Academic buoyancy (Martin & Marsh, 2006) is students’ competence to respond effectively to academic daily setbacks and is considered an optimal characteristic of students’ functioning related to achievement. From the Self-determination theory perspective (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness and autonomous forms of motivation relate to students’ optimal functioning in schooling. Academic buoyancy, need satisfaction and autonomous motivation are important motivational constructs in the normative context of English preparatory programs (EPP) where students are required to achieve standard language skills to study in an English medium department. In the normative context of EPP, the ability to respond effectively to academic daily setbacks (i.e., academic buoyancy) is considered as an optimal characteristic of students functioning related to achievement (Martin & Marsh, 2008). To what extent, however, academic buoyancy can be predicted by students’ sense of need satisfaction (or frustration) and their autonomous versus controlled motivation in a normative context? If, despite the normative conditions of EPPs, need satisfaction and autonomous motivation could predict changes in students’ academic buoyancy and through it, success in EPP, then a need supportive motivational style could be suggested to EPP teachers to enhance students’ success. 

In the present study, we investigated 1) whether students’ end-of-course (T2) academic buoyancy in the normative environment of EPP is predicted by their beginning-of-course (T1) self-determined motivation (operationalized as the degree of both students’ satisfaction of their psychological needs as well as autonomous versus controlled forms of motivation) while controlling for T1 academic buoyancy and 2) whether students’ T2 academic buoyancy mediates the relation between students’ T1 self-determined motivation and final (T3) academic achievement. In T1 and T2, 267 Turkish EPP students (females 56.9%; M_age = 19.11 , SD = 1.28) participated in the study.  SEM analysis showed that T1 autonomous motivation and T1 controlled motivation were predicted by T1 need frustration negatively and positively, respectively. T2 academic buoyancy was predicted positively by T1 need satisfaction. The analysis also suggested a direct path (indicating a negative relation) from controlled motivation to students’ final grades. Finally, students’ T2 academic buoyancy mediated the relation between students’ need satisfaction or frustration and final achievement. Students’ need satisfaction as well as high autonomous and low controlled motivation could support students’ buoyancy and achievement in the normative settings of EPP. Training EPP teachers in supporting students’ psychological needs and enhancing their autonomous motivation seems to be important for strengthening students’ academic buoyancy and success in EPP.

In this study, as the purpose was to investigate the relation of motivational experience at the beginning of a two-month course (T1) in EPPs to final levels (T2) of academic buoyancy and, through it, to achievement in the two-month course’s final exam (T3), a prospective research design was adopted. The T1 survey was completed by 443 students, while the T2 survey was completed by 310 students from three EPPs in Turkish English language medium universities. Among them 267 Turkish students participated both in T1 and T2. The students who participated in the study were selected according to the willingness of their teachers to provide class time to administer the survey. Two hundred and fifty-nine students were in their first year, and eight students were in their second year of the EPP. Data were collected through self-reports. The T1 survey assessed need satisfaction and frustrution, autonomous and controlled motivation and academic buoyancy in the second week of the English course of the third 8-week period in EPPs. T2 survey assessed students’ academic buoyancy in the seventh week of the English course. Each item in the questionnaires was assessed in a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Students’ need satisfaction and frustration were assessed by the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS; Chen et al., 2015; 12 items for need satisfaction, autonomy, a = .61; competence, a = .75; relatedness, a = .66; 12 items for need frustration, autonomy, a = .77; competence, a = .70; relatedness, a = .63). Sixteen items from the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A; Ryan & Connell, 1989; autonomous motivation, a = .81, controlled motivation, a = .74) was used to assess students’ quality of motivation for their classwork in the course. The four-item Academic Buoyancy Scale (Martin & Marsh, 2008; α = .77) was used to measure the ability to overcome daily academic adversities in EPP. Students’ final exam scores in the English course were collected from the participated EPPs. As preliminary analyses, Cronbach alpha for each subscale was calculated and CFA to test the factor structure of all the measures was conducted using the R software with robust maximum likelihood estimation. The mean of each subscale was computed and the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were checked by using SPSS 20. Gender differences through MANOVA were also examined. In the main analyses, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was conducted using R software (package Lavaan) to test the hypotheses.

This study aimed to investigate, first, whether students’ academic buoyancy at the end of an English course in an EPP predicted by their initial motivational experience. Second, the study aimed to examine, to what extent students’ academic buoyancy at the end of an English course in an EPP mediate the relation between students’ initial motivational experience and final academic achievement. The findings suggested that when students perceived high need satisfaction in the EPP, they were also highly autonomously motivated. Alternatively, when they perceived need frustration, the quality of their motivation was less autonomous and more controlled. Moreover, autonomous and controlled motivation were mechanisms through which initial levels of need frustration in EPP were manifested to subsequent academic buoyancy. Interestingly enough, initial levels of need satisfaction and frustration in EPP were also directly related to subsequent academic buoyancy. Together, these two findings verify our initial argument that self-determined motivation (operationalized as need satisfaction and a sense of volition and personal causation, which is autonomous motivation) is also needed for students to be able to navigate the academic setbacks. Additionally, according to our predictions, high academic buoyancy at the end of the academic term was positively related to high final grades in the English course. Interestingly, apart from high academic buoyancy, low controlled motivation directly predicted high grades. Previous research in SDT has also shown that quality of motivation relates to academic achievement (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005). The present study showed that students’ success in the normative settings of EPPs depended on both their quality of motivation and their ability to “float on academic water”. Moreover, students’ success in EPPs depended on need satisfaction as it was positively (and need frustration negatively) related to final grades through academic buoyancy (or controlled motivation).

Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., . . . Ryan, R. M. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149 Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students' everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 53-83. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 57, 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness: Guilford Publications. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains: The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y