Next Article in Journal
Effect of Low Concentration of SiO2 Nanoparticles on Grape Seed Essential Oil/PBAT Composite Films for Sustainable Food Packaging Application
Next Article in Special Issue
COVID and ICT in Primary Education: Challenges Faced by Teachers in the Basque Country
Previous Article in Journal
Photosynthetic Characteristics of Macroalgae Ulva fasciata and Sargassum thunbergii in the Daya Bay of the South China Sea, with Special Reference to the Effects of Light Quality
Previous Article in Special Issue
Challenges of the Coronavirus Pandemic as an Opportunity for Sustainable Digital Learning in Vocational Education and Training (VET)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Resilience and Academic Dropout in Ecuadorian University Students during COVID-19

by
María Luisa Pertegal-Felices
1,
Daisy Astrid Valdivieso-Salazar
2,
Aldrin Espín-León
2 and
Antonio Jimeno-Morenilla
3,*
1
Developmental and Educational Psychology Department, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
2
Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Central University of Ecuador, Quito 170129, Ecuador
3
Computer Technology and Computation Department, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 8066; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138066
Submission received: 12 June 2022 / Revised: 24 June 2022 / Accepted: 29 June 2022 / Published: 1 July 2022

Abstract

:
The pandemic caused by COVID-19 has had a global impact that has affected all areas of people’s lives. However, people have different capacities to adapt and cope with the adversities and traumatic events that may have occurred during the pandemic with different levels of resilience. One collective affected by this global crisis was university students, who had to face an unprecedented academic situation, resulting in some abandoning their studies. This study aims to analyse whether the resilience of the students could be related to academic dropout. To carry out this research, we assessed the resilience of 1676 university students from 11 universities in Ecuador. To do so, a committee of experts from the Ecuadorian Association of Social Work Education Centres and 11 Ecuadorian universities designed a questionnaire and sent it to the entire sample. Subsequently, we compared the levels of resilience between university students who withdrew from university during the COVID-19 pandemic with those who continued their studies by using a multivariate analysis. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences in all variables analysed. The students who obtained the highest scores were those who continued their studies, and those students who dropped out obtained the lowest scores. In summary, we found that school dropout among Ecuadorian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic was due to low levels of resilience. Therefore, increasing student resilience could improve university retention rates and, in turn, academic performance and future life prospects.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 manifested as atypical cases of pneumonia in China and on 11 February 2020, the WHO considered the illness to be caused by a novel coronavirus [1]. On 11 March 2020, the WHO confirmed that the outbreak was a global pandemic. The virus in question has likely caused the most impact and damage internationally in recent decades [2].
COVID-19 drastically changed people’s lives, and also had global economic, social and political consequences. Such repercussions drastically affected the living conditions of citizens, generating uncertainty, fear, massive disruptions and economic recessions that reorganised the economy’s offer and demand [3]. Regarding the impact of the crisis, other authors have studied conditions that cause distress, mental disorders, and unemployment, which can lead to suicide in many cases [4]. Another factor that affected mental health due to COVID-19 was parents having to work remotely as their workload doubled and new strategies were required to school their children [5,6]. For Pietromonaco et al. [7], the pandemic increased stress levels, affecting couples’ relationships and their individual vulnerabilities, such as insecurity and depression. Furthermore, it has been noted that significant affective, ethical and spiritual values implying emotional bonds hold a binding meaning for elements that are implicit to resilience [8]; as a consequence, and despite mobility and clustering restrictions, the pandemic in some countries increased religious practice and addiction to internet use [9,10], as well as smoking and alcohol abuse and their possible link to SARS-CoV-2 [11].
Education was not spared from the impact of the crisis and it was one of the sectors most affected by the pandemic [3]. The world’s education systems did not foresee systematic actions to mitigate the closure of education facilities, disrupting the education of over one billion learners. This affected learners, teachers, parents and other education-related actors [12]. Authors like Hanushek and Woessman (2020) have connected the impact of learning losses to a lasting economic impact, where the loss of a third of one academic year caused by COVID-19 will affect the students’ income by approximately 2–4% during their working life. The magnitude of these social and economic consequences have been compared to economic crises, environmental disasters, revolutions and terrorist attacks, with the main difference being the considerable risk for public health requiring direct family attention [13].
According to a UNESCO publication (n.d.) [14], some of the harmful effects of school closures due to COVID-19 include learning disruption, malnutrition, digital inequality, greater pressure on schools and social isolation. The World Bank [15] analysed how unemployment and a lack of earnings will be a predominant factor for dropouts, causing more poverty and higher inequality. However, for Schleicher [16], the most affected students will be those who do not have access to digital learning resources and lack the resilience elements required to learn. According to Herrman et al. [17], resilience is a positive attitude towards the ability to maintain or regain mental health in the face of adversity. Resilience can transform life in times of adversity and, although it can be present in other aspects of life, it is during unanticipated times that it can develop with more impetus [18]. For Forés and Grané [19], resilience is strictly related to the ability that an individual has to cope in a situation and change it despite conditions that are detrimental to his or her development.
While this crisis required an immediate response, the impact of COVID-19 hit many households in Ecuador, particularly the most vulnerable. At the onset of the pandemic—early 2020—26,336 COVID-19 cases and 1063 deaths were recorded in Ecuador, deaths that were mainly concentrated in a single city (Guayaquil) [20]. For a relatively small country, this figure caused a national state of alarm [21]. Bonilla and Guachamín [22] reported on the reality in Ecuador and indicated that only 37.23% of households had a computer, which was lower in rural areas and deprived neighbourhoods (23.27%). During the first half of 2020, employment dropped by 11.1 %, placing employment at 52.8%, as an additional 643,420 people became unemployed. Of this group, young people aged between 15 and 24 years were the most affected (25.8% reduction), many of whom were students [23]. Furthermore, access to the health system, which was historically believed to be inefficient, was weakened even more, increasing health inequalities, mainly in rural areas [24]. During the first year of the pandemic, Ecuador was ranked eleventh in South America for COVID-19 testing (13,835 tests per million inhabitants), only ahead of Guyana and Suriname. An additional 27,000 deaths were reported compared with the three years before the pandemic [25].
Social and environmental sustainability play an important role in the resilience factors identified in the research. The COVID-19 pandemic deconstructed imposed social and environmental practices and rescued practices recognised for their own cultural identity and worldview. The pandemic was like a laboratory for de-imagining education from the perspective of family and environmental social sustainability [26]. As a consequence, during the health crisis, the family strengthened sustainable development practices through the recovery of memory, such as ancestral health, and the use of medicinal plants to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 or to recover family health in the face of the demand for care in public hospitals; it also recovered, in households, the need to create family gardens, community practices of exchange, intergenerational integration, community work and bartering, which form the basis of the “Sumak Kawsay” [27,28].
In this context, one consequence of the pandemic among the Ecuadorian university population was academic dropout. Tinto [29] described academic dropout as being the process that interrelates academia with the students’ social backgrounds in which different dynamics and conditions interact, including ethnic group, gender, lived experiences, academic achievements, family support and economic status. The paper also indicated that each of these factors will also enhance performance and the impact on those remaining in education. Authors like Greenland and Moore [30] who based their work on Tinto’s [29] theory suggested that dropout or withdrawal was based on the student’s level of commitment and their motivation influenced by friends and social groups that support learning. They further indicated employment as a predominant factor in withdrawal, as well as family and social interrelations. Resilience is related to factors such as dispositional optimism, i.e., the optimism that makes achieving goals and high efficiency possible [31]. To this end, Intriago et al. [32] stated that resilience is characterised by the human condition of being able to push for a goal in the face of defeat, and that “protective factors” will play a fundamental defensive role in goals being achieved. In keeping with these factors, they mentioned that high self-efficacy rates generate a greater ability to face adversity [33,34]. For Pereyra Girardi et al. [35], the self-efficacy construct can have several variables, including a protective factor, whereas Bandura et al. [36] indicated that self-efficacy is directly related to how a person behaves when facing a potentially stressful situation and is what gives human beings the impetus to achieve their goals by applying their skills and abilities, providing the motivation required to reach a goal [37].

