Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Academic performance of first-year university

students: the influence of resilience and
engagement

Juan Carlos Ayala & Guadalupe Manzano

To cite this article: Juan Carlos Ayala & Guadalupe Manzano (2018): Academic performance
of first-year university students: the influence of resilience and engagement, Higher Education
Research & Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1502258

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1502258

Published online: 25 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1502258

Academic performance of first-year university students: the

influence of resilience and engagement
a
Juan Carlos Ayala and Guadalupe Manzanob
a
Department of Economics and Business, La Rioja University, Logroño, Spain; bDepartment of Sciences
Education, La Rioja University, Logroño, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study, using a time-lagged design, investigated whether or not Received 3 February 2018
a relationship between the dimensions of resilience and Accepted 20 June 2018
engagement, and the academic performance of first-year
KEYWORDS
university students, existed. Moreover, we investigated whether or Academic performance;
not the dimensions of resilience and engagement were different engagement; higher
in students who dropped out of their university studies during education; resilience; Spanish
their first year as compared to those who remained in university. university students
For the total sample (N = 748), the results showed that two
dimensions of resilience (hardiness and resourcefulness) and two
of engagement (dedication and absorption) helped predict the
academic performance of students. Nevertheless, the importance
of each one of these variables differed according to gender.
Absorption predicted academic performance in males but not in
females. Results showed that those students who remained in
university after their first year had more vigor, more hardiness and
more resourcefulness than those who had dropped out of their
university studies. These results suggested that resilience and
engagement had to be taken into consideration at the time of
university admission if there was an aim to improve the results of
the academic performance.

Introduction
Dropout and delay in university studies completion are increasingly becoming large-scale
problems in Europe (European Commission, 2015). Spain deserves special mention in this
sense, with an average of 130,000 students dropping out of their university studies every
year. Dropout rates of university studies in Spain reach 32%, more than double the Euro-
pean Union average (Eurostat, 2016). According to the Spanish Ministry of Education
Culture and Sports (MECD, 2017), 22.1% of Spanish university students drop out of
their studies in the first year, which entails a government loss of over 3000 million
euros per year. This is a reason for concern for both academic authorities and political
leaders. Academic performance tends to be regarded as an indicator of the educational
efficacy and quality, and poor results can only show that public expenditure in education
is not producing the expected results. Added to this is the high rates of students who

CONTACT Juan Carlos Ayala juan-carlos.ayala@unirioja.es

© 2018 HERDSA
2 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

experience failure or who drop out of their studies and suffer not only financial but also
psychological costs (Breen & Lindsay, 2002).
The factors associated with academic dropout and/or failure in higher education are
diverse and distinct in nature. The emphasis amongst them varies according to authors
(Casillas et al., 2012; Ukpong & George, 2013). Some researchers reported that gender
had an influence on the academic performance of university students. Thus, Pirmohamed,
Debowska, and Boduszek (2017) found that females reached higher academic perform-
ance rates than males. There were yet some other authors who did not find differences
between the academic performance of males and females (Allan, McKenna, &
Dominey, 2014). Marí-Klose, Marí-Klose, Granados, Gómez-Granell, and Martínez
(2009) concluded that the educational level of parents was a key factor in the academic
achievement of children. According to Naylor and Smith (2004), a higher university per-
formance was associated with students having had a high performance in secondary edu-
cation. Past performance has been reported to be the best indicator for academic
performance in university students (Salanova, Schaufeli, Martinez, & Breso, 2009).
Other factors that are frequently related to positive academic performance include the
high appraisal of study habits or a high level of satisfaction with the chosen degree
(Belvis, Moreno, & Ferrán, 2009). According to Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham
(2003), some of the personality variables, which had more often been related to academic
performance, were neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience
and psychoticism. Garzón-Umerenkoval and Gil Flores (2017) classified the factors
affecting failure and dropout of the first university year under personal (age, sex, person-
ality traits, etc.), institutional (class-group size, university type, etc.) and circumstantial
(educational level of progenitors, financial resources, etc.) categories.
The transition from secondary education to higher education is a great challenge for
first-year university students: they must face time management and new academic chal-
lenges. In addition to this, autonomous learning and self-teaching play a bigger role in
their academic performance, as well as the development or improvement of their personal
and professional skills (van der Meer, Jansen, & Torenbeek, 2010, p. 778). Within this
context, each student’s academic performance and the decision of whether to leave or
stay in university might depend on: (a) their ability to adapt to university life and to
the challenges or obstacles they face at university (Ainscough, Stewart, Colthorpe, & Zim-
bardi, 2017; Allan et al., 2014) and (b) ‘the quality of effort students themselves devote to
educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes’ (Hu &
Kuh, 2002). Thus, both resilience and engagement could become essential for first-year
university students in achieving suitable academic performance.
Prior research has shown the influence of engagement or resilience in the academic per-
formance of university students. However, as far as we know, how resilience and engage-
ment may jointly affect the academic performance of first-year Spanish university
students, whose drop out rates are higher than the European average, has not yet been
explored. Therefore, this article contributes to building the evidence base about the aca-
demic performance of university students during their first year, recognizing the impor-
tance of both resilience and engagement, beyond the influence of institutional and
circumstantial variables. It also contributes to explaining to what extent the students
who drop out in first year, with regards to those remaining in university, show significant
differences in dimensions of both resilience and engagement.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3

Resilience and academic performance

Resilience is used to characterize individuals who are able to easily and quickly overcome
setbacks related to their life and career aspirations (Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2010). Resi-
lience is a dynamic and evolving process through which students acquire the knowledge,
abilities and skills to help them face an uncertain future with a positive attitude, creativity
and optimism, and by relying on their own resources (Manzano-García & Ayala, 2013). In
the face of uncertain and/or stressful events, a resilient student will not get frustrated or
drop out easily. Much to the contrary, they will incorporate the setting of objectives, com-
mitment and decision-making as part of their behavior. Additionally, resilient students
show a high degree of resourcefulness. They tend to possess skills that enable them to
feel capable of achieving their goals, feel that they have control over their lives, and a
sense that they are primarily responsible for their own results (Holdsworth, Turner, &
Scott-Young, 2017). Moreover, resilient students are optimistic, another trait of resilience
which prompts the attainment of goals predetermined by the individual. Optimism is con-
sidered a dispositional feature which includes cognitive, emotional and motivating
elements and has an effect on external events and on personal interpretation. Optimism
is associated with the expected results and has a positive influence on their compliance
(Morton, Mergler, & Boman, 2014).
Allan et al. (2014) found a positive relationship between the degree of resilience shown
by students at the time of admission to the university and their overall academic perform-
ance at the end of the first year. Beauvais, Stewart, DeNisco, and John (2014) found a posi-
tive and significant correlation between academic performance and resilience. Li, Cao,
Cao, and Liu (2015) confirmed that resilience might help first-year university students
to face hardship. Reyes, Andrusyszyn, Iwasiw, Forchuk, and Babenko-Mould (2015)
demonstrated that resilience acted as a protective factor in relation to the stressful situ-
ations that the student needed to face, helping them accomplish better academic results.
Johnson, Taasoobshirazi, Kestler, and Cordova (2015) tested the relationship between
the marks obtained by university students and resilience. Their results indicated that
marks had a direct effect on perceived resilience by students. These results, along with
the findings by Allan et al. (2014), suggested that there could be a reciprocal causation
between resilience and performance in university students.

Engagement and academic performance

Academic engagement relates to a sense of psychological well-being which is moreover
associated with an intrinsic commitment towards studies. The characteristics that define
academic performance are: dedication, absorption and vigor (Manzano, 2002). Vigor is
related to a great willingness to invest one’s own efforts to study and persevere when
facing difficulties. Dedication implies being involved in one’s own studies with a sense
of enthusiasm and challenge. Absorption points to the absolute concentration and deep
immersion in one’s own studies. Engagement involves a sense of dynamic and affective
connection with academic activities and the student’s own perception that s/he has
enough skills to face the academic demands (Salanova et al., 2009).
In relation to the predictive capacity of engagement in university students, Schaufeli,
Martinez, Marques Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker (2002), in a study involving three
4 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

European countries, showed that engagement was positively related to academic perform-
ance. Santiago, Tremblay, Basri, and Arnal (2008) claimed that enthusiasm, commitment
and a positive attitude towards study tended to be very good predictors of students’ results.
Belvis et al. (2009) observed that the personal factors of dedication and motivation were
strongly correlated with the performance of university students, a fact that led them to
consider those as key factors. On the other hand, Wagenmakers (2003) showed that the
students’ motivation and commitment to academic performance were crucial for their
results. Abello, Llano, and Palacio (2007) suggested that there was a reciprocal causation
between engagement and the performance of university students.

Research questions
The literature regarding university students has shown that resilience and engagement
could help explain their academic performance (Allan et al., 2014; Santiago et al., 2008).
Turner, Holdsworth, and Scott-Young (2017) suggested that resilience and engagement
could work together in order to achieve a successful academic performance. However, at
present, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have used the dimensions of resilience
and engagement together to explain the academic performance of first-year university stu-
dents. In order to correct this gap found in the literature, we formulated four main research
questions. Research question 1 is: ‘Do the dimensions of resilience and engagement con-
tribute to explaining the academic performance of first year university students?’ Research
questions 2 and 3 explore this relation in more detail. Specifically, research question 2 is: ‘Is
the explanatory capacity of the dimensions of resilience and engagement in the academic
performance of first-year students different depending on gender?’ Research question 3 is:
‘Is the explanatory capacity of the dimensions of resilience and engagement in the academic
performance of first-year students different depending on whether or not students study
the degree they marked as first-choice when applying to university (fulfillment of the stu-
dent’s expectations)?’ Finally, research question 4 is: ‘What are the differences between the
students who abandon their degree in the first academic year and those who remain in uni-
versity after their first year, concerning the dimensions of resilience and engagement?’

Method
Participants
The sample involved 748 full-time students of the first-year degree in Administration and
Business Management at two public Business faculties in Northern Spain. The two fac-
ulties had similar features insofar as class-group size (70–75 and 70–80 students respect-
ively per theory group; 25–30 and 25 students respectively per practise group), the average
number of students per professor (42 and 45 respectively) or the fees to be paid per regis-
tered ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) (14.60 € and 14.39 € respectively). The
students in both faculties had the possibility of obtaining scholarships for the fees,
travel, residence and academic performance. Both faculties also granted special scholar-
ships to students who were in especially difficult financial situations.
For the purpose of this study, all the newly registered students in both faculties (N =
950) were asked to participate. They received direct information from one of the
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 5

researchers (GM) concerning the purpose of the investigation. They were also informed
that the research was neither directed nor driven by the university and that their responses
would be treated in the strictest confidence. All participants were volunteers and 78.7%
completed the questionnaires (the response rates were 80% and 77.4%, respectively).
The sample was comprised of 59.4% females and 40.6% males. The respondents, on
average, were 18.72 years old (SD = 1.50; range: 17–24), their degree access mark was
7.22 (SD = 1.62; range: 5–12.44) and they devoted 2.41 hours/day to reading or completing
the tasks proposed in class (SD = 0.96; range: 1–4). Only 17.4% of the students obtained a
scholarship for studies. Added to this, 49.3% of their male parents held a higher education
status, 39.1% had pursued their secondary education and 11.6% had concluded their
primary education. As regards their female parents, 53.6% held a higher education
status, 39.1% had pursued their secondary education and 7.2% had concluded their
primary education. Seventy-nine percent of the students were pursuing the degree
elected as a first option upon their application for university access.

Procedure
Both the study and the working program obtained ethics approval from the Deans and the
Academic Commissions of both faculties. The researchers were in charge of explaining the
purpose of the investigation to the students as well as distributing and collecting the
surveys. All the questionnaires were completed in class, during class time and without
the presence of a teacher or Faculty representative.
Data were gathered at three time points. During the second week of September 2015 (T1),
two weeks after the beginning of the academic year – when data on resilience were gathered,
and during the fourth week of November 2015 (T2) – when data on engagement were gath-
ered. In T1, we gathered 770 questionnaires. In T2, 22 students who had participated in the
first round of questionnaires decided not to participate in the second one. The amount of
time that elapsed between T1 and T2 was explicitly included in the analytical design for
two reasons: (a) to give the student sufficient time to get to know the peculiarities of the uni-
versity environment and the degree that they had chosen; (b) to create a temporary, contex-
tual and psychological separation and to minimize the potential impact of common method
variance; In T3, we collected the data concerning the academic performance of the students.
These data were provided by the Deans after the end of the academic year, during the last
week of July 2016. The students who dropped out of their studies identified themselves
during the month of December 2016.

Instruments
Engagement
We used the Spanish version of the Welfare Survey within the academic context (UWES-
S) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) in order to measure the three dimensions of engagement:
vigor, dedication and absorption. Six items were used (e.g., ‘My student tasks make me
feel energized’) to evaluate vigor, five items to evaluate dedication (e.g., ‘I believe my
career to have a significance’) and six items to evaluate absorption (e.g., ‘Time runs spee-
dily when I do my student homework’). Respondents indicated their level of agreement
with the statement per each item by using a 7-point Likert scale from never/not even
6 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

once (0) to always/everyday (6). Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) found that each of the three
measurements showed adequate parameters for both internal reliability and convergent
and discriminate validity. In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha for each of the scales was:
.73 (vigor), .79 (dedication) and .77 (absorption).

Resilience
We used the Spanish version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale Questionnaire
(CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003) proposed by Manzano-García and Ayala (2013)
comprising 23 items, in order to measure the three scales of resilience: hardiness, resour-
cefulness and optimism. Nine items were used to measure hardiness (e.g., ‘I can make
unpopular or difficult decisions’), seven to measure resourcefulness (e.g., ‘I know where
to turn for help’) and seven to measure optimism (e.g., ‘I see the humorous side of
things’). Respondents indicated their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). The correlation of items 6, 10 and 20
within their scale (optimism) was minor .23 (below .35, which was established as the
minimal enough value) and were eliminated from the analysis. This led to an increase
of 0.32 in the reliability of the scale. Manzano-García and Ayala (2013) found that each
of the three measurements showed adequate parameters for both internal reliability and
convergent and discriminate validity. In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha of each of the
scales was: .80 (hardiness), .74 (resourcefulness) and .71 (optimism).

Academic performance
It was measured as the quotient between the number of academic ECTS (European Credit
Transfer System) recognized and the number of registered ECTS. Full-time first-year
degree students were required to enroll in a total of 10 subjects, amounting to 60 European
Credit Transfer System (ECTS). Students had the right to attend two exam sittings in order
to pass the subject and had to attend one of them.

Dropout
It was defined as students who newly registered in their first-year degree during the aca-
demic course 2015/2016 and who were not registered in any subject during the next aca-
demic course (2016/2017).

Control variables
Age, gender, scholarship, father’s and mother’s education level, degree access mark, the
student does or does not pursue the degree elected as first choice upon the application
for university access and daily dedication to study were proposed as control variables
because they might have systematic relationships with academic performance (Casillas
et al., 2012; Ukpong & George, 2013).

Data analysis
In order to determine the roles of resilience and engagement in understanding the aca-
demic performance of first-year students, hierarchical linear regression was carried out.
In these analyses, the dependent variable was academic performance and the independent
variables were the three factors of resilience and the three factors of engagement. We first
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 7

added the control variables and then the independent variables. The validity of each model
was evaluated according to R 2, adjusted R 2 and F test of statistical significance.
In order to identify the differences concerning the dimensions of resilience and engage-
ment amongst those students who dropped out of their degree in the first year and those
who remained in the university, we carried out a MANOVA analysis. All the analyses were
conducted using the SPSS program, version 24.

Results
Table 1 shows the average value and standard deviation for each of the study’s variables.
Results confirmed the discriminant validity since none of the correlations reached a value
of .60, below the .85 threshold established by some authors (Garson, 2006).
Prior to testing the different models of hierarchical regression, we first carried out
different ANOVA analyses in order to test if the academic performance of students
differed according to their gender, their holding a scholarship of study, the educational
level of the father, the educational level of the mother and whether or not the student
was pursuing the first degree choice upon application for university access. Results
showed that academic performance depended on gender [0.74 females vs 0.66 males, F
(747) = 8.90, p = .003] and on whether or not the student was pursuing the first degree
choice upon application for university access [0.74 vs 0.48; F (747) = 30.29; p < .001].
All other results were statistically non-significant. We then correlated the degree access
mark and the number of hours/days that they normally devoted to reading and the com-
pletion of tasks proposed in class with regard to academic performance. Only the degree
access mark-academic performance correlation (r = .45; p = .002) proved to be statistically
significant. Consequently, we decided to retain the degree access mark, gender and
whether or not the student was pursuing the first degree choice upon application for uni-
versity access (control variables) in further analyses in order to achieve the maximum
power for the following tests.
The Beta coefficients of the regression analysis using the complete sample (N = 748), as
well as their corresponding standard errors, are displayed in Table 2. Much as in the rest of
the models analyzed, the Durbin-Watson statistics showed that the serial correlation of
residuals took values that were within the acceptance range (1.5 and 2.5). This means
that there was no auto-correlation problem in the data. The Condition Index in all
models was within the range of acceptance (15–20). In all cases, variance inflation
factor (VIF) values remained below the recommended maximum value, which is
around 5. This meant that there was no multi-collinearity problem in the regression
models used for this study.
Data revealed that both the degree access mark and gender helped predict the perform-
ance accomplished by students. Results further showed that two dimensions from resili-
ence (hardiness and resourcefulness) and two from engagement (dedication and
absorption) had a statistically significant positive relationship with academic performance.

Academic performance and gender

The results of hierarchical regression with the overall sample, alongside those of the
ANOVA analysis, pointed out the need to further explore and acknowledge how the
 8
J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO
Table 1. Complete sample. Mean (M), standard error (SE) and intercorrelations in terms of age, gender, educational level of the father (ELF), educational level of the
mother (ELM), Access degree mark (ADM), Order in which student elected the pursuing degree (OSEPD), Daily Study Hours (DSH), Academic Performance (AP), Vigor
(V), Dedication (D), Absorption (A), Hardiness (H), resourcefulness (R) and optimism (O).
M SE Age Gender ELF ELM ADM OSEPD DSH AP V D A H R O
Age 18.72 1.50 1
Gender 1.45 0.50 .19 1
ELF 2.56 0.88 −.06 −.05 1
ELM 2.45 0.80 −.17 −.25* .34** 1
ADM 7.22 1.62 −.29* −.02 −.07 .10 1
OSEPD 1.27 0.66 .09 .22 .01 −.04 −.15 1
DSH 2.41 0.96 −.09 −.37** .13 .17 −.27* −.07 1
AP 0.71 0.29 −.15 −.24* −.05 .13 .45** −.28* −.16 1
V 17.35 5.53 .16 .16 −.03 −.10 .07 −.00 −.38** .07 (.73)
D 21.66 5.01 .13 .23* .01 .02 −.02 −.12 −.35** .12 .56*** (.79)
A 18.57 5.98 .13 .16 .19 .14 .05 −.07 −.33** −.02 .59*** .51*** (.77)
H 32.56 5.59 .08 .01 −.10 −.05 .09 −.02 −.14 −.09 .49** .37** .39** (.80)
R 26.96 4.33 .03 .19 −.08 −.03 .22 −.11 −.37** .12 .60*** .54*** .41** .58*** (.74)
O 9.73 2.26 .16 .19 −.09 −.01 .15 −.06 −.24* −.04 .34** .27* .26* .44** .47** (.71)
Cronbach’s α reliabilities for the scales are shown along the diagonal.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 9

Table 2. Hierarchical linear regression model on the relationship between engagement factors,
resilience factors and academic performance. Complete sample (N = 748).
Engagement and
resilience model,
Control variables control variables
βa SEb β SE
Gender −0.15*** 0.01 −0.24*** 0.02
Access Mark 0.45*** 0.01 0.39*** 0.01
Order in which student elected the pursuing degree 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02
Hardiness 0.52*** 0.00
Resourcefulness 0.42*** 0.00
Optimism 0.04 0.01
Dedication 0.32*** 0.00
Absorption 0.15** 0.00
Vigor 0.09 0.12

R2 .22 .42
Adjusted R 2 .21 .40
Change in F value 38.63*** 23.94***
a
Standardized regression coefficients; bStandard Error.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

dimensions of engagement and resilience had an influence, concerning gender, upon the
academic performance of first-year university students. The results of the hierarchical
linear regression models developed, with the male samples on the one hand, and with
the female ones on the other (see Table 3), showed that hardiness, resourcefulness and
dedication helped explain the academic performance of both males and females. Neverthe-
less, the importance of each one of these was different according to gender. Moreover,
absorption was shown to be a predictive variable of academic performance in males but
not in females.

Table 3. Hierachical linear regression model on the relationship between engagement factors,
resilience factors and academic performance in terms of gender.
Women (n = 444) Men (n = 304)
Engagement Engagement
and resilience and resilience
Control model, control Control model, control
variables variables variables variables
βa SEb β SE βa SEb β SE
Access Mark 0.27*** 0.01 0.35*** 0.01 0.60*** 0.01 0.53*** 0.01
Order in which student elected the pursuing −0.04 0.05 0.13 0.05 −0.01 0.02 0.24*** 0.03
degree
Hardiness 0.85*** 0.01 0.17* 0.01
Resourcefulness 0.42*** 0.01 0.45*** 0.01
Optimism 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.01
Dedication 0.27** 0.00 0.34*** 0.01
Absorption 0.02 0.00 0.26*** 0.00
Vigor 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.01

R2 .08 .39 .36 .58

Adjusted R 2 .07 .37 .35 .56
Change in F value 9.81*** 18.91*** 53.70*** 15.86***
a
Standardized regression coefficients; bStandard Error.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
10 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

Academic performance and order in which student elected the pursuing degree
The variable ‘order in which student elected the pursuing degree’, which can identify
whether the university has fulfilled the student’s expectations, only turned out to be sig-
nificant in the explanation of academic performance in males. And yet, the ANOVA
analysis showed that academic performance differed in terms of whether or not the
student was pursuing the elected degree as a first choice. As may be observed in
Table 4, hardiness was the factor that most explained the academic performance of stu-
dents who were pursuing the degree chosen as the first option, while dedication was the
factor that most explained the academic performance of students who were pursuing
the degree chosen as the second or later option.

Resilience and engagement of students dropping out on their first year

With the aim to identify the differences between the dimensions of resilience and
engagement among students dropping out on their first year and those remaining at
the university, we conducted a MANOVA analysis. This analysis showed that the
vectors of means of the dependent variables were significantly different in these two
groups of students. Pillai’s trace, Hotelling-Lawley’s trace, Wilk’s lambda and Roy’s
largest root generated identical F statistics [F (6, 741) = 10.39, p < 0.001]. The results
of the univariate ANOVAs showed that the students who dropped out of their univer-
sity studies in the first year (23% of the students registered) had, in average, different
levels of vigor [F (1, 746) = 6.18; p = .014], hardiness (F(1,746) = 7.72; p = .006) and
resourcefulness [F (1,746) = 19.22; p < .001) as compared to those who remained in uni-
versity. More specifically, students who dropped out of their studies showed lower
levels of vigor (16.27 vs. 17.95), hardiness (24.74 vs 26.45) and resourcefulness
(18.55 vs 20.44).

Table 4. Hierachical linear regression model on the relationship between engagement factors,
resilience factors and academic performance on whether the selected degree be or not the first option.
Students pursuing their selected degree as a Students pursuing their selected degree as a
first option (n = 593) second or ulterior option (n = 155)
Engagement and Engagement and
resilience model, resilience model,
Control variables control variables Control variables control variables
βa SEb β SE βa SEb β SE
Access Mark 0.43*** 0.01 0.41*** 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.14 0.03
Gender −0.08 0.03 −0.15** 0.03 −0.62*** 0.06 −0.47*** 0.07
Hardiness 0.50*** 0.00 0.55* 0.02
Resourcefulness 0.35*** 0.01 0.16 0.01
Optimism 0.16** 0.01 0.44 0.04
Dedication 0.31*** 0.00 0.69*** 0.01
Absorption 0.13* 0.00 0.60* 0.02
Vigor 0.05 0.00 0.23*** 0.02

R2 .18 .41 .38 .43

Adjusted R 2 .17 .39 .37 .41
Change in F value 38.75*** 21.89*** 23.71*** 29.88***
a
Standardized regression coefficients; bStandard Error.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 11

Discussions and implications

The ongoing study sought to delve into the influence of resilience factors and engagement
to explain the academic performance of university students during their first academic
year. Our data revealed that both the degree access mark and gender contributed to
their academic performance. These results, on the one hand, were in line with those
who had claimed that academic performance in university students might be explained
in terms of past academic performance (Salanova et al., 2009); on the other hand, they sup-
ported previous findings insofar as gender influenced academic performance and it was
higher in females than in males (Pirmohamed et al., 2017).
For all individuals taken together, two control variables (gender and access mark)
explained 22% of the variation in academic performance (p < .001). The next step of
the analysis added the influence of hardiness, resourcefulness, optimism, dedication,
absorption and vigor to the model regarding academic performance. These six variables
accounted for an additional 20% of the variation in academic performance. Of the six
dimensions considered in the explanation of academic performance, that which showed
the greatest explanatory power was hardiness. Resourcefulness and dedication presented
significant and equally important, although lower, β coefficients. This result, similar to
that found by Allan et al. (2014), suggested that the academic performance of first-year
students depended greatly upon the skills, knowledge, abilities and initiative that they pos-
sessed and which enabled them to feel capable of achieving their goals, feel that they had
control over their lives, and that they were personally responsible for their own results.
They moreover needed to get involved, show enthusiasm and be concentrated and
immersed in their studies.
When individuals were divided into gender-specific groups, the results of the hierarch-
ical linear regression analyses showed that not all factors of resilience and engagement
helped to equally explain the academic performance of first-year students. Besides, the
ANOVA analysis showed that the academic performance of females (0.74) was signifi-
cantly higher than that of males (0.66). This result is related to the different ways in
which men and women use their abilities and capacities, and how committed they are
with the attainment of performance in their studies (Pirmohamed et al., 2017). In
females, the factors of resilience seemed to prevail over the engagement factors regarding
the explanation of their academic performance. Specifically, the ability not to be easily fru-
strated when facing an adverse situation (hardiness) showed the greatest predictive power
over academic performance. And yet in relation to males, engagement factors and resili-
ence seemed to play a more balanced role in explaining their academic performance.
When individuals were divided into specific groups in terms of whether or not they
pursued their degree as their first elected choice, the results of the hierarchical linear
regression analysis revealed that hardiness and resourcefulness were the variables
which, in addition to control variables, more highly contributed to explaining the aca-
demic performance of those who pursued the elected degree as a first option. In relation
to the group of students not pursuing their degree as a first elected option, in addition to
control variables, dedication and absorption were the variables which most highly contrib-
uted to explaining their academic performance. This might seem to be a contradictory
standpoint. Students attending their first-choice degree were expected to be more
engaged in their studies, since university had met their expectations, and therefore the
12 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

variables related to engagement should contribute more to explaining their academic per-
formance. However, it has to be considered that 60% of those who studied their first-
choice degree were women, in whom resilience factors seemed to prevail over factors of
engagement with regard to the explanation of their academic performance. In the
sample of students whose expectations had not been completely satisfied by the university,
men predominated (60%), in whom engagement factors seemed to prevail over factors of
resilience with regard to the explanation of their academic performance.
Our study provides evidence-informed recommendations for the universities. In the
first place, resilience and engagement were factors offering additional information,
beyond that offered by control variables, regarding the explanation of academic perform-
ance in students. Therefore, they should be taken into consideration, in addition to the
degree access mark, if the admission of students wants to be optimized with the objective
to improve their future academic performance. In the second place, as previous studies
had suggested, resilience and engagement might be developed and encouraged (Salanova,
Breso, & Schaufeli, 2005). Although students are responsible for improving their levels of
resilience and engagement, university could also contribute to their improvement through
specific programs that trained students in searching for creative responses, in the adap-
tation to change, in assertive communication, in relaxation techniques, in the accomplish-
ment of a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, in the development of
skills to help them cope with different kinds of situations optimistically and courageously
(McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001). Furthermore, programs should be designed to help stu-
dents learn a positive give-and-take feedback, to develop patience and tolerance, to learn
from mistakes and to build confidence in themselves (Khoshouei, 2009). These programs
could help first-year university students increase their resilience and engagement, which
would ultimately contribute to improving their academic performance and to reducing
dropout. In addition to the specific courses that trained in the development of resilience
and engagement, all professors should use in their classes pedagogical tools, which con-
tribute to increasing the resilience and engagement of their students (Hu & Kuh, 2002).
Moreover, Abello et al. (2007) suggested that there was a reciprocal causation between
engagement and the academic performance of university students. The results by Johnson
et al. (2015) and Allan et al. (2014) similarly suggested that there could be a reciprocal cau-
sation between resilience and the academic performance of university students. Therefore,
training in resilience and engagement from the moment when the student accesses univer-
sity could start up an important process, which could improve the performance of students
in the forthcoming academic courses and reduce the duration of study completion.

Limitations and future research

This study, as any study, has several limitations that are worth noting. First, our results
were based on a sample of university students of the Administration and Business Man-
agement degree, who studied at two different faculties; therefore, findings could not be
generalized across the higher education sector. Future studies should test the relationship
which has been particularly addressed here on specific samples comprising students pur-
suing different degrees and studying at different universities. Second, the variables that we
have used to understand the issue of academic performance could all be considered of a
personal nature. There are other added circumstantial and institutional factors which
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 13

though difficult to control (e.g., financial problems, illnesses, ineffective psycho-pedagogi-

cal university departments, etc.) might contribute to explaining the academic performance
of students. Future research could further delve into the elucidation of academic perform-
ance by adding these factors to the ones that have been used in the present study.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid limitations, our work did incorporate some visible
strengths as well. Measuring the variables involved at three distinct moments in time
allowed us to overcome diverse limitations associated with cross-sectional research. The
use of a time-lagged design did not permit to observe the cause-and-effect relationship
of the study variables; and yet, it allowed us to test the influence of resilience and engage-
ment concerning the explanation of academic performance in a more rigorous manner
(Valls, González-Romá, & Tomás, 2016). Moreover, the collection of data from two
different sources (students and Deans) further contributed to reducing the potential for
common-method variance.

Conclusion
The results of our article supported prior findings that resilience might explain the aca-
demic performance of university students (Beauvais et al., 2014). They also supported pre-
vious research that showed that engagement affected the academic performance of these
students (Belvis et al., 2009). However, our work went beyond this, as it showed, on the
one hand, that the academic performance of first-year university students was related to
the dimensions of both resilience and engagement. On the other hand, it showed that
the resilience and engagement factors affected the explanation of academic performance
differently depending on the gender and on whether or not the students were studying
the degree that they chose as first option. This article also showed that students who
dropped out of their degree during the first academic year had less willingness to
devote their efforts to studying and a lower perseverance when facing difficulties than
those students remaining in the university. They also had a lower response to frustration,
often doubted their capacities and felt that they had less control over their actions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Juan Carlos Ayala http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0883-2149

References
Abello, C., Llano R., & Palacio, S. J. (2007). Relación del Burnout y el rendimiento académico con la
satisfacción frente a los estudios en estudiantes universitarios [Burnout relationship and aca-
demic performance with satisfaction with university studies]. Avances en Psicología
Latinoamericana, 25(2), 98–111.
Ainscough, L., Stewart, E., Colthorpe, K., & Zimbardi, K. (2017). Learning hindrances and self-
regulated learning strategies reported by undergraduate students: Identifying characteristics of
resilient students. Studies in Higher Education, 8(21), 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1315085
14 J. C. AYALA AND G. MANZANO

Allan, J. F., McKenna, J., & Dominey, S. (2014). Degrees of resilience: Profiling psychological resi-
lience and prospective academic achievement in university inductees. British Journal of Guidance
& Counselling, 42(1), 9–25. doi:10.1080/03069885.2013.793784
Beauvais, A. M., Stewart, J. G., DeNisco, S., & John, E. (2014). Factors related to academic success
among nursing students: A descriptive correlational research study. Nurse Education Today, 34
(6), 918–923. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.12.005
Belvis, E., Moreno, V., & Ferrán, J. (2009). Explanatory factors for the academic success and failure
in Spanish universities during the process towards European convergence. Revista Española de
Educación Comparada, 15, 61–92.
Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (2002). Different disciplines require different motivations for student
success. Research in Higher Education, 43(6), 693–725.
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y. L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting
early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial character-
istics, and behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407–420. doi:10.1037/a0027180
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
319–338. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. doi:10.1002/da.
10113
European Commission. (2015). Dropout and completion in higher education in Europe. Retrieved
from http://supporthere.org/sites/default/files/dropout-completion-he_en.pdf.
Eurostat. (2016). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/
Education_and_training_statistics_at_regional_level/es.
Garson, G. D. (2006). Validity. In Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved from http://
www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/validity.htm.
Garzón-Umerenkoval, A., & Gil Flores, J. (2017). El papel de la procrastinación académica como
factor de la deserción universitaria [The role of academic procrastination as a factor of university
desertion]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(1), 307–324. doi:10.5209/rev_RCED.49682
Holdsworth, S., Turner, M., & Scott-Young, C. M. (2017). Not drowning, waving. Resilience and
university: A student perspective. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.
1284193
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (Dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influ-
ences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575.
Johnson, M. L., Taasoobshirazi, G., Kestler, J. L., & Cordova, J. R. (2015). Models and messengers of
resilience: A theoretical model of college students’ resilience, regulatory strategy use, and aca-
demic achievement. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 869–885. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.893560
Khoshouei, M. S. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-
RISC) using Iranian students. International Journal of Testing, 9, 60–66.
Li, Y., Cao, F., Cao, D., & Liu, J. (2015). Nursing students’ post-traumatic growth, emotional intel-
ligence and psychological resilience. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(5),
326–332. doi:10.1111/jpm.12192
Manzano, G. (2002). Burnout y engagement. Relación con el desempeño, madurez profesional y
tendencia al abandono de los estudiantes [Burnout and engagement. Relationship with perform-
ance, professional maturity and tendency to drop out of students]. Revista de Psicología Social, 17
(3), 237–249.
Manzano-García, G., & Ayala, J. C. (2013). Psychometric properties of Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale in a Spanish sample of entrepreneurs. Psicothema, 25, 245–251. doi:10.7334/
psicothema2012.183
Marí-Klose, P., Marí-Klose, M., Granados, F. J., Gómez-Granell, C., & Martínez, A. (2009). Informe
de la Inclusión Social en España 2009 [Report on Social Inclusion in Spain 2009]. Fundació
CaixaCatalunya. Retrieved from http://www.redeseducacion.net/articulos/Informes/
informe20inclusion20social%202009.pdf.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 15

McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. D. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic
performance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research &
Development, 20, 21–33.
Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte (MECD). (2017). Datos y cifras del sistema universi-
tario español 2015–2016 [Data and figures of the Spanish university system 2015–2016].
Retrieved from https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/d/21461/19/0.
Morton, S., Mergler, A., & Boman, P. (2014). Managing the transition: The role of optimism and
self-efficacy for first-year Australian University students. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 24(1), 90–108.
Naylor, R., & Smith, J. (2004). Degree performance of Economics students in UK universities:
Absolute and relative performance in prior qualifications. Scottish Journal of Political
Economy, 51, 250–265. doi:10.1111/j.0036-9292.2004.00305.x
Pirmohamed, S., Debowska, A., & Boduszek, D. (2017). Gender differences in the correlates of aca-
demic achievement among university students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education,
9(2), 313–324. doi:10.1108/JARHE-03-2016-0015
Reyes, A. T., Andrusyszyn, M. A., Iwasiw, C., Forchuk, C., & Babenko-Mould, Y. (2015). Resilience
in nursing education: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Education, 54(8), 438–444.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20150717-03
Salanova, M., Breso, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Hacia un modelo espiral de las creencias de
eficacia en el estudio del burnout y del engagement [Towards a spiral model of efficacy beliefs
on the burnout and engagement research]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11, 215–231.
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., & Breso, E. (2009). How obstacles and facilitators
predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and engagement.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 26(1), 18–23. doi:10.1080/10615800802609965
Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E., & Arnal, E. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society.
París: OCDE.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and
engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
33, 464–481.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES Utrecht work engagement scale. Utrecht: Utrecht
University.
Turner, M., Holdsworth, S., & Scott-Young, C. (2017). Resilience at university: The development
and testing of a new measure. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 386–400.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1185398
Ukpong, D. E., & George, I. N. (2013). Length of study-time behaviour and academic achievement
of social studies education students in the University of UYO. International Education Studies, 6
(3), 172–178. doi:10.5539/ies.v6n3p172
Valls, V., González-Romá, V., & Tomás, I. (2016). Linking educational diversity and team perform-
ance: Team communication quality and innovation team climate matter. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 89, 751–771. doi:10.1111/joop.12152
van der Meer, J., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Torenbeek, M. (2010). It’s almost a mindset that teachers
need to change: First-year students’ need to be inducted into time management. Studies in Higher
Education, 35(7), 777–791. doi:10.1080/03075070903383211
Wagenmakers, E. J. (2003). Burnout, bevlogenheid en studieprestaties bij studenten [Burnout,
engagement and academic performance in students]. PhD diss., Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Zautra, A. J., Hall, J. S., & Murray, K. E. (2010). Resilience: A new definition of health for people and
communities. In J. R. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 3–
30). New York: Guilford.