38 minute read
Elyse Rawlson
BEST OVERALL
First Prize Tara Dailey
Mystic Reverie (cover) Professor Chava Maimon
Second Prize Elyse Rawlson
A Conceptual Study of the Relationship between Hope and Thriving amongst College Students Dr. Leslie Stager
Third Prize Zane Leyden
The Relationship between Football and CTE Dr. Amy Nejezchleb
Tara Dailey
Mystic Reverie
computer image created in Adobe Photoshop 10x8 inches Spring 2021 Omaha, Nebraska
ELYSE RAWLSON
Abstract
Research identifies the contributions of positive psychology and hope theory to higher education success and student thriving. This paper examines the dynamics of college student thriving, defines positive psychology, student engagement, thriving, and hope, and evaluates the relationship between hope and thriving among college students. By understanding the relationship between hope and thriving within colleges and universities, educators can enhance students' growth by helping students thrive in their personal and professional lives.
Keywords: positive psychology, student engagement, thriving, hope, college
How do colleges define success? Most commonly, the answer is grades and graduation rates. Nevertheless, excelling in those areas does not guarantee that students will engage in authentic learning and development activities that enhance thriving during their college experience. Research from the American Council on Education and the National Center for Educational Statistics demonstrates the loss of human potential represented by the 48 to 54% of college students who do not complete their degrees (Schreiner et al., 2009). Talented students fail to achieve at levels consistent with their academic potential while experiencing unprecedented stress, an inability to make decisions, and increased dependence on parents (Feldman & Dreher, 2012). Concurrently, extensive research (Kuh, 2003; Schreiner & Louis, 2006) links various factors to student success outcomes and indicates that what students do during college has more impact on success than any college choice factors or selection (Ray & Kafka, 2014; Snyder et al., 2002). Therefore, to make a real difference in students’ lives, an imperative exists for colleges and universities to understand the factors that lead to student thriving.
One of the most promising constructs aiding in institutional assessment, student growth, well-being, and improvement efforts is student engagement (Kuh, 2003; Luthans et al., 2016). The advent of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in 2000 has increased the visibility of the construct of student engagement and allowed institutions to assess engagement intentionally and empirically (Schreiner & Louis, 2006). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) concluded that “one of the most inescapable and unequivocal conclusions we make is that college's impact is largely determined by the individual's quality of effort and level of involvement in both academic and non-academic activities” (p. 610). Thus, insight into student engagement and its predictors and components, such as hope and thriving, is imminent to students ’ future success in college and beyond. Martin Seligman, the founder of the modern positive psychology movement (Williams et al., 2018), introduced positive psychology to shift the field away from concentrating on what is wrong with people to focus on what is right. Over the past two decades, positive psychology literature has reinforced the idea that “psychological strengths and resources can shape attitudes and lead to desirable outcomes in a variety of life’s domains” (Luthans et al., 2014, p. 78). The intersection of positive psychology and higher education provides a unique framework to view student success, thriving, and the contributing aspects. Motivation, flourishing, optimism, self-efficacy, hope, mindfulness, and resilience are a few of the factors that provide invaluable
insight into student engagement and ways to help students achieve in all areas of life. Specifically, the psychological constructs of thriving and hope further explain engagement and student success. These constructs benefit students in all areas of life and indicate positive relationships with student engagement and success (Feldman & Dreher, 2012; Schreiner et al., 2009; Snyder et al., 2002). College students are the workforce of tomorrow, and higher education provides the means to train, prepare, develop, educate, and manage this future talent. Positive psychology provides a context to understand the constructs of hope and thriving and to fill in the literature gaps regarding their relationship. Conceptually, it follows that students who possess higher levels of hope will also be more likely to engage in productive educational activities and thrive in college. Hopeful, thriving students increase their ability to work to their potential, understand individual strengths, engage in healthy cultures, and foster enduring relationships during the college experience and beyond. Given the value of thriving for success in school and subsequent careers and life, examining the connections between hope and thriving further is warranted. Since research documents robust correlations between student engagement, thriving, hope, and successful student outcomes, exploring the interactions will add insight and interpretation to the literature. Therefore, to provide further understanding, the following question will be examined: What is the relationship between hope and thriving amongst college students?
Literature Review
Thriving and hope serve varied purposes that benefit individuals, organizations, and society. The linkage of both constructs with positive consequences and each other drives the investigation of the causes and relationships. To further understand the relationship between student engagement, hope, and student success, the constructs will be explored (Luthans et al., 2012: Schreiner, 2010a; Snyder, 2002; Zhoc et al., 2018).
