The Profiles of Eight-graders’ Learning Resources and Their Association with Self-perceived Learning Outcomes During and After the Covid-19 Lockdown

• In Event: Poster Group 7
  In Poster Session: The Profiles of Eight-graders’ Learning Resources and Their Association with Self-perceived Learning Outcomes During and After the Covid-19 Lockdown

Proposal

In facing challenging circumstances, risks, or adversities, individuals’ resiliency is particularly important in maintaining effective functioning and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic presented such an adverse situation, affecting many domains of people’s lives – for students, one of these was school learning. Inspired by the multi-dimensional model of resilience (Liu et al., 2017), considering resilience as a system comprising core, internal, and external dimensions, we investigated how several characteristics of internal and external dimensions (individuals’ circumstances within a larger context) associated with student-perceived learning outcomes during and after lockdown-induced distance learning. We used data from the Response to Educational Disruption Study (REDS) performed in 2020 and 2021. Self-reports were obtained from a nationally representative sample of eight-graders in Slovenia (N = 2552; Mage = 13.79 years, SD = 0.38; 51.4% boys and 48.6% girls). We first used the indicators of (i) external resources (access to learning resources at home and family financial situation), (ii) inter-personal resources (received social support to learning), and (iii) intra-personal behavioral/psychological resources (e.g., use of learning resources, feeling safe and happy at home, worrying, lacking concentration, experiencing loneliness) to derive distinct profiles of students using latent profile analysis. We identified six profiles of students based on their learning resources: Resourceful (across the resources, 25.6%), Resourceful with little social support (space for learning, access to digital tools, good financial situation, and favorable psychological experiences, 13.1%), Average (31.6%), Disadvantageous learning environment but good social support (6.6%), Economically/psychologically disadvantaged (EPD; but not in digital access and social support, 8.7%), and Overall disadvantaged profile (14.4%). The solution was stable (Ek = .73, OCC ≥ 9), enabling us to explore the differences between profiles in student-perceived learning outcomes during the lockdown (learning difficulties and progression, autonomy, self-efficacy) and thereafter (learning regression, success, and preparedness for a potential further lockdown) using ANOVA. Compared to the other profiles, students with the EPD, average and overall disadvantageous profiles reported statistically significantly greater improvement in ICT knowledge. Those with both resourceful or the average profile perceived their learning more favorably, and those with the resourceful/little social support profile perceived more benefits in their learning autonomy during the lockdown. Students with the resourceful profile scored the highest in self-efficacy (and those with the overall disadvantageous profile the lowest). In contrast, those with the resourceful and disadvantageous environment profiles perceived more learning progress than their peers with the overall disadvantageous profile. After schools reopened, students with EPD and overall disadvantageous profiles reported lagging behind their peers in learning while both groups with resourceful profiles perceived the greatest success in learning (EPD and overall disadvantageous profiles scored the lowest). Finally, students with the latter two profiles felt least prepared for a potential further lockdown. In line with our expectations, the findings highlight the importance of considering various resources (especially social support) that support or hinder students’ learning outcomes. By identifying different profiles of students, they can be useful to educators and policy-makers in crafting student-tailored interventions for future crises or in the digital transformation of the learning process.

Authors

• Žan Lep, Educational Research Institute (Pedagoški inštitut) 68705093

• Maja Zupančič, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana