Buy Relationship-Driven Classroom Management: Strategies That Promote as resiliency along with specific techniques for translating theory into practice. Jun 30, Some would categorize Grit and Resiliency as the same skill, but it is my belief Bouncing Back; Managing Emotions; Awareness of Strengths and Assets that people gain from their life experiences and relationships. a set of best practices or benchmarks to guide our work in classrooms and schools. Positive teacher-student relationships draw students into the process of learning and promote their .. Theoretical perspectives to explain student behavior.
Protective factors are those that modify the effects of risk in a positive direction. Examples include an internal locus of control or having a positive relationship with at least one adult. Vulnerability and protective factors can each derive from multiple levels of influence: Examples of community-level influences include exposure to violence in the neighborhood vulnerability and supportive relationships with adults in the school protective.
At the level of the family, relevant examples include inconsistent or harsh parental discipline, as opposed to emotionally responsive caregiving. Individual attributes that can exacerbate vulnerability to stressors include poor impulse control or low intelligence, whereas protective attributes include a high sense of self-efficacy or an easy-going temperament.
Whether a particular construct is labeled a vulnerability factor, protective factor, or both depends on where central effects lie. It would be appropriate to refer to low IQ as a vulnerability factor, for example, if children with low intelligence displayed significantly compromised adjustment e.
On the other hand, if highly intelligent youth reflected substantial advantages compared to those with average or low intelligence e. If both negative and positive consequences are apparent e.
Vulnerability and protective factors may operate in simple additive ways, or in interactive models.
The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies
Interactive models, on the other hand, presuppose associations between the vulnerability—protective factor and the outcome that differ in strength, depending on the presence versus absence of the risk condition. To illustrate, protective—stabilizing effects are indicated if individuals with the attribute show positive adjustment at low and high levels of risk, whereas those without the attribute show poorer adjustment at high than at low risk levels.
Detailed descriptions of main effect and interactive models, along with associated terminology, have been provided by Luthar and colleagues Finally, resilience research involves a progression from an empirical identification of vulnerability or protective factors to an exploration of processes underlying their effects.
As an initial step, the resilience researcher simply attempts to identify constructs linked with relatively positive or negative outcomes among particular at-risk groups. Having done this, the next phase—an essential one for this generation of researchers Luthar et al. Applying the Resilience Paradigm to Social Policy: Advantages, Limitations, and Precautions Given its central focus on factors that modify the effects of high-risk conditions, research on resilience possesses obvious potential for guiding interventions and social policies.
We discuss here the broad advantages of applications of this framework, followed by associated limitations, caveats, and precautions. Advantages in applying the resilience paradigm The resilience framework serves to direct interventionists to empirical knowledge regarding the salience of particular vulnerability and protective processes within the context of specific adversities.
This framework helps to organize the scientific evidence concerning factors that may differentially alter the effects of various high-risk conditions and adversities, thus yielding specific directions for intervention efforts.
At a macrolevel, this function is useful in demarcating factors that exert substantial effects in the presence of adverse life circumstances but are less potent in the absence of risk. An example is positive experiences at school. Conversely, some forces can have substantive effects in the absence of salient environmental risks but have relatively weak effects in their presence.
Luthar and colleagues illustrate this with data on mother—child interactions. Among most mothers, perceptions of their children tend to shape how they behave with their children, so that disruptive child behaviors, for example, elicit negative maternal reactions.
What is usually a significant vulnerability factor i. At a microlevel as well, research evidence on resilience has important functions in that it demarcates areas of heightened significance among groups facing particular types of adversities. To illustrate, strictness of parental monitoring is linked with positive adjustment outcomes among adolescents in poverty, yet it is not necessarily protective for middle-class children who contend with familial risks such as parental depression.
The importance of careful attention to empirical evidence on context-specific vulnerability and protective effects is underscored by findings that forces that appear to be unequivocally beneficial can have negative ramifications in some circumstances, as well as the converse Luthar, ; Rutter, Among inner-city youth, however, it has been found to be linked with repudiation of conventionally conforming behaviors, such as academic effort Luthar, Distinguishing features of the construct of resilience In considering the points raised in the preceding section, one might argue that the construct of resilience does not have to be invoked in demarcating relevant empirical evidence: There have been scores of scientifically productive research studies that have illuminated processes operating among particular at-risk groups that have never mentioned resilience.
The construct of resilience does, however, connote some features, both in basic science as well as in applied intervention science, that distinguish it as unique in conducting research with groups of individuals experiencing adversity. First, the resilience framework implies a focus on positive outcomes and not just negative ones Luthar et al.
Second, even in instances where problems have already crystallized, the resilience framework entails an emphasis not only on deficits but also on areas of strength Luthar, This is illustrated in work with substance-abusing mothers, a group typically characterized by various parenting deficits and personal psychopathology.
Without minimizing their problems, applying a resilience paradigm implies attention to assets among these women: A third critical feature is that work on resilience connotes a commitment to understanding processes that underlie the effects of vulnerability and protective factors.
As we have noted earlier, for researchers in this area the identification of forces that show significant links with adjustment outcomes constitutes only the initial step in their work. The ultimate goal is to illuminate which of various potential mechanisms are implicated in the effects of these vulnerability or protective factors, such that appropriate directions for intervention can be derived.
Applying the resilience framework implies attention a to positive outcomes in the presence of adversity rather than positive adaptation in general and, more specifically, b to empirically derived knowledge about vulnerability and protective mechanisms that are salient within, and possibly unique to, particular risk conditions.
Problems and precautions in applying the resilience framework As with any construct, the overall yield of work on resilience can be significantly compromised if efforts in the area do not conform to stringent scientific standards, and in recent years various conceptual and methodological problems have been identified in research on this topic.
These include variations in use of terminology by different investigators; diversity in methods used to operationalize risk, competence, and the association between these constructs; and insufficient attention to theory in empirical efforts see Luthar, ; Luthar et al. Identification of these problems have led to delineation of specific precautions that must be observed by researchers and theorists in future work on this construct e. In this paper, we do not reiterate concerns generally relevant to the scientific study of resilience but address only those that pertain specifically to applications of this work toward informing interventions and social policies.
Resilience: The Other 21st Century Skills | User Generated Education
Presentation of scientific work on resilience From the standpoint of interventions and policies, perhaps the most prodigious problem in applying the resilience framework is that this construct can be misinterpreted as representing a personal attribute of the individual Luthar, ; Luthar et al. To help avert such potentially damaging misunderstandings, Luthar delineated several precautions relating to scientific presentation of work on resilience.
First, every research report should include a clear operational definition of the construct, specifying at the outset that resilience is a process or phenomenon of positive adaptation despite adversityand explicitly clarifying that it is not a personal characteristic of the individual e.
Admittedly, some researchers e. While such clarifications may be noted by the readership of particular scientific journals, they are likely to go unnoticed by the large numbers of nonacademic stakeholders interested in resilience. In situations that necessitate reference to individuals or to groups of children e. Finally, in discussing findings that particular personal attributes serve protective functions e.
This point is illustrated with findings on attributional biases among disadvantaged, minority youth. Sandra Graham and her colleagues have established that these youngsters display high levels of aggressive behaviors when they have negative attributional biases i. Without doubt, the resilience paradigm encompasses views of children as active agents who can substantively affect their own life circumstances e.
In addition to observing such precautions in presenting scientific data, we believe that resilience researchers also must make concerted efforts toward proactive and responsible dissemination of their findings outside of the scientific literature.
Citing various potential misinterpretations of work in this area e. There is a need to distill in simple terms the substantive message in the results i. In the interest of such goals, McCartney and Rosenthal have urged scientists to comment not only on the statistical significance of findings but also their practical significance, based on overall effect sizes as well as design features that may have artificially attenuated these e.
These authors presented a strategy called the Binomial Effect Size Display, which can help researchers to translate statistical effect sizes into pithy terms that are readily understandable by policymakers and the public e. Finally, presentations of data should be designed to maximize interest of, and receptivity by, different nonscientific audiences. Paraphrasing the words of Edward Zigler, pioneer in the arena of social policy, McCall and Groark noted that policymakers want succinct summaries of findings, with conclusions presented first, very few details, and a single illustrative example.
The general public, on the other hand, wants information that relates to their own experiences and is presented in a manner that piques their personal interest. In future years, the achievement of such important goals, related to both clarity of presentations and their capacity to captivate various audiences, can be facilitated if scientists were to collaborate with policy advocates in preparing reports specifically intended for nonscientific groups such as politicians and members of the news media.
In sum, to the extent that researchers are aware of how findings on resilience could be misinterpreted, it is incumbent upon them to preempt such misinterpretations so that they do not result in an inappropriate allocation of responsibility to at-risk individuals themselves.
Furthermore, d when particular personal attributes are found to serve protective functions, it should be clarified as appropriate that many of these attributes themselves are shaped by environmental forces.
The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies
Finally, e scientists must be proactive in disseminating relevant knowledge, communicating in balanced, responsible, and clear terms both what is known about resilience and the limitations of the empirical findings. Fragmented approaches in applying the resilience framework Responsibility for the effective application of evidence on resilience rests not only with scientists; equally, it rests with practitioners seeking to apply it Luthar, The authors note that attempts to apply research-based evidence on protective factors frequently tend to be oversimplified, targeting individual skills or competencies.
There is insufficient attention to the functional utility of the skills targeted, that is, their ramifications within an ecological system that typically does not engender or reinforce them.
Pianta and Walsh further caution against piecemeal approaches to service delivery in schools, arguing that solutions to the challenges of educating high-risk children often have involved pullout, add-on, short-term programs that are conducted by someone other than the classroom teacher. This high degree of differentiation and specialization in services can be extremely counterproductive for at-risk children whose everyday social experiences tend to be fragmented and unpredictable.
Having identified problems such as these, the authors argue for comprehensive services that are not only strongly anchored in theory and scientific evidence on resilience but also involve concerted efforts to use existing resources and personnel within given classrooms, schools, or communities cf.
Finally, confusion regarding terminology is a problem that practitioners, like scientists, must guard against. Like their colleagues in science, practitioners would do well to reframe their foci as fostering resilient trajectories or outcomes rather than resilient children Luthar, As noted in preceding discussions, the resilience paradigm implies an emphasis on preventively intervening with children at high statistical risk for maladjustment, before the onset of adjustment difficulties.
Recommendations such as these may well raise concerns about fiscal resources. Skeptics might question the value of multipronged interventions implemented in the absence of maladjustment, viewing this as an unwise allocation of limited federal dollars. Objections such as these, however, can be countered on the basis of accumulated evidence on various issues pertaining to coexisting vulnerability—protective factors and cost-effective interventions Luthar, With regard to co-occurring risks, studies have established that in the absence of intervention, many children facing multiple adversities have a high probability of developing serious difficulties as they move along their developmental trajectories.
Any one of these factors is linked with minimal escalations in maladjustment. From an intervention perspective, the obvious message is that without appropriate intervention youngsters exposed to multiple sociodemographic risk factors—a potentially large proportion of the over 13 million children and youth living in poverty in America U.
Bureau of the Census, —are highly vulnerable to serious long-term problems. As a corollary to the preceding point, several studies have established cumulative benefits that accrue when at-risk children are exposed to multiple coexisting protective factors Luthar, Similarly, in their studies of at-risk youth, Fergusson and Lynskey demonstrated that among children with multiple protective factors i.
Recent data from the Philadelphia study of urban youth have shown that adolescents with multiple protective influences—effective families and relatively benign life circumstances—were 14 times as likely to display competent adaptation than those with the worst life conditions Furstenberg et al.
Prior efforts have also established that preventive interventions do not have to be inordinately expensive; costs can be substantially curtailed with creative and careful use of existing resources. In this program, public school buildings, which remain unoccupied for large portions of the day and the calendar year, are used not only to house child-care programs for children 3 years and older but also to host regular support group meetings for parents. Information and referral networks also are developed in schools to help families make better use of the various existing services scattered across their communities, such as those offering counseling, physical health care, or night care for children.
Finally, there are ample data on the long-term cost effectiveness of carefully designed and implemented preventive interventions Yoshikawa, Cost—benefit analyses of this program Barnett,indicate that this intervention was linked with lower costs associated with reduced special education, reduced incarceration, increased wages, and lower use of welfare dollars. In future years, such cost—benefit analyses from carefully conceived efficacy studies will be critical to convince insurers and policymakers of the value inherent in preventive approaches.
In summary, application of the resilience paradigm toward multipronged preventive interventions may be questioned on the grounds of fiscal extravagance. Countering such objections, however, is ample evidence that a without interventions children facing multiple risks are at high risk for serious maladjustment, b increasing the number of protective influences can be linked with exponentially greater likelihood of positive outcomes, c there exists much unrealized potential to harness existing resources within health-promoting interventions, and d carefully conceived preventive interventions can be vastly more cost effective than are attempts to reduce maladjustment after it has become well entrenched.
Guiding Principles in Applying the Resilience Perspective Toward Developing Interventions and Policies Having considered broad advantages, potential problems, and possible objections in applying the resilience framework toward designing interventions and policies, we turn to specific guidelines on how the resilience perspective should be brought to bear within such efforts.
We begin by delineating specific principles and then move on to presenting exemplars of interventions based on the resilience paradigm. Guiding principles As resilience research has evolved, several scholars have appraised appropriate directions, based on this body of work, for interventions targeting different at-risk groups see Beardslee et al.
For future interventions that are developed specifically within the resilience paradigm, Luthar summarized a series of 10 guiding principles, listed below. Interventions must have a strong base in theory. Ways that educators can connect with learners include: Finding one on one time with learners — during group work time, walking to lunch or specials, during recess, etc.
Listen deeply and attentively to what the learners have to say. If you, as an educator, take one idea from this post, let it be that working to maintain a positive and significant relationship with learners is the most important way to contribute to their resiliency.
Parting message to educators: The key point from resilience research is that successful development and transformative power exists not in programs per se but at the deeper level of relationships, beliefs and expectations, and willingness to share power. Relax, have fun, and trust the process!
Working from your own innate resilience and well-being engages the innate resilience and well-being of our students. Thus, teaching becomes much more effortless and enjoyable. Moreover, resiliency research as well as research on nurturing teachers and successful schools gives us all the proof needed to lighten up, let go of our tight control, be patient, and trust the process. You are, indeed, creating inside-out social change—building the compassionate and creative citizenry that will be critical to the 21st century.