Positive Psychology
Seligmann and Csikszentmihalyi (2000, as cited in Meyers et al., 2013) describe positive psychology as,
[w]ell-being, contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present). At the individual level, it is about positive individual traits: the capacity for love and vocation, courage, interpersonal skill,
aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom. At the group level, it is about the civic virtues and the institutions that move individuals toward better citizenship: responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance, and work ethic. (p.192)
Positive psychology encompasses the scientific study of well-being, health, optimism, and thriving. Instead of remediating problems, the concentration develops psychological strengths to help individuals create a good life that results in desirable outcomes by fostering opportunities, possibilities, and human potential (Luthans et al., 2014; Mather, 2010; Williams et al., 2018). The developing body of scientific research in positive psychology studies shows excellent promise in the educational field to fulfill the needs of students and schools (Buck & Robertson, 2008; Williams et al., 2018). Traditional academic performance drivers fail to provide answers to increase engagement or predict success (Hammill et al., 2020; Luthans et al., 2012; Martinez et al., 2019). Classrooms fail to provide learning experiences that focus on strengths, appropriate challenges, or developing initiative. An alternate approach focuses on using positive psychology to build on strengths that motivate students (Luthans et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2018). Positive psychology can help students work to their potential, engage in healthy cultures, foster enduring relationships, and influence society.
Positive Psychology and Student Engagement
One of the main areas in which positive psychology contributes to education is understanding student engagement (Williams et al., 2018). Research (Williams et al., 2018) also suggests that positive psychological traits can be taught and linked to student success and engagement. Csikszentmihalyi (1990, as cited in Buck et al., 2008) states that the goal of a researcher is to transform or transition boring and meaningless lives into ones full of enjoyment and challenging, meaningful activities that foster intrinsic motivation. Psychological concepts such as flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, as cited in Buck et al., 2008), mindful learning (Langer, 1997, as cited in Buck et al., 2008), intrinsic motivation, and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000, as cited in Buck et al., 2008) provide a means to reach these goals. A fuller understanding of the complexities of engagement within the field of positive psychology could enable institutions and faculty to design programs, curricula, and teaching strategies to facilitate student success and thriving (Schreiner & Louis, 2015). While the studies of flow and flourishing are new to education, the emphases make a valuable contribution to understanding engagement and its' components. Csikszentmihalyi (1975, as cited in Schreiner & Louis,
2015) describes flow as an “energized, alert mental state in which one loses track of time and any sense of self-consciousness as a result of becoming immersed in challenging activities that are of interest”(p. 5). While flow provides awareness of this heightened state of engagement, flourishing adds further insight into the construct. One of the main goals of positive psychology is to enable people to flourish (Seligman, 2011, as cited in Schreiner et al., 2009). Flourishing people are engaged, resilient, productive, and involved in meaningful work and relationships while experiencing fulfillment and a sense of purpose (Seligman, 2011, as cited in Schreiner 2010a). To better understand and apply the concept of flourishing to college students, Schreiner (2010a) chose the term thriving to describe intellectually, socially, and emotionally engaged college students experiencing the academic and intellectual objectives inherent to the college experience. Schreiner emphasizes the idea of thriving as a critical element of success. To successfully thrive, the development of time management, optimism, community involvement, and appreciation of differences occurs in addition to academics (Williams et al., 2018). Additionally, research (Williams et al., 2018) states that these characteristics can be taught and linked to academic success. Schreiner and Louis (2015) state that the ultimate goal of positive psychology is engaged learning, "whereby students meaningfully process what they are learning, attending to what is happening at the moment, and actively participating in the learning experience" (Schreiner & Louis, 2015, p. 12). Extensive research (Luthans et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2019; Snyder et al., 2002) has shown that positive psychological constructs foster engagement and positively affect students. Conversely, a negative association exists between academic engagement and school burnout, study demands, and depressive symptoms (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019; Luthans et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2018). Additionally, certain positive psychological constructs have indicated strong correlations with student engagement and academic success, including gratitude, hope, self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and PsyCap, (Luthans et al., 2016; Schreiner, 2010a). Specifically, the construct of hope has demonstrated unique qualities which encourage a further investigation to understand the relationship and impact on thriving in college students.
Student Engagement
“Engagement helps develop the habits of the mind and heart that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development” (Kuh, 2003, p. 5). Student engagement and its impact on learning are among the most extensively researched and applied topics in higher
education literature. Nevertheless, a 2014 Gallup-Purdue University study (Ray & Kafka, 2014) of almost 30,000 college graduates showed that only 3% of those graduates had the type of experiences in college that Gallup and Purdue University found were strongly related to fulfilling jobs and lives after college. Engagement during college was the most significant factor in determining future well-being (Ray & Kafka, 2013). The long-term effects of student engagement extend far beyond the college experience and profoundly impact graduates’ careers and life. Initially, student engagement was a concept modeled after work engagement. As stated by Schaufeli and Baker (2004), work engagement is “a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 295). The performance of students’ core activities and work toward specific goals is similar to employees’ roles. Therefore, the use of management research and constructs to investigate student actions and explain engagement behaviors occurs because student behaviors are considered “work” (Adil et al., 2019; Burch et al., 2015; Carmona-Hartley et al., 2019; Siu et al., 2013). Student engagement is a complex and multifaceted meta-construct that plays a critical role in student achievement and learning. Literature attempts to draw together the various threads of research, fostering explanations of student success. The construct is divided into four relatively distinct socio-cultural, behavioral, psychological, and holistic perspectives to understand and apply student engagement (Kahu, 2013).
Student Engagement Perspectives
Socio-cultural Perspective. The socio-cultural perspective focuses on the broader social context of the student experience. Rather than concentrating on student behavior or emotions, examining the sociocultural context of why students become engaged or alienated occurs. This perspective highlights non-traditional students and minorities and often adds neglected and valuable insight to the overall understanding (Kahu, 2013). The consideration of student support structures and the institution’s culture and the broader political and social debates impacting student engagement are critical to a fuller comprehension of the construct. Behavioral Perspective. The behavioral perspective is the most widely accepted and practiced view of student engagement, underscoring student behavior and teaching practices. These behaviors are related to student satisfaction and achievement, emphasizing how institutions affect student engagement. Within this perspective, student engagement is the time and effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities (Kahu, 2013).
The National Survey of Student Engagement and its successor, the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE), are the main survey tools used to measure student engagement within the behavioral perspective (Kahu, 2013). As of 2016, more than 1500 colleges in the U.S. and Canada have used the NSSE to collect information about the undergraduate experience (Schreiner & Louis, 2015) and increase the popularity of the student engagement concept. The NSSE focuses on student behaviors indicative of engagement and the educational practices that support such actions to effectively measure institutional quality (Schreiner & Louis, 2015). Psychological Perspective. The psychological perspective examines an individual’s internal cognitive and emotional states and external behaviors. The psychological perspective evolves and varies in intensity, creating a fuller interpretation by distinguishing between engagement and its antecedents. The malleability of the construct suggests that engagement can be improved. Further, encompassing behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions leads to a rich understanding of the student experience (Kahu, 2013; Zhoc et al., 2019). The behavioral facet of this perspective is the extent to which students are making active responses to the learning tasks presented through conduct, effort, participation, and attendance in educationally purposeful activities and interactions (Gunuc & Kuzu, 2015; Zhoc et al., 2018). Essentially, cognition facet is the way students approach learning, the degree to which their intelligent energy effectively uses deep learning strategies to comprehend complex ideas beyond the minimum requirements. The affective dimension comprises students’ investment in and emotional reactions to learning tasks and distinguishes between instrumental and intrinsic motivation (Kahu, 2013; Mandernach, 2015). Holistic Perspective. Within the holistic perspective, engagement is a dynamic continuum with different locations best measured through indepth qualitative work. This approach recognizes the strength of emotion and a broad institutional approach that supports both staff and students. The holistic method incorporates multiple perspectives and theories, such as motivation and autonomy (Kahu, 2013). Each of the four perspectives offers valuable and relevant insights into the construct of student engagement and student success. Instead of thriving, many approaches focus primarily on what we can see, those educationally purposeful behaviors that lead to learning outcomes, institutional supports for engagement behaviors, widely available programs, or predictive characteristics of achievement and persistence (Schreiner et al., 2009; Schreiner, 2010b). Focusing on controllable elements and ignoring the psychological perspective excludes explanatory variables, such as student motivation, expectations, and emotions. These variables are
necessary to provide a richer understanding of the student experience (Bean, 2005; Kahu, 2013; Steele & Fullager, 2009; Zhoc et al., 2018).
Thriving
Psychological engagement must go hand in hand with behavioral engagement. A multidimensional approach to student engagement that recognizes the links among students’ behavior, cognition, and affective responses is essential to gain insight into student success (Fredricks et al., 2004; Schreiner, 2010b; Zhoc et al., 2018). To thrive in the learning environment and not just participate in rote, expected, or required activities, students must be psychologically involved in the process (Schreiner, 2010b). Further, the construct must be malleable to allow for the development of strategic interventions to impact the student experience. As higher education seeks to advance the next generation of scholars, more must be done to help students not only survive but thrive in the college environment (Schreiner et al., 2009).
