Post-secondary student perspectives about how to support student resilience

ABSTRACT

It is increasingly recognized that resilience can significantly help post- secondary students to mitigate the response to stress and adversity. The discussion of how to inculcate resiliency is often left to academic leaders and service providers. However, one of the voices that has been relatively less heard in the development of relevant resources is that of students themselves. The current study surveyed university students (N = 281) and assessed both the internal and external resources that students believed were important for the development of resilience. Participants rated personal resources somewhat more highly than external resources. In particular, the personal attributes of self-care, persistence and executive functioning were rated as key variables in the development of resilience. The study also compared subgroups of participants, to examine the influence of individual differences on the perceived importance of these resources. As examples, women rated several personal resources higher than men, and international students, students of colour, and Indigenous students rated access to cultural/spiritual resources higher than their comparison group. Study limitations were noted, but it was recommended that post-secondary institutions take into account student perspectives when developing campus resources. This study provides suggestions about which types of resources are most important for different types of students.

1.

It is widely recognized that the start of post-secondary education (PSE) is a time of considerable stress and increased risk for mental health challenges (Campbell et al., 2022; Storrie et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2014). The relatively unstructured nature of PSE in comparison to high school poses a challenge for some students (McPhail, 2015). Further, while some college and university students live at home and continue to have ongoing parental or caregiver support, other students move away from home and perhaps for the first time face the prospect of developing new social relationships, financial management, and the operation of a household (Lamothe et al., 1995). Moving to attend a college or university also potentially implies living alone or in concert with other students, either of which poses its own unique challenges (Dumford et al., 2019). In some cases, students move some distance from their original culture, possibly facing additional obstacles such as discrimination, differing cultural expectations, and/or advanced learning in a second or third language (Jones, 2017; Sanagavarapu & Abraham, 2021). While issues of diversity and inclusion are important for everyone, they are particularly salient for emerging adults (Alegria et al., 2010; Strange & Cox, 2016). Students who have special needs such as physical disabilities, learning disabilities, psychological disorders or other considerations may face even further and unique barriers in their pursuit of higher education (O’Shea et al., 2021; Wolf, 2001).

Contemporary post-secondary institutions are cognizant of both the typical and special needs of students, and they generally respond as well as they can to the broad range of physical and mental health needs that students face (Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors, 2022; Benton et al., 2003; Brimstone et al., 2007; Stewart-Brown et al., 2000). However, institutions are faced with organizational and financial limits on their ability to meet these issues fully. There is a legitimate question about the range of student services that post-secondary institutions should provide. For example, while most universities offer some form of walk-in counseling or mental health services (Barreira & Snider, 2010; Johnson et al., 2022), it can be questioned to what extent PSE institutions should provide such services if they already exist in the local community. From another perspective, the question is to what extent should community services be located within college and university campuses?

A second level of discourse about student services is regarding the scope of mental health services provided on campuses (e.g., Baik et al., 2019; Barreira & Snider, 2010). That is, should campuses focus on screening, case identification and support for students with emerging and existing mental or physical health needs and disabilities, and/or focus on opportunities for health promotion, the development of protective skills and capabilities, and resilience in the face of developmental and academic challenges? Post-secondary students are on average economically and intellectually advantaged relative to the population at large, suggesting that students generally have an inherent capacity for resilience that can be built upon. Despite the challenges of post-secondary life, institutions have become increasingly interested in recognizing the unique strengths of students and focusing on the optimization of students’ skills and resources. Indeed, the development of strategies to support and strengthen student resilience is a major focus on many post-secondary campuses in North America (Gamble & Crouse, 2020; Holdsworth et al., 2018; Sanderson & Brewer, 2017). Such strategies are often connected to definitions of resilience such as those promoted by the American Psychological Association which states that “Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands”. (see https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience).

Much of the discussion about the range of preventive, protective, screening, referral and treatment mental health services that PSE institutions should provide is conducted within institutions and by the various administrative groups that organize and obtain funding for these systems. This pattern is certainly defensible, as post-secondary administrators are responsible for their budgets and are constrained to work within them. The range of potential services needs to also be considered in the context of the local rural or urban environment of each institution, the types of programs the institution offers, the economic base of the institution, and access to, or lack thereof, community resources. Ultimately, post-secondary administrators are responsible to their clientele, who are the enrolled students and their families. Thus, pressures to provide services ought to also be affected by these considerations.

As noted, post-secondary administrators need to consider a variety of factors in deciding which services to offer, and how they should be managed. One of the less commonly sought voices to inform decisions about potential campus services is that of students themselves. Several investigations have provided some insights into the student perspective, however. For example, Holdsworth et al. (2018) conducted semi-structured interviews with 38 undergraduate and graduate students to better understand the students’ ideas about how to maintain or foster resiliency. They reported a range of responses, in part affected by the number of years of post-secondary education respondents had completed. Common themes that were seen in the concept of resiliency include the ability to bounce back from adversity, to understand and control emotions when faced with adverse circumstances, the development of coping skills, time management, the ability to prioritize demands, and adaptability. Implicit ways to support resiliency, according to this study, were goal setting, self-reflection, staying physically and mentally healthy and obtaining support from peers, friends and (to a lesser degree) family.

Another qualitative study examined the thoughts of a focus group of 11 nursing students in relation to the concept of resilience (Mayer et al., 2022). This group of investigators reported that resiliency was enhanced through a combination of supportive social connections and structures, and the development of appropriate social and coping skills. They further suggested that the experience of adversity itself can build a sense of competency and resiliency when adversity is overcome (see also Ching et al., 2020). Utilizing another approach, and based on focus groups and literature reviews, Gamble and Crouse (2020) proposed a set of five concepts to promote resiliency: self- nurturance of physical and mental health, increased happiness, gratitude, being mindful and present, and the development of practical skills such as daily routines.

The use of questionnaires is common in the literature on resiliency, and the content of resiliency questionnaires provides further information about how this construct is conceptualized. At least 19 resiliency scales exist (Windle et al., 2011), and while they generally include both an intrapsychic and externally focused dimension, the specific items vary across scales. For example, the resiliency scales that include internal or intrapsychic elements highlight a range of components such as personal sense of competence, acceptance, self-esteem, self-control, optimism, autonomy, hardiness, spirituality, social and cultural sensitivity, humour, creativity and insight (Windle et al., 2011). In contrast, externally focused elements of resiliency, as measured by these scales, include family coherence, social support, school culture, social resources, recreational and other social services. As noted by Windle et al. (2011), the overall sense of the resilience construct is that “Whilst a strong sense of personal agency is important for negotiating adversity, the availability of resources from the level of family and community are also important”. (p. 14). The importance of post-secondary educational, social, and health services in supporting student wellbeing has also been highlighted in research with students with diverse needs (Brandt & McIntyre, 2016).

The current study was an attempt to hear directly from students about the relative importance they place on potential PSE supports and resources to foster student resilience. The current analyses were part of a larger study of post-secondary student definitions and perspectives about the topic of resiliency on campus. In contrast to previous qualitative studies, however, this study used a quantitative framework to examine the relative weights given to a variety of resources that could enhance student resilience. Further, as the study consisted of an online survey, it was possible to recruit many students and to examine the comparative weights provided by different subgroups of study participants.

Although no specific hypotheses were made with regard to what resources or services might be viewed as more or less important to students, it should be noted that the list of potential resources that was rated was extensive and drawn from previous research. Both internal and external resources that students might value were examined, including personal characteristics (e.g., self- control, adaptability), relevant skill sets (e.g., communication, executive functioning, academic skills) as well as external resources, such as financial support and access to health and psychological resources. Given the range of items that were examined, a detailed profile of the expressed needs of post-secondary students was developed.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants for this study consisted of registered students at a major comprehensive university in Western Canada. Efforts were made to solicit the participation of both undergraduate and graduate students, and from a wide range of disciplines, but no exclusion criteria were applied. Demographic data was collected, to be able to compare student groups. The specific data collected included gender, sexual orientation, academic program (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, open studies, other, prefer not to disclose), faculty (e.g., Arts, Science, Kinesiology, Law, Nursing), ethnicity, residential status (e.g., Canadian citizen, Permanent Resident, international student), and religious affiliation.

2.2. Materials

The method adopted for this study was an anonymous online survey. In preparation for the current study, the research team had conducted previous work on the topic of post-secondary student resilience, read within the area, and discussed the topics that would be included within the survey. The survey invited participants to define student success, how a university could support student success, criteria they use for the concept of resilience, internal and external resources that contribute to resilience, challenges while at university and barriers to resilience, and measures of student coping and resilience not used in the current analyses.

In order to understand the orientation that students had towards their university experience, the first question asked survey respondents “Different individuals define success at university in different ways. What outcomes are important to you while you are a university student?” Respondents were provided the opportunity to list up to five keywords in response to this question, and the first of these keywords was tabulated in the form of a “word cloud”, which graphically presents the frequency of various responses to this question. Another of the initial questions that was asked to better contextualize later responses was “Considering the outcomes you provided in the first question, list some ways that the University could help you to achieve these outcomes”. Again, respondents were provided the opportunity to list up to five keywords, and the first responses were tabulated in the form of a “word cloud” diagram.

The list of internal and external resources was adapted from a previous qualitative study in which post-secondary students listed resources they utilize when reaching their goals at university as well as characteristics or obstacles that keep them from reaching their goals (Stelnicki et al., 2015). Additional variables were added to this study based on previous literature with similar themes and elements of resilience scales (Ching et al., 2020; Gamble & Crouse, 2020; Holdsworth et al., 2018; Mayer et al., 2022). The final list of internal resources included self- care, persistence, executive functioning, external support, motivation, attitude, adaptability, internal control, academic skill, interest, future orientation, self- awareness, communication skills, positive character, ability, community and luck. The list of external resources included interpersonal support, financial support, language resources, teaching relations, access to health services, access to psychological services, community connection, and access to cultural/spiritual resources. Each of these items was rated on a 5- point Likert -type scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) in terms of how much each resource would contribute to student resilience.

Prior to the deployment of the survey a draft was previewed by invited groups of international and Indigenous students. This process was used to evaluate face validity of the items and to ensure that the language used was appropriate for diverse student groups. These reviews led to minor edits of the language, but confirmation of the substantive content. The survey is available on request from the corresponding author. The project was approved by the University of Calgary Research Ethics Board (REB21–1699).

2.3. Procedure

Once the survey was designed it was mounted on Qualtrics™, which is an electronic survey tool. Information about the survey was provided to potential participants through signs placed in hallways, email notifications that were sent through student clubs, and more targeted invitations through campus services such as an indigenous student center. A total of 45 invitational emails were sent to clubs and societies that represent equity- deserving groups on campus, and a further 14 emails sent to the offices of the various faculties on campus. The invitation stated: “We are interested in gathering information regarding your perceptions of resilience in the post-secondary context. Your participation can help enhance student programming, resources, and mental health on campus. Participation in this study is completely voluntary”. An incentive to complete the voluntary survey was provided. Specifically, a draw was made among completed surveys for one of five $100 gift cards. The survey was available to potential participants for a period of approximately six weeks, between October and December, 2022.

The final survey was preceded by an informed consent process. This process did not provide a definition to participants about the construct of resilience as the goal of the study was to learn students’ perceptions. This said, the introduction to the informed consent provided the following context: “The aim of this study is to better understand post-secondary students’ perceptions of resilience. … The intention of this evaluation is to explore how student’s define resilience, what barriers they encounter that impede resilience, what risks they face in the post-secondary context, and their preferred outcomes through resilience development. To this end, we would like to gather information on your perceptions and experiences as a post-secondary student”.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

The survey was opened a total of 714 unique times. Of these instances, 84 individuals provided consent although did not answer additional survey questions, and 2 participants declined consent to use their anonymous data in publications and presentations although did answer survey questions. The survey was opened 347 other times that were flagged as either spurious, or in one case as repetitive, as the same IP address was used to open the survey and/or provide identical answers in most of these instances. As a result, 281 participants completed the survey and provided usable data. It should be noted that participants were not required to answer every question, and so there could be at most 281 available data points for any specific response.

The overall age of participants was 25.44 (SD = 8.25; range = 17–60). The participants consisted of a highly heterogeneous group of individuals, and six different aspects of diversity were explored within the current sets of analyses based on the self-declared status of respondents, excluding respondents for any particular comparison who chose not to indicate a response. There was a greater representation of women (n = 152; 78.8%) than men (n = 31; 11.2% male). Based on self-identification, there was less representation of 2SLGBTQ+ students (i.e., homosexual, demisexual, bisexual, pansexual, queer, transgender, nonbinary; n = 63; 34.8%) as opposed to students who do not identify as 2SLGBTQ+ (n = 188;65.2%). The majority of respondents were undergraduate students (n = 143; 72.1%) whereas 55 (27.9%) of the respondents indicated that they were in a graduate program. The majority of students endorsed Canadian status (n = 168; 86.6%), whereas 26 (13.4%) of the participants indicated that they held international student status. In terms of other sample characteristics, 78 (44.3%) identified as being a person of colour or mixed non-European heritage, as opposed to having European heritage (n = 102; 56.7%), and 11 (5.5%) identified Indigenous heritage as compared to other respondents (n = 188; 94.5%).

As each of the above characteristics generated a sample size of at least 10, and although some of the comparisons had significantly different sample sizes, t-tests were conducted for each of these comparisons. Although the t-test is not directly biased by the issue of unequal sample sizes, sample size can influence group variances, which in turn can bias the sensitivity of results from the t-test (Derrick et al., 2016). As such, and in consideration of the large number of comparisons that were conducted and the attendant risk of Type I error, the more conservative Welch’s t-test (Welch, 1947) was used for these comparisons. To further examine the magnitude of group comparisons, effect sizes (eta-squared) were also computed (Lakens, 2013).

To understand the overall context within which the current participants approached their post-secondary experience, they were asked two questions that allowed them to provide keyword answers. Figure 1 represents a “word cloud” of the first keywords related to key university outcomes the participants listed and reveals that this group of respondents valued grades and academic outcomes as the primary markers of student success. Graduation and degree completion also figured in the desired outcomes, as did understanding and learning, skills, and to a lesser extent social connection, community and happiness. Figure 2 provides a “word cloud” of the first keywords listed by participants about the ways in which the university could support these outcomes. These responses were in general characterized as vague, as they included concepts such as “student support”, courses and classes, academic opportunities, access to professors, and various teaching related concepts (e.g., academic workshops, tutoring, accessible education). Specific forms of supports that might be provided by post-secondary institutions did appear in this set of responses, but these are relatively less frequent and not necessarily focused on resources that a post-secondary institution might provide.

Figure 1. Responses to the question of university success for respondents (n = 279).

Figure 2. Responses to the question of desired university support to achieve desired outcomes (n = 281).

Two more specific questions were utilized to further examine the types of resources that students believed were important for success and to develop resiliency. One of these questions asked about 17 personal resources that students might have or develop, which would be related to student resilience in general. The specific wording of the question was “How much do the following personal resources contribute to university students’ resilience in general?” These results are presented in Table 1 and are ordered from the item with the highest overall endorsement to the lowest. As can be seen there, the three dominant personal resources listed among all participants were self- care, persistence, and executive functioning. To further examine the issue of student perceptions of personal resources, a series of comparisons were made between groups of students based on different aspects of diversity. These comparisons are provided in Table 1, and reflect the pairs of columns with similar shading, and asterisks indicate when these comparisons were significant using Welch’s t- test.

Table 1. Average (SD) ratings of the importance of personal resources for resilience, organized by rank order for the overall sample

Item	Total Sample	Women	Men	Welch’s t test; Effect size	Straight/Cis	2SLGBTQ+	Welch’s t test; Effect size
Self- care	4.25 (0.92)	4.29 (0.92)	3.90 (0.99)	5.04*; .028	4.19 (0.92)	4.37 (0.81)	1.65; .008
Persistence	4.20 (0.85)	4.18 (0.86)	4.17 (0.80)	0.01; .001	4.21 (0.77)	3.95 (0.96)	4.93*; .031
Executive functioning	4.20 (0.83)	4.28 (0.82)	3.90 (0.80)	7.04**; .035	4.24 (0.77)	4.19 (0.79)	0.13; .001
External support	4.16 (0.90)	4.20 (0.86)	3.78 (1.11)	5.16*; .035	4.06 (0.89)	4.32 (0.90)	4.76*; .026
Motivation	4.16 (0.96)	4.19 (0.96)	3.98 (1.06)	1.31; .008	4.21 (0.89)	3.94 (1.10)	2.94; .018
Attitude	4.09 (0.92)	4.13 (0.89)	3.98 (1.02)	0.79; .005	4.08 (0.92)	4.03 (0.95)	0.10; .001
Adaptability	4.09 (0.92)	4.14 (0.89)	3.78 (1.04)	4.22*; .026	4.08 (0.94)	4.17 (0.87)	0.50; .003
Internal control	4.00 (0.94)	4.04 (0.94)	3.76 (1.02)	2.58; .015	4.04 (0.92)	3.94 (1.04)	0.46; .003
Academic skill	3.83 (0.90)	3.84 (0.92)	3.75 (0.78)	0.41; .002	3.86 (0.90)	3.62 (0.91)	3.02; .017
Interest	3.83 (0.96)	3.88 (0.94)	3.60 (0.98)	2.66; .015	3.81 (0.92)	3.83 (0.99	0.01; .001
Future orientation	3.80 (0.99)	3.76 (0.93)	3.61 (1.16)	0.61; .004	3.84 (0.99)	3.73 (0.90)	0.56; .003
Self- awareness	3.72 (1.03)	3.77 (1.07)	3.37 (0.92)	5.97*; .026	3.75 (1.04)	3.60 (1.07)	0.74; .004
Comm. skills	3.64 (1.00)	3.70 (1.00)	3.46 (1.00)	1.86; .010	3.64 (1.00)	3.62 (1.08)	0.02; .001
Positive character	3.59 (1.08)	3.66 (1.05)	3.46 (1.00)	1.27; .006	3.69 (0.96)	3.29 (1.22)	5.17*; .032
Ability	3.44 (1.05)	3.43 (1.03)	3.51 (0.95)	0.25; .001	3.39 (0.92)	3.24 (1.02)	0.76; .005
Community	3.33 (1.07)	3.41 (1.05)	3.15 (1.06)	1.97; .010	3.37 (1.03)	3.32 (1.09)	0.80; .001
Luck	2.78 (1.31)	2.65 (1.26)	2.85 (1.15)	0.96; .004	2.58 (1.18)	2.97 (1.42)	3.34; .021
Self- care	4.25 (0.92)	4.21 (0.93)	4.92 (0.98)	0.01; .001	4.23 (0.96)	4.19 (0.85)	0.04; .001
Persistence	4.20 (0.85)	4.16 (0.88)	4.13 (0.86)	0.06; .001	4.18 (0.87)	4.31 (0.68)	0.75; .003
Executive functioning	4.20 (0.83)	4.19 (0.83)	4.24 (0.82)	0.12; .001	4.25 (0.80)	3.85 (0.92)	4.35*; .028
External support	4.16 (0.90)	4.11 (0.95)	4.29 (0.79)	1.81; .008	4.20 (0.90)	4.00 (0.80)	1.31; .006
Motivation	4.16 (0.96)	4.24 (0.89)	3.89 (1.14)	4.12*; .026	4.18 (0.97)	3.92 (1.02)	1.51; .008
Attitude	4.09 (0.92)	4.11 (0.87)	3.96 (1.07)	0.78; .005	4.13 (0.93)	3.92 (0.94)	1.13; .006
Adaptability	4.09 (0.92)	4.08 (0.89)	4.13 (1.02)	0.10; .001	4.09 (0.92)	4.09 (0.91)	0.40; .002
Internal control	4.00 (0.94)	3.95 (0.97)	4.07 (0.96)	0.64; .003	3.96 (0.97)	4.08 (0.89)	0.39; .002
Academic skill	3.83 (0.90)	3.85 (0.92)	3.69 (0.84)	1.33; .004	3.83 (0.91)	3.68 (0.90)	0.58; .003
Interest	3.83 (0.96)	3.87 (0.95)	3.63 (0.98)	2.32; .012	3.84 (0.98)	3.68 (0.90)	0.66; .003
Future orientation	3.80 (0.99)	3.75 (0.96)	3.82 (1.02)	0.20; .001	3.74 (1.01)	3.65 (0.94)	0.18;,001
Self- awareness	3.72 (1.03)	3.69 (1.01)	3.63 (1.15)	0.12; .001	3.65 (1.09)	3.81 (0.75)	0.84; .003
Comm. skills	3.64 (1.00)	3.64 (1.01)	3.58 (1.01)	0.14; .001	3.63 (1.02)	3.65 (1.06)	0.02; .001
Positive character	3.59 (1.08)	3.61 (1.07)	3.44 (1.07)	0.99; .005	3.56 (1.09)	3.69 (0.97)	0.41; .002
Ability	3.44 (1.05)	3.37 (1.05)	3.40 (1.01)	0.04; .001	3.38 (1.05)	3.85 (0.92)	5.63*; .024
Community	3.33 (1.07)	3.29 (1.04)	3.45 (1.05)	0.99; .005	3.33 (1.08)	3.42 (0.90)	0.24; .001
Luck	2.78 (1.31)	2.63 (1.26)	2.89 (1.27)	1.72; .009	2.65 (1.28)	3.19 (1.17)	4.75*; .021
Self- care	4.25 (0.92)	4.19 (0.88)	4.26 (0.92)	0.29; .002	3.91 (1.13)	4.22 (0.93)	0.81; .006
Persistence	4.20 (0.85)	4.29 (0.81)	4.1 5 (0.85)	1.42; .008	3.73 (1.01)	4.21 (0.83)	2.45; .017
Executive functioning	4.20 (0.83)	4.18 (0.85)	4.20 (0.81)	0.02; .001	4.09 (0.83)	4.21 (0.83)	0.21; .001
External support	4.16 (0.90)	4.05 (0.91)	4.21 (0.92)	1.27; .007	3.82 (1.08)	4.15 (0.91)	0.99; .007
Motivation	4.16 (0.96)	4.14 (1.03)	4.18 (0.93)	0.06; .001	3.64 (1.12)	4.17 (0.97)	2.40; .016
Attitude	4.09 (0.92)	3.92 (1.07)	4.23 (0.77)	4.45*; .027	3.55 (1.04)	4.10 (0.93)	3.03; .019
Adaptability	4.09 (0.92)	3.99 (0.96)	4.15 (0.86)	1.34; .008	3.55 (1.21)	4.09 (0.91)	2.15; .018
Internal control	4.00 (0.94)	4.01 (0.89)	3.98 (1.02)	0.05; .001	3.27 (1.01)	4.01 (0.95)	5.59*; .030
Academic skill	3.83 (0.90)	3.88 (0.48)	3.77 (0.94)	0.66; .004	3.36 (0.92)	3.82 (0.97)	2.58; .013
Interest	3.83 (0.96)	3.79 (1.02)	3.83 (0.91)	0.08; .001	3.55 (0.93)	3.82 (0.96)	0.88; .004
Future orientation	3.80 (0.99)	3.82 (0.96)	3.75 (1.02)	0.20; .001	3.64 (0.81)	3.78 (0.99)	0.30; .001
Self- awareness	3.72 (1.03)	3.63 (1.07)	3.68 (1.04)	0.09; .001	3.45 (1.04)	3.67 (1.04)	0.46; .002
Comm. skills	3.64 (1.00)	3.53 (1.04)	3.65 (0.98)	0.63; .004	3.55 (1.21)	3.63 (1.00)	0.49; .001
Positive character	3.59 (1.08)	3.63 (1.07)	3.46 (1.05)	1.10; .006	3.18 (1.17)	3.56 (1.07)	1.12; .007
Ability	3.44 (1.05)	3.63 (1.01)	3.23 (1.00)	7.08**; .038	2.73 (1.01)	3.43 (1.04)	4.96*; .023
Community	3.33 (1.07)	3.23 (1.06)	3.33 (1.11)	0.15; .001	3.45 (0.69)	3.32 (1.08)	0.34; .001
Luck	2.78 (1.31)	2.85 (1.26)	2.55 (1.30)	2.40; .013	3.09 (1.04)	2.69 (1.28)	1.52; .005

Note: Comparisons within each pair of columns was tested with Welch’s t- test (*- p < .05; **- p < .01; ***- p < .001). Effect sizes are eta- squared.

As a final analysis, respondents were asked to again rate the perceived importance of a series of 8 potential external resources, using the same scale used for internal resources. Table 2 provides these results, again ordered from the item with the highest overall endorsement (interpersonal support) to the lowest (access to cultural/spiritual resources). As in Table 1, comparisons were made using Welch’s t- test between the columns that were shaded similarly to each other.

Table 2. Average (SD) ratings of the importance of external resources for resilience, organized by rank order for the overall sample

Item	Total Sample	Women		Men	Welch’s t test; Effect size	Straight	Sexually diverse	Welch’s t test; Effect size
Interpersonal support	4.04 (1.15)	4.09 (1.11)		3.78 (1.29)	1.98; .012	4.14 (1.09)	4.02 (1.24)	0.42; .003
Financial support	3.37 (1.32)	3.43 (1.32)		3.05 (1.8)	2.84; .014	3.40 (1.30)	3.25 (1.32)	0.50; .003
Language resources	3.29 (1.56)	3.20 (1.60)		3.34 (1.53)	0.28; .001	3.25 (1.54)	3.40 (1.66)	0.35; .002
Teaching relations	3.25 (1.21)	3.25 (1.21)		3.29 (1.06)	0.05; .001	3.24 (1.18)	3.27 (1.23)	0.02; .001
Health access	3.20 (1.28)	3.19 (1.27)		3.24 (1.20)	0.06; .001	3.16 (1.24)	3.14 (1.33)	0.01; .001
Psychological access	2.76 (1.51)	2.77 (1.51)		2.46 (1.31)	1.66; .007	2.61 (1.35)	3.05 (1.71)	3.06; .019
Community connection	2.67 (1.34)	2.63 (1.31)		2.90 (1.39)	1.23; .007	2.62 (1.27)	2.62 (1.35)	0.01; .001
Cultural/spiritual access	2.18 (1.36)	2.15 (1.32)		2.33 (1.51)	0.45; .003	2.29 (1.44)	1.81 (1.06)	6.51*; .030
Interpersonal support	4.04 (1.15)		4.04 (1.14)	4.02 (1.19)	0.01; .001	4.08 (1.16)	4.00 (1.13)	0.10; .001
Financial support	3.37 (1.32)		3.39 (1.25)	3.44 (1.14)	0.04; .001	3.38 (1.34)	3.25 (1.25)	0.17; .001
Language resources	3.29 (1.56)		3.25 (1.57)	3.29 (1.63)	0.02; .001	3.42 (1.59)	2.62 (1.33)	7.86**; .031
Teaching relations	3.25 (1.21)		3.14 (1.19)	3.56 (1.18)	5.01*; .025	3.24 (1.20)	3.32 (1.07)	0.11; .001
Health access	3.19 (1.28)		3.14 (1.29)	3.05 (1.25)	0.18; .001	3.11 (1.30)	3.58 (1.14)	3.69; .016
Psychological access	2.76 (1.51)		2.60 (1.51)	2.96 (1.43)	2.44; .012	2.64 (1.52)	3.37 (1.29)	6.50*; .026
Community connection	2.67 (1.34)		2.60 (1.37)	2.76 (1.22)	0.66; .003	2.59 (1.34)	3.12 (1.31)	3.68; .018
Cultural/spiritual access	2.18 (1.36)		2.07 (1.33)	2.24 (1.39)	0.58; .003	2.03 (1.32)	2.80 (1.41)	6.58*; .037
Item	Total Sample		Person of colour (POC)	Not POC	Welch’s t test; Effect size	Indigenous heritage	Not Indigenous	Welch’s t test; Effect size
Interpersonal support	4.04 (1.15)		3.90 (1.22)	4.14 (1.06)	1.90; .011	4.00 (1.18)	4.05 (1.15)	0.02; .001
Financial support	3.37 (1.32)		3.43 (1.26)	3.34 (1.35)	0.10; .001	3.82 (1.17)	3.38 (1.31)	1.44; .006
Language resources	3.29 (1.56)		2.88 (1.52)	3.55 (1.58)	8.14**; .043	3.91 (1.30)	3.26 (1.58)	2.56; .009
Teaching relations	3.25 (1.21)		3.14 (1.16)	3.37 (1.21)	1.60; .009	3.36 (1.12)	3.26 (1.20)	0.09; .001
Health access	3.19 (1.28)		3.14 (1.26)	3.19 (1.27)	0.06; .001	3.18 (1.17)	3.19 (1.27)	0.01; .001
Psychological access	2.76 (1.51)		2.59 (1.38)	2.73 (1.54)	0.40; .002	3.27 (1.62)	2.71 (1.48)	1.28; .008
Community connection	2.67 (1.34)		2.87 (1.41)	2.38 (1.21)	6.11*; .034	3.27 (1.42)	2.62 (1.32)	2.18; .012
Cultural/spiritual access	2.18 (1.36)		2.51 (1.41)	1.76 (1.18)	14.28***; .078	3.45 (1.29)	2.07 (1.32)	11.80**; .054

Note: Comparisons within each pair of columns was tested with Welch’s t- test (*- p < .05; **- p < .01; ***- p < .001). Effect sizes are eta- squared.

4. Discussion

This study used a survey methodology to examine the opinions of post- secondary students about the personal and external resources that could foster the development of resilience. Based on previous qualitative analyses of these same themes (Ching et al., 2020; Gamble & Crouse, 2020; Holdsworth et al., 2018; Mayer et al., 2022; Stelnicki et al., 2015), as well as a review of common resiliency scales, a series of items were developed and rated by students with respect to their general importance. A series of personal resources were ranked highly by the students, including self-care, persistence, executive functioning, external support, motivation and attitude. It is notable that when comparisons were made across various subgroups of respondents in this survey (women versus men, 2SLGBTQ+ versus not 2SLGBTQ+, undergraduate versus graduate, Canadian versus international, person of color versus not a person of color, Indigenous heritage versus not Indigenous) relatively few differences emerged, and patterns were difficult to ascertain. For example, for the comparison between 2SLGBTQ+ students and non 2SLGBTQ+ students, persistence and having a positive character were rated significantly higher by non 2SLGBTQ+ students, whereas external support was rated higher by 2SLGBTQ+ respondents. In the comparisons between Canadian and international students, executive functioning was rated higher by Canadian students, but ability and luck were rated higher by international students. Motivation was rated as a somewhat more important personal resource by undergraduate students than graduate students, but no other comparisons were significant. Indeed, across the entire set of 102 comparisons, only 16 achieved statistical significance. The one comparison that did yield a number of differences was based on gender. In these comparisons, women rated self-care, executive functioning, external support, adaptability, self- awareness and positive character higher than men, whereas no difference revealed a higher score for men.

In contrast to the patterns of personal resources that promote resilience, a number of sub- group differences emerged in the examination of external resources that post-secondary students valued. Some of these differences are relatively easy to understand. For example, it was observed that graduate students rated relations with teachers and instructors more highly as an important resource than did undergraduate students. This result can be understood by the fact that graduate students often work with a specific faculty mentor or supervisor for a period of years, and these relationships become increasingly important as graduate students develop advanced technical or professional skills (Marshall et al., 2022). In contrast, some results are difficult to understand, such as the result that international students valued language resources significantly less than Canadian students.

The importance of access to cultural or spiritual resources emerged as a significant difference in a number of the comparisons. Non 2SLGBTQ+ respondents rated this resource as more important than 2SLGBTQ+ respondents, as did international students, persons of colour, and students of Indigenous heritage in comparison to respondents who were not a part of these groups. Persons of color also viewed community connection as more important than students who were not persons of color, while somewhat surprisingly persons of color viewed language resources as less important than students who did not have this characteristic. Access to psychological or health services was not significantly different in any comparison, except international students rated access to psychological services more highly than Canadian students did, perhaps as an indirect reflection of the stress of being an international student. Finally, it was noted that none of the comparisons between women and men yielded a significant difference when considering external resources.

Another perspective on the data is not to contrast subgroups, but rather to consider the rank order of the various factors examined in Tables 1 and 2. While the results in these tables have been organized by the order of the overall mean scores of the total sample, there are in some instances differences in the specific rankings of unique factors. For example, in the comparison between males and females on the importance of external factors, women ranked self care, executive functioning and external support as the three highest rated factors, whereas males rated persistence, motivation and attitude as their “top 3” factors. Readers who are interested on within group rankings may wish to read these tables with respect to the ranking of various factors.

Taken as a whole, these results imply that post-secondary students generally value external resources in a consistent manner. For example, interpersonal support was ranked by the overall set of participants as the single most important external resource, and that this same variable was ranked as the highest by every subgroup of participants that was examined. In a similar fashion, financial support, language resources, teaching relations and access to health services were generally viewed as a second tier of important external supports, and although the specific rank order of each resource varied somewhat among different subgroups of participants, they were generally within the same range. A third set of resources could be discerned, including access to psychological services, community connection, and access to cultural/spiritual resources. These resources were generally ranked lower by participants, although some of these resources were rated higher by students with diverse backgrounds relative to their comparison groups. Other researchers (Ungar, 2008; Ungar & Liebenberg, 2005) have also highlighted the importance of considering cross-cultural and diversity characteristics in the study of resilience.

An important contextual factor for the current study is that it was conducted in an academically focused post-secondary university. As observed in Figure 1, when given the opportunity to freely express their idea about the important aspects of post-secondary education, the current set of respondents provided responses that indicated their focus on academic and programmatic success. In this regard, it is not surprising that the respondents rated personal resources including self-care, persistence, and executive functioning relatively highly and consistently as important for the development of resilience. It is also notable that personal resources were generally ranked as more important by the current set of students than external resources. For example, if the average ratings for the total sample are examined on Table 1, all but three of the 17 personal resources were provided an average of 3.5 or higher. In contrast, as seen on Table 2, only one of the eight external resources listed there was given an average score higher than 3.5. It can be inferred from these results that as a whole this group of respondents was focused on academic success and saw their personal resources as the key elements to facilitate resilience and student success. This is an interesting observation that contrasts with the emerging trend in PSE to focus on external or community resources, as advocated by the Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges, (2015) and the National Standard for Mental Health and Well-Being for Post-Secondary Students (Canadian Standards Association, 2020).

As with any study, this one has several limitations. The survey items were generated by the investigators, and although the items that were included in the survey were based on previous research and questionnaires, it is possible that certain important items were inadvertently missed. Second, the rating scale that was used was a relatively limited five-point Likert scale. It is conceivable that more fine-grained analyses would have yielded a larger range of significant results. Third, the sample was one of convenience, as participants were recruited through public notices and some more targeted email invitations. It is probable that a selection bias occurred in the respondents to the survey, and that these participants were more interested in psychological resilience and community resources than the student body at large. Fourth, some of the subgroup analyses were based on relatively small numbers of participants. Although a more conservative data analytic strategy was adopted to compensate for potential differences in variance between groups that were compared, it remains possible that some of the results represent a Type I error, given the number of specific comparisons that were conducted. Fifth, it is important to reiterate that the subgroup analyses included different analyses of the same group of participants, and it is likely that some of the analysed characteristics were related to each other. For example, it is likely that more of the international students were also in the person of color group, so although the current analyses made unique comparisons, some of the same participants appear in different groupings. Sixth, although the current sample size permitted subgroup analyses based on single characteristics, there were not enough participants to conduct analyses based on intersectional characteristics (e.g., gender and undergraduate vs. graduate status). Further research with larger samples would be required to conduct more detailed comparisons. Finally, the results in Figures 1 and 2 represent only the first response to the questions that were asked and a more fulsome analysis of these response may provide further information about the responses of the participants.

Further investigation of the perceptions of students with respect to both internal and external resources that contribute to student resilience are warranted. Although the current investigation identifies the list of important resources, we failed to inquire about methodologies or services that would directly affect those resources that students viewed as important. For example, external support and interpersonal support emerged as highly rated forms of support for both personal and external consideration. While some students come to PSE with a strong social support (particularly those students who do not have to move), others may face the challenges of being in a new environment, and possibly in a culture that has a novel primary language. If these students do not have the skills or the opportunity to develop social connections and network, they may unfortunately become somewhat socially isolated. Based on the current analyses, it would appear that PSE institutions should provide as many possible services and opportunities for students to connect with others as possible, to ensure that social and interpersonal supports are available. In the same vein, it appears that students generally value the importance of personal resources. Based on the current results, post-secondary institutions should consider and optimize student self-care, executive functioning, and personal attributes such as persistence, motivation, and a positive attitude. Some of the programs or services that could be offered in this regard include physical education and activity, study skills training for students who have this need, and a generally positive attitude towards persistence and student success. In contrast, it should be expected that these types of resources (e.g., community connection, cultural/spiritual resources) will be of interest only to more select subgroups of students (Alegria et al., 2010).

Although the current study helps to identify those personal and external resources that students perceive as important for the development of resilience, one of the questions that was not asked in the current survey is who or what the students perceived as being responsible to provide these resources. For example, it may be that most students view themselves as the responsible agents to develop personal resources such as interpersonal supports. They might even see themselves as being responsible to access external health or psychological services if necessary. Alternatively, it is possible that students see post-secondary institutions as having an important role in the development and delivery of these resources. The current survey did not ask these questions, and so future studies that inquire about student perceptions of resources to develop resilience could meaningfully inquire as to whether or not the responsibility for these services and resources are seen as personal or external, or even both. Such information could then help post- secondary institutions to develop strategies to direct students to their preferred ways to develop themselves and optimize their chances for personal and academic success.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

A request for access to data may be made by writing to the first author.