https://curriculumstudies.

org

E-ISSN: 2690-2788
Journal of Curriculum Studies Research
Volume: 5 Issue: 1 2023

pp. 63-81

Perceptions of Academic Resilience by Senior Phase Learners and

Teachers from Low Socioeconomic Schools
Motlalepule Ruth Mampane*

* Faculty of Education, Department ABSTRACT

of Educational Psychology, This article reports on the perceptions of academic resilience of Grade
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 8 and Grade 9 learners and their teachers in low socioeconomic
South Africa
Email: [email protected] township schools. Learners from township schools experience many
risk factors that can impede their academic success and careers. A lack
Article Info of resources is one of the risk factors experienced by the learners.
Received: July 31, 2022 During COVID-19, where an online or hybrid learning model was relied
Accepted: November 14, 2022 on for teaching and learning, most township schools relied on the
Published: March 14, 2023
rotational learning model instead. The study’s main aim is to evaluate
10.46303/jcsr.2023.6 and understand the learners’ perceptions of their academic strengths,
future aspirations and motivation, and to compare their perceptions
with those that emerged from their teachers’ blind evaluations. The
How to cite
Mampane, M. R. (2023). Perceptions participants were teachers (n = 8) and learners (n = 12) from two
of Academic Resilience by Senior purposively sampled township secondary schools. Data-generation
Phase Learners and Teachers from instruments included semi-structured interviews for learners and a
Low Socioeconomic Schools. Journal self-constructed Likert-type-scale questionnaire for teachers. Content
of Curriculum Studies Research, 5(1),
analysis was used to analyse the data. The findings suggest that risk
63-81.
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2023.6 factors to academic resilience exist within the family and the school
environment. Lack of parental support and school security, poor
Copyright license teacher-learner relationship and unemployment were frequently
This is an Open Access article mentioned. However, factors that can enhance academic resilience
distributed under the terms of the
were also identified within the family, school and community. Risks
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license. and protective factors affecting learners’ immediate threats and
needs were identified. Access to technology and the need for
technological advances were not identified as resources or risks.
Future research should examine the relationship between resilience,
academic resilience, career aspirations and the role of technology in
education.
KEYWORDS
Academic resilience; relational; family support; future aspirations;
secondary school, low socioeconomic schools.
 64

INTRODUCTION
Learners from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds often find it difficult to succeed
academically (Sinay, 2018). They experience continual academic and social challenges in their
academic, home and community environments (Kader & Abad, 2017). These challenges may put
them at risk of poor academic achievement at school. Academic resilience is a rare attribute
that characterises learners who overcome multiple academic adversities. Martin and Marsh
(2009, p. 353) define academic resilience as a “student's capacity to overcome acute or chronic
adversities that are seen as major assaults on educational processes”. These authors confirm
that there are risk factors in the education process. However, academic resilience is accounted
for when an individual experiences academic success despite multiple risk factors. Similarly,
Novotny (2011) and Perez et al. (2009) define academic resilience as academic success and
persistence, despite stressful events. Academic resilience is a dynamic process that (by
definition) acknowledges the existence of multiple risk factors. Schools play a significant role in
the academic achievement of learners. According to Bayat et al. (2014), the quality of education
in schools from a low socioeconomic background is poor. In South Africa, these schools are
mostly for black and coloured learners. The negative influence of low socioeconomic status on
the quality of the education and academic achievement of learners in such contexts is well
documented in the literature (Adebola, 2021; Bayat et al., 2014; Crosnoe, 2009; Lim et al., 2014;
Thrupp, 1998). A study by Lim et al. (2014, p. 3) concluded that “academic school quality has a
considerable differential effect on school completion for those who come from the lowest
socioeconomic band” and “the quality and socioeconomic profile of schools matter with respect
to academic outcomes” (Lim et al., 2014, p. 8). Thus, even though the quality of education for
learners from low socioeconomic contexts matters a lot and should not be ignored, it is difficult
to offer high-quality schooling when faced with limited resources and compounding adversities.
To enhance access to education, the government funding model of South African schools
is pro-poor, where poor learners receive a larger subsidy than their richer counterparts. Hall and
Giese (2008) confirm that, even though the norms and standards for school fee exemptions and
no-fee schools are state measures to redistribute resources and improve access to quality
education, they achieve little success. These attempts are not sufficient to equalise resources
between low socioeconomic schools and middle to higher socioeconomic schools. The most
unequally distributed resources are human resources – mostly affecting teaching capacity –
because salaries are not allocated on a pro-poor basis (Hall & Giese, 2008).
The government of South Africa introduced its school fee exemptions policy in the South
African Schools Act of 1996, and outlined it in the regulations of 2006. The funding model
divided schools into quintiles 1–5 (where 1 is lower and 5 higher). Quintile 1–3 schools receive
more funding from the government and are referred to as no fee-paying schools (Dass &
Rinquest, 2017) or, in some instances, pay low school fees because they cater for learners from
low socioeconomic family backgrounds. This puts more pressure on school resources because
parents cannot afford high school fees, which creates more opportunities for high teacher:

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

65

learner ratios and the overcrowding of classrooms. Furthermore, Quintile 1–3 schools also cater
for learners from informal housing settlements as a result of a lack of adequate housing facilities
and high rates of unemployment.
The school fees waiver for Quintile 1–3 schools (and learners within these categories) is
seen as financial support to parents and learners from such schools, as well as an incentive to
encourage and improve school attendance, and protect parents and learners from the financial
burden of school fees. Although low socioeconomic schools are situated in low socioeconomic
environments, learners from low socioeconomic contexts in South Africa are free to attend
other public schools (even those schools in Quintiles 4–5), with the possibility of a school fee
waiver if they qualify in terms of the policy.
Academic success is key to a successful future and the career aspirations of learners.
However, exposure to multiple risk factors – including lack of access to educational resources
and the possibility of receiving poor-quality education – exposes the learner to potential
academic failure. Academic resilience is important to learners from low socioeconomic
backgrounds as it can enable them to achieve academic success. Learners are considered to be
academically resilient if they can maintain high levels of achievement, despite the stressful
challenges they encounter in their developmental context (Martin & Marsh, 2006). Gafoor and
Kottalil (2011) distinguish clearly between the concepts of being academically at-risk and
academic resilience. Academically at-risk learners are defined as those “facing problems in
school-related aspects and manifest poor academic performance”, while academic resilience is
shown by learners “who successfully respond to the risk conditions and demonstrate academic
success” (Gafoor & Kattalil, 2011, p. 107).
Resilience literature shows that a supportive relationship with caring adults is a key
resilience protective factor (Masten, 2011; Theron, 2012) and that resilience is an interactive
and reciprocal process. Theron and Engelbrecht (2012, p. 265) agree that “responsive adults are
synonymous with protective resources that buffer risk and enable prosocial development,
provided that youth and adults engage in reciprocal, resilience-promoting transactions”.
Teachers are caring adults within the school system, who can significantly buffer academic risk
factors and thus enhance the academic resilience of their learners. This article, therefore,
reports on and highlights perceptions of the academic resilience of Grade 8 and Grade 9 learners
and their teachers.
Sadly, with the emergence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and posthuman era, many
schools in disadvantaged communities lack the resources to implement technology in their
teaching and learning (Oke & Fernandes, 2020; Skhephe & Mantlana, 2021). The lack of
implementation of technology in teaching and learning at the school level might further be
affected by poor teacher training and lack of confidence in the use of e-learning, including poor
network connectivity (Hameed & Hashim, 2022; Mncube et al., 2019; Moloi & Mhlanga, 2021;
Moyo, 2022). Teaching methodologies in disadvantaged schools were not adapted to include
technological advances or advance the posthuman era. Similarly, learners in this study have not

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 66

identified technology as a resource, or protective or risk factor in their academic performance.

The disjuncture between the use and significance of technology in teaching and learning
(especially smart mobile phones) and social media platforms requires more research as learners
seem to have a dichotomous view of their use during class. A study by Mncube et al. (2019)
indicated that teachers rely more on traditional methods of teaching, reading from textbooks
and writing on the board, rather than incorporating hybrid or e-learning methodologies, and
thus enhancing posthuman teaching and learning methodologies. Similarly, Moyo (2022)
indicates that posthuman technological advances can be enjoyed more if access to resources is
enabled, especially in disadvantaged schools. Thus, knowledge of risks and protective factors to
learners’ academic success can help indicate how they can access resources that can advance
their educational success.
LITERATURE REVIEW ON A LOW SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND SUPPORT
Low socioeconomic status and single motherhood were found to be important potential risks
for developing children (Crawford, 2006). Single mothers often have the lowest-paying jobs and
live in poor households. Research indicates that most children from poor households develop
behavioural problems that affect them academically and increase the likelihood of school
dropout at an early age (Crawford, 2006). Although learners from low socioeconomic
backgrounds tend to perform inadequately at school, literature shows that not all of them are
academically unsuccessful (Willis & Hofmeyr, 2018). Learners from low socioeconomic
backgrounds have specific educational needs when compared to learners from higher
socioeconomic backgrounds (Sandoval-Hernandez & Cortes, 2012). Willis and Hofmeyr (2018)
argue that poverty is a risk factor that jeopardises many learners’ academic and future
prospects. Youth in high-risk environments are labelled as high risk because of the possibility of
developing behavioural problems due to their exposure to multiple risks in their developmental
environment (Abukari, 2010).
Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in shaping the academic prospects and
future aspirations of adolescents. Robinson and Diale (2017) believe that socioeconomic status
influences adolescents’ career aspirations. According to Salgotra and Roma (2018),
socioeconomic status determines the quality of education a learner will receive and the kind of
career for which the family can afford to pay. Having high future aspirations can be
complemented by improved achievement at school (Khattab, 2018). Although having a good
parent-child relationship can be beneficial for a child’s academic performance, the family’s
socioeconomic status also plays a definite role (Khattab, 2018). Parents will need to provide
resources and skills to ensure they meet their child’s high future aspirations (Khattab, 2018).
A study by Gore et al. (2015) indicates that learners from high socioeconomic status
backgrounds tend to have higher aspirations than learners of lower socioeconomic status. The
study found that even if learners from low socioeconomic backgrounds have high aspirations
and gain entry to a university, financial burdens often emerge as a risk factor at university (Gore
et al., 2015). It is furthermore believed that parents’ educational level can serve as an inspiration

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

67

for young people (Abiola, 2014). A study by Willis and Hofmeyr (2018) confirms that learners’
individual factors, such as their socio-emotional skills and environmental factors (e.g. time-on-
task and the availability of texts [school resources]), emerged as strong correlates with academic
resilience. Therefore, this research must explore the perceptions of academic resilience of
Senior Phase learners from low socioeconomic schools. The Senior Phase is critical because that
is when learners choose the careers they wish to pursue, and need to follow the relevant stream
in school (Khattab, 2018).
Research by Thompson (2018) indicated that learners from low socioeconomic
backgrounds perform poorly compared to those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. This
outcome is due to several factors, such as not having an academic-friendly environment at home
or parents not being able to provide the resources for things such as schoolbooks for the child
to succeed at school (Thompson, 2018). Another study by Abdu-Raheem (2015) indicates a
correlation between parents’ educational level and the learner’s motivation in high school.
Family support is crucial for a child to perform well in school. A family can be supportive by
assisting the child to complete their homework, motivating a positive attitude towards the
teachers and school, and showing great interest in the child’s education (Okten, 2016).
Regarding our understanding of what constitutes academic success or performing well in school,
York et al. (2015, p. 5) define academic success as “academic achievement, attainment of
learning objectives, acquisition of desired skills and competencies, satisfaction, persistence, and
post-college performance”. Most schools measure academic success in terms of promotion to
the next grade.
Support is a complex construct. According to Suldo et al. (2009), social support is a
multidimensional construct that involves four types of support: emotional, instrumental,
appraisal and informational. Emotional support is defined by trust and love, and includes
communications of empathy and care. Instrumental support involves tangible assistance and
presence such as one’s time, skills, services or even money when the child is in need. Appraisal
support refers to “providing evaluative feedback on behaviour, for instance, critical assessment
(whether positive or negative) of the child’s performance and suggestions for improvement”
(Suldo et al., 2009, p. 68–69). Informational support is characterised by providing guidance,
advice or information that can help to solve a problem. Within each context of child
development (whether family, school, community or social), all forms of support are important.
It is therefore not surprising that all four dimensions of support tend to be lumped into one
definition of support.
METHODOLOGY
A qualitative research methodology was adopted using complementary research methods,
namely a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. According to Creswell (2014),
qualitative researchers view reality through multiple lenses and gather multiple forms of
evidence. The study followed an interpretivist paradigm influenced by phenomenology (Mack,

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 68

2010). An interpretive paradigm assumes multiple realities with the perception that a single
phenomenon could have multiple interpretations. Phenomenology, on the other hand, aims to
describe research phenomena as they manifest to understand them while focusing on the
subjective interpretation of human experiences (Chan et al., 2016).
The primary method of data collection was semi-structured interviews because they are
known to generate rich, in-depth data from a relatively small sample of participants (Creswell,
2014). Twelve (n = 12) adolescents participated in these semi-structured interviews, while eight
teachers (n = 8) completed a self-constructed survey questionnaire. Subject teachers for the
Grade 8 and Grade 9 learners from two Quintiles 1–3 schools in the Mamelodi township of
Pretoria, South Africa, were requested to complete the questionnaire for the 12 learners selected
for the interviews. The questionnaire required these teachers to evaluate the academic and social
behaviour of the learners blindly, as well as confidentially.
Due to their being professionals and having knowledge of assessment, the teachers were
requested to complete the questionnaire and allocate an average score (as a percentage) based
on the overall performance of the learners’ school-related behaviour (Mampane, 2010). It was
assumed that teachers might lack knowledge of the learners’ coping skills and behaviour in the
home and community environment, but that they would have the knowledge to assess the overt
(and possibly covert) behaviour of the learners – especially concerning their academic
performance. Teachers used a Likert-type-scale questionnaire (see Table 1) to evaluate the
academic resilience of learners. This learning behaviour scale, which was in English and consisted
of 20 items in the form of a five-point Likert-type scale, was developed to address the essential
criteria of resilience (Mampane, 2010). In most cases, two questions covered one criterion, some
were designed in the negative to measure the consistency and dependability of the teachers’
answers to encourage objectivity and discourage adherence to a particular response style (Terre
Blanche et al., 2006, p. 294). Table 1 presents an example of one completed questionnaire of the
12 participants.
The research question explored the following: What are the perceptions of academic
resilience by Senior Phase learners and teachers from low socioeconomic schools? In the
interviews, the learners were asked the question: If you have to give yourself an academic score
(as a percentage) based on your overall performance, how would you score yourself? This
information was important to measure the learners’ perceived academic performance. Learners
were interviewed and teachers were asked to respond to the questionnaire.
Ethical considerations
Permission to conduct the research was obtained from the Provincial Department of Basic
Education, and ethical clearance was granted by the university before the initiation of the study.
Permission, in the form of informed consent and assent from participants, is key in social
research, especially to gain clarity and confirm that there was no deception (Braun & Clarke,
2013; Creswell, 2014). Informed consent and assent demonstrate respect for the participants in
the research. The following principles and ethical considerations were adhered to in the study:

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

69

confidentiality and anonymity, protection from harm, referral to a social worker for emotional
support should that be needed, and the right of participants to withdraw at any stage of the
research (Creswell, 2014).
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
The 2008 academic resilience model of Silas Casillas and its four dimensions of academic
resilience were used to gain insight into teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of academic
resilience (Sandoval-Hernandez & Cortes, 2012). Since the original work of Silas Casillas was
published in Polish and thus inaccessible to me as a researcher, only secondary works were used
to access the theory. The model explores factors that learners from adverse and detrimental
developmental contexts employ to experience academic resilience. These factors were
incorporated in the data-collection tools used in this study, i.e. the teachers’ questionnaire and
the research question put to the learners during the interviews.
The academic resilience model also borrows from Bronfenbrenner’s systemic theory to
group the data into the four dimensions of personal, family, school and community factors.
According to Sandoval-Hernandez and Cortes (2012), as well as Shah and Thomas (2016), the
personal dimension, which constitutes self-confidence and effort or motivation, is essential for
the process of resilience, and is mostly nourished and supported by the family dimension.
Similar to the family dimension, within the school dimension of resilience, the learner accesses
emotional support from the teacher and peers (Shah & Thomas, 2016). These authors further
confirm that educational resilience works because of the manifested determination of the
individual, i.e. the personal dimension.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Teachers were requested to use the Likert-type scale to score learners in terms of their
perceived academic behaviour at school. The teachers’ scores on the questionnaire, compared
to the learners’ scores on the scales Always and Very often, were percentage-wise scored higher
by teachers (80–70%) for the following questions (variables): 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19,
and 20 (see Table 1). The rating Sometimes was used mostly with questions 4, 13 and 17. The
ratings Rarely and Never were selected for items 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 17, often for learners
who were scored lower percentages by teachers (60–40%).

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 70

Table 1: Example of scoring the learning behaviour scale: Teachers

QUESTIONS Always Very Sometim Rarely Never

often es
1. The learner is afraid to attempt new things. 1 2 3 4 5
2. The learner chooses positive role models. 5 4 3 2 1
3. The learner performs beyond what is 5 4 3 2 1
expected,
i.e. extends him or herself.
4. The learner has no adult support. 1 2 3 2 1
5. The learner is able to utilise support provided 5 4 3 2 1
to him/her.
6. The learner does the work required 5 4 3 2 1
independently.
7. The learner is unable to work well with other 1 2 3 4 5
learners.
8. The learner likes to be in control of things. 5 4 3 2 1
9. The learner is not afraid to attempt new 5 4 3 2 1
things.
10 The learner uses different strategies to reach 5 4 3 2 1
a solution.
11 The learner is not performing to his/her full 1 2 3 4 5
potential.
12 The learner gets support from home. 5 4 3 2 1
13 The learner is afraid to explore new 1 2 3 4 5
opportunities.
14 The learner likes to succeed. 5 4 3 2 1
15 The learner lacks future aspirations 1 2 3 4 5
16 The learner lacks motivation. 1 2 3 4 5
17 The learner cannot be trusted by his peers. 1 2 3 4 5
18 The learner has a positive influence on 5 4 3 2 1
others.
19 The learner shows potential for a bright 5 4 3 2 1
future.
20 The learner has some guts. 5 4 3 2 1

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

71

Teachers’ questionnaire scores were consistent with the overall percentage they gave
learners. They also appeared to use the questionnaire items to motivate the score given (see
Table 2 for the academic resilience percentage teachers assigned to the learners). Table 2 shows
that teachers’ scores for academic resilience are dispersed over a range between 84 and 47%.
Learners 4 and 8 – both in Grade 8, aged 13 and 14 years, respectively – were scored at 80% and
84%. These learners also scored themselves higher at 88% and 100%, both indicating that they
receive support from family, teachers, friends and other adults in the community. Four of the
five learners (learners 3, 7, 9, 10 and 12), who were scored at 70+%, scored themselves 80+%
(with Learner 7 scoring 100%). The only exception was Learner 12, who scored himself at 62%.
All the learners indicated adult support and family support in their lives, with some also
indicating school support. Learner 12, who scored himself at 62% on academic performance,
conceded to having academic problems. However, it seems the teacher saw the best in the
learner because of the 77% given to him. The teachers’ highest ranking was 84% compared to
the learners’ 100%, while the lowest ranking was 47%, compared to the learners’ 62%. Two
learners (learners 2 and 6) received a score of 60+% for academic resilience from teachers.
However, since Learner 2 saw herself as academically successful and resourceful, with support
from family, friends and teachers, she scored herself at 100% for academic resilience. Learner 6
scored himself at 62%, which correlates well with the teacher’s score. What was concerning,
though, was that Learner 6 perceived he had no support in his environment, and rejection was
highlighted as one of his risk factors. Two learners (1 and 11) received academic resilience scores
of 58% and 59% from their teachers, whereas Learner 1 scored himself at 88% and Learner 11
scored herself at 68%. Both learners indicated they had talents and family support. Learner 5,
who received an academic resilience score of 47% (the lowest score), assigned herself a score
of 68%. The learner saw herself as being academically competent with self-confidence and
supportive friends.

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 72

Table 2: Risk and protective factors per interviewed learner and overall percentage score for
academic resilience
Risk factors inferred from interview Protective factors Overall Overall
Learner

Gender

and questionnaire (teacher inferred from percentag percentag

Grade
Age

evaluation) interview and e by e by

questionnaire teacher learner
1 1 M 9 Divorce, parental rejection (father), Talents (soccer and 58% 88%
6 poverty, overcrowding (grandmother’s sprinting). Family
place), academic problems (failed support.
Grade 8), corporal punishment
(school), separation from siblings
(sister).
2 1 F 9 Unemployment, poverty, anxiety in Support (aunt, 67% 100%
5 heterosexual interactions, concern friend, teachers,
over parents, poor study habits and and family).
time management. Unsafe Resourcefulness.
environment. Academic success.
3 1 M 9 Illegitimacy, poor stepparent Support (father, 75% 100%
7 relations, migration, academic granny, aunt,
problems, unemployment (aunt and teachers and
mother), cultural demands family friend).
(circumcision versus school demands) Leadership role.
and need to belong (establish
identity). Risk-taking behaviour
(gambling).
4 1 F 8 Death (mother), conflict relations Support (family, 80% 88%
3 (father), poverty (unemployed friends, teacher).
granny), corporal punishment Sense of humour,
(school). Violent neighbourhood. sports
(community).
Awards (sports).
5 1 F 9 Parental death (mother), death Academic 47% 68%
4 (sibling), poverty, unemployment, competence,
pregnancy (sibling), rejection (sibling supportive friends,
rejection, peer rejection and family dreams. Self-
rejection). confidence.
6 1 M 8 Poverty, single parenting, Talent, dreams, 62% 65%
7 unemployment, peer rejection religion,
(bullies), academic problems, punitive employment.

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 73

measures (school and home: corporal

punishment), conduct problems.
7 1 F 8 Unemployment, poverty, traumatic Support (teachers, 73% 100%
3 experience (sister’s burn accident; family, peers,
violent death of friend: murder). friends, church),
religion, academic
success.
8 1 M 8 Maths problems, peer rejection and Talents (drama, 84% 100%
4 pressure (bullies), drugs. Dangerous drawing, soccer,
neighbourhood (bullied), unruly class cricket), support
behaviour (disruption of class). (family, friends,
Corporal punishment. teachers).
9 1 M 8 Corporal punishment (school), family Emotional support 73% 89%
4 discord (parental conflicts and fights). (aunt, friends,
girlfriend), talents
(gardening),
corporal
punishment.
1 1 F 9 Academic problems, poverty, Religious beliefs, 75% 89%
0 8 unemployment, single parenting, support (sister,
alcohol abuse (mother), lack of stable friends, priest).
residence, rejection by family,
emotional abuse (mother).
1 1 F 8 Death (two aunts), single parent. Talents (braids hair 59% 68%
1 5 Unemployment, poverty. Corporal for money),
punishment (school). support (family,
teachers, friends).
1 1 M 9 Death: parents (both) and siblings Family support, 77% 62%
2 7 (two), poverty, academic problems, talents, academic
corporal punishment (school), problems.
truancy, peer rejection.

With regard to the presence of risk and protective factors in their environment, learners
were able to name a few (see Table 3). Although learners focused on family, community and
school risks, the following risks were mentioned five times or more during the interview:
parental neglect, bad parental influence, lack of family support, lack of security at school and
parental unemployment. Most of the risks mentioned above manifested in the family
environment, which is the learner’s immediate environment. Unemployment and lack of family
support were mentioned 80+%. Research has shown that learners with loving, caring and
supportive parents tend to achieve higher grades at school (Crawford, 2006). When asked about

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 74

the risk factors to their academic resilience and success, learners mentioned only two risks more
than ten times: inability to pass Mathematics and poor teacher-learner relationships. These two
risks are teacher related. According to Hughes et al. (2008, p. 2), students who experience
“teacher-student interactions characterised by high levels of warmth and support or low levels
of conflict gain more in achievement”.
Learners accredited their academic success to various factors, including individual factors.
The latter illustrate their own initiative in taking control of their lives, taking responsibility for their
academic success and being proactive in accessing the resources available. The following factors
were mentioned more than five times as being significant to the academic success of learners: being
disciplined, seeking further academic information, seeking academic support from friends, seeking
teacher support, seeking academic support from home, having self-confidence, working hard and
working as a team. The above indicates what is within the learners’ control. However, learners
viewed factors significant to their academic success, but outside their control – and within the
teacher’s control – as good teacher-learner relations and teachers’ ability to teach well.
Furthermore, the attributes mentioned have a positive impact on academic achievement and can
assist learners in having self-esteem, staying motivated and becoming resilient (Crawford, 2006). An
individual’s attributes can successfully buffer them against academic failure.
Table 3: Clustered risk and protective factors per research question
Research question Categories and frequency
What are the risk factors in • Accident in the family (2)
your environment? • Bad learner-to-learner relationship (6)
• Bad parental influence (6)
• Carelessness (1)
• Death of a parent (4)
• Divorce (3)
• Fear of the unknown (2)
• Fighting between parents (3)
• Keeping wrong friends
• Lack of family support (14)
• Lack of security at school (16)
• Loss of hope (2)
• Bullying (3)
• Parental unemployment (11)
• Parental neglect (5)
• Peer pressure (3)
• Poor accommodation (3)
• Poverty (3)
• Security challenges (2)

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

75

Research question Categories and frequency

• Taking drugs (4)
What are the risks to your • Boredom (2)
academic success? • Class indiscipline (1)
• Failing exams (3)
• Failure to give maximum attention to academic work (4)
• Inability of teachers to teach well (1)
• Inability to pass maths (11)
• Inability to pass maths and science subjects (2)
• Lack of diligence (1)
• Not asking for assistance in school (2)
• Not attending classes (5)
• Peer pressure (2)
Poor teacher-learner relationship (18)
• Struggling academically (1)
What helps you to • Asking questions (1)
succeed academically? • Being ambitious (1)
• Being disciplined (7)
• Creating self-interest in school subjects (2)
• Having self-determination (4)
• Discipline from teachers (4)
• Encouragement from teachers (3)
• Attending extra classes after school (3)
• Good teacher-learner relationship (25)
• Teachers’ ability to teach well (7)
• Seeking academic support from home (17)
• Seeking assistance at school and at home (1)
• Seeking assistance from teacher (1)
• Seeking further academic information (6)
• Seeking academic support from friends (8)
• Seeking teachers’ support (6)
• Having self-confidence (15)
• Working hard (28)
• Working as a team (6)
• Planning not to fail (1)
Silences • Access and use of technology or technology is not
viewed as a resource (protective factor) or a risk factor

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 76

DISCUSSIONS
The theoretical framework adopted in this study, Silas Casillas’s Model of Academic Resilience, as
discussed by Sandoval-Hernandez and Cortes (2012), is defined by the four dimensions of
academic resilience: personal, family, school and community (environment). The learners in this
study identified their risk and protective factors in these four dimensions. In most instances, the
risks were externalised, while the protective factors were internalised. Learners could directly link
the risks to an external system that disempowered them, while the protective factors indicated
their abilities and resilience. The most frequently mentioned risk (mentioned 16 times) (see Table
3) involved a lack of security at school, showing that lack of safety is a huge concern to learners.
According to Kutsyuruba et al. (2015, p. 103), “school climate, safety and well-being of students
are important antecedents of academic achievement”. Learners in this sample had concerns
about their safety in school, which could also indicate a lack of safety in their community, as
schools are a microcosm of their communities.
Student achievement is an important outcome in the education system. Learners
therefore indicated poor teacher-learner relationship (18 times), bad learner-to-learner
relationship (six times) and inability to pass Mathematics (11 times) as deterrents to their
academic success. The three risk factors were directly linked to the school and classroom
climate, the quality of teaching and learning, the well-being of learners, and the relationship
with teachers and their peers. The instructional programme of mathematical teaching and
learning was of great concern to learners and thus detrimental to their academic resilience. This
risk was beyond their control and could only be resolved by quality teaching, which is seen as
missing. Kutsyuruba et al. (2015) believe that maintaining a strong academic focus, good staff
performance and morale, and establishing a positive school climate can enhance and improve
student achievement. Support from the classroom teacher is an important indicator of student
success (Suldo et al., 2009). Furthermore, positive teacher-student relationships showing
respect, support and being valued by the teachers are key to student success (Suldo et al., 2009).
Thus, Jowkar et al. (2011) define academic resilience as the ability to bounce back from low
academic performance and alienation. It gives positive prospects to learners experiencing risk
in their learning and school environment.
Within the family context, learners focused more on their parents. The identified risks
were bad parental influence (six times), lack of family support (14 times) and parental
unemployment (11 times). All these risks were related to parenting and low socioeconomic
family background (unemployment). Parents were viewed as the responsible individuals who
can harm the learner’s academic success, as learners require strong support from their parents.
Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that family support gives learners a sense of
control over their success or failure in school. A study by Rojas (2015), which explored how
family and environmental factors can foster academic resilience, found that, although having a
supportive family can foster academic resilience, other family risk factors can negatively impact
children’s academic resilience. The risk factors mentioned above are examples of how family

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

77

risk can impede the academic success of learners. The link between low socioeconomic family
background and poor academic success is also shown by Yeung and Li (2019), who indicated
that children from low socioeconomic status or dysfunctional families tend to have lower
academic performance and may drop out of school early. Parental support influences how
children perform and participate in the classroom (Okten, 2016). Ruholt et al. (2015) define
parental support as being emotionally there for your child and enabling your child to be
dependent on you as a parent whenever the child needs to do so. A study by Shahzad et al.
(2015) revealed that children who are guided and supported by parents do better in school than
those who are supported less by their parents.
Learners are considered academically resilient if they can maintain their high level of
achievement, regardless of any stressful challenges they come across that may negatively
impact their performance in school (Martin & Marsh, 2006). Regarding what they require to
succeed academically, the learners in the current study looked to themselves for answers. The
focus was more personal (internal) than external, with a sense of ownership and internal locus
of control. With the risk factors mentioned above, the locus of control was external. The
question motivated them to find positives in their family, school and environment. In the
absence of support, they took the initiative to seek support; thus, they took charge and engaged
with their environment to find solutions to their problems. Their responses were as follows:
being disciplined (seven times), working as a team (six times), working hard (28 times), having
self-confidence (15 times), seeking teacher support (six times), seeking academic support from
friends (eight times), seeking further academic information (eight times), seeking academic
support from home (17 times), teacher’s ability to teach well (seven times), and good teacher-
learner relationship (25 times). Anghel (2015) defines academic resilience as an indicator of how
well learners adjust in school and is a significant predictor of class participation and motivation
to study. These protective factors indicate the positive adjustment of learners. It is important to
understand that a learner’s academic resilience can be influenced by different factors, such as
having supportive parents at home and being present in class and participating (Sinay, 2018).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The learners in this study perceived academic resilience to be key to their academic success, and
identified risks that were detrimental to their academic resilience within their family, school and
environmental contexts. In line with the definition of academic resilience of Sinay (2018) as the
ability to overcome learning difficulties and bounce back, the learners identified individual
strengths that can assist them in achieving academic success. The study’s findings showed that it
is difficult for learners from disadvantaged family backgrounds to succeed academically. This may
be because learners encounter academic and social challenges daily, whether in their academic
space, home or community (Kader & Abad, 2017). Although the challenges put them at risk of low
achievement at school, academically resilient students were able to adjust regardless of the
hardships they might come across (Kader & Abad, 2017). None of the learners in this study

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 78

indicated technology as a risk or protective factor. This might be because their schools are not
using technology resources for teaching and learning.
It is recommended that this study be used as a pilot for a bigger study to involve more
learners (quantitatively) and teachers to explore the concepts of academic resilience, academic
success and low socioeconomic status. More research is needed in this field, especially in
contexts where the quality of teaching and learning is poor.

REFERENCES
Abdu-Raheem, B.O. (2015). Parent's socio-economic status as predictor of secondary school
students' academic performance in Ekiti state, Nigeria. Journal of Education and
Practice, 6(1), 123-128.
Abiola, J. (2014). Impact of educational aspiration on vocational choices of the female
secondary school students in Ondo West local governance area of Ondo state.
European Scientific Journal, 10(10), 224-233.
Abukari, Z. (2010). Risk and protective factors associated with academic achievement among
Ghanaian youth. [University of Denver].
Adebola, O. (2021). Supplemental Instruction as a Tool for Students’ Academic Performance in
Higher Education. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 4(2), 42-51.
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2021.4
Anghel, R.E. (2015). Psychological and educational resilience in high vs. low-risk Romanian
adolescents. Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences 203, 153-157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.274
Bayat, A., Louw, W., & Rena, R. (2014). The impact of socio-economic factors on the
performance of selected high school learners in the Western Cape province, South
Africa. Journal of Human Ecology, 45(3), 183-196.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners.
Sage.
Chan, L., Morris, N., & Wilton, L. (2016). Research paradigms: Interpretivism.
http://www.intgrty.co.za/2016/08/15/research-paradigms-interpretivism/
Crawford, K.M. (2006). Risk and protective factors related to resilience in adolescents in an
alternative education program. https://doi.org/scholarcommons.ufs.edu/etd/2493
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Low-income students and the socioeconomic composition of public high
schools. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 709-730.
Dass, S., & Rinquest, A. (2017). School fees. In F. Veriava, A. Thom, & T.F. Hodgson (Eds.), Basic
education rights handbook: Education rights in South Africa (pp. 140-159). Department
of Education. https://eelawcentre.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/chapter-7.pdf

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

79

Gafoor, K.A., & Kottalil, N.K. (2011). Within-child factors fostering academic resilience: A
research review. Endeavours in Education, 2(2), 104-117.
Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., Southgate, E., & Albright, J. (2015). Socioeconomic status and
the career aspirations of Australian school students: Testing enduring assumption.
Australian Education Resilience, 42(2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-
0172-5
Hall, K., & Giese, S. (2008). Addressing quality through school fees and school funding. In S.
Pendlebury, L. Lake, & C. Smith (Eds.), South African child gauge 2008/2009. Children's
Institute, University of Cape Town.
Hameed, B.S., & Hashim, H. (2022). Challenges faced by teachers in integrating 4th Industrial
Revolution (4IR) technology in teaching English as a second language (ESL). Creative
Education, 13(5), 1792-1809. https://doi.org/ 10.4236/ce.2022.135113
Hughes, J.N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.M., & Loyd, L. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful
engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
Jowkar, B., Kholat, N., & Zakary, H. (2011). Communication patterns of the family and
academic resilience. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 29, 87-90.
Kader, N.A., & Abad, M. (2017). A study of relationship between academic resilience and
protective factors among senior secondary students. Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 22(11), 51-55. https://doi.org/10.970/0837-2211035155
Khattab, N. (2018). Ethnicity and higher education: The role of aspirations, expectations and
beliefs in overcoming disadvantage. Ethnicities, 18(4), 457-470.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796818777545
Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D.A., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate, school
safety, and student achievement and well‐being: A review of the literature. Review of
Education, 3(2), 103-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043
Lim, P., Gemici, S., & Karmel, T. (2014). The impact of school academic quality on low
socioeconomic status students. Australian Economic Review, 47(1), 100-106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12055
Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia, 19, 5-
11.
Mampane, M. R. (2010). The relationship between resilience and school: A case study of
middle-adolescents in township schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates; A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267-281.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:
Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and
cognate constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 353-370.

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

 80

Masten, A.S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for
research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2),
493-506.
Mncube, V., Olawale, E., & Hendricks, W. (2019). Exploring teachers' readiness for e-Learning:
On par with the Fourth Industrial Revolution? International Journal of Knowledge,
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 5-20.
Moloi, T., & Mhlanga, D. (2021). Key features of the fourth industrial revolution in South
Africa's basic education system. Journal of Management Information and Decision
Sciences, 2(5), 1-20.
Moyo, Z. (2022). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: A literature study of challenges associated
with access to education in rural schools in Zimbabwe. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 12(3), 125-125.
Novotny, J.S. (2011). Academic resilience: Academic success as possible compensatory
mechanism of experienced adversities and various life disadvantages. New Educational
Review, 23(1), 91-101.
Oke, A., & Fernandes, F.A.P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the
perceptions of the education sector on the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR). Journal of
Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(2), 31.
Okten, P. (2016). Parental academic support. International Journal of Educational Research
Review, 1(2), 18-24.
Perez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., & Coronado, H.K. (2009). Academic resilience among
undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(2), 149-
181.
Robinson, L., & Diale, B. (2017). Through the eyes of children: Exploring Grade 7 career
aspiration. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 7(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v7i1.500
Rojas, L.F. (2015). Factors affecting academic resilience in middle school students: A case
study. GIST: Education and Learning Research Journal, 11, 63-78.
Ruholt, R., Gore, J.S., & Dukes, K. (2015). Is parental support or parental involvement more
important for adolescents? Undergraduate Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 2-8.
Salgotra, A.K., & Roma, K. (2018). Educational aspiration and socio-economic status among
secondary school students. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 23(3), 25-2.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2303102529
Sandoval-Hernandez, A., & Cortes, D. (2012). Factors and conditions that promote academic
resilience: A cross-country perspective. [University of Bath].
Shah, M.G.J., & Thomas, S. (2016). Theoretical perspectives on understanding secondary
school students' psychosocial and educational outcomes. English-Marathi Quarterly,
5(111), 13-29. http://sanshodhanchetana.com/issues/Dec2016/2.pdf

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81

81

Shahzad, M., Abdullah, F., Fatima, S., Riaz, F., & Mehmood, S. (2015). Impacts of parental
support on academic performance among secondary school students in Islamabad. The
Explorer Islamabad: Journal of Social Science, 1(7), 228-231.
Sinay, E. (2018). Academic resilience: Students beating the odds. Organisational Development/
Research and Information Services, 5(1), 394-416.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322862555
Skhephe, M., & Mantlana, C. (2021). Accounting Teachers’ Voices on Factors Affecting Online
Teaching during the 4th Industrial Revolution in the Face of COVID-19 in Selected High
Schools in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Research in Social Sciences and
Technology, 6(3), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.32
Suldo, S.M., Friedrich, A.A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J. (2009). Teacher
support and adolescents' subjective well-being: A mixed-methods investigation. School
Psychology Review, 38(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Kelly, K. (2006). First steps in qualitative data analysis. In
M.T. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied
methods for the social sciences. UCT Press.
Thabethe, S.C. (2015). Negotiating the transition between primary and high school within the
context of teaching and learning science: A case study in the Umgungundlovu district.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/125f/660906c2df4d420eaf67f1a3d42a4ef28bdf.pdf
Theron, L.C. (2012). Resilience research with South African youth: Caveats and ethical
complexities. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 333-345.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/008124631204200305
Theron, L.C., & Engelbrecht, P. (2012). Caring teachers: Teacher – youth transactions to
promote resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of
theory and practice. Springer.
Thompson, S. (2018). Achievement at school and socioeconomic background- an educational
perspective. npj Science of Learning, 3(5). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0022-0
Thrupp, M. (1998). The art of the possible: Organizing and managing high and low
socioeconomic schools. Journal of Education Policy, 13(2), 197-219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130203
Willis, G., & Hofmeyr, H. (2018). Academic resilience in challenging contexts: Evidence from
township and rural primary schools in South Africa. International Journal of Educational
Research, 98, 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.001
Yeung, W.J., & Li, H. (2019). Educational resilience among Asian children in challenging family
environment. Social Indicators Research, 153(2), 675-685.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-01-02143-7
York, T.T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7275/hz5x-tx03

JCSR 2023, 5(1): 63-81