Affiliation:
1. Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education
Abstract
Academic success is a popular topic of psychological and pedagogical studies, but such studies usually emphasize factors that affect academic success or variables associated with it.What constitutes academic success remains an open question if at all posited.Researchers tend to use simplified operationalizations, mainly the academic performance, and ignore the students’ point of view.The purpose of this study is to clarify students’ perceptions of academic success.A qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews about learning experience was conducted.The study involved 20 students from various Moscow universities who completed their first academic year (aged 17—42).The technique of reflective thematic analysis was applied.Main themes are the following: “Performance” (learning is considered successful if grades are high and there are no academic troubles), “Knowledge” (learning is successful if the curriculum is being assimilated, or professional knowledge increasing, of one’s horizons are expanding), “Sense of self” (learning is considered successful if there is interest in studying, enthusiasm, as well as internal comfort and/or self-development).Themes are arranged in a sequence, moving from external criteria to internal ones.A number of contradictions are found in the informants’ perceptions of success.In the continuum of themes, different understandings of success are attributed to different instances (university, profession, life activities, Self) and allow us to see the diversity and inconsistency of higher education meanings that explain the observed paradoxes.
Publisher
Federal State-Financed Educational Institution of Higher Education Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
Subject
Developmental and Educational Psychology,Education,Social Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous)
Reference16 articles.
1. Busygina N.P.Kachestvennye i kolichestvennye metody issledovanii v psikhologii [Qualitative and quantitative research methods in psychology].Moscow: Yurait, 2019.423 p.(In Russ.).
2. Busygina N.P.Rakursy interpretacii v kachestvennyh issledovanijah [Aspects of interpretation in quality studies].Voprosy psihologii, 2017, no.2, pp. 121—133.(In Russ.).
3. Busygina N.P., Jaroshevskaja S.V.Kul’turno-istoricheskaja psihologija kak teorija sub#ektivnosti v rabotah F.Gonsalesa Reja [Cultural-Historical Psychology as a Theory of Subjectivity in the Works of F.GonzaÌlez Rey].Kul’turno-istoricheskaja psihologija = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2020, no.1, pp.68—77.DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160107.(In Russ.).
4. Braun V., Clarke V.Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006.Vol.3, no.2, pp.77—101.DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Braun V., Clarke V., Hayfield N., Terry G.Thematic Analysis.In Liamputtong P.(ed.).Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences.Singapore: Springer, 2019, pp.843—860.DOI:10.1007/978-981- 10-2779-6_103-1
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献