to identify salient predictors with a view to assisting
57
practitioners seeking to enhance students' academic buoyancy. Indeed, identifying such

predictors is a central purpose of the present study. Given that buoyancy is a new concept,
in guiding the selection of predictors of academic buoyancy we find it helpful to draw on
the existing research into its cognate construct, academic resilience. The research conducted
investigating predictors of academic resilience has identified a broad array of factors that
contribute to students' capacities to deal effectively with academic adversity and setback.
Research has generally focused on either distal factors (e.g., SES, single parent, ethnicity)
or proximal factors (e.g., psychological factors, school related factors). Because the
proximal factors are generally considered to be more manipulable and amenable to
intervention (Cappella & Weinstein, 2001), these are the focus of the present study.
Broadly, these proximal factors can be grouped into (a) psychological factors, (b) school
and engagement factors, and (c) family and peer factors.
Psychological factors include self-efficacy, control, sense of purpose, and motivation
(Finn & Rock, 1997; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Shumow, Vandell, & Posner, 1999;
Waxman, Huang, & Padron, 1997; Wayman, 2002). School and engagement factors include
class participation, educational aspirations, enjoyment of school, relationship with teachers,
teacher responsiveness, effective teacher feedback, attendance, value placed on school,
extra-curricular activity, and challenging curriculum (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber,
1993; Alva, 1991; Catterall, 1998; Finn & Rock, 1997; Floyd, 1996; Hymel, Comfort,
Schonert-Reichl, & McDougall, 1996; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McMillan & Reed,
1994; Waxman et al., 1997). Family and peer factors include family support, positive bond
with a pro-social adult, informal network of friends, peer commitment to education,
authoritative and caring parenting, and connections to pro-social organizations (Alva, 1991;
Catterall, 1998; Floyd, 1996; Gonzalez & Padilla, 1997; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998;
McMillan & Reed, 1994; Wayman, 2002; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1999).
The question then arises as to which factors are the most salient in determining a student's
capacity to deal effectively with academic setback, challenge, and adversity. Again, research
into academic resilience plays a guiding role. Borman and Rachuba (2001) conducted an
analysis of academic resilience that examined the relative salience of five competing models.
The first model, the individual characteristics model, examined the role of factors such as
self-esteem, control, and self-efficacy. The second, the effective schools model, focused on
developing students academically, enhancing belonging in school, strong principal
leadership, and clear school mission. The third, the school resources model, examined the
impact of school funding, resources, and class size. The fourth, the peer group composition
model, examined the extent to which students' peers affected academic resilience. The fifth,
supportive school community model, explored the role of caring and supportive teachers, a
safe orderly school, positive expectations for students, and opportunities for students to be
actively involved in school. They found two models in particular accounted for most
variance in students' ability to deal with academic setback and adversity: the individual
characteristics model and the supportive school community model. In terms of individual
characteristics, key factors were locus of control, academic engagement, and self-efficacy. In
terms of the supportive school community, amongst the key factors were positive teacher
student relationships. These four factors (self-efficacy, control, academic engagement, and
teacherstudent relationships), then, will be foci for the present study with a view to
examining their roles in the buoyancy process from a longitudinal perspective.
58
Determining an approach for the present study

