Conscientiousness,Resilience,and Personality: What do Mature Female Students tell us About Being an Adult Learner on a Foundation Programme at a Business School?

Abstract

This paper reports on the coping strategies of mature female students whilst studying a Foundation Programme at a Business School. In recent years, research has focussed less on the problems that confront adult learners and more on how they exercise personal agency and cope with the multifarious challenges of combining study with part-time employment and a home life. In particular, interest has focussed on the personality and how specific traits are associated with performative success. This paper reports on two aspects of personality that appear in the literature: conscientiousness and resilience as these are associated with the exercise of personal agency. The research reports on interviews with five mature female students, three of whom are mothers with caring responsibilities. The findings were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and provide insight into the exercise of successful personal agency. This paper also offers a model of how to conceptualise the support for mature students with their complex and varied needs.

Keywords

mature female students ideal student business school conscientiousness resilience

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bellare

Smith

Cochran

Lopez

S. G.

(2023). Motivations and barriers for adult learner achievement: Recommendations for institutions of Higher Education. Adult Learning, 34(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595211059574

Bluff

King

McMahon

(2012). A Phenomenological approach to care leavers’ transition to higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 952–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.020

Brandle

Lengfeld

(2017). Drifting apart or converging? Grades among non traditional and traditional students over the course of their studies: A case study from Germany. Higher Education, 73(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0010-3

Brown

C. J.

Webb

T. L.

Robinson

M. A.

Cotgreave

(2018). Athletes’ experiences of social support during their transition out of elite sport: An interpretive phenomenological analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.01.003

Brown

D. R.

(1960). Non-intellective qualities and the perception of the ‘ideal’ student by college faculty. Journal of Educational Sociology, 33(6), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/2264616

Bruso

Stefaniak

Bol

(2020). An examination of personality traits as a predictor of the use of self-regulated learning strategies and considerations for online instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2659–2683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09797-y

Chung

Turnbull

Chur-Hansen

(2017). Differences in resilience between ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693493

Collins

McNulty

(2020). Insider status: (Re)framing researcher positionality in international human resource management studies. German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 34(2), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002220908425

Costa

P. T.

McCrea

R. R.

(1992). NEO-PI-R Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.4135/9781849200479.n9

10.

Di Domenico

S. I.

Fournier

M. A.

(2015). Able, ready, and willing: Examining the additive and interactive effects of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation on undergraduate academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.016

11.

Fernandez-Martinez

Andina-Díaz

El.

Fernandez-Pena

Garcia-Lopez

Fulgueiras-Carril

Liebana-Presa

(2017). Social networks, engagement and resilience in university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121488

12.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

13.

Hase

Kenyon

(2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase Articles, 5(3), 1–10. https://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010220130000/, https://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm

14.

Holdsworth

Turner

Scott-Young

C. M.

(2018). Not drowning, waving. Resilience and university: A student perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1284193

15.

Jarman

Smith

J. A.

Walsh

(1997). The psychological battle for control: A qualitative study of health-care professionals’ understandings of the treatment of anorexia nervosa. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7(2), 137–152. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199704)7:2%3C137::AID-CASP404%3E3.0.CO;2-G

16.

Johnson

Duberley

(2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1279–1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00380

17.

Kertechian

S. K.

(2018). Conscientiousness as a key to success for academic achievement among French university students enrolled in management studies. International Journal of Management in Education, 16(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.02.003

18.

Knowles

M. S.

(1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350–352.

19.

Knowles

M. S.

Holton

E. F.

Swanson

R. A.

(2015). The adult learner: The definitive class in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Elsevier.

20.

McCann

Duckworth

A. L.

Roberts

R. D.

(2009). Empirical identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007

21.

McLean

(2022). Understanding the evolving context for lifelong education: Global trends, 1950-2020. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2021.2015634

22.

Modenos

(2020). No, nontraditional is not the new traditional. Adult Learning, 31(3), 134–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159520941082

23.

Peat

Rodriguez

Smith

(2019). Interpretive phenomenological analysis applied to healthcare research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 22(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2018-103017

24.

Pidgeon

A. M.

Rowe

N. F.

Stapleton

Magyar

H. B.

B. C. Y.

(2014). Examining characteristics of resilience among university students: An international study. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 02(11), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2014.211003

25.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology. Czasopismo Psychologiczne – Psychological Journal, 20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7

26.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

27.

Relles

S. R.

(2016). A call for qualitative methods in action: Enlisting positionality as an equity tool. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(5), 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215606690

28.

Richardson

G. E.

(2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020

29.

Roberts

B. W.

Bogg

Walton

Chernyshenko

Stark

(2004). A lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00065-5

30.

Roberts

B. W.

Jackson

J. J.

Fayard

J. V.

Edmonds

G. W.

Meints

(2009). Conscientiousness. In Leary

M. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–381). Guilford Press.

31.

Roberts

B. W.

Lejuez

Krueger

R. F.

Richards

J. M.

Hill

P. L.

(2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315–1330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031109

32.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage.

33.

Smith

J. A.

Michie

Stephenson

Quarrell

(2002). Risk perception and decision-making Processes in candidates for genetic testing for huntington's disease: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105302007002398

34.

Stoten

D. W.

(2023). Positioning through epistemic cognition in higher education: Conceptualising the ways in which academics in a business school view heutagogy. Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01048-2

35.

Sun

(2019). Conspiring to change the learning environment for adult learners in higher education. Adult Learning, 30(2), 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519834959

36.

Torrance

E. P.

(1965). Rewarding creative behaviour. Prentice-Hall.

37.

Vianello

Robusto

Anselmi

(2010). Implicit conscientiousness predicts academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 452–457. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.019

38.

Wilson

Narayan

(2016). Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.926312

39.

Wong

Chiu

Y.-L. T.

(2019). Swallow your pride and fear’: The educational strategies of high-achieving non-traditional university students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(7), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1604209

40.

Wong

Chiu

Y.-L. T.

(2021). Exploring the concept of ‘ideal’ university student. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1643302

41.

Wong

DeWitt

Chiu

Y.-L. T.

(2023). Mapping the eight dimensions of the ideal student in higher education. Educational Review, 75(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1909538