Why

Resilience? A Review of Literature of Resilience and Implications for

Further Educational Research
Ryan S. Santos, Claremont Graduate University & San Diego State University

Introduction
The influence of resilience is evident by its reach across diverse disciplines. Although resilience remains a
familiar word in everyday English language, the term resilience carries different meanings across different
contexts. However, the essence of resilience is described as the ability to bounce back from some form of
disruption, stress, or change. The term resilience stems from Latin (resiliens) and was originally used to refer
to the pliant or elastic quality of a substance (Joseph, 1994). Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary of
English Language (1958) defined resilience as the ability to bounce or spring back after being stretched or
constrained or recovering strength or spirit, and the American Heritage dictionary defined resilience as the
ability to recover quickly from illness, change, or misfortune.

This literature review seeks to better understand the construct of resilience and provide a context for how it
can further studied in school settings. More specifically, the literature review is organized around 7 central
questions: (1) How is resilience defined? (2) Is resilience an innate quality or a dynamic process? (3) How is
resilience studied within the school setting, with a particular focus on urban schools? (4) What are the
trends resilience research and where is it heading, and lastly (5) What are the benefits and challenges for
future resilience research?

1. How is Resiliency Defined?
Nearly fifty years of research in resiliency has brought forth various perspectives and voices and, despite the
vast body of research on resilience, there is little agreement on a single definition of resilience among
scholars. In fact, scholars define the construct of resilience in a multitude of ways.

Richardson and his colleagues (1990) contended that resiliency is the process of coping with disruptive,
stressful, or challenging life events in a way that provides the individual with additional protective and
coping skills than prior to the disruption that results from the event. Similarly, Higgins (1994) described
resiliency as the process of self-righting or growth, while Wolins (1993) defined resiliency as the capacity
to bounce back, to withstand hardship, and to repair yourself.
Resiliency, or resilience, is commonly explained and studied in context of a two-dimensional construct
concerning the exposure of adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity. While the
construct of resilience is examined across various studies and scholarly articles, there is little consensus as
to how researchers define adversity, let alone what defines positive adjustment outcomes.
Resiliency is also defined as a positive adaptation... is considered in a demonstration of manifested
behaviour on social competence or success at meeting any particular tasks at a specific life stage. With
respect to the school setting, scholars often use school achievement or results from state testing as a
measure of positive adjustment outcomes. Masten (1994) contended that resilience refers to (1) people from
high- risk groups who have had better outcomes than expected; (2) good adaptations despite stressful
(common) experiences; and (3) recovery from trauma.
Garmezy (1993) asserted that the study of resilience has focused on answering two major questions: 1)
What are the characteristics risk factors of children, families, and environments that predispose children
to maladjustment following exposure to adversity? 2) What are the characteristics of protective factors that
shield them from such major adjustment?

In her discussion of resiliency in children, Benard (1995) argued that resilient children usually have four
attributes in common:

Social Competence: Ability to elicit positive responses from others, thus establishing positive relationships
with both adults and peers;

Problem-solving skills: Planning that facilitates seeing oneself in control and resourcefulness in seeking
help from others;
Autonomy: A sense of ones own identity and an ability to act independently and exert some control over
ones environment; and

A sense of purpose and future: Goals, educational aspirations, persistence, hopefulness, and a sense of a
bright future.

Werner and Smith (1992) explained how resilience has come to describe a person having a good track
record of positive adaptation in the face of stress or disruptive change. Their longitudinal studies found that
a high percentage of children from an at risk background needing intervention still became healthy,
competent adults. They purported that a resilient child is one who loves well, works well, plays well, and
expects well.

Debate as to whether or not resilience is an innate quality or dynamic process is evident in the literature.
Masten (1994) asserted that resilience must be understood as a process. He explained that resilience must
be viewed as an interplay between certain characteristics of the individual and the broader environment, a
balance between stress and the ability to cope, and a dynamic and developmental process that is important
at life transition

Is Resilience an Innate Quality or a Dynamic Process?
During early waves of resilience research, researchers tended to regard and label individuals who
transcended their adverse circumstances as hardy, invulnerable, or invincible. Such labels implied that
these individuals were in possession of a rare and remarkable set of qualities that enabled them to rebound
from whatever adversity came their way almost as if these fortunate individuals possessed a sort of
magical force field that protected them form all harm.

Increasingly, however, researchers have arrived at the consensus that resilience is not some remarkable,
innate quality but rather a developmental process. Masten (2001) referred to the resilience process as
ordinary magic, simply because a majority of individuals who undergo serious adversity remarkably
manage to achieve normative developmental outcomes.

Research in resiliency concludes that each person has an innate capacity for resiliency, a self-righting
tendency that operates best when people have resiliency-building conditions in their lives. It is grounded in
the belief that all humans possess an inborn developmental wisdom and seeks to better contextualize how
teachers can to tap this wisdom. In her book, Fostering Resiliency in Children, Bonnie Benard (1995)
claimed: We are all born with an innate capacity for resilience, by which we are able to develop social
competence, problem-solving skills, a critical consciousness, autonomy, and a sense of purpose.

Researchers increasingly view resilience not as a fixed attribute but as an alterable set of processes that can
be fostered and cultivated. Researchers emphasize the interactive processes between the individual and
environment and between risk and protective factors as the crucial underpinnings of developing resilience.

Garmezys (1991) triadic model of resilience provided a widely accepted framework for understanding the
resilience process. Multiple scholars use this framework to study resilience. The triadic model described the
dynamic interactions among risk and protective factors on three levels (individual, family, and
environmental). The model also emphasized that resilience is a process that empowers individuals to shape
their environment and to be shaped by it in turn.

Implicit in the concept of resilience as a dynamic process is the understanding that resilience can grow or
decline over time depending on the interactions taking place between an individual and their environment
and between risk and protective factors in an individuals life. Therefore, an individual may be resilient at
certain times - and not at others - depending upon the circumstances and relative strength of protective
factors compared to risk factors at the given moment.

Pushing scholars to look beyond the individual level of resilience, Seccombe (2002) asserted that: the widely
held view of resilience as an individual disposition, family trait, or community phenomenon is
insufficient...resiliency cannot be understood or improved in significant ways by merely focusing on these
individual-level factors. Instead careful attention must be paid to structural deficiencies in our society and to be

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 2

social policies that families need in order to become stronger, more competent, and better functioning in
adverse situations.

Resilience in Schools
Schools continue to function as one of the most powerful spaces to capitalize on the resilience of students.
Research on resiliency in schools points to the fact that despite barriers to learning at-risk students still
demonstrated levels of success. Similarly, Krovetz (1999) explained that RT [Resiliency Theory] is based on
defining protective factors within the family, school, and community that exist for the successful child or
adolescent the resilient child or adolescent that are missing from the family, school, and community of
the child or adolescent who later needs intervention.

Caring and Supportive Environments
Arguably, the most frequently cited protective factor evident in resilience research in schools is a caring and
supportive school environment. The influence and importance caring and supportive school environments
as protective factors persists throughout the literature. Henderson and Milstein (1996) stated that, more
than any other way, schools build resiliency in students through creating an environment of caring personal
relationships. Echoing these words, additional researchers concurred that a caring and support ethos
(across a childs family, community and school) is the most critical variable throughout childhood and even
adolescence.

The presence of caring and supportive relationships creates the proper foundation for trust. As identified by
Erikson (1963), trusting relationships serve as the base for healthy future development. Specifically within
the school setting, Werner and Smiths study (1988) reminded us of the role that a teacher can play in
creating caring learning environments that are critical in fostering resilience. Coburn and Nelson (1989)
found the positive role models in the lives of resilient children were favourite educators who took deep
interest in them. Students reported that these educators went beyond the traditional roles of teachers by
serving as positive role models and individuals whom they could trust and demonstrated deep care. They
explained that educator-student relationships are often characterized by trust (adults keeping promises,
confidentiality), attention (listening), empathy (demonstrating understanding), availability (spending time
with youth), respect (involving youth in decision making), and virtue (good role modelling).

High Expectations
In addition to providing a culture of care and support, an ethos of high expectations also serves as a
protective factor for resilient students. Schools that create a culture of high expectations for all students
experience greater rates of academic success. As mentioned earlier in, Rutters (1979) found that school
environments could act as an important protective factor that buffer children against the adverse effects of
stress. More specifically, Rutter concluded that schools focusing on academics, clear expectations and rules,
and high levels of student involvement experienced higher rates of attendance and academic attainments
and lower rates of delinquency and behavioural disturbances. Rutters study revealed that behavioural
disturbances decreased over time in schools possessing a culture of high expectations and increased in
schools that did not foster similar learning environments. Rutters work (1979) continues to serve as an
anchor for subsequent work in the area of resiliency research in schools.

In a more recent study examining over 700 high-performing, high-need schools, Barley and her colleagues
(2007) concluded that academically successful schools cultivated a culture of high expectations. Researchers
indentified 739 high-performing and 738 low-performing schools consisting of 50 percent or more students
who receive free or reduced lunch. Survey data collected from participating teachers from these schools
revealed that, what appears to distinguish high-performing schools from low-performing ones is less the
tangible aspects or technical processes of schooling, and more the intangible and sometimes elusive aspects,
such as a schools mission, culture, and its teachers and students attitudes and beliefs. High expectations
in schools encourage and remind students that they are capable of achieving beyond their own belief. These
messages convey the point that all students can succeed.

Meaningful Participation
Successful schools that foster resilience also recognize the value of creating meaningful opportunities for
students. Katz (1997) contended that providing bountiful and meaningful opportunities for students is
essential in emboldening resilience in children. These opportunities often provide children solace from toxic

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 3

or hostile environments. Perhaps more importantly, such opportunities often provide children to believe
and dream in an environment that is both safe and stable.

Similarly, Benard (1995) explained that, providing youth with opportunities for meaningful involvement
and responsibility with the school setting is a natural outcome for schools that have high expectations.
Participation, like caring and respect, is a fundamental need. Scholars acknowledge a fundamental need to
participate and remind us that students must not be viewed as empty vessels that we fill with knowledge.
Schools are better situated to foster resilience through the use of cooperative learning strategies and
opportunities to participate in school governance, service-learning projects (Brooks, 2006).

Resilience research is especially applicable to schools because they directly tackle the achievement gaps that
can characterize children who grow up under conditions of poverty or social disadvantage (Condly, 2006).
As indicated in the previous section, the impacts of these conditions, however, are off set by the presence of
multiple protective factors. More specifically, caring and supportive relationships, an ethos of high
expectations, and opportunities for cooperative learning serve as critical protective factors (Benard, 1995).

The following section of the review focuses on research illuminating the impact of resilience in urban school
settings.

Resilience in Urban Schools
Although theory suggests that resilience can be fostered through relationships, cultivating a community with
high expectations, and opportunities for participation in schools, there continues to be a paucity of studies
examining resiliency within the school setting. Of these existing studies, the vast majority of research
examining resilience in schools has focused on comparing resilient and non-resilient students (Reyes &
Jason, 1993).

In a study comparing 133 resilient and 81 non-resilient Mexican American high school students, Gonzalez
and Padilla (1997) found that resilient students reported significantly higher perceptions of family and peer
support, teacher feedback, positive connections to school, value placed on school, and peer belonging. Using
academic grades as an indicator for academic resilience, researchers found that the sole significant predictor
of educational resilience was a students sense of belonging in school.


While studying a cohort of tenth grade Mexican-American students, Alva (1991) studied factors contributing
to academic resilience among students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Alva found that
academically resilient students were more likely to report a greater connection to schools via networks with
teachers and peers alike. Moreover, this study demonstrated that academically resilient students generally
reported a more positive view of their intellectual abilities and expressed a greater sense of responsibility
for their academic future. More specifically, resilient students were more likely to (a) feel encouraged and
prepared to go to college, (b) enjoy coming to school and being involved in high school activities, (c)
experience fewer conflicts and intergroup relations with other students, and (d) experience fewer family
conflicts and difficulties. Alva deemed that students who fit these criteria were academically invulnerable.

In a study comparing motivational levels of 60 resilient and 60 non-resilient middle school Latino students
across 5 middle schools within a culturally diverse school district, Waxman, Huang, and Padrn (1997)
found that there was no significant difference when comparing whether a student spoke English prior to
starting school. Utilizing a stratified research design, researchers found that 67% of non-resilient students
spoke a different language than English prior to attending school, while 76% of their more resilient peers
also reported speaking a language other than English prior to schooling. Results did however reveal
significant differences between these groups when comparing other factors. Resilient students spent
significantly more time on additional reading, more time completing mathematics homework, and were less
likely to report absenteeism or tardiness when compared with their counterparts. Lastly, Waxman and
colleagues reported that resilient students had significantly higher perceptions of Involvement, Satisfaction,
Academic Self-Concept, and Achievement Motivation than non resilient students.

Padrn, Waxman, Brown, and Powers (2002) asserted that some English language learners (ELLs) do well
in school despite coming from school and home environments that present many obstacles for learning.
Researchers explained that research that is conducted from an educational resilience context allows

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 4

researchers to focus on the predictors for academic success, rather than on academic failure, for English
language learners. Furthermore, they stated that when research focuses on the resilience of English
language learners it enables us to specifically identify those alterable factors that distinguish successful
from less successful students. The body of research that focuses on resilience in English language learners
asserts that students can achieve academic success if educators focus on factors that are factors that they
can change.

Building up their research, these researchers employed one of the few experimental studies focusing on
resilience in school settings. In 2002, Padrn and colleagues designed, implemented, and tested the
Pedagogy for Improving Resiliency Program (PIRP), a program created to embolden resilience for English
language learners. Set in an urban elementary school, results from this year long study of six forth and fifth
grade classrooms revealed that students in treatment classrooms expressed more positive classroom
learning environments and held significantly higher gains in reading assessments. Data also demonstrated
classroom teachers who received the PIRP intervention provided more explanations to students, allocated
more time for student responses, and encouraged student success.

In one of the most recent studies of resilience in schools Kanevsky and colleagues (2012) examined the

impact of museum-based intervention (School in the Park) designed to promote the resilience of third and

fourth grade students at an inner-city school. Over the course of two years, researchers compared the
academic resilience and personal development of students participating in the study with those who did not.
School in the Park reinforces and supplements school-based instruction with specialized learning
opportunities uniquely available in the museums and zoos at San Diegos Balboa Park...where core
curriculum is embedded in art, science, and cultural setting provided by Balboa Park. While participation
groups reported higher levels of academic resilience, both participants and nonparticipants reported similar
levels of character, self-efficacy, and attitudes towards school. The only differences evident between both
groups occurred when examining students reported academic self-concepts.

Esquivel, Doll and Oades-Sese (2011) reminded us that effective schools, according to research in resilience,
minimize the risk and adversity to their students to the maximum degree possible, maximize protective
factors available to their students through whatever means, and take whatever means and steps necessary
to intervene early and boldly when students show early evidence of social or emotional disturbances or
disorders.

While the previously mentioned studies offer insight into how resilience can be facilitated within school
settings, Doll and her colleagues (2011) claimed that resilience perspectives should not be overgeneralized
to schools...because risk and resilience wax and wane over time and daily decisions about students needs for
support must be flexible and responsive to these changes. The significance of resilience models for school
practice, however, is due principally to the construct of protective factors. Esquivel and Doll (2011) stated:
Schools that fail at providing high-quality educational opportunities to underprivileged youth contribute to the
adversity experienced by their students. Alternatively, many schools are sites of high-quality opportunities to
interact with positive adult models and supportive peers, and school routines and practices can foster essential
student abilities to maintain effective relationships, establish and work towards ambitious personal goals, self-
regulate personal activities and behaviours, and manage emotions.

As indicated previously, the vast majority of research examining resilience in schools has focused on the
comparison of both resilient and non-resilient students. More specifically, these studies have employed
descriptive, causal-comparative, or correlational research. Masten and Coatsworth (1998) provided insight
into the challenges of school-based resiliency: Efforts to understand resilience have made it clear that children
typically have multiple risk factors and multiple resources contributing to their lives...Thus, it is unlikely that a
magic bullet for prevention or intervention will be found. Intervention models emerging from this realization
describe cumulative protection efforts to address cumulative risk processes.

New Frontiers of Resilience Research
Richardson (2002) explained that a new wave of research has begun to integrate personal and
environmental components of resilience by examining resilience more holistically and postured in an
interdisciplinary manner. Accordingly, resilience is now being studied psychologically, biologically, and

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 5

socially and involves an interaction of individual and environmental characteristics. Leckman and Mayes
(2007) argued that in rats, and presumably in humans, environmental conditions and the amount of
nurturing received in early life can fundamentally alter the expression of key genes involved in stress and
response and reward mechanisms that may underlie attachment and bonding.

More recent resilience research asserts that gene-gene interactions and gene-environment interactions also
contribute to adaptation and resilience in complex ways. Although the interactions between biological
mechanisms and risk and protective factors in the environment are not fully understood, researchers who
explore genetic aspects of resilience believe genetics alone cannot determine how an individual will respond
to adversity. Instead, biological and genetic factors can be viewed as protective factors, much like
environmental factors.

Although it is challenging to determine exactly how biological, genetic, and environmental factors interact to
determine each individuals level of resilience, there is neurological evidence to support the psychological
data that show some people may be relatively high or low in resilience. Waugh et al. found that when people
with higher resilience were shown a cue signaling there was an equal chance they would see a distressing
picture or neutral picture, they only exhibited neural reactions indicating an unpleasant emotional response
if they actually saw the distressing picture. Resilient people also returned to baseline cardiac and
neurological states sooner than those with low resilience when exposed to stressful situations.

In contrast, participants with low resilience reacted to threats or even a possibility of threats sooner and for
longer periods of time, as indicated by activity in the amygdala and insular areas of the brain. Due to various
systems involved in determining resilience, Kim-Cohen (2007) argued it is important to study resilience at
levels of analysis ranging from the molecular to the behavioral to the cultural. It is difficult to study all of
these contexts and their interactions simultaneously, and research on all of these levels is needed to increase
educators understanding of resilience. However, the bridge between neuroscience and education is in its
emerging stages of development, therefore it is important for scholars to build upon the existing body of
resilience research, especially within school settings.

Conclusions
Although much progress has been made in the area of resilience research, there is still no definitive set of
factors that constitute risk or protective factors. These could be any variables shown to increase or decrease
the likelihood of a variety of positive or negative outcomes. Risk factors are often defined as environmental
factors that originate in childhood and are sometimes the opposites of protective factors (e.g. strong social
skills vs. poor social skills; secure attachment vs. insecure attachment). However, Hoge et al. stressed
resilience is more than the flip side of risk factors.

Resilience research has identified a multitude of protective factors, with some of the most prominent being
secure attachment style and a health relationship with an adult during childhood, temperament, internal
locus of control, sense of coherence, and biological and genetic factors. However measures of resiliency had
not been developed until recently, making it very difficult to generalize results or compare studies.

Needless to say, some theorists have critiqued the concept of resilience, pointing to its shortcomings. More
specifically, Rigsby (1994) argued the strong individualistic image of success gives the impression that
anyone can get ahead, that there is equal opportunity to do so, that one can always get it together, and that
disadvantages are for the individual to overcome. He continues to argue that assumptions about success may
lead to linear, simplistic predictions about risk therefore drawing the attention away from the interaction of
people, context, and opportunities.

Other theorists have found the term too vague. Gordon and Song (1994) argued that the main difficulty in
defining resilience may well be that it is not a single construct. Clearly, the concept of resilience can be
variously defined and continues to evolve. Nonetheless, the basic premise of the concept of resilience is far
reaching, and its promise as a human behavior and practice concept has yet to be realized.

Continued research in resilience is dependent on time, context, and individual being studied. While
resilience researchers using quantitative methods attempt to control and predict the phenomenon of
resilience, much can be lost in the pursuit of quantity. Kanevsky (2012) shared, large sample sizes will
strengthen quantitative designs. However, case studies and other qualitative methods can provide deeper

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 6

insights into the complex dynamics of student relationships with others and their schools and life
experiences (p. 470). In fact in his review of the qualitative contributions of resilience research, Ungar
(2006) claimed that, qualitative research addresses two specific shortcomings noted by resilience
researchers: arbitrariness in the selection of outcome variables and the challenges accounting for the
sociocultural context in which resilience occurs

As articulated in review of literature, resiliency lies in the eye of the beholder. The various layers and
contexts in which resilience is studied are filtered through the lens of the researcher. The attempts to predict
and control for resilience are complicated because every individuals process is unique. The research
suggests that field of resilience can be expanded if told through the voices researchers deem resilient. Ungar
(2008) explained: Avoiding bias in how resilience is understood and interventions are designed to promote it,
researchers and interveners will need to be more participatory and culturally embedded to capture the nuances
of culture and context. The better documented youths own constructions of resilience, the more likely it will be
that those intervening identify specific aspects of resilience most relevant to health outcomes as defined by a
particular population.

As evident in the body of resilience research there is a long standing body of research using quantitative and
qualitative research methods, however, these methods are commonly implemented independent and in
isolation of one another. The field of resilience research, specifically within the school settings, can be
furthered through the use of a mixed methods design that contextualizes students experiences through the
combination of both numbers and voices.

As articulated in review of literature, resiliency lies in the eye of the beholder. The various layers and
contexts in which resilience is studied are filtered through the lens of the researcher. The attempts to predict
and control for resilience are complicated because every individuals process is unique. The research
suggests that field of resilience can be expanded if told through the voices researchers deem resilient. Ungar
(2008) explained: Avoiding bias in how resilience is understood and interventions are designed to promote it,
researchers and interveners will need to be more participatory and culturally embedded to capture the nuances
of culture and context. The better documented youths own constructions of resilience, the more likely it will be
that those intervening identify specific aspects of resilience most relevant to educational outcomes as defined by
a particular population.

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 7

 ACARA General Capabilities
Personal and Social Capability
In the Australian Curriculum, students develop personal and social capability as they learn to understand themselves and
others, and manage their relationships, lives, work and learning more effectively. Personal and social capability involves
students in a range of practices including recognising and regulating emotions, developing empathy for others and
understanding relationships, establishing and building positive relationships, making responsible decisions, working
effectively in teams, handling challenging situations constructively and developing leadership skills.
Personal and social capability supports students in becoming creative and confident individuals who, as stated in the
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008), have a sense of self-worth, self-
awareness and personal identity that enables them to manage their emotional, mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing, with a
sense of hope and optimism about their lives and the future. On a social level, it helps students to form and maintain healthy
relationships and prepares them for their potential life roles as family, community and workforce members (MCEETYA, p.
9).
Students with well-developed social and emotional skills find it easier to manage themselves, relate to others, develop
resilience and a sense of self-worth, resolve conflict, engage in teamwork and feel positive about themselves and the world
around them. The development of personal and social capability is a foundation for learning and for citizenship.
Personal and social capability encompasses students personal/emotional and social/relational dispositions, intelligences,
sensibilities and learning. It develops effective life skills for students, including understanding and handling themselves, their
relationships, learning and work. Although it is named Personal and Social capability, the words personal/emotional and
social/relational are used interchangeably throughout the literature and within educational organisations. The term social and
emotional learning is also often used, as is the SEL acronym.
When students develop their skills in any one of these elements, it leads to greater overall personal and social capability, and
also enhances their skills in the other elements. In particular, the more students learn about their own emotions, values,
strengths and capacities, the more they are able to manage their own emotions and behaviours, and to understand others and
establish and maintain positive relationships.

Organising elements for Personal and Social Capability

Self-awareness
This element involves students developing an awareness of their own
emotional states, needs and perspectives.
Students identify and describe the factors that influence their
emotional responses. They develop a realistic sense of their personal
abilities, qualities and strengths through knowing what they are
feeling in the moment, and having a realistic assessment of their own
abilities and a well-grounded sense of self-knowledge and self-
confidence. Students reflect on and evaluate their learning, identify
personal characteristics that contribute to or limit their effectiveness
and learn from successes or failures. In developing and acting with
personal and social capability, students:
recognise emotions
recognise personal qualities and achievements
understand themselves as learners
develop reflective practice.

Self-management
This element involves students developing the metacognitive skill of learning when and how to use particular strategies to
manage themselves in a range of situations.
Students effectively regulate, manage and monitor their own emotional responses, and persist in completing tasks and
overcoming obstacles. They develop organisational skills and identify the resources needed to achieve goals. Students develop
the skills to work independently and to show initiative, learn to be conscientious, delay gratification and persevere in the face
of setbacks and frustrations. In developing and acting with personal and social capability, students:
express emotions appropriately
develop self-discipline and set goals
work independently and show initiative
become confident, resilient and adaptable.

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 8

Social awareness
This element involves students recognising others feelings and knowing how and when to assist others.
Students learn to show respect for and understand others perspectives, emotional states and needs. They learn to participate in
positive, safe and respectful relationships, defining and accepting individual and group roles and responsibilities. Students gain
an understanding of the role of advocacy in contemporary society and build their capacity to critique societal constructs and
forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism. In developing and acting with personal and social capability, students:
appreciate diverse perspectives
contribute to civil society
understand relationships.

Social management
This element involves students interacting effectively and respectfully with a range of adults and peers.
Students learn to negotiate and communicate effectively with others; work in teams, positively contribute to groups and
collaboratively make decisions; resolve conflict and reach positive outcomes. They develop the ability to initiate and manage
successful personal relationships, and participate in a range of social and communal activities. Social management involves
building skills associated with leadership, such as mentoring and role modelling. In developing and acting with personal and
social capability, students:

communicate effectively
work collaboratively
make decisions
negotiate and resolve conflict
develop leadership skills.

Edited summary prepared by Barbara Reynolds 9