The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-7003.htm
JARHE
11,2
162
Received 18 April 2018
Revised 9 May 2018
Accepted 23 May 2018
Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
Vol. 11 No. 2, 2019
pp. 162-177
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
DOI 10.1108/JARHE-04-2018-0067
Academic buoyancy in
higher education
Developing sustainability in language learning
through encouraging buoyant EFL students
Safoura Jahedizadeh and Behzad Ghonsooly
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Islamic Republic of Iran, and
Afsaneh Ghanizadeh
Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to design a new instrument toward assessing English as foreign
language students’ academic buoyancy and to investigate the association between academic buoyancy and
three demographic variables of GPA, gender and educational level using the newly-designed questionnaire.
Design/methodology/approach – To do so, a new questionnaire consisting of 27 items was designed
which measures four aspects of L2 buoyancy, namely, sustainability, regularity adaptation, positive
personal eligibility and positive acceptance of academic life. The scale was then translated into Persian and
its validity (computed via confirmatory factor analysis estimates) and reliability (computed via Cronbach’s α)
were substantiated.
Findings – All the items were found to have accepted factor loading. The results regarding the association
between academic buoyancy and demographic variables along with the relevant discussion are presented.
Originality/value – Though over the years, researchers have used a variety of methods and scales to
measure buoyancy, all of the instruments have been consisted of few items (usually four) which do not include
the many aspects related to student buoyancy as one of the tenets of individual differences in positive
psychology. Moreover, the same materials were used for distinctive settings of school and workplace in which
the individuals adapt different goal orientations and perspectives. Consequently, the need for designing a
comprehensive and specific instrument which includes all the aspects of academic buoyancy focusing on EFL
students in higher education is manifested.
Keywords Sustainability, Higher education, Confirmatory factor analysis, EFL students, Academic buoyancy
Paper type Research paper
Background
The three functions of higher education, namely, research, contribution to society and
education equip learners, to succeed in their academic life and help them become
fully-functioning members of the society (Smith and Szymanski, 2013). In other words, the
characteristics of higher education institutions (e.g. students’ free choices of their field,
experience-based classes, problem-solving tasks and exploratory nature) provide learners
with the opportunities to become more flexible; however, studying in higher education
contexts comprises academic challenges and failures as well that are the irrefutable and
typical parts of a common course of school life including exam pressure, difficult workload,
poor grades, and competing deadlines (Martin and Marsh, 2008a) all of which pave the way
toward analyzing the concept of academic buoyancy.
It is a psychological construct reflecting students’ everyday academic resilience within a
positive context and can be defined as students’ ability to successfully deal with academic
failures and challenges. In other words, “Buoyancy provides learners with the capacity to
negotiate the ups and downs of language learning and to overcome everyday adversities on
the path to L2 learning success” (Yun et al., 2016). One of the features of educational system
No funding was received for this research.
is socio-economic inequality throughout the world. Therefore, it would become more Academic
common to focus on risk factors associated with low educational attainment such as early buoyancy
school leaving (Tormey, 2007; Byrne and Smyth, 2010). in higher
The concept of risk is based on an epidemiological model borrowed from the health
sciences. However, there has long been an effort to re-think the notion of risk with reference education
to its counterpart known as resilience which originated with psychological studies of
schizophrenia. It was revealed that schizophrenics who were able to maintain a working life 163
or other relationships prior to suffering from the disease endure the mildest forms of the
disease (Masten et al., 1990). Such findings highlight the need to concentrate on a more
positive repositioning rather than the negative side of the research agenda.
Related to the concept of resilience is the notion of academic buoyancy which can be
described as the ability to navigate the typical everyday challenges of educational life in an
appropriate way (Comerford et al., 2015). In other words, academic buoyancy is the ability of
learners to survive the everyday challenges and stressful situations of school life (Martin
and Marsh, 2006, 2008a, b, 2009; Martin et al., 2010; Martin, 2014). Buoyancy might be
influenced by either internal or external factors. Some personality features involving
autonomy and self-esteem are the evidence of the role of internal factors (Masten and
Garmezy, 1985). However, these issues are not simply innate to the learner which implies
that the educational environment plays a key role in developing interpersonal skills and
dispositions aiding their buoyancy (Comerford et al., 2015).
For conferring resilience on students, Downey (2008) suggests twelve recommendations
which can be categorized in four clusters of teacher–student rapport, classroom climate,
instructional strategies and student skills. Such factors highlight the role of autonomy by
helping learners become responsible to reach their goals, improving interpersonal skills and
enhancing students’ self-esteem. Martin et al. (2010) have also suggested a “5C” model for
understanding academic buoyancy comprising control, confidence, co-ordination,
commitment, and composure all of which are highly associated with enjoyment of
learning and general self-esteem (Martin and Marsh, 2006). Recent work on language learner
psychology has demonstrated new contributions of positive psychology in the field of
second language acquisition (Yun et al., 2016). The inclusion of academic buoyancy as a
remarkable predictor is sound and the existing empirical findings have attested to its
potency (Martin and Marsh, 2006, 2008a, b).

