A Comparative Case Study: the Effect of Professional Development
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Running Head: FOSTERING RESILIENCE 1
A Comparative Case Study: The Effect of Professional Development
in Resilience on Teachers’ Perceptions in Six School Environments
Mary A. Klinger
Drexel University
August 28, 2011 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 2
Abstract*
Literature reveals a longitudinal framework of four waves of resilience research and provides suggested starting points for future research. Current research in the field of resilience has moved beyond studies of risk factors, protective factors and interventions to focus on genetic research and developmental cascades, the process of change which moves across domains or levels in a system. The working definition of resilience has been modified to reflect more of a dynamic interaction between an individual or a system and its unique environment. This literature review will highlight the conceptual and theoretical frameworks for the study. Three themes will be explored – historical development of research in resilience, implications for schools, and the role teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. Each strand of literature is critical in designing a study that will facilitate the translational of research into practice.
*This abstract is only included for this assignment and will not appear at this point in the final document. FOSTERING RESILIENCE 3
Chapter 2 Introduction of Problem
Educational settings have great potential to make a difference for children. Students who are resilient are ultimately more successful in life. They are able to transition to adulthood and become responsible citizens and productive members of the community. On the other hand, students who are not resilient are likely to have difficulty in school and in life, often beginning by dropping out of school. Students who drop out tend to be underemployed or unemployed, to end up in prison, and to need government support. This is why it is so important to evaluate the effect of professional development in resilience. The question is whether teachers are prepared to foster resilience in students. To respond to this question, it is important to evaluate the development of educators’ understandings and perceptions of resilience. This study will investigate the effect of professional development on teachers’ perceptions of their ability to foster resilience. Developing an understanding of teachers’ experiences in authentic school environments will help determine the parameters of effective professional development.
Research has uncovered thoughtful understandings of what gives an individual ability to bounce back, or what seems even more fitting, “bounce forward”. Resilience is considered in simple terms as the self-righting nature of human development. However there is nothing simple about resilience. It is a complex process which is highly individualized based on the unique characteristics of the child and the capacity of the environment. Condly (2006) confirmed that resilient children are able to succeed in the face of challenges because of their combined internal and external support systems.
Research in this field chronicles four waves of studies in this field. Understandings of resilience have moved beyond studies of risk factors, protective factors and interventions to focus on concepts such as genetic research and developmental cascades, the process of change FOSTERING RESILIENCE 4 which moves across domains or levels in a system. The working definition of resilience has been modified to reflect a dynamic interaction between individuals and their unique environment which allows them to adapt and persevere despite adversity. Research in resilience should not repeat the processes of earlier frameworks, but should synthesize what is known into practice, looking to literature for directions of study.
Conceptual Framework
This researcher’s passion for this topic has grown from childhood and developed more focus in the field of teaching. Educators see young students every day who face great challenges.
It is saddening to see children who must fight poverty, abuse, neglect, and loss. Often they are not engaged in the learning process; they are lost in their own basic needs. Teachers have a mission that encompasses more than academics; they must also lift the spirits of students who face hardship and despair. It is critical to hear the voices of teachers who interact with students daily and to advocate for effective programs to support this mission. The effect of students’ levels of success is reflected in our society, through our economic status, the commitment of our citizens, and the well-being of our nation.
Chapter Two will build the conceptual framework for this study on the foundation of theory (see Figure 1) and through the contributions of research. Interactionist theories of learning, which recognize the effect of social collaboration and communication to learning, are particularly relevant to this study. Interactionist theorists Gagne and Bandura emphasized the importance of the conditions of learning and self-efficacy of the learners. Distinguished developmental-interactionists Vygotsky and Piaget considered the effect of multiple experiences and perspectives in the development of cognitive processes. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs draws the four theories together by uncovering the prerequisites for learning. The seminal work FOSTERING RESILIENCE 5 of these theorists emphasizes the need to be aware of not only the academic standing of a child, but also the child’s mental, psychological, social, and emotional environment. This study is based on the theoretical base of these perspectives.
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Literature Review
Three themes of research will be followed to develop the framework for this study – the historical development of resilience, implications for schools, and the role of teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs. First, it is important to situate this study in the context of what has been described as the four waves of resilience research. Research in resilience should not repeat the processes of earlier frameworks, but should synthesize what is known and ask new questions. The next theme will focus on studies that have examined the unique role schools can FOSTERING RESILIENCE 6 take in making a difference for children who are at risk. One of the most stirring findings in the fourth wave of research is the unexpected level of influence the school environment has in fostering resilience. Finally, since supportive adults have been found to be one of the key factors in sustaining students, the perceptions of teachers’ ability to foster resilience is a significant factor. In many situations, perception is reality, so understanding how teachers feel about their interactions with students and the role of the school environment is valuable information for those who design professional development in this area. Together, these three strands will direct what has been learned from the research in resilience on the strongest channel for fostering resilience for students - the perceptions of teachers.
Historical Development of Resilience.
Research in the field of resilience exists in tremendous quantity. Extensive studies have been undertaken to find the answer to the question – why do some thrive in the face of adversity while others crumble? Everyone experiences some challenges in life, and most have a story of their own journey through the tough times of life. The puzzle is that two people, who have experienced the same amount and intensity of adversity, and even the same exact event, can emerge differently. It may seem better to weather stormy times and then move on without any effect, but it could also be considered enriching to be able to emerge from inescapable tragedy as a stronger person.
The gap between the desired outcome and the real path some children take into academic failure, juvenile delinquency, and poor emotional well-being fuels the desire to foster healthy resilience in children. Attempts to understand the process are documented in research over the last 40 years, shifting from a focus on risk factors to a model of resilience as an interactive FOSTERING RESILIENCE 7 process. A summary of this evolution will be presented, leading to implications of research for educational institutions.
Masten (2011) pointed out that research in resilience is now in the fourth wave. The goal of the first wave was to describe resilience in different instances and to identify risk and protective factors. The second wave included many longitudinal studies of the processes of resilience within complex environments. More scientific, randomized experiments formed the third wave of research, particularly investigating the effects of various interventions. Now, in the fourth wave, a system-wide approach has led to significant findings. New understandings of imaging, molecular genetics, environmental science, statistics and computer science now allow for more in depth studies of the dynamics of resilience. By combining research across disciplines and around the world, researchers have come so far as to identify one single allele that appears to have an effect on an individual’s ability to adapt and move on (Sapienza & Masten, 2011).
Studies have emphasized the enormous influence of factors in the environment; including cultural expectations, timing of interventions, and the effect of accumulating risks (Vanderbilt-
Adriance & Shaw, 2008). The findings from four waves of research in resilience focus the direction of future studies, guided by the theories of learning.
Risk and Resilience Factors.
Early stages of resilience research sought cause-effect relationships to explain why some individuals rose above tragedy while others did not. The first risk factors studied were related to schizophrenia, poverty, prejudice, physical illness, and traumatic life events (Luthar, D-Avanzo,
& Hites, 2003; Thielemann, 2000). Significant findings emerged from studies of a variety of risk factors, but some seem to have attracted more attention. Poverty has been correlated with violence, hunger, poor health, stress, abuse, unsafe living conditions, difficulty in school, FOSTERING RESILIENCE 8 malnutrition, teenage pregnancy, socioemotional problems, behavior challenges, dropping out of school, criminal activity, and substance abuse (Othner et al, 2004; Seccombe, 2002). Overall, children raised in low socio-economic settings performed lower than students from high income areas in cognitive development, physical health, and emotional well-being (Owens & Shaw,
2003; Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2003).
It is disheartening to realize that such terrible things happen in children’s lives that there are branches of resilience research that focus on specific adversities, such as sons of alcoholics
(Zucker, Wong, Puttler, & Fitzgerald, 2003), maternal drug abuse (Luthar, D-Avanzo, & Hites,
2003), children of depressed parents (Hammen, 2003), children who witness violence (Saunders,
2003), children overcoming trauma (Chambers, 2005), and children in war (Levy & Parker,
2000). When one thinks of these life-altering situations, it seems even more amazing that some children are able to not only survive, but to grow from adversity.
Variables have been examined such as gender and the characteristics of risk situations.
Based on studies of family dynamics and resilience, differences were found in the effects of adversity on males and females. Werner (1989) found the interaction of gender and vulnerability in cases of stress in the family or caregiver affected females more during adolescence, and males both as children and above the age of thirty (Condly, 2006; Werner, 1989). In application to resilience as a whole, males were found to demonstrate outward reactions while females tended to internalize problems (Luthar et al., 2003. P. 108).
Surprisingly, the severity of the negative experiences has not seemed to be as important as the number of incidents. It was noted that, in many cases, hardships tended to pile up, causing seemingly insurmountable obstacles. For example, Masten and Powell (2003) found that homeless children with few risk factors had better school behavior than children living in a home FOSTERING RESILIENCE 9 but with a higher number of adversity factors. Fergusson & Horwood’s (2003) longitudinal study of 1,265 children born in an urban area in New Zealand found that those exposed to six or more hardships during childhood internalized problems at a rate that was 2.3 times higher than those with low exposure and the rate of externalized outcomes was 3.1 times higher (p. 142).
Werner and Smith.
Within the volumes of research, some of the most significant understandings of resilience are based on the landmark studies of Werner and Smith (1989). These researchers traced the growth and resilience of 698 individuals born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1955 in an over thirty year longitudinal study. The individuals in the study grew up in various degrees of risk.
The findings in were encouraging – over 70 percent of the children who grew up in difficult situations emerged as well-balanced and successful adults. Werner (2000) advised, "As long as the balance between stressful life events and protective factors is favorable, successful adaptation is possible….However, when stressful life events outweigh protective factors, even the most resilient child can develop problems" (p. 128). Werner and her fellow researchers called attention to protective factors, which they hypothesized, helped to balance out risk factors. This study is one of the most referenced in all resilience research. It is significant because it moved research away from studies of risk factors and toward an understanding of the process of fostering resilience.
Garmezy and Project Competence.
Project Competence, a series of studies conducted by Garmezy and others beginning in the 1970’s evaluated the development of children growing up in high risk situations. The first studies focused on three groups of Minnesota children, two hundred children growing up in urban environments, thirty-two children with congenital heart defects, and a third group of FOSTERING RESILIENCE 10 twenty-nine children with severe physical handicaps (Masten & Powell, 2003). The effects of negative experiences and cumulative risks were realized and a positive correlation between high
IQ and high resilience was found. Additional groups were studied in this initiative with children who had experienced war and those who survived natural disasters. The findings in these studies brought attention to capabilities, a central point in Albert Bandura’s (1997) theories of self- efficacy, the belief that a person has the “capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3).
After these landmark studies, research in resilience moved toward studies of protective factors and the process of developing resilience. Emphasis on a deficit-model was eventually seen as limiting, preventing researchers and caregivers from seeing the strengths and potential in a child (Benard, 1998). Identifying and labeling children with the specific adversity in their environment tended to frame children through a deficit lens and lead to stereotypes. The value of a sense of control was applied to families and cultures also. “One of the striking features of problem families is that they feel [they are] at the mercy of fate, which is always doing them an ill-turn” (Rutter, 1984, p. 60).
The conclusions of Werner, Smith, and Garmezy were echoed by studies around the world. Resilient children were found to cultivate connections to adults and turn to them when they needed help. They were able to think of ways to solve problems and possessed high self- esteem. They did not sit by when they felt they were treated unfairly. These children were found to be adaptable, intelligent problem solvers with high levels of autonomy and an internal locus of control (Benard, 1998; Brackenreed, 2010; Fergusson & Horwood, 2003; Harvey 2007; Knight,
2007; Masten & Powell, 2003; Miller, Brehm & Whitehouse, 1998). On the other hand, children who were not able to adapt had fewer internal strengths to draw from, lacked social supports, and FOSTERING RESILIENCE 11 often experienced negative emotions (Harvey, 2007; Masten & Powell, 2003). Garmezy,
Masten, and Tellegen’s (1984) studies found value in examining the severity of negative experiences as well as the number of incidents. It was noted that, in many cases, hardships tended to pile up, causing seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Masten and Powell (2003) found that homeless children with few risk factors had better school behavior than children living in a home but with a higher number of adversity factors. Fergusson & Horwood’s (2003) longitudinal study of 1,265 children born in an urban area in New Zealand found that those exposed to six or more hardships during childhood internalized problems at a rate that was 2.3 times higher than those with low exposure and the rate of externalized outcomes was 3.1 times higher (p. 142).
These studies placed an emphasis on the number of risk factors.
Focus on Protective Factors.
Research progressed toward a search for characteristics of individuals who beat the odds.
Rutter (1985) was the first to call attention to the importance of protective factors, stressing that these must be greater than the accumulation of risk factors in order to be effective. Other studies followed, focusing on variables such as better parenting and the child’s personality. Some used case studies to investigate personal interactions between adaptation and adversity (Masten &
Powell, 2003; Zucker et al., 2003). The understandings of competence moved the field of resilience research toward a developmental perspective and blurred the lines between the concepts of “protective factors” and “outcomes” (Green, Oswald & Spears, 2007; Rutter, 1985).
The developmental approach was more proactive, stepping in to help children with the potential to develop problems instead of waiting until negative outcomes come to the surface. As Pianta &
Walsh (1998) stressed, success develops; therefore student support should be dynamic, ongoing, and involve multiple systems (p. 409). FOSTERING RESILIENCE 12 The role of competence has been verified repeatedly, but other internal and external protective factors have also received attention. These include empathy, external interests, high expectations, curiosity, positive relationships, parental quality, and a sense of purpose for the future (Benard, 1998; Bolger & Patterson, 2003; Brackenreed, 2010; Dirling, 1999; Fergusson &
Horwood, 2003; Masten & Powell, 2003). Some believed teaching isolated skills in these areas would result in enhanced resilience. Henderson (1998) wrote, "The goal is to build in enough protective factors to offset the impact of stressful life events. When the balance is favorable, successful adaptation--resiliency--is the outcome" (p. 17). However, others felt the key to resilience depended on an individual’s interaction with internal and external supports, unique to individuals and their complex environments.
Maddi (2002) discussed multiple studies in the theory of “hardiness”, a concept which mitigates the effect of risk factors leading to less stress-related symptoms. When measured alongside social support and physical exercise, hardiness appeared to be the most effective factor. Maddi reported studies showing that those with high levels of hardiness had experienced
“disruptive, stressful early family life” coupled with a parental expectation of success, perpetuating a compelling belief that opportunity can arise from adversity. In order to be free of the barriers of anxiety, Maddi proposed that children need “existential courage”, a combination of three factors identified as commitment, control and challenge. The author has developed a complex hardiness model to show the interconnectedness of beliefs, social supports, inherited vulnerabilities, and stress. Training in hardiness has been developed to address what the author called “five fingers in one hand” – coping, social support, relaxation, nutrition, and physical activity. The change in the approach to resilience is evident in this study as the authors stressed merging internal and external supports. FOSTERING RESILIENCE 13 Analysis of the research in risk factors, protective factors and outcomes shows several shifts in thinking. First, the level and severity of risk were no longer considered to predetermine outcomes. Some individuals appeared to be more affected by the same adverse situation than others (Benard, 2009; Masten & Powell, 2003). The difference between individuals seemed to be brought about more by diverse individual characteristics than by the actual risk factors. Second, emphasis changed to the more positive interactive adaptive process of calling upon strengths in times of adversity. Much has been discovered about this internal relationship, but the key building blocks of resilience appeared to be intricately intertwined with personality. Third, the introduction of external supports was thought to have the potential to provide leverage toward a resilient spirit. It is this third construct that leads to the implications for schools in building these important capabilities in children. More recent research has moved beyond risk and protective factors seeking ways to make a difference for children.
A Wider Lens.
The research of the third and fourth waves shows a widening lens, moving toward a systems-thinking model. Interventions and investigations suggested the effects of interactions with the environment and interconnections across disciplines. The Mental Health Foundation of
Australia (2005) established a resiliency resource website called Embrace the Future. The approach is focused on development of strengths within an ecological model, which puts responsibility on the social and physical community to provide the resources needed. This is congruent with the current definition of resilience as a dynamic interaction between the child and the environment (Ungar, 2008; Vanderbilt-Adriance, 2008).
The International Resilience Project (IRP), involving researchers in 14 sites in 11 countries aimed to evaluate the soundness of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) FOSTERING RESILIENCE 14 in diverse cultures. Researchers in this project, Ungar, Liebenberg, Boothroyd, Kwong, Lee,
Leblanc, Duque, and Makhnach (2008) stressed an environmentally inclusive definition of resilience moving beyond an individual’s capacity, or internal ability to adapt. In this frame of mind, the theme changes from beating the odds to changing the odds, requiring processes of both navigation and negotiation. Negotiation puts part of the responsibility on the community to provide resources and for those who serve in public roles to be prepared for working with diverse groups. Researchers found variability in the values measured depending on the culture. In some cases, self-esteem was meaningful while in other cultures it was not. In a debate of etic vs. emic research stances, the authors advocated for research to be conducted by those within a community to encourage culturally sensitive interventions.
This global view of resilience is an important reminder that each culture is unique. The tendency to base modern thought on western societies can create biased measurement tools, and practitioners may not interpret research results appropriately. This article shows how Masten’s
(2007) advice to look at resilience with a wider lens can be interpreted in a different way. In addition to looking for commonalities between disciplines, it makes sense to look for differences between cultures. The caution for researchers is to take the time to understand the values of the ecological context before using an inherently biased universal measure for analysis and interpretation.
Vanderbilt-Adriance and Shaw (2008) examined research in resilience in light of variations in time, risk and outcomes. Concerns with the generalizations of resilience studies were articulated in regard to the tendency for most studies to involve White, middle-class, low risk populations. The generalizations from these studies may not be applicable in cases of high risk or with those from other cultures. The study revealed that resilience is not stable over time, FOSTERING RESILIENCE 15 especially over life transition periods. Most disappointing of the findings of this study was that those who achieved resilience in one domain (e.g. academic achievement) suffered significantly with resilience in other areas (such as social competence); seeming to crush one’s hopes that adversity can ever be moderated. These authors provided compelling lessons for the future including the potential for environmental factors to overpower intervention, the need for attention to the target group when targeting risk or protective factors, and a call for reducing the risk children are exposed to in the first place. These authors called for a shift from understanding what works in fostering resilience to where, when, and how both prevention and intervention can make a difference.
Developmental Cascades.
Sapienza and Masten (2011) explained the concept of developmental cascades,
“cumulative consequences for development of interactions across systems” (p. 268). The authors stressed the potential effects of interventions which shield or reprogram insufficient adaptive systems through careful attention to genetics and environment, represented as G x E. Research has actually identified the “short allele for the 5-HTTLPR gene” as a genetic marker for probable vulnerability (Sapienza & Masten, 2011, p. 269). The study has used a systems-wide, multiple dynamics approach to bring together findings from neurobiology, psychology, and psychiatry to reach understandings never envisioned before.
The fourth wave of resilience research has made progress that is more neurological and biological in nature. This study highlighted the interaction of genetics and environment, acknowledging that even when an individual is lacking in resilience, a supportive environment can lead to a favorable response. FOSTERING RESILIENCE 16 Implications for Schools.
In early studies of resiliency, a strong positive relationship was found between successful schools and students’ behaviors. Rutter (1979) determined that "schools that foster high self- esteem and that promote social and scholastic success reduce the likelihood of emotional and behavioral disturbance" (p. 83). Ron Edmonds demanded equity, asking that goods and services for poor students be comparable to those provided for middle-class students. Edmonds (1979) could not have stated this more clearly, “There has never been a time in the life of the American public school when we have not known all we needed to in order to teach those whom we chose to teach” (p. 16). As it is well known, this period was followed almost immediately by the
Standards and Accountability Movement, and in 1983, the influential report, A Nation at Risk:
The report of the national commission on excellence in education. Did the words of Rutter and
Edmonds get lost in the concerns for accountability and achievement? In the heat of the moment, this could happen, but throughout research there have been continued efforts to direct attention to the needs of the whole child.
Some of the most powerful words placing responsibility of caring for children on schools came from Werner and Smith (1989) as a direct finding from their extended study,
“Among the most frequently encountered positive role models in the lives of the children… outside of the family circle, was a favorite teacher. For the resilient youngsters a special teacher was not just an instructor for academic skills, but also a confidant and positive model for personal identification” (p. 162).
Garmezy (1991) compellingly described the potential of schools as a "protective shield to help children withstand the multiple vicissitudes that they can expect of a stressful world". The challenges facing children were well known at this time, and researchers and social psychologists FOSTERING RESILIENCE 17 had presented well-defined recommendations specifically for educational institutions. Bolger &
Patterson’s (2003) findings on the benefits of a perceived sense of control caused them to urge teachers to facilitate experiences of mastery especially for children who have been maltreated, tapping into students’ areas of strength, whether these are in sports, the arts, academics, or extracurricular activities; providing multiple opportunities for success (p. 177).
Even more recently, Daigle, Beaver & Turner (2010) conducted an analysis of three waves of data from the National Longitudinal Studies of Adolescent Health between the years of
1994 and 2002, collecting interview data from thousands of student respondents. Their investigation identified commitment to school as the “only statistically significant independent predictor of resiliency for at risk-individuals” [emphasis added] (p. 329). The message of research is strong – educators have great potential to foster resilience in students.
Factors of School Environments.
The institution of education, responsible for the care and enlightenment of our children, plays a crucial role for children. The overall picture of childhood hardship and resilience encourages a deeper examination of the function of educational institutions as a support system for children. The Resilient Alliance, an international group of scientists studying the intricate processes of resilient systems, emphasized the understanding of ‘feedback, adaptation and self- organization” in complex systems as a key to sustainability (Francis, 2010). Fostering resilience is not to be considered as additional content to be covered over the school year; it is an understanding that must be deep in the heart of each adult who interacts with children.
This level of compassion cannot be achieved through a checklist or an after-school workshop. In order to change foundational perceptions and beliefs, we must connect eye to eye with children to see their dreams and empathize with the desolation of being alone and FOSTERING RESILIENCE 18 vulnerable. In order to do this, it is important for educators to know what they can do to build children’s spirits as well as their minds. Those who work day to day in our schools must realize the power they hold for the children whose hope rests in our hands. Educational systems must ensure that the children we serve are nurtured through compassion as well as academic learning.
Most educators would agree that since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), the pressure on schools to reach achievement goals has greatly intensified. It would seem logical that this initiative would facilitate school improvement, allowing more children to feel competent and would increase self-efficacy. Yet, the demands of NCLB seem to have caused significant damage for students who have not performed well on these tests (Afflerbach,
2004). Moran (2010) focused on the effects of high stakes testing, noting that “the stigma of failing a test that determines a student's future may have caused unrecoverable detriment and altered educational success” (p. ii). The consequence of continued failure in schools has been linked to negative labeling, higher drop-out rates, and lower self-efficacy (Afflerbach, 2004;
Moran, 2010). In a time when schools are under extreme pressure, the necessity of helping students build and solidify a resilient character may be lost in the drive to high stakes testing.
The assumption that teachers are prepared to foster resilience, a critical need for students, may be putting students at risk.
McTigue et al. (2009) felt so strongly about the need to foster resilience in schools that they advocated creating literacy assessments that measure academic resilience as well as achievement. Emphasizing the particular need to address resilience in early, formative school years, McTigue et al. (2009) affirmed, “Personality traits may be more important than phonological awareness” (p. 422). A study by Miller et al. (1998) found adolescents to be more FOSTERING RESILIENCE 19 vulnerable to negative school environments than to family interactions, pointing out the significance of positive cognitive and social contexts in middle schools as well.
Analysis of the implications for schools shows a clear message – schools are a critical factor in a child’s life. The last twenty years in education have intensified the pressure toward academic achievement. In the pursuit of scholastic excellence, it is vital to remember that test scores are only one indicator of the development of a well-adjusted adult who can navigate the ups and downs of the modern world. Achieving ‘adequate yearly progress’ cannot be justified by skipping recess or by using fear and humiliation to artificially motivate students. Research has shown that the school environment has the power to destroy or enhance a child’s development.
This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. It seems to be natural that there has been a surge of interest in the concept of resilience; almost as if the “invisible hand” often referred to in economics is trying to guide education back to a more humane mindset. Yong Zhao (2009) in his book, Catching Up or Leading the Way, stressed the need to continually evaluate the balance of educational initiatives, reminding us “what schools value and measure may not be what is most important in life; it might even hurt what is valuable in real life” (p. 73).
In reflection, what is most perplexing is the fact that it is now over 30 years past Rutter’s
(1979) announcement, and undergraduate courses in education still do not include training in fostering resilience. Professional development for educators rarely addresses topics like self- efficacy, competence, or compassion in professional development plans. Edmonds (1986) concluded that “a school can create a coherent environment, a climate, more potent than any single influence--teachers, class, family, neighbourhood--so potent that for at least six hours a day it can override almost everything else in the lives of children” (p. 45). FOSTERING RESILIENCE 20 Table 1: Factors of a School Environment that Fosters Resilience Author School Factors Needed for Resilience Benard (1998) Key environmental factors: 1. Caring relationships – compassion, listening, patience, trust 2. High expectations – respect, challenge, support, firm guidance, structure, strengths – focused 3. Meaningful participation – inclusion, responsibility, skill development, contribution, peer support Dirling (1999) Providing what student need: 1. Social competence - focus on strengths, greet students by name 2. Problem solving skills - differentiation in tasks, opportunities to collaborate 3. Autonomy - power of personal choices, opportunities to belong and fit in, personal space in the school 4. Sense of purpose - set attainable goals, encourage monitoring of progress Henderson & Milstein To build resilience: (2003) 1. Provide opportunities for meaningful participation 2. Encourage supportive relationships 3. Establish clear boundaries 4. Teach life skills 5. Provide care and support 6. Set and communicate high expectations Margolis & McCabe Sources of self-efficacy: (2006) 1. Enactive mastery – students’ realization of their degree of success 2. Vicarious experiences – opportunity to learn through observation 3. Verbal persuasion – explaining to students how and why a strategy is worth trying 4. Physiological states – reducing anxiety through relaxation and/or counseling Brooks & Goldstein Characteristics of supportive environment: (2008) 1. Ownership - power to make decisions 2. Mistakes as opportunities for learning - learn from mistakes 3. Supportive adults - ability to reach out for help, knowing where to find resources 4. Understanding personal learning styles - self-discipline, self-control, believing one can solve problems, identifying strengths 5. Positive interactions with others - contribute to others, sense of humor Ryan & Deci (2008) Students need: 1. To belong and feel connected 2. Self-determination and autonomy 3. To feel competent Downey (2008) Recommendations for the classroom environment: 1. Teacher-student rapport - healthy relationships, focus on strengths, high expectations, promote self-esteem 2. Classroom climate - clear behavioral expectations, build responsibility for success, sense of belonging, meaningful participation 3. Instructional strategies - problem-based learning, cross-age tutoring 4. Student skills - teach skills relevant to life, participate in extracurricular activities, stress literacy skills FOSTERING RESILIENCE 21 The literature in the field of resilience comprehensively details what is needed in schools, but educators are faced with such a wide variety of suggestions. Table 1 above shows recommendations of a number of prominent researchers for the factors of a school environment that fosters resilience. Although the suggestions are all somewhat different, common grounds can easily be recognized. Most of the suggested frameworks for building resilience include the importance of caring relationships with adults and peers, high expectations, and meaningful participation. Some research also mentioned a sense of purpose, autonomy, willingness to accept mistakes as part of learning, and ability to solve problems. Any of these structures would be beneficial, but in this educator’s experience, these are not often presented to the teachers and staff members who can make a difference for children. Teachers may underestimate their potential without specific training to bring these factors to their attention.
Benard (2004) explained that it is essential for educators to be aware that…
“the role of schools in young people’s lives is clearly broader than pedagogy and more
important than test scores….school failure has been found to be the single most
predictive predictor of adolescent risk, so strong [that] school failure is labeled as a
public health problem” (p. 65).
It Takes a Village.
The potential of schools to make a difference for students has been solidly supported, and researchers as well as advocacy groups have agreed on factors in the school environment that promote students’ success. But schools cannot do this alone. The fourth wave of resilience research has especially stressed the need to unite families, communities and schools for such an important mission. Rowe, Stewart and Patterson (2007) focused on the importance of school connectedness in building students’ well-being. The Health Promoting School (HPS) model, FOSTERING RESILIENCE 22 designed by the World Health Organization, encompasses three overlapping circles – partnerships and services, school organization, ethos and environment, and curriculum, teaching and learning. The theory behind the HPS model is the interwoven nature of school, family, and community. Aspects of school connectedness include a broad concentric organization of the school environment, the classroom environment, and core concepts of equal partnerships, participation, and value of diversity. Social capital and agency were central ideas in developing the HPS model in schools. In this model, the whole environment is critical, not just the classroom or the teacher-student interactions. The systems approach in this study added credence to Masten’s (2011) work. As the momentum continues to push toward world-wide academic achievement and educational reform, it seems that schools cannot take this task on alone. It must become a family, community, national, and global mission to ensure that children receive the best education possible.
Masten (2007) identified “hot spots” for fourth wave research include systems of information processing, problem solving, mastery and reward, spiritual/religious connections, peer systems, and attachment relationships, among others. The author encouraged those who work in the field to think of resilience broadly – across multiple systems.
The Role of Perceptions, Beliefs, and Attitudes
Teaching is a unique profession; requiring synthesis of theories learned in college classes with one’s own experiences and deeply held beliefs. Teachers apply their understandings to develop their own style of teaching. This occurs within the framework of educational policies, standards, and administrative requirements. The interaction between teacher and student, the connection that truly matters, happens day-to-day in the reality of a diverse, dynamic collection of unique children, who often defy theory and standards. The underlying assumptions that FOSTERING RESILIENCE 23 educators hold greatly affect the outcome of their teaching practices and their lifelong impact on the students they interact with.
Recently, several studies have addressed the influence of teacher perceptions. Brooks and
Goldstein (2008) spoke to the mindset that separates academic instruction and social-emotional development, blaming the dichotomy on the pressures of high stakes testing (p. 118). Do teachers truly believe that all children can learn, and that all children want to learn? As soon as a child is labeled lazy, disabled, or incompetent, the child’s potential is limited, and the mental model of all children learning is lost. Actually a student who seems to lack motivation could be depressed or dealing with a challenging home environment. Changing teachers’ perceptions is an important step.
Green et al. (2007) studied the perceptions of teachers in South Australia and found that teachers often confused the concept of resilience with that of competence, incorrectly identifying students as resilient even when they were not experiencing any adversity (p. 133). Teachers did not identify students as ‘at risk’ if they appeared to be managing well (Green et al, 2007, p. 140).
Further clarification showed that junior primary teachers placed more emphasis on the role of the school and less importance on the family, whereas elementary and secondary teachers tended to attribute most of the development of resilience on the individual and the family (Green et al.,
2007, p. 134).
Studies revealed that teachers often underestimated their value in helping at risk students, did not feel competent in fostering resilience, and had a limited understanding of the concept of resilience (Dryden, Johnson, Howard and McGuire, 1998; Green et al., 2007). Miller (2008) interviewed teachers to examine their attitudes and beliefs about students, school, and learning.
Miller found that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs were connected to their life experiences, and FOSTERING RESILIENCE 24 were influenced by family members, colleagues, childhood teachers and students. Since mental models of students and schooling form the practices and expectations of teachers, these should not be taken lightly. Such a crucial foundation cannot be assumed to be casually developed to the highest levels of understanding.
Teachers’ knowledge of and capacity to identify resilience was the subject of a study in
Far North Queensland (Russo and Boman, 2007). Nine teachers responded to a questionnaire as to how well they understood the task of fostering resilience in the 92 students they interacted with daily. Results of the study indicated:
Teachers received little or no professional development on resilience.
Teachers did appear to have knowledge of resilience.
Teachers had difficulty identifying levels of resilience in their students.
Teachers were confident in their ability to build resilience in the classroom.
(Russo & Boman, 2007, p. 25)
A survey conducted with preservice and inservice teachers showed that teachers for the most part felt “moderately prepared” to help students with life-stress (Onchwari, 2010, p. 395).
None of the participants felt they were adequately prepared to facilitate development of resilience in their students. Participants in the study recommended coursework in the area of building resilience, supervised experience in dealing with stress in students, and more resources to aid in this important process.
Perceptions of teachers, parents, and students were reported in an analysis by Nettles,
Mucherah, and Jones (2000), based on four studies undertaken by the Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk’s (CRESPAR) research on resilience. The authors highlighted a disconnect between what parents wanted in the schools and what was offered, FOSTERING RESILIENCE 25 suggesting a more ecological approach to fostering resilience which takes into account the particular needs of the community. This recommendation corroborates the emphasis by Masten
(2007) and others in the fourth wave of research that the environment is of great consequence.
These studies also verified the value of supportive adults and the critical factor of self-efficacy for students (Nettles et al., 2000).
An examination of the research on perceptions and resilience reveals several understandings. First, in order to foster student resilience, all teachers and staff working with children need training to recognize signs of stress in their students and to know how to structure the educational experience to support them. Teachers cannot support students through harsh realities of life without direct training. It is not possible to prepare teachers in the same way guidance counselors and psychologists are trained, but teachers have asked for better preparation for the situations they would be likely to confront.
Block & Block (2006) summarized thirty years of studying ego-control and ego- resiliency. Ego-resiliency involved a person’s adaptability throughout the challenges of life. The study, conducted in Berkeley, California, followed 128 children (94 with attrition) from the age of 3 to age 32, collecting a large set of data. The study found evidence that boys internalized the effects of divorce years before the actual occurrence, signs in early childhood of factors commonly seen in drug users, gender specific relationships between ego-control and future symptoms of depression, correlations for resilience in boys between early childhood and young adulthood, and an inverse relationship for girls between overcontrol and resiliency. The study developed strong psychological groundwork for understanding resilience, especially when considering gender differences. The implication of the study for future research in resilience is to be aware of how teachers might vary their perceptions of boys and girls in school settings. This FOSTERING RESILIENCE 26 study is an example of why teachers need training in order to foster resilience. Findings such as this go beyond what teachers learn in traditional undergraduate education and professional development.
Most studies revealed that teachers felt the training currently provided did not adequately prepare them for the challenges of helping at-risk students. It is no wonder our urban schools are struggling, for this is where many of the risk factors live. The words of Ron Edmonds are echoed again and again by the respected educator, Linda Darling-Hammond (2010) as she writes and speaks about the need for equality and the need for “major changes in school organizations and the systems in which they sit” (p. 237). A second understanding places emphasis on a community specific approach to resilience. This appears to be particularly well accepted by parents and students. This can be related to the theories of Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological model which placed the child at the center of a series of embedded, interactive systems. Third, the rapid exodus of teachers from the profession, especially in urban settings, may be stopped if we can help teachers feel prepared for the real-world struggles they will face in the classroom.
In conclusion, this literature review has used a wide lens to develop an understanding of the evolution of research surrounding resilience. It is clear that schools have a key role to play in fostering students’ abilities. However, teachers’ perceptions must align with the goals of success for every student. Research has just begun to investigate the perceptions and assumptions of teachers, parents, and students. Continued research in this area is needed to prepare teachers to provide the support that our students need. The current study intends to enhance the research in resilience to advocate for continued improvements in educational institutions, and to call for a reframing of education to focus on the child. Specifics of the research design and methods are detailed in Chapter Three. FOSTERING RESILIENCE 27
“…Hope, optimism, and self-belief among teachers are the vital wellsprings of successful learning and positive educational change… It is individuals who must hope, but it is institutions
that create the climate and conditions which make people feel more hopeful or less so.”
Fullan 1998 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 28
References
Afflerbach, P. (2005). National Reading Conference Policy Brief – High stakes testing and
reading assessment. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2). 151-162. doi:10.1207/s155484
30jlr3702_2
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Benard, B. (1998) From risk to resiliency: What schools can do. Resiliency Associates, 9-30.
Retrieved October 31, 2010 from http://www.tanglewood .net/projects
/teachertraining/Book_of_Readings/Benard.pdf
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco, CA: West Ed.
Benard, B. (2009). Resilience, school connectedness and academic achievement. [PowerPoint
Presentation]. Retrieved from California Department of Education website at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/yd/tr/bbenard.asp#slide1
Block, J. & Block, J. H. (2006). Venturing a 30-year longitudinal study. American Psychologist,
61(4). 315-327. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.315
Bolger, K. E. & Patterson, C. J. (2003). Sequelae of child maltreatment. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.)
Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 156-
181). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Brackenreed, D. (2010). Resilience and Risk. International Education Studies, 3(3). 111-121.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Brooks, R. & Goldstein, S. (2008). The mindset of teachers capable of fostering resilience in
students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1). 114-126. doi:10.1177/08295
73508316597 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 29
Brooks, R., (n.d.). Resilience, motivation and family relationships. [Website]. Retrieved July 19,
2011from http://www.drrobertbrooks.com/index.html
Bronfrenbrenner, U. (2005) Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Chambers, J. C. (2005). Helping youth overcome trauma. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 14(1).
20-23.
Condly, S. J. (2006). Resilience in children: A review of literature with implications for
education. Urban Education, 41(3). 211-236. doi: 10.1177/0042085906287902
Daigle, L. E., Beaver. K. M., & Turner, M. G. (2010). Resiliency against victimization: Results
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Criminal Justice,
38(3). 329—337. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.03.00
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dirling, J. (1999). Inclusion: Enhancing resilience. Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 125.
Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. doi:10.1080/10459
889909603313
Dryden, J., Johnson, B., Howard, S. & McGuire, A. (1998) Resiliency: A comparison of
construct definitions arising from conversations with 9 year old – 12 year old
children and their teachers, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.
ed.gov/ PDFS/ED419214.pdf FOSTERING RESILIENCE 30 Downey, J. A. (2008). Recommendations for fostering educational resilience in the classroom.
Preventing School Failure, 53(1). 56-64. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.1.56-64
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Edmonds, R (1986). Characteristics of effective schools. In U. Neisser, Ed., The school
achievement of minority children: New- perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fergusson, D. M. & Horwood, L. J. (2003). Resilience to childhood adversity. In S. S. Luthar
(Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities
(pp. 130-155). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Francis, G. (2010). The hardcore guide to resilience. Alternatives Journal, 36(2),13-15.
Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1998). What’s Worth Fighting For Out There? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated
with poverty. The American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430. Retrieved November
12, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. doi:10.1177/0002764291034004003
Garmezy, N., Masten, A., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in
children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development,
55(1), 97. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep7405463.
Green, D., Oswald, M., & Spears, B. (2007). Teachers’ (mis)understandings of resilience.
International Education Journal, 8(2). 133-144.
Hammen, C. (2003). Risk and protective factors for children of depressed parents. In S. S. Luthar
(Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp.
50-75). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Harvey, V. S. (2007). School methods for fostering resiliency. Principal Leadership, 7(5). 10-15. FOSTERING RESILIENCE 31 Henderson, N. (1998). Make resiliency happen. The Education Digest, 63 (5), 15-18.
Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students
and educators. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Knight, C. (2007). A resilience framework: Perspectives for educators. Health
Education, 107(6), 543-555. doi:10.1108/09654280710827939
Levy, B. S. & Parker, D. (2000). Children and war. Public Health Reports, 115(4). 320- 325.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4509538. doi:10.1093/phr/115.4.320
Luthar, S.S., D’Avanzo, K., & Hites, S. (2003). Maternal drug abuse versus other psychological
disturbances. In S.S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context
of childhood adversities (pp. 104–129). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maddi, S.R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and practice.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3). 175-185. doi
10.1037///1061-4087.54.3.175.
Margolis, H. & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, What
to say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4). 218-227.
doi:10.1177/10534512060410040401
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
doi:10.1037/h0054346
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave
rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921-930. doi: 0.1017/S0954579407000442
Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for
research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2),
493-506. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000198 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 32 Masten, A.S. & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and
practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of
childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Cambridge.
McTigue, E., Washburn, E., & Liew, J. (2009). Academic resilience and reading: Building
successful readers. Reading Teacher, 62(5), 422-432. Retrieved from Education Research
Complete database. doi:10.1598/RT.62.5.5
Mental Health Foundation of Australia. (2005). Embrace the future: Resiliency resource center.
[Website]. Retrieved from http://www.embracethefuture.org.au/resiliency/index.htm
Miller, G. E., Brehm, K. & Whitehouse, S. (1998). Reconceptualizing school-based
prevention for antisocial behavior within a resiliency framework. School Psychology
Review, 27(3). 364-380.
Miller, S..(2008). Teachers' perspectives on resilience: Theory and practice in secondary
schools. [Preview] Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States -- Minnesota.
Retrieved November 6, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I.(Publication No. AAT
3315959).
Moran, A.. Students' attitudes toward high-stakes testing and its effect on educational
decisions. [Preview]. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, United
States -- Mississippi. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I.
(Publication No. AAT 3416297).
Nettles, S, Mucherah, W., & Jones, D. (2000). Understanding resilience: The role of social
resources. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 47-60.
doi:10.1207/s15327671espr0501&2_4 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 33 Onchwari, J. (2010). Early childhood inservice and preservice teachers’ perceived levels of
preparedness to handle stress in their students. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 37(5). 391-400. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0361-9
Orthner, C. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., & Williamson, S. (2004). The resilience and strengths of low-
income families. Family Relations, 53, 159-167. doi:10.1111/j.0022-
2445.2004.00006.x
Owens, E. B. & Shaw, D. S. (2003). Poverty and early childhood adjustment. In S. S. Luthar
(Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities
(pp. 243-266). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Pianta, R. C. & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Applying the construct of resilience in schools: A
developmental systems perspective. School Psychology Review, 27(3). 407-417.
Rowe, F., Stewart, D., & Patterson, C. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through whole
school approaches. Health Education, 107(6), 524-542. doi:
10.1108/09654280710827920
Russo, R. & Boman, P. (2007). Primary school teachers’ ability to recognize resilience in their
students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(1).
Rutter, M. (1979). Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary schools and their effects on
children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Rutter, M. (1984). Resilient children, Psychology Today, 3, 57-65.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.
doi:10.1192/bjp.147.6.598 FOSTERING RESILIENCE 34 Ryan, E. L.& Deci, R. M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy” The
motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 186-193. doi:
10.1037/a0012753
Sapienza, J. K. & Masten, A. S. (2011). Understanding and promoting resilience in children and
youth. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4). 267-273. doi:
10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834776a8
Seccombe, K. (2002). “Beating the Odds” versus “Changing the Odds”: Poverty, resilience, and
family policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 384-394. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2002.00384.x
Thielemann, J. (2000) Identifying the resilient child: An emerging trend for America’s inner-city
schools. Retrieved from http://aabss.org/Perspectives2000/ f21Thielemann. jmm.html ngar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T.Y., Leblanc, J., Duque, L.,
Makhnach, A. (2008). The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot
study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5(3), 166-180.
doi:10.1080/154276008022274019
Vanderbilt-Adriance, E. & Shaw, D. S. (2008). Conceptualizing and re-evaluating resilience
across levels of risk, time, and domains of competence. Clinical Child and Family
Psychological Review,11(1-2), 30-58. doi:10.1007/s10567-008-0031-2
Werner, E. (1989). High risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32
years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(1), 72- 81. doi:10.1111/j.1939-
0025.1989.tb01636.x FOSTERING RESILIENCE 35 Werner, E. (2000) Protective factors and individual resilience. In Handbook of Early
Childhood Intervention (2nd ed.). (2000) Ed by Shonkoff, J. and Meisels, S. New York:
Cambridge University
Werner, E. & Smith, R. (1989). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient
children and youth. New York, NY: Adams, Bannister, and Cox.
Yates, T. M.,. Egeland, B., & Sroufe, A. (2003). Rethinking resilience: A developmental process
perspective. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.) Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context
of childhood adversities (pp. 243-266). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of
globalization. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
Zucker, R. A., Wong, M. M., Puttler, L. I., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2003). Resilience and
vulnerability among sons of alcoholics. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.) Resilience and
vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 76-103). New
York, NY: Cambridge.