1.1. Literature Review

There are studies on resilience that use existing methods and instruments. Levels of individual resilience, according to Jew et al. [38], are measured in three dimensions: optimism, skill acquisition and risk taking. For Doll et al. [39] resilience is measured using interpersonal relationships across four categories: frequency of social interaction, ability to resolve minor disagreements, frequency of prosocial behaviours and ability to resolve conflicts. Authors such as Hjemdal et al. [40] considered an individual’s abilities to adapt when faced with new risky situations, defining the “resilient self” through a 14-item instrument. Other authors such as Wagnild and Young [41], developed a resilience scale based on self-acceptance and personal competence in five dimensions: perseverance, self-confidence, meaning in life, philosophy of life and equanimity. For students, Perry and Bard [42] developed a scale called Resilience Assessment for Exceptional Students (RAES), in which they identified 3 domains of resilience with 11 factors and 54 items. These domains were: knowledge of exceptionality; planning for needs; and alternative thinking for exceptional problem solving. Aspects of resilience such as commitment, burnout and its opposite, engagement, were applied to university students in Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands [43,44]. There are other instruments developed for students, such as the one proposed by Maslach and Jackson [45] that includes three categories: emotional exhaustion, cynicism and low efficacy. Warren and Hale [46] conducted a study of resilience and academic beliefs in students at a public university in the southeastern United States, using a brief resilience scale (BRS). The BRS is a five-item self-report measure developed by Smith et al. [47] that assesses resilience to stress. In Latin America, Salgado [48], developed an instrument to assess five resilience factors, self-esteem, empathy, autonomy, humour and creativity, that responded to Peru’s own reality. In Mexico, Valadez [49] assessed the so-called “Mexican Scale”, 43 items arranged in four categories: (social competences, family support, social support and structure), whereas Palomar and Gómez [50] developed a measurement scale of 25 items grouped in five dimensions.
As can be deduced from the previous paragraph, the existing resilience instruments take into account the specific reality of the subjects under investigation, and there is no model that is generally used by the scientific community. For this reason, no methods and instruments were found that were developed and applied under this “new” reality of a global pandemic, nor did they include specific realities, such as the cosmovision of Ecuador’s indigenous peoples and ethnic groups [51].
The Ecuadorian people has a great variety of indigenous ethnicities, peoples and nationalities (14 nationalities and 18 peoples). In this sense, according to Hurtado [52] in his book “Las Costumbres de Los Ecuatorianos” (The Customs of Ecuadorians), personal and family relationships are part of cultural and social relationships; however, these relationships in indigenous communities, Afro-descendants and minority ethnic groups, can be affected by discrimination and communication [53,54]. Family relationships and violence may also affect the personal relationships of students in the coastal region [55].
The existence of various nationalities, ethnic groups and peoples should not be seen as a hegemonic condition that implies superiority of one over another. For Boaventura de Sousa [56], plurinationality is a recognition of the country, which implies respect for its social and cultural rights. However, the culture of these peoples, which is part of their identity, is at risk and influenced by dominant groups and external agents [57]. According to Davalos [58], peoples and nationalities feel that their territory and culture are becoming vulnerable; therefore, they live in constant socio-cultural risk. On the other hand, not only is socio-cultural risk present but, due to natural phenomena, the population also “lives” in constant risk. Its territory is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and is therefore exposed to constant earthquakes [59], as well as periodic flooding due to high rainfall caused by the influence of the El Niño warm current [60]. Faced with these realities, authors such as Anzola [61] and Páramo [62] consider resilience as a protection factor for people, especially indigenous students in conditions of poverty [63].

1.2. Hypotheses and Objectives

Studying the living conditions and academic dropout of university students became a priority for social work schools at 11 universities in Ecuador. For students, these conditions could generate traumatic situations, which were strictly related to the threat to life and the threat to collective and individual health and how they cope or overcome a crisis, individually or collectively. If they were not able to overcome said crisis, there would be an increasing unmet need, where the following factors should be considered: ethnic group, gender, education level, age, socio-economic and employment situation, etc. [64,65]. In this scenario of unprecedented socio-educational transformation not foreseen by the government, educational institutions or the students themselves, online support networks were created. For Aranda and Pando [66], these transformations arose within the framework of social interrelations and were related to caring and protecting others using support networks. Meanwhile, for Hernández et al. [67] they were informal support networks where identity strengthening is also built upon.
The objective of this study is to analyse if there are significant differences in the resilience of students who continued their studies and those who withdrew from university due to the effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in Ecuador.
This study aims to answer questions such as: What resilience factors do university students have because of COVID-19? Does the level of resilience affect university dropout? Is there a difference in the family relationships of those students who drop out because of COVID-19 and those who do not?
This paper is structured as follows: This section reviewed the literature on the health crisis caused by COVID-19 and offered a general overview of the situation and how it affected the population in Ecuador, especially the impact it had on education and academic dropout, which is the main objective of this study. The second section describes the method used for the study and specifies the participants in the sample, the instruments, procedures and the data design and analysis. The third section presents the results obtained from the statistical analysis comparing sample groups of students who continued their studies or withdrew from university. Lastly, the fourth section includes the main conclusions and discusses a possible future study.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Ecuador has 71 universities (632,541 students), of which 11 universities have a degree in social work. The total number of social work students in the 11 universities is 3775, of which 1695 students participated in this study. These 11 universities are as follows: Central University of Ecuador, Ambato Technical University, National University of Loja, Cuenca University, Catholic University of Cuenca, Civil University Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Manabí Technical University, Luis Vargas Torres University, Machala Technical University, Milagro State University and Santa Elena Peninsula State University.
As shown in Table 1, the average age of the participants was 22 years, and their ages ranged from 18 to 47 years.

2.2. Instruments

The global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has created a new social problem scenario for which there is no evidence of methods and instruments that specifically measure resilience in this type of context. Under this new reality, experts from the 11 Ecuadorian universities (sociologists, psychologists, social workers and anthropologists) developed a measurement instrument with four factors/categories and resilience items during the pandemic (period of maximum impact) taking into account the realities, socio-cultural and family realities from the worldview of the peoples and communities of Ecuador [51,68].
We designed a social resilience assessment questionnaire (Table 2) using the Delphi method to find out how the participants coped during the COVID-19 health crisis. The research instrument included 29 items grouped in four categories of semantic units of resilience: interpersonal resources, family resources, sociocultural resources and coping with the risk situation.
To this end, we asked participants to answer the questions in Table 1, stating to what degree the statements described them by selecting one of the following four options from a Likert-type scale ranging from 4 to 1: always, almost always, almost never, never.
The questionnaire was approved by ten professionals based on the expert judgement method. Following the expert judgement, the Aiken’s V coefficient was 0.96 and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 for the whole scale.

2.3. Procedure

We conducted this study in response to 11 Ecuadorian universities deciding to take part in a study within the context of the COVID-19 health crisis. All universities offer degrees in social work and are members of the Ecuadorian Association of Social Work Education Centres (ANUATSE is its acronym in Spanish). The study was based on the principles of voluntary group participation. After the Association announced a student support project (called “COVID-19 support network”) to its members, the heads of the degrees in social work agreed to be part of the study to consider the social problem of university students under this “new” reality throughout Ecuador.
The study started with ANUATSE formally communicating with authorities from the participating universities and the Council for Higher Education (the Council for Higher Education (CES) is an Ecuadorian institution that plans, regulates and coordinates the higher education system, and connects the different education actors with society to guarantee citizens a quality education and boost growth in the country [69]). Certification of the research project and informed consent (ethical considerations) for the application of the survey was issued by ANUATSE, and the research was carried out with the endorsement of the CES.
We then confirmed the data protection protocol, ensuring that participants had given their informed consent and that the data would be used appropriately. A database was created on the Eloy Alfaro de Manabí University’s (ULEAM) virtual platform. Due to confidentiality and data protection, access to this database is restricted except for researchers from the participating universities. The method was developed by the Central University of Ecuador (UCE), and all participating universities created the analysis and instrument design.
The research was carried out in two stages: firstly, it was planned to survey university students and, secondly, the community in general. These surveys were carried out with the collaboration of students in the final stages of their social work degree courses. The students were mostly at home due to the suspension of face-to-face classes, but because connectivity in rural areas does not have total coverage [70], it was not known whether or all students had telephone or internet connectivity [71]. However, to use the research instrument, we considered the socio-economic conditions of each province (there are 24 provinces in Ecuador), a map and geo-referencing of each actor. We conducted the questionnaire from May 2020 until September 2021 via telephone calls (mobile or landline) or by sending a questionnaire link via email. The phone calls and student emails were carried out by students who were studying social work, a total of 220 students. Before starting the questionnaire, we informed the participants that they were participating voluntarily and asked them to consent to their data being recorded via the tool Kobo Collect.

2.4. Data Analysis and Design

To obtain the students’ profiles, we assessed the students’ resilience level during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We later conducted a statistical analysis in which we compared the resilience profiles of students who continued their studies and those who withdrew from university during the pandemic. We compared the groups using the general linear model (GLM) in the SPSS statistics package (version 24) along with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and an analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is the procedure commonly used to analyse profiles. The approach to repeated measures designs offers several advantages over the traditional univariate approach. It does not make the assumption of sphericity that is so rarely met by psychophysiological data or in the behavioural sciences in general [72]. In said analysis, we used resilience variables as within-subject variables and the student groups (those who continued and those who withdrew) as between-subject variables. A t-analysis was used when it was necessary to analyse variable-by-variable behaviour.

3. Results

The result from the evaluation of assumptions of this analysis using Box’s M test showed that there was homogeneity in the variance-covariance matrices (F = 1.525 and p = 0.123) being considered equivalent groups for the study. However, Mauchly’s sphericity test did not show sphericity for the matrix of dependent variables (DVs) (W = 0.753, χ2 = 480,899, gl = 5 and p = 0.000).
Since the matrix shape of the dependent variables was not spherical, the degrees of freedom for the intra-subject tests were corrected for the effects of “flatness” (resilience effect) and parallelism of profiles (effect of interaction resilience * withdrawal from university COVID), with the epsilon correction values calculated in accordance with Greenhouse–Geisser procedures ε = 0.853, Huynh–Feldt ε = 0.854, and lower bound ε = 0.333. The result of the intra-subject effect analysis with the corrected degrees of freedom showed that the profiles were not flat but they were parallel. The variations in the DVs were significant for all statistics in the flatness tests (F = 354,980; p =0.000 and η2 partial = 0.173). These profiles are displayed in graph form in Figure 1. The variations in the resilience variables for each group in all statistics corresponding to the parallelism test were not significant (F = 2123; p > 0.05 and η2 partial = 0.001).
To analyse if there were significant differences in the resilience level of students who withdrew from university during the pandemic compared to those who did not, we conducted a level test (see Table 3). The results showed that the average resilience of one group differed from the other (F = 20,150; p = 0.000; η2 partial = 0.012); however, the effect size showed that the two groups were not so far apart.
Lastly, we conducted a t-test for difference of means to determine which variables showed differences between the two groups of students (Table 4). The results showed that there were significant differences in all variables (interpersonal resources, family resources, sociocultural resources and coping with the risk situation).

4. Discussion

This research led us to identify that those university students who withdrew from education during the COVID-19 pandemic were less resilient. Resilience included significant differences in all the factors we studied (interpersonal, family, sociocultural and coping with the risk).
Of all the resilience factors we analysed, the main difference was found in the variables related to family resources (−7.2 points). These differences could be related to worldview (the age-old view of the relationship between humankind and our natural surroundings) [73] as well as the social and cultural values typical of Latin American families, which together form a protective factor for its members. Culturally, most university students are influenced by their cultural traditions and live with their families until they complete their academic studies, or even later, in some cases. Based on this, we can assume that family resources will have an important repercussion on the students’ daily lives.
The next most significant resilience factor was “coping with the risk situation” (the difference between student groups was −4.4 points). This factor requires students having access to effective protective factors for them to continue their university studies and are dependent on the lack or limitation of effective protective mechanisms that may expose them to withdrawal or affect their academic performance.
The resilience differences concerning sociocultural resources among the students who continued their university studies compared to those who withdrew were also significant (−3.6 points). Even though at a community level, strategies are developed to cope as a response to the need for health services, food, housing and working conditions in the population, these responses do not seem to have been enough to alleviate the situation that university students had to face during COVID-19.
Lastly, the interpersonal resource variable showed a significant difference between the two student groups (−2.5 points). These differences could be due to the initial lockdown situation experienced by families in Ecuador, and later, by the social distancing measures put in place due to the pandemic, such as the need for online classes, which gave way to other ways of interacting with others, (which were not new for the students, however). In this sense, the analysis suggests that general resilience strategies should be developed for the public, but with a greater emphasis on the resilience of students’ family resources. Although we identified family resources as an important protective factor for university students, this factor requires care, family monitoring, prevention, support and comprehensive coping strategies. According to Zambrano et al. [74], family members suffered the effects of the health crisis and were left unprotected, so older adults had to go out to look for work while students abandoned their studies due to lack of resources.
The study shows certain limitations with respect to the techniques used. Since these techniques depended on technology (telephony and internet), and this in turn depended on the economic level of the students, there was a bias in access to the study. Students living in rural areas who did not have these services could not be interviewed. Another limitation was the lack of personal information that the universities had about their students (home addresses, telephone numbers and mailing addresses). Moreover, the main weakness was due to the extreme situation created by COVID-19 in which the research itself was carried out, since the social work students who carried out the surveys were going through situations of risk and family affectation, to which were also added the mobility restriction measures. This meant that the data could not be collected in situ, and the opportunity to collect qualitative information based on direct observation and dialogue (in-depth data) was lost. However, despite these limitations, the strength of the research lies in the large amount of data collected, high student participation, the inclusion of diverse regions and cultures, and the integration of academically dispersed social work programmes.

