Lindenwood University

Digital Commons@Lindenwood University

Dissertations Theses & Dissertations

Fall 11-2015

Grit and Student Performance: A Mixed-Method Analysis of a

Non-Traditional Technical High School and a Traditional High
School
Ronda L. Wallace
Lindenwood University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons

Recommended Citation
Wallace, Ronda L., "Grit and Student Performance: A Mixed-Method Analysis of a Non-Traditional
Technical High School and a Traditional High School" (2015). Dissertations. 347.
https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations/347

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses & Dissertations at Digital
Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Grit and Student Performance: A Mixed-Method Analysis of a Non-Traditional

Technical High School and a Traditional High School

by

Ronda L. Wallace

A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Education

School of Education
 Grit and Student Performance: A Mixed-Method Analysis of a Non-Traditional

Technical High School and a Traditional High School

by

Ronda L. Wallace

This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Education

at Lindenwood University by the School of Education

 Declaration of Originality

I do hereby declare and attest to the fact that this is an original study based solely upon

my own scholarly work here at Lindenwood University and that I have not submitted it

for any other college or university course or degree here or elsewhere.

 Acknowledgements

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair Professor

John ‘Dr. J’ Long who always portrayed a positive attitude in regard to my research and

an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his continuous guidance and persistence,

this dissertation would not have been possible. Dr. Yvonne Gibbs, your laugh is

contagious, thank you for your support and genuine care. Thank you to Dr. Beth for

assisting me.

I would like to thank my daughter Kharynton, who motivated me through all of

the tears, and a huge thank you to my beautiful mom who cheered me on through the

tough times. To my sister Jackie, I thank you for your encouraging words and your faith

in your ‘Big Sister.’ I would like to send appreciation to St. Matthew CME Church;

without your prayers and hugs, I would not have accomplished this.

i
 Abstract

Grit, defined as the tendency to pursue long-term goals with sustained zeal and

hard work, was shown to predict achievement in academic, vocational, and avocational

domains. In 2009, Duckworth and Quinn found that grit predicted student effectiveness in

school and the concept of grit was largely unrelated to talent. Grit provided incremental

predictive validity for achievement outcomes, particularly in settings of high challenge.

From the combination of persistence, self-control, and more broadly, conscientiousness,

emerges the concept of grit.

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative grittiness of students from

two different high school settings. The first of these was a non-traditional technical high

school. The second was a traditional suburban high school. One hundred students from

each high schools took the Grit-S survey to determine their level of grit. It was found that

students attending the non-traditional high school and students attending the traditional

high school had no statistically different level of grit. However, students from the non-

traditional technical high school had an observably higher level of self-reported grit.

Teachers and administrators were interviewed to determine their perceptions about grit.

Qualitative analysis of their responses rendered three commonalities. The first theme was

a definition of grit rooted in persistence and self-motivation. The second theme was the

need for adults to model grit for the benefit of their students. The third theme was a lack

of difference between the genders in perceived grit or academic prospects.

This dissertation expanded on the research of Grit and Student Performance as it

relates to students who attend a non-traditional technical high school and students who

attend a traditional high school. There was a lack of previous research comparing these

ii
two distinct types of high schools. After the data was gathered and analyzed no

significant differences were found. This dissertation provides ideas for future research

and its results may possibly change attitudes about students in both high school settings.

iii
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iix

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x

Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 2

Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................. 5

Brief Outline of Study Procedure ................................................................................... 5

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 6

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 8

Academic Perseverance .............................................................................................. 8

Character ..................................................................................................................... 8

Conscientiousness ....................................................................................................... 8

Effective Teacher ........................................................................................................ 8

Excellence ................................................................................................................... 9

Grit .............................................................................................................................. 9

Non-Traditional Technical High School ..................................................................... 9

Passion ........................................................................................................................ 9

Perseverance ............................................................................................................... 9

Traditional High School .............................................................................................. 9

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 10

iv
 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10

Definition of Grit .......................................................................................................... 10

Characteristics of Grit ................................................................................................... 15

Conscientiousness. .................................................................................................... 15

Courage ..................................................................................................................... 16

Academic Resilience ................................................................................................. 17

Passion and Perseverance ......................................................................................... 18

Gender Academic Differences .................................................................................. 19

Big Five Characteristics of Grit .................................................................................... 22

Agreeableness ........................................................................................................... 23

Conscientiousness ..................................................................................................... 24

Extraversion .............................................................................................................. 26

Neuroticism ............................................................................................................... 27

Openness to experience............................................................................................. 28

The Grit-Scale ............................................................................................................... 29

Talent, Personality and Performance ............................................................................ 30

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................ 36

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 36

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 36

Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 37

Background of Study Sites............................................................................................ 38

Technical High School .............................................................................................. 38

v
 Traditional High School ............................................................................................ 39

Population and Participants........................................................................................... 40

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 41

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 41

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ..................................................................... 41

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................... 43

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 43

Research Questions and Null Hypothesis ..................................................................... 43

Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 43

Student Response Data: Non-Traditional Technical High School ............................... 45

Student Response Data: Traditional High School ........................................................ 49

Teacher Responses ........................................................................................................ 54

Responses from the Traditional High School ............................................................... 54

Responses from the Non-Traditional High School ....................................................... 56

Question Two: ............................................................................................................... 58

Responses from the Traditional High School ............................................................... 58

Responses from the Non-Traditional High School ....................................................... 60

Question Three .......................................................................................................... 63

Responses from the Traditional High School ............................................................... 63

Responses from the Non-Traditional Technical High School ...................................... 65

Question Four............................................................................................................ 68

Responses from the Traditional High School ............................................................... 68

vi
 Responses from Non-traditional Technical High School ............................................. 70

Administration Responses: Non-traditional Technical High School and Traditional

High School .................................................................................................................. 74

What types of students attend your non-traditional high school/traditional high

school? ...................................................................................................................... 75

How would you define grit ....................................................................................... 76

How do you perceive the factors of long-term success among male and female

students? .................................................................................................................... 77

How would you describe a traditional high school and a non-traditional technical

school ........................................................................................................................ 79

What are your additional thoughts? .......................................................................... 80

Overall Student Responses to The Grit-Survey ............................................................ 81

Grit-Survey Questions Comparison .............................................................................. 89

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 94

Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection .......................................................................... 95

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 95

Interpretation of the Data .............................................................................................. 95

Research Questions and Hypothesis ............................................................................. 97

Research Overview ....................................................................................................... 98

Grit-S Analysis.............................................................................................................. 99

Interview Analysis ...................................................................................................... 100

Personal Reflections.................................................................................................... 102

Recommendations for the Research Sites ................................................................... 103

vii
 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 105

Suggestions for further research include the following .......................................... 106

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 111

References ....................................................................................................................... 112

Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 134

Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 138

Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 139

Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 140

Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 141

Appendix F...................................................................................................................... 142

Appendix G ..................................................................................................................... 144

viii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Grit-Survey Question 1 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2. Grit-Survey Question 2 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3. Girt Survey Question 3 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4. Grit-Survey Question 4 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5. Grit-Survey Question 5 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 6. Grit-Survey Question 6 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 7. Grit-Survey Question 7 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 8. Grit-Survey Question 8 ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 9. Grit-Survey Question 1: Percentages ................................................................ 889

Table 10. Grit-Survey Question 2: Percentages ............................................................. 889

Table 11. Grit-Survey Question 3: Percentages ................................................................ 89

Table 12. Grit-Survey Question 4: Percentages ................................................................ 90

Table 13. Grit-Survey Question 5: Percentages ................................................................ 91

Table 14. Grit-Survey Question 6: Percentages ................................................................ 91

Table 15. Grit-Survey Question 7: Percentages ................................................................ 91

Table 16. Grit-Survey Question 8: Percentages ................................................................ 92

Table 17. Grit-Survey Question 8: Percentages ................................................................ 92

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Question 1 of Student Responses .....................4Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2. Question 2 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3. Question 3 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4. Question 4 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5. Question 5 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 6. Question 6 of Student Responses .....................4Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 7. Question 7 of Student Reponses .......................4Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 8. Question 8 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 9. Question 1 of Student Responses .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 10. Question 2 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 11. Question 3 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 12. Question 4 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 13. Question 5 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 14. Question 6 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 15. Question 7 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 16. Question 8 of Student Responses .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

x
 Chapter One: Introduction

Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth (2014) defined grit as “perseverance and passion

for long-term goals that predicted effectiveness largely unrelated to talent” (p. 1087).

Despite a focus on preventing students from dropping out of high school, statistics in

urban areas, where this study took place, remained stagnant. Research conducted by

Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005), Rockoff (2004), and Sanders and Rivers (1996)

found that many teachers were more effective than others and their effectiveness was

important when considering in-school factors that affected student learning. According to

a study conducted by Duckworth and Quinn (2009), grit may play an important role in

influencing teacher performance as it relates to teaching. Throughout the years, there was

a noticeable amount of research that concluded teacher effectiveness was the most

important influential factor in schools when it came to student progress. Grit could be one

reason why students either stayed in school despite situations placing them in the ‘at risk’

or ‘drop out’ category.

The researcher was interested in how well grit would predict the motivation and

determination of students in two different high school environments, one, a traditional

high school and the other, a non- traditional technical high school. The non-traditional

technical high school offered various on campus certifications related to a trade. To gain

a better understanding of grit and the success of high school students who attended a non-

traditional technical high school and students who attended a traditional high school,

there was a need for research comparing the two.

The researcher believed there was a possible difference in the level of grit among

students who attended a non-traditional technical high school and students who attended
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 2

a traditional high school. Students who attended a non-traditional technical high school

worked towards earning a certification in a specified area of interest, a goal driven

learning environment where students “have an interest in and effort toward very long-

term goals” (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007, para.1). Students were still

encouraged to attend a college or university; however, they had an opportunity to earn

certification in their chosen field. In the researcher’s experience and as an education

administrator within both learning environments, the researcher hypothesized that a

student who attended a non-traditional technical high school had a higher grit level, due

to the focus on earning a career certification that could possibly earn the student a career

salary immediately upon graduation.

Rationale

At the time of this writing, the researcher was unable to find studies that measured

a difference between the level of grit in students who attended a traditional high school

and a non-traditional technical high school. Only a few studies examined the role of grit

and academic success between groups of students (Duckworth & Quinn 2009; Rojas,

Reser, Usher, & Toland, 2012; Strayhorn, 2014). In all of these studies, students reported

their perceptions using the validated Grit-S.

There were three areas focused around grit research: (a) the beginning of the

development of the Grit-Scale, (b) clarification of its meaning and distance from other

personality traits, and (c) assessments of its predictive validity assigned for specific

samples (Duckworth et al., 2007). Examples would be from the 2009 research conducted

by Duckworth and Quinn (2009), which analyzed data from US Military Academy cadets

at West Point. In their research, Duckworth and Quinn (2009) concluded that grit
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 3

predicted completion of the academy’s rigorous summer training program better than the

measure used in the study, the Whole Candidate Index. The researchers concluded,

“Grittier West Point cadets were less likely to drop out during their first summer of

training” (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009, p. 173). There were similar conclusions made for

National Spelling Bee participants (Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson,

2011) and public school students in fourth through eighth grades (Rojas et al., 2012).

“Although ability and motivation have long been implicated in the predication of

achievement, a greater amount of research has been focused on the benefits of ability for

predicting achievement than motivation” (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005, p. 3).

The instruments used to measure grit were extensively studied. In 2007,

Duckworth et al., acknowledged a two-factor arrangement for the original 12-item self-

reported measure of grit (Grit-O). The arrangement was consistent with the theory of grit

as a composite trait comprising stamina in dimensions of interest and effort (Duckworth

& Quinn, 2009, p. 166). Further investigation validated a more efficient measure of grit,

which retained items for the Short Grit-Scale (Grit-S), with the best global predictive

validity across four samples originally presented by Duckworth et al. (2007). The Grit-S,

utilized for the purpose of this study, was shorter in length and noted by Duckworth and

Quinn (2009) to be statistically stronger than the 12-item Grit-Scale. The reduction of

items from the Grit-O to the Grit-S did not affect predictive validity, so the shorter

version of the instrument was recommended by the authors, Duckworth and Quinn

(2009).

“Measures of grit provided incremental predictive validity for achievement

outcomes, particularly in settings of high challenge” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087).

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 4

The researcher explored the possible difference in the level of grit between students who

attended a non-traditional technical high school and students who attended a traditional

high school. Research, current at the time of this writing, on technical high schools and

traditional high schools focused on criteria such as grades, dropout rate, transcript credits,

and attendance (Kazis, 2005). A prior study found that students who received a technical

education were less motivated and more at risk of dropping out of high school (Kazis,

2005). Proponents of Career and Technical Education (CTE) viewed CTE programs as an

important part of the high school environment and a valuable source of attachment of

motivation and learning on the secondary level; this holds true for non-college-bound

students (Arum, 1998; Castellano, Stringfield, Stone, & Wayman, 2003; Rosenbaum,

2001).

A 2003 report of the Advisory Committee for the National Assessment of

Vocational Education suggested that combining academic courses with CTE courses was

a powerful experience for students, keeping them attached to school and motivating them

to complete their diplomas (as cited in Plank, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2008). A non-

traditional technical high school featured different learning styles and interests because

the programs had direct connections with academic skills in classrooms exhibiting real-

life workplace activities (Saunders, Hamilton, Fanelli, Moya, & Cain, 2013). With regard

to long-term goals and endurance, Duckworth and Quinn (2009) wrote, “Achievement is

the product of talent and effort, the latter a function of the intensity, direction, and

duration of one’s exertions towards a long term goal” (p. 1097). If the long-term goal was

high school graduation, investigating grit in different secondary school environments

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 5

may provide insight to administrators and teachers who want to prevent students from

dropping out.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ1: How do secondary educators and principals in a traditional high school

setting perceive grit among their students?

RQ2: How do secondary technical school educators and principals in a non-

traditional high school setting perceive grit among their students?

H1: There will be a difference in the level of grit among students who attend a

non-traditional technical school and students who attend a traditional high school, as

measured by the Grit-S Survey.

H2: There will be a difference in the level of grit among male and female students

that attend a non-traditional technical or traditional high school.

Brief Outline of Study Procedure

Duckworth et al. (2007) coined grit as an individual’s motivation and tenacity to

successfully accomplish a goal. For this study, students voluntarily participated in the

Grit-S survey created by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) to measure a person’s grit. The

eight-item survey was a more efficient way to measure grit identified items for the Grit-S

(Duckworth et al., 2007). The first task was to ensure that all students were given a

parental consent form and or a consent form for participation, if they were 18 years-of-

age or older.

The second task was to make sure that the forms were returned with the proper

signatures in place. The distributed consent forms were given a two-week turn around to

guarantee that time limits were met, with regard to completing the survey. Students were
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 6

asked to complete the eight-question survey via Survey Monkey, an electronic surveying

program. Teachers and administrators were interviewed to get their viewpoints on grit as

it pertained to student achievement within their schools. Answers varied depending on

teacher and administrator responses from the Technical High School and the Traditional

High School. Data compiled from the Grit-S Survey varied in answers according to

which school the student attended.

All students who returned a consent form participated in the survey; however

many students verbalized that they did not feel like participating on the day of the survey,

and completed the survey on an alternate day, via Survey Monkey. On survey

administration day, space was impacted at the Technology High School because of

limited technology present in the computer labs. The survey responses varied amongst

students, which is outlined in the results section of the dissertation, in Chapter Four.

Limitations

There were a few limitations on this research. First, the researcher relied on each

student to answer questions on the Grit-Scale honestly. Though confidentiality was

assured, some participants may have been more motivated than others to desire to look

good (Duckworth et al., 2007). An additional concern was whether there was adequate

technology to accommodate all participants. The then-current research was based on a

sample of students who were predominantly Caucasian at the Traditional High School

and predominantly African American at the Technical High School. In addition, grit was

associated with educational attainment of which the scores would also reflect what

Duckworth et al. (2007) described as “social desirability bias” (p. 1099).

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 7

Secondly, the Grit-Scale questioned participants on their characteristic approach

to goals, setbacks, and challenges (e.g., setbacks, delays, and obstacles do not discourage

me). The wording, even in the present tense could necessitate a reflection that one’s past

behavior predicts future behavior. A case could be made that the sum total of

Duckworth’s research was to show that past behavior predicts future behavior

(Duckworth et al., 2007). The strong version of this complaint would suggest that there

was no stable individual difference called grit (Duckworth et al., 2007). Rather, there was

consistency of behavior across time, possibly reflecting consistency of situation (Mischel,

1989).

Other limitations included a difference in each district’s staffing. School District

A (Technical High School) had 521 certified high school staff with an average salary of

$63,760 with 14.7 years of experience (Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education [MODESE], 2015, p. 1). School District A had 49.3% of their high

school teachers with masters degrees or higher. School District B (Traditional High

School) had 167 certified high school staff within its one high school. The average salary

of high school teachers in District B was $72,857 with 15.3 years of experience

(MODESE, 2015, p. 1). School District B had 90.8% of its high school teachers with

masters degrees or higher. Both the Technical High School and the Traditional High

School had a greater female student population than male population. The Traditional

High School had a 16 to 1 student-to-teacher ratio, whereas the Technical High School

had a 38 to 1 student-to-teacher ratio (MODESE, 2015). The demographics from each

school varied in race and gender. The Traditional High School had a total enrollment of

1, 823 with 2% Asian population, 18% Black population, 2% Hispanic population, and
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 8

75% White population. The free and reduced lunch rate at the Traditional High School

was 14.9% at the time of this study (MODESE, 2015). The Technical High School had a

total population of 1,048 students with .30% Asian population, 83% Black population,

.30% Hispanic population, and 15% White population. The free and reduced lunch rate at

the Technical High School was 70% at the time of this study (MODESE, 2015).

Technology did not pose issues for the Traditional High School as all students were

provided with i-pads. At the Technical High School, computers were not as readily

available. Students participated in the Grit-S Survey via two computer labs that housed

approximately 20 computers per lab, which made it difficult to have more than forty

students participate in the Grit-Survey at a time. This made the process of student

participation longer. Though the demographics varied between each school, it was not a

variable used in this study.

Definition of Terms

Academic Perseverance - A critical factor for students’ long-term educational

attainment and was often the explicit goal of the growing focus on non-cognitive factors

(Farrington et al., 2012).

Character – Something innate and unchanging, a core of attributes that define

one’s very essence. Skills that you can learn; skills you can practice, and skills one can

teach (Seligman & Peterson, 2004).

Conscientiousness - Closely associated with grit depending on whether one was

achievement oriented or dependable (Duckworth et al., 2007).

Effective Teacher - One who had the necessary certification, content area

knowledge, and strong verbal and cognitive abilities (Goodwin, 2010).

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 9

Excellence - For the purpose of this study: was an attitude that reflects success.

Grit - Perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007).

Non-Traditional Technical High School - For the purpose of this study, a non-

traditional high school was defined as a high school designed to train students about

specific career opportunities available to them; a curriculum not offered by a traditional

high school.

Passion - A strong inclination toward an activity that people liked, found

important, and in which they invested time and energy (Vallerand, Pelletier, & Koestner,

2008).

Perseverance - the ability to stay focused on a goal despite obstacles, foregoing

distractions or temptations. (Farrington et al., 2012).

Traditional High School - For the purpose of this study a traditional high school

was state accredited for grades nine through 12 and followed the guidelines set forth by

the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MODESE, 2015).

Summary

Duckworth studied grit and its ability to predict whether a person would be

successful in settings of high challenge, such as schools. This research looked at two

different secondary school settings: The first was a non-traditional technical high school,

and the second was a suburban traditional high school. Students from each setting were

surveyed to look for differences on the Grit-S. Chapter Two looks at the history of Grit

research, as well as non-traditional and traditional high schools.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 10

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction

In this chapter the history of grit research, including the work of Angela

Duckworth will be examined. Multiple characteristics combine to make what was known

as grit. Later in the chapter, a brief historical overview of vocational education will be

presented to provide a comparison with traditional high school education. The

examination of the intersection of grit with these two settings was the focus of this

research effort.

Definition of Grit

Grit was defined as the tendency to pursue long-term goals with great zeal and

hard work and was shown to predict achievement in academic, vocational, and

avocational domains (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth,

Quinn, & Seligman, 2009). In 2009, Duckworth and Quinn found that “Grit provided

incremental predictive validity for achievement outcomes” (2009, p. 7), particularly in

settings of high challenge (Duckworth et al., 2007).

The combination of persistence, self-control, and more broadly conscientious,

emerges the concept of grit (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). “Grit

entails working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years

despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1088).

“Grit overlaps with achievement aspects of conscientiousness but differs in its emphasis

on long-term stamina rather than short-term intensity” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1089).

Grit required a cognitive decision to pursue a long-term destination rather than an

incessant subconscious drive for achievement (Duckworth et al, 2007; McClelland,

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 11

Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) and grit showed to be predictive of several aspects of

success beginning with retention in a study completed at the West Point Cadet training

program. Duckworth and Quinn (2009) analyzed data from 1,248 U.S. Military

Academy cadets at West Point. The researchers found that grit predicted completion of

the academy’s rigorous summer training program better than the Whole Candidate Index,

comprised of one’s weighted high school rank, SAT score, involvement, any physical

exercise evaluation, which was used for admission (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009, pp. 1094-

1095). Duckworth and Quinn (2009) concluded that grittier West Point cadets were less

likely to drop out during their first summer of training (p. 173). Duckworth et al. (2011)

found similar conclusions for the National Spelling Bee participants and public school

students in grades 4 through 8 (as cited in Rojas et al., 2012).

Duckworth, found higher grade point averages amongst undergraduates, higher

education attainment among adults, and further progress in the Scripps Spelling Bee

(Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Duckworth et al. (2011) found in

their longitudinal study on children attending the National Spelling Bee, that highly gritty

children dedicated themselves assiduously to deliberate practice, an activity which

entailed working where challenges exceeded skill levels, and involved working hard at

less enjoyable tasks. “Although ability and motivation have long been implicated in the

predication of achievement, a greater amount of research has been focused on the benefits

of ability for predicting achievement than motivation” (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005, p.

3). Grit, in contrast, can entail dedication to either implicitly or explicitly rewarding goals

(Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1089). Duckworth predicted that children with talent have

fewer opportunities to develop a resistant approach to setbacks and failures compared

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 12

with highly gritty children due to their less frequent encounter with negative outcome

(Duckworth & Eskreis-Winkler, 2013).

“Grit comprised a suite of traits and behaviors, including goal-directedness

(knowing where to go and how to get there), motivation (having a strong will to achieve

identified goals), self-control (avoiding distractions and focusing on the task at-hand),

positive mind-set (embracing challenge and viewing failure as a learning opportunity)”

(Goodwin & Miller, 2013, p. 74). Each of these qualities influenced student success;

however, they were still teasing out how the combination of these qualities created a

whole that was greater than the sum of its parts (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Duckworth,

Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly (2007) argued that grit entailed working very hard

towards challenges [and] maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure,

adversity, and plateaus in progress.

“The gritty individual approaches achievement as a marathon; his or her

advantage is stamina” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1088). According to Duckworth et al.

(2007), disappointment or boredom signals to others that it was time to change trajectory

and cut losses, the gritty individual stays the course (pp. 1087-1088). Grit was the

combination of the self-control aspects of conscientiousness coupled with a long-term

and narrowed focus on achieving intrinsic or extrinsic goals (Duckworth et al., 2007).

The personality of grit, defined as the tendency to pursue long-term goals with sustained

zeal and hard work was shown to predict achievement in academic, vocational, and

avocational domains (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth et

al., 2009). Goldberg (1990) related grit to the notion of conscientiousness. Conscientious
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 13

individuals were thorough, careful, reliable, organized, industrious, and self-controlled

(Duckworth et al., 2007).

Grit required a cognitive decision to pursue a long-term destination rather than an

incessant subconscious drive for achievement (Duckworth et al., 2007; McClelland et al.,

1989). According to Duckworth et al. (2007), grit was the combination of the self-control

aspects of conscientiousness coupled with a long-term and narrowed focus on achieving

intrinsic or extrinsic goals. Grit differed from achievement measures in that grit did not

require short feedback loops to complete attainment goals (Cross, 2014). The gritty

individual persisted even when feedback loops were spread out over months or years

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).

Locke and Latham (2006) stated that 25 years of research revealed that creating

challenging goals for students encouraged greater effort and persistence than providing

moderate, “do-your-best” goals or no goals at all. Doskoch (2005) science writer and

former executive editor of Psychology Today, said grit was in the same category as self-

motivation and self-discipline. The simplicity of setting a high bar was inadequate

(Doskoch, 2005).

Students also needed the will to achieve goals (Poropat, 2009); a growth mind-set,

or the belief that they can become smarter and turn failure into success through their own

efforts (Dweck, 2007); and the ability to delay gratification and stay focused on the task

at hand-what psychologist call self-regulation (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Dweck (2007)

believed there were two principal modes of thinking: fixed mind-sets and growth mind-

sets. Fixed mind-sets kept an individual’s intelligence static, kept them from avoiding

mistakes, and prioritized looking smart over learning (Dweck, 2007).

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 14

Because people with fixed mind-sets sought situations, in which success was

practically guaranteed; they were unlikely to develop grit (Dweck, 2007). Dweck (2007)

believed that those with growth mind-sets stemmed from knowing that the harder they

worked and the longer they tried the likelier they were to succeed. Grit was different from

the need for achievement, described by McClelland (1961) as a drive to complete

manageable goals that allowed for immediate feedback on performance (as cited in

Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1089). Duckworth et al. (2007) concluded that individuals with

great need for achievement pursued goals that were neither too easy nor too challenging;

individuals high in grit set deliberate and extremely long-term objectives for themselves

and did not veer from them, even in the absence of positive feedback (p. 1089)

According to Duckworth’s findings, there were five characteristics of grit.

Courage was directly proportional to an individual’s level of grit (Perlis, 2013). For

example, refusing to conform to another person’s actions or attitude. Conscientiousness

was closely associated with grit depending on whether you were achievement oriented or

dependable (Duckworth et al., 2007). An example would be being conscientious for

turning in an assignment on time. “Grit is distinct from dependability aspects of

conscientiousness, including self-control, in its specifications of consistent goals and

interests” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1089). Perlis (2013) reported the achievement-

oriented individual was one who worked tirelessly while having attempted to do a good

job and complete a task, whereas the dependable person was more notably self-controlled

and conventional. With regard to long-term goals and endurance, Duckworth wrote,

“Achievement is the product of talent and effort, the latter a function of the intensity,

direction, and duration of one’s exertions towards a long term goal” (as cited in
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 15

Blanchette, 2014, para. 14). Zolli and Healy (2012) described resilience as the ability of

people, communities, and systems to maintain their core purpose and integrity among

unforeseen shocks and surprises. Resilience was a multidimensional construct (Cicchetti,

2013), and it was the ability to pass the hardest problems and overcome the most complex

situations (Jackson, 2008). Resilience allowed people to overcome their pitfalls and

overcome the complex situation (Issacson, 2002).

Excellence was an attitude and perfection was someone else’s perception of an

ideal (Perlis, 2013). While the aforementioned characteristics were a part of Duckworth’s

findings, Maddi (2006) wrote that the combinations of attitudes provided the courage and

motivation to do hard, strategic work. While grit was a measure of an individual’s ability

to persist in obtaining a specific goal over an extended period of time (Duckworth et al.,

2007), resilience was a process in which an individual overcame significant adversity

(Maddi, 2006). Grit overlapped with achievement aspects of conscientiousness but

differed in its emphasis on long-term stamina rather than short-term intensity (Duckworth

et al., 2007, p. 1089). Grit required a cognitive decision to pursue a long-term destination

rather than an incessant subconscious drive for achievement (Duckworth et al., 2007;

McClelland et al., 1989).

Characteristics of Grit

Conscientiousness. Conscientious was a spectrum of constructs that described

individual differences in the propensity to be self-controlled, responsible to others,

hardworking, orderly, and rule abiding (Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints,

2009). John, Nauman, and Soto (2008) described conscientiousness as “Socially

prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-related behavior” (p. 120).
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 16

Conscientiousness included a number of lower level traits and facets, such as self-control

and perseverance (Roberts, Chernyshenko, Starks, & Goldberg, 2005).

“Conscientiousness emerged as the personality trait most consistently and strongly

related to academic success” (Poropat, 2009, p. 30). Grit was said to be distinguished

from conscientiousness, a multi-dimensional family of personality traits that encompasses

perseverance but also includes tendencies toward responsibility, self-control, orderliness,

and traditionalism (Roberts et al., 2005). Grit provided incremental predictive validity for

achievement outcomes while correlated with conscientiousness, particularly in settings of

high challenges (Robertson-Kraft & Duckworth, 2014).

Courage. Pury and Starkey (2010) described courage as something necessary for

psychotherapy patients to use to help them understand how they interacted with the

world. Durlak, Mahoney, Bohnert, and Parente (2010) stated that psychotherapy was

clearly not part of general factors, but there were some commonalities between fields,

such as the ability to learn, grow and adjust to an ever-changing world. Courage was

typically seen as an abstract concept, but others have demonstrated and reported that

courage can actually be seen and felt. Courage reflects perseverance in the face of

difficulty that also encompasses possible apprehension, fear, anxiety, and uncertainty

(Martin, 2006). Martin (2006) wrote that Aristotle said that courage was acting

appropriately in situations involving challenge and fear. Woodard (2004) saw courage as

meaningful actions despite fear. Courage was historically regarded as a great virtue

because it helped people face their intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges (Lopez,

Koetting, O’Byrne, & Petersen, 2003).

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 17

During the philosophical ages, philosophers coined two types of courage: physical

courage and moral courage. Physical courage, identified as the ability to overcome the

overwhelming fear of harm or death exceeded moral courage, which was discussed in

terms of the expression of authenticity in the face of dissention (Larsen & Giles, 1976).

Pittman (1997) acknowledged courage as stemming from a psychological processes; he

also stated that courage focused on the strength to confront destructive habits and

irrational anxiety (as cited in Lopez et al., 2003). Psychological courage may be the claim

of what we refer to as the vigorous courage displayed daily in people’s perseverance

(Lopez et al., 2003).

According to van den Brink and Benschop (2011), it was important to

acknowledge that the standard of “excellence” was often difficult, or even impossible to

achieve (p. 513). Excellence appeared to be synonymous with the highest achievement on

the scale of academic quality, or the highest level of academic performance (Deem,

2009). Scully (1997) stated that the standards of excellence were based on the Western

norms of meritocracy, which referred to a social system that sorted people into positions

and distributed rewards to individuals solely according to performance or talent.

“Academic excellence is within the specific context of the discipline and within the

boundaries of the objectives of the institution or department in question” (Deem, 2009;

Musselin, 2002, p. 513).

Academic Resilience. Defined as the ability to succeed in school despite adverse

conditions, includes mechanisms such as confidence, a sense of well-being, motivation,

an ability to set goals, relationship connections, and stress management (De Baca, 2010).

Scales, Benson, Roehlkepartain, Sesma, A., and van Dulmen (2006) found that higher
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 18

levels of resiliency traits correlated with higher grade point averages. Grit was related to

resilience because part of what it meant to be gritty was to be resilient in the face of

adversity (Duckworth & Perkins-Gough, 2013). In 1998, Solberg et al. (1998) identified

six key skills as the foundations of educational resiliency. The six identified key skills

were building confidence, making connections, setting goals, managing stress, increasing

well-being, and understanding motivation.

Passion and Perseverance. Duckworth et al. (2007) stated that perseverance

could foster passion. Chinh Chu believed perseverance was purely a state of mind that

depended on one’s happiness and level of discomfort (as cited in Doskoch, 2005).

Persistent individuals were usually passionate about their work; however that does not

mean that passion comes first (Doskoch, 2005). In his article in Psychology Today

Doskoch (2005), stated that passion may be the linchpin of grit, but it was not the only

element.

Academic perseverance referred to a student’s tendency to complete school

assignments in a timely manner, to the best of the individual’s ability, notwithstanding

distractions, obstacles, or level of challenge (Farrington et al., 2012). According to

Farrington et al. (2012) to persevere academically required that students stay focused on a

goal despite obstacles (grit or persistence) and relinquish distractions or attractions to

prioritize higher pursuits over lower pleasures. Academic perseverance was the

difference between doing the minimal amount of work to pass a class and putting forth

the effort in planning for long hours to truly master course material and excel in one’s

studies (Farrington et al., 2012). It required not only the initial outpouring of energy in a

focused direction but also the ability to maintain that momentum regardless of what gets
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 19

in the way (Farrington et al., 2012). Nagaoka et al. (2013) cited the Farrington et al.

research when they stated:

Farrington found that there was strong evidence that factors such as a student’s

academic mindset (which encourage or inhibit continuing effort), their academic

skills (which makes it easier or harder to complete a task), whether they have

learning strategies (which make their efforts effective), and their innate

personality are associated with academic perseverance. (p. 48)

A summary of findings by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) indicated that

“Perseverance of Effort was a superior predictor of grade point average (GPA),

extracurricular activities and television watching among adolescents” (p. 172). Farrington

et al. (2012) concluded that there was a direct association with a student’s mindset and

perseverance and grades. The two developmental influences determined student

engagement, class attendance, assignment completion, learning from failure, and sticking

to tasks until completed (Farrington et al., 2012). According to Farrington et al. (2012),

students who exhibited a growth mindset and grit earned better grades than students who

did not. There was a great deal of evidence that students’ persistence at tasks and the

degree to which they exhibited self-discipline changes over time in different situations

(Farrington et al., 2012). Academic perseverance was correlated to achievement

(Duckworth et al., 2009; Farrington et al., 2012).

Gender Academic Differences. There was a disparity between males and

females in the realm of educational achievement in this country for over two decades.

The assumption was that academic performance and school completion was related to

how that student felt about themselves. Gender was a very projecting, yet personal
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 20

characteristic, with a self-concept referring to one’s biological sex developing as early as

two to three-years-old (Fagot & Leinbach, 1985). An explanation by Fergusson, Lloyd,

and Horwood (1991) suggested that gender differences in educational achievement was

that these may ascend from gender differences in classroom behavior with the higher

degrees of disruptive, inattentive behavior in boys which impaired male learning, leading

to lower rates of academic accomplishment for boys.

Gender differences in the edifice of interests were well documented in personality

measures (Lippa, 1998) and were found in personality measures. Kanfer and Heggestad

(1997) found that these personality and interest differences may help account for gender

differences in test performance. A minority of female students presented disruptive

classroom behaviors and were at risk of educational under-achievement (Anderson,

Williams, McGee, & Silva, 1987; Cohen, Velez, Kohn, Schwab-Stone, & Johnson, 1987;

Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1993). The pattern of gender differences were

problematic because of the fact that female performance in high school and college

courses was often under-predicted by regression equations computed across genders

(Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001). Research completed by Dwyer and Johnson

(1997), had shown that girls and women tended to achieve higher course rankings in high

school and beyond in comparison to boys and men. A study conducted by Saunders,

Davis, Williams, and Williams (2004), stated that males were much more habitually

behind in school for their age, typically had lower grades in reading and conduct and

were more likely to have failed one or more grades. It was also stated that women were

underrepresented in science and technology education (Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010), and

this underrepresentation broadened the gap between the ones that have and the have-nots
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 21

and confined the breadth and quality of human resources available in sciences (Muller,

Stage, & Kinzie, 2001). It was conjectured that differences in patterns of courses at the

high school level were at least partially responsible for gender differences on

achievement test scores, exclusively in the math and science domains (Ekstrom, Goertz,

& Rock, 1988).

Hu and Kuh (2002) concluded in their study that men were more likely to be

either disengaged or highly engaged in constructive educational activities while women

were more likely to fall in between these extremes into a more typical group (p. 119).

According to Tett and Guterman (2000), female students had a tendency to accentuate

family while their male equivalents tended to emphasize the job market when discussing

motivations for college. Gender differences seemed to exist in students’ ethical standards

(Whitley, Nelson, & Jones, 1999), levels of academic engagement (Hu & Kuh, 2002),

kinds of peer groups (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990; Hu, Kuh, & Vesper, 2002), and

motivations for academic endeavor (Tett, 2002), with no significant differences in

academic achievement (Chee, Pino, & Smith, 2005). Relative to males, females were less

confident of their mathematics and science related capabilities (Kessels & Hannover,

2008). They indicated weaker mathematics and technology related self-efficacy, but

stronger language related self-efficacy (Huang, 2013). They also displayed weaker

interests in mathematics and science (Eccles, 2011). Females were more likely to

experience anxiety, and were less likely to report joy in learning with respect to

mathematics (Frenzel, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007).

Males reported more positive attitudes than females towards science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects (Kessels, Heyder, Latsch, & Hannover,
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 22

2014). Studies by varies researchers demonstrated that boys validated that they were less

engaged and interested at school, found the coursework less enjoyable and not as

meaningful and spent minimal time on homework compared with girls (Driessen & van

Langen, 2013; Hannover & Kessels, 2011; Lam et al., 2012). Gender was a telling

personal characteristic, with self-concept referring to an individual’s biological sex

developing as early as two to three-years-old (Fagot & Leinbach, 1985). Gender

preferences or gender differences in academic engagement should become more likely

when image or the prototype of a school subject were more strongly associated with one

gender rather than the other (Kessels et al., 2014).

Big Five Characteristics of Grit

Duckworth et al. (2007) projected that grit was divergent from traditionally

measured facets of Big Five conscientiousness in its emphasis on stamina (p. 166). The

Big Five were broad factors of personality traits, which included Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience (Srivastava,

2013). The Big Five were collectively a taxonomy of personality traits that were a

coordinated system that mapped which traits went together in people’s descriptions or

rating of one another (Srivastava, 2013). Research study results of the Big Five traits

showed a positive correlation between the traits of conscientiousness and academic

standards. With few exemptions, there were no significant correlations between

openness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and extraversion (Busato, Prins, Elshout, &

Hamaker, 2000; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995).

Inclusion of all Big Five traits was of great importance because they occurred together in

individuals, they were inter-correlated, and have shown various patterns of validity when
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 23

calculated together than when correlated individually (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,

2005). According to Zhang (2002),

Neuroticism (N) is the opposite of emotional ability. People high on the N scale

tend to experience such negative feelings as emotional instability, embarrassment,

quilt, pessimism, and low self-esteem. People scoring high on the Extraversion

(E) scale tend to be sociable and assertive, and they prefer to work with other

people. Openness to experience (O) is characterized by such attributes as open-

mindedness, active imagination, preference for variety, and independence of

judgment. People high on the Agreeableness (A) scale tend to be tolerant,

trusting, accepting and they value and respect other people’s beliefs and

conventions. People high on the Conscientiousness (C) scale tend to distinguish

themselves for their trustworthiness and their sense of purposefulness and of

responsibility. They tend to be strong-willed, task-focused, and achievement-

oriented. (p. 1179)

In the line with the hypotheses of Paunonen and Ashton (2001), grit, a narrow facet of

conscientiousness, has demonstrated incremental predictive validity over and above Big

Five conscientiousness for achievement outcomes (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1088).

Agreeableness. Agreeableness had an interpersonal component (Pervin, 1999).

Agreeable individuals tended to possess conformity in groups, modesty, the characteristic

of not being demanding, and being sympathetic. These individuals might be motivated in

the direction of helping others and on the way to pro-social behavior in general. There

may be an association between the motivational progressions operating within individuals

in concerns to this trait, such that agreeable individuals make every effort for intimacy
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 24

and solidarity in groups in which they belonged to, which provided emotional rewards.

Agreeableness-like aspects seemed to be ubiquitous in social perception and cognition,

the reason may be because it was linked to social evaluation (Graziano & Eisenberg,

1997). Agreeableness-like dimension has special theoretical status in many different

accounts of social behavior and personality structure (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, &

Hair, 1996). In comparison with the other four dimensions, the Agreeableness dimension

was possibly the most concerned with inter-personal relationships (Graziano et al., 1996).

Ahadi and Rothbart (1994) suggested that Agreeableness might emerge developmentally

from processes associated with “effort control.” Individuals known as Agreeable were

better able to control anger and negative affect in situations involving frustration

(Graziano, 1994). “Whatever temperaments and developmental processes are involved in

emotional self-regulation, their influence on adult individual differences almost certainly

occurs through interaction with the caregiving and peer social environments” (Calkins,

1994, pp. 62-70). In the trait of Agreeableness, there may be some correlation personality

and a set of cognitive or behavioral adaptations to social environment (Buss, 1995;

Graziano & Waschull, 1994). In other words, students should be able to make

correlations between their behavior and be able to adapt socially in any school

environment.

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness individuals were characteristically

thorough, careful, reliable, organized, industrious, self-controlled (Duckworth et al.,

2007). Being conscientious meant that one was purposeful, strong willed, responsible,

and trustworthy (Zhang & Huang, 2001). Zhang and Huang (2001) stated that
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 25

If one is conscientious about something, he or she may try different means to

achieve his/her goals, incusing by being creative (legislative style), focusing on

one thing at a time (monarchic style), analyzing the information at hand (judicial

style), working on one’s own (internal style) and so forth. (p. 469)

A conscientious individual would prioritize their work first and then use other

thinking styles to work towards his or her goal (Zhang & Huang, 2001).

Conscientiousness was more associated with academic performance (Blickle, 1996;

Busato et al., 2000; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Studies performed by Wolfe and Johnson

(1995) have duplicated this association in school as well as undergraduate (Chamorro-

Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and post-graduate (Hirschberg &

Itkin, 1978) education. Conscientiousness appeared to be a consistent predictor of

occupational performance in a variety of settings (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). This

meant that one’s conscientious mind could appear in work related activities and

interpreted differently throughout their work performance in many settings.

Conscientiousness was also linked to “strength of character” (Smith, 1969),

motivation (Anderson & Keith, 1997; Boekaerts, 1996; Pelechano, 1972), and several

performance-related traits that were directly assessed by the scale, such as achievement

striving, dutifulness, order, and responsibility (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005;

DeRaad & Schouwenburg, 1996).

According to Barrick et al. (1993), and Sackett, Gruys, and Ellingson (1998),

conscientiousness was closely related to motivation which was the predictor of

performance, particularly when extrinsic determinants of motivation were held constant.

Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, (2005) suggested some individuals created or

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 26

increased their conscientiousness in competitive academic settings to compensate for

their relatively lower intelligence.

Conscientiousness and grit was an ability that was a component of emotional

intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Conscientiousness described an individual’s

maximum capacity to evaluate emotion regulation strategies that influenced one’s

affective experience and actions in ways that promoted goal attainment in emotionally

charged situations (e.g. presence of competing goals, experience of challenges or

obstacles) (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014). When predicting academic accomplishment,

several studies have found the success striving feature of conscientiousness to be

especially highly correlated with academic achievement than the comprehensive trait of

conscientiousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001).

Extraversion. Extraversion was distinguished by adventurous, affiliation,

positive affectivity, energy, ascendance, and ambition. Individuals who scored high on

extraversion were predisposed toward positive affect and preferred interpersonal

interaction (Mooradian & Swan, 2006). Extraversion was found to be positively related to

positive emotions according to many studies (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Watson & Clark,

1992, p. 17). Costa and McCrae (1992) characterized individuals who exhibited

extraversion as gregarious, assertive, warm, positive, and active as well as individuals

that sought excitement (Matzler, Renzl, Mooradian, von Krogh, & Mueller, 2005).

Despite the complexity of the interaction of Extraversion with age, gender, and

assessment methods, it was generally accepted that introverts may have had an advantage

over extraverts with regard to their ability to consolidate learning, as well as lower

distractibility and better study habits (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1970; Eysenck & Cookson,
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 27

1969; Sanchez-Marin, Rejano-Infante, & Rodriguez-Troyano, 2001). Rolfhus and

Ackerman (1999) reported negative correlations between Extraversion and several

knowledge tests. The researchers suggested that these correlations may be a consequence

of differences in knowledge acquisition time between introverts (spend more time

studying) and extraverts (spend more time socializing).

Neuroticism. According to Zhang and Sternberg (2005), neuroticism (N) was the

opposite of emotional stability. People high on the N scale tended to experience such

negative feelings as emotional instability, embarrassment, guilt, pessimism, and low self -

esteem. “Neuroticism refers to the degree of emotional stability, impulse control, and

anxiety” (Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck, & Avdic, 2011, p. 472). According to Chamorro-

Premuzic and Furnham (2005), neuroticism or emotional instability was negatively

associated with academic achievement. The relationship between academic performance

and neuroticism was mainly explained in terms of anxiety, particularly under stressful

conditions such as university exams (Hembree, 1988; Seipp, 1991). Zeider and Matthews

(2000) have noted that neuroticism may also impair performance on psychometric

intelligence drops from r=.35 under neutral conditions to r=.21 under stressful

conditions. “Neuroticism may be associated not only with impaired examination

performance, but also with lower levels of attendance and even negative physical

consequences such as racing heart, perspiration, gastric disturbances, and muscle tension”

(Matthews, Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000, p. 454).

Neurotic students were more likely to be absent for examinations due to medical

illness or to request and require “special treatment” (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,

2005). It was shown that neuroticism was related to poor self-concept (Well & Matthews,
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 28

1994) and low self-estimated intelligence (Furnham et al., 2005). Lazarus and Folkman

(1984) reported that since experiencing of stressful situations was, to a great extent,

dependent on an individual’s perception and appraisal of his/her capabilities to cope with

that situation, it was likely that low self-concept and self-estimated intelligence may

partly determine the increase of anxiety in neurotic individuals. Eysenck and Eysenck

(1985) have suggested that the motivational effects of anxiety may be greater in

extremely intelligent students because they encounter little challenges in their studying.

Neuroticism was a positive predictor in intelligent students; however a negative predictor

in less brilliant students (Chamorroe-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

Openness to experience. Openness to experience was categorized as intellect,

which was related to active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attention to inner feelings,

preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). Individuals with high scores on openness were interested about both

inner and outer worlds, and were willing to entertain innovative ideas and exceptional

values, and they experienced both positive and negative sentiments more profoundly than

do closed individuals (Costa & McCrae, 1992). People, who were highly open, displayed

intellectual curiosity, creativity, flexible thinking, and culture (Dingman, 1990). The

facets of openness were related to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values

(Matzler et al., 2005).

Openness was reflected in a strong intellectual curiosity and a preference for

novelty and variety (Komarraju et al., 2011). Openness was a known indication for

individual differences and intellectual curiosity, need for cognition, and cognitive ability

(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furham, 2005). Openness was understood as a major

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 29

“investment trait,” meaning that it was causally and positively interrelated to knowledge

and skill acquisition (Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin, 2007).

Consequently, open students were expected to be intrinsically motivated in their

studies, show advanced levels of engagement with the subject they studied and enjoy

their learning experience more (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). In principle,

high openness meant a “hungry mind,” which was why open students were as likely to

elect for a deep approach to learning, as they were to reject a surface learning approach

(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

The Grit-Scale

Duckworth and her colleagues developed a 12-item self -report questionnaire

known as the Grit-Scale to measure what they saw as the two distinct dimensions of grit;

consistency of interests and persistent effort (Duckworth et al., 2007). Duckworth et al.

(2007) identified a two-factor structure for the original 12-item self-report measure of grit

(Grit-O). The Grit-S was designed by selecting items that Duckworth et al. (2007)

considered predictively valid and replicated the two-factor structure of the Grit-O across

four different samples of children and adults (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).

While the 12-Item grit survey proved valid and reliable, the researchers

determined that they could improve upon and shorten the instrument (Duckworth &

Quinn, 2009). Duckworth and Quinn (2009) revised the 12-item survey to an eight-item

survey by conducting another set of factor analysis and removed four items leaving eight

(Cross, 2014). The researchers concluded that the eight-item survey (Grit-S) was a more

efficient “and psycho-metrically stronger than the 12-item Grit O” (p. 175). The Short

Grit-Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), utilized for the purpose of this study, while
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 30

shorter in length was noted by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) to be psychologically

stronger than the 12-item Grit-Scale. The Grit-S was developed as a more efficient

measure of trait-level perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth &

Quinn, 2009). The Short Grit-Scale (Grit-S) (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) comprised of

eight items endorsed using a 5-point scale (1 =not like me at all, 5=very much like me).

Four items described the tendency toward sustained effort for long-term goals, and four

other items described abiding focused interests over time (Von Culin, Tsukayama, &

Duckworth, 2014).

Talent, Personality and Performance

Studies conducted by Duckworth et al. (2009) indicated that grit can be a

predictor of success over and beyond talent. According to Duckworth and her colleagues,

students who have drive, stamina, perseverance, and capacity for hard work did not

necessarily have aptitude and talent too (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Seligman,

2006; Duckworth et al., 2011).

Talent and drive are personal attributes that are not necessarily correlated. Many

individuals with less raw potential but greater stamina, perseverance and capacity

for hard work are more likely to succeed than those who are talented but have

little capacity to set ambitious goals for themselves and to keep focused on

achieving them. (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011, p. 56)

If students never encountered failure and were never challenged, they would be

unable to cultivate stamina, perseverance and motivation which were needed to thrive in

challenging conditions (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Master, 2009). Students would never

discover the sense of flow that comes from being fully immersed in purposeful effort and
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 31

the pleasure that came from being completely and utterly focused on the task at hand

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). In talent, grittier individuals were typically equal or inferior to

their less gritty counterparts (Duckworth et al., 2007).

Students who considered themselves intelligent did not think that they needed to

cultivate their intelligence to make it flourish, and those who believed that they lacked

intelligence were not inclined to work hard to overcome initial difficulties (Rattan,

Savani, Naidu, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2013). Intelligence was the

best-acknowledged interpreter of achievement (Gottfredson, 1997; Hartigan & Wigdor,

1989). Reliable and valid measures of IQ have made it possible to document a wide range

of achievement outcomes affected by IQ. These included college and graduate school

grade point average (GPA) (Bridgeman, McCamley-Jenkins, & Ervin, 2000; Kuncel,

Hezlett, & Ones, 2001), induction into Phi Beta Kappa (Langlie, 1938), income

(Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005), career potential and job performance (Kuncel,

Hezlett, & Ones, 2004), and choice of occupation (Chown, 1959).

There was evidence that personality, explicitly, the Big Five factors

(agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were related

to an assortment of outcomes, including health behaviors and personality disorders as

well as academic and work outcomes (John et al., 2008). Zeider (2009) reported that

conscientiousness and openness were positively related, neuroticism and extraversion

were negatively related, and agreeableness was unrelated to educational outcomes for

college students. Noftle and Robins (2007) observed that openness was the strongest

predictor of SAT scores and that conscientiousness accounted for unique variance in
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 32

college GPAs even after controlling for the effects of gender, high school grades, SAT

scores, and the other four Big Five factors.

Extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism accounted for unique variance in

college GPA and SAT verbal scores (Noftle & Robins, 2007). Academic achievement

was assessed through measuring the degree of each student’s institutional learning

through his/her scores (Seif, 2001). Duckworth et al. (2007) tested the hypothesis of grit

and how it would be unrelated to IQ. The researchers learned little about how personality

traits and intelligence were related and about their relative contributions to performance

(Duckworth et al., 2007). What was found were notable exceptions to the trend

(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

Personality traits correspondingly influenced academic achievement (Komarraju

et al., 2011). The personality trait of grit, defined as the tendency to pursue long-term

goals with sustained zeal and hard work, was shown to predict achievement in academic,

vocational, and avocational domains (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009;

Duckworth et al., 2009). Personality traits such as grit described tendencies to act, think,

and feel that were relatively stable over time and situation (Roberts, Harms, Smith,

Wood, & Webb, 2006).

Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) described conscientiousness “as having both

proactive and inhibitive aspects” (p. 887) with the proactive aspect including such traits

as “Need for achievement and commitment to work” (p. 887). Conscientiousness has

consistently appeared as a stable predictor of exam performance (Chamorro-Premuzic &

Furnham, 2005) and grade point average (GPA) (Conrad, 2006). The Big Five combined

traits were found to predict various educational outcomes (Komarraju et al., 2011).
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 33

Conscientiousness and openness predicted course performance (Paunonen & Ashton,

2001) and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness predicted overall academic

performance (Poropat, 2009).

Extraversion, openness and conscientiousness was found to predict grade point

average (GPA), more importantly, when students applied previously accumulated

knowledge to real life settings (Lievens, Ones, & Dilchert, 2009). There was a difference

in the preferred styles of thinking, processing information, and acquiring knowledge

(Schmeck, 1999; Zhang, 2000). Lockhart and Schmeck (1984) reported that a number of

students suggested that individual differences in learning styles were predictive of student

performance. Entwistle and Waterston (1988) concluded from their research that the

learning strategies most advantageous to course performance and cumulative GPA

included active thinking and organized studying, synthesis-analysis (Miller, Always, &

McKinley, 1987), deeper levels of reflection (Jakoubek & Swenson, 1993), and elaborate

processing (Hall, Hladkyi, Perry, & Ruthing, 2004).

Academic performance, determined by the direct demonstration of declarative and

procedural knowledge after having engaged in many other complex and ill-defined tasks;

that was the knowledge recently acquired through a number of different and complex

tasks that occurred both within and outside of the classroom (Kuncel et al., 2004). The

importance of educational accomplishment, primarily in high school completion, cannot

be minimized (Saunders et al., 2004). Academic achievement was assessed through

measuring the degree of each student’s institutional learning through his/her scores (Seif,

2001). According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) academic performance was found

to be the single best represented variable of students persisting through graduation and an
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 34

essential focus was on various influences affecting student’s academic performance in an

effort to better understand and increase student persistence.

A study conducted by Eskries-Winkler, Shulman, Beal, and Duckworth (2013)

examined the predictive validity of grit for graduation from the Chicago Public Schools.

The study established demographic predictors of high school graduation, which included

race (Jordan, Lara, & McPartland, 1996), gender (Jordan et al., 1996; Swanson, 2004)

and socioeconomic status (Diamond et al., 2000). Other factors included graduation as a

strong predictor by situational factors, including safety (Diamond et al., 2000), teacher

support (Brewster & Bowen, 2004; Catterall, 1998; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Lee &

Burkman, 2003), parental support (McNeal, 1999), and peer support (Kasen, Cohen, &

Brook, 1998). Eskreis-Winkler et al. (2013), examined whether students’ grit, measured

during their junior year, predicted graduation following their senior year from the

Chicago Public Schools.

Participants in the study endorsed four items from the Short Grit-Survey

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Results indicated that gritty juniors were more likely to

graduate from high school their senior year (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2013). It was also

found that grit was strongly correlated with both academic conscientiousness (r = .49)

and school motivation (r = .49) (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2013).

Summary

Grit, defined as the tendency to pursue long-term goals with sustained zeal and

hard work, was shown to predict achievement in academic, vocational, and avocational

domains (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth et al., 2009). In

2009, Duckworth found that grit predicted effectiveness and the concept of grit was
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 35

largely unrelated to talent (Locke & Latham, 2006). Big Five grit traits of neuroticism,

extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were related to a wide

range of behaviors (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2005), including academic achievement and

job performance (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Although there were strides made to define

grit as coined by Duckworth, there was little research on how grit related to student

achievement. This study presents resources that will explain a possible difference in the

level of grit between students that attended a non-traditional technical school and those

that attended a traditional high school. Chapter Three will describe the study design and

procedures as well as identify the key factors in determining grit and academic

performance
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 36

Chapter Three: Methodology

Introduction

This study explored the possible difference in the level of grit among students

who attended a non-traditional technical high school and students who attended a

traditional high school. The purpose of this study was to investigate a possible difference

in the level of grit, as defined by Duckworth and Quinn (2007), among students who

attended a non-traditional technical high school and those that attended a traditional high

school.

Instrumentation.

In this study, the researcher used the eight-item Grit-Survey (Duckworth et al.,

2007). The Short Grit-Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), utilized for the purpose of this

study, though shorter in length was noted by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) to be

psychologically stronger than the 12-item Grit-Scale.

The wording of the questions and directions of the survey used in this study were

taken from the survey validated by Duckworth and Quinn (2009). Appendix A contains a

list of the eight items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 representing ‘not at all

like me’ to 5 representing ‘very much like me’. Responses to each question had a

corresponding point value, ranging from 1 to 5. The maximum score assigned to each

survey was 5 representing ‘extremely gritty’, and the lowest score was 1 representing ‘not

gritty at all’ (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Each item had a point value chosen on the

Likert scale by the student. These were added together and divided by 8 to compute the

student’s average level of grit. The Grit-S survey was found to hold appropriate levels of

psychometric properties (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Evidence of its constructs and
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 37

predictive validity, internal consistency ranging from 0.73 to 0.83, computed across four

different samples (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), medium to strong predictive validity, with

unstandardized regression coefficients associated with grit scores predicting student

performance ranging from 0.22 to 0.55, with an associated odds ratios ranging from 0.80

to 1.73 (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).

Procedures

The researcher based the study on quantitative and qualitative data obtained from

each high school. Data were primary and collected during the course of study. The

researcher obtained demographic data from the Student Information System, K12,

utilized at both high schools. The requested data, which were de-identified, included

student gender and were used to randomly select participants for the Grit-S survey. The

researcher collected responses on the Grit-S survey through a web-based program,

Survey Monkey. The researcher invited 100 high school students at both high schools to

take the survey. Students under the age of 18 were given parental consent forms and were

asked to have the forms returned within a two- week period. Students 18 years and older

were given consent forms and asked to have the forms returned within a two-week

period. Students at Technical High School were reminded via morning announcements

to return their forms, after one week. An assigned administrator reminded students at

Traditional High School to return their permission forms.

Individual responses to each of the eight Grit-S survey questions were obtained

from randomly selected samples of students from each high school via a web-based

program, Survey Monkey. Each response was tabulated, based on a 5-point Likert scale
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 38

and recalculated to the appropriate point value determined by Duckworth and Quinn’s

(2009) process.

The teacher interview questions (Appendix E) were created based upon gaining

the teachers thoughts about grit and how they would define grit. The commonality of the

definition of grit amongst teachers interviewed was a student’s determination and/or

motivation towards a specific goal. All 27 of the interviews were conducted face-to-face,

with one exception, which was conducted via email. The researcher scripted the

responses. The teacher interview responses were qualitatively coded using open coding.

Common themes emerged from the data.

Background of Study Sites

Technical High School. The researched Career and Technical High School

within School District A was in Midwest County (Special School District of Study

District County, 2014, p. 1). The Midwest County voters passed a referendum

establishing a local public school to support the educational needs of children with

disabilities. The votes effectively established School District A, which began with four

teachers and one social worker in the fall of 1958. Students were taught in schools owned

and operated by other school districts; however, in 1961 the district opened its doors to its

first school wholly run by School District A, instead of as part of the other district’s

school. At the time of this writing, School District A operated five special schools. In the

1960s, School District A sought to move into technical education, a mission that was

separate from the district’s work in the field of special education. In 1966, School District

A began providing technical education, and in the fall of 1967, the district opened its first

technical high school. A year later, the district opened its second technical high school.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 39

The technical high schools were created to place focus on CTE, by first providing

programs geared towards students working towards a career or technical skill. The

Technical High School offered over 30 career and technical majors, including the

following: advanced manufacturing, arts and communication, business information and

technology, construction, human services, medical and animal sciences, and public safety

and transportation (Study Site High School B, 2014, p. 1). The Technical High School

offered both half and full-day programs. The Technical High School accepted 10th

through 12th grade students. Full-day students were scheduled in academic and career or

technical programs; whereas half-day students were scheduled in a career or technical

programs only and received academic classes at their home schools. The Technical High

School had an admissions process that required students to meet a specific criterion prior

to acceptance into the technical school. Those requirements included, for sophomores, at

least seven high school academic credits. Juniors and seniors were accepted providing

they met the academic requirements for their grade levels. School District A provided

CTE to approximately 2,000 area high school students at the districts two technical

schools (Special School District of Study Site County, 2014, p. 1). At the time of this

writing, School District A has 521 certified high school staff with an average salary of

$63,760 with 14.7 years of experience. School District A has 49.3% of their high school

teachers with Masters Degrees or higher (MODESE, 2015).

Traditional High School. The Traditional High School was the only high school

in School District B. School District B was among the oldest school districts in Midwest

County and was founded in 1865. Once a one-race school district, School District B

integrated its schools in 1955 after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 40

Board of Education (Study Site High School A, 2014, p. 1). In 1955, Traditional High

School opened with a campus designed to mimic a college campus. At the time of this

writing, the high school had a total enrollment of 1,823 students. The student to teacher

ratio was approximately 20 students per one teacher. The district had 167 certified high

school staff within its one high school. The average salary of high school teachers in this

School District B was $72, 857, with 15.3 years of experience. Additionally, the district

had 90.8% of their high school teachers with masters’ degrees or higher (MODESE,

2015, p. 1).

Population and Participants

The researcher drew samples for this study from two public high schools, one a

traditional high school and one a non-traditional technical high school. The approximate

size of the traditional high school was 1,823 with 47% female population and 53% male

population (MODESE, 2015). The approximate size of the non-traditional technical high

school was 1,025 with 52% female and 47% male (MODESE, 2015). In order to be

included in the study, students must have completed all eight items of the Grit-Survey,

with prior parental consent if they were under the age of 18 and must have completed a

consent form for participation if they were 18 years-of-age or older. The focus for this

study was to research the level of grit amongst students who attended a traditional high

school with students that attended a non-traditional technical high school.

One hundred students from Technical High School and 100 students from

Traditional High School were selected to participate in the eight-item Grit-Survey. The

200 students were randomly selected using their school district’s electronic student

information system.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 41

Teachers and administrators from Technical High School and Traditional High

School participated in interviews for the study. Teachers from each school were asked via

electronic email to volunteer to be interviewed by the researcher. From the volunteers, 10

teachers from each participating school were chosen to be interviewed by the researcher.

Eight total administrators between the two high schools also agreed to be interviewed for

the study. Five were from Traditional High School and three from Traditional High

School

Research Questions

RQ1: How do secondary educators and principals in a traditional high school

setting perceive grit among their students?

RQ2: How do secondary technical school educators and principals in a non-

traditional high school setting perceive grit among their students?

Hypotheses

H1: There will be no difference in the level of grit among students who attend a

non-traditional technical school and students who attend a traditional high school, as

measured by the Grit-S Survey.

H2: There will be no difference in the level of grit among male and female

students that attend a non-traditional technical or traditional high school.

Data was not appropriately disaggregated to allow analysis of this hypothesis, H2,

therefore analysis was not completed and H2 was dropped from the study design.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The Short Grit-Scale (Grit-S) with the best overall predictive validity across four

samples originally presented in Duckworth et al. (2007) was utilized in this study.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 42

Permission was granted from the Administrator of Program Evaluation and New

Initiatives to use the Grit-S in this research project. Data collected were scrubbed of

identifying information, except for gender. Students completed the survey on computers

in a computer lab located on the campus of their home high school. One hundred

randomly selected students from each identified high school completed the survey via

Survey Monkey. Results were analyzed using a z-test for difference of means to

contribute to understanding the students’ Grit scores as related to their high school

attendance.

All twenty-seven of the interviews were conducted face to face, with one

exception that was conducted via email. The researcher scripted the responses. The

teacher interview responses were qualitatively coded using open coding. Common

themes emerged from the data.

Summary

The study used students and teachers from two different high schools as

participants. The first was a non-traditional technical high school. The second was a

traditional suburban high school. One hundred students and ten teachers from each school

participated in the study. In addition, seven, total administrators participated in the study.

Data were gathered from the students via the Grit-S survey. The teachers participated in a

researcher-designed interview. Data and analysis is presented in Chapter Four.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 43

Chapter Four: Results

Introduction

One hundred students from each high school Technical High School and

Traditional High School, participated in this study by completing a Grit-S survey. This

chapter will present the data from those surveys along with the analysis and comparison

of those results. Ten teachers and selected administrators from each school participated in

an interview with the researcher. The results and analysis of their interviews will follow

that of the students. The purpose of this study was to explore a possible difference in the

level of grit, as defined by Duckworth, among students who attended a non-traditional

technical school and those who attended a traditional high school.

Research Questions and Null Hypothesis

RQ1: How do secondary educators and principals in a traditional high school

setting perceive grit among their students?

RQ2: How do secondary technical school educators and principals perceive grit

among their students?

H10: There will be no difference in the level of grit among students who attend a

non-traditional technical school and students who attend a traditional high school, as

measured by the Grit-S Survey.

Data Collection

The descriptive statistics of the study variables were summarized using the

statistical results from the web-based program, Survey Monkey. The traditional high

school enrolled 1,823 students for the Fall 2014- 2015 school year. Of the 1,823 students

enrolled, 100 students participated in the Grit-Survey. The non-traditional technical high
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 44

school enrolled 1,025 students for the Fall 2014-2015 school year. Of the 1,025 students

enrolled, 100 students participated in the Grit-Survey. The sample of 100 students was

adequate in finding the significance of grit on student academic achievement. The Grit-

Survey was given via a web-based program, Survey Monkey.

The school counselor from both high schools were consulted and assisted by

randomly selecting student participants via their high school database systems, School

Information System (SIS). A parent meeting was held and information about the study

was thoroughly introduced to parents. Students who were under the age of 18-years-old

were given a consent form to obtain permission for participation from their parents.

Students 18 years and older did not require a parental consent form, but signed a form

agreeing to participate in the study. Students were given The Likert Grit-Scale as

designed by Duckworth et al. (2007), in an effort to determine their levels of grit.

Ten teachers from each participating school were chosen from those who

volunteered to be interviewed by the researcher. Five administrators from Traditional

High School and three administrators from Technical High School were interviewed, as

well. The interview questions (Appendix E) were created based upon gaining the teachers

thoughts about grit and how they would define grit. Questions included:

 Question One: How would you define grit?

 Question Two: How would you describe a student’s specific attitude,

behaviors, and academic competence related to your definition of grit?

 Question Three: How should a teacher display the attitudes, behaviors, and

academic competence related to your definition of grit?

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 45

 Question Four: What actions should an administrator display in the

attitudes, behaviors, and academic competence related to your definition

of grit?

Student Response Data: Non-Traditional Technical High School

Figure 1 represents student responses to question1, ‘New ideas and projects

sometimes distracts me from previous ones.’ The majority response to this question was

64% answering ‘very much like me’. Nine percent marked the answer ‘not much like

me.’

Q1: New ideas and projects sometimes distracts me from

previous ones.

9%

9% Very Much Like Me

Much Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
18%
Not Much Like Me
64%
Not Like Me At All
0%

Figure 1. Question 1 of student responses.

Figure 2 represents student responses to question 2, ‘Setbacks (delays and

obstacles) don’t discourage me. I bounce back from disappointment faster than most.’

The majority response to this question was 51% answering ‘very much like me.’ Seven

percent marked the answer ‘not much like me.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 46

Q2: Setbacks (delays and obstacles) don't discourage me. I

bounce back from disapppointments faster than most.

6%
7%
Very Much Like Me
11%
Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
51%
Not Much Like Me
Not Like Me At All
25%

Figure 2. Question 2 of student responses.

Figure 3 represents student responses to question 3, ‘I have been obsessed with a

certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.’ The majority response to

this question was 32% answering ‘very much like me.’ Twenty-three percent marked the

answer ‘not much like me.’

Q3: I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for

a short time but later lost interest.

17% 10% Very Much Like Me

Mostly Like Me
18%
Somewhat Like Me
23%
Not Much Like Me

32% Not Like Me At All

Figure 3. Question 3 of student responses.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 47

Figure 4 represents student responses to question 4, ‘I am a hard worker.’ The

majority response to this question was 82% answering ‘very much like me.’ Two percent

marked the answer ‘not like me.’

1% Q4: I am a hard worker.

2% 1%

14% Very Much Like Me

Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me

82% Not Like Me At All

Figure 4. Question 4 of student responses.

Figure 5 represents student responses to question 5, ‘I set goals but later choose to

pursue (follow) a different one. The majority response to this question was 6% answering

‘very much like me.’ Thirty-eight percent marked the answer ‘not much like me.’

Q5: I set a goal but later choose to pursue (follow) a

different one.

6%
15% Very Much Like Me
17%
Mostly Llike Me
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
38% 24%
Not Like Me At All

Figure 5. Question 5 of student responses.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 48

Figure 6 represents student responses to question 6, ‘I have difficulty maintaining

(keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete.’ The

majority response to this question was 25% ‘not much like me.’ Eight percent marked the

answer ‘very much like me.’

Q6: I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on

projects that take more than a few months to complete.

8%
Very Much Like Me
32% 15% Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
20% Not Much Like Me

25% Not Like Me At All

Figure 6. Question 6 of student responses.

Figure 7 represents student responses to question 7, ‘I finish whatever I begin.’

The majority response to this question was 62% answering ‘very much like me.’ Two

percent marked the answer ‘not much like me at all.’

Q7: I finish whatever I begin.

2% 1%

11%
Very Much Like Me
Mostly Like Me

24% Somewhat Like Me

62% Not Much Like Me

Not Like Me At All
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 49

Figure 7. Question 7 of student responses.

Figure 8 represents student responses to question 8, ‘I am diligent (hardworking

and careful). The majority response to this question was 79% answering ‘very much like

me.’ Three percent marked the answer ‘somewhat like me.’

Q8: I am diligent (hardworking and careful).

3% 0% 0%

18% Very Much Like Me

Much Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
Not Like Me At All
79%

Figure 8. Question 8 of student responses.

Student Response Data: Traditional High School

Figure 9 represents student responses to question 1, ‘New ideas and projects

sometimes distract me from previous ones.’ The majority response to this question was

57% answering ‘somewhat like me.’ Ten percent marked the answer ‘not much like me at

all.’
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 50

Q1: New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from

previous ones.

14% 14% Very Much Like Me

10% Mostly Like Me
14%
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me

57% Not Like Me At All

Figure 9. Question 1 of student responses.

Figure 10 represents student responses to question 2, ‘Setbacks (delays and

obstacles) discourage me. I bounce back from disappointment faster than most.’ The

majority response to this question was 36% answering ‘mostly like me.’ Two percent

marked the answer ‘not like me at all.’

Q2: Setbacks (delays and obstacles) discourage me. I

bounce back from disappointment faster tham most.
2%

12% Very Much Like Me

19%
Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
36% Not Much Like Me
31%
Not Like Me At All

Figure 10. Question 2 of student responses.

Figure 11 represents student responses to question 3, ‘I have been obsesses with a

certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.’ The majority response to
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 51

this question was 34% answering ‘somewhat like me.’ Seven percent marked the answer

‘very much like me.’

Q3: I have been obessed with a certain idea or project for

a shoirt time but later lost interest.

12% 7% Very Much LikeMe

23% Mostly Like Me

24% Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
Not Like Me At All
34%

Figure 11. Question 3 of student responses.

Figure 12 represents student responses to question 4 ‘I am a hard worker.’ The

majority response to this question was 44% answering ‘very much like me.’ Two percent

marked the answer ‘not much like me at all.’

Q4: I am a hard worker.

2% 0%

16% Very Much Like Me

Mostly Like Me
44%
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
38% Not Like Me At All

Figure 12. Question 4 of student responses.

Figure 13 represents student responses to question 5, ‘I often set a goal but later

choose to pursue (follow) a different one.’ The majority response to this question was
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 52

40% answering ‘somewhat like me.’ Two percent marked the answer ‘very much like

me.’

Q5: I often set a goal but later choose to pursue (follow) a

different one.
2%

7% Very Much Like Me

13%
Mostly Like Me

38% Somewhat Like Me

40% Not Much Like Me

Not Like Me At All

Figure 13. Question 5 of student responses.

Figure 14 represents student responses to question 6, ‘I have difficulty

maintaining (keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a few months to

complete.’ The majority response to this question was 34% answering ‘not much like

me.’ Four percent marked the answer ‘not like me at all.’

Q6: I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on

projects that take more than a few months to complete.
4%

10% Very Much Like Me

Mostly Like Me
34% 23%
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
29% Not Like Me

Figure 14. Question 6 of student responses.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 53

Figure 15 represents student responses to question 7, ‘I finish whatever I begin.’

The majority response to this question was 45% answering ‘mostly like me.’ Five percent

marked the answer ‘not much like me.’

Q7: I finish whatever I begin.

0%
5%
26% Very Much Like Me
24% Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
Not Like Me At All
45%

Figure 15. Question 7 of student responses.

Figure 16 represents student responses to question 8, ‘I am diligent (hardworking

and careful). The majority response to this question was 44% answering ‘mostly like me.’

Two percent marked the answer ‘not like me at all.’

Q8: I am diligent (hardworking and careful).

3% 2%

13% Very Much Like Me

38% Mostly Like Me
Somewhat Like Me
Not Much Like Me
44% Not Like Me At All

Figure 16. Question 8 of student responses.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 54

Teacher Responses

Teachers from the traditional high school had an average of 15.3% years of

teaching experience, with a student-to-teacher ratio of 20 students to one classroom

teacher (MODESE, 2015). Teachers from the non-traditional technical high school had

an average of 14.7% years of teaching experience with a student to teacher ratio of 38

students to one teacher (MODESE, 2015, p. 1).

Question One: How would you define Grit?

Responses from the Traditional High School

Teacher T1: Teacher T1 defined grit as, “Students with grit don’t give up. They

may get tired and frustrated, but they don’t quit in the face of these feelings. There’s

something in students with grit that says, keep going and it will get better.” She further

explained, “Students with grit aren’t necessarily the students with the highest IQs or the

highest grades they are students who somehow know that, ultimately, they are in control

of their own outcomes.” In describing these students she stated, “Students who have

messy rooms, dumpster-like backpacks, who miss deadlines, etc., can also have grit.

They persevere even though they can’t seem to keep track of assignments; they stick with

the work even if it’s challenging.”

Teacher T2: Teacher T2 stated,

Too often, I see students who have not been allowed to fail. For these students,

failure isn’t a chance to improve but rather is a catastrophic consequence. For this

reason, they either don’t try to do things where failure is an option, or they work

to completion but not to the finish.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 55

Teacher T3: Teacher T3 spoke to the presence of motivation as important to grit.

She said,

Grit for high schoolers had to be intrinsically motivated. As teachers, we can

provide the tools and temporary motivation, but if we can show value and

authenticity in what we ask them to do, their buy-in and grit-level rises.

Teacher T4: The next teacher, T4, expressed a need for growth in the student, as

well as faith in her own abilities. She stated,

I think a growth mindset is the building block of gritty academic behavior. I

believe that students that play sports and have seen the value of practice have

more faith in their ability to grow and get better. In addition to faith in one’s self,

I also think a little humility helps. I believe that the core of education is change;

people who are open to change and not overly sure of their beliefs are more apt to

change due to education.

Teacher T5: Teacher T5 provided only a brief definition. He said, “Students in

my experience that demonstrate grit tend to come closest to their potential in athletics and

academics. In their daily experiences they chose to remain engaged in the work as

opposed to giving up or losing interest.”

Teacher T6: This teacher described what grit looked like in a student. He said,

Students would display grit with a ‘can do’ attitude, a fight to understand instead

of giving up, and a motivation to dig deeper for the ‘why.’ Kids with grit are the

ones that show up when they don’t feel best, complete homework even when it

doesn’t count for points, ask for help when they don’t understand, and truly value

their education.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 56

Teacher T7: Teacher T7 gave a very concise and traditional definition of grit.

She stated, “I have come in direct contact with students that are determined and

motivated to complete assignments and make good grade because they have planned their

academic careers beyond high school.”

Teacher T8: This brief definition by NT8 still got to the heart of grit in a student.

She stated, “A student can display grit when learning. Showing heart, courage, or just a

strong toughness of getting the concept of something is a great example.”

Teacher T9: The requested definition was made by providing an example of what

grit might look like in a student athlete. He said,

Student athletes are a great example of students that display characteristics of grit.

A student’s attitude would have to be positive with a keen sense of motivation and

determination. They should have a proven academic track record that they are

headed towards success.

Teacher T10: Teacher T10 echoed the previous comments about the need for

growth to be in evidence. She stated,

Students should have a growth mindset over a fixed mindset. Students should

possess an openness to learn and be life- long learners; they should never settle.

Students should be optimistic about their academic career and strive for

excellence at all times.

Responses from the Non-Traditional High School

Teacher NT1: Teacher NT1 very briefly described grit as, “A student’s level of

motivation to complete a certain task given to him or her.”

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 57

Teacher NT2: Teacher NT2 was very direct in stating, “Grit is an individual’s

persistence on a given assignment. This individual never gives up and continues to strive

for success.”

Teacher NT3: Teacher T3 gave a specific example of grit while defining grit as,

“your personal motivation to attain a specific goal.” She stated that she observes students

giving up easily very often. “An example of grit is a student that is continuing to strive to

success despite their challenges.”

Teacher NT4: Teacher T4 briefly defined grit as, “Never giving up even if you

feel that the challenge is too hard.”

Teacher NT5: This teacher described grit as, “One’s ability to continue to strive

for success despite their failure.”

Teacher NT6: Teacher NT6 used a metaphor to define grit by stating that grit is,

“To keep it moving even if you feel like the project is too hard for you. Grit is getting

down and dirty with the challenge and ending up on top of the mountain.”

Teacher NT7: Though her definition was not long teacher NT7 spoke volumes

when she stated, “Grit is never allowing your frustrations to trump your success.”

Teacher NT8: Teacher NT8 spoke passionately about her definition of grit. She

definitively described grit as “A student’s determination and motivation towards a

specific task.” She further explained that gritty students stand up to a challenge and fight

until the end.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 58

Teacher NT9: Teacher NT9 spoke about success when he describe grit. He

explained that, “Grit is a student’s attitude in how they value success.” He continued with

a meaning that described the gritty student as, “Motivated to the point where failure is not

an option for them. They keep going until they reach success.”

Teacher NT10: Teacher NT10 explained briefly that grit was, “One’s ability to

persevere through any challenge and at the end attaining success.”

Question Two: How would you describe a student’s specific attitudes, behaviors

and academic competence related to your definition of grit?

Responses from the Traditional High School

Teacher T1: Teacher T1 very confidently stated, “Students with grit possess

positive attitudes and carrying themselves with a positive demeanor. Often times they are

the ones who will ever give up on a given task because they yearn for success.”

Teacher T2: Believing that students should always do their best, Teacher T2

explained that, “A student with grit strives for the best at all times and will not let any

challenge veer them away from success.”

Teacher T3: Teacher T3 spoke about the importance of being focused. She said

that an attitude of determination and persistence is how she would describe a student with

grit. She further explained that a student with grit is, “One that is focused and determined

to be successful.”

Teacher T4: Teacher T4 spoke about student motivation. She stated that, “A

student with grit is motivated by success and has a hunger to overcome any challenge in

which they may encounter.”

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 59

Teacher T5: Briefly speaking about student attitude, Teacher T5 explained that,

“Students with grit possess positive attitudes that attribute to their success.”

Teacher T6: Teacher T6 spoke about grit as it relates to academics. She stated,

“Gritty students have attitudes that are motivated by a keen determination to succeed at

any task. Gritty students are perfectionists when it comes to their academics and will

strive for the A every time.”

Teacher T7: By overcoming obstacles, Teacher T7 explained, “Students with grit

will successful complete any tasks no matter how difficult the task may be.” She further

explained that students are motivated by success and are determined to overcome

obstacles that may hinder that success.

Teacher T8: Teacher T8 spoke at length about not accepting failure as an option.

She stated,

Students with Grit-Set goals and work very hard to attain those goals. They are

the students with the positive attitudes and seek out help when needed because

they want very much to succeed. Failure is not an option with these students.

Teacher T9: The need for leadership qualities were the traits that Teacher T9

spoke directly about. She spoke about students as being scholarly. She stated, “Scholarly

students that are academically sound and motivated to succeed at all times. They are the

leaders and the ones that go above and beyond whatever the task may be in order to

achieve success at the end.”

Teacher T10: Teacher T10 spoke highly abut students never giving up. She

explained,
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 60

A gritty student is one that possess a positive attitude even when faced with a

challenge. One that is persistent and determined to complete a project or

assignment with accuracy and perfection. One that will never give up and will

keep creating new opportunities of success for themselves.

Responses from the Non-Traditional High School

Teacher NT1: Teacher NT1 spoke about the need for positive attitude in

conjunction with academic achievement. She stated,

Attitudes are generally positive with an optimistic and achievable outlook towards

learning. Behaviors manifest in a refusal to quit, inability to settle for ‘less’ and

repeated and consistent effort. Academic competence, in my experience, generally

equates to achievement beyond one’s intellectual ability. The inability to ‘settle’

produces enhanced academic results.

Teacher NT2: The need to be responsible and to take ownership of their

academic performance was the thrust of the comments from NT2. She said,

A student with grit will take responsibility for their actions, and not blame

teachers, administrators, or peers for their short comings. They will understand

that failure will happen in the road to success, so when they get a bad grade they

will learn where they can improve and keep pushing forward to success not only

in school, but in life.

She went on to describe a sort of determination needed in the students in order to achieve

success. “Students with grit will find a way to learn the material, pass the test, write the

paper, or do whatever is being asked of them on their way to their goals.” The actions

needed were described,

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 61

Specifically, they will study for tests, ask questions when they need help,

participate in class, go beyond bare minimum requirements in school work, show

up every day on time, take notes in class and review them, talk about their future

plans, apply for college early, and care about their grades for themselves, not just

their parents.

Teacher NT3: NT3 very briefly described visible student actions as, “A student

who shows grit is one that shows determination and a strong will when facing a problem,

one that does not say I can’t but how can I.”

Teacher NT4: Teacher NT4 spoke briefly, but forcefully when she stated,

“Students should display focus, vision and persistence. They should push past the

ordinary and seek extraordinary.”

Teacher NT5: Teacher NT5 described a student with grit as, “A student with grit would

be persistent, active in his/her education, motivated for success, positive thinker.”

Teacher NT6: Teacher NT6 gave a lengthy description of student behavior that

ultimately came down to perseverance. He stated,

In the case of students, especially African American students, whom deal with

issues and challenging life circumstances more often than their affluent

counterparts, grit is more of an idea than reality. Our students need to feel there is

something to be gained from the task before they will ‘stick with something.’

Being more pleased with completing a project, than mastering a project. So by my

definition, students will persevere as long as they have a reason to; passing grade,

completion, money, treat etc. Intrinsic grit, the idea of choosing to continuing to
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 62

work on a task until it is perfect for self-gratification, is not an attitude most urban

students possess.

Teacher NT7: Teacher NT7 focused his visible action description on academics.

He said,

I want my students to be scholars. Attitudes and behaviors of a true scholar will

lead to academic competence. A scholar is one who is studying the subject with

curiosity and a quest to learn, to grow, to change. A scholar is one who is both

fierce and amused by thirst for knowledge.

Teacher NT8: Teacher NT8 did not describe visible student behavior in response

to this question. She stated, “I believe that a student who is motivated has a lot of grit

because they are determined to succeed no matter what gets in the way.”

Teacher NT9: This teacher deviated from the question about students and

provided, in part, a description of teacher behavior related to grit. He ultimately came

back to the student portion. He said,

I really believe that if placed in the appropriate learning system, any student can

become gritty. Some students already possess grit from either their family systems

or perhaps something like playing team sports. Some students, unfortunately, do

not. Still, an educator has a chance and a responsibility to model true grit in front

of their students. For example, students who don’t think they can accomplish a

certain task suddenly can learn to set little goals and push to accomplish each one.

With every victory, they begin to have some successes and eventually reach their

short and long -term goals. It is another way of instilling hope in a student that
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 63

can achieve anything if they love what they’re going after and they are willing to

relentlessly go for it.

Teacher NT10: Teacher NT10 continued her theme of not giving up when she

said,

A student who has grit will attempt any task and work until they have completed

the task or are told to stop working. A student with grit will not complain when a

task is difficult or give up but rather they will accept the challenge and rise to it. A

student who has grit is not necessarily more intellectually gifted but rather does

not let their ability dictate how hard they work on a task.

Question Three: How should a teacher display the attitudes, behaviors and

academic competence related to your definition of grit?

Responses from the Traditional High School

Teacher T1: Teacher spoke openly about the attitudes of teachers. He stated,

Teachers should openly discuss their struggles and how they overcame them so

kids can begin to understand that everyone has some kinds of struggle and it’s

possible to work with/around/through it. Teachers should also put systems in

place that support grit. For example, requiring work to be redone if it is not up to

standard and building in time to make that happen, allowing test retakes if

students show that they’ve made additional effort to learn the material, and using

language that lets kids know the teacher believes everyone is capable of high

quality work.

Teacher T2: Teacher T2 strongly spoke about teacher follow through. She said,
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 64

I think that teachers have to practice what they preach. Teachers, like students,

need to try new things in class. This means that failure, or a bad lesson are part of

the teaching process. In this way, students can see that ‘competent adults’ work

through failures as well.

Teacher T3: Teacher T3 blatantly stated, “Model it. Plain and simple.”

Teacher T4: The need for modeling expected behaviors prompted Teacher T4 to

explain,

I personally try to model patience, compassion and humility for my students.

Teachers show patience both when they work with students and with difficult

problems. Showing some personal humility lets students know that you are not

perfect and are amenable to change as well. As far as competence, teachers may

not know all the answers, but hey should show dogged pursuit towards them. For

example, asking another teacher to help solve a problem, doing an online search,

or asking an outside expert.

Teacher T5: Ensuring that learning is taking place, Teacher T5 veered away from

the question to explain that “demonstrating lack of success is part of the learning process

and allowing the same for students. Learning at the mastery level might require multiple

attempts at learning and assessment of that learning.”

Teacher T6: Teacher T6 spoke about the needs for teachers to have high

expectations. She stated,

A teacher would show grit by not accepting anything but 100% in work ethic and

behavior for themselves and their student. A teacher should show a drive to be

right about their content and do right in their job as well as their life outside.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 65

Teacher T7: Teacher T7 simply stated, “Model it.”

Teacher T8: Teacher T8 shared the ideas of her colleagues. She explained, “A

teacher should model expectations, professionalism, organizational skills, and have the

fortitude to plan and challenge students academically.”

Teacher T9: The need for mental stability in teachers and teacher belief in

conjunction with grit is key. Teacher T9 stated, “A teacher must be mentally strong and

believe in the students they are teaching. They must be gritty.”

Teacher T10: Teacher T10 stated that, “Teachers must practice what they

expect.”

Responses from the Non-Traditional Technical High School

Teacher NT1: Teacher NT1 spoke about the need for teachers to possess positive

attitudes. She explained,

A teacher should portray a positive and optimistic attitude towards achievement

and problem solving both curricular and beyond. Teacher behaviors should be

consistent with an optimistic and positive attitude and manifest in a willingness to

motivate, support, and meet the needs of all learners. Academic competence

should be displayed by a teacher with respect to grit in the desire to accurately

and precisely answer student questions and admit to a lack of knowledge where

one exists. Subsequently, a teacher should direct a learner where or how to locate

an answer and also demonstrate the teacher’s own desire for discovery.

Teacher NT2: At length, Teacher NT2 explained several factors that teachers

must possess. She stated,

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 66

A teacher must start with defining clear goals for their class so the students know

what they are working towards. To help students have a personal connection to

the class the teacher should help the students understand how the class goals are

linked to their personal goals, so the students understand how the class will help

them get what they want.

She further explained that if the teacher knows what the students are trying to accomplish

for themselves, it will be easier to push them when things get harder and help students

see past the current work to the greater goal. Teachers must also take responsibility for

actions and not place blame on everyone else for things that happen in their class. She

concluded that the teachers must also not give up themselves. They must have a clear

vision of their goals for the class and work every day to see them achieved. “A teacher

with grit will give their all every day regardless of how they feel or what is going on in

their personal life.”

Teacher NT3:Teacher NT3 briefly stated, “A teacher should use self-reliance and

display a positive attitude when it comes to difficult situations.”

Teacher NT4: Being prepared is a key factor when modeling grit according to

Teacher NT4. She stated, “Teachers should display preparation, knowledge and concern.

You should love what you do or do something else.”

Teacher NT5: Teacher NT5 briefly stated, “The teacher is the model for students

to see and understand grit.”

Teacher NT6: Modeling the behavior expected from students was a strong belief

of Teacher NT6.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 67

I believe that grit can be modeled by teachers, not taught. If teachers maintain the

idea that one method doesn’t work (when teaching a topic), keep trying new

methods until all students have learned a topic, then students see grit in action.

Teacher NT7: This teacher said,

A teacher with grit has a true love for learning, a desire to see curiosity, growth,

and change in their students. She has a determination to give it her all each day

and to balance that with the ability to start fresh each and every day.

Teacher NT8: This teacher stated, “A teacher should lead by example and show

students their grit in the passion of what they are teaching.”

Teacher NT9: Teacher NT9 stated,

I think we should always be willing to model what we seek to develop in our

students. I feel like my students can sense my passion for [my subject]. I feel like

they feed off my passion, my grit. I think it is transferable. I also know that they

know that I am equally passionate about ensuring we do everything possible to

prepare them for whatever is next in their lives. I often ask my students to match

my passion, my intensity for learning. We use the phrase in class ‘My best for

your best.’ We talk about smart goals. We talk about our preparation for our TSA.

Teachers who have grit develop classroom cultures rooted in grittiness.

Teacher NT10: Teacher NT10 echoed the previous comments about modelling

when she stated,

A teacher with grit will show students that she is not afraid of hard work. A

teacher with grit will let students know that she is willing to accomplish the tasks

that she has set out to conquer for the semester regardless of the circumstances. A
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 68

teacher with grit will model it by not giving up or reducing her expectations. She

will push through challenges and keep working until the task is completed, she

will not give up on her students or on her academic goals.

Question Four: What actions should an administrator display the attitudes,

behaviors and academic competence related to your definition of grit?

Responses from the Traditional High School

Teacher T1: Teacher T1 stated that administrators should have high standards for

all students and teachers. She said,

Administrators should hold everyone to high standards while at the same time

understanding that growth requires making mistakes and learning from them. Grit

and growth mindset are intertwined and they are messy. Teachers need to feel safe

taking risks and there needs to be structures in place to support growth. Likewise,

when it comes to discipline of students, the underlying philosophy should be one

of growth and learning. Students will make mistakes and there should be

consequences, but the addition of an opportunity to restore oneself, restorative

justice, for example, sends the message to students that they are capable of more.

Teacher T2: Teacher T2 emphasized the community aspect of schools. She

stated,

In addition to modeling grit by working through school issues, administrators

should support teachers and students as they work through the learning process.

By allowing those in the school community to take risks and to experience failure

as part of growth, administrators can build a stronger learning community with a

growth mindset.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 69

Teacher T3: Teacher T3 did not have much to express on this topic, but did

emphasize modeling. “Modeling it for staff and students and showing a pleasant attitude

while working.”

Teacher T4: Teacher T4 shared her thoughts on schools including a need to

change the emphasis traditionally found in schools. She stated,

I would like administrators to value grit over grades, to praise effort, to see

growth as important as test scores. I appreciate it when administrators allow

teachers to try something new. It takes a lot grit to try new things and even more

to continue and improve them.

Teacher T5: This teacher felt that students should learn from their mistakes as a

part of the school process. Specifically, she said,

Understanding behavioral choices that students make are a part of their learning.

Assisting students to have the mindset that they “belong in that academic

environment” and that mistakes are part of learning” would be important ideas to

ensure student embrace.

Teacher T6: Teacher T6 felt that grit began with an administrator setting, and

keeping, specific standards. He said, “An administrator would show grit the same way a

teacher would by not accepting anything less than a person’s (students, teachers, and

themselves) 100% effort and behavior.”

Teacher T7: Teacher T7 did not share much on this topic. However, did offer,

“Administrators should model expectations and inspect what they expect.”

Teacher T8: Teacher T8 felt that grit needed to begin with the administrators in

order for others to have grit. Specifically, she said, “Administrators must have grit. They
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 70

must have the ability to lead with courage and have their followers believe. It is important

because people don’t believe in second guessers. They must be strong minded

individuals.”

Teacher T9: Teacher T9 echoed the thoughts of T8 when he stated,

“Administrators should model behaviors and hold their teachers to high expectations

creating opportunities for growth and development.”

Teacher T10: Teacher T10 briefly commented that administrators were similar to

teachers in modeling grit. Specifically, “The attitudes, behaviors, and academic

competence should be displayed as a teacher would and displayed a professional and

more assertive role.”

Responses from Non-traditional Technical High School

Teacher NT1: Teacher NT1 felt that administrators should have a certain

presence in their buildings daily. She said,

Attitudes of administrators should be optimistic and positive in general. Behaviors

of administrators, with respect to grit, should be: Prompt and consistent

adjudication of discipline issues, A frequent and consistent physical presence

throughout the school day in high traffic areas during high traffic times.

She followed up by saying that there was a need to move beyond reacting to events. She

said, “To be proactive, to be an excellent communicator and mediator and thoughtful,

rational and calculated. Academic competence should be displayed by having a mastery

of school board policies as well as working knowledge of the student and faculty

climate.”
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 71

Teacher NT2: Teacher NT2 was very willing to speak about this particular topic.

She specifically felt that administrators should create a vision for their school. She stated,

Administrators create the visions and goals for the entire school. While each

teacher will have their specific area they focus on, every school should have over

riding goals they want to see every student achieve. The building goals should

also include staff growth and fulfillment, community involvement, and other

aspects that will help the primary goals of student success.

To go even further, administrators needed to recognize their students and staff and the

work they were doing. She stated,

Administrators should help staff and students link school and class goals to their

personal goals. For students this means helping them see past what is currently

going on and understand how their actions today affect who they become and

what they want to accomplish. For teachers it means helping them remember what

got them into teaching in the first place and how their impact affects students for

years to come. Teachers sometimes need to hear administrators recognize that

even though the desired success does not always come out in a test score and

some of the biggest victories are teaching students soft skills or just showing

compassion for them.

She closed by saying that even though administrators might not receive much positive

feedback, they needed to show grit in their daily work. Specifically she said,

The administrator must show grit everyday by maintaining a positive attitude

being fair in handling all staff and students issues and being there to support the

staff in any way they can. Administrators get very little appreciation for what they
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 72

do, so their grit has to come from within. Since they deal with so many negative

situations with students, teachers, and parents it is important for them to

remember why they are there and focus on the good they are doing, even in a bad

situation.

Teacher NT3: Teacher NT3 stressed being positive as key when she said, “An

administrator should also have a positive attitude and give encouragement to students and

staff letting them know they are believed in and that they are able to accomplish their

goals.”

Teacher NT4: The concept of openness ran through the comment of teacher NT4

who stated, “Administrators should display an open ear, open eye, open mouth and an

open heart. They will either set the pace or break the rhythm.”

Teacher NT5: Teacher NT5 stressed professionalism as the key to maintaining a

positive work environment. She said,

For administrators, being able to multi-task and solve problems in a manner that is

professional is very important. Administrators need to work hard to maintain calm

and professionalism in the helter-skelter that is sometimes related to working with

young adults.

Teacher NT6: Teacher NT6 thought it was important for administrators to feel

they would make a positive change in their school. He stated,

Administrators must possess the belief that, not only I can make ‘change’ but I

will make ‘change.’ In the idea of grit, administrators must provide the support

that both teachers and students need to begin that change. Administrators should

consistently be in search of new ways to make the educational system fairer for all
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 73

students. Knowing that will be an easy task, administrators must be tenacious in

this effort and keep steady to complete that task.

He closed with thoughts about working in socio-economically disadvantaged schools. He

stated, “Administrators in lower economic districts will have a heartier task than their

affluent counterparts and as long as this disparity exist; thus our educational system will

continue to be flawed.”

Teacher NT7: Teacher NT7 felt administrators should support their staff in

creating a positive work environment. He said, “An administrator has all of the above

attitudes coupled with the ability to watch over the learners and the teachers and to

provide the supports necessary for creating the environment where scholarship happens.”

Teacher NT8: Teacher NT8 thought that the key was to lead by example. She

stated,

Administrators should also have high grit and lead by example to help promote

the student, teacher and administrator’s relationship. When all three individuals

buy in and develop a passionate grit towards the common goals to educate our

youth then we all succeed.

Teacher NT9: Teacher NT9 thought that administrators should lead by example

and model the expected behavior. He said,

I feel like administrators should be willing to model what they seek to develop in

their teachers. I feel like it is a learning system that flows from the top down

eventually permeates our classroom and school community. For example, if a

teacher has low-test scores, it may have nothing to do with the teacher’s

competence. Maybe they have just lost their passion, their grit. An administrator
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 74

could help the teacher develop a plan to help the teacher reach their educational

goals for their students.

Teacher NT10: Teacher NT10 felt that tenaciousness was the key when she said,

An administrator should model grit by seeing school-wide programs and

initiatives through to the end regardless of the roadblocks that come up. An

administrator should also support students and teachers in their pursuits. He or she

will have high expectations for teachers and students and will make the resources

available for both to accomplish goals.

Administration Responses: Non-traditional Technical High School and Traditional

High School

The principals and assistant principals of each school were interviewed, as well.

The non-traditional technical high school had one building principal, two assistant

principal interns, and one assistant principal. The traditional high school had one building

principal and four grade-level assistant principals. Each participating principal and

assistant principal was interviewed with the following questions:

Describe your school in terms of population.

Principal #1: (traditional high school): “About 74% White, 18% Black, 2%

Hispanic, 3% Multi-Raced.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “Our student population

varies. We have about 3% Asian, 82% Black, 3% Hispanic and 15% White.”

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school):

“Technical High School is a school populous mainly composed of African-American

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 75

students with about 10% of this population being Caucasian such as Hispanic or Asian.

There are many more females that attend versus male students.”

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “Our

population is of mixed races, black, Asian, Hispanic and white. The students come from

middle class families to families that struggle with poverty issues.”

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): “We have a mixed population.”

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school): “We have a mixed population

of African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian and Multi-racial students.”

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school): “We have a mixed student

population.”

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school): “We have a mixed population

with majority of our students being of European descent.”

What types of students attend your non-traditional high school/traditional

high school?

Principal #1: (traditional high school) “All types.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “Our students come from

various backgrounds from middle class to underprivileged. Many of our students attend

tech because they know that college is not affordable for their families, so they would

like to learn a trade.”

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school):

Students that like to work with their hands as well as highly motivated to be in the

working world soon after high school. Additionally, students that want to attend a
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 76

post-secondary college enjoy having that and it will allow them to skip over

coursework and complete work sooner.

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (non-traditional technical high school):

“Students who are interested in pursuing a career in one of the technical shops offered at

Technical High School. We have a mixed of full day and half day students.”

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): “Middle class families to

families that are well off.”

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school): “We service all types of

students. We have students that come from middle class families and students that come

from well off families. We also service students that come from different school

districts.”

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school): “We have all types of students.”

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school): “We have all types of students

here. We are a neighborhood high school. Many of our students walk or drive to school.

Our students come from various backgrounds.”

How would you define grit?

Principal #1: (traditional high school): “Hard work, dedication, resolve to do the

best possible in all situations.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “Grit is one’s motivation

and dedication to perform a task successfully.”

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school): “Grit is

the determination a person has to complete and overcome situations. Grit allows a person

to continually maneuver over hurdles without giving up.”

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 77

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “I would

define grit as the determination and ability to preserve during difficult time.”

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): “Grit is a student’s

determination and motivation to succeed at a specific task. Whether it be related to school

or extra-curricular activities.”

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school): “A student’s motivation to

succeed at a certain task.”

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school): “I would define grit as a

student’s motivation and determination for success.”

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school): “A student’s motivation to be

successful in their endeavor(s). They would work hard and be focused on what the

success is.”

How do you perceive the factors of long-term success among male and female

students?

Principal #1: (traditional high school): “I think each individual student is

different. I cannot say this is because of gender but instead the individual person.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school):

Each student is different and learns differently. Success among male and female

students is based upon their own motivation and dedication to perform their

academic tasks. I perceive long term success among male and female students as a

choice that they personally make to work hard and dedicate themselves to their

education.

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school):

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 78

Each student is different. Both males and females have the potential and ability to

have solvent careers and success. For either gender to be successful, both must

possess desire, great work ethic, and a realistic plan of how to achieve their goals.

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (non-traditional technical high school):

Long term success for both male and female students starts with completing high

school and receiving a diploma. A strong sense of self-determination is also a

factor in long- term success. Female students need a bit more self-advocacy skills

than male students especially if entering a male dominated field.

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): “This is tough because every

person is different and have various levels of motivation. Long term success for both

male students and female students is based upon how gritty they are to get to the

success.”

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school):

Long term success for males and females is determined by them. Students are

responsible for their own learning, determination, and motivation to perform and

become successful at a certain tasks. Everyone is different and have different

learning processes and different goals to get there.

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school):

I perceive males and females as being different in their own learning. Everyone is

different and learns differently. Their motivation and determination lies

differently depending upon how gritty they are and what they want to achieve in

the long run.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 79

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school): “Everyone is different and their

levels of grit are different. This is a tough question. This is determined by the individual

person, whether they are male or female.”

How would you describe a traditional high school and a non-traditional

technical school?

Principal #1: (traditional high school): “Four year high school will focus on

different aspects throughout the day. The Tech school will focus on a specific skill and

provide a certified skill for the student to take with them.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school):

A traditional high school, in my opinion, focuses on students acquiring a high

school diploma which will then lead them to acceptance into a college or

university. A technical school provides students with the academic and technical

piece. Students at a technical high school not only are provided with an

opportunity to earn a high school diploma but also a certificate and/or license in

an area of trade.

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school):

A traditional high school is focused more on academic success. At a technical

high school, the focus leans more towards the career and technical components.

At a technical high school, the greater emphasis is on how your academic success

can help your career.

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “A

traditional high school predominantly prepares students for college. A technical school

prepares students for college, trade school or work.”

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 80

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): “Students at a technical high

school have opportunities to learn a trade. A traditional high school student does not have

that opportunity.”

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school):

A traditional high school affords students the opportunity to earn a high school

diploma at the end of their four years. A technical high school affords students an

opportunity to earn a certificate in a chosen trade as well as their high school

diploma.

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school): “A technical high school allows

students to learn a trade and receive a certification in a chosen area, whereas a traditional

high school student earns a diploma without the trade.”

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school):

A traditional high school student goes through their four year program and if

successful, earns a diploma at the end of the fourth year. A technical high school

student learns a trade and will graduate with a certificate in that trade that they

chose and a four year high school diploma.

What are your additional thoughts?

Principal #1: (traditional high school): “Grit is a key factor in success in all

aspects of a student/person’s life.”

Principal #2: (non-traditional technical high school): “Grit is an aspect of

character that one would have to learn when their motivation and determination is so

strong that success their key factor.”

Assistant Principal Intern #1: (non-traditional technical high school):

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 81

Most students in the 21st century lack grit. I do believe that grit can be taught to

students that see the benefits of grit. High school students are quick to give up if

something is difficult or takes more effort than originally planned. Many high

school students like the immediacy of rewards and do not want to work too hard

to be the victor.

Assistant Principal Intern #2: (traditional high school): There are no comments

to report.

Assistant Principal #3: (traditional high school): There are no comments to

report.

Assistant Principal #4: (traditional high school): There are no comments to

report.

Assistant Principal #5: (traditional high school): There are no comments to

report.

Assistant Principal #6: (traditional high school): There are no comments to

report.

Overall Student Responses to The Grit-Survey

Table 1 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 1. In responding to

‘New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones,’ the population

answered 34.75% with ‘somewhat like me.’ The smallest response, 11.59% answered

‘very much like me’.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 82

Table 1
Grit-Survey Question 1
Q1: New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 11.59%
Very Much Like Me (1) 24
– 17.39%
Mostly Like Me (2) 36
– 35.75%
Somewhat Like Me (3) 74
– 20.29%
Not Much Like Me (4) 42
– 14.98%
Not Like Me At All (5) 31

Minimum Maximum Median Mean Standard Deviation

1.00 5.00 3.00 3.10 1.20

Table 2 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 2. In responding to

‘Setbacks (delays and obstacles) don’t discourage me. I bounce back from

disappointments faster than most,’ the population answered 30.29% with ‘very much like

me.’ The smallest response, 6.73% answered ‘not like me at all.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 83

Table 2

Grit-Survey Question 2
Q2: Setbacks (delays and obstacles) don't discourage me. I bounce back from
disappoints faster than most.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 30.29%
Very Much Like Me 63
– 28.37%
Mostly Like Me 59
– 21.15%
Somewhat Like Me 44
– 13.46%
Not Much Like Me 28
– 6.73%
Not Like Me At All 14

Table 3 displays overall responses to Grit-Survey Question 3. In responding to ‘I

have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest,’

the population answered 31.4% with ‘somewhat like me.’ The smallest response, 9.66%

answered ‘very much like me.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 84

Table 3
Grit Survey Question 3
Q3: I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost
interest.

Answer Choices– Responses–

– 9.66%
Very Much Like Me 20
– 19.32%
Mostly Like Me 40
– 31.40%
Somewhat Like Me 65
– 21.74%
Not Much Like Me 45
– 17.87%
Not Like Me At All 37

Table 4 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 4. In responding to

‘I am a hard worker,’ the population answered 59.62% with ‘very much like me.’ The

smallest response, .48% answered ‘not like me at all.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 85

Table 4

Grit-Survey Question 4
Q4: I am a hard worker.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 59.62%
Very Much Like Me 124
– 26.44%
Mostly Like Me 55
– 12.02%
Somewhat Like Me 25
– 1.44%
Not Much Like Me 3
– 0.48%
Not Like Me At All 1

Table 5 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 5. In responding to

‘I often set a goal but later choose to pursue (follow) a different one,’ the population

answered 35.58% with 'not much like me.’ The smallest response, 5.77% answered ‘very

much like me.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 86

Table 5

Grit-Survey Question 5
Q5: I often set a goal but later choose to purse (follow) a different one.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 5.77%
Very Much Like Me 12
– 12.98%
Mostly Like Me 27
– 32.21%
Somewhat Like Me 67
– 35.58%
Not Much Like Me 74
– 13.46%
Not Like Me At All 281

Table 6 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 6. In responding to

‘I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a few

months to complete,’ the population answered 26.92% with ‘somewhat like me’ and

26.92% ‘not much like me.’ The smallest response, 9.13% answered ‘very much like

me.’
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 87

Table 6

Grit-Survey Question 6
Q6: I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a
few months to complete.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 9.13%
Very Much Like Me 19
– 17.79%
Mostly Like Me 37
– 26.92%
Somewhat Like Me 56
– 26.92%
Not Much Like Me 56
– 19.23%
Not Like Me At All

Table 7 displays the overall response to Grit-Survey Question 7. In responding to

‘I finish whatever I begin,’ the population answered 44.71% with ‘very much like me.’

The smallest response, .48% answered ‘not like me at all.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 88

Table 7

Grit-Survey Question 7
Q7: I finish whatever I begin.
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 44.71%
Very Much Like Me 93
– 31.73%
Mostly Like Me 66
– 19.71%
Somewhat Like Me 41
– 3.37%
Not Much Like Me 76
– .48%
Not Like Me At All 1

Table 8 displays the overall Grit-Survey Question 8. In responding to ‘I am

diligent (hardworking and careful),’ the population answered 56.80% with ‘’very much

like me.’ The smallest response, .49% answered ‘not like me at all.’

Table 8

Grit-Survey Question 8
Q8: I am diligent (hardworking and careful).
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 56.80%
Very Much Like Me 117
– 31.55%
Mostly Like Me 65
– 9.71%
Somewhat Like Me 20
– 1.46%
Not Much Like Me 3
– .49%
Not Like Me At All 1
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 89

Grit-Survey Questions Comparison

Table 9 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 1. In

responding 64% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 14% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

Table 9
Grit-Survey Question 1: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 64% 0% 18% 9% 9%

THS 14% 14% 57% 10% 14%

Table 10 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 2. In

responding 51% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 12% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

Table 10
Grit-Survey Question 2: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 51% 25% 11% 7% 6%

THS 12% 36% 31% 19% 2%

Table 11 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 3. In

responding 10% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 90

much like me.’ The smallest response, 7% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

Table 11
Grit-Survey Question 3: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 10% 18% 32% 23% 17%

THS 7% 23% 34% 24% 12%

Table 12 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 4. In

responding 82% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 44% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

Table 12
Grit-Survey Question 4: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 82% 14% 2% 1% 1%

THS 44% 38% 16% 2% 0%

Table 13 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 5. In

responding 6% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 2% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 91

Table 13
Grit-Survey Question 5: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 6% 17% 24% 38% 15%

THS 2% 13% 40% 38% 7%

Table 14 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 6. In

responding 10% of the population from the traditional high school answered ‘very much

like me.’ The smallest response, 8% from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’

Table 14
Grit-Survey Question 6: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 8% 15% 20% 25% 32%

THS 10% 23% 29% 34% 4%

Table 15 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 7. In

responding 62% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 26% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 92

Table 15
Grit-Survey Question 7: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 62% 24% 11% 2% 1%

THS 26% 45% 24% 5% 0%

Table 16 displays a comparison overall responses to Grit Survey Question 8. In

responding 79% of the population from the non-traditional high school answered ‘very

much like me.’ The smallest response, 38% from the traditional high school answered

‘very much like me.’

Table 16
Grit-Survey Question 8: Percentages
Very Much Mostly Like Somewhat Not Much Not Like
Like Me Me Like Me Like Me Me

NTHS 79% 18% 3% 0% 0%

THS 38% 44% 13% 3% 2%

The responses from the 200 eight-item Grit-S surveys were tabulated. There were

100 participants who completed the Grit-S survey from each of the two high schools.

The responses were then evaluated using a z-test for difference of means (Table 17).
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 93

Table 17

z-Test for Difference in Means: Comparison of Non-Traditional to Traditional

Mean Variance z-test value Significance
Q1: New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.
Non-Traditional
Technical 119 6179 0.277 none
Traditional High
School 218 35134
Q2: Setbacks (delays and obstacles) discourage me. I bounce back from disappointments
faster than most.
Non-Traditional
Technical 102 1003 0.3917 none
Traditional High
School 157 13827
Q3: I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later last interest
Non-Traditional
Technical 232 26753 0.066 none
Traditional High
School 217 20484
Q4: I am a hard worker.
Non-Traditional
Technical 39 661 0.857 none
Traditional High
School 74 3825
Q5: I often set a goal but later choose to pursue (follow) a different one.
Non-Traditional
Technical 254 47500 0.029 none
Traditional High
School 239 49207
Q6: I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a few
months.
Non-Traditional
Technical 289 83345 0.227 none
Traditional High
School 201 35962
Q7: I finish whatever I begin
Non-Traditional
Technical 62 958 0.504 none
Traditional High
School 100 7146
Q8: I am diligent (hardworking and careful).
Non-Traditional
Technical 35 1163 1.587 none
Traditional High
School 85 2821
Note: n = 100 for each sample. z-critical = 1.96.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 94

Even though there were observable differences in the responses, there were no

statistically significant differences. Only the responses to Question 8 approached the

threshold of 1.96. However, at 1.587 it clearly was not significant.

Summary

The eight-item Grit-Survey, a more efficient measure of grit identified items for

the Short Grit-Scale (Grit-S) with the best overall predictive validity across four samples

originally presented in Duckworth et al. (2007) was utilized in this study. Data collected

were scrubbed of identifying information. Students completed the survey on computers in

a computer lab located on the campus of their home high school. One hundred randomly

selected students from each identified high school completed the survey via Survey

Monkey. Results were analyzed and descriptive statistics were first examined to

understand the students’ Grit-Scores and gender.

Results indicated that 64% of students at Technical High School were distracted

by new ideas and projects; whereas 14% of the students participating from Traditional

High School were not distracted by new ideas and projects. Analyzed results indicated

that 82% of the students participating in the survey from the Technical High School

identified themselves as being a hard worker; whereas 44% of the students participating

in the survey from Traditional High School identified themselves as being a hard worker.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 95

Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection

Introduction

In Chapter Five, an analysis and interpretation of the quantitative data from the

student Grit-S survey and the qualitative data from the teacher interviews is presented.

First the analysis of the student data is discussed, followed by discussion of the data from

the teacher and administrator interviews. Suggestions for the two high school sites are

given. Finally recommendations for future research are shared.

Interpretation of the Data

The purpose of this study was to explore a possible difference in the level of grit,

as defined by Duckworth and Quinn (2009), among students who attended a non-

traditional technical school and those who attended a traditional high school. The

researcher was unable to find previous studies that measured a possible difference in the

levels of grit between students who attended these two types of educational institutions.

Most research comparing traditional and nontraditional high schools focused on academic

outcomes, such as attendance, GPA, drop-out rate, transcripts credits, and graduation

rates (Kazis, 2005). While grit was not observed directly, students reported their own

perceptions by responding to prompts on the validated Grit-S scale. The researcher

gained the perspectives of educators, principals and teachers, on the concept of grit by

using interviews as the data gathering tool.

Duckworth et al. (2007) defined grit as perseverance and passion for long-term

goals that predicted effectiveness, largely unrelated to talent. Grit provided incremental

predictive validity for achievement outcomes, particularly in settings of high challenge

(Duckworth et al., 2007). A prior study found that students who received a technical
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 96

education were less-motivated and more at risk of dropping out of high school (Kazis,

2005). Proponents of CTE viewed CTE programs as an important part of the high school

environment and a valuable source of attachment, motivation, and learning, especially for

non-college-bound students (Arum, 1998; Castellano et al., 2003; Rosenbaum, 2001).

In 2007, Duckworth et al. identified a two-factor structure for the original 12-

item, self-report measure of grit (Grit-O). The structure was consistent with the theory of

grit as a compound trait comprising stamina in dimensions of interest and effort

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Further investigation to validate a more efficient measure of

grit identified items for the Short Grit-Scale (Grit-S), with the best overall predictive

validity across four samples originally presented in Duckworth et al. (2007). The Grit-S,

utilized for the purpose of this study, was both shorter and noted by Duckworth and

Quinn (2009) to be psychologically stronger than the 12-item Grit-Scale. The reduction

of items from the Grit-O to the Grit-S did not come at the expense of predictive validity

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Given its superior psychometric properties, comparable

predictive validity, and fewer items relative to the Grit-O, Duckworth and Quinn (2009)

recommended the Grit-S as an economical measure of perseverance and passion for long-

term goals, which suited the purposes of this research study.

The researcher believed there would be a possible difference in the levels of grit

the two populations of students accessed for this study. Students attending the non-

traditional technical high school worked towards earning a certification in a specified

area of interest, in a goal driven learning environment where students “have an interest in

and effort toward very long-term goals” (Duckworth et al., 2007, para.1). Students were

encouraged to attend a college or university; however, they had an opportunity to earn

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 97

certification in their chosen field. Students who attended the traditional high school

participated in the traditional high school program without having an opportunity to earn

a certification in a specified area of interest. Based on the researcher’s experience as an

educational administrator within both learning environments, the researcher hypothesized

that a student who attended a non-traditional technical high school would have a higher

grit level, due to the focus on earning a career certification that could possibly earn a

future career salary, immediately upon graduation.

A 2003 report of the Advisory Committee for the National Assessment of

Vocational Education suggested that combining academic courses with CTE courses

could be a powerful experience for students, keeping them attached to school and

motivating them to complete their diplomas (as cited in Plank et al., 2008). A non-

traditional technical high school featured different learning styles and interests, because

the programs had direct connections with academic skills in classrooms exhibiting real-

life workplace activities. With regard to long-term goals and endurance, Duckworth et al.

(2007) wrote, “Achievement is the product of talent and effort, the latter a function of the

intensity, direction, and duration of one’s exertions towards a long term goal” (para. 114).

Research Questions and Hypothesis

RQ1: How do secondary educators and principals in a traditional high school

setting perceive grit among their students?

RQ2: How do secondary technical school educators and principals perceive grit

among their students?

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 98

H1: There will be a difference in the level of grit among students who attend a

non-traditional technical school and students who attend a traditional high school, as

measured by the Grit-S Survey.

Research Overview

This research may add to the existing body of literature and investigated a

possible difference in grit among students within two unique learning environments. The

researcher based the study on quantitative and qualitative data obtained from each high

school. The researcher obtained data for this from the Student Information System

utilized at both high schools. The requested data was de-identified before received by the

researcher. The researcher collected responses on the Grit-S survey through a web-based

survey program, Survey Monkey. The researcher invited 100 high school students at both

high schools to take the survey. Students under the age of 18 were given parental consent

forms asked to have the forms back within a two-week period. Students 18-years-and-

older were given consent forms and asked to have the forms returned within a two-week

period. Students at the non-traditional technical high school were reminded via morning

announcements after one week. An assigned administrator reminded students at the

traditional high school to return their permission forms.

Data were gathered using the wording of questions and directions of the survey

validated by Duckworth and Quinn (2009). The Grit-S survey was found to hold

appropriate levels of psychometric properties (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Evidence of

its constructs and predictive validity and internal consistency ranged from 0.73 to 0.83,

computed across four different samples (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Medium to strong

predictive validity, with unstandardized regression coefficients associated with Grit

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 99

scores, predicted student performance ranging from 0.22 to 0.55, with an associated odds

ratio ranging from 0.80 to 1.73 (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).

Individual responses to each of the 8-item Grit-S survey questions were obtained

from each high school via a web-based program, Survey Monkey. Each response was

tabulated based on a five-point Likert scale and recalculated to the appropriate point

value determined by Duckworth and Quinn (2009). The point value of the Grit-S survey

was computed as the scaled responses were totaled and divided by eight, to calculate the

average Grit-Score for each student in the sample. Results fluctuated depending on the

question, as analyzed results indicated that 82% of the students participating in the survey

from the Technical High School identified themselves as being hard workers; whereas

44% of the students participating in the survey from the Traditional High School

identified themselves as being hard workers.

Grit-S Analysis

There were limits to the existing research on grit (Strayhorn, 2014). Only a few

studies examined the role of grit in predicting academic success among students

(Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Rojas et al., 2012), and no studies tested the ability of grit to

add incremental validity to predicting academic success for students attending a

Technical High School as compared to those attending a Traditional High School. Grit

research focused on the following three areas: (a) initial development of a Grit-Scale, (b)

theoretical mining of the concept to clarify its meaning and distinction from other

personality traits and (c) tests of its predictive validity for specific samples (Duckworth et

al., 2007). This study had the following objectives:

1) Identify students attending a non-traditional technical high school.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 100

2) Identify students attending a traditional high school.

3) Attain participation from students at each high school to complete the Grit-

Survey.

4) Identify which students were grittier.

The results of this study indicated that, while both sets of students showed grit in various

areas according to the eight-item Grit-Survey, there was no statistically significant

difference between the students from the two high schools. However, the observable

results of the Grit-S survey showed students from the non-traditional technical high

school exhibited more grit than the students at the traditional high school.

Interview Analysis

The interviews were conducted face-to-face, with one exception. One

administrator provided his responses electronically. The researcher transcribed the

interviews and qualitatively coded the results. There were three common themes that

emerged with regard to grit in both students and adults.

The first of these themes was in the definition of grit. Teachers and administrators

from both high schools identified grit as a student’s motivation and determination while

focusing on a specific task. Examples of this type of definition included the response

from teacher T6 who stated, “Students would display grit with a ‘can do’ attitude, a fight

to understand instead of giving up.” Additionally, teacher NT2 stated, “Grit is an

individual’s persistence on a given assignment. This individual never gives up and

continues to strive for success.” Administrators echoed this same belief. Administrator

#2 said simply, “Grit is one’s motivation and dedication to perform a task successfully.”
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 101

A second theme that emerged was that adults in the school setting had to model

grit for students to increase students’ levels of grit. Teacher T2 felt that this modeling was

vital. She stated, “I think that teachers have to practice what they preach. Teachers, like

students, need to try new things in class. This means that failure, or a bad lesson are part

of the teaching process.” Teacher NT9 sought to model behavior for his students. He

said, “We use the phrase in class ‘My best for your best.’ We talk about smart goals. We

talk about our preparation for our TSA. Teachers who have grit develop classroom

cultures rooted in grittiness.” Several of the teachers felt it was also important for the

administrators to also emphasize and model grit in their daily practice. Teacher NT10

stated, “An administrator should model grit by seeing school-wide programs and

initiatives through to the end regardless of the roadblocks that come up. An administrator

should also support students and teachers in their pursuits.”

A third theme emerged from the administrative interviews. Administrators from

both schools spoke about there being no difference between the genders when it came to

success. Principal #2 from the non-traditional high school stated,

Success among male and female students is based upon their own motivation and

dedication to perform their academic tasks. I perceive long term success among

male and female students as a choice that they personally make to work hard and

dedicate themselves to their education.

This thought was echoed by others. Among those was Assistant Principal #3 who stated,

“This is tough because every person is different and have various levels of motivation.

Long term success for both male students and female students is based upon how gritty

they are to get to the success.” It is important to note that not all of the administrators
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 102

viewed gender as a non-issue. Assistant Principal #5 said there was a difference between

the genders. She stated,

I perceive males and females as being different in their own learning. Everyone is

different and learns differently. Their motivation and determination lies

differently depending upon how gritty they are and what they want to achieve in

the long run.

Personal Reflections

As I reflect on the research that I completed on this topic of grit, coined by

Duckworth and Quinn (2009), I could not help but to want to continue this research on a

more in-depth level, reaching out to all technical highs schools in Missouri. Grit, defined

as the tendency to pursue long-term goals with sustained zeal and hard work, was shown

to predict achievement in academic, vocational, and a-vocational domains (Duckworth et

al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth et al., 2009). My thoughts were: to

determine grit in each student one must have conversations with the students and track

their academic careers from kindergarten through 12th grade. Research conducted by

Duckworth and colleagues was relevant to this topic and was systematically read and

analyzed in order to gain understanding of the research phenomenon of grit.

Reflecting on the experiences of this dissertation, I realized that I reflected much

on my own educational journey and could not help but to question my own personal grit

as a high school student. Like many, some of my most memorable experiences come

from my time in high school. My wonder is, would I have achieved more or less if I had

the experiences of an non-traditional technical high school, and would I have gone on to

become a college graduate? Concerning the entire process of this dissertation, it should
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 103

be noted that, overall, grit was a very intriguing topic to me. As an educational

administrator, my interest lay in student success and achievement, as I found the

definition and research of grit to trigger an interest, as I took on the challenge of

researching in a new setting what Duckworth had formulated. All of the information that

I read around the topic of grit was of great value and aligned with attempts to attain

student achievement within students, at the time of this writing.

The interviewees represented various teachers who taught different subject areas

with vastly different experiences within their classrooms. Though they may have shared

the same ideas on how to define grit, the classroom experiences were different. The

communication with the interviewees provided information that would have been a

challenge to research merely from research articles and books. The information gained

from the interviewees was informative and useful.

The most demanding and time-consuming requirement was preparation for

students who participated in the Grit-Survey and the transcribing of all interviews. Since

both schools were different in technology, preparing 100 students to participate in a

computer-generated survey took more time than I anticipated. In interviewing teachers

and administrators, I found no difficulty in provoking individuals to talk or answer the

asked questions directly. The challenge was provoking them to go in-depth about the

questions asked. Teachers answered the questions given and did not initiate more detail to

what the questions asked about grit, as it related to students.

Recommendations for the Research Sites

This study provided a foundation for future research on grit, student performance

and the non-traditional technical high school student within a broader technical
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 104

educationally-based school system, in comparison to the traditional high school student in

the broader realm of secondary education. One difficult experience was randomly

selecting students to participate in the Grit-S survey, as well as giving and receiving back

parent and student consent forms. Although the survey took approximately five minutes

to complete, it was evident that students on each campus used the survey participation as

a means to get free time. Duckworth et al. (2007) defined grit as perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. My recommendation for secondary school administrators is

to provide students upon entering high school with an assessment to determine their level

of grit. Grit comprised a suite of traits and behaviors, including goal-directedness

(knowing where to go and how to get there), motivation (having a strong will to achieve

identified goals), self-control (avoiding distractions and focusing on the task at- hand),

positive mind-set (embracing challenge and viewing failure as a learning opportunity)

(Goodwin & Miller, 2013). After incoming freshman have received their results from the

grit assessment, they should be afforded an opportunity to track their success by not only

creating self-directed goals, but also monitoring when and how each goal was met.

Secondary school administrators, whether in a non–traditional technical high school that

promotes career and college readiness or a traditional high school that promotes college

readiness, should provide opportunities for students to gain assistance with long–term

decision making, as it relates to their successes after high school. Though it was

determined that a notable number of students from each campus stated that they were

hard workers, the researcher questions if they knew and/or understood what it means to

work hard towards a specific goal. Secondary administrators should plan and execute

opportunities for students to gain an understanding of college and career readiness and
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 105

provided detailed information on ways to maneuver through and reach their self-directed

goals. Students should be assessed not only academically, but should also be given a

college and career assessment to determine or assist with determining where to go and

how to get there in regard to their lives after high school. Discussions of technical

education should be offered as a resource for students at traditional high school, as well.

High school counselors should offer the option of technical education to students who are

determined as technically oriented, per their assessment. The characteristics of grit, as

mentioned throughout my study, could be a determining factor in student levels of

success.

Recommendations for Future Research

No research study can gather its data from an unlimited number of subjects. This

research was no exception. Future research should entail venturing out to more school

districts that provide technical programs for students, as well as traditional high schools.

Increasing the sample size would ideally shed some additional light on the topic. There

are a variety of additional considerations that could be beneficial in future research.

These additional topics are:

Though race was not a variable in this research, it was unknown if race played a

role in determining a student’s grit. Therefore, further research should dive into

determining whether race was a determinant of grit. Also with academic performance,

further research should consider a correlation between grit, student performance, report

card grades, socioeconomic background, and standardized test scores. In evaluating how

gritty a student is, their background and socioeconomic status may be important factors.

According to a research report dated April 2014, which focused on grit, students who
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 106

came from high-poverty backgrounds faced greater challenges and had limited academic

support. Further research into grit and poverty- stricken schools would develop an

opportunity for researchers to tap into a students’ abilities to show resilience when

attempting to achieve long-term goals. According to Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth

(2014), among novice teachers in low-income public schools, grittier teachers were more

effective in the classroom and less likely to resign mid-year. A recommendation would

be to provide a deeper understanding by researching what makes a teacher gritty and

identifying immediate characteristics of the gritty and non-gritty teacher. A survey of

teachers suggested that students displayed grit through their academic achievement.

Although this study was comparing a non-traditional technical high school top a

traditional high school, further research should dive into surveying a variety of teachers

in various educational institutions; public schools, private schools, parochial schools, and

Montessori schools on every level from elementary to high school, as it pertains to grit

and student performance. Recommendations for researchers to dig into institutions of

higher education, such as colleges and universities may be pertinent to compare the level

of grit of students from a non-traditional technical college and students from a tradition

college or university. Further, research should tap into whether gritty high school

students move on to become gritty college students.

Suggestions for further research include the following: Since the sample of the

study was limited, future studies could conduct interviews with students, more teachers

and administrative staff, including district office administrators. This may provide the

researcher with an in-depth understanding of the student thoughts first hand and lessen

the limitations of the study. This may also provide the researcher with an opportunity to
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 107

explore specific mechanisms linking grit to student performance in both the non-

traditional technical high school and the traditional high school.

The sample included students from one non-traditional technical high school and

one traditional high school. Other studies could conduct surveys and interviews from a

greater number of Missouri non-traditional technical high schools and a greater number

of Missouri traditional high schools. Expanding the research population may provide the

researcher with more information about various areas, as a comparison study. It may also

provide a greater research base for comparison of demographics and other variables.

Also, research could venture in a different direction and survey students from a non-

traditional technical college and a traditional college or university. This may determine

whether gritty students continue to possess their grit through college. Variables should

include student performance on college entrance examinations, in remedial courses, and

grades.

This dissertation was based only in Missouri. Future projects could compare

differences in non-traditional technical high schools and traditional high schools in

different geographic locations. Since curriculum varies from state-to-state, this may

provide the researcher with more information to compare.

The research subjects in this study were almost all from suburban backgrounds. It

was unknown at this point if students from a rural or urban background would perceive

themselves differently than the students who actually participated in this study. This one

variable is worthy of additional study as the school experience of students in various

school settings could differ to a great or small degree. Without specific research to isolate

this variable it is unknown how students would perceive themselves, with regard to grit.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 108

Beyond the urban, suburban, and rural distinction, as a matter of geographical

location, there are socio-economic factors that could be important in the level of grit a

person possesses. It would be interesting to examine if students with different levels of

affluence perceived situations differently. When faced with academic challenges or

disappointments, do people of different socio-economic levels perceive those situations

similarly?

Another variable worthy of consideration is grade point average (GPA). Future

research that examines the previous academic success of a student, as indicated by their

cumulative Grade Point Average, might well show a correlation between the previous

level of academic success and the student’s self-reported grittiness. If the student had a

higher GPA, but had to work more hours than average outside of school on homework for

example, they may have a higher level of grit. Conversely, students who were less

successful academically may perhaps show a lower level of grit reflected in their lack of

assignment completion.

Another dynamic worth further study is the possible correlation between parent or

guardian career backgrounds and student’s level of grit. Much like socio-economics,

parental background is a variable that would remain outside of a student’s control, yet

could be related to grit in some way. Parental surveys or interviews could indicate how

the adult viewed grit and could relate to the level of grit displayed in the students.

Race is an additional factor that merits consideration for future research. While

there was some racial diversity in the subjects tested in this study, the race of the students

was not examined specifically in seeking a relationship. This is not to be construed as a

comparison of African American students to White students. Examining other races, such
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 109

as Asian or Hispanic would also be of merit. This particular variable might be one viewed

as controversial. If one race or another was reported as more gritty, it could be perceived

as an indictment of the less gritty races.

Since the level of grit can be determined in a student using a tool such as the Grit-

S survey, other studies could research how educators might increase the grit level of a

student. This may provoke conversations enabling educators to collaborate and create

programs to increase student motivation and success. It is an important first step to

identify a deficiency in a student. The identification of the level of grit certainly

qualifies. However, the identification is merely a first step. Remediation of those who are

found to be lacking in the area is the next key step. How this remediation would look, or

what program would be most effective would be the worthwhile goal of this future study.

Though grit, tenacity, and perseverance are correlated, should these three

variables be given priority and be integrated with curriculum and teacher development in

determining the grit of a student? Through applicable research, one may answer this

question by digging deeper into hiring qualified teachers and adopting a curriculum that

provokes a student’s grit level. Studies may use variables, such as teacher retention,

teacher effectiveness, and teacher promotion. The researcher may use college GPA and

college level courses completed while attending a college or university to determine the

qualifications of a teacher.

Another variable when determining future research might be whether parental

involvement is necessary to foster grit within students. Is coherence and agreement on

objectives necessary in contributing to a student’s grit? Shaver and Walls (1998) found

that parents had a desire to be involved in the lives of their children regardless of their
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 110

economic status or ethnicity. Though parental involvement was beyond a student’s

control, future research on this subject may involve parents to take a survey to first

determine their level of parental involvement and understanding of grit. After receiving

survey results the researcher might then monitor the parental support progress and survey

again to determine if their level of involvement had any correlation to their student’s

level of grit.

This dissertation used the Grit-S survey to determine a student’s level of grit. The

Grit-S was designed by selecting items that Duckworth and Quinn (2009) considered to

have predictive validity and replication of the two-factor structure of the Grit-O across

four different samples of children and adults (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). While the 12-

Item Grit-Survey proved valid and reliable, the researchers determined that they could

improve upon and shorten the instrument (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Future research

should be performed to determine how best to measure a student’s grit and understand

what methods of application are most effective when researching different educational

settings.

Research should be considered to determine if a student’s level of grit determines

retention and promotion for high school students, whether they attend a non-traditional

technical high school or a traditional high school. This could be accomplished by tracking

a student’s academic success through progress report grades and report card grades. This

would allow the researcher to conduct a comparison of student-on-student grade

performance, as it relates to retention and promotion. Other variables could be attendance

and classes needed upon graduation.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 111

Behavior in the classroom was found to predict later academic achievement

(Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999) and also important life outcomes in education and the labor

market, even beyond the influence of achievement in standardized tests (Segal, 2013).

Therefore, researching whether grit is a determinant or correlated with student behavior

within a classroom setting should be considered for future research. This will allow for

understanding if grit plays a role in developing good character within the classroom or

self-motivated positive behavior in the classroom.

Since technology was a resource that students used daily, future research may

look into whether technology is correlated with the level of grit a student may possess, as

it pertains to academia. I-pads were being introduced to students as young as pre-school

age. Does this source of integration with academic achievement have any indication on a

student’s grit level and performance within the classroom?

Conclusion

Towards the end of the data gathering and analysis it initially appeared that there

might be some significant differences between the two high schools. However, statistical

analysis confirmed there really was no difference in the grittiness of the two student

populations. It is possible, and even likely, that an outsider viewing these two high

schools might see them as very different in terms of population. However, in terms of

grit, the students pursuing a technical education and those pursuing a traditional college

preparatory education were similar in grit.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 112

References

Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R. Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of

individual and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 797-825.

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests:

Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.

Ahadi, S. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development, and the Big Five.

In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing

structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.189-

208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student

academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 731-746.

Anderson, E., & Keith, T. (1997). A longitudinal test of a model of academic success

for at-risk high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 259-268.

Anderson, J. C., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Silva P. (1987). DSM-III disorders in

preadolescent children: Prevalence in a large sample from the general population.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 60-76.

Arum, R. (1998). The effects of resources on vocational student educational outcomes:

Invested dollars or diverted dreams. Sociology of Education, 71(2), 130-151.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and

performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715 – 722.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 113

Blanchette, M. (2014, August 20). 5 Characteristics Of Grit -- How Many Do You Have?

Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140820143222-49573554-5-

characteristics-of-grit-how-many-do-you-have

Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European

Journal of Personality, 10, 337 – 352.

Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation.

European Psychologist, 1, 100 -112.

Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of

Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47-67.

Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, N. (2000). Predictions of freshman

grade-point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test

(College Board Report 2000-2001). New York, NY: College Entrance

Examination Board.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability,

learning style, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology

students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057-

1068.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Evoluntionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological

Science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.

Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotional

regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59

(2-3, Serial No. 240), 53-72.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 114

Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., Stone, J. R., & Wayman, J. C. (2003). Early measures of

student progress in schools with CTE- enhanced whole school reform: Math

course-taking patterns and student progress to graduation. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota, National Research Center for Career and Technical

Education.

Catterall, J. S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American

Journal of Education, 106, 302-333.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Chee, K., Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic

and academic achievement. College Student Journal. 39(3), 604-618.

Chown, S. M. (1959). Personality factors in the formation of occupational choice.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 23-33.

Cicchetti, D. (2013). Annual research review: resilient functioning in maltreated

children- past, present, and future perspective. Journal of Psychology and

Psychiatry, 54(4), 402-422.

Cohen, P., Velez, N., Kohn, M., Schwab-Stone, M., & Johnson, J. (1987). Child

psychiatric diagnosis by computer algorithm: Theoretical issues and empirical

tests. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

26(5), 631–638.

Conrad, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict

academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 339-346.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 115

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae. R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a

key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.),

Life Span Development and Behavior (Vol. 3. pp. 65-102). New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)

and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Dye, D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and

conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality

Individual Differences, 9(12), 887-898.

Croninger, R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits

to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record

103 (4), 548-581.

Cross, T. (2014). The Gritty: Grit and non-traditional doctoral student success. Journal

of Educators Online, 11(3), pp. 1-30.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York.,

NY: Harper and Row.

De Baca, C. (2010). Resiliency and academic performance: A review of the literature.

Scholar Centric. Retrieved from http://www.scholarcentric.com/wp-content/

uploads/2014/03/SC_Resiliency_Academic_Performance_WP.pdf

De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A

review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303-336.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 116

Deem, R. (2009). Leading and managing contemporary UK Universities: Do excellence

and meritocracy still prevail over diversity? Higher Education Policy, 22(1), 3-17.

Diamond, B., DeLuca, J., Rosenthal, D., Vlad, R., Davis, K., Lucas, G. . . . Richards, J.

(2000). Information processing in younger versus older adults: Accuracy versus

speed. International Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 5(1), 55-64.

Dingman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Doskoch, P. (2005, November). The winning edge. Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200510/the-winning-edge

Driessen, G., & van Langen, A. (2013). Gender differences in primary and secondary

education: Are girls really outperforming boys? International Review of

Education, 59, 67-86.

Duckworth, A., & Eskreis-Winkler, L. (2013). True Grit. Observer, 26(4), 1-3.

Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).

Deliberate practice spells success: why grittier competitors triumph at the

National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 174-

181.

Duckworth, A., & Perkins-Gough, D. (2013). The significance of grit: A conversation

with Angela Lee Duckworth. Resilience and Learning, 71(1), 14-20.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:

Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 117

Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of

teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology 4(6), 540-547.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting

academic performance of adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology,

16(12), 939-944.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge:

Gender differences in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198-208.

Durlak, J. A., Mahoney, J. L., Bohnert, A. M., & Parente, M. E. (2010). Developing and

improving after-school programs to enhance youth’s personal growth and

adjustment. American Journal Community Psychology, 45(3-4), 285-293.

Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of

learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY:

Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2009). Self-theories and motivation: Students’ beliefs about

intelligence. Handbook of Motivation at School. Taylor Francis, New York.

Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Academic tenacity: Mindsets

and skills that promote long-term learning. Retrieved from

http://www.howyouthlearn.org/pdf/Academic%20Tenacity, %20Dweck%20

et%20al..pdf
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 118

Dwyer, K., & Johnson, C. A. (1989). Substance use among eighth-grade students who

take care of themselves after-school. Pediatrics, 84(3), 556-566.

Eccles, J. S. (2011). Gendered Educational and Occupational Choices: Applying the

Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal

of Behavioral Development 35(3), 195-201.

Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E. & Rock, D. (1988). Education and American youth.

London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, D. (1970). The relationship between personality, study

methods and academic performance. British Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 132-

143.

Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing

in university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 258-265.

Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. (2013). The grit effect:

predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers

in Psychology 5(36), 1-29.

Eysenck, H. J., & Cookson, D. (1969). Personality in primary school children. British

Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 123-130.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A

natural science approach. New York, NY: Plenum.

Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1985). Gender Identity: Some thoughts on an old

concept. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24(6), 684-688.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. .

. . W., Beechum, & Nicole O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners:

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 119

The role of non-cognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical

literature review. The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School

Research online. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/teaching-

adolescents-become-learners-rolenoncognitive-factors-shaping-school.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1993). Prevalence and comorbidity

of DSM-III-R diagnosis in a bither cohort of 15 year olds. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 1127-1134.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Show me the child at seven

II: Childhood intelligence and later outcomes in adolescence and young

adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 46(8), 850-858.

Fergusson, D. M., Lloyd, M., & Horwood, L. J. (1991). Confirmatory factor models of

attention deficit and conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry,

32, 257-274.

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and

students’ emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics

classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 478-493.

Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Moutafi, J. (2005). Personality and

intelligence: Gender, the big five, psychometric and self-estimated intelligence.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 11-24.

Furnham, A., Christopher, A., Garwood, J., & Martin, G. (2007). Approaches to learning

and the acquisition of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences,

43, 1563-1571.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relation: assessment of

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 120

typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537-

552.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality. The big five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.

Goodwin, B. (2010) Good teachers may not fit the mold. Educational Leadership, 68(4),

79-80.

Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Teaching self-regulation has long-term benefits.

Educational Leadership, 70(8), 80–81.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence,

24, 79-132.

Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2002). General and specific traits of personality and their

relation to sleep and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 70(2), 177-

206.

Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of Agreeableness as dimension of personality.

In C. Halverson, G. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds), The developing structure

of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339-354).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of

personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of

personality psychology (pp. 795-824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal

conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 820–835

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 121

Graziano, W. G., & Waschull, S. B. (1994). Social development and self- monitoring. In

N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, 1, 233-260.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, N. C., Hladkyi, S., Perry, R. P., & Ruthing, J. C. (2004). The role of attributional

retraining and elaborative learning in college students’ academic development.

Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 591-612.

Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2011). Are boys left behind in school? Reviewing and

explaining education-related gender disparities. Psychology, 25, 89-103.

Hartigan, J., & Wigdor, A. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity

Generalization, minority issues, and the general aptitude test battery.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of

Educational Research, 58, 47-77.

Hirschberg, N., & Itkin, S., (1978). Graduate student success in psychology. American

Psychologist, 33, 1083-1093.

Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement,

and college culture. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 224-227.

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being disengaged in educationally purposeful activities:

The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher

Education, 43(5), 555-575.

Hu, S., Kuh, G., & Vesper, N. (2002). They shall be known by what they do. An

activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 4, 228-244.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 122

Huang, J. L. (2013). The other side of the coin: Vocational interests, interests

differentiation and annual income at the occupation level of analysis. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 315-326.

Issacson, B. (2002). Characteristics and enhancement of resiliency in young people,

[A research paper for masters of science degree with major in guidance and

counseling.] Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing

conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in

Personality, 52, 29-36.

Jackson, K. D. (2008). An examination of resiliency factors of successful African-

American woman from father absent home. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Adler School

of Professional Psychology. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

304820408 EBSCO.

Jakoubek, J., & Swenson, R. R. (1993). Differences in use of learning strategies and

relation to grades among undergraduate students. Psychological Reports, 73, 787-

793.

John, O. P., Nauman, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big

Five Trait Taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P.

John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and

research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Jordan, W. J., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the causes of early drop

out among race-ethnic and gender groups. Youth and Society, 28(1), 62-94.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 123

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Individual differences in trait motivation:

Development of the Motivational Trait Questionnaire (MTQ). International

Journal of Educational Research, 33(7), 751-776.

Kasen, S., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. S. (1998). Adolescence school experience and dropout,

adolescent pregnancy, and young adult deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 13, 49-72.

Kazis, R. (2005). Remaking career and technical education for the 21st century: What

role for high school programs? Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2008). When being a girl matters less. Accessibility of

gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 273-289.

Kessels, U., Heyder, A., Latsch, M., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender differences in

academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity. Educational Research,

56(2), 220-229.

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The big five traits,

learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual

Differences, 5, 472-477.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of

the predictive validity of the graduate record examinations: Implications for

graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162-

181.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career

potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 124

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 146-161.

Lam, S. F., Jimerson, s., Kikas, E., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Nelson, B., & Hatzichristou,

C. (2012). Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school?

The results of an international study from 12 countries. Journal of Psychology,

50(1), 77-94.

Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic

judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Langlie, T. A. (1938). Intelligent-test scores and scholarship. Journal of Higher

Education, 9, 449-450.

Larsen, K. S., & Giles, H. (1976). Survival or courage as human motivation:

Development of an attitude scale. Psychological Reports, 39(1), 292 – 302.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY:

Springer.

Lee, V. E., & Burkman, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school

organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 353-393.

Lievens, F., Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2009). Personality scale validities increase

throughout medical school. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1514-1535.

Lippa, R. (1998). The gender reality hypothesis. American Psychologist, 61(6), 639-640.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal setting theory. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265–268.

Lockhart, D., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Learning styles and classroom evaluation

methods: Different strokes for different folks. College Student Journal, 17, 94-

100.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 125

Lopez, S. J., Koetting O’Byrne, K., & Peterson, S. (Eds.) (2003). Profiling courage.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Maddi, S. R. (2006) Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal

of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279-298.

Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of gender stereotyping. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52, 489-499.

Martin, C. L. (2006). Gender development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg

(Eds), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3: Personality and social development

(6th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley

Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., Westerman, S., & Stammers, R. B. (2000). Human

performance: Cognition, stress and individual differences. New York, NY :

Psychology Press.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., von Krogh, G., & Mueller, J. (2005). Personality

traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge

sharing. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 22(2), 296-

310.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.

Sluyter (Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational

implications (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

McClelland, D., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and

Implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690-702

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 126

McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness

on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-

144.

Miller, C. D., Always, M., & McKinley, D. L. (1987). Effects of learning styles and

strategies on academic success. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 399-

404.

Mischel, W. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2015). District and school

information. Retrieved from http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/Pages/District-

and-School-Information.aspx

Mooradian, T. A., & Swan, S. K. (2006). Personality and culture: the case of the national

extraversion and word-of-mouth. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 778-785.

Muller, P. A., Stage, F. K., & Kinzie, J. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories:

Understanding factors related to gender and racial-ethnic differences in precollege

science achievement. American Educational Research, 38(4), 981-1012.

Musselin, C. (2002). Diversity around the profile of the good candidate within French

and German Universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 243-258.

Nagaoka, J., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Coca, V., Moeller, E, Roddie, K. . . . Patton.

D. (2008). From high school to future: Potholes on the road to college. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes:

Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93(1), 116-130.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 127

Ozer, D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2005). Personality and the prediction of consequential

outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(8), 1-8.21.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: vol. 2. A third

decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Paunonen, S. V., &Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement.

Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78-90.

Pelechano, V. (1972). Personality, motivation and academic achievement. Revista de

Psicologia General y Aplicada, 27, 69 – 86.

Perlis, M. (2013). Five Characteristics of grit: How many do you have? Forbes

Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/margretperlis/2013/10/

29/5/

Pervin, L. A. (1999). Handbook of personality: Theory and research, vol. 2. New York,

NY: Guilford.

Plank, S. B., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2008). High school drop and the role of career

and technical education: A survival analysis of surviving high school. Sociology

of Education, 81(4), 345-370.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and

Academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338.

Pury, C. L., & Starkey, C. B. (2010). Is courage an accolade or a process? A fundamental

question for courage research. In C. L. Pury & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology

of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 67-88). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 128

highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs

about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 103(5), 787-803.

Riegle-Crumb, C., & King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in science,

technology, engineering and mathematics: Examining disparities in college major

by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656-664.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Variable definitions, data, and

programs for teachers, students and academic achievement. Econometria

Supplementary Material, 73(2), 417-458.

Roberts B. W., Chernyshenko, O., Starks, S., & Goldberg, L (2005). The structure of

conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality

questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139.

Roberts, B., Harms, P., Smith, J., Wood, D., & Webb, M. (2006). Using multiple

methods in personality psychology. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of

multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 321-335). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009).

Conscientiousness. In M. Leary & R. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual

Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 369-381). New York, NY: Guilford.

Robertson- Kraft, C., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). True Grit: Trait-level Perseverance and

passion for long-term goals predicts effectiveness and retention among novice

teachers. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1-27.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 129

Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:

Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.

Rojas, J. P., Reser, J. A., Usher, E. L., & Toland, M. D. (2012). Psychometric properties

of the academic Grit-Scale. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

Rolfhus, P. L., & Ackerman, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge,

abilities and non-ability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14(2), 314-330.

Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Beyond college for all. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions

when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 546-556.

Sanchez-Marin, M., Rejano-Infante, E., & Rodriguez-Troyano, Y. (2001). Personality

and academic productivity in the university student. Social Behavior and

Personality, 29, 299-305.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on

future academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value

Added Research and Assessment Center.

Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2004). Gender differences in

self-perceptions and academic outcomes: A study of African American high

school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(1), 81-90.

Saunders, M., Hamilton, E., Fanelli, S., Moya, J., & Cain, E. (2013). Linked Learning:

A guide to making high school work. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute

For Democracy, Education, and Access.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 130

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006).

The role of developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5). 691-708.

Schmeck, R. R. (1999). Thoughtful learners: Students who engage in deep and

elaborative information processing. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds),

International perspectives on individual differences (pp. 79-98). Stamford, CT:

Ablex Publishing.

Scully, M. A. (1997). Meritocracy. In R. E. Freeman & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Blackwell

encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics (pp. 413–414). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Segal, C. (2013). Misbehavior, education, and labor market outcomes. Journal of the

European Economic Association, 11(4), 773-779.

Seif, A. A. (2001). Educational psychology. Tehran, Iran: Agah.

Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings.

Anxiety Research, 4, 27-41.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Peterson, C. (2004). Character strength and virtues: A

classification and handbook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Shaver, A. V., & Walls, T. (1998). Effect of Title I parental involvement on student

reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in

Education, 31(2), 90-97.

Smith, G. (1969). Personality correlates of academic performance in three dissimilar

populations. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, 4, 303–304.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 131

Solberg, S., Gusavac, N., Hamann, T., Felch, J., Johnson, J., Lamborn, S., & Torres, J.

(1998). The Adaptive Success Identity Plan (ASIP): A career intervention for

college students. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 48-95.

Special School District of Study District County. (2014). About. Retrieved from

http://www.ssdmo.org/

Srivastava, S. (2013). Student test scores show that grit is more important than IQ.

Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/grit-is-more-important-than-iq-

2013

Strayhorn, T. L. (2014). What role does grit play in academic success of Black male

collegians at predominantly white institutions? Journal of African American

Studies, 18(1), 1-10.

Study Site High School A. (2014). Home. Retrieved from http://www.kirkwoodschools.

org

Study Site High School B. (2014). Home. Retrieved from http://www.northtechnical.org

Swanson, C. B. (2004). The real truth about low graduation rates. An evidence-based

commentary. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Tett, L. (2002). Community education, lifelong learning and social inclusion. Edinburg,

UK: Dunedin Academic Press

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and

cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle trait activation. Journal of

Research in Personality, 34, 397 – 423.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-

determination theory. Canadian Psychology, 4, 257-262.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 132

Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of

academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization. Retrieved from

http://org.sagepub.com/ content/early/2011/07/28/1350508411414293

Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E. & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Unpacking grit:

Motivational correlates of perseverance and passion for long-term goals, Journal

of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 306-312.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific

factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model.

Journal of Personality, 60(2), 441-476.

Well, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove,

UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Whitley B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating

attitudes and classroom cheating behavior. A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 4(19),

657-680.

Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as predictor of college performance.

Educational and Psychological Measurements, 55, 177-185.

Woodard, C. R. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 56, 173-185.

Zeider, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality, In R. Stenberg (Ed.),

Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 581-610). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Zhang, L. F. (2000). Are think styles and personality types related? Educational

Psychology, 20(3), 271-283.

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 133

Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles and the Big Five Personality Traits. Educational

Psychology, 22(1), 17-31.

Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. F. (2001). Thinking styles and the five factor model of

personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465-476.

Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles.

Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1-53.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and

performance. Retrieved from http://www.edrev.info/reviews/rev1191.pdf

Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY:

Free Press.
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 134

Appendix A

8- Item Grit-Scale
Directions for taking the Grit-Scale: Please respond to the following 8 items. Be honest –
there are no right or wrong answers!

1. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.*

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

2. Setbacks (delays and obstacles) don’t discourage me. I bounce back from
disappointments faster than most people.

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

3. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost
interest.*

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 135

Not much like me

Not like me at all

4. I am a hard worker.

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

5. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue (follow) a different one. *

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

6. I have difficulty maintaining (keeping) my focus on projects that take more than a few
months to complete. *

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 136

Not like me at all

7. I finish whatever I begin.

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

8. I am diligent (hard working and careful).

Very much like me

Mostly like me

Somewhat like me

Not much like me

Not like me at all

Scoring:

1. For questions 2, 4, 7 and 8 assign the following points:

5 = Very much like me
4 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
2 = Not much like me
1 = Not like me at all

2. For questions 1, 3, 5 and 6 assign the following points:

1 = Very much like me
2 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
4 = Not much like me
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 137

5 = Not like me at all

Add up all the points and divide by 8. The maximum score on this scale is 5 (extremely
gritty), and the lowest scale on this scale is 1 (not at all gritty).

Duckworth, A. L, & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit-
Scale
(GritS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Duckworth%20and%20Quinn.pdf
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:
Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1087-1101.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Grit%20JPSP.pdf

© 2013 Angela Duckworth

GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 138

Appendix B

Interview Questions for High School Principals (Technical School)

1. Describe your school in terms of population and demographics.

2. What types of students attend North Technical High School and what are the
requirements for admission?
3. How would you define grit?

4. Do you perceive a difference in the factors of long -term success between male
students and female students? If yes, please explain.

5. How would you describe a traditional high school and a technical high school?

6. What are your additional thoughts about grit and high school students?
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 139

Appendix C

Interview Questions for High School Principals

1. Describe your school in terms of population and demographics.

2. What types of students attend Kirkwood High School?

3. How would you define grit?

4. Do you perceive a difference in the factors of long- term success among male
students and female students? If yes, please explain.

5. How would you describe a traditional high school and a technical school?

6. What are your additional thoughts about grit and high school students?
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 140

Appendix D

Interview Questions for Assistant Principals

1. Describe your school in terms of population and demographics.

2. What types of students attend Kirkwood High School/North Technical High School?

3. How would you define grit?

4. How do you perceive the factors of long -term success among male and female
students?

5. How would you describe a traditional high school and a technical school?

6. What are your additional thoughts about grit and high school students?
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 141

Appendix E

Interview Questions for Teachers

1. How would you define grit?

2. How would you describe a student’s specific attitudes, behaviors and academic
competence related to your definition of grit in the previous question?

3. How should a teacher display the attitudes, behaviors and academic competence
related to your definition of grit in the first question?

4. What actions should an administrator display the attitudes, behaviors and academic
competence related to your definition of grit in the first question?
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 142

Appendix F

Lindenwood University
School of Education
209 S. Kingshighway
St. Charles, Missouri 63301

Informed Consent for Parents to Sign for

Student Participation in Research Activities

Grit and Student Performance: A Quantitative Comparative Analysis of a non-

traditional technical school and a traditional high school.

Principal Investigator: Ronda Wallace, Ed.S

Telephone: 314-989-7600 E-mail: [email protected]

Participant _______________________________ Parent Contact info _______________

Dear parent,

3. Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ronda Wallace, Ed.S
under the guidance of Dr. John Long. The purpose of this research is to investigate a possible
difference in the level of grit, as defined by Angela Duckworth, among students that attend
a non-traditional technical school and those that attend a traditional high school. Grit is
defined as an individual’s level to persevere and a passion to achieve long-term goals
(Duckworth, 2007).

2. a) Your child’s participation will involve completing a brief 8 item measure of grit.

b) The amount of time involved in your child’s participation will be approximately 5-

10 minutes during their Advisory period.

4. There are no anticipated risks to your child associated with this research.
5. There are no direct benefits for your child’s participation in this study. However, your
child’s participation will contribute to the knowledge about the difference in the level
of grit among students who attend a non-traditional technical school and students who
attend a traditional high school.

6. Your child’s participation is voluntary and you may choose not to let your child
participate in this research study or to withdraw your consent for your child’s
participation at any time. Your child may choose not to answer any questions that he
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 143

or she does not want to answer. You and your child will NOT be penalized in any
way should you choose not to let your child participate or to withdraw your child.

7. We will do everything we can to protect your child’s privacy. As part of this effort,
your child’s identity will not be revealed in any publication or presentation that may
result from this study.

8. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, or if any problems arise, you may
call the Investigator, Ronda Wallace, Ed.S at 314-989-7600 or the Supervising Faculty,

Dr. John Long at 636-949-4756. You may also ask questions of or state concerns
regarding your participation to the Lindenwood Institutional Review Board (IRB)
through contacting Dr. Jann Weitzel, Vice President for Academic Affairs at 636-
949-4846.

I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask
questions. I will also be given a copy of this consent form for my records. I
consent to my child’s participation in the research described above.

Parent’s/Guardian’s Signature Date Parent’s/Guardian’s

Printed Name

Child’s Printed Name

Signature of Investigator Date Investigator Printed

Name

Revised 1-21-2010
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 144

Appendix G

Lindenwood University
School of Education
209 S. Kingshighway
St. Charles, Missouri 63301

Invitation for Student Participation in Research Activities

Grit and Student Performance: A Quantitative Comparative Analysis of a non-

traditional technical school and a traditional high school.

Principal Investigator: Ronda Wallace, Ed.S

Telephone: 314-989-7600 E-mail: [email protected]

Participant______________________________ Participant Contact info: ___________

Dear Participant,

1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ronda Wallace,

Ed.S under the guidance of Dr. John Long. The purpose of this research is to compare
a possible difference in the level of grit, as defined by Angela Duckworth, among
students that attend a non-traditional technical school and those that attend a traditional
high school. Grit is defined as an individual’s level to persevere and a passion to
achieve long-term goals (Duckworth, 2007).

2. a) Your participation will involve completing a brief 8 item measure of grit as described
below.

b) The amount of time involved in your participation will be approximately 5 - 10 minutes

during their Advisory period.

3. There are no anticipated risks to you associated with this research.

4. There are no direct benefits for your participation in this study. However, your
participation will contribute to the knowledge about the difference in the level of grit
among students who attend a non-traditional technical school and students who attend a
traditional high school.

5. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in this
research study or to withdraw your consent for participation at any time. You may choose
GRITT AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 145

not to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. You will NOT be penalized in
any way should you choose not to participate.

6. We will do everything we can to protect your privacy. As part of this effort, your
identity will not be revealed in any publication or presentation that may result from this
study.

7. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, or if any problems arise,
you may call the Investigator, Ronda Wallace, Ed.S at 314-989-7600 or the Supervising
Faculty,
Dr. John Long at 636-949-4756. You may also ask questions of or state concerns regarding
your participation to the Lindenwood Institutional Review Board (IRB) through contacting
Dr. Jann Weitzel, Vice President for Academic Affairs at 636-949-4846.

I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I will
also be given a copy of this consent form for my records. I consent to my participation in
the research described above.

Participant’s Signature Date Participant’s Printed Name

________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Investigator Date Investigator Printed Name

________________________________________________________________________

Revised 10-07-2014