Academic resilience and academic buoyancy

The theoretical grounds of academic buoyancy is based on the belief that resilience as a
similar construct regarding the nature and characteristics has limited applicability and does
not explain the adversities and challenges which are typical of daily academic life (Martin
and Marsh, 2009; Phan and Ngu, 2014). Resilience has been defined as the process or
outcome of, and capacity for successful adaptation despite the challenges or threatening
circumstances (Howard and Johnson, 2000). Regarding the academic context, resilience can
be defined as the heightened likelihood of success in educational settings and other life
accomplishments despite the adversities caused by the early traits, conditions, and
experiences (Wang et al., 1994). In other words, academically resilient students sustain high
levels of performance and achievement motivation despite the presence of stressful events
and conditions putting them at risk of doing poorly in educational milieus and ultimately
dropping out of school (Alva, 1991). There are many students who turn around their
academic fortunes ( Jimerson et al., 1999); however, many of them fail to overcome their
academic adversities (Dauber et al., 1996).
Although there has been substantial focus on resilience regarding broader life events,
such as receiving poor parenting, divorce or being raised in a disadvantaged background
(Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001), there has been relatively less
JARHE research investigating the academic resilience which merely have focused on extreme
11,2 underachievers and ethnic-minority groups (e.g. Finn and Rock, 1997). Consequently,
studies scrutinizing academic resilience relevant to all students are demanded, since all
students at some point may experience some level of challenge, pressure, poor performance
or adversity (Martin and Marsh, 2006).
According to Martin and Marsh (2008a), “academic buoyancy is distinct from the
164 traditional resilience construct as well as constructs reflecting everyday hassles and
coping” (p. 54). In other words, buoyancy is proposed to be quite distinct from resilience in
terms of definitional terms, the samples to which they relate, the operational differences,
the methodological distinctions and the interventions responding to them. As far as the
definitional- and sample-related differences are concerned, resilience is characterized as
acute and chronic adversities as “major assaults” on the developmental processes (e.g.
Garmezy, 1981; Werner, 2000; Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000; Lindstroem, 2001; Masten, 2001).
These studies mainly focus on ethnic groups situated in adverse conditions, such as
poverty, gang violence, chronic underachievers, or the interaction of ethnicity and
underachievement (Overstreet and Braun, 1999; Catterall, 1998; Finn and Rock, 1997;
Gonzalez and Padilla, 1997). Other resilience-related studies investigate the issue in the
academic setting for students with learning disabilities (e.g. Miller, 2002; Margalit, 2004;
Meltzer, 2004). Reviewing the literature, one concludes that the traditional constructions of
resilience refer to a small number of individuals who experience extreme adversity
(Martin and Marsh, 2008a). Moreover, the traditional concept of resilience does not assess
the many individuals who experience setbacks, challenges and pressures all of which are
part of the ordinary course of life. Thus, the positive aspect of everyday resilience or
buoyancy is distinct from the acute and chronic adversities relevant to traditional
constructions of resilience. The new concept of buoyancy is related to recent developments
in positive psychology having the capacity of not only reflecting a healthy end-state but
also improving well-being over time and achieving psychological growth (Fredrickson,
2001). The key principles underpinning academic buoyancy encompass building on
strengths and focusing on proactive rather than reactive approaches to setbacks or
challenges. To put it another way, buoyancy adapts the positive psychology orientation
trying to grasp the “many” and the “healthy,” whereas resilience is confined to extreme
cases at the problematic end of the spectrum (Martin and Marsh, 2008a). Consequently,
buoyancy is the positive version of resilience.
In operational and methodological terms, the distinction between resilience and
buoyancy can be divided into two dimensions of degree and kind. The former argues that
while academic resilience is relevant to chronic underachievement, overwhelming feelings of
anxiety and debilitation in the face of chronic failure, academic buoyancy is relevant to the
more typical experience of isolated poor grades or performance, typical stress levels and
daily pressures, and threats to confidence as a result of a poor grade. The latter also argues
that whereas academic resilience is relevant to clinical types of affect (e.g. anxiety and
depression), truancy and total disaffection from school, comprehensive and consistent
alienation or opposition to teachers, academic buoyancy is relevant more to low-level stress
and confidence, dips in motivation and engagement, and dealing with negative feedback on
schoolwork (Martin and Marsh, 2008a). In terms of the intervention aspect, recognizing
differences of degree between resilience and buoyancy, one might perceive that academic
buoyancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for academic resilience. In other words,
resilient students are likely to be buoyant as well which implies a hierarchy. As a result, in
facilitating students’ resilience to more dramatic adverse academic and life events, it is
significant to help them deal with ongoing challenges and demands to develop their
buoyancy. Thus, buoyancy is the first requisite in developing resilience and helping
individuals offset risk (Martin and Marsh, 2006).
 Taken together, the two concepts of buoyancy and resilience differ on a number of bases Academic
and whilst a good deal of research has provided in-depth understanding of resilience, a few buoyancy
research has specifically recognized the cognate construct buoyancy and, more specifically, in higher
no study to research EFL students’ academic buoyancy.
education
Empirical investigations on the concept of buoyancy
Among the investigations which sought to explore the concept of buoyancy (e.g. Martin and 165
Marsh, 2008b, 2009; Martin et al., 2010; Martin, 2014), a study has been carried out in order to
ascertain distinguishing features of academic buoyancy in young people in the Irish
second-level context. Moreover, it has investigated whether the concept of buoyancy can be
used to understand the decisions of staying in or leaving the school early. A mixed methods
approach was utilized to achieve these aims including ethnographic methods in two case
study schools comprising 31 students. The results revealed that buoyant students have a
noteworthy ability to examine their own experiences and contrast them with others in
society. These characteristics were then termed as confidence, control, planning, autonomy
and persistence. The researchers then utilized the evident buoyancy characteristics to
develop the Student Buoyancy Instrument (SBI). The SBI questionnaire allowed students to
reflect on their buoyancy, and was administered to 581 students in 17 Irish second-level
schools. The data obtained from the scale displayed acceptable validity and reliability
indices. Additionally, the students who reported themselves as the least likely to leave
school early, scored significantly higher on the confidence, planning and persistence
measures (Comerford et al., 2015). Another study was an attempt to explore the academic
buoyancy of 598 students in Years 8 and 10 at five Australian high schools at two different
times of the half-way through the school year and at the end of the year. The participants
were required to rate their academic buoyancy along with a set of hypothesized predictors
such as; anxiety, self-efficacy, teacher–student relationship, control and academic
engagement in the area of mathematics. The results demonstrated that Time 1 anxiety
(negatively), self-efficacy and academic engagement negatively and significantly predict
Time 1 academic buoyancy. It was also found that Time 2 anxiety, self-efficacy, academic
engagement and teacher–student relationship explain the variance in Time 2 academic
buoyancy negatively over and above the one which was explained by academic buoyancy at
Time 1. Finally, among the significant predictors, anxiety explains the bulk of variance in
academic buoyancy (Martin and Marsh, 2008b).
Another study was carried out to explore the rationale for buoyancy to provide a
conceptual overview of buoyancy and report on a study designed to investigate the
buoyancy profiles of 879 college students of South Korea. By using a questionnaire, the data
were collected and six predictors were found including the teacher–student relationship,
L2 self-efficacy, self-regulation, ideal L2 self, L2 learning persistence and learning anxiety.
The researchers then identified five significant L2 learner archetypes across the buoyancy
spectrum, ranging from the “ideally buoyant” L2 learner to the “academically fragile”
L2 learner (Yun et al., 2016). Another inquiry was an attempt to scope the interrelations
among antecedents of academic buoyancy, emotional and physiological states and task
value, cognitive processes of habitual action and critical reflection, and adaptive outcomes
including academic engagement and achievement in the context of educational psychology.
Evidence ascertained from causal modeling procedures supported the theoretical-conceptual
model, indicating the intricate associations between cognitive, motivational and adaptive
outcomes (Phan and Ngu, 2014).
There is evidence suggesting that academic buoyancy affects both educational and
psychological outcome measures in which the former refers to enjoyment of school and class
participation and the latter consists of general self-esteem and self-efficacy, to name a few
(Martin et al., 2010, Martin and Marsh, 2006). Martin and Marsh’s (2008a) longitudinal study
JARHE also yielded some preliminary findings proving the predictive and explanatory powers of
11,2 academic buoyancy in educational settings in which Time 1 academic buoyancy influenced
Time 2 anxiety. The researchers, likewise, reported the predictive effects of academic
buoyancy on general self-esteem, enjoyment of school, and class participation (Martin and
Marsh, 2006). In a similar vein, another study revealed that academic buoyancy protects
against the examinations appraisal as threatening by affecting self-regulative processes and
166 enabling better examination performance. It was also found that worry, but not tension,
shows a negative feedback loop to academic buoyancy. In other words, highly buoyant
students have stronger motivation, perceive more positive self-beliefs and make more
adaptive responses to setbacks all of which are related to lower test anxiety (Putwain et al.,
2015). Having been studied from cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives among
secondary school students, academic buoyancy was found to be positively related to myriad
adaptive educational outcomes including planning and persistence, lower anxiety, greater
self-efficacy and lower failure avoidance (Martin et al., 2010, 2013; Martin, 2013). Academic
buoyancy also shows relatively consistent correlations with difficulty of learning new
things and judgments of personal competence across different academic subjects
(Malmberg et al., 2013); however, it is not related to greater use of adaptive coping
strategies including task preparation or less use of maladaptive strategies, such as task
avoidance (Putwain et al., 2012). With regard to the relationship between academic
buoyancy and academic achievement, research has also begun to prove that small positive
correlations are found between academic buoyancy and performance on English,
mathematics, numeracy and literacy tests in primary and secondary school students
(Miller et al., 2013; Martin, 2014).
Another study was an attempt to find the association between academic buoyancy and
students’ achievement. To do so, 787 college students completed a questionnaire, and it was
found that buoyancy significantly predicts student’ academic achievement (Yun et al., 2018).
What appeared from these studies attested to this contention that student buoyancy is
conducive to effective learning. Furthermore, the majority of studies regarding student
buoyancy concerns junior learners at schools and to the best knowledge of the researchers,
no study has attempted to explore university students’ buoyancy in an EFL context. The
present study thus seeks to investigate this hypothesis among Iranian University students
majoring in translation and Teaching English as a Foreign Language. In particular, it
primarily aimed at designing the first English and Persian versions of academic buoyancy
in an EFL context and subsequently examining the impact of each component of
L2 buoyancy on academic achievement in higher education. It also explores the role of
students’ demographic variables (gender and educational level) in student buoyancy.