Again, given that buoyancy is a new concept, in guiding the approach to the present
study, we find it helpful to draw on the existing research into academic resilience.
According to Masten (2001), there are predominantly two approaches to the study of
resilience. The first is the variable-focused approach that tests linkages amongst measures
of degree of risk/adversity and qualities that may protect the person from negative
consequences and outcomes. The second is the person-focused approach that compares
people with different profiles to ascertain what differentiates resilient individuals from nonresilient individuals. We consider it important to conceptualize and assess academic
buoyancy as a continuum on which all individuals lie and this would imply the variablefocused approach is the one most pertinent to the present study. Indeed, as Masten notes, the
variable-focused approach has the advantage of statistical power and is suited for searching
for specific and differential links between predictors and outcomes that can have
implications for intervention. Accordingly, the present study adopts a variable-focused
approach to academic buoyancy. This also allows us to test aspects of the validity of
academic buoyancy in relation to correlates rather than to leave this assumption untested.
Also, because we assume that the construct varies as a function of a combination of student
level variables and environmental variables, it is critical to consider how the variable
changes over time with longitudinal data and what variables are related to these changes.
The role of anxiety
In a recent study of motivational determinants of students' ability to deal with academic
setback, Martin and Marsh (2006) found that in addition to factors such as self-efficacy,
control, and engagement, anxiety played a pivotal part in fact, accounting for the bulk of
variance in academic resilience. Anxiety is most likely to be experienced in situations of
threat. In the academic context, it is experienced under conditions of performance and
evaluative threat such as in the face of tests and exams that evoke fear of failure (Covington,
1992; Sarason & Sarason, 1990; Spielberger, 1985; Tobias, 1985; Zohar, 1998). There is a
large body of research demonstrating the negative effects of anxiety including performance
decrements, negative affect, negative cognition, and quite debilitating physical sensations
(Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Hancock, 2001; Newbegin & Owens, 1996; Sarason & Sarason,
1990; Skaalvik, 1997; Spielberger, 1985). If this is the case, it could be expected to be
negatively associated with students' ability to deal with academic setback and challenge.
Indeed, the research into the related areas of academic hassles and academic coping finds
consistently significant associations with anxiety (Kohn et al., 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984; Shirom, 1986; Zeidner, 1992, 1994), attesting to the possible role of
anxiety in academic buoyancy.
On the other hand, there is some research showing that anxiety is not unambiguously
maladaptive from an achievement perspective or that the negative relationship between
anxiety and educational outcomes is not strong or is mediated by other factors (Ma, 1999).
For example, the negative effects of anxiety are not so marked in particular classroom
climates (Hancock, Nichols, Jones, Mayring, & Glaeser-Zikuda, 2000; McInerney,
McInerney, & Marsh, 1997) and the facilitating or debilitating effects of anxiety may
59
depend on the individual's personality (Nyland, Ybarra, Sammut, Rienecker, & Kameda,
2000). Indeed, it may be that academic anxiety may trigger a fight rather than flight
response to academic setback and challenge. If this is the case, it might be positively
associated with academic buoyancy. Accordingly, in addition to self-efficacy, control,
teacherstudent relationships, and academic engagement, anxiety is to be included as a
predictor of academic buoyancy.
Academic buoyancy in mathematics
Whereas some researchers develop generalized measures of academic motivation and
engagement that are intended to broadly apply to all academic subjects, others are interested
in the development of students' achievement-related motivations, beliefs, affects, and
behaviors that are domain specific (e.g., Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Eccles, Wigfield,
Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Marsh, 1990, 1993a). Therefore, a student may be highly
motivated or interested in an English subject but less motivated or perhaps displays anxiety
in mathematics-based subjects (Bong, 1996; Marsh, Martin, & Debus, 2002; Pintrich,
2003; Zimmerman, 2001).
In relation to motivational dimensions, Gottfried (1982) measured anxiety and intrinsic
motivation in four school subjects (reading, math, social studies, and science) and
concluded that the relationship between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety varied
according to the school subject. Smith and Fouad (1999) also confirmed the existence of
different levels of self-efficacy, interests, outcome expectancies and goals for mathematics,
art, social science, and English subjects. Educational researchers have also demonstrated
the need to differentiate between math and verbal domains in a variety of other academic
constructs. For example, Marsh (1986) found domain specificity of attributions for
academic success and failure, but noted that it varied substantially depending on the
particular attribution. More specifically, attributions to effort and particularly external
attributions (e.g., luck and task difficulty) showed greater generalizability across different
academic domains but attributions to ability as the basis for academic success and failure
were very subject specific. More recent research has also suggested that internal
attributions, for example, are very domain specific (Vispoel & Austin, 1995).
Support for the domain specificity of academic affect has been clearest in research
focusing on self-concept, which has, predominately echoed the need to explore this issue of
domain specificity of motivational constructs. In early research, Marsh, Byrne, and
Shavelson (1988) found that correlations between mathematics and English self-concepts
based on each of three different instruments were close to zero. Marsh and Craven (1997),
Marsh (1990, 1993a) integrated a growing body of research showing that verbal and
mathematics self-concepts are nearly uncorrelated and that the effects of academic selfconcept on subsequent outcomes are also very specific to the subject domain.
Therefore, we suggest that a domain-specific approach to the study of academic
buoyancy is important. This raises the question as to which academic domain to focus on in
the present study. Previous research has found that students appear to experience a decline
in valuing of math after the junior high transition, whereas their valuing of English
increases (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Other
research finds relatively higher levels of anxiety associated with mathematics (Bessant,
60
1995; Pajares & Urdan, 1996; Schneider & Nevid, 1993; Vance & Watson, 1994). Hence,
mathematics seems to be an area in which a number of students struggle and would also
bring into consideration the issue of academic buoyancy. Accordingly, the focus of the
present study is on mathematics.
The roles of gender and age
Discussion of anxiety and mathematics brings into consideration other potentially relevant
factors, gender and age being two. We envisage that there will be significant effects of gender
and age on at least some of the central factors. For example, Martin (2004) has found that on
the very scales assessed in this study, girls are significantly higher in engagement but also
significantly higher in domain general anxiety. In terms of domain-specific mathematics
anxiety, a good deal of research has shown that females experience higher levels of anxiety in
mathematics-based subjects than males (e.g., see Bradley & Wygant, 1998; Flessati &
Jamieson, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2005). On the other hand, there have been mixed gender
findings in previous academic resilience research with some research finding females to be
more academically resilient (e.g., Finn & Rock, 1997) but other research finding the opposite
(e.g., Martin & Marsh, 2006). Interesting to note is previous work finding females reporting
higher levels of academic hassles and emotion-focused coping (Zeidner, 1994) which is
supportive of Martin and Marsh's data. In terms of age-related effects, Martin (2003, 2006, in
press) has found that senior and junior high school students reflect a more adaptive pattern of
engagement than middle high school students. He has also found that older school students
experience higher levels of anxiety than younger students. Moreover, Martin and Marsh