Conceptual Framework
Thriving denotes a holistic model of student success representing the intersection of higher education and positive psychology. Empirical research about what leads to positive individual and community functioning provides the background for exploring the difference between students who thrive in college compared to those who merely survive. The literature on flourishing (Keyes & Haidt, 2003; Seligman, 2011, as cited in Schreiner, 2010a) and the psychological model of student retention and persistence (Bean & Eaton, 2000) provide a conceptual framework of thriving within the field of positive psychology. According to Bean and Eaton (2000), any model of student success must include not only behaviors but also motivational factors. Through positive interactions at college, students experience an internal locus of control, proactive coping skills, and a greater sense of self-efficacy, as well as lower levels of stress (Derrico et al., 2015). These positive interactions increase students’ academic motivation and lead to academic and social integration, institutional fit and loyalty, persistence/retention, and graduation (Bean & Eaton, 2000). Positive psychology research on flourishing influences the view of well-being in the thriving construct (Derrico et al., 2005). Keyes and Haidt (2003, as cited in Derrico et al., 2005) define flourishing as “emotional vitality and positive functioning manifest through positive relationships, rising to meet personal challenges, and engagement with the world” (p. 3). Flourishing individuals have high levels of emotional, psychological, and
social well-being. An enthusiasm for life, meaningful work, resilience in the face of personal challenges, and focus beyond self to the greater good of others are additional traits (Schreiner et al., 2009). Schreiner (2010a) extended the concept of flourishing specifically to college students as the basis for the construct of thriving. Contrasting the idea of survival mode, Schreiner (2010a) employs the term thriving to describe college students who exceed expectations. Specifically, thriving in college is defined as being “fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally in the college experience” (Schreiner, 2010a, p. 3). The holistic construct includes psychosocial factors identified in the literature as predictive of student success, persistence, retention, and amenable to intervention (Schreiner, 2010a). Thriving college students fully participate in the learning process, manage the demands of college effectively, and maintain healthy relationships that allow them to gain maximum benefit from college. Students are academically successful and experience a sense of community and a level of psychological well-being that contribute to an investment in and enjoyment of the college experience (Schreiner, 2010a; Schreiner, 2010b).
Thriving Quotient
After combining interdisciplinary perspectives on well-being and student success with descriptions from successful college student instruments, Schreiner (2010a) developed the “Thriving Quotient,” an instrument that reliably measures the elements of student thriving that are predictive of academic success and persistence. Thriving is conceptualized as optimal functioning in the three critical areas of academic engagement and performance, interpersonal relationships, and intrapersonal well-being. Each of the factors empirically demonstrates as amendable to change and functions independently of gender, parent educational attainment, or academic achievement (Schreiner, 2010a). Academic Thriving. The first factor, academic thriving, consists of engaged learning and academic determination and encompasses psychological constructs empirically linked to student success, such as GPA. Academically thriving students exhibit the characteristics of deep learning, academic self-efficacy, goal direction, self-regulated learning, and investment of effort (Schreiner, 2010a). Specifically, engaged learning is the positive energy invested in learning consisting of the three components of regulating one’s learning behavior through meaningful processing, focused attention, and active participation in learning activities. Highly engaged students are psychologically present and behaviorally focused in the classroom, curious about content, and continually learning. Engaged
students typically report higher satisfaction with the learning process, faculty interactions, and academic gains (Schreiner, 2010b). Academic determination is the other side of academic thriving, encompassing one’s learning behavior. The four aspects of academic determination are goal orientation, self-regulation, environmental mastery, and investment of effort. Academically determined students are intrinsically motivated, tend to try new strategies, ask for help, and persevere through challenging situations (Derrico et al., 2015; Schreiner, 2010a; Schreiner, 2010b).
Intrapersonal Thriving. Intrapersonal thriving is composed of a factor called positive perspective that embodies healthy attitudes toward self as well as toward the learning process. Students who thrive in this area have a positive, optimistic view of the world and the future, resulting in life satisfaction, long-term viewpoint, and college enjoyment. The increase in positive emotions helps students handle stress, not overreact, have a healthy perspective, and reframe adverse events. The malleable factors of optimism and well-being encompassed in this factor are significant predictors of decreased psychological distress and increased success and life satisfaction (Schreiner, 2010a; Schreiner et al., 2009). Interpersonal Thriving. Thriving is impossible without relationships, and interpersonal thriving measures this relational aspect through diverse citizenship and social connectedness. Diverse citizenship is a complex combination of ideas consisting of openness and valuing of differences in others, an interest in relating to others from diverse backgrounds, and a desire to contribute to the world. Students have a growth mindset—believing that change is possible with effort—and the necessary confidence (Schreiner, 2010a). Social connectedness includes having friends, being in healthy relationships, and experiencing a community within the college environment. Students feel known, supported, and valued and believe that change is possible with effort (Schreiner, 2010b). Together these three malleable factors of thriving, academic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal, represent a tool that allows colleges and universities to measure student development holistically. The thriving quotient provides a means to create specific mechanisms for increasing student success, institutional effectiveness, and profitability that helps college students to thrive. Student engagement, particularly the construct of thriving, is linked to numerous positive outcomes that benefit students, institutions, and society.
Thriving is among the better predictors of student learning and development, with prior research connecting desirable results and positive learning and development outcomes (Luthans et al., 2016; Schreiner, 2010a). Research (Schreiner, 2010a; You, 2016) has found that engaged and thriving students demonstrate high levels of curiosity, interest, and citizenship, have a passion for learning and others, are motivated by challenges and complex tasks, put in more effort, and exhibit high persistence levels. In contrast, disengaged students tend to be passive, express negative emotions, and give up easily on complex tasks (You, 2016). Positive relationships among thriving and cognitive, social, selfgrowth, psychological well-being (PWB), physical well-being, and satisfaction with the university outcomes occur. These consequences include increased meaningful relationships, diversity, critical thinking, optimism, accrual of social capital, leadership, coping skills, and communication skills (Luthans et al., 2012; Martinez et al., 2019; Schreiner, 2010a; Steele & Fullager, 2015; Zhoc et al., 2018). Additionally, research (Luthans et al., 2016; Schreiner, 2010a) has indicated that thriving students demonstrate higher graduation rates, better grade point averages, better retention, greater levels of educational satisfaction, a desire for life-long learning, and post-graduation engagement at work. The psychometrically sound construct of thriving expounds on the student success outcomes already linked to student engagement (Schreiner, 2010a). Research (Schreiner, 2010a) suggests that levels of thriving appear to matter as much, if not more, than the typical characteristics and campus experiences used to predict student success. Student gains from thriving occur regardless of background differences, ethnicity, gender, academic ability, or type of institution attended, indicating that thriving may transcend circumstances and increase the likelihood of success for students from diverse backgrounds (Schreiner, 2010a). Thriving may also explain an additional 8 to18% of the variation in positive student outcomes, such as GPA, intent to graduate, and institutional fit, after adjusting for background differences and key institutional features. The mediating effects of the psychosocial factors suggest that established accomplishments such as campus involvement and studentfaculty interaction contribute to student achievement to the extent that thriving is enhanced. Thus, reaffirming that relying solely on observable, behavioral, and environmental interactions does not fully capture the portrait of student success (Schreiner, 2010a; Schreiner et al., 2013). This holistic measure of positive student functioning is a reliable, valid tool, connected to essential outcomes in higher education. The substantial research indicating the benefits of fully engaged students facilitates examining the contributors to thriving and understanding the implications and relationships largely absent from the literature.
Hope Theory
Extensive research has generated new insights and understanding regarding the potential predictors of student engagement and student success. Prior research has implied that socioeconomic status, high school grades and achievements, perceived ability, test scores, and academic preparation have a positive relationship with both constructs (Luthans et al., 2016). However, studies suggest that intelligence and ability are not the only determinants of student success and engagement, necessitating a need to understand the indicators to promote thriving (Snyder et al., 2002). Motivational and positive psychological constructs have contributed to understanding student engagement (Luthans et al., 2016; Snyder et al., 2002). Among these constructs, Hope Theory (Snyder, 1995), one of the most researched and developed constructs in positive psychology, can provide answers to a piece of the educational research puzzle. Hope offers unique advantages by conceptualizing academic motivation, offering predictive ability, and explaining behavior patterns predicted by goal theory (Snyder et al., 2002). Consequently, hope expands the possibilities of understanding and fills a void in the literature by explaining how students can utilize their strengths to achieve beyond the norm. Snyder (2002), the founder of Hope Theory, states as follows:
In studying hope, so too have I observed the spectrum of human strength. This reminds me of the rainbow that frequently is used as a symbol of hope. A rainbow is a prism that sends shards of multicolored light in various directions. It lifts our spirits and makes us think of what is possible. Hope is the same—a personal rainbow of the mind. (p. 269)
Typically, hope is viewed as an emotion. However, as a psychological construct, hope is perceived as a dynamic, cognitive, motivational system (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 820). Hope is the process of thinking about one’s goals through agency (willpower) and pathways (way power). Agency encompasses the motivation to move toward those goals while pathways are the ways to achieve those goals (Snyder, 1995). These goals are the targets of mental action sequences driven by purposeful, goaldirected behavior (Feldman & Dreher, 2012). Agentic thinking translates into the “can do” attitude that enables individuals to have the confidence to attain valued goals. Pathways represent an individual’s ability to generate strategies to accomplish goals with contingencies to overcome obstacles. This ability to create multiple pathways with motivation is critical to
students’ success when encountering challenges in the academic domain (Snyder et al., 2002; Yoon et al., 2015).
Outcomes of Hope
Hope theory suggests that an individuals’ self-perception as a goal agent inspires performance or behavior rather than the actual goal, indicating that students’ levels of hope directly affect how goals are pursued (Snyder et al., 2002). High-hope students are highly motivated, clearly conceptualize goals, internalize self-standards, and establish goals based on previous performances. These processes cause a perceived likelihood of positive outcomes and a willingness to try new approaches. Focusing on success and determination causes a reduction in distress, self-deprecatory thinking, and counterproductive, negative emotions. Further, information regarding unreached goals provides diagnostic feedback and an opportunity for growth (Snyder et al., 1991; Snyder et al., 2002). Conversely, low-hope students are ambiguous and uncertain about goals, which leads to counterproductive avoidance, disengagement thinking, and detrimental negative feelings. When confronted with obstacles, students do not try alternate pathways or learn from past experiences but instead establish big, overwhelming, and anxiety-producing goals. A belief of future poor performance causes difficulties in focusing and studying, leading to poor academic achievement (Onwuegbuzie, 1998; Snyder et al., 1991; Snyder et al., 2002). Accordingly, the academic advantages of higher hope and disadvantages of lower hope are apparent. Day et al.’s (2010) three-year longitudinal study revealed that hope was predictive of academic achievement in college students over and above prior academic performance, intelligence, and personality. Research (Curry et al., 1997; Day et al., 2010; Feldman & Dreher, 2012; Snyder et al., 2002) shows positive academic outcomes such as higher GPAs and graduation rates, retention, resilience, and vocational identity are associated with hope. Decades of research have established the positive benefits of hope in promoting psychological and physical well-being (Chang, 1998). Conceptually, it follows that students who possess higher levels of hope will be more likely to engage in productive educational activities, with empirical studies in education consistently showing hope to be predictive of student engagement (Luthans et al., 2016; Feldman & Dreher, 2012; Van Ryzin, 2011; Yoon et al., 2005). Despite the considerable amount of attention given to the relationships between hope and academic success, few studies have examined the role of hope in increasing student engagement in college students. Collectively, evidence supports the importance of hope and
thriving in student success and the malleability of the constructs, suggesting that hope plays a vital role in thriving. However, little about the mechanisms through which hope exerts its influence on students’ thriving is known. Therefore, further studies are needed to examine the linkages between hope and thriving among college students.
Figure 1
Theoretical Research Model of the Relationship between Hope, Thriving, and Student Success
Methods and Procedures
The independent variable of this study is hope, and the dependent variable is thriving. A survey will be constructed to gather data to measure and analyze the strength and direction of the relationship between hope and thriving among college students. Aspects of student success will also be measured to determine correlations among the variables.
Participants
The participants in the study were full-time college students, ages 18 and up, currently attending a public or private university in the United States. Participants were recruited through various social media platforms, including Facebook, Slack, and LinkedIn, to target students willing to
participate. Data collection began in May 2021 and continued through June 2021. Participation was voluntary, and students were not compensated. The goal was to collect a minimum of 10 responses.
Procedure
Participants were provided the questionnaire through the platform Qualtrics. The survey was accessed via computer, tablet, or mobile device through a link from Qualtrics. Upon accessing the link, the participant first encountered a consent form outlining the purpose of the study, procedures, any potential risks (no foreseeable risks are indicated), a notice of confidentiality and anonymity, the contact information of the researcher, and a notice of voluntary participation. Informed consent was required before access to the survey was granted. Once consent was provided, access to the survey was granted. First, twelve demographic questions requested information regarding gender, age, year in school, ethnicity, and major area of study. The survey consisted of eight items assessing hope, 25 items assessing thriving, and nine items assessing student success factors using a Likert-type scale. Two open-ended questions were also included. Participants were directed to answer the questions concerning their current, personal experiences when completing the survey. Upon completion, the instrument was submitted through a link directly to Qualtrics.
Materials
The utilized measure included specific validated and reliable scales already developed for measuring hope and thriving, plus additional openended questions. The questions measured the variables of hope and thriving.
Hope Trait Scale
The adult Trait Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) consists of the four-item agency subscale and four-item pathways subscale. Items were assessed using an 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Both subscales have adequate internal reliability, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from .70 to .84 for the Agency subscale and from .63 to .86 for the Pathways subscale (Snyder et al., 1991). Questions for the Trait Hope Scale are shown in Appendix A.
Thriving Quotient
The Thriving Quotient (TQ) (Schreiner et al., 2013) used as a model was refined for concision and psychometric strength among 25,000 students after the pilot version was administered in 2008. The TQ scale (α = .88) contains survey items representing malleable psychosocial constructs predictive of student success consisting of the five latent factors that comprise thriving: Engaged Learning, Academic Determination, Positive Perspective, Social Connectedness, and Diverse Citizenship. Students responded to each item on a 5-point Likert type scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Thriving Quotient questions are shown in Appendix B.
Student Success
Thriving and hope have been linked with various positive student success outcomes (Day et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2016; Schreiner, 2010a; Snyder et al., 2002). Outcomes of student success, such as grades, university satisfaction, intent to graduate, and future goals, were self-reported to determine any correlations to hope and thriving. Student Success questions are shown in Appendix D.
Open-ended Questions
In addition to the Likert-type questions, two open-ended questions were included in the survey to draw out additional information on the students’ sense of hope and thriving. The questions are included in Appendix C.
Discussion
Limitations, Delimitations, and Future Research
This study holds several limitations, the consideration of which should prove helpful in future research. The study used a cross-sectional design in which data was collected from individuals at a single point in time. Therefore, if the results indicate a significant relationship between hope and thriving, the relationship between the variables should be interpreted only as correlations. To further examine the relationship between the variables, a longitudinal or experimental study design would be helpful. Additionally, future studies may want to distinguish between the agency and pathways of hope while examining the relationship with thriving to determine if different correlations exist. Other possible contributing factors, such as personality, socioeconomic factors, GPA, years in school, type of school,
and traditional predictors of academic performance, were not considered in this study. Future studies may want to consider these factors A convenience sample was used, with access to the number of participants limited by the time frame allocated for the research and the accessibility of participants. Participants may have included both undergraduate and graduate students from a variety of institutions. Besides increasing the number of participants, similar studies are recommended with a broader range of institutions to explore the contribution of hope to thriving in these environments. Studies could also distinguish between graduate and undergraduate students and include a more diverse population. This exploration could expand to study the relationship between hope and thriving over time rather than a specific snapshot in time, such as a semester, academic year, or the entire college experience. The access limitations may have introduced selection bias and may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations and institutions. All data collected used a self-reporting survey method, possibly causing common method and source bias to exist. Further research could use other measurement methods than self-report to examine various academic or success variables concerning hope and thriving. Value also exists in researching which practices and interventions most effectively facilitate hope and thriving, and once employed, whether such practices and interventions yield the intended benefits. Future studies should consider these issues. Despite the limitations, this study contributes to validating the relationship between hope and thriving among college students in an academic and cultural setting. Furthermore, the findings will provide implications of developing and managing students that promote students' thriving.
Conclusion
Higher education is in a time of transition as technology, finances, and decreasing retention and graduation rates inform decisions and profitability (Williams et al., 2018). Innovative and compelling discussions must continue regarding the importance of creating a transformative experience for students versus just obtaining a degree. Evidence supports the importance of hope and thriving in achieving student success and the malleability of the constructs, creating a need to further study the relationships among college students. By examining the relationship, a deeper understanding of the influence of hope on thriving can be obtained. Then, universities will have the tools necessary to remain competitive and profitable. Faculty, staff, and administrators will be equipped with the resources required to help students thrive. Most importantly, students can work to their potential, understand their strengths, engage in healthy
cultures and environments, and foster healthy relationships with faculty, administration, and peers.
Adil, A., Ameer, S., & Ghayas, S. (2019). Mediating roles of flow and study engagement between academic psychological capital and perceived academic stress among university students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(2), 12-18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341913295_Mediating_ Role_of_Flow_and_Study_Engagement_Between_Academic_Psyc hological_Capital_and_Perceived_Academic_Stress_among_Unive rsity_Students/citation/download
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The Psychology Underlying Successful Retention Practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/6R55-4B3028XG-L8U0
Buck, B., Carr. S. R., & Robertson, J. (2008). Positive psychology and student engagement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 28-35. https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/mxtsch/positivepsycholo gy
Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., Burch, J. J., Freed, R., & Steed, S. A. (2015). Student engagement: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 224-229. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821
Carmona-Halty, M., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2019). Linking positive emotions and academic performance: The mediating role of academic psychological capital and academic engagement. Current Psychology, 40, 2938-2947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00227-8
Chang, E. C. (1998). Hope, problem-solving ability, and coping in a college student population: Some implications for theory and practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(7), 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199811)54:7%3C953::aidjclp9%3E3.0.co;2-f
Curry, L. A., Snyder, C. R., Cook, D. L., Ruby, B. C., & Rehm, M. (1997). Role of hope in academic and sport achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1257
Day, L., Hanson, K., Maltby, J., Proctor, C. L., & Wood, A. M. (2010). Hope uniquely predicts objective academic achievement above intelligence, personality, and previous academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 550–553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.009
Derrico, C. M., Tharp, J. L., & Schreiner, L. A. (2015). Called to make a difference: The experiences of students who thrive on faith-based campuses. Christian Higher Education, 14(5), 298-321. doi: 10.1080/15363759.2015.1079750
Feldman, D. B., & Dreher, D. E. (2012). Can hope be changed in 90 minutes? Testing the efficacy of a single-session goal-pursuit intervention for college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 745-759. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9292-4
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543074001059
Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, G. (2015). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 578-610. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.938019
Hammill, J., Nguyen, T., & Henderson, F. (2020). Student engagement: The impact of positive psychology interventions on students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1-14. doi: 10.1177/1469787420950589
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Avey, J. B. (2014). Building the leaders of tomorrow: The development of academic psychological capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(2), 191-199. doi: 10.1177/1548051813517003
Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Jensen, S. M. (2012). The impact of business school students’ psychological capital on academic performance. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 253-259. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2011.609844
Luthans, K. W., Luthans, B. C., & Palmer, N. F. (2016). A positive approach to management education: The relationship between academic PsyCap and student engagement. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1098-1118. doi: 10.1108/JMD-06-2015-0091
Mandernach, J. B. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 1-14. https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/367/167
Martinez, I. M., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., Chambel, M. J., & Marques-Pinto, A. (2019). Antecedents of academic performance of university students: Academic engagement and psychological capital resources. Educational Psychology, 39(8), 1047-1067. doi:10.1080/01443410.2019.1623382
Mather, P. C. (2010). Positive psychology and student affairs practice: A framework of possibility. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 157-173. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.6019
Meyers, C. M., Van Woerkom, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2013). The added value of the positive: A literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 618-632. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Relations between hope and graduate students’ coping strategies for studying and exam taking. Psychological Reports, 86(3), 803–806. https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.2000.86.3.803
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass.
Ray, J., & Kafka, S. (2014). Life in college matters for life after college. Gallup. gallup.com/poll/168848/life-college-matters-life-college.aspx
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). The “Thriving Quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. doi:10.1002/abc.20016
Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus, 15(3), 210. doi:10.1002/abc.20022
Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2006, November). Measuring engaged learning in college students: Beyond the borders of the NSSE [Conference session]. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA, United States.
Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2015). Measuring engaged learning in college students: Beyond the borders of the NSSE.
Schreiner, L.A., McIntosh, E. J., Cuevas, A. E. P., & Kalinkewicz, L. (2013). Measuring the malleable: Expanding the assessment of student success [Conference session]. Association for the Study of Higher Education, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Schreiner, L. A., Pothoven, S., Nelson, D., & McIntosh, E. J. (2009). College student thriving: Predictors of success and retention [Conference session]. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Siu, O. L., Bakker, A. B., & Jiang, X. (2013). Psychological capital among university students’ relationships with study engagement. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 979-994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9459-2
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(3), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01764.x
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind [Special issue]. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275. doi:10. 1207/S15327965PLI1304_01.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P.
(1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.60.4.570
Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams V. H. III, & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826. doi: 10.1037//00220663.94.4.820
Steele, J. P. & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(1), 5-27. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.527
Thriving Quotient Undergraduate Survey. (2021). The thriving project. www.thrivingincollege.org.
Van Ryzin, M. J. (2011). Protective Factors at School: Reciprocal Effects among Adolescents’ Perceptions of the School Environment, Engagement in Learning, and Hope. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9637-7
Williams, N., Horrell, L., Edmiston, D., & Brady, M. (2018). The impact of positive psychology on higher education. The William and Mary Educational Review, 5(1). https://scholarworks.wm.edu/wmer/vol5/iss1/12?utm_source=s cholarworks.wm.edu%2Fwmer%2Fvol5%2Fiss1%2F12&utm_med ium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Yoon, H. J., Hyoyeon, I., Niles, S. G., Amundson, N. E., Smith, B. A., & Mills, L. (2015). The effects of hope on student engagement, academic performance, and vocational identity. The Canadian Journal of Career Development, 14(1).
Won You, J. (2016). Among college students’ psychological capital, learning empowerment, and engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 17-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.001
Zhoc, K. C. H., Webster, B. J., King, R. B., Li, J. C. H., & Chung, T. S. H. (2019). Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Research in Higher
Education, 60, 219-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-95106
Trait Hope Scale Questions (Snyder et al. 1991)
1. I can think of many ways to get out of a jam. (Pathways)
2. I energetically pursue my goals. (Agency)
3. There are lots of ways around any problem. (Pathways)
4. I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me. (Pathways)
5. Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve the problem. (Pathways)
6. My past experiences have prepared me well for my future. (Agency)
7. I've been pretty successful in life. (Agency)
8. I meet the goals that I set for myself. (Agency)
Thriving Quotient Questions (Schreiner et al., 2013; Thriving Quotient Undergraduate Survey, 2021).
Academic Determination
1. I am confident I will reach my educational goals.
2. Even if assignments are not interesting to me, I find a way to keep working on them until they are done well.
3. I know how to apply my strengths to achieve academic success.
4. I am good at juggling all the demands of college life.
5. Other people would say I’m a hard worker.
6. When I’m faced with a problem in my life, I can usually think of several ways to solve it.
Diverse Citizenship
1. I spend time making a difference in other people’s lives.
2. I know I can make a difference in my community.
3. It is important to become aware of the perspectives of individuals from different backgrounds.
4. It’s important for me to make a contribution to my community.
5. I value interacting with people whose viewpoints are different from my own.
6. My knowledge or opinions have been changed by becoming more aware of the perspectives of individuals from different backgrounds.
Engaged Learning
1. I feel as though I am learning things in my classes that are worthwhile to me as a person.
2. I can usually find ways of applying what I’m learning in class to something else in my life.
3. I find myself thinking about what I’m learning in class, even when I'm not in class.
Positive Perspective
1. My perspective on life is that I tend to see the glass as “half full.” 2. I always look on the bright side of things.
3. I look for the best in situations, even when things seem hopeless.
Social Connectedness
1. Other people tend to make friends more easily than I do.
2. I don’t have as many close friends as I wish I had.
3. It’s hard to make friends on this campus.
4. I often feel lonely because I have few close friends with whom to share my concerns.
5. I feel content with the kinds of friendships I currently have.
6. I feel like I belong here.