Previous buoyancy instruments

Some scholars have designed particular questionnaires to address the issue of buoyancy.
Among the existing scales, the SBI uses 39 items drawn from the Locus of Control,
Planfulness, Anxiety, Industry and Self-Efficacy scales, all of which are available from the
International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006). This instrument was declared to
be used for the sake of assessing students’ buoyancy ability, although as the researchers
admitted all the items were drawn from the scales which are primarily utilized for
measuring individuals’ personality traits such as; locus of control, anxiety, self-efficacy, etc.
Looking from another perspective, the instrument was administered to 12-year-old children.
Consequently, the need for a new scale to assess students’ buoyancy in higher education
sounds imperative. Another instrument for measuring academic buoyancy was used to
assess students’ ideas regarding their mathematics class. The instrument contains four
items of “I don’t let a bad mark affect my confidence,” “I think I’m good at dealing with
schoolwork pressures,” “I don’t let study stress get on top of me” and “I’m good at dealing
with setbacks (e.g. bad mark, negative feedback on my work,” to which students rate Academic
themselves on a 1–7 scale. As it is mentioned by the researchers themselves, the target area buoyancy
for rating was mathematics (Martin and Marsh, 2008a) and the study contained another in higher
phase of measuring student self-efficacy, control, academic engagement, anxiety and
teacher–student relationship in the same area. Many other buoyancy-related studies have education
used the same instrument to measure students’ academic buoyancy in different contexts of
school and workplace with different subject areas such as mathematics, English and science 167
(e.g. Martin and Marsh, 2008b; Martin et al., 2013; Putwain et al., 2015), to name a few.
The utilized questionnaire in most of the mentioned studies contains only four items
which does not include the many aspects related to student buoyancy as one of the factors of
individual differences in positive psychology. Moreover, the same material for distinctive
settings of school and workplace in which the individuals adapt different goal orientations
and perspectives were utilized. Consequently, the need for designing a comprehensive and
specific instrument which includes more items and focuses on EFL students’ academic
buoyancy in higher education is manifested.

Purpose of the study

The present study thus is an attempt to design a comprehensive and specific instrument to
measure EFL students’ buoyancy. In other words, the newly-designed material can
specifically be used in the EFL/ESL context. The items are classified to four main categories
namely; sustainability, regularity adaptation, positive personal eligibility and positive
acceptance of academic life. Sustainability refers to the students’ ability to overcome their
difficulties toward language learning such as; low score, teacher negative feedback,
workload and failure. Regularity adaptation is also concerned with setting goals in language
learning, such as regular planning, discipline toward studying, specifying a purpose and
adapting the goals to personal values. Positive personal eligibility as another aspect of L2
buoyancy is concerned with positive perceptions regarding personal competencies, such as
being independent and not relying on the others in doing a learning task, being proud of
learning the language, being a student on whom the others can trust, insisting on language
learning, being able to handle many tasks at once and believing in one’s capabilities.
The last aspect of L2 buoyancy, positive acceptance of academic life, concerns the
educational dimension of students’ life which is dedicated to language learning and includes
delighting the process of language learning, being able to find different solutions to single
problem, handling the undesirable situations like classmates’ negative attitudes and
believing in language learning meaningfulness in one’s life. Some of the items were adapted
from Wagnild and Young’s (1993) resilience scale and then were modified to fit the EFL
context of L2 learning.

Method
Participants
In total (316) Iranian university and private institute students participated in this
Educational Design Research (252 females and 64 males). Their age varied from 18 to
49 years (M ¼ 24.6, SD ¼ 6.56). They were BA and MA students (BA ¼ 198, MA ¼ 118) who
were studying Translation and English Language Teaching at a university in Mashhad, a
city in Northeast of Iran.

Instrument
To assess L2 buoyancy, a new questionnaire was designed. It includes 27 items measuring
four aspects of L2 buoyancy (sustainability, regularity adaptation, positive personal
eligibility and positive acceptance of academic life). The items are answered on a five-point
JARHE scale from 1 (“definitely disagree”) to 5 (“definitely agree”); for example, “If I face any failure
11,2 during my language learning (such as a low grade or teacher negative feedback), I can deal
with it very well and never get disappointed, on the contrary I try to learn something
from them.” (sustainability), “Sometimes in language learning I make myself do things
whether I want to or not (I specify a goal for myself, like learning twenty new words this
week),” (regularity adaptation), “I have enough energy to do to do what I have to do, for
168 example the homework that the teacher assigns” (positive personal eligibility) and “I can
usually look at a situation in a number of ways, for example positive aspects of
homework, exams, and teacher rigidity, not just the negative sides” (positive acceptance of
academic life).

Procedure
The way by which the participants were supposed to answer the Academic Buoyancy Scale
(ABS) was totally different from the traditional pen and paper data collection and procedure.
In effect, the ABS was designed in an online format in order to easily distribute and collect
data. The participants were provided with the web address of the questionnaire. Having
entered the password, they could access the scale which was translated into Persian and
designed in a single page. Moreover, the questionnaire does not necessitate any explanation
presented by the researchers, however in order to ensure all the questions are obvious
enough, one of the researcher’s phone number was presented to contact her whenever is
needed. Due to the nature of data collection procedure, the participants were not forced to
answer the questionnaire within a particular time (as it’s the case with other data collection
methods most of which take the time of the class and participants are supposed to turn them
back in a single session). The questionnaire was also accessible on a wide variety of mobile
phones, tablets, and computers which took around five minutes to be completed. Moreover,
to receive reliable data, a page on the questionnaire assured them that their responses would
be kept confidential. They were also required to provide demographic information such as
gender, age, proficiency and educational level. As an incentive, the participants were given
the opportunity to receive feedback about their performance on the instrument by
presenting their codes.

Results
The first phase of the present study included a series of different steps to validate the
newly-designed Persian version of the ABS. Having written the items, a group of experts
(two psychometricians, and three English educators) evaluated the quality of items in terms
of clarity and comprehensiveness. Accommodating the experts’ views resulted in more
refined and comprehensible version of the scale. The translated version was then
back-translated to add additional quality check to the initial translated version and to verify
the accuracy of the translation. The translated questionnaire was then utilized to assess the
L2 buoyancy of the participants.
To determine the validity of the questionnaire in the Iranian context, a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) utilizing the LISREL 8.50 statistical package was performed. The
model consisted of four factors: sustainability (seven items), regularity adaptation ( four
items), positive personal eligibility (eight items) and positive acceptance of academic life
(eight items). A number of fit indices were examined to evaluate the model fit: the χ2/df ratio
which should be lower than 2 or 3, the normed fit index (NFI), the good fit index (GFI) and
the comparative fit index (CFI) with the cut value greater than 0.90, and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) of about 0.06 or 0.08 (Schreiber et al., 2006). The
structural model is presented in Figure 1. As demonstrated by Figure 1, the χ2 value
(1,982.64), the χ2/df ratio (718.23) and the RMSEA (0.062) all reached the acceptable fit
thresholds. The two fit indices that did not meet the acceptable fit thresholds (GFI ¼ 0.68
 0.52 BUOY1 Academic
buoyancy
0.53 BUOY2
in higher
0.49 BUOY3 education
0.42 BUOY4 0.69
0.69
0.62 BUOY5 0.72 169
0.76
0.68 BUOY6 0.62
0.56
0.65 BUOY7 0.60 SUS 1.00

0.52 BUOY8

0.68 BUOY9 0.69

0.69
0.72 BUOY10 0.57
0.53
0.48 BUOY11 0.72 RAD 1.00 0.67

0.59 BUOY12

0.75 BUOY13 0.83 0.65

0.64
0.48 BUOY14 0.50
0.72
0.57 BUOY15 0.66 PPE 1.00 0.69
0.69
0.53 BUOY16 0.60
0.51
0.64 BUOY17 0.77 0.79

0.74 BUOY18

0.40 BUOY19 PAAL 1.00

0.73
0.47 BUOY20 0.41
0.27
0.83 BUOY21 0.57
0.69
0.93 BUOY22 0.55
0.38
0.67 BUOY23 0.68

0.52 BUOY24

0.70 BUOY25 Figure 1.

The schematic
0.85 BUOY26 representation
of academic
0.54 BUOY27
buoyancy and its
comprising factors
Notes: 2 = 1,982.64, df = 718.23, RMSEA = 0.062, GFI = 0.68, NFI = 0.80, CFI = 0.80

and NFI ¼ 0.80) were slightly below those thresholds. According to Tseng et al. (2006), in a
structural model, it is normal for some indices not to conform to the majority trend.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed model had a good overall fit with the
empirical data.
The index on the lines is the indicator of standardized estimates. This is the standardized
coefficient ( β) demonstrating the factor loading of each item with respect to the
JARHE corresponding factor which presents an easily grasped picture of effect size. The closer
11,2 the magnitude to 1.0, the higher the correlation and the greater the factor loading of the item
is. On the other hand, the magnitude of lower than 0.30 is an indication of weak factor
loading; in such cases the item must be revised or discarded. The t-value of each item is
demonstrated in Table I. If the t-value (t), if tW2 or to−2, the result is statistically
significant. As both indices demonstrate, all items had accepted factor loadings enjoying
170 t-values higher than 2 and β indices greater than 0.30.
The convergent validity of the four-factor model was then model computed via
correlation between factors. Table II represents the results. Throughout this study, SUS
stands for sustainability, RAD for regularity adaptation, PPE for positive personal
eligibility, PAAL for positive acceptance of academic life and BUOY for buoyancy.
As the table indicates, the model with the best fit demonstrated inter-correlation between
the scales or latent factors with PPE and REG having the highest correlation (r ¼ 0.56,
p o0.05). In other words, those students who have positive personal eligibility can adapt
regularity as well.
The reliability of the questionnaire estimated via Cronbach’s α was found to be 0.83. The
reliability of each subscale was as follows: sustainability (0.52), regularity adaptation (0.67),
positive personal eligibility (0.79) and positive acceptance of academic life (0.69). Overall, it
can be concluded that the Persian version of L2 buoyancy scale had acceptable reliability
and validity indices.
Table III presents descriptive statistics of EFL learners’ L2 buoyancy comprising four
components. As the table shows, among the comprising factors of L2 buoyancy, positive
personal eligibility (M ¼ 31.17, SD ¼ 4.43) has the highest mean followed by positive
acceptance of academic life (M ¼ 30.15, SD ¼ 4.35). Regularity adaptation (M ¼ 15.09,
SD ¼ 2.63) receives the lowest mean score.

Observed Latent Observed Latent Observed Latent

variable variable t-value variable variable t-value variable variable t-value

Buoy1 SUS 13.24 Buoy12 PPE 12.22 Buoy20 PAAL 14.05

Buoy2 SUS 13.16 Buoy13 PPE 8.97 Buoy21 PAAL 7.07
Buoy3 SUS 13.92 Buoy14 PPE 14.24 Buoy22 PAAL 4.43
Buoy4 SUS 15.13 Buoy15 PPE 12.59 Buoy23 PAAL 10.34
Buoy5 SUS 11.43 Buoy16 PPE 13.32 Buoy24 PAAL 13.02
Buoy6 SUS 10.23 Buoy17 PPE 11.19 Buoy25 PAAL 9.80
Buoy7 SUS 10.95 Buoy18 PPE 9.13 Buoy26 PAAL 6.55
Buoy8 RAD 12.84 Buoy19 PPE 15.62 Buoy27 PAAL 12.69
Table I. Buoy9 RAD 10.05
Summary of the Buoy10 RAD 9.28
standardized loading Buoy11 RAD 13.39

Table II.
The correlation
coefficients among L2
SUS REG PPE PAA
buoyancy components
(sustainability,
1. SUS 1.00
regularity adaptation,
positive personal 2. RAD 0.413** 1.00
eligibility and 3. PPE 0.435** 0.568** 1.00
positive acceptance 4. PAAL 0.394** 0.298** 0.499** 1.00
of academic life) Note: **Correlation is significant at the level of 0.05
To examine the relationship between L2 buoyancy and academic achievement (GPA), a Academic
Pearson product–moment correlation was run. Descriptive statistics of students’ GPA are buoyancy
as follows: minimum ¼ 12, maximum ¼ 19.92, mean ¼ 17.20 and SD ¼ 1.60. The in higher
correlation coefficients among EFL learners’ L2 buoyancy and academic achievement
(GPA) are presented in Table IV. As it can be seen, the correlation is education
significant between PPE and GPA (r ¼ 0.249, p o 0.05) and PAAL (r ¼ 0.126, p o 0.05).
However, no significant correlation is observed between SUS and GPA as well as RAD 171
and GPA.
To delve more into EFL learners’ L2 buoyancy, the association of each sub factor
with learners’ demographic variables, such as gender and educational level, was estimated.
To see whether students’ buoyancy differs significantly between genders, an
independent-samples t-test was used. Table V presents descriptive statistics of students’
buoyancy across males and females.
As the table indicates, male and female students’ scores on L2 buoyancy are quite close
to each other. Table VI shows the results of the independent-samples t-test among the
participants of the two groups.
As it can be seen, there is not a statistically significant difference between males and
females on L2 buoyancy and its components.
Identical analysis was conducted for the role of educational level in each buoyancy
components. The participants were classified into three groups: Group 1: those who held a
Diploma or were high school students; Group 2: those who had a BA degree or were BA
students; and Group 3: those who held an MA deserve or were MA students. Table VII
displays the results of the ANOVA test for the three groups.
As Table VII indicates, there are significant differences among the three groups
regarding the four buoyancy components as follows: sustainability (F ¼ 13.45, p o0.05),
regularity adaptation (F ¼ 10.92, p o0.05), positive personal eligibility (F ¼ 2.99, p o0.05)
and positive acceptance of academic life (F ¼ 3.56, p o0.05).
The ANOVA analysis revealed that among the four constructs of L2 buoyancy, there is a
difference somewhere among the means, but the precise location of differences is not clear.
To locate the exact place of differences, a post hoc comparison of the means was run for the
four dimensions. In so doing, Scheffe’s test was utilized. Table VIII displays the results of
Scheffe’s test.
The results of the post hoc Scheffe’s test revealed that, at the level of 0.05, there was a
significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as Group 2 and Group 3

Min. Max. Mean SD

SUS 9.00 67.00 26.9937 5.27 Table III.

RAD 8.00 20.00 15.0949 2.63 Descriptive statistics
PPE 16.00 40.00 31.1772 4.43 of the comprising
PAAL 16.00 40.00 30.1519 4.35 factors of L2
Valid N (listwise) 316 buoyancy

SUS RAD PPE PAAL Table IV.

The correlation
GPA 0.11 0.083 0.249** 0.126* coefficients between
Notes: *,**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 (two-tailed) and 0.05 level (2-tailed) L2 buoyancy and GPA
JARHE Gender N Mean SD SE mean
11,2
SUS
1.00 64 28.06 4.44 0.55
2.00 252 26.72 5.44 0.34
RAD
172 1.00 64 15.06 2.89 0.36
2.00 252 15.10 2.57 0.16
PPE
1.00 64 31.43 4.62 0.57
2.00 252 31.11 4.39 0.27
PAAL
1.00 64 30.50 4.37 0.54
Table V. 2.00 252 30.06 4.35 0.27
Descriptive statistics
of buoyancy across BUOY
male and female 1.00 64 105.06 13.75 1.71
university students 2.00 252 103.00 12.49 0.78

t df Sig. (two-tailed) Mean difference SE difference

Table VI.
Independent-samples SUS 1.821 314 0.070 1.34028 0.73605
t-test displaying the RAD −0.110 314 0.912 −0.04067 0.36976
results of gender PPE 0.525 314 0.600 0.32639 0.62182
differences in two PAAL 0.716 314 0.474 0.43651 0.60958
settings BUOY 1.155 314 0.249 2.06250 1.78524

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

SUS
Between groups 694.626 2 347.313 13.455 0.000
Within groups 8,079.362 313 25.813
Total 8,773.987 315
RAD
Between groups 142.945 2 71.472 10.922 0.000
Within groups 2,048.207 313 6.544
Total 2,191.152 315
PPE
Between groups 116.594 2 58.297 2.998 0.051
Within groups 6,085.482 313 19.442
Total 6,202.076 315
PAAL
Between groups 132.848 2 66.424 3.565 0.029
Within groups 5,831.861 313 18.632
Table VII. Total 5,964.709 315
The results of
ANOVA for BUOY
determining Between groups 3,183.786 2 1,591.893 10.357 0.000
differences among the Within groups 48,109.075 313 153.703
three groups Total 51,292.861 315
Dependent variable (I) educationallevel ( J) educationallevel Mean difference (I−J) SE Sig.
Academic
buoyancy
SUS 1.00 2.00 3.32619* 1.00701 0.005 in higher
3.00 0.45876 1.03883 0.907
2.00 1.00 −3.32619* 1.00701 0.005 education
3.00 −2.86743* 0.61024 0.000
3.00 1.00 −0.45876 1.03883 0.907
2.00 2.86743* 0.61024 0.000 173
RAD 1.00 2.00 0.02857 0.50703 0.998
3.00 −1.36610* 0.52305 0.034
2.00 1.00 −0.02857 0.50703 0.998
3.00 −1.39467* 0.30726 0.000
3.00 1.00 1.36610* 0.52305 0.034
2.00 1.39467* 0.30726 0.000
PPE 1.00 2.00 1.19286 0.87396 0.395
3.00 −0.03051 0.90158 0.999
2.00 1.00 −1.19286 0.87396 0.395
3.00 −1.22337 0.52962 0.071
3.00 1.00 0.03051 0.90158 0.999
2.00 1.22337 0.52962 0.071
PAAL 1.00 2.00 2.14524* 0.85556 0.044
3.00 1.35932 0.88259 0.307
2.00 1.00 −2.14524* 0.85556 0.044
3.00 −0.78592 0.51846 0.318
3.00 1.00 −1.35932 0.88259 0.307
2.00 0.78592 0.51846 0.318
BUOY 1.00 2.00 6.69286* 2.45730 0.026
3.00 0.42147 2.53496 0.986
Table VIII.
2.00 1.00 −6.69286* 2.45730 0.026
The Scheffe’s test
3.00 −6.27139* 1.48912 0.000 for determining
3.00 1.00 −0.42147 2.53496 0.986 the location of
2.00 6.27139* 1.48912 0.000 difference across the
Note: *Significant of difference 0.05 three groups

regarding sustainability. In terms of regularity adaptation, a significant difference was

found between Group 1 and Group 3 as well as, Group 2 and Group 3. Regarding positive
personal eligibility, no significant difference was found among the groups. Taking the
positive acceptance of academic life into account, a significant difference was found
between Group 1 and group 2. Considering buoyancy in general, significant differences
were found between Group 1 and Group 2 learners as well as Group 2 and Group 3
students. No significant difference, however, was detected between learners in Group 1
and Group 3 regarding their buoyancy.

Discussion
The present study aimed at designing a new instrument to assess student academic buoyancy
in higher education and exploring the effects of four components of academic buoyancy
namely; sustainability, regularity adaptation, positive personal eligibility and positive
acceptance of academic life on students’ academic achievement. It also delved into the role of
student demographic variables (gender and educational level) in student academic buoyancy.
To attain the goals of present research, the Persian version of L2 buoyancy questionnaire was
administered to a sample of Iranian university students. The results of CFA and reliability
estimates substantiated the validity and reliability of the scale which indicate that the new
scale is suitable for measuring EFL students’ academic buoyancy.
JARHE The results showed that positive personal eligibility and positive acceptance of academic
11,2 life affect students’ academic achievement. In other words, if students perceive positive
beliefs regarding their personal merits and life their achievement will be enhanced which is
manifested through their GPA. Previous studies have also displayed the same findings in
which academic self-efficacy is considered as the strongest single predictor of higher
education students’ academic achievement and performance (e.g. Anthony and Artino, 2012;
174 Martin and Marsh, 2008a, b; Miller et al., 2013; Robbins et al., 2004) and should be cultivated
to equip students with resilient efficacy beliefs, positive personal attitudes, intellectual tools
and intrinsic interests (Bandura, 1997).
Concerning the role of gender in student academic buoyancy no significant difference
was found between males and females. Mixed gender findings were observed in previous
studies concerning academic resilience. Finn and Rock (1997), for instance, found that
females are more resilient than males. Other studies, on the contrary, revealed the opposite
results (e.g. Martin and Marsh, 2006; Zeidner, 1994). The diversity among the findings can
be explained in terms of the contexts in which the studies have been conducted in which the
methodologies are different.
Another finding is concerned with the role of educational level in student buoyancy in
which a significant difference was found between diploma and BA as well as BA and MA
students regarding sustainability. In terms of regularity adaptation a significant difference
was found between diploma and MA as well as BA and MA students. Regarding positive
personal eligibility, no significant difference was found among the groups, and taking the
positive acceptance of academic life into account, a significant difference was found between
Diploma and BA students. Considering buoyancy in general, significant differences were
found between diploma and BA learners as well as BA and MA students. No significant
difference, however, was detected between learners in diploma and MA regarding their
buoyancy. Due to the findings, Diploma candidates who are school students experience
different levels of academic buoyancy than their university counterparts. The results can be
justified by different teachers’ and learners’ roles, implemented methodology and teaching
materials in the two milieus of language learning ( Jahedizadeh et al., 2015).

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study may inspire several implications regarding both
theoretical and pedagogical perspectives.
The newly-designed scale can be used to assess EFL students’ buoyancy. Previous
scales, however, were not allocated to a specific discipline which in turn can not address the
very specific features of a context. Moreover, by encouraging buoyant students, future
success and high academic achievement will appear. This can be manifested by teachers,
students, textbook writers, academic specialists and university managers in higher
education. Taken together, the negotiation of ups and downs in the process of language
learning can be achieved by students’ self-awareness of the notion of buoyancy as well as
their own perceptions regarding their capabilities.

References
Alva, S.A. (1991), “Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: the importance
of protective and resources and appraisals”, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Anthony, R. and Artino, J.R. (2012), “Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional
practice”, Perspectives on Medical Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 76-85.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY.
Byrne, D. and Smyth, E. (2010), No Way Back: The Dynamics of Early School Leaving, ESRI, Dublin. Academic
Catterall, J.S. (1998), “Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school”, American Journal of buoyancy
Education, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 302-333. in higher
Comerford, J., Batteson, T. and Tormey, R. (2015), “Academic buoyancy in second level schools: education
insights from Ireland”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 197, pp. 98-103.
Dauber, S.L., Alexander, K.L. and Entwisle, D.R. (1996), “Tracking and transitions through the middle
grades: channeling educational trajectories”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 290-307. 175
Downey, J.A. (2008), “Recommendations for fostering educational resilience in the classroom”,
Preventing School Failure, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 56-64.
Finn, J.D. and Rock, D.A. (1997), “Academic success among students at risk for school failure”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 221-234.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Garmezy, N. (1981), “Children under stress: perspectives on antecedents and correlates of vulnerability
and resistance to psychopathology”, in Rabin, A.I., Aronoff, J., Barclay, A. and Zucker, R.A.
(Eds), Further Explorations in Personality, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 196-269.
Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, C.R. and Gough, H.G.
(2006), “The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality
measures”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 84-96.
Gonzalez, R. and Padilla, A.M. (1997), “The academic resilience of Mexican American high school
students”, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 301-317.
Howard, S. and Johnson, B. (2000), “What makes the difference? Children and teachers talk about
resilient outcomes for children ‘at risk’ ”, Educational Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 321-337.
Jahedizadeh, S., Ghonsooly, B., Ghanizadeh, A. and Akbari, O. (2015), “A cross-contextual analysis of
EFL learners’ perceptions of classroom activities”, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 322-336.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B. and Teo, A. (1999), “A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories: factors
associated with change”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 116-126.
Lindstroem, B. (2001), “The meaning of resilience”, International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and
Health, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-12.
Luthar, S.S. and Cicchetti, D. (2000), “The construct of resilience: implications for interventions and
social policies”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 857-885.
Malmberg, L., Hall, A. and Martin, A.J. (2013), “Academic buoyancy in secondary school: exploring
patterns of convergence in English, mathematics, science, and physical education”, Learning
and Individual Differences, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 262-266.
Margalit, M. (2004), “Second-generation research on resilience: social–emotional aspects of children
with learning disabilities”, Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-48.
Martin, A., Colmer, S., Davey, L. and Marsh, H. (2010), “Longitudinal modelling of academic buoyancy
and motivation: do the ‘5 Cs’ hold up over time?”, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 80, pp. 473-496, doi: 10.1348/000709910x486376.
Martin, A.J. (2014), “Academic buoyancy and academic outcomes: towards a further understanding
of students with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students without ADHD,
and academic buoyancy itself”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 86-107.
Martin, A.J. and Marsh, H.W. (2006), “Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: a construct validity approach”, Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 267-281.
Martin, A.J. and Marsh, H.W. (2008a), “Academic buoyancy: towards an understanding of students’
everyday academic resilience”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-83.
JARHE Martin, A.J. and Marsh, H.W. (2008b), “Workplace and academic buoyancy: psychometric assessment
11,2 and construct validity amongst school personnel and students”, Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 168-184.
Martin, A.J. and Marsh, H.W. (2009), “Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: multidimensional
and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate constructs”, Oxford
Review of Education, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 353-370.
176 Martin, A.J., Ginns, P., Brackett, M.A. and Malmberg, L.-E. (2013), “Academic buoyancy and
psychological risk: exploring reciprocal relationships”, Learning and Individual Differences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 128-133.
Martin, A.M. (2013), “Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’
resilience in the face of academic adversity”, School Psychology International, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 488-500.
Masten, A. and Garmezy, N. (1985), “Risk, Vunerability, and protective factors in developmental
psychopathology”, in Lahey, B. and Kazdin, A. (Eds), Advances in Clinical Psychology, Plenum
Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-52.
Masten, A.S. (2001), “Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 227-238.
Masten, A.S., Best, K.M. and Garmezy, N. (1990), “Resilience and development: contributions from the
study of children who overcome adversity”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 425-444.
Meltzer, L. (2004), “Resilience and learning disabilities: research on internal and external protective
dynamics”, Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Miller, M. (2002), “Resilience elements in students with learning disabilities”, Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 291-298.
Miller, S., Connolly, P. and Maguire, L.K. (2013), “Wellbeing, academic buoyancy and educational
achievement in primary school students”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 239-248.
Overstreet, S. and Braun, S. (1999), “A preliminary examination of the relationship between exposure to
community violence and academic functioning”, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 380-396.
Phan, H.P. and Ngu, B.H. (2014), “An empirical analysis of students’ learning and achievements:
a motivational approach”, Educational Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 203-216.
Putwain, D.W., Daly, A.L., Chamberlain, S. and Sadreddini, S. (2015), “Academically buoyant students
are less anxious about and perform better in high-stakes examinations”, Educational Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 247-263.
Putwain, D.W., Symes, W., Connors, E. and Douglas-Osborn, E. (2012), “Is academic buoyancy
anything more than adaptive coping?”, Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 349-358.
Robbins, S.B., Lauver, K., Davis, D., Langley, R. and Carlstrom, K. (2004), “Do psychosocial and
study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 130
No. 2, pp. 261-288.
Schreiber, J.B., Amaury, N., Stage, F.K., Barlow, E.A. and King, J. (2006), “Reporting structural equation
modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review”, Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 99 No. 6, pp. 323-337.
Smith, V.G. and Szymanski, A. (2013), “Critical thinking: more than test scores”, International Journal of
Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 15-24.
Tormey, R. (2007), “Education and poverty”, in Cousins, M. (Ed.), Welfare Policy and Poverty, Institute
of Public Administration, Dublin, pp. 169-200.
Tseng, W.T., Dörnyei, Z. and Schmitt, N. (2006), “A new approach to assessing strategic learning: the
case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition”, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 78-102.
Wagnild, G.M. and Young, H.M. (1993), “Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience Academic
scale”, Journal of Nursing Measurement, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 165-178. buoyancy
Wang, M.C., Haertal, G.D. and Walberg, H.J. (1994), “Educational resilience in inner cities”, in Wang, M.C. in higher
and Gordon, E.W. (Eds), Educational Resilience in Inner-City America: Challenges and Prospects,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-72. education
Werner, E. (2000), “Protective factors and individual resilience”, in Shonkoff, J.P. and Meisels, S.J. (Eds),
Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 115-132. 177
Yun, S., Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A. (2016), “L2 buoyancy: exploring learners’ everyday resilience in the
language classroom”, paper co-presented at the 2nd Psychology of Language Learning
Conference, Vol. 40, Jyväskylä, August 22–24, doi: 10.1017/S0272263118000037.
Yun, S., Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A. (2018), “Academic buoyancy: exploring learners’ everyday
resilience in the language classroom”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 1-26.
Zeidner, M. (1994), “Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative
situation: a prospective study”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 899-918.

Corresponding author
Behzad Ghonsooly can be contacted at: ghonsooly@um.ac.ir

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com