5. Conclusions

COVID-19 is a social phenomenon that has led to devastating consequences on global, regional and local scales. We analysed the impact of resilience on university students in Ecuador during this new scenario. However, there are studies linking the pandemic and the right to education, its impact on schooling and state obligations, as well as the closure of education facilities in Latin America [75].
In summary, we found that academic dropout in Ecuadorian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic was due to low resilience levels. To this end, calling for new legislation considering the ethics and politics that would benefit university students should be made a priority. Trying to increase students’ resilience could improve university retention rates, and in turn, their academic performance and future life prospects.
To improve resilience capacities in the interest of academic improvement, student welfare departments should implement an online care system as an initial action because, as Vargas [76] mentions, the increase in family violence caused by the pressure of a lack of employment can influence negative aspects in students, such as alcohol consumption, smoking and unauthorised drug use.
In the future, we plan to study the COVID-19-related resilience factors that could affect academic performance to a greater or lesser extent and examine how these factors evolve following the pandemic. We will also analyse other social factors that could cause academic dropout, such as domestic violence, the use of psychotropic substances, the use of alcohol and unemployment caused by COVID-19.
We also plan to conduct further studies aimed at developing participation and planning strategies for higher education public policy to improve the overall health of students and their return to university. Although these policies are medium- and long-term, emerging assessments for students at risk in the short term could facilitate learning in conditions of equality that produce, as mentioned by Camargo-Velastegui et al. [77], a formative education, autonomy and self-regulation of students as well as the commitment of a teacher as an empowering agent. In this sense, we also hope that this further study will encourage authorities to create social policies or recommendations to minimise the impact of future pandemics or other serious crises.

Author Contributions

A.E.-L., M.L.P.-F., D.A.V.-S. and A.J.-M.: conceptualization, methodology, and reviewing and approving the final manuscript. A.E.-L., M.L.P.-F., D.A.V.-S. and A.J.-M.: experimentation and validation. A.E.-L., M.L.P.-F., D.A.V.-S. and A.J.-M.: writing and reviewing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of ANUATSE (National Association of Academic Units of Social Work of Ecuador).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Ecuadorian Association of Social Work Education Centres (NUATSE) and the teaching staff and students from the 11 Ecuadorian universities that participated in the study: The Central University of Ecuador, Ambato Technical University, National University of Loja, Cuenca University, Catholic University of Cuenca, Civil University Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Manabí Technical University, Luis Vargas Torres University, Machala Technical University, Milagro State University and Santa Elena Peninsula State University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anand, E.R.; Major, C.; Pickering, O.; Nelson, M. Acute Pancreatitis in a COVID-19 Patient. J. Br. Surg. 2020, 107, e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Urzúa, A.; Vera-Villarroel, P.; Caqueo-Urízar, A.; Polanco-Carrasco, R. La Psicología En La Prevención y Manejo Del COVID-19. Aportes Desde La Evidencia Inicial. Ter. Psicológica 2020, 38, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The Socio-Economic Implications of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19): A Review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Neece, C.; McIntyre, L.L.; Fenning, R. Examining the Impact of COVID-19 in Ethnically Diverse Families with Young Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2020, 64, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Iturralde, C.; Duque, L.; Iturralde, C.; Duque, L. Precarización del Teletrabajo en Ecuador en Contexto de COVID-19: Variables de Análisis Desde el Enfoque Marxista. Rev. Chakiñan Cienc. Soc. Humanid. 2021, 14, 146–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shoshani, A.; Kor, A. The Mental Health Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Adolescents: Risk and Protective Factors. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pietromonaco, P.R.; Overall, N.C. Applying Relationship Science to Evaluate How the COVID-19 Pandemic May Impact Couples’ Relationships. Am. Psychol. 2021, 76, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Quintero Velásquez, Á.M. Resiliencia: Contexto No Clínico Para Trabajo Social. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Niñez Juv. 2005, 3, 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boguszewski, R.; Makowska, M.; Bożewicz, M.; Podkowińska, M. The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on Religiosity in Poland. Religions 2020, 11, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lin, M.-P. Prevalence of Internet Addiction during the COVID-19 Outbreak and Its Risk Factors among Junior High School Students in Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 8547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Althobaiti, Y.S.; Alzahrani, M.A.; Alsharif, N.A.; Alrobaie, N.S.; Alsaab, H.O.; Uddin, M.N. The Possible Relationship between the Abuse of Tobacco, Opioid, or Alcohol with COVID-19. Healthcare 2021, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Onyema, E.M.; Eucheria, N.C.; Obafemi, F.A.; Sen, S.; Atonye, F.G.; Sharma, A.; Alsayed, A.O. Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Education. J. Educ. Pract. 2020, 11, 108–121. [Google Scholar]
  13. Prime, H.; Wade, M.; Browne, D.T. Risk and Resilience in Family Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. UNESCO: 290 Million Students Stay Home Due to Coronavirus. Available online: https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/unesco-290-million-students-stay-home-due-to-coronavirus/5317148.html (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  15. Bank, W. The COVID-19 Pandemic: Shocks to Education and Policy Responses; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Schleicher, A. The Impact of COVID-19 on Education Insights from Education at a Glance 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  17. Herrman, H.; Stewart, D.E.; Diaz-Granados, N.; Berger, E.L.; Jackson, B.; Yuen, T. What Is Resilience? Can. J. Psychiatry 2011, 56, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Grotberg, E.H. The International Resilience Project: Promoting Resilience in Children. Report number: ED383424; Civitan International Research Center: Birmingham, UK, 1995; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  19. Forés, A.; Grané, J. Crecer Desde La Adversidad; Plataforma Editor: Barcelona, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ching-Ávalos, S.; Jaramillo-Lindao, Y.; Velastegui-Montoya, A.; Encalada Abarca, L.; Chang-Silva, R.; Mosquera-Romero, M. Crowdsourcing of COVID-19 Symptoms Map in Ecuadorians. In Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 19–23 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, X.; Zhang, S.X.; Jahanshahi, A.A.; Alvarez-Risco, A.; Dai, H.; Li, J.; Ibarra, V.G. Belief in a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory as a Predictor of Mental Health and Well-Being of Health Care Workers in Ecuador: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020, 6, e20737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bonilla-Guachamín, J.A. Las Dos Caras de La Educación En El COVID-19. CienciAmérica 2020, 9, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Esteves, A. El Impacto Del COVID-19 En El Mercado de Trabajo de Ecuador. Mundos Plur.-Rev. Latinoam. Políticas Acción Pública 2020, 7, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Naranjo Ferregut, J.A.; Delgado Cruz, A.; Rodríguez Cruz, R.; Sánchez Pérez, Y. Consideraciones Sobre El Modelo de Atención Integral de Salud Del Ecuador. Rev. Cuba. Med. Gen. Integral 2014, 30. [Google Scholar]
  25. Velasco, M.; Hurtado, F.T. El Acceso Geográfico Desigual a la Salud en Ecuador. 2020. Available online: https://cebes.org.br/el-acceso-geografico-desigual-a-la-salud-en-ecuador/22472/ (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  26. Williamson, B. Education Technology Seizes a Pandemic Opening. Curr. Hist. 2021, 120, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vega, F. El Buen Vivir-Sumak Kawsay En La Constitución y En El PNBV 2013–2017 Del Ecuador. OBETS Rev. Cienc. Soc. 2014, 9, 167–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Grek, S.; Landri, P. Education in Europe and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2021, 20, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tinto, V. Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 1975, 45, 89–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Greenland, S.J.; Moore, C. Large Qualitative Sample and Thematic Analysis to Redefine Student Dropout and Retention Strategy in Open Online Education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 53, 647–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vizoso-Gomez, C.; Arias-Gundin, O. Resilience, Optimism and Academic Burnout in University Students. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 11, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Intriago, J.O.V.; Pinargote, C.L.B.; Mendoza, E.M.C. Niveles de Resiliencia y La Presencia de Síntomas Depresivos En Los Estudiantes Universitarios. Rev. Ecuat. Psicol. 2021, 4, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cabanach, R.G.; Valle, A.; Rodríguez, S.; Piñeiro, I.; Millán, P.G. Las Creencias Motivacionales Como Factor Protector Del Estrés En Estudiantes Universitarios. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 3, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pereyra Girardi, C.I.; Ronchieri Pardo, C.d.V.; Rivas, A.; Trueba, D.A.; Mur, J.A.; Páez Vargas, N. Autoeficacia: Una Revisión Aplicada a Diversas Áreas de La Psicología. Ajayu Órgano Difus. Científica Dep. Psicol. UCBSP 2018, 16, 299–325. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.H.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. J. Cogn. Psychother. 1999, 13, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lacal, P.L.P. Teorías de Bandura Aplicadas al Aprendizaje. Málaga 2009, 54, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jew, C.L.; Green, K.E.; Kroger, J. Development and Validation of a Measure of Resiliency. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2019, 32, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Doll, B.; Murphy, P.; Song, S.Y. The Relationship between Children’s Self-Reported Recess Problems, and Peer Acceptance and Friendships. J. Sch. Psychol. 2003, 41, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hjemdal, O.; Friborg, O.; Stiles, T.C.; Martinussen, M.; Rosenvinge, J.H. A New Scale for Adolescent Resilience: Grasping the Central Protective Resources Behind Healthy Development. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2006, 39, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wagnild, G.M.; Young, H.M. Development and Psychometric. J. Nurs. Meas. 1993, 1, 165–17847. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Perry, J.D.; Bard, E.M. Construct Validity of the Resilience Assessment of Exceptional Students (RAES). 2001. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED454284 (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  43. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schaufeli, W.B.; Martínez, I.M.; Pinto, A.M.; Salanova, M.; Bakker, A.B. Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-National Study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2002, 33, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E. The Measurement of Experienced Burnout. J. Organ. Behav. 1981, 2, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Warren, J.; Hale, R. Predicting Grit and Resilience: Exploring College Students’ Academic Rational Beliefs. J. Coll. Couns. 2020, 23, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Salgado Lévano, A.C. Métodos e instrumentos para medir la resiliencia: Una alternativa peruana. Liberabit 2005, 11, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  49. Valadez, D.C. Propiedades Psicométricas de La Escala de Resiliencia Mexicana En Población Del Norte de México. Enseñ. E Investig. En Psicol. 2016, 21, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  50. Palomar Lever, J.; Gómez Valdez, N.E. Desarrollo de Una Escala de Medición de La Resiliencia Con Mexicanos (RESI-M). Interdisciplinaria 2010, 27, 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  51. López, M.E.D. Sumak Kawsay o Buen Vivir, Desde La Cosmovisión Andina Hacia La Ética de La Sustentabilidad. Pensam. Actual 2010, 10, 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hurtado, O. Las Costumbres de Los Ecuatorianos; Editorial Planeta del Ecuador S.A.: Quito, Ecuador, 2018; ISBN 978-958-54-4629-8. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tigmasa Mena, Y.L. Las Relaciones Interpersonales de Los Grupos Étnicos: Indígenas, Afroecuatorianos y Mestizos. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi, Lata Kuna, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mendoza, M.D.R.D.; Salazar, J.E.C.; Caicedo, W.R.B.; Morocho, W.R.B. Comunicación intercultural en las relaciones interpersonalesen la comunidadde afrodescendientes. J. Sci. Res. Rev. Cienc. E Investig. 2021, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zambrano-Villalba, C. Violencia Intrafamiliar y Relaciones Interpersonales En Los Escolares. Rev. Cienc. UNEMI 2017, 10, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Sousa Santos, B. Refundación Del Estado En América Latina: Perspectivas Desde Una Epistemología Del Sur; Plural: La Paz, Bolivia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Quijano, A. Colonialidad y Modernidad/Racionalidad. Perú Indígena 1992, 13, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  58. Dávalos, P. Movimiento Indígena Ecuatoriano: Construcción Política y Epistémica. In Estudios y Otras Prácticas Intelectuales Latinoamericanas en Cultura y Poder; Universidad Central de Venezuela y Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO): Caracas, Venezuela, 2002; pp. 89–97. [Google Scholar]
  59. Theurer, M.M.; Jiménez, J.V.; Velasco, G.M.; Zambrano, I.B. Análisis sobre la recurrencia de terremotos severos en Ecuador. Prisma Tecnológico 2017, 8, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  60. Proaño, M.H. Variabilidad Climática Interanual Sobre El Ecuador Asociada a ENOS. CienciAmérica Rev. Divulg. Científica Univ. Tecnológica Indoamérica 2017, 6, 42–47. [Google Scholar]
  61. Anzola, M. La Resiliencia Como Factor de Protección. Educere 2003, 7, 190–200. [Google Scholar]
  62. Páramo, M.; de Los, Á. Factores de Riesgo y Factores de Protección En La Adolescencia: Análisis de Contenido a Través de Grupos de Discusión. Ter. Psicológica 2011, 29, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aguiar Andrade, E.; Acle-Tomasini, G. Resiliencia, Factores de Riesgo y Protección en Adolescentes Mayas de Yucatán: Elementos Para Favorecer la Adaptación Escolar. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2012, 15, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  64. Arciniega, J.D.D.U. La Resiliencia Comunitaria En Situaciones Catastróficas y de Emergencia. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 1, 687–693. [Google Scholar]
  65. Páez, D.; Fernández, I.; Beristain, C.M. Catástrofes, Traumas y Conductas Colectivas: Procesos y Efectos Culturales. In Catástrofes y Ayuda en Emergencia: Estrategias de Evaluación, Prevención y Tratamiento; Universidad del País Vasco: País Vasco, Spain, 2001; pp. 85–148. [Google Scholar]