(2006) found older students to be significantly higher in mathematics anxiety and lower in
mathematics-based academic resilience. Hence, if we are hypothesizing that there exist
significant predictors in our central model, then researchers and practitioners will greatly
benefit from understanding how these predictors vary as a function of key characteristics of
their clientele particularly gender and age.
The hypothesized model
Based on the review of previous literature, a number of conclusions can be drawn that
guide the development of a hypothesized model. Firstly, it is justifiable to focus on
proximal predictors, as these are more amenable to intervention (Cappella & Weinstein,
2001). Three groups of proximal factors important to the buoyancy process include
psychological factors, school and engagement factors, and family and peer factors.
Secondly, it has been found (Borman & Rachuba, 2001) that the best models explaining
responses to academic setback and adversity comprise psychological factors (that include
self-efficacy, control, and academic engagement) and school community factors (that
include teacherstudent relationships). In relation to the psychological factors, it is also
suggested that anxiety might play a meaningful role in predicting academic buoyancy.
Thirdly, two approaches to modeling buoyancy comprise the variable-focused approach
that tests links between variables and the person-focused approach that compares people
and groups (Masten, 2001). The variable-focused approach is best for exploring predictors
and harnessing statistical power.
61
In sum, these three conclusions point to a model in which self-efficacy, control, anxiety,
academic engagement, and teacherstudent relationships predict academic buoyancy. In
identifying salient predictors, it is also important to look at the effect of these potential
predictors on academic buoyancy after controlling for prior levels of academic buoyancy.
Hence, a fourth conclusion rests in the importance of modeling this process over time so
that the variance in academic buoyancy accounted for by prior academic buoyancy can be
included in one analytical framework. Taken together, these theoretical and analytical
decisions lead to the formulation of the hypothesized model presented in Fig. 1.
We suggest that a strength of the study is the theoretically-derived model formulation.
Following from this, we pursue confirmatory structural equation modeling to test the fit of
this hypothesized model. Hence, we adopt the position recommended by Joreskog and
Sorbom (1993) that holds that model testing should be based on a priori conceptual rationale
rather than being generated by the data themselves. We recognize that given the number of
factors included in this study, numerous alternative models are possible. However, based on
theorizing about predictors of academic buoyancy and the need to control for prior levels of
academic buoyancy, we suggest that the proposed model is a defensible one. We accept that
ultimately it is a judgment call as to the best model, but contend that if there is sound fit of
the data to the model that has emanated from theory, this model can be considered defensible.
Aims of the present study
Having proposed that academic buoyancy is a concept that is distinct from resilience and
thereby in need of examination in its own right, the present study aims to examine a
hypothesized model of academic buoyancy. In this model: (a) Time 1 self-efficacy,
engagement, anxiety, uncertain control, and teacherstudent relationship predict Time 1
academic buoyancy and also their Time 2 counterparts; (b) Time 1 academic buoyancy
predicts Time 2 self-efficacy, engagement, anxiety, uncertain control, teacherstudent
relationship, and academic buoyancy; and (c) Time 2 self-efficacy, engagement, anxiety,
uncertain control, and teacherstudent relationship predict Time 2 academic buoyancy over
and above that explained by Time 1 academic buoyancy. This model is presented in Fig. 1.
Also presented in Fig. 1 is gender, as this has been linked to academic resilience in previous
research. For completeness age is also included in the model. We include direct paths between
both gender and age and all Time 1 variables (not just academic buoyancy) for two reasons.
First, as argued above, we envisage that there will in fact be significant effects of gender and
age on at least some of these predictors (but the specific nature of effects on a number of
dimensions is unclear). Second, if we are hypothesizing that there exist significant predictors of
academic buoyancy, then researchers and practitioners will greatly benefit from understanding
how these predictors vary as a function of key characteristics particularly gender and age.
Method
Sample and procedure
Respondents were 598 students from five Australian government high schools in Years
8 (58%) and 10 (42%). All schools were located in urban areas of Canberra and Sydney.
Fig. 1. Hypothesized academic buoyancy process model.
62
63
Schools were comprehensive institutions of mixed ability. In the Australian setting, both
systems subscribe to comparable curriculum and examinations. Schools primarily drew on
middle class areas. In total, 41% of students were females and 59% males. The mean age of
students was 14.3 years (SD = 1.1). Teachers administered the instrument to students during
class. The rating scale was first explained and a sample item presented. Students were then
asked to complete the instrument on their own and to return it once completed to the teacher at
the end of class. Students completed the instrument twice, with the two administrations
separated by approximately three months. Feedback from teachers indicated students
completed the instrument diligently. Because they were completing the mathematics-oriented
instrument in their mathematics class, they saw the relevance of the items to their context.
Because the instrument was not excessively lengthy, students completed the instrument again
at the end of the year with apparent good will. Although no formal validity-check items were
included in the instrument, the psychometric properties (see below), the inter-factor
correlations (see below), and data from previous research (e.g., Martin, 2001, 2003; Martin
& Marsh, 2005, 2006) jointly indicate that the items and factors behave in the ways intended.
The research was approved by the university's Human Ethics Review Committee and the
relevant government education authority. Participation in the study was voluntary, students
were informed they could withdraw from the process at any stage with no penalty to them, and
schools managed the consent process in accordance with their respective procedures. This led
to attrition in only one school which was subsequently dropped from the analyses (yielding
five schools for analyses instead of the invited six).
Materials
The instrument assessed numerous dimensions of students' academic buoyancy, selfefficacy, control, anxiety, academic engagement, and teacherstudent relationships. To
each item, students rated themselves on a 1 to 7 scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree;
3 = Disagree somewhat; 4 = Neither agree nor disagree; 5 = Agree somewhat; 6 = Agree;
6 = Agree strongly). Mathematics was the target area for ratings. Students rated themselves
in their mathematics class and were specifically instructed to think about mathematics when
making their ratings. Although the instrument was worded in such a way that items referred
to schoolwork, instructions at the top of the page and by the administering teacher
required the students to focus on mathematics. Scale reliabilities are presented in Table 1.
Academic buoyancy (e.g., I'm good at dealing with setbacks e.g., bad mark,
negative feedback on my work; 4 items): Assessed through four items, academic buoyancy
refers to students' ability to effectively deal with setback, challenge, stress, and pressure
that occur in the ordinary course of school life (i.e., an everyday academic resilience). For
completeness, all academic buoyancy items are presented in the Appendix. This scale is
reliable from internal consistency and testretest perspectives (Time 1 Cronbach's = .80;
Time 2 Cronbach's = .82; testretest r = .67). Previous research using this scale has shown
it to present a sound factor structure, is reliable and normally distributed, and significantly
predicts a variety of academic outcomes amongst high school students (Martin & Marsh,
2006).
Self-efficacy, uncertain control, and anxiety were intact scales drawn from the Motivation
and Engagement Scale High School (MESHS; Martin, 2001, 2003, 2007, in press).
64
Table 1
Factor loadings (Time 1/Time 2)
Self-efficacy Anxiety Uncertain Teacherstudent Engagement Gender Age Academic
(SE)
(ANX) control
relationship
(ENG)
buoyancy
(UC)
(RSHIP)
(ACBOY)
SE1
SE2
SE3
SE4
ANX1
ANX2
ANX3
ANX4
UC1
UC2
UC3
UC4
RSHIP1
RSHIP2
RSHIP3
RSHIP4
ENG1
ENG2
ENG3
ENG4
ENG5
Gender
Age
ACBOY1
ACBOY 2
ACBOY 3
ACBOY 4
Cronbach's
67/75
68/76
59/67
78/80
78/81
69/72
57/69
74/78
67/73
68/74
75/85
75/80
78/81
84/80
80/79
84/81
82/86
73/78
91/88
93/91
69/72
100
100
77/83
78/84
80/86
89/88
85/87
67/71
67/69
77/78
72/74
80/82
Note 1. Engagement loadings are higher order loadings, comprised of five first order factors.
Note 2. Decimals omitted.
Note 3. All loadings significant at p b 0.05.
Martin has shown that the MESHS has a sound factor structure, comprises reliable and
approximately normally distributed dimensions, is significantly associated with literacy,
numeracy, and achievement in mathematics and English, and is sensitive to age- and genderrelated differences in motivation. The academic engagement scales and the measure of
teacherstudent relationship were drawn from Martin (in press) (Martin & Marsh, 2005) and
have demonstrated reliable and sound factor structure as well as concurrent and criterion
validity (Martin, in press; Martin & Marsh, 2005).
Self-efficacy (e.g., If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well; 4 items; Time 1
Cronbach's = .77; Time 2 Cronbach's = .83) is students' belief and confidence in their
ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges they face, and to
perform to the best of their ability. Uncertain control (e.g., I'm often unsure how I can
avoid doing poorly in this subject; 4 items; Time 1 Cronbach's = .80; Time 2 Cronbach's
65
= .86) assesses students' uncertainty about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly.
Anxiety (e.g., When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot; 4 items; Time 1
Cronbach's = .78; Time 2 Cronbach's = .84) has two parts: feeling nervous and
worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about
their schoolwork, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in
their schoolwork, assignments, or exams. Academic engagement (Time 1 Cronbach's
= .85; Time 2 Cronbach's = .87) is assessed through five factors including persistence
(e.g., If I can't understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over it until I do; 4 items),
enjoyment of school (e.g., I enjoy being a student; 4 items), class participation (e.g., I get
involved in things we do in class; 4 items), educational aspirations (e.g., I intend to
complete school; 4 items), and valuing of school (e.g., Learning at school is important to
me; 4 items). Teacherstudent relationships (e.g., I get along well with my teacher;
4 items; Time 1 Cronbach's = .89; Time 2 Cronbach's = .88) assess students'
perceptions of how they get on with their teacher and their teacher's regard for them.
Construct validity of academic buoyancy using external datasets
Although not part of the present study's substantive focus, it is important to establish that
academic buoyancy is indeed a valid measure to use in the proposed models. Researchers in
psychometric psychology have increasingly emphasized the need to both develop and
evaluate frameworks and instruments within a construct validation framework (e.g., see
Marsh, 1997, 2002). Accordingly, using a construct validity approach, Martin (in press) has
shown that the academic buoyancy measure is significantly associated with persistence and
negatively associated with disengagement. Martin and Marsh (2006) have shown that
academic buoyancy predicts class participation over and above motivation and engagement
factors underpinning academic buoyancy. In terms of other objective measures, work in
progress by Martin and Marsh amongst a sample of 3450 students from six Australian high
schools (mean age = 14.47, SD = 1.59; 34% females, 66% males) shows academic buoyancy
significantly correlated with homework completion ( p b 0.001), absenteeism (negatively;
p b 0.001), literacy ( p b 0.001), and numeracy ( p b 0.05). In other work in progress, Martin
and Marsh conducted a study of teachers who rated their classrooms (144 classrooms) on a
number of dimensions including academic buoyancy and found that the construct was
significantly associated with academic achievement ( p b 0.001), persistence in the face of
difficulty ( p b 0.001), disengagement (negatively; p b 0.001), and student participation in
class ( p b 0.001). Moreover, after controlling for prior achievement and ability, the
correlations between academic buoyancy and persistence in the face of difficulty,
disengagement, and participation in class were somewhat attenuated but remained significant.
Just as ability and achievement can inform educational capital dimensions relevant to
academic buoyancy, so too can dimensions such as ethnicity. Using the external dataset
identified above (N = 3450), in progress work by Martin and Marsh found no significant
difference in mean levels of academic buoyancy between non-English speaking background
students (N = 620) and English-speaking background students and no significant difference in
mean levels of academic buoyancy between Aboriginal students (N = 53; a very disadvantaged
minority in Australia) and non-Aboriginal students.
Taken together, across a number of datasets using classroom achievement, literacy,
numeracy, teacher ratings, and other reports of participation and disengagement, the
66
academic buoyancy measure can be considered a construct that is valid from multiple
objective perspectives. Moreover, in other data on ethnicity it appears that academic
buoyancy is a construct relevant to all stakeholders and might therefore constitute a
measure that is different from resilience in that buoyancy is an attribute applicable across
stakeholders whilst resilience is an attribute that demarcates more specific groups. In sum,
academic buoyancy is deemed a defensible measure to use in the present study.
Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), performed
with LISREL version 8.72 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2005), were used to test the hypothesized
models. Our primary analyses comprised three steps. The first is a test of the central
measurement model using CFA. The second is a test of the hypothesized longitudinal model
using SEM. The third is a test of the same longitudinal model but with gender and age
included as predictors of Time 1 factors. Maximum likelihood was the method of estimation
used for the models. In evaluating goodness of fit of alternative models, the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) is emphasized. Although the RMSEA is
apparently the most widely endorsed criterion of fit, also presented are the non-normed fit
index (NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the 2 test statistic, and an evaluation of
parameter estimates. For RMSEAs, values at or less than .05 and .08 are taken to reflect a
close and reasonable fit respectively (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Marsh, Balla, & Hau,
1996; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). The NNFI and CFI vary along a 0 to 1 continuum in
which values at or greater than .90 and .95 are typically taken to reflect acceptable and
excellent fits to the data respectively (McDonald & Marsh, 1990).
For large-scale studies, the inevitable missing data is a potentially important problem,
particularly when the amount of missing data exceeds 5% (e.g., Graham & Hoffer, 2000). A
growing body of research has emphasized potential problems with traditional pairwise,
listwise, and mean substitution approaches to missing data (e.g., Brown, 1994; Graham &
Hoffer, 2000; Little & Rubin, 1987), leading to the implementation of the Expectation
Maximization Algorithm, the most widely recommended approach to imputation for
missing data, as operationalized using missing value analysis in LISREL. Only students
with both Time 1 and 2 responses were included in the analyses, yielding relatively little
missing data which were subsequently handled with the EM Algorithm. Only 3% and 5%
of the data were missing at Time 1 and Time 2 respectively, and so the EM Algorithm was
considered an appropriate procedure.
Testretest parameters in CFA and SEM
In CFA and SEM, longitudinal data pose statistical problems particular to their structure.
If Time 1 and Time 2 constructs are measured using the same (or parallel) items then
measurement errors associated with matching Time 1 and Time 2 items are likely to be
correlated and the failure to take into account such correlated uniquenesses will bias
parameter estimates. The implications of correlated uniquenesses are well known in
longitudinal SEM studies in which the same items are completed by the same participants
on multiple occasions (see Joreskog, 1979; Marsh, Roche, Pajares, & Miller, 1997). Thus in
the CFA and SEM used to test the factor structure and hypothesized model in the present
study, not only are factors correlated, but the parallel item uniquenesses are also correlated.
67
Preliminary multilevel modeling

One question to be resolved before analyzing the data concerns the level/s at which to
carry out the analyses. In general, it is inappropriate to pool responses of individuals
without regard to groups unless it can be shown that the groups do not differ significantly
from each other (for further discussion, see Goldstein, 2003; Marsh & Hau, 2003; Rasbash,
Steele, Browne, and Prosser, 2004; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Hence, before moving into
the central elements of the analyses, it was considered critical to examine the relative
variance in the measures explained at student, class, and school levels. Given this was a
preliminary phase of the analysis, only Time 1 data were analyzed. For the present
investigation, the data were conceptualized as a three-level model, consisting of student at
the first level, class at the second level, and school at the third level. The multilevel analyses
were conducted using MLwiN version 2.00 (Rasbash et al., 2004).
In these preliminary analyses, a baseline variance components model (Rasbash et al.,
2004) or intercept-only model (Hox, 1998) was used. Findings showed that on all measures,
the bulk of variance is accounted for at the student level. That is, there is greater variation
from student to student than there is from class to class or school to school. Of the measures
in the study, only three yielded statistically significant class-level variance (enjoyment of
the subject, educational aspirations, and teacherstudent relationship) and none yielded
significant school-level variance. Of particular importance to this study, there was no
significant class- or school-level variance in academic buoyancy. Given that: (a) the central
measure of academic buoyancy yielded primarily student-level variance and very little
class- and school-level variance, (b) most of the other measures yielded primarily studentlevel variance, and (c) only three measures yielded statistically significant class-level
variance, subsequent analyses were conducted at the student level only.
Preliminary multigroup CFA and tests of invariance
Another issue to address before proceeding to the central analyses, concerns the
justification of pooling data across gender and year groups. Inadequate attention has been
given to gender and grade-level differences in the factor structure of motivation and the
question, for example, of whether a given instrument measures the same components with
equal validity for males and females and for students in different grade levels. Such
concerns about factor structure invariance are most appropriately evaluated by using CFA
to determine whetherand howthe structure of a given instrument varies according to
gender and age or grade level (see Byrne & Shavelson, 1987; Hattie, 1992). Typically, the
minimal condition of factorial invariance is the invariance of the factor loadings relating
items to their latent constructs (Marsh, 1993b), but the invariance of other parameters are of
interest as well.
Invariance across boys and girls
The first multigroup CFA examined the factor structure for boys and girls and allowed
all factor loadings, uniquenesses, and correlations to be freely estimated. This is the least
restrictive model. This model yielded an acceptable fit to the data (NNFI = .94,
RMSEA = .07). The present study examined the comparative fit indices for four other
68
models across boys and girls. The first model holds the factor loadings invariant across
boys and girls (NNFI = .93, RMSEA = .07); the second holds both factor loadings and
uniquenesses invariant (NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .08); the third holds the factor loadings and
correlations invariant (NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .08); and the fourth holds the factor loadings,
the uniquenesses, and the correlations invariant (NNFI = .91, RMSEA = .08). These fit
indices indicate that when successive elements of the factor structure are held invariant
across gender, the fit indices are predominantly comparable. However, the application of
recommended criteria for evidence of lack of invariance (i.e., a change of 0.01 in fit
indicessee Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicates that total invariance has not been
achieved but that this appears to be limited to uniquenesses and not factor loadings and
correlations which are of greater import to this study and for tests of invariance more
generally (Marsh, 1993b).
Invariance across junior and middle high school
Invariance tests were then conducted for junior (Year 8) and middle (Year 10) high
school students. The first multigroup CFA allowed all factor loadings, uniquenesses, and
correlations to be freely estimated. This is the least restrictive model and yielded a good fit
to the data (NNFI = .97; RMSEA = .05). Again, the present study examined the comparative
fit indices for four other models across junior and middle high school students. The first
model holds the factor loadings invariant across boys and girls (NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .05);
the second holds both factor loadings and uniquenesses invariant (NNFI = .97,
RMSEA = .05); the third holds the factor loadings and correlations invariant (NNFI = .97,
RMSEA = .05); and the fourth holds the factor loadings, the uniquenesses, and the
correlations invariant (NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). These fit indices indicate that when
successive elements of the factor structure are held invariant across year level, the fit indices
are essentially the same with all models yielding NNFIs of .97 and RMSEAs of .05. Indeed,
the application of recommended criteria for evidence of lack of invariance (i.e., a change of
0.01 in fit indicessee Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicates that there is relative
invariance across all models.
Taken together, these data suggest that in terms of underlying constructs and the
composition of and relationships amongst these constructs, boys and girls and then junior
and middle high school students are not substantially different and that the data can be
pooled across gender and also across junior and middle high school students.
Results
Our primary analyses comprised three steps. The first is a test of the central measurement
model using CFA. The second is a test of the hypothesized longitudinal model using SEM.
The third is a test of the same longitudinal model but with gender and age included as
predictors of Time 1 factors.
Confirmatory factor analysis
The measurement model tested using CFA comprised all six factors (academic buoyancy,
self-efficacy, control, anxiety, engagement, teacherstudent relationships) and both gender
69
and age (with uniquenesses fixed to zero as they are observed variables). In this
measurement model, all factors were allowed to covary. Gender and age were included at
this step because (a) their associated correlations are important to assess when interpreting
effects in later longitudinal models and (b) their inclusion in a CFA would not affect other
factor loadings and correlations (for completeness, the fit indices for a CFA without gender
and age are: 2 = 7390.44, df = 2964, p b 0.001, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). This
CFA yielded a good fit to the data (2 = 7571.54, df = 3100, p b 0.001, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .05). Factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The loadings across Times 1 and 2
are acceptable. Reliabilities (Cronbach's ) presented in Table 1 are also acceptable.
Correlations are presented in Table 2. Of particular interest are the testretest correlations
and the correlations between academic buoyancy and the hypothesized predictor factors and
both gender and age. Taken together, there are high testretest correlations with all
correlations ranging from .66 to .82 and a mean correlation of approximately .70. Amongst
the higher correlates with Time 1 academic buoyancy are Time 1 anxiety (negative),
uncertain control (negative), and engagement. Indeed, Time 1 anxiety and uncertain control
are relatively strong correlates with Time 2 academic buoyancy as well. Notwithstanding
this, Time 1 self-efficacy and teacherstudent relationships are also significantly correlated
with Time 1 and 2 academic buoyancy. Amongst the higher correlates with Time 2 academic
buoyancy are Time 2 anxiety (negative), uncertain control (negative), and engagement.
Nevertheless, Time 2 self-efficacy and teacherstudent relationships are also significantly
correlated with Time 2 academic buoyancy. Gender and age are significantly associated with
academic buoyancy such that males and younger students are significantly higher in
academic buoyancy at Times 1 and 2.
Structural equation modeling examining a longitudinal process model
It was of interest to examine the central hypothesized model (see Fig. 1) in which
(a) Time 1 demographics, self-efficacy, engagement, anxiety, uncertain control, and
teacherstudent relationship predict Time 1 academic buoyancy and also their Time 2
counterparts, (b) Time 1 academic buoyancy predicts Time 2 self-efficacy, engagement,
anxiety, uncertain control, teacherstudent relationship, and academic buoyancy, and (c)
Time 2 self-efficacy, engagement, anxiety, uncertain control, and teacherstudent
relationship predict Time 2 academic buoyancy. As a first step in this process, we
examined a longitudinal model in which gender and age were not included. This model fit
the data well (2 = 8021.40, df = 2998, p b 0.001, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). The
second step in analyses was to conduct the same analysis but with gender and age (with
correlated errors) as predictors of all Time 1 constructs. This model also fits the data well
(2 = 8225.67, df = 3146, p b 0.001, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). Parameter
estimates for both sets of analyses are presented in Fig. 2. Statistically significant paths
in this figure at p b 0.05 are denoted by * and all other paths represented are significant at
p b 0.1 (paths not meeting these criteria are not presented in Fig. 2, but were nonetheless
retained in the model that was analyzed see Table 2 for all path coefficients).
Results show that younger students are more academically buoyant than older students
and that females (compared with males) and older students (compared with younger
students) are significantly higher in anxiety. Time 1 self-efficacy, academic engagement,
70
Table 2
Factor correlations from CFA and beta coefficients from SEM
TIME 1
Gender
SE1
ANX1
UC1
RSHIP1
ENG1
ACBOY1
SE2
ANX2
UC2
RSHIP2
ENG2
ACBOY2
10
34
44
68
29
66
05
27
39
53
21
03
01
45
01
09
65
12
72
34
06
09
48
27
11
25
29
49
29
29
67
17
23
38
01
03
67
27
40
03
22
67
51
21
05
04
30
56
09
27
52
82
21
07
06
16
53
36
16
18
67
21
14
15
29
51
70
27
05
09
46
07
16
59
26
06
23
26
43
01
04
69
28
10
01
32
08
11
18
18
All beta path coefficients (with columns predicting rows) see Fig. 2 for statistically significant parameters
Self-efficacy (SE1)
Anxiety (ANX1)
Uncertain control (UC1)
Teacherstudent relationship (RSHIP1)
Engagement (ENG1)
Academic buoyancy (ACBOY1)
25
65
06
06
11
Self-efficacy (SE2)
65
01
Anxiety (ANX2)
65
10
66
04
66
01
Engage (ENG2)
77
35
14
Note. Decimals omitted; testretest correlations in bold; Significant beta coefficients presented in Fig. 2.
46
01
08
16
Age
05
03
29
01
05
06
06
01
12
04
03
05
06
Correlations from first order CFA

Self-efficacy (SE1)
Anxiety (ANX1)
Engagement (ENG1)
Self-efficacy (SE2)
Anxiety (ANX2)
Engagement (ENG2)
Gender
Age
TIME 2

71
Fig. 2. Longitudinal academic buoyancy process model (2 = 8225.67, df = 3146, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, p b 0.05). Note 1. Although all hypothesized paths
are tested in the model, only paths significant at p b 0.1 are presented in the figure see Table 2 for all path coefficients in model. Note 2. Path coefficients for SEM model
without gender and age in analysis are in brackets ( ) 2 = 8021.40, df = 2998, NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05.
72
and anxiety significantly predict Time 1 academic buoyancy, with anxiety explaining the
bulk of the variance in Time 1 academic buoyancy (as indicated by the highest proportion of
variance explained in the total effects in LISREL). Time 1 academic buoyancy predicts
Time 2 anxiety even after controlling for the substantial effect of T1 anxiety. At Time 2,
self-efficacy, academic engagement, teacherstudent relationships and anxiety significantly
predict Time 2 academic buoyancy even after controlling for the substantial effect of T1
buoyancy, with anxiety again explaining the bulk of the variance in academic buoyancy
(again, as indicated by the highest proportion of variance explained in the total effects in
LISREL). Importantly, these four predictors explain variance in Time 2 academic buoyancy
over and above that explained by academic buoyancy at Time 1.
Discussion
The present study sought to develop academic buoyancy as a construct reflecting
everyday academic resilience within a positive psychology context and was defined as
students' ability to successfully deal with academic setbacks and challenges that are typical
of the ordinary course of school life (e.g., poor grades, competing deadlines, exam pressure,
difficult schoolwork). Multilevel modeling found that the bulk of variance in academic
buoyancy was explained at the student level. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling showed that: (a) Time 1 anxiety (negatively), self-efficacy, and
academic engagement significantly predict Time 1 academic buoyancy; (b) Time 2 anxiety
(negatively), self-efficacy, academic engagement, and teacherstudent relationships
explain variance in Time 2 academic buoyancy over and above that explained by academic
buoyancy at Time 1; and (c) of the significant predictors, anxiety explains the bulk of
variance in academic buoyancy.
The relative salience of predictors
The present findings align with Masten's conclusion that recent studies continue to
corroborate the importance of a relatively small set of global factors associated with
resilience. These include connections to competent and caring adults in the family and
community, cognitive and self-regulation skills, positive views of self, and motivation to be
effective in the environment (2001, p. 234). Hence, although not addressing traditional
resilience in this study, our construction of everyday resilience or buoyancy, maps onto
broader conclusions in the traditional domain.
Notwithstanding the correlational nature of the data, one of the striking features of the
study is the relative salience of anxiety in the model explaining by far the bulk of
variance in the context of the other predictor factors. This is something of a new finding in
that it does not appear that anxiety has been considered in previous resilience-related
research and suggests a powerful factor in explaining students' academic buoyancy. In fact,
the substantial relation between gender and academic buoyancy is almost entirely mediated
by anxiety (Fig. 2). Indeed, this might shed further light on previous work finding females
reporting higher levels of academic hassles and emotion-focused coping (Zeidner, 1994).
Although, there may be a tendency for females to be more prepared to admit to their anxiety
than males, we suggest that even in this context the size of the difference is substantial.
73
Moreover, it would be hypothesized that if males were substantially less inclined to admit to
weakness, then their scores on academic buoyancy would be substantially lower than
females' and this was clearly not the case with a non-significant beta path between gender
and academic buoyancy. The findings regarding anxiety suggest some clear and somewhat
new direction for intervention regarding academic buoyancy in that it seems anxiety should
be a key target for such intervention.
Before considering directions for such intervention work, there remains the question as
to why anxiety is such a powerful predictor of academic buoyancy. Indeed, the research into
the related areas of academic hassles and academic coping also finds significant
associations with anxiety on a consistent basis (Kohn et al., 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984; Shirom, 1986; Zeidner, 1992, 1994), a noteworthy parallel to the role of
anxiety in the related domain of academic buoyancy. One reason is that anxiety may reflect
a fear of failure disposition and that students' responses to it reflect low academic buoyancy.
Passer (1983) explored how individuals high in anxiety appraised competition and
challenge. It was found that individuals high on this dimension expected to perform less
well in an upcoming competition, worried more frequently about making mistakes, not
playing well, and losing, and expected more negative evaluation following failure than
individuals who were low on anxiety. In relation to academic buoyancy, it may be that all
these outcomes could be ways that individuals' (low) academic buoyancy is played out.
Indeed, Martin (1998) has found that anxiety predicts quite counter-productive strategies
students employ to deal with their fear of failure, including defensive pessimism (see also
Garcia et al., 1995; Norem & Cantor, 1986; Norem & Illingworth, 1993) and selfhandicapping (see also Berglas, 1987; Jones & Berglas, 1978)and these too may be ways
in which (low) academic buoyancy is manifested in students' academic lives.
It is also noteworthy that the present study focused on mathematics. There is a good deal of
recent data relating to mathematics anxiety amongst students (e.g., Bessant, 1995; Pajares &
Urdan, 1996; Schneider & Nevid, 1993; Vance & Watson, 1994) and this may have rendered
anxiety more salient amongst respondents and hence invoked anxiety as a construct
particularly relevant to the present study of academic buoyancy. It would be very interesting to
assess the role of anxiety in other school subjects. How much variance does anxiety explain in
academic buoyancy in school subjects that evince relatively lower levels of anxiety?
In terms of intervention work on anxiety, strategies to deal with it are underpinned by
cognitivebehavioral, need achievement, and self-worth motivation theories (Atkinson,
1957; Beck, 1976; Covington, 1992; McClelland, 1965). From these perspectives, ways to
reduce anxiety at the student level include showing them how to deal more effectively with
fear of failure, helping them develop effective relaxation techniques, helping them prepare
academically and psychologically for pressure situations such as tests and exams, and
helping them deal with the stresses and anxieties associated with academic challenges and
adversities that face them. Ways to reduce fear of failure at a class level include promoting a
classroom climate of cooperation, self-improvement, and personal bests (Qin, Johnson, &
Johnson, 1995), showing that mistakes can be a springboard for success and do not reflect
on students' worth as a person, and repositioning success so that it is seen more in terms of
personal progress and improvement than outperforming others (Covington, 1992).
Indeed, such intervention work might in the first instance be directed towards the
mathematics domain given that the present study has identified the salience of anxiety and
74
buoyancy in mathematics and the fact that mathematics is known to elicit relatively higher
levels of anxiety (e.g., Bessant, 1995; Pajares & Urdan, 1996; Schneider & Nevid, 1993;
Vance & Watson, 1994). In fact, mathematics has been shown to yield higher teacher-/class-level variance relative to English and science (Martin & Marsh, 2005) and so
mathematics educators might be ideally placed to implement techniques and strategies at
the class level to deal with mathematics anxiety.
Process-focused approaches to enhancing academic resilience
Addressing students' anxiety is one means of addressing their academic buoyancy. This
is what Masten and Coatsworth (1998) would be likely to identify as the process-focused
approach to dealing with riskthat is, tapping into the adaptational systems that reduce
risk. Indeed, focusing on academic buoyancy in terms of a process is cause for optimism
because it implies that students have mobility in moving out of risk and into buoyancy
(Catterall, 1998). As Waxman et al. (1997) note, when enhancing students' ability to deal
with setback there are alterable processes or mechanisms that can be developed and
fostered for all students (p. 137).
Another process-focused approach is to target academic buoyancy more specifically and
to harness theory and practice that have identified the processes by which intervention and
assistance can occur. In relation to this, Rutter (1987) identifies four stages in the path to
building a capacity to deal with setback and adversity as follows: reduce risk impact and
change students' exposure to risk, reduce potential negative chain reactions following
exposure to risk, improve self-efficacy, and open/create new opportunities. Similarly,
Morales (2000) proposed a resilience cycle in which the student realistically and effectively
identifies major risk, the student then seeks out protective factors that can offset or reduce
the negative effects of the risk, the protective factors serve to propel the student to deal with
the risk, the student then sees the value of this protective factor and refines/progresses them,
and then there takes place continuous refinement and implementation of the protective
factor that sustains the student's ability to deal with risk. Indeed, in the context of the
present study's findings, students may activate composure (low anxiety), supportive
relationships, self-efficacy, and academic engagement as the protective mechanisms by
which they deal with perceived or actual risk. With this in mind, it is important to recognize
that because risk is often multi-faceted and cumulative (one risk factor is often accompanied
and exacerbated by others) it is important to have cumulative protection efforts, perhaps
along the lines suggested here (Yoshikawa, 1994).
Yields of the present study in relation to buoyancy and resilience
At the outset of the study we proposed that buoyancy is quite distinct from resilience. We
posited the two differed in definitional terms, in terms of the samples to which they relate, in
relation to operational aspects, in terms of methodological elements, and in terms of the
interventions that respond to them. The present data support the notion that there is a form
of everyday resilience that is not related to acute and chronic adversities that are seen as
major assaults on the developmental processes relevant to a relative minority of students
(see Garmezy, 1981; Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001; Werner,
75
2000) but in fact is relevant to the many individuals who are faced with setbacks,
challenges, and pressures that are part of the ordinary course of life. That is, the data seem to
support an everyday resilience or buoyancy that is relevant to the many who must negotiate
the ups and downs of everyday life as distinct from acute and chronic adversities relevant to
traditional constructions of resilience.
The data also resolves a challenge presented by Martin and Marsh (2006) who had
previously studied more everyday academic resilience across the full range of school
students. Their challenge was that traditional definitions of resilience were confined to the
relative few who experienced extreme adversity and yet the reality was that multitudes of
students face less extreme but nonetheless problematic setbacks and challenges as part of
everyday life at school. This study, then, bridges the gap between traditional treatments of
academic resilience of acute, chronic, intense, and sustained adversity experienced by the
relative few (e.g., Garmezy, 1981; Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten,
2001; Werner, 2000) and Martin and Marsh's extension of the concept to address all
students.
The data also support the notion that buoyancy and resilience can be demarcated on two
primary dimensions: differences of degree and differences of kind. In terms of differences
of degree, in contrast to the more extreme adversities relevant to academic resilience,
academic buoyancy targets the more typical experience of isolated poor grades and
patches of poor performance, to typical stress levels and daily pressures, and to threats to
confidence as a result of a poor grade. In terms of differences of kind, in contrast to the more
adverse types of adversities relevant to academic resilience, academic buoyancy is relevant
more to low-level stress and confidence, to dips in motivation and engagement, and to
dealing with negative feedback on schoolwork.
Whilst differentiating buoyancy from resilience, it is also useful to revisit academic
hassles and academic coping. It was proposed at the outset of the investigation that the
hassle-related research and the coping research can be integrated under the buoyancy
concept. Specifically, it was suggested that academic buoyancy as operationalized in the
present study brings together key elements of the hassle and coping research domains in
that it: (a) explicitly addresses students' problem-focused coping in response to (b) their
everyday academic hassles, stressors, and strains. The data seemed to support this
integration in that some key buoyancy findings are mirrored in the academic hassle and
coping research. For example, anxiety is a salient factor in students' academic hassles and
academic coping (Kohn et al., 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Shirom,
1986; Zeidner, 1992, 1994). Similarly, gender effects in the present study are mirrored in
academic hassles and coping research (Zeidner, 1994).
Taken together, the present study demonstrates that on a number of bases there is merit
and justification in demarcating buoyancy and resilience. The data show that the two are
conceptually distinct, relate to different (but overlapping for some students) samples, and
are assessed in specifically unique ways in terms of the respective instrumentation.
Limitations of the present study and future directions
The present study provides an enhanced understanding of the processes involved in
academic buoyancy and the key factors that underpin it. There are, however, a number of
76
potential limitations important to consider when interpreting findings and which provide
some direction for further research.
The data presented in this study are all self-reported. This raises issues of validity,
reporting biases, veracity of recall, and impression management. Although this is a logical
and defensible methodology in its own right given the substantive focus, it is important to
conduct research that examines the same constructs using data derived from additional
sources such as, for example, that from teachers and parents. Furthermore, the relationship
between academic buoyancy and actual achievement and related data over time would
further delineate the processes and impacts relevant to it. Achievement data would also be
appropriate given that academic buoyancy is relevant to the development of competence. In
addition to achievement data, it is important to conduct similar research across more
heterogeneous samples that are able to provide further information about the interface
between academic buoyancy and economic background and ethnicity to name but two
potentially relevant factors. Notwithstanding this, in Method we did demonstrate that across
a number of datasets using classroom achievement, literacy, numeracy, teacher ratings, and
other reports of participation and disengagement, the academic buoyancy measure can be
considered a construct that is valid from multiple objective perspectives. On this basis it
was deemed a defensible measure in the present study.
It is also important to recognize that the measures relate to mathematics and so the extent to
which these findings extend to other school subject domains requires further study. It may be
that the more focused the study of academic buoyancy is on specific school subjects the more
differentiated the findings will be from one subject to another. Indeed, Masten and Coatsworth
(1998) suggest that global approaches to enhancing a capacity to deal with setback and
adversity will not be as effective at targeting such a capacity on more specific dimensions. This
view is echoed by others who report that targeted intervention and support are likely to be more
effective than global support hoping to affect specific dimensions (Weisz, Weiss, Han,
Granger, & Morton, 1995). Hence, future research should test these constructs in the context of
other academic domains. Also in relation to the measure of academic buoyancy, it is important
to note that this study was not a construct-validation or instrument-development study. Rather,
it had more of a substantive focus. Future work might further investigate the measurement of
academic buoyancy, particularly from multidimensional perspectives.
Another reason to study the present constructs in the context of other school subjects is
because there are elements of mathematics that may influence findings in ways particular to
mathematics and not to other subjects. Gender is a salient consideration in this respect. For
example, Martin (2004) has previously found that on the very scales assessed in this study,
girls are significantly higher in engagement but also significantly higher in general anxiety.
Similarly, a good deal of research has shown that females experience higher levels of
anxiety in mathematics-based subjects than males (e.g., see Bradley & Wygant, 1998;
Flessati & Jamieson, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2005). Although the present study formally
built gender into the central model and thus tested its role in a comprehensive and
appropriate way, there is a need to test the same model in other school subjects to explore
the generalizability of the findings presented here or to better understand how and in what
ways mathematics may differ from other subjects.
In addition to the school-subject specificity of the academic buoyancy scale, the nature
of the items themselves also warrant some further comment. It would be helpful to better
77
understand the specific nature of challenges facing school students. This might encompass
the dimensionality of potential challenges. For example, exams for some students pose a
greater challenge than ongoing submitted assessment tasks. It might also encompass the
frequency of potential challenges. For example, isolated setbacks are easier to deal with
than more frequent setbacks. It might also encompass the degree of the potential challenges.
For example, a poor grade on a daily quiz is likely to be less stressful than a poor grade on a
major exam or standardized test. Indeed, lessons learnt from the hassle-related research
would have students also rate the frequency and extent to which their challenges occur and
the extent to which they are distressing or aversive to them (Seidman et al., 1995; Zeidner,
1990, 1992). It would also be helpful to better understand the extent to which the items and
phrasing are meaningful across distinct contexts. For example, to what extent is the item,
I don't let study stress get on top of me meaningful in different cultural or international
contexts?
It is also likely that the concept and construct of academic buoyancy is relevant to the
educational capital (and by inference, its inverse of educational risk) that students bring to
their academic lives. For example, ability, prior achievement, SES, race, and prior adverse
experiences (educational or otherwise) are likely to be relevant issues particularly given
the long line of research into traditional resilience that identifies these factors as influential.
The present study did not directly assess these factors and so future work is needed here. We
did identify in Method other data showing that even after controlling for teacher-rated
student ability, the link between academic buoyancy and other outcomes remained
substantial and significant, yet it is noteworthy that although the associations remained
significant, they were attenuated once ability was included as a covariate, thus lending
support for the need for further research in this area.
Two issues related to the central model are also important to note. First, whilst the study
is longitudinal, most of the pathways were freely estimated at one time point. Thus, causal
statements regarding the proposed predictors and consequences are not advanced in relation
to the static data. Related to this is that the data were all correlational and such data pose
constraints that make it difficult to definitively conclude that X really does explain Y.
Second, the central model was based primarily on conceptual rationale and in this sense
analyses were essentially confirmatory rather than exploratory. Whilst the data lend
themselves to testing a variety of models, we adopted the position recommended by
Joreskog and Sorbom (1993). As detailed earlier, this position holds that model testing
should be based on a priori conceptual rationale rather than being generated by the data
themselves. This approach is, we consider, a strength of the study. Ultimately, however, the
true test of the utility of our conceptualization of buoyancy is whether experimental
interventions that target the key predictors of academic buoyancy actually make a
meaningful difference.
Finally, it is probable that academic buoyancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for academic resilience. That is, resilient students are likely to also be buoyant. We
proposed at the outset that the two can be distinguished in terms of the degree to which they
are different. This implies something of a hierarchy and so further research needs to
examine this, not only in terms of hierarchical structural equation models (e.g., see Marsh &
Shavelson, 1985) but also from an item-response theory (Rasch, 1966; Waugh & Addison,
1997) perspective. Moreover, in facilitating students' resilience to more dramatic adverse
78
academic and life events it is important to help them deal with ongoing challenges and
demands that present themselves that is, develop their buoyancy. Indeed, if developing
resilience is in part about helping individuals offset risk (Martin & Marsh, 2006) then
buoyancy may be the first part of this.
Conclusion
The proposed yields of the present study are multifold. It has: (a) provided a first step in
exploring the concept of academic buoyancy, a concept reflecting more of an everyday
academic resilience and that is distinct from the more traditional resilience construct;
(b) shed light on the factors giving rise to academic buoyancy; (c) assessed these issues
using a model that captured both predictors and academic buoyancy across two time points,
thus extending previous research which often examines related issues in cross-sectional
designs; (d) identified the salient role of anxiety in the buoyancy process, a factor
previously unrecognized; (e) explicitly drawn together individual and school dimensions in
the one longitudinal model to assess their relative salience in the buoyancy process; and,
(f) provided psychometrically strong measures of the key components underlying academic
buoyancy. Taken together, then, the findings of the present investigation hold not only
substantive and methodological implications for researchers studying academic buoyancy,
but are also relevant to practitioners operating in contexts in which individuals are required
to effectively deal with setback, adversity, and challenge in the academic setting.
Appendix A
Academic Buoyancy Items
(Time 1 Cronbach's = .80; Time 2 Cronbach's = .82; Testretest r = .67)
I'm good at dealing with setbacks (e.g., bad mark, negative feedback on my work).
I don't let study stress get on top of me.
I think I'm good at dealing with schoolwork pressures.
I don't let a bad mark affect my confidence.
References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its short- and long-term
consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801814.
Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among MexicanAmerican students: The importance of protective
resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 1834.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64, 359372.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: New American Library.
Berglas, S. (1987). Self-handicapping model. In H. T. Blane & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), Psychological theories of
drinking and alcoholism. New York: Guildford Press.
Bessant, K. C. (1995). Factors associated with types of mathematics anxiety in college students. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 327345.
Bobo, J. K., Gilchrist, L. D., Elmer, J. F., Snow, W. H., & Schinke, S. P. (1986). Hassles, role strain, and peer
relations in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 339352.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their solutions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149165.
79
Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis of
competing models of school effects (Report No. 52). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of
Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Bradley, D. R., & Wygant, C. R. (1998). Male and female differences in anxiety about statistics are not reflected in
performance. Psychological Reports, 82, 245246.
Brown, R. L. (1994). Efficiency of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with missing
data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 287316.
Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1987). Adolescent self-concept: Testing the assumption of equivalent structure
across gender. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 365385.
Cappella, E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Turning around reading achievement: Predictors of high school students'
academic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 758771.
Catterall, J. S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal of Education,
106, 302333.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233255.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge
University Press.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values,
and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75146). San
Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on
achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283331).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's selfand task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830847.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628644.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 221234.
Flessati, S. L., & Jamieson, J. (1991). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety: An artifact of response bias?
Anxiety Research, 3, 303312.
Floyd, C. (1996). Achieving despite the odds: A study of resilience among a group of African American high
school seniors. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 181189.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218226.
French, S. E., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2000). Racial/ethnic identity, congruence with the social
context, and the transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 587602.
Fry, G., & Martin, A. J. (1994). Factors contributing to identification and incidence of stress during the school
practicum as reported by supervising teachers. In T. A. Simpson (Ed.), Teacher educators' annual handbook.
Queensland: QUT Press.
Garcia, T., Matula, J. S., Harris, C. L., Egan-Dowdy, K., Lissi, M. R., & Davila, C. (1995). Worriers and procrastinators:
Differences in motivation, cognitive engagement, and achievement between defensive pessimists and selfhandicappers. Paper presented at Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, San
Francisco, CA.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on antecedents and correlates of vulnerability and
resistance to psychopathology. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. Barclay, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Further
explorations in personality (pp. 196269). New York: Wiley.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Gonzalez, R., & Padilla, A. M. (1997). The academic resilience of Mexican American high school students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 301317.
Gottfried, A. E. (1982). Relations between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in children and young
adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 205215.
Graham, J. W., & Hoffer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little, K. U.
Schnable, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied
approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80
Hancock, D. R. (2001). Effects of test anxiety and evaluative threat on students' achievement and motivation.
Journal of Educational Research, 94, 284290.
Hancock, D. R., Nichols, W. D., Jones, J., Mayring, P., & Glaeser-Zikuda, M. (2000). The impact of teachers'
instructional strategies and students' anxiety levels on students' achievement in eighth grade German and U.S.
classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 232240.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hox, J. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why? In I. Balderjahn, R. Mathar, & M. Schader (Eds.), Classification, data analysis, and data highways (pp. 147154). New York: Springer Verlag.
Hymel, S., Comfort, C., Schonert-Reichl, K., & McDougall, P. (1996). Academic failure and school dropout: The
influence of peers. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school
adjustment (pp. 313335). Cambridge University Press.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The
appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200206.
Joreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in longitudinal developmental investigations. In
J. R. Nesselroade & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development. New
York: Academic Press.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2005). LISREL 8.72. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement:
Daily hassles, uplifts and major life events to health status. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139.
Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., & Gurevich, M. (1991). Hassles, health, and personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 478482.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lindstroem, B. (2001). The meaning of resilience. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 13, 712.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857885.
Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 520540.
Margalit, M. (2004). Second-generation research on resilience: Socialemotional aspects of children with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 19, 4548.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American
Educational Research Journal, 23, 129149.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical
justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77172.
Marsh, H. W. (1993a). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological
perspectives on the self, Vol. 4 (pp. 59-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W. (1993b). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept: Invariance over gender and age.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 841860.
Marsh, H. W. (1997). The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation approach. In K. Fox (Ed.),
The physical self-concept: From motivation to well-being (pp. 2758). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A construct validity approach to theory,
measurement, and research. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 459493.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of
classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2003). Big fish little pond effect on academic self-concept: A crosscultural (26
country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364376.
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational
Psychologist, 20, 107125.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of
mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural
equation modeling techniques (pp. 315353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
81
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical
structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366380.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. (2002). Individual differences in verbal and math self-perceptions: One
factor, two factor, or does it depend on the construct? In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), International
perspectives on individual differences. London: Greenwood Publishing.
Marsh, H. W., Roche, L. A., Pajares, F., & Miller, D. (1997). Item-specific efficacy judgements in mathematical
problem solving: The downside of standing too close to trees in a forest. Contemporary Educational
Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-worth
motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 120.
Martin, A. J. (2003). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures school students'
motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88106.
Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or both?
Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133146.
Martin, A. J. (2006). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical analysis. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 803825.
Martin, A. J. (2007). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Achievement Group.
Martin, A. J. (in press). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a
construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender really make a
difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320334.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A
construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267282.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227238.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable
environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205220.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321333.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247255.
McInerney, V., McInerney, D. M., & Marsh, H. W. (1997). Effects of metacognitive strategy training within a
cooperative group learning context on computer achievement and anxiety: An aptitudetreatment interaction
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 686695.
McMillan, J. H., & Reed, D. F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing to academic success.
Clearing House, 67, 137140.
Meltzer, L. (2004). Resilience and learning disabilities: Research on internal and external protective dynamics.
Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 19, 12.
Miller, M. (2002). Resilience elements in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,
291298.
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, 722.
Newbegin, I., & Owens, A. (1996). Self-esteem and anxiety in secondary school achievement. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 11, 521530.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12081217.
Norem, J. K., & Illingworth, K. S. S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some
implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
822835.
Nyland, J. L., Ybarra, K. M., Sammut, K. L., Rienecker, E. M., & Kameda, D. M. (2000). Interaction of
psychological type and anxiety sensitivity on academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,
731739.
Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (1999). A preliminary examination of the relationship between exposure to community
violence and academic functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 380396.
82
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Anxiety Scale. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 3547.
Passer, M. W. (1983). Fear of failure, fear of evaluation, perceived competence and self-esteem in competencetrait-anxious children. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 172188.
Pearlin, L. I., & Leiberman, M. A. (1979). Social sources of emotional stress. Research in Community Mental
Health, 1, 217248.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching
contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667686.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 129144.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2004). A user's guide to MLwiN version 2.0. London Institute of
Education.
Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 4957.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 37,
317331.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation
anxiety (pp. 475495). New York: Plenum Press.
Schneider, W. J., & Nevid, J. S. (1993). Overcoming math anxiety: A comparison of stress inoculation training and
systematic desensitization. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 283288.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Seidman, E., Aber, J. L., Allen, L., & French, S. E. (1996). The impact of the transition to high school on the selfsystem and perceived social context of poor urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
355388.
Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., Feinman, J., Yoshikawa, H., et al. (1995). Development and
validation of adolescent-perceived microsystem scales: Social support, daily hassles, and involvement.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 355388.
Seidman, E., Lambert, L. E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2003). Urban adolescents' transition to junior high school
and protective family transactions. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 166193.
Shirom, A. (1986). Students' stress. Higher Education, 15, 667676.
Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. (1999). Risk and resilience in the urban neighborhood: Predictors of
academic performance among low-income elementary school children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,
309331.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance
orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 7181.
Smith, P. L., & Fouad, N. A. (1999). Subject-matter specificity of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, interests,
and goals: Implications for the socialcognitive model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 461471.
Speirs, T., & Martin, A. J. (1999). Depressed mood amongst adolescents: The roles of perceived control and coping
style. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9, 5576.
Spielberger, C. D. (1985). Assessment of state and trait anxiety: Conceptual and methodological issues. Southern
Psychologist, 2, 616.
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Educational Psychologist,
20, 135142.
Vance, W. R., & Watson, S. T. (1994). Comparing management training and systematic restructuring for reducing
mathematics anxiety in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 261266.
Vispoel, W. P., & Austin, J. R. (1995). Success and failure in junior high school: A critical incident approach to
understanding students' attributional beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 377412.
Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1999). Risk and protective factors for psychological adjustment and grades
among adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 328349.
Waugh, R. F., & Addison, P. A. (1997). A Rasch model analysis of the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory.
Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
83
Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., & Padron, Y. N. (1997). Motivation and learning environment differences between
resilient and non-resilient Latino middle school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19,
137155.
Wayman, J. C. (2002). The utility of educational resilience for studying degree attainment in school dropouts.
Journal of Educational Research, 95, 167178.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy with children
and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
450468.
Werner, E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook
of early childhood intervention (pp. 115-132)(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., MacIver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early
adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the
transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552565.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on
chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 2854.
Zeidner, M. (1990). Manual for the student stress inventory. School of Education: University of Haifa.
Zeidner, M. (1992). Sources of academic stress: The case of first year Jewish and Arab students in Israel. Higher
Education, 24, 2640.
Zeidner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative situation: A
prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 899918.
Zeidner, M., & Hammer, A. (1990). Life events and coping resources as predictors of stress symptoms in
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 693703.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and
analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam-specific expectations. Journal of Educational

2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of School Psychology

Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia

This article was accepted under Dr. Pianta's editorship.

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

We define academic buoyancy as students' ability to successfully deal with academic

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

environments, adaptive intrapersonal factors, positive motivation and engagement, and

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

practitioners seeking to enhance students' academic buoyancy. Indeed, identifying such

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

Determining an approach for the present study

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

Fig. 1. Hypothesized academic buoyancy process model.

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

Preliminary multilevel modeling

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

Correlations from first order CFA

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

A.J. Martin, H.W. Marsh / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 5383

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi