Digital Feedback and Academic Resilience

  • Laura Guerra
  • Dulce Rivero
  • Stalin Arciniegas
  • Santiago Quishpe
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 721)


This descriptive research aims to explore the student perceptions about technology and their resilience when they develop mathematical problems through digital technologies. The population was 19 students, who had allowed to use geogebra software and matrixcalc application to verify problem solving. The study is supported by the theories of self-determination, connectivism and social construction of knowledge. The methodology is a combination of proposals of Hattie et al. named by [4, 6] and of the authors. A survey with a reliability coefficient of 0.81 was distributed to students, obtaining that more than half of them perceive themselves as capable of achieving their goals, maintaining their sense of humor, feeling the family support, controlling the development of activities, considering the authorized programs that are easy to use, useful and reliable. So, the academic strategy used favors the development of academic resilience, which is consistent with the postulates of Vaquero [9].


Digital feedback Academic resilience Geogebra Theory of self-determination 


  1. 1.
    Nazihatulhasanah, A., Nurbiha, A.: The effects of GeoGebra on students achievement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 172, 208–214 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozkurt, G., Ruthven, K.: Classroom-based professional expertise: a mathematics teacher’s practice with technology. Educ. Stud. Math. 94, 309–328 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsson, J.: The contribution of reasoning to the utilization of feedback from software when solving mathematical problems. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 1, 1–21 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matzenberger, J.: A novel approach to exploring the concept of resilience and principal drivers in a learning environment. Multicult. Educ. Technol. J. 7, 192–206 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Narciss, S.: Designing and evaluating tutoring feedback strategies for digital learning environments on the basis of the interactive tutoring feedback model. Digit. Educ. Rev. 23, 1–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faber, J.M., Luyten, H., Visscher, A.J.: The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: results of a randomized experiment. Comput. Educ. 106, 83–96 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Savolainen, T., Ikonen, M., Nurmenniemi, H.: Trust and resilience in entrepreneurial perspective: empirical findings from the developments in entrepreneurs’ stories. In: 11th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Aaltio, liris and Tunkkari-Eskelinen, Minna, pp. 726–733 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jülich, S.: Towards a local-level resilience composite index: introducing different degrees of indicator quantification. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 8, 91–99 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaquero, E., Urrea, A., Mundet, A.: Promoting resilience through technology, art and a child rights-based approach. Rev. Cercet. Interv. Soc. 45, 144–159 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coronado-Hijón, A.: Academic resilience: a transcultural perspective. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 237, 594–598 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeHann, C., Hirai, T., Ryan, R.: Nussbaum’s capabilities and self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs: relating some fundamentals of human wellness. J. Happiness Stud. 17, 2037–2040 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skinner, E., Pitzer, J.: Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In: Christenson, S.L., et al. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, vol. 1, pp. 21–44. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Durairaj, K., Umar, I.: A proposed conceptual framework in measuring social interaction and knowledge construction level in asynchronous forum among university students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 176, 451–457 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song, S., Doll, B., Marth, K.: Classroom resilience: practical assessment for intervention. In: Prince-Embury, S., Saklofske, D.H. (eds.) Resilience in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: 61 Translating Research into Practice. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality, vol. 1, pp. 61–72. Springer Science + Business Media, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Di Maggio, I., Ginevra, M., Nota, L., Soresi, S.: Development and validation of an instrument to assess future orientation and resilience in adolescence. J. Adolesc. 51, 114–122 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar, S.: Integrating cognitive antecedents into TAM to explain mobile banking behavioral intention: a SEM-neural network modeling. Inf. Syst. Front. 1, 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almaiah, M., Jalil, M., Man, M.: Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. J. Comput. Educ. 3, 453–485 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., Lemay, D.J.: Investigating the predictive power of TAM: a case study. of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Educ. Inf. Technol. 1, 1–19 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ngai, E.W.T., Poon, J.K.L., Chan, Y.H.C.: Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Comput. Educ. 48, 250–267 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., Muñoz-Leiva, F.: Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems: the moderating effect of age. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 464–478 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pulgar, L.: Factores de Resiliencia presentes en estudiantes de la Universidad del Bío Bío, sede Chillán.
  23. 23.
    Broche, Y., Rodriguez, B., Pérez, S., Santaella, G., Díaz, A., Hernández, A., Blanco, Y.: Escala de Resiliencia Connor y Davidson (CD-Risk). In: Feijóo, S. (eds.) Validación de Instrumentos Psicológicos: Criterios Básicos, vol. 1, pp. 71–75 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu, M.-C.Yang, F.: An empirical investigation of habitual usage and past usage on technology acceptance evaluations and continuance intention. ACM SIGMIS Database 39, 48–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Guerra
    • 1
  • Dulce Rivero
    • 1
  • Stalin Arciniegas
    • 1
  • Santiago Quishpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Pontifical Catholic University of EcuadorIbarraEcuador

Personalised recommendations