Content uploaded by Yelkin Diker Coşkun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yelkin Diker Coşkun on Nov 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.766
ScienceDirect
Corresponding author: Yelkin Diker Coşkun
E-mail: yelkincoskun@gmail.com
4th World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance WCPCG-2013
Analysis of the Relationship between the Resiliency Level and
Problem Solving Skills of University Students
Yelkin Diker Coşkun, Çağla Garipağaoğlu, Ülkü Tosun
Abstract
Higher education is becoming increasingly student-oriented. Therefore, the examination of students’ personal and social
qualities from different perspectives has become highly critical for educational researchers. Among those qualities that receive
special attention by the educational researchers is resiliency. Resiliency can be described as the ‘self-corrective tendency’ that
motivates people to develop as normal adults even in the most difficult situations, while resilient can be defined as a person who
is resistant and flexible and also has the ability to heal quickly, get better, overcome challenges of all kinds of trauma, tragedy,
personal crises, and problems (Bezmez, Blakney, Brown, 1999 cited in Gürgan, 2006). Resiliency is a particularly important
quality for educational researchers as it strongly affects the students’ ability to bounce back stronger and wiser from any
difficulties, and the social-cognitive development process of the individuals. On the other hand, problem solving ability is
considered as another critical quality that the students must gain as it facilitates the process of problem definition, information-
gathering regarding the problem, determination of any obstacles that can prevent the problem-solution, and the motivation
towards problem-solving behavior (Davidson, Deuser ve Sternberg, 1994 cited in Sardoğan, Karahan, Kaygusuz, 2006).
Undoubtedly, problem solving behavior is closely related with personal characteristics. People who possess good problem
solving skills can have better lives than others as they are more successful in figuring out the best possible solutions and know
how to behave in problematic situations. The purpose of this research is to investigate the resiliency level of university students
by various variables and the relationship between their resiliency level and problem-solving abilities. A survey study method
was employed in this research. Data was gathered from 325 students who studies at Yeditepe University in Istanbul during fall,
2012. The survey was composed of three different sections. First section is developed by the researchers to obtain the
demographic information of the participants. Second section is composed of a Resilience scale which was developed by Gurgan
(2006), while the third and the last section was composed of a Problem Solving Inventory which was developed by Heppner and
Peterson (1982) and adapted into Turkish by Sahin, Sahin ve Heppner (1993). Both scales have high reliabilities with a
Cronbach Alpha .80 and .88 respectively. Any increase in the resiliency mean score obtained from the scale can be interpreted
as an increase in the resiliency level of the university students. The minimum score that can be obtained from the resiliency
scale is determined as 50 while the maximum score is 250. On the other hand, the high scores obtained from the problem
solving inventory indicates that the person has a negative perception about his/her problem solving skills, and perceives those
skills as unsatisfactory. The score that can be obtained from the problem solving inventory ranges between 32 and 192.
Research findings reveal that university students have high resiliency level with a sample mean of 190.07. Furthermore, no
significant difference has been found in the resiliency level of university students in terms of gender, grade level, monthly
income, and accommodation facilities (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference has been found in their resiliency level in
terms of faculty, work experience, academic achievement, self-perceived future job achievement, father’s education level,
parenting style and their description of selves (p<0.05). Sample mean of problem-solving ability has been found as 92.82. The
total score that can be obtained from Problem Solving Inventory ranges between 32 and 192. The low scores indicated that the
person had effective and successful set of behaviors related to problem-solving, while the higher scores indicated that the person
felt inadequate and poor in terms of problem-solving skills. Therefore, the mean score of 92.82 for problem-solving skills
indicates that Yeditepe university students’ problem-solving skills are at the middle level. On the other hand, the Pearson
correlation coefficient of -0.672 (p<0.05) which was calculated for the relationship between resiliency and problem-solving
skills of students indicated a positive and somewhat strong relationship between the resiliency level of university students and
their problem-solving skills.
Key words: Resiliency, problem-solving skills, higher education;
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
674 Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Tülay Bozkurt, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey
1. Introduction
In today’s world, higher education is becoming increasingly student-oriented. Therefore, social and personal
qualities of students are examined from different angles and curriculums are being adapted accordingly. One of the
qualities being investigated in this context is called resiliency. Resiliency can be defined as the ‘self-corrective
tendency’ that motivates people to develop as normal adults even in the most difficult situations. On the other hand,
resilient can be defined as a person is resistant and flexible and also has the ability to heal quickly, get better,
overcome challenges of all kinds of trauma, tragedy, personal crises, and problems (Bezmez, Blakney, Brown, 1999
cited in Gürgan, 2006). Zimmerman and Arunkumar (1994) described resiliency as “the ability to spring back from
adversity that interpret the trajectory from risk to problem behavior or psychopathology and thereby result in
adaptive outcomes even in the presence of challenging and threatening circumstances (cited, Ahangar, 2010 p. 953).
