(26) Lopez, John Patrick P.

BS Psychology 4C

Chapter I
The Problem and Its Background

Introduction

Facing struggles while studying in an academic institution is considered inevitable. There

will come a time that students should confront the challenges ahead of them. Making them create
experiences that can be seen as negative. Most of the time, negative experiences are brought by
pressures coming from the family, classmates and the school environment itself (Misra, R. &
Castillo, L., 2004). If remain unresolved, those mentioned can elicit problems such as stress
(Struthers, C.W. et al, 2000).

Looking at the bigger picture, Academic Stress has the ability to exploit a wide variety of
problems. Existing works suggest that this can lead to several consequences of varying magnitude.
Starting from the likes of academic performance (Struthers, C.W. et al, 2000) academic
engagement (Yusof, N. et al., 2016) and achievement gap (Heissel, J.A. et al., 2017). Up to the
worst-case scenarios of depression and anxiety (Andrews, B. et al, 2004).

Despite the existence of such problems caused by stressors in the academe, students have
the ability within them to respond in a certain manner. No matter how small or big the situation
is, for the sake of success, they will respond (Symes, W. et al, 2015). A student’s plan of action
will always be in line, in terms of what kind of struggles are ahead of them? Considering its nature
of either a minor or a major setback. It is of great necessity to understand the roots of the problem
first in order to fight it correspondingly. Thus, constructs like academic buoyancy and academic
resiliency were born (Martin, A.J et al, 2009).

The next part of the paper will include a thorough review of existing literature in relation
to academic buoyancy. Stating how does it differ from academic resiliency and what kind of
studies were already been made with the main construct. The latter could make an opportunity as
a researcher to create new studies that will make a big contribution to the field of psychology. It
will also include how could a study between Academic Buoyancy and Academic Stress benefit the
field of psychology to be exact.
Review of Related Literature

A.J. Martin (2013) is the researcher with the most published scholarly articles when it
comes to Academic Buoyancy. He clearly defined the construct as the ability to deal with everyday
academic setbacks and challenges. To furtherly describe it, he and Marsh (2009) worked together
to distinguish it from another psychological phenomenon that deals with struggles and challenges
brought by the academe, which is Academic Resiliency. Both of them differentiated the 2 in
several ways.

First, is by looking it on an applied perspective (Martin, et al, 2009; Martin 2013). Defining
Academic Resilience as the ability to deal with chronic academic setbacks and challenges... to the
point that it becomes an ‘adversity.’ Recalling what Academic Buoyancy means makes the nature
of challenges as the salient factor to tear away the 2 from each other. For example, Academic
Buoyancy pertains to poor grades caused by poor performance; while Academic Resiliency
pertains to questioning the self on why did he/she receive low grades. Handling negative feedbacks
coming from the educators is one of the concerns for Academic Buoyancy; while truancy,
disaffection and disengagement from educational commitment is of the many concerns for
Academic Resiliency. Another analogy that could be made is for Academic Buoyancy to deal with
daily pressures that causes mild levels of anxiety; whereas overwhelming feelings of anxiety that
ordinary students cannot handle is what Academic Resiliency deals.

In line with the applied perspective, both Academic Buoyancy and Resiliency can be
considered as response mechanisms to academic challenges (Martin, et al, 2009; Martin 2013).
Academic Buoyancy deals with confronting challenges that are minor in nature. Problems that can
be easily dealt with and serving as the proactive and on-going frontline to solve them. Conversely,
Academic Resiliency deals with reducing challenges that are major in nature, considerable as
adversities. Adversities that cannot be easily warded off therefore, it serves as necessary defensive
backline of a student.

Knowing what the problems are make researchers wonder, in whom do problems occur?
Another distinction made by M. & M. (2009) was in terms of population consideration. Major
adversities have a limited applicability, since there are plenty of students experience big problems.
Not all students are having problems outside the school (Dass-Brailsford, et al, 2005). Not all
students have big responsibilities on their shoulders (Bosworth, et al., 2002). Yet everyday
setbacks and challenges can be applicable to all students, since studying inside the institution
doesn’t make one invincible to tasks and duties. Making Academic Buoyancy reflect to all
individuals who are struggling to fight the everyday cycle of a student’s life. While it promotes
Academic Resiliency to map out few individuals within the institution.
 Beyond the 3 criteria given, the need to study the distinct relationship of the 2 constructs is
of great importance. A.J. (2013) prove that the two can be represented as distinct and separate
factors rather than one. By saying Buoyancy is more salient to low negative outcomes (worrying,
failure avoidance and uncertain control) that impede students’ productivity. While Resiliency to
high negative outcomes (self-handicapping and disengagement) that have the tendency to be
maladaptive for some students. With that, since the 2 were stated as unique and separate factors,
researchers can explore more on Academic Buoyancy leaving Academic Resiliency behind.

Existing works in relation to Academic Buoyancy

For P. & M. (2008), the understanding of Academic Buoyancy can be put into the context
of work attrition. Teachers are also included into the cycle of problems inside the academic
institution. It is of great importance as well to create interventions to prevent the plummeting
number of teachers. Putting that in mind, the study conducted was to better understand factors that
contribute and lead for greater work-related well-being and engagement. It was found out that
Coping mechanisms and Academic Buoyancy play salient roles on predicting teachers’ well-being
and engagement. Direct (long-term) & Palliative Coping (short-term) mechanisms in particular
both have positive and negative relations for both well-being and engagement, respectively.
Teachers using long term solutions in eradicating the problems have better engagement and well-
being than of teachers prioritizing short term ways. Academic Buoyancy comes into play when it
serves as an intervening variable. Making even the teachers who are using band-aid solutions
become more engaged and psychologically healthy than ever.

There is an existing work as well that used the dimensions of Academic Buoyancy (Martin,
et al, 2009) to predict the association between Well-Being and Academic Achievement. M., C. &
M (2013) operationalized students’ well-being by collaborating it with Academic Buoyancy.
Creating Academic well-being dimensions such as self-esteem, psychological health, school
environment, enjoyment, parent and peer relationships. It was found out that students who have a
healthy mind, belief on themselves, quality surroundings, happy and sufficient support from others
are likely to succeed in school requirements. The findings were noticed to be consistent across
gender and socio-economic statuses, making the 2 mentioned ruled out as intervening variables.

M., H., & M. (2013) made an effort to study Academic Buoyancy to the context of subjects
in which students were taking. The group of researchers aimed to resolve the question of whether
Academic Buoyancy is a subject specific or subject general educational variable. Academic
subjects like English, Math & Science and Non-Academic subjects such as Physical Education
was hypothesized to predict the operationalized Academic Buoyancy. In this study, Academic
Buoyancy has two general dimensions of psychological appraisal. Appraisals of Task-difficulty,
Competence and Effort and appraisals of bouncing back to setbacks. Findings suggest that the
perception of students to bounce back is consistently held, irrespective of what subject is ahead of
them. Given the fact that subjects are perceived to have varying difficulties that requires varying
levels of effort and competence, Academic Buoyancy was concluded to be a subject-general
construct.

Another work put Academic Buoyancy for a possible association to Test Anxiety. P. & D.
(2013) defined Test Anxiety as appraisals that equitable to threat when students have to face
performance evaluative situations. With this study, researchers sourced out clusters of students in
line with the levels of academic buoyancy and test anxiety. Producing 3 such as cluster a for High
test Anxiety-Low Academic Buoyancy. Cluster b for Low test Anxiety-High Academic Buoyancy.
While cluster c for Mid Test Anxiety-Mid Academic Buoyancy. An implication of these clusters
was in relation to Academic Performance. For those people who have low test anxiety with high
levels of Academic Buoyancy exhibits a great performance to exams yielding good grades. With
people who have high test anxiety with low levels of Academic Buoyancy cannot perform on a
specific level that serves as a requisite to success.

M., G., B. & M. (2013) studied Academic Buoyancy in relation to Psychological Risks.
They defined the latter in an educational context such as academic and non-academic. Academic
risk factors involve academic anxiety, failure avoidance and uncertain control. While non-
academic risk factors include emotional instability and neuroticism. Findings suggest that both
Buoyancy and risk factors has a causal relationship. The ability to fight, bounce back and ward off
challenges (Martin 2013) have an effect to problems such as worrying and emotional instability.
A noticeable addition to this was risk factors can contribute to Buoyancy as well. Making their
relationship in a reciprocal manner.

With the study conducted by S., P., & R. (2015), Academic Buoyancy plays a huge factor
in the context of appraising fear appeals. Students are not invincible to requirements that are
needed to be passed. In order for one to move on to the next stage of the academe high stake
examinations are imperative. In order for a student to pass, educators are using messages
containing what’s at stake in encountering a specific requirement – fear appeals. Most of the time
fear appeals are working to inspire students to perform at a high level. Students can see
inspirational messages as challenging. But there were inconsistencies saying fear appeals can be
perceived as not inspirational if the message was used a lot of times. It adds more and seen as
threatening. In this study, academic buoyancy levels of students play a huge factor on perceiving
fear appeals. Irrespective of frequency, non-buoyant students see fear appeals as threatening.
While buoyant students see fear appeals as challenging depending on the frequency. Therefore,
academic buoyancy plays another intervening role.
 C., B., & T (2015) proved that Academic Buoyancy can be seen in a specific cultural
context as well. Originally, Academic Buoyancy has 3 dimensions namely, psychological, school
engagement and family-peer interactions (Martin, et al, 2009) but for Irish students there were
game of staying in school, self-confidence, planning, low-anxiety and persistence. These factors
were used to make an inventory grounded for Irish students.

Identifying the association of Academic Buoyancy to Social Support and Academic

Adversity was the focus of the work conducted by the group of C., M., B., A., U. & L. (2016). The
perceptions in accordance with the 3 mentioned created groups of students to classify what kind
of learners does institution have nowadays. Findings suggest there are 3 kinds of learners. First is
thriver who have positive perceptions when it comes to interpersonal relationships and bouncing
back against the odds of the academe. Second is supported struggler who have positive perceptions
about bouncing back against the odds but lacks support coming from the people around him/her.
Last is at-risk struggler where a student lacks the drive to bounce back against odds and evident to
have poor interpersonal relationships. Groups created have varying distinctions when it comes to
motivation.

B., H., & F. (2016) established relationships of Academic Buoyancy to Self-Management

and Positive Youth Development. In the study, the 3 variables exhibit 3 distinct relationships.
Saying self-management has a direct effect on positive youth development. Which means, a
student who has the ability to select, optimize and compensate; have the ability to be competent,
confident and care to nourish his/her development. Another connection is between positive youth
development has a direct effect on academic buoyancy. Which means, students that are confident,
caring and competent are more likely to ward off everyday setbacks and challenges in the academe
(Martin A.J., 2013). Last is the indirect relationship between self-management and academic
buoyancy. With this it shows that in order for a student to fight setbacks and challenges, even if
he/she has the ability to select, optimize and compensate, one should be competent, caring and
confident first.

If Academic Buoyancy can be seen in a specific cultural context, particularly in Ireland

(Comerford J., et al, 2015), the need to know whether it is applicable here in the Philippines is a
must. D. & Y. (2016) examined the applicability of the Academic Buoyancy Scale created by A.J.
Martin & H. Marsh back in 2008. The study did this in relation to the Academic Engagement of
students in the prestigious universities of Manila. It was found out that male students are more
engaged in schooling despite the challenges ahead of them than female students. Beyond the result,
Academic Buoyancy Scale was yielded to be applicable in the Philippines.
 According to S., P. & M. (2000), empirical findings suggest that academic stress predicts
academic performance as a way of buffer to success. Performing below the threshold of what a
subject/curriculum dictates can lead to failure of achieving specific goals like passing important
exams and requirements needed, for one to finish his/her study inside the university.

For Y., A. & O. (2016), low levels of academic engagement caused by stressors show less
efforts exerted by Singaporean students to activities given by their academic institutions. With that
kind of behavior, students can’t avoid having bad grades consistently across subjects. Too much
failure directs them to link low engagement to higher drop-out rates among Singaporean Students.
At the same time, data shows where students who opted not to continue pursuing their formation
years contribute to crimes that happened to society.

H., L. & A. (2017) says that, general stressors coming from home, family, peers,
neighborhood and school contribute to the existence of school-related stressors which inhibit
learning. Learning inhibitors occur when a student’s memory and executive functioning are
affected, thus leads to poor performance of students included in the minority groups of the society
– Achievement Gap.

While for A. & W. (2004), despite the pre-existence of negative attitudes before entering
college life, undergraduates who were starting tertiary level yielded much higher levels of
susceptibility to depression and anxiety. The findings indicate that academic stress can move
beyond minor difficulties like performance to mental health issues.