The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-4283.htm

A resilience
A resilience framework: framework
perspectives for educators
Cecily Knight
Central Queensland University, Mackay, Australia 543
Received 5 April 2007
Abstract Revised 14 July 2007
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for resilience education that can be Accepted 20 July 2007
used by teachers in schools. The paper seeks to identify a common language for exploring the concept
of resilience.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents an overview of the construct of resilience as
it appears in the literature. It provides a rationale for resilience education by examining the changing
circumstances that impact on the work of educators. It also provides an overview of current Australian
programs that promote resilience.
Findings – After an extensive examination of the literature, it is suggested that resilience is
discussed in the literature as a state, a condition and a practice. Consequently, a three-dimensional
framework has been developed from this to help teachers understand resilience and to provide
practical ways in which they can promote the resilience of their learners.
Practical implications – This conceptual paper suggests that the three-dimensional framework for
resilience has implications for supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young
people. The paper highlights the important role of the school in enhancing resilience for children and
young people.
Originality/value – The original work of this paper is the presentation of a three-dimensional
framework for resilience: as a state, a condition and a practice. This framework is useful for preservice
teacher education programs and for the professional development of practising teachers.
Keywords Education, Schools, Teachers, Australia
Paper type Research paper

This position paper has three fundamental perspectives. First, it outlines the rationale
for resilience education in the school curriculum. Second, it presents an original
three-dimensional framework for resilience: as a state, a condition and as a practice.
Third, it explores some current Australian programs designed to enhance resilience for
children and young people. This paper asserts that knowledge of resilience is
important for teachers in view of the changing circumstances that have an impact on
their work as educators. The framework for resilience proposes a way forward in
supporting children and families by fostering coping skills that empower them and
become protective resources as they deal with contemporary issues. Resilience is
associated with optimism and suggests we can encounter change and adversity but
still find hope. The three-dimensional framework for resilience offers a framework for
action. The focus of both this framework and this paper are on being proactive. It is
about “what can be done” rather than just “what is needed”.
It is proposed that teachers who are equipped with knowledge of “resilience” are Health Education
Vol. 107 No. 6, 2007
better able to cater for children and young people’s emotional and social needs. Recent pp. 543-555
neuroscience and brain research in the educational sciences is supporting the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-4283
importance of the relationships between the emotions and learning and suggests DOI 10.1108/09654280710827939
HE learners who can manage their emotional state will be better able to manage the
107,6 stresses associated with learning (Greenberg, 2006). Teachers need to develop what
Thomsen (2002, p. 11) calls a “resiliency attitude” so that they see children and young
people as competent and focus on their strengths rather than deficits. Teachers
themselves also require resilience education to cope with the stresses of teaching. If
teachers are to create motivating learning environments they need to be motivated and
544 supported themselves.

The construct of resilience

There is no universal definition of resilience. I explored accounts of the concept and
identified similarities and differences in an attempt to have a common language with
which to work. After examining the literature, I consider that resilience is discussed in
the literature as: a state; a condition; and as a practice. I believe the advantage of using
the three-dimensional construct of resilience I have developed is that it is all
encompassing. It can be used as a meta-resilience framework that can be applied in
different contexts once understood.
There are a number of cognate terms found in resilience literature that are
effectively talking about aspects of what I understand to be resilience. The terms
include mental health promotion, emotional intelligence, social-emotional competence
and emotional literacy. There is considerable overlap and the whole area of work on
social and emotional issues has been described as something of a “linguistic minefield”
(Weare, 2004, p. 1).
The term “mental health” is often confused with mental illness so education
professionals prefer to talk about emotional wellbeing instead of mental health and the
term “emotional wellbeing” is common in mental health literature (Raphael, 2000).
Goleman (1995) describes resilience in terms of “emotional intelligence”. Goleman
(2002), considers emotional intelligence an essential life skill with application during
school life and into working lives. Emotional intelligence supports effective teamwork,
problem solving, risk taking and the ability to cope with change.
The term “social-emotional competence” refers to understanding, managing and
expressing the social and emotional aspects of one’s life (Elias et al., 1997). It is often
used in education literature from the USA and is largely associated with the major US
network CASEL (the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning).
CASEL (2002) networks academics, educators and professionals engaged in promoting
academic, social and emotional learning in schools. Their web site (www.casel.org)
details a vast number of projects worldwide.
In the UK, Weare (2004) uses the term “emotional literacy” to suggest ways that
schools can develop resilience. Weare highlights the central place of the emotions in
learning and thinking and the important roles schools can play in enhancing emotional
literacy. An emotional literate person is one who has self-understanding, can
understand and manage their own emotions and can understand social situations to
develop effective relationships.
In the most recent educational literature being disseminated to schools in Australia the
preferred term is “resilience”. An example of this is the information kits released in 2004
for Australian schools regarding drug education. The kit is titled “Resilience Education
and Drug Information” (REDI). REDI is a Commonwealth Government initiative that is
promoted as “a resilience approach to drug education”. The REDI resources focus on
building resilient young people in order to prevent and reduce harm from drug use. This A resilience
is achieved by focusing on building strong relationships with family, friends, school and framework
community so that support networks exist when problems arise.
Though the notion of resilience has received renewed interest in education circles, it
is not a new construct. During the 1970s, instead of the focus on individual deficit and
research which focused on finding effective ways to “fix/find solutions”, the new
research focused on strengths and asked questions about what made some children 545
and young people seemingly immune to their negative situations. The concept of
resilience emerged from the psychological literature. Questions were asked about why
these children and young people appeared to be immune to the negative factors to
which others succumbed. Garmezy (1971), Werner and Smith (1989, 1992), Garmezy
and Rutter (1983), Masten et al. (1990, 1995) all made significant contributions to this
research. A consistent finding was that, in most cases, children and young people
developed coping mechanisms and achieved successful life outcomes. This research
refuted the proposition that risk factors were predictors of negative life outcomes.
Empirical research on resilience has burgeoned in recent years (Benard, 1995; Doll and
Lyon, 1998; Grotberg, 2001; Howard and Johnson, 2000; Luthar, 2000; Masten and
Coatsworth, 1998). Most recently, a study of 11-15 year olds who had survived the
tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, shows that internal and external protective factors appear
to have mitigated the risk factors for some children (Ratrin Hestyanti, 2006).
In relation to the three-dimensional construct of resilience, two key points have been
acknowledged from this research: that protective factors have more importance than
risk factors; and that resilience is not a quality that some possess and others do not. If it
is possible to enhance the protective factors as the research suggests, then it is
proposed there is a role for classroom teachers in enhancing resilience for all children
and young people in schools independent of risk. In this paper, resilience is construed
within this universal perspective and is concerned with promoting the positive
development of all children and young people.

Perspective 1: Rationale for resilience education in the school curriculum

Changing circumstances that impact on the work of educators
Not all children and young people grow through childhood and adolescence without
difficulty. A number of research reports indicate that many children and young people
require extra support (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2002; Fuller, 2001;
Raphael, 2000; Sawyer, 2004).
Depression has become a recognised illness prevalent among our young people
(Sawyer, 2004). Seligman (1995) described it as the common cold of mental illness. This
illness has an adverse effect on young people’s school life, relationships with family
and peers as well as their personal wellbeing (Sawyer et al., 2000). Depression has been
associated with more frequent health-risk behaviours such as substance abuse and
suicide.
As families become more diverse, children and young people as family members
face many dilemmas relating to their change situation. Educators are challenged to
investigate the effects on children and young people. These effects can be quite
devastating if they are not given the necessary support (Raveis et al., 1999). Research
has documented the effects on children and young people as a result of change (Howe,
1999; Osterweis et al., 1984; Siegel et al., 1996). Some of the changes that children and
HE young people can face include: the death of a parent, grandparent or significant other;
107,6 divorce of parents; children and young people/parents living with life-threatening
illnesses or drug abuse; the relocation of families; loss of employment for a parent or
significant other.
Current social practices challenge traditional concepts of “family”. It is not
surprising that revisions of discourse about family are emerging in Western
546 industrialised nations. A plethora of family alternatives is emerging, each with its own
benefits and difficulties. Evidence is accumulating that instability of family structure
puts children and young people at risk of poor outcomes. Consistent outcomes have
been found in studies undertaken in New Zealand, the USA and the UK (Cockett and
Tripp, 1994; Fergusson et al., 1994; Kurdek et al., 1995; Najman et al., 1997).
As well as family forms, traditional gender identities are also changing. Women are
commonly in the paid workforce which impacts of the domestic division of labour.
Immediate family changes have a direct impact on the lives of children and young
people.
Changes in family structures have meant changes in the parenting of children
and young people today. Michael Carr-Gregg, an Australian psychologist
specialising in adolescent mental health, suggests there is a current crisis in
parenting that is adversely impacting upon the normal psychological growth and
development of young people. He suggests there is a distinct theme emerging that
the burden of setting boundaries for young people usually set by parents is
increasingly falling to schools. He sites some of the evidence that there are
difficulties with young people as: increased teenage alcohol consumption; increase in
sexual diseases and abortion among young people; increase in suicide rates; obesity;
bullying; increased medication used for depressive illness. He suggests that
affluence is no protective factor. He claims parents are time-poor and often not
available to their children and young people. This means they engage in quick-fix
solutions ranging from providing fast food on demand to expecting teachers to sort
out bullying problems (Carr-Gregg, 2004).

Perspective 2: The three-dimensional framework for resilience

Having reviewed some of the evidence that there is a place for resilience education, the
next issue is to explore ways this can be integrated into school curricula, considering
teachers already struggle with a crowded curriculum. I suggest the three-dimensional
framework simplifies the process for teachers by providing answers to some basic
questions: “what is resilience and what does a resilient student look like?” (resilience as
a state); “what can I do about it as a teacher?” (resilience as a condition); and “how will I
go about it?” (resilience as a practice). This paper will outline each of these dimensions
and the research evidence for each.

The three-dimensional framework for resilience: resilience as a state

Resilience as a state indicates a set of personal characteristics associated with healthy
development. Based on my knowledge of the research I have outlined key concepts that
underpin resilience as a state. In a sense, this is what resilience “looks like”. I have
labelled these “Manifestations of Resilience”. Drawing on the work of Benard (1991)
and Wolin and Wolin (1993), I propose the following categories of manifestations of
resilience:
 .
emotional competence; A resilience
.
social competence; and framework
.
futures oriented.
In Table I the attributes that encompass each group are identified.

Emotional competence 547

Research has identified a number of qualities required to develop emotional
competence including: having a positive self-concept and an internal locus of control,
being autonomous and possessing a sense of humour. Being autonomous means
having a well-developed sense of identity. The results of the longitudinal study by
Masten et al. (1995) showed that children and young people who succeeded in spite of
adversity had more internal resources. They were good problem solvers and had high
self-esteem. Those who were less resilient lacked these internal resources. The results
also showed that these children and young people had more external resources in
addition to the internal resources. The study reported that success in later life had roots
in earlier competence and that the more emotionally competent a person was, the more
likely they were to cope with adversity. Young adults who were more emotionally
competent were more likely to turn their life around if things did not go so well. For
example, a successful strategy reported in the study is adolescents who relocated in
order to break ties with deviant peer groups.
Pulkkinen’s (2004) ongoing Jyvaskyla Longitudinal Study of Personality and Social
Development reports similar findings that having an internal locus of control was a
key determinant of resilience. Pulkkinen (2004, p. 127) reports, “If a child learns
self-control or emotion regulation at an early age, the likelihood for developing
adaptive social functioning in adulthood is higher than if the child’s socioemotional
behaviour is dysregulated”.

Social competence
Research supports the notion that being able to form stable relationships is an
important component of social competence. The Masten et al. study (1995) indicated
that where children and young people had supportive relationships with people in their
lives, they were more resilient when faced with adversity. A supportive relationship
with an adult is a commonly identified protective factor in the literature on resilience
(Benard, 1991; Doll and Lyon, 1998). Parents and teachers are noted as significant
resources for enhancing children and young people’s resilience.

Emotional competence Social competence Futures-oriented

Positive self-concept Communication Optimism

Internal locus of control Relationships Problem solving
Autonomous Empathy Spiritual
Sense of humour Benevolence Sense of purpose
Critical thinking Table I.
Flexible and adaptive Manifestations of
Proactive resilience
HE Fuller (2001, p. 40) suggests that social competency is as important as academic
107,6 competency and that we need to promote this in schools and communities:
The development of resilience, emotional intelligence and social competencies in young
people is not only linked to long term occupational and life success but is also associated with
the prevention of substance abuse, violence and suicide

548 The research consistently reports the need for relationships that encourage
connectedness, belonging and empathy with others. Children and young people who
have these connections are less likely to engage in risk taking behaviours (Fuller, 2001;
Pulkkinen, 2004).
Research shows however, that connectedness to peers, family and school can minimise
these risks (Henderson and Milstein, 1996; McGinty, 1999). Fostering this type of
curriculum will help build resilient students. Developing a capacity for resilience
enhances children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing (Raphael, 2000). In
order to build resilient students, it is equally important that the teachers themselves
have a highly developed sense of optimism, and understand and exhibit social and
emotional competence.

Futures-oriented
I suggest being futures-oriented means having a clear sense of purpose and feeling that
one’s life has meaning; a sense of optimism; being able to engage in problem solving
and critical reflection; and having the ability to be flexible and adaptive in new
situations.
Benard (2004), p. 28) states that resilience research (Werner and Smith, 1989, 1992)
consistently demonstrates that having a “deep belief that one’s life has meaning and
that one has a place in the universe . . . is probably the most powerful [strength] in
propelling young people to healthy outcomes despite adversity”. Studies of resilience
(Brissette et al., 2002; Werner and Smith, 1992; Seligman, 1995) have found that a sense
of optimism about the future was a protective factor. Brissette et al. (2002) found that
there was a definite association between greater optimism and better adjustment to
stressful life events for young people of both genders. Seligman’s (1995) studies add to
the body of research that demonstrates that optimism and hope are associated with
holistic health (Seligman, 2002). Seligman reports that children and young people who
are able to problem solve (demonstrate metacognition) are more likely to consider
alternatives and be flexible and adaptive to change, as they can see beyond the current
situation. As well as having positive dispositional characteristics, resilient children
and young people have positive beliefs about self-efficacy.
Teaching problem solving and critical thinking skills is an important aspect of
resilience education. Teachers are required to empower their students to believe in
themselves and in their ability to influence their future. Students need to develop a
sense of empowerment in terms of their capacity to be innovative and to cope with
uncertainty and change. Teachers are encouraged to teach children and young people a
range of problem solving strategies.

The three-dimensional framework for resilience: resilience as a condition

Resilience as “a condition” is based around the notion of focussing on opportunities to
minimise risk factors and enhance protective factors. Building on the protective factors
has the potential to mitigate the risk factors. “Families, schools or communities may A resilience
provide these protective factors. I believe that manifestations of resilience (resilience as framework
a ‘state’) indicate an individuals’ potential for resilience but agree with Rutter (1993)
and Henderson and Milstein (1996) that the level of resilience is determined by both
internal/personal and environmental factors” (Knight, 2007, p. 70). It is important to
note that these risk factors may stem from life events or personal circumstances. Rutter
(1993) and Henderson and Milstein (1996) both emphasise the role of family and social 549
contexts over personal attributes and perceive family and community resilience as
more important than individual resilience. Resilience as “a condition” suggests by
recognising the risk factors, educators can help protect children and young people from
adversity through appropriate intervention that builds their resilience.

Research that supports resilience as a condition

Garmezy (1971), Werner and Smith (1989, 1992), Garmezy and Rutter (1983) and
Masten et al. (1990) all made significant contributions to early research into resilience
in the category I term a “condition”. These were very comprehensive studies of
children and young people at risk from which informed conclusions could be drawn.
These studies indicate that children and young people can do well in spite of high risk
factors, if protective factors (such as positive relationships with significant others) are
present. The studies also show that resilience is not a discrete quality that children and
young people possess or do not possess, but rather an interplay between the individual
and the environment.
Resilience research has been undertaken with children and young people in various
categories of risk with similar results (Martin and Jackson, 2002; Masten et al., 1995;
Rodgers and Rose, 2002; Wyle et al., 2004). The consistent results of these studies
indicated that no matter what the risk factors, internal and external protective factors
could mitigate the risk factors. The studies show the source of protective factors could
be the family, school or community.
Howard and Johnson (2000) report on an Australian study that looked at how
“resilient” and “non-resilient” adolescents dealt with life events. They found that
“resilient” and “non-resilient” young people spoke very differently about their lives.
“Resilient” students had a greater sense of belonging, a sense of autonomy and had a
more positive attitude to their future than “non-resilient” students. Howard and
Johnson (2000, p. 11) suggest that the indicators of risk have changed very little over
the years but “What is new is the concept of ‘resilience’ and its utility in understanding
how ‘risk’ may be minimised or avoided”. They found that “connectedness” to at least
one adult was a vital ingredient in developing resilient behaviour. This
“connectedness” was equally valuable whether it occurred in family, school or
community contexts. Their research highlights the importance of giving all children
and young people access to protective factors.
Research into the resilience of children and young people in adverse circumstances
appears to suggest that we can learn from these children and young people by
identifying the characteristics that promote resilience (Rowling et al., 2002). The
studies show that resilience-enhancing factors can be encouraged and promoted in
children and young people who currently lack them. A resilience approach builds on
children and young people’s strengths and finds ways to strengthen their support
networks (Benard, 1991, 1997; Fuller et al., 2002; Luthar, 2000; Murray, 2004; Thomsen,
HE 2002). Programs that promote resilience appear to be effective preventative
107,6 interventions for students facing adversity (Doll and Lyon, 1998).

The three-dimensional framework for resilience: resilience as a practice

Resilience as a practice is concerned with what families, schools and communities can
do to promote resilience. In particular, it focuses on the role of the school and teachers
550 and includes practical ways for fostering resilience in schools. Resilience as “a practice”
broadens the construct of resilience as other researchers and educators generally see it.
It is about the practical application of resilience knowledge to achieve better outcomes
for all children and young people by placing more focus on protective factors that
enhance resilience.
Australian researcher, Professor Fiona Stanley (2003, p. 6) recommends that if social
issues are having a negative impact on our children, we need to work out new alliances
to support families through problems. This can be achieved using such frameworks as
the Health Promoting Schools framework. Cefai (2004) joins Stanley and a number of
other researchers (Battistich, 2001; Fuller, 2001; Levine, 2003; Martin, 2002) who call for
the broadening of the resilience construct as an effective way of promoting the
wellbeing of all children. She claims that whole school programs, irrespective of risk,
have the potential to benefit all children and young people. According to Cefai (2004,
p. 152) “Resilience is a dynamic process related to changes taking place within the
individual’s life and it is context and culture specific. It is a process that can be
promoted and enhanced, and social systems such as schools, have a significant role to
play in resilience enhancement”.
In Australia, a number of programs that focus on resilience as a practice have been
developed. These programs include MindMatters, Resilience Education and Drug
Information, Bounce Back, ResponseAbility, Seasons for Growth and Literature for
Life. Research into the effectiveness of each program is on-going but each makes a
positive contribution to resilience education in Australian schools. I would like to
briefly outline each and suggest that further information can be found on the web sites
for each program.

MindMatters
MindMatters is a mental health promotion program for secondary schools
(MindMatters Consortium, 2000). The program provides comprehensive resources
that include teaching strategies and teacher professional development designed to
promote and protect the mental health of school communities. A national team
provides on-going training ad professional development for teachers. Resources were
distributed to every secondary school in Australia in 2000.
The Hunter Institute of Mental Health was appointed as the external evaluator of
the program in 2001 and the report can be found at: www.aare.edu.au/05pap/haz05475.
pdf
The Australian Council for Educational Research conducted a national survey of
Health and Well-being Promotion Policies and Practices in Secondary Schools in 2006
(Ainley et al., 2006). The report found that MindMatters has had a significant impact on
school ethos and culture and had a greater effect in schools that used MindMatters as a
key resource than in other schools. The report states that MindMatters is a key
resource for just under one secondary school in five in Australia. These schools
appeared to have more effective policies and programs that foster resilience. The A resilience
MindMatters web site is http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/mindmatters/ framework
Resilience education and drug information
Resilience Education and Drug Information (REDI), is a set of resources designed to
support the implementation of a resilience approach to drug education in Australian
schools, as part of promoting the health and wellbeing of students and school 551
communities (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2003). REDI is a national
initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.
Resources were distributed to every school in Australia in 2003. It includes teacher
resources and multi-media resources for the classroom that is age-appropriate. The
resources include evaluation tools such as student attitudinal surveys, the health
promoting schools monitoring tool and the monitoring school performance in drug
education rating scale. Examples of these can be found on the web site: www.redi.gov.au

Bounce back
The Bounce Back! Classroom Resiliency Program is an Australian classroom resource
designed to enhance students’ resilience and wellbeing (McGrath and Noble, 2003). The
resource is written by Dr Helen McGrath and Dr Toni Noble and comprises a teachers’
handbook and three teachers’ resource books: junior primary; middle primary; upper
primary to junior secondary. Each resource book contains detailed curriculum units
and activities for the classroom. Including topics such as managing emotions, dealing
with bullying, and developing optimism. Bounce Back uses wellbeing as a unifying
concept in a practical program that develops social skills and resilience skills that
develop coping mechanisms for children facing adversity. Further information can be
found at www.bounceback.com.au

ResponseAbility
This national multimedia resource for teacher education has been developed by the
Australia Government Department of Health and Aging in conjunction with the Hunter
Institute of Mental Health and tertiary educators. The Response Ability resources for
Teacher Education won The Australian Award for Excellence in Educational
Publishing (2003) for a tertiary teaching and learning package. The resource is
designed to support teacher education faculties and provide preservice teachers with
an opportunity to explore adolescent mental health issues in depth, including such
topics as promoting positive mental health, identifying and responding to troubled
young people, working with parents and the broader community and creating a
supportive school environment (Hunter Institute of Mental Health, 2001). Specific
issues such as adolescent depression and youth suicide are also being addressed. This
resource highlights the role of schools and teachers in mental health promotion.
Available at: www.responseability.org

Good grief: seasons for growth and literature for life

Good Grief is an international organisation established by the MacKillop Foundation in
Australia with the intention of developing resources and services for assisting children
and young people to manage change, loss and grief. It supports two key programs:
Seasons for Growth and Literature for Life (available at: www.goodgrief.org.au).
HE Seasons for Growth is a peer support program for children and young people who
107,6 have experienced change, loss and grief. Students work through a program in small
groups led by a facilitator called a Companion. There are three levels of resources in the
primary school and two levels for secondary school. It was developed by Dr Anne
Graham of Southern Cross University (Graham, 1996). The success of Seasons for
Growth confirmed a need for a universal program that dealt with issues of change, loss
552 and grief. Consequently, Literature for Life was commissioned by Good Grief
International and developed by Helen Cahill of the Youth Research Centre, University
of Melbourne, as a universal program designed to enhance resilience and social
competence in primary and secondary school settings. Students develop reading,
writing, listening and speaking skills while exploring emotional or behavioral reaction
to change, loss and challenge.
The Seasons for Growth Program has been successfully evaluated on three separate
occasions in 1999, 2004 and 2005. Most recently, Good Grief commissioned the
Evaluation of the Seasons for Growth Program in Secondary Schools across Australia
(2005) by The University of Melbourne. This evaluation found that the among other
benefits, the Seasons for Growth Program assisted participants to connect to their
communities by improving communication, teaching them to problem solve, and to
seek assistance when faced with problems. It also helped participants reduce their
sense of isolation by normalising their experiences. The full evaluation report can be
found at: www.goodgrief.org.au/news/05evaluation.pdf

Concluding remarks
Twenty-first century society requires that schools and teachers play a significant role
in enhancing resilience and mental heath promotion for young people. The
three-dimensional framework outlined in this paper suggest a way forward for
teachers. It is a useful framework for preservice teacher education and requires
minimal professional development to empower practising teachers to build on the
valuable work they already do. The curriculum resources already exist to support
mental health promotion for children and young people. Further research into the use
of the framework to implement whole schools approaches is needed to test the efficacy
of the framework. It encourages educators to consider resilience as a practice and to
accept the challenge of implementing programs designed to enhance resilience for
children and young people

References
Ainley, J., Withers, G., Underwood, C. and Frigo, T. (2006), MindMatters National Survey of
Health and Wellbeing Promotion, Policies and Practices in Secondary Schools, Australian
Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, available at: http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/
mindmatters/resources/pdf/evaluation/summary_dec06.pdf (accessed April 28, 2007).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2002), Australia’s Children: Their Health and
Wellbeing 2002: The First Report on Children’s Health by The Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare, available at: www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/ac02/index.html
(accessed March 6, 2004).
Battistich, V. (2001), “Effects of elementary school intervention on students’ connectedness to
school and social adjustment during middle school”, in Brown, J. (Ed.), Resilience
Education: Theoretical, Interactive and Empirical Applications, Symposium Conducted at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, April.
Benard, B. (1991), Fostering Resilience in Kids: Protective Factors in Family, School and A resilience
Community, Western Center Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Portland, OR.
Benard, B. (1995), Fostering Resilience in Children and Young People, ERIC/EECE Digest,
framework
EDO-PS-99.
Benard, B. (1997), Turning it All around for All Youth: From Risk to Resilience, Educational
Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Digest, ED412309.
Benard, B. (2004), Resiliency: What We Have Learned, WestEd, San Francisco, CA. 553
Brissette, I., Scheier, M. and Carver, C. (2002), “The role of optimism and social network
development, coping and psychological adjustment during a life transition”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 102-11.
Carr-Gregg, M. (2004), “Rotten kids or clueless adults: Australian parenting on trial – what’s
happened to a developmental perspective?”, paper presented at Research Conference 2004:
Supporting Student Wellbeing, ACER, Adelaide.
CASEL (2002), The Collaborative Centre for the Advancement of Social and Emotional Learning,
University of Illinois in Chicago, Chicago, IL, available at: www.cfapress.org/casel/casel.
html (accessed June 10, 2005).
Cefai, C. (2004), “Pupil resilience in the classroom: a teacher’s framework”, Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 149-70.
Cockett, M. and Tripp, J. (1994), Exeter Family Study, Exeter University Press, Exeter.
Department of Education, Science and Training (2003), REDI for the Classroom: A Resilience
Approach to Drug Education, Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and
Training, Canberra.
Doll, B. and Lyon, M. (1998), “Risk and resilience: implications for the delivery of educational and
mental health services in schools”, School Psychology Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 348-63.
Elias, M., Zins, J., Weissberg, R., Frey, K., Greenberg, M., Haynes, N., Kessler, R., Schwabstone, M.
and Shriver, T. (1997), Promoting Social and Emotional Learning, ASCD, Alexandria.
Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. and Lynskey, M. (1994), “Parental separation, adolescent
psychopathology, and problem behaviours”, Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 80-93.
Fuller, A. (2001), “A blueprint for building social competencies in children and young people and
adolescents”, Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40-8.
Fuller, A., McGraw, K. and Goodyear, M. (2002), “Bungy jumping through life: a framework for
the promotion of resilience”, in Rowling, L., Martin, G.L. and Walker, L. (Eds), Mental
Health Promotion and Young People, McGraw-Hill, Roseville, CA.
Garmezy, N. (1971), “Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention”, Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 41, pp. 101-16.
Garmezy, N. and Rutter, M. (1983), Stress, Coping and Development in Children, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, London.
Goleman, D. (2002), “Emotional intelligence: five years later”, New Horizons for Learning,
available at: www.newhorizons.org (accessed August 10, 2004).
Graham, A. (1996), Seasons for Growth Companion’s Manual: Primary Program, Extreme
Visions, Sydney.
Greenberg, M. (2006), “Promoting resilience in children and youth: preventive interventions and
their interface with neuroscience”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1094
No. 1, pp. 139-50.
Grotberg, E. (2001), “Resilience programs for children and young people in disaster”, Ambulatory
Child Health, Vol. 7, pp. 75-83.
HE Henderson, N. and Milstein, M. (1996), Resiliency in Schools. Making it Happen for Students and
Educators, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
107,6 Howard, S. and Johnson, B. (2000), “What makes the difference? Children and young people and
teachers talk about resilient outcomes for students at risk”, Educational Studies, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 321-7.
Howe, J. (1999), Early Childhood, Family and Society in Australia: A Reassessment, Social Science
554 Press, Katoomba.
Hunter Institute of Mental Health (2001), Risk and Resiliency: Teachers Guide to Mental Health,
on the ResponseAbility CD-ROM Resources, Hunter Institute of Mental Health, Newcastle.
Knight, C. (2007), “Building resilient learning managers”, in Smith, R., Lynch, D. and Knight, B.A.
(Eds), Learning Management: Transitioning Teachers for National and International
Change, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, pp. 66-74.
Kurdek, L., Fine, M. and Sinclair, R. (1995), “School adjustment in sixth graders: parenting
transitions, family climate, and peer norm effects”, Child Development, Vol. 66 No. 2.
Levine, D. (2003), Building Classroom Communities, National Educational Service, Bloomington,
IN.
Luthar, S. (2000), “The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation for future work”, Child
Development, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 543-62.
McGinty, S. (1999), Resilience, Gender and Success at School, Peter Lang, New York, NY.
McGrath, H. and Noble, T. (2003), Bounce Back! Teacher’s Handbook: A Classroom Resiliency
Program, Pearson, Frenchs Forest.
Martin, A. (2002), “Motivation and academic resilience: developing a model for student
enhancement”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Martin, P. and Jackson, S. (2002), “Educational success for children and young people in public
care: advice from a group of high achievers”, Child and Family Social Work, Vol. 7,
pp. 121-30.
Masten, A.S. and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), “The development of competence in favorable and
unfavourable environments: lessons from research on successful children and young
people”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53, pp. 205-20.
Masten, A.S., Best, K.M. and Garmezy, N. (1990), “Resilience and development: contributions
from the study of children and young people who overcome adversity”, Development and
Psychopathology, Vol. 2, pp. 425-44.
Masten, A.S., Coatsworth, D.A., Neemann, J., Gest, S.D., Tellegen, A. and Garmezy, N. (1995),
“The structure and coherence of competence from childhood to adolescence”, Child
Development, Vol. 66, pp. 1635-59.
MindMatters Consortium (2000), Mindmatters: A Whole School Approach Promoting Mental
Health and Well-being, Youth Research Centre, Melbourne.
Murray, J. (2004), “Making sense of resilience: a useful step on the road to creating and
maintaining resilient students and school communities”, Australian Journal of Guidance
and Counselling, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Najman, J., Behrens, B., Andersen, M., O’Callaghan, M. and Williams, G. (1997), “Impact of family
type and family quality on child behavior problems: a longitudinal study”, Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1357-65.
Osterweis, M., Solomon, F. and Green, M. (1984), Bereavement: Reactions, Consequences and
Care, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pulkkinen, L. (2004), “A longitudinal study on social development as an impetus for school
reform toward an integrated school day”, European Psychologist, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 125-41.
Raphael, B. (2000), “Promoting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people”, A resilience
discussion paper: Key principles and Directions. National Mental Health Working group,
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, available at: www. framework
muhealth.org/,news.MMRTRAUMA.shtml (accessed June 28, 2002).
Ratrin Hestyanti, Y. (2006), “Children survivors of the 2004 Tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia: a study
of resiliency”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1094 No. 1, pp. 303-7.
Raveis, V., Siegel, K. and Karus, D. (1999), “Children’s psychological distress following the death
of a parent”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 165-80. 555
Rodgers, K. and Rose, H. (2002), “Risk and resiliency factors among adolescents who experience
marital transitions”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 1024-38.
Rowling, L., Martin, G. and Walker, L. (2002), Mental Health Promotion and Young People:
Concepts and Practice, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
Rutter, M. (1993), “Resilience: some conceptual considerations”, Journal of Adolescent Health,
Vol. 14, pp. 598-611.
Sawyer, M. (2004), “The mental health and wellbeing of young people in Australia”, paper
presented at Research Conference 2004: Supporting Student Wellbeing, Australian Council
for Educational Research, Adelaide.
Sawyer, M., Arney, F., Baghurst, P., Clark, J., Graetz, B., Kosky, R., Nurcombe, B., Patton, G.,
Prior, M., Raphael, B., Whaites, L. and Zubrick, S. (2000), The Mental Health of Young
People in Australia: The Child and Adolescent Component of the National Survey of Mental
Health and Wellbeing, AusInfo, Canberra.
Seligman, M. (1995), The Optimistic Child, Random House, New York, NY.
Seligman, M. (2002), Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realise Your
Potential for Lasting Fulfilment, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Siegel, K., Karus, D. and Raveis, V. (1996), “Adjustment of children facing death of a parent due
to cancer”, Child Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 442-50.
Stanley, F. (2003), The Real Brain Drain: Why Putting Children First Is so Important for
Australia, Press Club Address, 6 August, available at: www.aracy.org.au/pdf/media/
20030806_pressClubAddress.pdf (accessed June 16, 2004).
Thomsen, K. (2002), Building Resilient Students, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weare, K. (2004), Developing the Emotionally Literate School, Sage Publications, London.
Werner, E. and Smith, R. (1989), Vulnerable but Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient
Children and Youth, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Werner, E. and Smith, R. (1992), Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from Birth to
Adulthood, Adams, Bannister and Cox, New York, NY.
Wolin, S. and Wolin, S. (1993), The Resilient Self: How Survivors of Troubled Families Rise above
Adversity, Villard, New York, NY.
Wyle, C., Thompson, J., Hodgen, E., Ferral, H., Lythe, C. and Fijn, T. (2004), Competent Children
at 12, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington.

Corresponding author
Cecily Knight can be contacted at: c.knight@cqu.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints