Active learning and clear goals are linked to stronger student resilience

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Teaching experiences and resilience are related, but this does not establish that changing teaching will itself increase resilience. Faming Wang, Peiqi Huang, Yueyang Xi and Ronnel B. King investigate these relationships in Chinese higher education.

What was measured

The survey analysis included 1,068 undergraduates from 21 mainland Chinese universities. Recruitment was voluntary, using convenience and snowball methods. Fifteen students took part in a subsequent interview phase; these were not the same identified individuals as the anonymous survey respondents.

After accounting for measured covariates, active learning and clear goals and standards were positively associated with academic and general resilience. Results were not uniformly positive: the appropriate-assessment measure was negatively associated with general resilience. Interviews also raised coping strategies and peer support.

The survey was cross-sectional and self-reported. More resilient students might perceive their learning environment differently; the direction of the relationship is unresolved. The findings do not establish that a particular teaching intervention improves resilience or mental health.

A starting point for course review

As editorial recommendations, use student feedback to identify unclear expectations and activities that students struggle to navigate. Discuss possible changes with students and teaching teams, then assess whether the intended experience improves.

If resilience is an explicit outcome, measure it appropriately rather than inferring it from satisfaction or comment sentiment. Separate educational support from clinical mental-health assessment and avoid interpreting difficulties as a lack of personal resilience.

Reference

Faming Wang, Peiqi Huang, Yueyang Xi and Ronnel B. King. “Fostering resilience among university students: the role of teaching and learning environments.” Higher Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-025-01484-2.

Reviewed 7 September 2026 against the full paper. Causal claims have been narrowed, the separate interview sample clarified, and the mixed assessment findings restored.