  66. Aranda, C.; Pando, M. Conceptualización Del Apoyo Social y Las Redes de Apoyo Social. Rev. Investig. En Psicol. 2013, 16, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Hernández, M.G.; Carrasco, G.M.R.; Rosell, C.F. Evaluación de Las Principales Redes de Apoyo Informal En Adultos Mayores Del Municipio Cerro. GeroInfo 2010, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hidalgo, J. Cosmovisión y Participación Política de Los Indígenas En El Ecuador. In Cidade, Campo e Turismo; CLACSO: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  69. Misión, Visión y Objetivos—CES—Consejo de Educación Superior. Available online: https://www.ces.gob.ec/?page_id=44 (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  70. Sambache, D.D.C.; Villalba, M.C.V.; Cevallos, J.V.A. Brecha digital: Conectividad y equipamiento en instituciones de educación fiscal en Ecuador. GIGAPP Estud. Work. Pap. 2020, 7, 758–770. [Google Scholar]
  71. Calderón, M.J.; Acuña, J. Conectividad Rural y Cambio Social: Los Infocentros Comunitarios En El Ecuador. Rev. Publicando 2017, 4, 190–207. [Google Scholar]
  72. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics; Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  73. Montero, G. La Cosmovisión de Los Pueblos Indígenas. 2016, pp. 105–126. Available online: https://www.uv.mx/blogs/iihs/investigadores/199-2 (accessed on 18 January 2022).
  74. Zambrano, M.J.N.; Naranjo, I.A.M.; Amores, R.E.R. Efectos de la pandemia en la familia y en la sociedad ecuatoriana. Resnon Verba Rev. Científica 2020, 10, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ruiz, G.R. Marcas de la Pandemia: El Derecho a la Educación afectado. In Revista Internacional De Educación Para La Justicia Social; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vargas, D. Efectos de La Pandemia En La Familia. In Cambiar el Rumbo: El Desarrollo Tras La Pandemia; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM): Mexico City, Mexico, 2020; pp. 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  77. Camargo-Velastegui, D.; Velastegui-Montoya, A.; Chang-Silva, R. Emerging remote assessment in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of experience in higher education. In Proceedings of the 19th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology, Online, 19–23 July 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Resilience profiles of students who withdrew from university and those who continued their studies.
Figure 1. Resilience profiles of students who withdrew from university and those who continued their studies.
Sustainability 14 08066 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for participants’ age by gender.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for participants’ age by gender.
GenderNMin AgeMax AgeAge Avg.Age Std. Dev.
Female1111184622.252.977
Male584184721.833.263
Total1695184722.103.084
Table 2. Resilience questionnaire.
Table 2. Resilience questionnaire.
  • I apologise when I feel like I’ve made a mistake
  • I share my problems with my friends
  • I think one needs to tell the truth and be respectful to have friends
  • I feel proud of the person I am
  • When something difficult happens in my life, I get over it quickly
  • It’s important for me to have people that support me during difficult times of life
  • If another person bothers me, I ask them to change the way they behave towards me
  • I feel uncomfortable when people tell me about sad situations
  • If someone asks me for help, I listen to them
  • I find it hard to put myself in someone else’s place when they’re telling me about something that happened to them
  • I feel like I receive support from my family when I have problems and/or needs
  • Among my family and the people I live with, we talk and share our problems
  • My family and the people I live with accept and support my decision to pursue new activities
  • My family and the people I live with express their affection and respond to my emotions, such as anger, sadness and love
  • My family and the people I live with spend time together in different parts of the house
  • In my neighbourhood or community, we are prepared to face any type of situation
  • The people in my neighbourhood or community are supportive of one another when there is a need
  • In my academic preparation, I have received training about skills and strategies on how to face this situation
  • I trust the educational institutions’ responses to propose strategies to deal with the emergency situation
  • The state institutions in my neighbourhood or community care about the well-being of my family or my neighbours
  • I feel like state institutions respond to the needs of my neighbourhood or community
  • The measures currently adopted by the State improve my family’s quality of life
  • Feeling like I belong in the place where I live allows me to develop emotional bonds of identity to face this crisis
  • As citizens, strengthening national identity is important to face a crisis situation
  • Customs and traditions are important resources to make us stronger during difficult times
  • I didn’t believe that the situation would reach the magnitude it has
  • I try to take something positive from the country’s situation
  • I try to not think about the country’s situation so as not to worry
  • I feel defenceless and unable to do anything to change the situation
Table 3. Test of inter-subjects effects.
Table 3. Test of inter-subjects effects.
SourceglFpη2 PartialObs. Power a
Intersection115,156.5230.0000.9001.000
Withdrawal from university COVID120.1500.0000.0120.994
Error1693(59.493)
a computed using alpha = 0.05.
Table 4. t-test of independent samples of students who withdrew from university and those who continued their studies.
Table 4. t-test of independent samples of students who withdrew from university and those who continued their studies.
VariableDifference of MeansTSig.
Interpersonal resources−2.5−2.4970.000
Family resources−7.2−3.6850.000
Sociocultural resources−3.6−2.2740.000
Coping with the risk situation−4.4−2.9910.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pertegal-Felices, M.L.; Valdivieso-Salazar, D.A.; Espín-León, A.; Jimeno-Morenilla, A. Resilience and Academic Dropout in Ecuadorian University Students during COVID-19. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138066

AMA Style

Pertegal-Felices ML, Valdivieso-Salazar DA, Espín-León A, Jimeno-Morenilla A. Resilience and Academic Dropout in Ecuadorian University Students during COVID-19. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):8066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pertegal-Felices, María Luisa, Daisy Astrid Valdivieso-Salazar, Aldrin Espín-León, and Antonio Jimeno-Morenilla. 2022. "Resilience and Academic Dropout in Ecuadorian University Students during COVID-19" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 8066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop