Investigating the measurement of academic resilience in Aotearoa New Zealand using international large-scale assessment data.

IF 2.8 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Georgia Rudd, Kane Meissel, Frauke Meyer
{"title":"Investigating the measurement of academic resilience in Aotearoa New Zealand using international large-scale assessment data.","authors":"Georgia Rudd,&nbsp;Kane Meissel,&nbsp;Frauke Meyer","doi":"10.1007/s11092-022-09384-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic resilience captures academic success despite adversity and thus is an important concept for promoting equity within education. However, our understanding of how and why rates of academic resilience differ between contexts is currently limited by variation in the ways that the construct has been operationalised in quantitative research. Similarly, comparing the strength of protective factors that promote academic resilience is hindered by differing approaches to the measurement of academic resilience. This methodological variation has complicated attempts to reconcile disparate findings about academic resilience. The current study applied six commonly used operationalisations of academic resilience that combined different thresholds of high risk and high achievement, to three international large-scale assessments, to explore how these different operationalisations impacted the findings produced. The context of Aotearoa New Zealand was chosen as a case study to further academic resilience research within this context and investigate how academic resilience manifests in an education system with relatively high levels of average achievement alongside low levels of educational equity. Within international large-scale assessment datasets, prevalence rates differed markedly across subject areas, grade levels, and collection cycles, as a function of the measure of academic resilience employed, while the strength of protective factors was more consistent. Thresholds that were norm-referenced produced more consistent findings across the different datasets compared to thresholds that were criterion-referenced. High levels of missing data prevented the analysis of some datasets, and differences in the way that key constructs were measured undermined the comparability of findings across international large-scale assessments. The findings emphasise the strengths and limitations of utilising international large-scale assessment data for the study of academic resilience, particularly within the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Furthermore, the study highlights that researchers' methodological decisions have important impacts on the conclusions drawn about academic resilience.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11092-022-09384-0.</p>","PeriodicalId":46725,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability","volume":"35 2","pages":"169-200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9131980/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-022-09384-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Academic resilience captures academic success despite adversity and thus is an important concept for promoting equity within education. However, our understanding of how and why rates of academic resilience differ between contexts is currently limited by variation in the ways that the construct has been operationalised in quantitative research. Similarly, comparing the strength of protective factors that promote academic resilience is hindered by differing approaches to the measurement of academic resilience. This methodological variation has complicated attempts to reconcile disparate findings about academic resilience. The current study applied six commonly used operationalisations of academic resilience that combined different thresholds of high risk and high achievement, to three international large-scale assessments, to explore how these different operationalisations impacted the findings produced. The context of Aotearoa New Zealand was chosen as a case study to further academic resilience research within this context and investigate how academic resilience manifests in an education system with relatively high levels of average achievement alongside low levels of educational equity. Within international large-scale assessment datasets, prevalence rates differed markedly across subject areas, grade levels, and collection cycles, as a function of the measure of academic resilience employed, while the strength of protective factors was more consistent. Thresholds that were norm-referenced produced more consistent findings across the different datasets compared to thresholds that were criterion-referenced. High levels of missing data prevented the analysis of some datasets, and differences in the way that key constructs were measured undermined the comparability of findings across international large-scale assessments. The findings emphasise the strengths and limitations of utilising international large-scale assessment data for the study of academic resilience, particularly within the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Furthermore, the study highlights that researchers' methodological decisions have important impacts on the conclusions drawn about academic resilience.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11092-022-09384-0.

Abstract Image

利用国际大规模评估数据调查新西兰奥特亚的学术韧性测量。
学术韧性体现了在逆境中取得的学术成功,因此是促进教育公平的一个重要概念。然而,我们对不同背景下学术弹性率如何以及为什么不同的理解,目前受到定量研究中该结构操作方式变化的限制。同样,衡量学术韧性的不同方法阻碍了比较促进学术韧性的保护因素的强度。这种方法上的变化使调和关于学术韧性的不同发现的尝试变得复杂。目前的研究将六种常用的学术韧性操作方法应用于三项国际大规模评估,这些方法结合了高风险和高成就的不同阈值,以探讨这些不同的操作方法如何影响研究结果。选择新西兰奥特亚作为案例研究,在这一背景下进一步开展学术韧性研究,并调查学术韧性如何在平均成绩相对较高而教育公平水平较低的教育系统中表现出来。在国际大规模评估数据集中,作为所采用的学术弹性衡量标准的函数,不同学科领域、年级水平和收集周期的患病率差异显著,而保护因素的强度更为一致。与标准参考阈值相比,标准参考阈值在不同数据集上产生了更一致的结果。大量缺失的数据阻碍了对一些数据集的分析,关键结构的衡量方式差异削弱了国际大规模评估结果的可比性。研究结果强调了利用国际大规模评估数据研究学术韧性的优势和局限性,特别是在新西兰奥特亚的背景下。此外,该研究强调,研究人员的方法决策对得出的关于学术韧性的结论有重要影响。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,请访问10.1007/s11092-022-09384-0。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability
Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The main objective of this international journal is to advance knowledge and dissemination of research on and about assessment, evaluation and accountability of all kinds and on various levels as well as in all fields of education.  The journal provides readers with an understanding of the rich contextual nature of evaluation, assessment and accountability in education. The journal is theory-oriented and methodology-based and seeks to connect research, policy making and practice.  The journal publishes outstanding empirical works, peer-reviewed by eminent scholars around the world.Aims and Scope in more detail: The main objective of this international journal is to advance knowledge and dissemination of research on and about evaluation, assessment and accountability: - of all kinds (e.g. person, programme, organisation), - on various levels (state, regional, local), - in all fields of education (primary, secondary, higher education/tertiary, as well as non-school sector) and across all different life phases (e.g. adult education/andragogy/Human Resource Management/professional development).The journal provides readers with an understanding of the rich contextual nature of evaluation, assessment and accountability in education. The journal is theory-oriented and methodology-based and seeks to connect research, policy making and practice. Therefore, the journal explores and discusses: -       theories of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       function, role, aims and purpose of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       impact of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       methodology, design and methods of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       principles, standards and quality of evaluation, assessment and accountability, -       issues of planning, coordinating, conducting, reporting of evaluation, assessment and accountability.The journal also covers the quality of different instruments or procedures or approaches which are used for evaluation, assessment and accountability.The journal only includes research findings from evaluation, assessment and accountability, if the design or approach of it is meta-reflected in the article.The journal publishes outstanding empirical works, peer-reviewed by eminent scholars around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信