KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Volume: 5 Issue: 4

The Teacher Academic Buoyancy Scale: Is it possible to keep TABS on students' academic buoyancy?

Diarmuid Verrier(Sheffield Hallam University)0000-0002-4148-3948
Scott Johnson(Sheffield Hallam University)
Lisa Reidy(Sheffield Hallam University)0000-0001-5442-2346
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2018-12-16
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In sum, this study suggests a significant disjunction between teacher- and self-reports of AB, and that teacher estimates of AB are likely to be affected by salient, non-AB-related, student characteristics.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Academic buoyancy (AB) is the ability to overcome minor academic setbacks.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Further, AB estimates from the two measures were moderated by demographic characteristics: teachers rated girls and those not facing adversity as more buoyant, but the opposite was the case for self-reports.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In sum, this study suggests a significant disjunction between teacher- and self-reports of AB, and that teacher estimates of AB are likely to be affected by salient, non-AB-related, student characteristics.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Academic · Buoyancy · Resilience

Özet

Academic buoyancy (AB) is the ability to overcome minor academic setbacks. However, although it seems as though teachers would be well placed to comment on this characteristic in students, no teacher-report measure of AB exists. This study evaluates a teacher-report version of the widely used, student-report, Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unifactorial nature of the Teacher Academic Buoyancy Scale (TABS), and the scale showed excellent internal reliability. However, while there was some evidence for the criterion-related validity of the TABS, it showed very poor convergent validity with the ABS. It also correlated better with academic achievement than should theoretically be the case for a measure of AB. Further, AB estimates from the two measures were moderated by demographic characteristics: teachers rated girls and those not facing adversity as more buoyant, but the opposite was the case for self-reports. In sum, this study suggests a significant disjunction between teacher- and self-reports of AB, and that teacher estimates of AB are likely to be affected by salient, non-AB-related, student characteristics.

Abstract

Academic buoyancy (AB) is the ability to overcome minor academic setbacks. However, although it seems as though teachers would be well placed to comment on this characteristic in students, no teacher-report measure of AB exists. This study evaluates a teacher-report version of the widely used, student-report, Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unifactorial nature of the Teacher Academic Buoyancy Scale (TABS), and the scale showed excellent internal reliability. However, while there was some evidence for the criterion-related validity of the TABS, it showed very poor convergent validity with the ABS. It also correlated better with academic achievement than should theoretically be the case for a measure of AB. Further, AB estimates from the two measures were moderated by demographic characteristics: teachers rated girls and those not facing adversity as more buoyant, but the opposite was the case for self-reports. In sum, this study suggests a significant disjunction between teacher- and self-reports of AB, and that teacher estimates of AB are likely to be affected by salient, non-AB-related, student characteristics.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Verrier, D., Johnson, S., Reidy, L. (2018). The Teacher Academic Buoyancy Scale: Is it possible to keep TABS on students' academic buoyancy?. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 5 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.463871

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (27)

  1. Åhslund, I., & Boström, L. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of gender differences: What about boys and girls in the classroom? International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(4), 28-44.
  2. Bennett, R., Gottesman, R., Rock, D., Cerullo, F., & Levin, Joel R. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers' judgments of students' academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 347-356.
  3. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailor, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.
  4. Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Malmberg, L.E., Hall, J., & Ginns, P. (2015). Academic buoyancy, student's achievement, and the linking role of control: A cross-lagged analysis of high school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 113-130.
  5. Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M., Lépine, R., Bégin, G., & Bernard, M. (2007). Processes that contribute to resilience among youth in foster care. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 449–466. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.01.005
  6. Fan, X., Miller, B.C., Park, K., Winward, B.W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H.D., & Tai, R.H. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-reporting surveys. Field Methods, 18, 223-244. DOI: 10.1177/152822X06289161
  7. Funder, D. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 177-182.
  8. Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2000). What makes the difference? Children and teachers talk about resilient outcomes for children ‘at risk’. Educational Studies, 26, 321-337. DOI:10.1080/03055690050137132
  9. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  10. jamovi project (2018). jamovi (Version 0.9) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
  11. Malmberg, L. E., Hall, J., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy in secondary school: Exploring patterns of convergence in English, mathematics, science, and physical education. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 262-266. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.014
  12. Martin, A. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46, 34-49. DOI: 10.1177/000494410204600104
  13. Martin, A.J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validity approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-430. DOI:10.1348/000709906X118036
  14. Martin, A.J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34, 488-499. DOI: 10.1177/0143034312472759
  15. Martin, A.J. (2014a). Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Lifelong Achievement Group. Martin, A.J. (2014b). Academic buoyancy and academic outcomes: Towards a further understanding of students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students without ADHD and academic buoyancy itself. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 86-107 DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12007
  16. Martin, A.J., Colmar, S.H., Davey, L.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the ‘5Cs’ hold up over time? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 473-496. DOI:10.1348./000709910X486376
  17. Martin, A.J. & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267- 281. DOI: 10:1002/pits.20149.
  18. Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2008a). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
  19. Martin, A.J., & Marsh H.W. (2008b). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168-184. DOI: 10.1177/0734282907313767
  20. Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 48-60.
  21. Pas, E., & Bradshaw, T. (2014). What affects teacher ratings of student behaviors? The potential influence of teachers’ perceptions of the school environment and experiences. Prevention Science, 15(6), 940-950.
  22. Putwain, D.W., & Daly, A.L. (2013). Do clusters of test anxiety and academic buoyancy differentially predict academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 157-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.010
  23. Renk, K., & Phares, V. (2004). Cross-informant ratings of social competence in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(2), 239-254.
  24. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2008). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493-525. DOI: 10.1177/0013164408323233
  25. Martin, A. J. (2014). Academic buoyancy and academic outcomes: Towards a further understanding of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students without ADHD, and academic buoyancy itself. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 86–107. doi:10.1111/bjep.12007
  26. Sudkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Moller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' academic achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743-762.
  27. Zhu, M., & Urhahne, D. (2014). Assessing teachers' judgements of students' academic motivation and emotions across two rating methods. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(5), 411-427.