Scholarlink

Background <p>This comparative study provides cross-cultural insights into key protective factors for disadvantaged students’ academic resilience in Korea and South Africa. Grounded in the Ecological Systems Theory and the Developmental Assets Framework, the goal of this study is to learn lessons from the comparison of resilient vs. non-resilient students in both nations and inform evidence-based policies towards asset-based pathways to academic resilience.</p> Methods <p>Mixed research methods are used: (1) statistical analyses of TIMSS 2019 8th grade (Korea) and 9th grade (South Africa) math assessment/survey databases and (2) a case study of resilient vs. non-resilient students in South Africa. It examines both between-country and within-country inequalities of adversities (risk factors) and assets (protective factors). The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analyses of math achievement gaps reveal both endowment effects (i.e., differences in assets) and parameter effects (i.e., differences in the associations between assets and achievement).</p> Results <p>Findings show that South Africa lags behind Korea in math achievement not only due to higher adversities and lower assets but also due to more negative adversity effects (i.e., greater risk vulnerability) and less positive asset effects (i.e., lower returns on assets). Findings also show within-country differences between resilient and non-resilient student groups. In South Africa, resilient students perform better by having not only more assets but also better utilization of assets (i.e. stronger asset-achievement relations). In contrast, Korean resilient students have more assets, but they do not show stronger asset effects than their non-resilient counterparts. While both internal and external assets contribute to resilience, internal assets (e.g., learning motivation, confidence, and efforts) are the stronger differentiator between resilient and non-resilient groups in this sample.</p> Conclusions <p>Educational policy implications are discussed to measure and develop unrealized potential among disadvantaged students, specifically asset-driven pathways for academic resilience. This study calls for further research on culturally-responsive assessment of both risk and protective factors in large-scale international assessments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Asset-based pathways to academic resilience in Korea and South Africa: a comparative study of TIMSS math achievement gaps based on risk and protective factors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月17日

查看全文
  • Jaekyung Lee,
  • Jagmeet Kaur

摘要

Background

This comparative study provides cross-cultural insights into key protective factors for disadvantaged students’ academic resilience in Korea and South Africa. Grounded in the Ecological Systems Theory and the Developmental Assets Framework, the goal of this study is to learn lessons from the comparison of resilient vs. non-resilient students in both nations and inform evidence-based policies towards asset-based pathways to academic resilience.

Methods

Mixed research methods are used: (1) statistical analyses of TIMSS 2019 8th grade (Korea) and 9th grade (South Africa) math assessment/survey databases and (2) a case study of resilient vs. non-resilient students in South Africa. It examines both between-country and within-country inequalities of adversities (risk factors) and assets (protective factors). The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analyses of math achievement gaps reveal both endowment effects (i.e., differences in assets) and parameter effects (i.e., differences in the associations between assets and achievement).

Results

Findings show that South Africa lags behind Korea in math achievement not only due to higher adversities and lower assets but also due to more negative adversity effects (i.e., greater risk vulnerability) and less positive asset effects (i.e., lower returns on assets). Findings also show within-country differences between resilient and non-resilient student groups. In South Africa, resilient students perform better by having not only more assets but also better utilization of assets (i.e. stronger asset-achievement relations). In contrast, Korean resilient students have more assets, but they do not show stronger asset effects than their non-resilient counterparts. While both internal and external assets contribute to resilience, internal assets (e.g., learning motivation, confidence, and efforts) are the stronger differentiator between resilient and non-resilient groups in this sample.

Conclusions

Educational policy implications are discussed to measure and develop unrealized potential among disadvantaged students, specifically asset-driven pathways for academic resilience. This study calls for further research on culturally-responsive assessment of both risk and protective factors in large-scale international assessments.