Masten, Best and Garmezy (1990) also define resilience as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful
adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (cited, Hanewald, 2011). When most of the resiliency
definitions are examined, it can be clearly seen that resiliency includes two main properties. While the first one
involves being exposed to a serious threat or difficulty, the second one involves the ability to adapt and stand against
all the obstacles and difficulties encountered (Rutter, 2006 cited Kaner, Bayraklı, 2010). Within this framework,
resilience can be said to have the following properties: it is strictly related to psychological sturdiness; it is a highly
dynamic process, it is a quality that can be improved; it involves all the processes of healthy adaptation and
development of necessary skills in the face of all kinds of trauma, tragedy, personal crises and problems that can be
encountered; and lastly it involves having some personal qualities required for psychological sturdiness (Gizir,
2007; Gürgan,2006 cited, Öz and Yılmaz, 2009). Resilience has also started to become a very popular concept in the
field of prevention. It has been asserted that making students gain resiliency qualities through preventive studies can
result in positive outcomes particularly in the subjects of school dropouts, career choice, program completion and
for students who are under certain risks (Kumpfer, ed Glantz, Johnson 1999).
Resiliency is a quality which is highly influenced from one’s environment. It is highly critical for children or
adolescences to be welcome and accepted by their peers and supported by their surrounding relatives and elderly so
that they can develop and nurture some resiliency properties (Werner and Smith, 1992, Criss et al., 2002 cited Gizir
2007). Resiliency heavily affects university students’ socio-cognitive developmental processes and personalities;
specifically it affects their ability to overcome and bounce back stronger from any challenging and difficult
situation. Numerous studies have confirmed that the resiliency qualities of students are related with many diverse
factors.
Resiliency is particularly important in the process of problem-solving. The ability of a person to overcome the
problems, his/her combative personality or adaptability is also the indicator of his/her resiliency. Therefore, in the
literature, one can also find the different versions of resiliency definitions which specifically highlight the skills
related to problem-solving. For example, Masten and others (1990) defines resiliency as “ability to sustain the effort
till to the achievement of the ultimate goal and to adapt successfully during the process despite of all the challenges
and problems” (cited, Gürgan, 2006 s. 14).
A problem (or problematic situation) is defined as any life situation or task (present or anticipated) that demands a
response for adaptive functioning but no effective response is immediately apparent or available to the person or
people confronted with the situation because of the presence of one or more obstacles (Chang, D'Zurilla, J. Sanna,
2004, p.12). A solution is a situation-specific coping response or response pattern (cognitive or behavioral) that is
the product or outcome of the problem- solving process when it is applied to a specific problematic situation. An
effective solution is one that achieves the problem-solving goal (i.e., changing the situation for the better or reducing
the emotional distress that it produces), while at the same time maximizing other positive consequences and
minimizing negative consequences (Chang, D'Zurilla, J. Sanna, 2004, p.13). Heppner and Krauskopf (1987)
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
675
Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
theorize that self-perceived problem-solving ability serves a central function in the way a person perceives
and experiences different aspects of dealing with problematic situations (Macnair, Elliott, 1992 p. 150). On the
other hand, problem solving is composed of the process of problem definition, information-gathering regarding the
problem, determination of any obstacles that can prevent the problem-solution, and the motivation towards problem-
solving behavior (Davidson, Deuser ve Sternberg, 1994 cited in Sardoğan, Karahan, Kaygusuz, 2006). Undoubtedly,
problem solving behavior is closely related with personal characteristics. People who possess good problem solving
skills can have better lives than others as they are more successful in figuring out the best possible solutions and
know how to behave in problematic situations. In this research, resiliency and problem solving skills have been
considered as qualities that heavily affect the university students’ social and educational gains, and their relationship
has been investigated.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research was to investigate the resiliency level of university students by various variables and to
determine the relationship between resiliency level and problem-solving abilities. Within this framework, two
research questions have been addressed in the study.
1. What are the university students’ levels of resilience?
2. Do the students’ levels of resilience differ on the basis of gender, faculty, perception of academic achievement,
grade level, monthly income and accommodation?
3. What are university students’ levels of problem solving skills?
4. Do the students’ levels of problem solving on the basis of gender, faculty, perception of academic achievement,
grade level, monthly income and accommodation?
5. Is there a significant relationship between students' levels of resilience and problem-solving skills?
METHOD
.A survey study method was employed in this research. Data was gathered from 325 students who studies at
Yeditepe University in Istanbul during fall, 2012. Demographic information of participants in the study can be seen
in Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of Study Group
n %
Gender Male 115 35,38
Female 210 64,61
Faculty
Medicine 7 2,1
Pharmaceutical 22 6,7
Dentistry 13 4
Law 30 9,2
Education 54 16,61
Engineering 30 9,2
Arts & Sciences 42 12,92
Fine Arts 17 5,2
Economics &
Administrative 34 10,4
Communication 30 9,2
676 Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
Commerce 45 13,86
Years
1 47 14,46
2 97 29,85
3 62 19,07
4 88 27,08
>= 5 years 31 9,5
Instruments
The survey was composed of three different sections. First section is developed by the researchers to obtain the
demographic information of the participants. Second section is composed of a Resilience scale which was developed
by Gurgan (2006), while the third and the last section was composed of a Problem Solving Inventory which was
developed by Heppner and Peterson (1982) and adapted into Turkish by Sahin, Sahin and Heppner (1993). Both
scales have high reliabilities with a Cronbach Alpha .80 and .88 respectively. Resilience scale has eight-factor
structure, and these factor are named as “sturdiness”, “entrepreneurship”, “optimism”, “relationship-orientation”,
“having foresight” , “goal-orientation”, “leadership” and “research-oriented”. Any increase in the resiliency
mean score obtained from the scale can be interpreted as an increase in the resiliency level of the university students.
Therefore, a high score obtained from the resiliency scale indicates that the students have a high level of resiliency.
The minimum score that can be obtained from the resiliency scale is determined as 50 while the maximum score is
250. On the other hand, the high scores obtained from the problem solving inventory indicates that the person has a
negative perception about his/her problem solving skills, and perceives those skills as unsatisfactory. The score that
can be obtained from the problem solving inventory ranges between 32 and 192.
Analysis of the data
The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. The analysis included frequency distribution (f), percentages
(%), mean (
X
), t-test and ANOVA.
Findings
1.What are the university students’ levels of resilience?
The students’ levels of readiness resilience were examined and the findings have been shown in Table 2.
Levels of
Resilience
N
X
S.d.
325 190.067 32.85
University students' levels of resilience who participated in the study was found to (
X
= 190. 067). The scores
ranged between 50 to 250 on the scale of resilience and means to increase score is increase of the level of resilience.
According to the result of this research showed that was a high level of resilience of university students.
2. Do the students’ levels of resilience differ on the basis of gender, faculty, perception of academic achievement,
grade level, monthly income and accommodation?
According to the research findings, students' levels of resilience does not differ in terms of gender, grade level,
monthly income and accommodation (p>0,05). Beside this, in terms of faculty and perception of academic
achievement variables was found significant (p<0,05). The statistical analysis results of the scores received by
students from the resilence scale are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Analysis of “resilience” with respect to some variables
N
X
S.d. t/F
Gender Male 115 187.27 33.39
-1.137
677
Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
Female 210 191.60 32.56
Faculty
Medicine 7 202.14 23.16
2.200*
Pharmaceutical 22 187.82 33.8
Dentistry 13 207.92 23.91
Law 30 189.77 36.01
Education 54 185.30 32.90
Engineering 30 182.00 32.50
Arts & Sciences* 42 180.88 32.52
Fine Arts 17 176.23 34.77
Economics &
Administrative
Sciences 34 196.50 30.58
Communication 30 196.17 32.71
Commerce* 45 200.80 30.89
Grade Level
1 47 185.21 32.66
1.100
2 97 193.79 29.89
3 62 185.02 34.25
4 88 190.45 36.22
>= 5 years 31 194.81 28.73
Perception of
Academic
Achievement
Very low 2 143.50 2.12
6.282
Low 23 183.69 29.68
Moderate*,** 117 181.14 32.25
High* 150 195.75 31.61
Very high** 32 203.87 33.84
Monthly income
Very low 8 187.50 33.55
0.684
Low 25 179.88 30.20
Moderate 179 190.0 32.33
High 104 191.60 34.22
Very high 9 190.33 36.43
Accommodation
Alone 31 185.26 36.97
0.409
With family 144 190.30 34.22
With friends 75 191.59 31.23
Dormitory 69 191.58 29.32
With relatives 5 178.00 43.22
*p<0,05
3. What are university students’ levels of problem solving skills?
The students’ levels of problem solving skills were examined and the findings have been shown in Table 4.
678 Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
Levels of Problem
Solving Skills
N
X
S.d.
325 92.82 20.44
University students' levels of problem solving skills who participated in the study was found to
X
= 92.82. The
scores ranged between 32 to192 on the inventory. Low points shows that effective and successful problem-solving
behavior and attitudes and the total height of the individual scores shows on the problem-solving skills perceive
itself to be inadequate. Bu çalışmada
X
=92.82 olarak saptanan toplam problem çözme ölçek puan ortalaması
öğrencilerin orta düzeyde problem çözme becerilerine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
4. Do the students’ levels of problem solving on the basis of gender, faculty, perception of academic achievement,
grade level, monthly income and accommodation?
According to the research findings, students' levels of problem solving does not differ in terms of gender, grade
level, monthly income and accommodation faculty and perception of academic achievement variables was found not
significant (p>0,05). The statistical analysis results of the scores received by students from the resilence scale are
shown in Table 3
Problem Solving Inventory” with respect to variables
N
X
S.d. t/F
Gender Male 115 93.31 21.21
0.315
Female 210 92.56 20.02
Faculty
Medicine 7 93.86 28.93
1.080
Pharmaceutical 22 94.00 19.21
Dentistry* 13 86.08 16.62
Law 30 94.96 20.03
Education 54 93.50 19.44
Engineering* 30 92.80 23.47
Arts & Sciences 42 95.83 19.75
Fine Arts 17 99.70 18.17
Economics &
Administrative Sciences 34 95.88 23.00
Communication 30 88.23 19.27
Commerce 45 86.91 19.71
Grade Level
1 47 91.98 18.67
0.974
2 97 91.35 21.20
3 62 97.29 21.89
4 88 92.51 19.89
>= 5 years 31 90.83 20.42
Monthly income Very low 8 98.87 23.41 1.398
Low 25 99.52 18.21
Table 4. Analysis of
679
Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
Moderate 179 93.36 20.46
High 104 90.04 20.85
Very high 9 90.55 14.43
No 109 98.94 15.78
Accommodation
Alone 31 98.42 21.20
0.874
With family 144 91.74 19.45
With friends 75 93.35 18.67
Dormitory 69 91.61 23.38
With relatives 5 99.20 27.34
*p<0,05
5. Is there a significant relationship between students' levels of resilience and problem-solving skills?
The relationship between resilience and problem-solving skills of students was found to be r= -.672. This finding
indicates that as the students' resiliency level increases, their perception about their problem-solving skills becomes
more positive.
Conclusion and Discussion
The results of the research shows that students level of resilience is high (
X
= 190 067), and problem-solving skills
are at the average level (
X
= 92.82). University students until they reach university have to succeeded in many
challenging stages. Continuity of academic learning is the result of characteristics of a person's success and
problems of overcoming. Therefore, successful completion of academic stages can be considered as the indicator of
students’ resiliency. Researchers who put forward the theory of the continuity of resilience states that resiliency
characteristics develop since the beginning of life. Accordingly, if the individuals succeeded to develop and
maintain good relationships with high standards and high expectations, they are more likely to develop their
resiliency qualities and have a better performance in school (Wasonga, 2002 cited Gürgan, 2006).
Up-to-date review of the literature demonstrates that studies regarding resiliency of undergraduate students reveals
varying findings. For instance, Terzi (2005) with his study conducted with 395 undergraduate students proved that
resiliency and cognitive evaluation have a positive relationship with individuals’ well-being through the coping
skills. On the hand, Bahadır (2009), in his study investigating the psychological sturdiness levels of undergraduate
students studying in health faculties, found that psychological sturdiness level of students were generally low, but,
the psychological sturdiness level of female students with highly educated parents, and a record of physical illness
were even lower (Öz & Yılmaz, 2009). The things that are perceieved as problems, and the problem solving
strategies vary from person to person, but the problem solving skills are explained by feelings, reactions, and the
skills of managing the stress in the face of problematic situation. Evidence suggests that resilience is the process of
capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten, Best &
Garmezy, 1990, cited in Fayombo, 2010). Findings of the current study proves that as the students' resiliency level
increases, their perception about their problem-solving skills gets better (r=-.672). Alfred & Smith (1989)
investigated the cognitive evaluation of 84 undergraduate students when they are faced with a stressful situation, and
found that psychologically sturdy students had positive cognitive evaluation when faced with a threatining situation,
and also proved that psychological sturdiness had a relationship with stress at the average level (Yılmaz and
Sipahioğlu, cited in Terzi, 2005). As it was revealed in this reseach, resiliency has a relationship with many
X
SD 1 2
1 Resilience 190.07 32.87 …
2 Problem solving skills 92.73 20.19 - .672 …
680 Yelkin Diker Coşkun et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 ( 2014 ) 673 – 680
variables, therefore, it is important to acknowledge these relationships, and take them into consideration when
providing psychological services to undergraduate students at the universities.
References
Ahangar, R. G. (2010) A study of resilience in relation to personality, cognitive styles and decision making style of
management students. Africa Journal of Business Management Vol. 4(6), pp. 953-961.
Gizir, C. A. (2007). Psikolojik Sağlamlık, Risk faktörleri ve Koruyucu Faktörler Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması.
Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi. 2011, 4 (35), s. 30-43. Online: <
http://www.pdr.org.tr/dergi/index.php/PDRD/article/viewFile/220/180> Retrieved: 06.09.2012
D’Zurilla, T. J. Nezu, A. M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2004). Social problem solving: Theory and
assessment. In E. C. Chang, T. J. D’Zurilla, & L. J. Sanna (Eds.), Social problem solving: Theory,research, and
training. Washington, DC. USA.
Glantz M. D. , Jeannette L. Johnson (1999) Resilience and development : Positive Life adaptations
Longitudinal Research In The Social and Behavioral Sciences. Kluwer Academic/Pienum Publishers. New
York.
Gürgan U. (2006) Grupla Psikolojik Danışmanın Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Yılmazlık Düzeylerine Etkisi. Ankara
Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eğitim Bilimleri anabilim dalı, Eğitimde Psikolojik Hizmetler,
Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışmanlık Programı, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara.
Hanewald, Ria (2011) "Reviewing the Literature on “At-Risk” and Resilient Children and Young
People," Australian Journal of Teacher Education: Vol. 36: Iss. 2, Article 2. Online : <
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss2/2> Retrieved: 11.11.2012
Kaner, S. Hatice Bayraklı. ( 2010) Anne Yılmazlık Ölçeğinin Psikometrik Özellikleri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve
Uygulama: 9(17), 77-94. Online: <http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/39/1686/17978.pdf>
Retrieved:15.04.2013
Kumpfer, L. K. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience framework. In M. D. Glantz
& J. L. Johnson (Eds). Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 179-224). New York. USA.
Macnair R. R. Timothy R. Elliott. (1992) Self-Perceived Problem-Solving Ability, Stress Appraisal, and
Coping Over Time. Journal of Research In Personality 26, p. 150-164.
Online:<http://people.cehd.tamu.edu/~telliott/documents/macnair%20and%20elliott%20jrp.pdf> Retrieved:
19.04.2013
Öz F., E. B. Yılmaz. (2009) Ruh Sağlığının Korunmasında Önemli Bir Kavram: Psikolojik Sağlamlık. Sağlık
Bilimleri Fakültesi Hemşirelik Dergisi sayı 7, s. 82-89 Online:<
http://www.hacettepehemsirelikdergisi.org/pdf/pdf_HHD_87.pdf> Retrieved: 01.09.2012
Sardoğan, M. E., T. F.Karahan, C. Kaygusuz. (2006) Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kullandıkları Kararsızlık
Stratejilerinin Problem Çözme Becerisi, Cinsiyet, Sınıf Düzeyi ve Fakülte Türüne Göre İncelenmesi. Mersin
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. Cilt 2, Sayı 1, ss. 8-97.
Online:<http://efd.mersin.edu.tr/dergi/meuefd_2006_002_001/pdf/meuefd_2006_002_001_0078-
0097_sardogan%26karahan%26kaygusuz.pdf> Retrieved: 12.10.2012
Terzi, Ş. (2008) Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Kendini Toparlama Gücünün İçsel Koruyucu Faktörlerle İlişkisi.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 35: 297-306 Online:<
http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/200835%C5%9EER%C4%B0FE%20TERZ%C4%B0.pdf> Retrieved:
20.10.2012
Yılmaz, H., Ö. Sipahioğlu (2012). Farklı Risk Gruplarındaki Ergenlerin Psikolojik Sağlamlıklarının İncelenmesi.
İlköğretim Online, 11(4), 927-944, Online: < http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol11say4/v11s4m6.pdf> Retrieved:
03.10.2012