Running Head: RESILIENCE 1
EPSE 598
RESILIENCE AND INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS
Jo Ann Whitham
71195804
University of British Columbia
RESILIENCE 2
Introduction “It’s okay Ms. Whitham,” said one of my new students, a young man with severe Dyslexia, “I am just stupid. Lots of teachers have tried to help me but nothing works. I will never be smart.”
………….. I have been working with students with Learning Disabilities (LD) for fifteen
years. During this time I have seen amazing transformations in student’s confidence and
ability. But there were some students I just couldn’t reach, and I couldn’t understand
why; they were like puzzles and I couldn’t fit the pieces together to help them. When I
decided to pursue a Masters in the field I had some burning questions I wanted to answer:
why are some students able to overcome their learning difficulties while others are
not? Why are some students resilient in the face of their challenges and others just give
up? What can I do as an educator to change this?
When I declared my area of interest I chose Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
because it seemed to me to be the key piece of the puzzle. People must be able to self
regulate to be successful in both school and life. I had observed and facilitated students
using the principles of self-regulation such as analyzing tasks, choosing strategies to
complete them, reflecting on their strategy choice and adjusting their strategy choice to
successfully complete these tasks. My research led me to the concept of self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning and its crucial role in academic success. I learned that for students
with LD, “belief in his or her capabilities to manage the learning environment” is almost
as important as skill level (Klassen, 2010). Because students with LD have a history of
failure in the academic arena, their self-concept about their ability to learn is consistently
RESILIENCE 3
lower than students without LD, and this negative self-concept can be extremely
resistant to change (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001). So the question became how could I help
empower students who have given up to “buy in” to the self-regulation process and build
feelings of self-efficacys?
This led me to study motivation in search of an answer. The motivation piece of
the puzzle showed me the importance of mindsets and gave me ideas about how to help
students change their self-perception. I learned ways to help them change how they
thought about the reasons for their “failures” and what they attributed them to. I learned
about our basic human needs of relatedness, autonomy and competence, which gave me a
framework to think about how to move students from a state of amotivation towards the
desired goal of intrinsic motivation. I incorporated these ideas into my teaching and my
mentorship, and saw many successes. These ideas were so powerful that our school
incorporated the goals of relatedness, autonomy and competence into our mission
statement.
When I started reading about resilience I realized I had found the key to the
puzzle—it was like seeing the picture on the puzzle box and realizing which pieces fit
where. Research on resilience shows that successful LD students display certain
characteristics that educators can foster and develop to create positive outcomes both in
school and in life after school. These characteristics include self-awareness, self-
regulation, motivation and self-concept, critical thinking and problem solving; all of the
topics I had explored were included in the literature on resilience.
RESILIENCE 4
Meanwhile, in my career, my role began to change. First I was given the
role of doing adjudications for Provincial Exams, which meant I was reading the psycho-
educational reports of most of the senior school and recommending appropriate supports
and strategies. Next, the Ministry of Education changed its policy on funding and tied
this directly into Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Under this new policy, schools are
now directly responsible for having all documentation included in the IEPs and audit
teams are being sent out to check for compliance. I applied for a contract position as an
auditor and was accepted, and through this position I learned what we needed to do to
change our IEPs to comply with Ministry guidelines. At the same time, the school
decided to change our School Information System (SIS), and is in the midst of designing
this system with a private company called MySchool. This system will have an IEP
function, and I was put in charge of leading a team to create a goal, objective and strategy
bank to ensure that our IEPs will meet Ministry guidelines.
Our school is one of the few designated schools in the country. As such, every
student is on an IEP, and all of our teachers are required to contribute a goal for the
year. Because of this, we do not conduct physical IEP team meetings, as some teachers
would need to attend over fifty meetings. Instead, our IEPs serve as virtual team
meetings, and all of a student’s teachers read each other’s goals and strategies as a
starting point for working with that student. We have always used the IEP as a vehicle for
student growth, but in a top down manner. We review the IEP with the student and
discuss their strengths, needs, and their teacher’s goals for them. Because of this virtual
process, the student was not included. I knew this did not fit with current best practices,
RESILIENCE 5
which show that student involvement in and ownership of their IEP is highly
beneficial (source). I realized that moving to the new system would give us the
opportunity to have the students contribute to this.
The purpose of this inquiry is to improve student engagement, motivation, self-
regulation and resilience through involving them in the IEP process. They will contribute
and monitor a goal on their own IEPs to track progress and growth, reflect on the
effectiveness of strategy use and hopefully derive motivation to continue with the self-
regulation cycle. It will serve as the first step in creating more student involvement in
their IEPs, and my goal is to eventually have them lead one of the three yearly parent
teacher conferences.
Literature Review
...children and adolescents with learning disabilities... given their history of learning difficulty and failure, are especially vulnerable to feelings of frustration, low self-worth, and helplessness. (Brooks, 2004, p.3) If teachers were to vocalize what they are hoping to achieve with their students,
most would say they want them to master the knowledge and skills required in the subject
areas they teach, and that this mastery would enable their students to be successful when
they leave school and pursue either higher education or employment. They would also
say that they wanted their students to become effective and happy human beings. But
what happens when a student has a Learning Disability (LD)? What happens when a
student has significant challenges that hinder his or her ability to learn and master a
subject? Some of these students are able to overcome these challenges and go on to be
successful adults and contributors to society. Others give up trying. According to
RESILIENCE 6
statistics gathered by the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (2011),
76% of parents of typical learners reported that their child was doing well in school as
compared to only 25% of parents of children with LD. Over 25% of students with LD
did not complete high school. They were “2 to 3 times more likely to report fair to poor
physical, general, and mental health, and 2 to 3 times less likely to report very good to
excellent physical, general and mental health than the general population.” People with
LD were also “more than twice as likely to report high levels of distress, depression,
anxiety disorders, suicidal thoughts, visits to a mental health professional and poorer
overall mental health compared to persons without disabilities.” This report also shows
that adults with LD make up only 2-5% of the population of post secondary institutions,
have a lower employment rate and make lower wages than the general population, and
have been refused interviews and jobs because of their disability. These statistics show
that students with LD are at risk of becoming unsuccessful and unhappy adults.
Resilience
According to Dr. John Grohal, resilience “is the process of adapting well in the
face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or even significant sources of stress — such as
family and relationship problems, serious health problems, or workplace and financial
stressors. It means “bouncing back” from difficult experiences.” (PsychCentral, 2007).
Research in resiliency over the last fifty years has sought to understand why some “at-
risk” students can overcome negative experiences and become functional adults.
Early research focused on risk factors such as poverty or physical disability and
their effects on individuals, but the focus soon shifted to studying “protective factors”
RESILIENCE 7
that allowed individuals to overcome those risk factors to produce positive
outcomes (Bernard, 1998). Bernard emphasized the idea that how people cope with
difficult situations is a result of their environment, and that rather than trying to “fix”
kids, we should focus on creating positive family, school and community environments
that promote resilient behaviours. The protective factors she lists are social competence,
problem solving skills, autonomy and a sense of purpose and future. In their introduction
to the Handbook of Resilience in Children, Goldstein and Brooks (2012) emphasize the
concept of wellness in children and show how wellness stems from healthy interactions
between an individual and his or her environment. They quoted evidence from meta-
analytic studies of preventative interventions and stated that we can decrease the damage
of some emotional and psychological issues by understanding how our interactions with
our environment can shape our lives. They concluded that if we study how children thrive
and then teach them a “resilient mindset”, we could help to offset the risk factors that can
lead to anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. They identified three types of
protective factors: dispositional traits that allow the person to view the environment in a
positive manner, family environments that encourage independence, trust, proactivity and
healthy relationships with others, and community support that builds self-concept and
self-confidence.
Research into resilience with a direct focus on people with LD has shown similar
findings. Researchers at the Frostig Center, a school and research facility in Pasadena,
California, conducted a twenty-year longitudinal study of fifty students who were
identified as learning disabled and had been enrolled in their school at some point from
RESILIENCE 8
1958 to 1965. The primary question guiding this study was to determine the
factors that either promoted or prevented people with LD from being successful in
adulthood (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins & Herman, 1999). Indicators of success included
“educational achievement, employment attainment/accomplishments, social and familial
relationships and life satisfaction” (p. 36). They found that there were common attributes
among the participants deemed successful according to the above criteria: “self-
awareness, proactivity, perseverance, emotional stability, appropriate goal setting, and
effective use of support systems” (p. 37). These researchers stated in a subsequent article
that these “success” attributes were “more powerful predictors of success than numerous
other variables, including IQ, academic achievement, life stressors, age, gender,
socioeconomic status, and ethnicity” (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins & Herman,
2002). Ofiesh and Mather (In Goldstein and Brooks, 2013) identify LD students as being
vulnerable because their difficulties in school damage their self-concept and affect them
socially, emotionally and behaviourally. They also list protective factors gathered from
research on resilience and LD such as promoting self-awareness, changing self-
perceptions, goal setting, creating an internal locus of control, maintaining high
expectations, emphasizing autonomy, and building a strong system of support.
In sum, the following is a compilation of the factors that make up resilience as
stated by the authors above: (Brooks, 2004; Bernard, 1998; Goldstein and Brooks, 2012;
Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins and Herman, 1999; Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins and
Herman, 2002; Ofiesh and Mather, 2013). There is some variation in terminology but the
experts in the field stress these factors:
RESILIENCE 9
Self-Awareness, Emotional Competence and Relational Skills
-Self-awareness and understanding of strengths and weaknesses
-Social awareness, emotional literacy, impulse control -Empathy and caring
-Self-esteem, self-confidence, self-efficacy and self-advocacy
Thinking and Problem Solving Skills
-Ability to think abstractly, flexibly and reflectively
-Ability to attempt alternate solutions to both cognitive and social problems Autonomy and Personal Competence
-Sense of personal identity; belief in one’s ability to act independently and exert some control/ influence over one’s environment; sense of mastery
-The ability to separate oneself from dysfunctional environments
-Sense of personal competence
-Commitment to personal excellence and achieving goals
-Persistence and commitment to learning
Sense of Belonging, Purpose and Possibility
-Sense of purpose and future; hopefulness, hardiness, belief in a bright future, optimism
-Healthy expectancies, goal directedness, motivation to achieve through effort
All of these resiliency attributes can be found in other areas of educational research that
pertain to students with LD and how to help them succeed. It may help to break down
these areas and survey them individually to see how they relate to self-efficacy,
motivation and self-regulated learning.
RESILIENCE 10
Self-Concept, Self-Awareness and Self-Efficacy
According to Elbaum and Vaughn (2001), school is the arena where children and
adolescents form much of their self –perception and is second only to the family context
in shaping their ideas about themselves. In school, students form perceptions of
themselves academically, socially, and behaviourally that, when negative, can be
detrimental to their success. A negative academic self-concept affects performance,
motivation and future life outcomes. These researchers reviewed literature regarding the
academic self-concept of students with LD as compared with typically functioning
students. In one study (Chapman, 1988) LD students showed a disadvantage in academic
self-esteem of -0.81, and in another (Prout, Marcal and Marcal, 1992) the standard
deviation for negative academic self-concept was 0.71.
In their meta-analysis of studies on interventions to enhance self-concept, Elbaum
and Vaughn found that academic interventions had a significant effect for all students and
counseling/mediated interventions were more effective for adolescents. Could this be
because older students were more firmly entrenched in their negative self-
concept? Developing a realistic sense of self is the cornerstone to interventions with LD
students, as it allows them to understand their personal strengths and weaknesses and
develop a plan to capitalize on strengths and develop effective strategies to cope with
weaknesses (Butler in Wong, 2004).
Changing negative self-perceptions begins with self-awareness, but factors such
as motivation, self-determination and self-regulation are essential for creating self-
RESILIENCE 11
efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as believing that one is capable of achieving a
desired outcome. According to Klassen (2007), the difference between the two concepts
is this: “self-concept is defined as a reflection of one’s competence (“I’m pretty good at
spelling”), self-efficacy captures one’s perceived capabilities in a particular situation
(“I’m confident that I can do pretty well on this spelling test”) (p. 495). His quantitative
study showed that LD students were low in self-efficacy, but often overestimated their
performance abilities. Teachers in this study postulated that this was a self-protective
tendency. This skewed view indicated a lack of self-awareness that can be as damaging as
a negative self-concept because “successful performance depends on a realistic
evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses” (p.502). He concluded that to build self-
efficacy in LD students, teachers should use positive performance feedback for effort,
examine student’s attributions, and engage in metacognitive evaluation of past
performances to create realistic self-knowledge.
Motivation
Several motivational concepts are mentioned in the literature on resilience:
mindsets, attributions and self-determination theory. Carol Dweck’s (2000) concept of
implicit self-theories, more popularly known as mindsets, defines two extremes of a
spectrum of how people view their own intelligence. People with a fixed, or entity theory
(also referred to as an achievement orientation) view intelligence as something we have a
set amount of, and believe that cannot change, so they continually compare themselves to
others and must validate their intelligence continually. They are afraid of attempting
difficult tasks because they don’t want to be seen as “dumb”.
RESILIENCE 12
People with an incremental, or growth mindset (also referred to as a
mastery orientation) believe that intelligence is malleable, and can increase through their
effort, and so they work hard to become smarter. They take on challenges with the
understanding that this is how they can develop their intellectual capability and problem
solving skills. Yeager & Dweck (2012) stated that these mindsets affect our reactions
and judgments about ourselves that can lead to patterns of thought, or attributions, that
reinforce either resilience or vulnerability.
Chodkiewicz & Boyle (2014) review psychologist Bernard Weiner’s attribution
theory and the influence it has on learning. Weiner argued that the reasons, or attributions
we give to our successes and our failures shape how we react to them. These attributions
occur in three areas: stability, locus of control, and controllability. These factors form
the basis of either an adaptive or maladaptive style of attribution. Chodkiewicz & Boyle
explain “an adaptive attributional style involves attributing the causes of success to
stable, controllable and internal factors (such as ability) and those of failure to unstable,
controllable and external factors (such as effort) (p.79). Thus we can see how this
adaptive style of attribution is both dependent on and fostered by a growth mindset and
positive self-efficacy beliefs.
On the other hand, “effective learning is hindered when individuals attribute
success to external, unstable and uncontrollable factors (such as luck) and failure to
internal, stable and uncontrollable factors (such as lack of ability) (p. 79). This
maladaptive pattern of attributions demonstrates how students with a fixed mindset will
perpetuate negative self-efficacy beliefs and will lose motivation to persist with
RESILIENCE 13
challenging tasks. Research has shown that direct teaching of growth mindsets
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007) and attribution retraining (Chodkiewicz &
Boyle, 2014) can impact student achievement and self-efficacy.
The third motivational theory that has a direct correlation with resilience literature
is self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan, alone and in collaboration with other
scholars, have written a formidable body of literature explaining their theory; they
describe it as “the investigation of people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate
psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and personality
integration” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 68). They have postulated that all humans are born
with curiosity and a desire to learn. This “intrinsic” motivation to explore and engage
with their world can either be fostered or extinguished by the contextual situations in
their lives (2000). They created a motivation continuum, with complete amotivation
(where the only motivation comes from external sources) at one end, intrinsic motivation
on the other end, and various stages of internalization in between (2009). Their research
has shown that people with more internally regulated motivation are happier, more
excited about life, more confident, have higher self esteem, perform better and have more
general well-being than people who are more externally regulated in their motivation
(2000).
They identified three basic psychological needs that are crucial for this positive
development: relatedness, competence and autonomy. People are more likely to
internalize behaviours that are not intrinsically interesting (such as applying themselves
to school work) when they are modeled by people they want to feel related to, when they
RESILIENCE 14
feel efficacious about them, and when they feel they have choice and volition.
Deci and Ryan’s research into these needs in relation to education has shown that
teachers who are controlling (and therefore assume a lack of competence) create a loss of
initiative and less effective learning in their students, whereas teachers who encourage
autonomy create intrinsic motivation and a willingness to take on greater challenges
(2000). They link autonomy with a perceived internal locus of control (attribution) and
with a willingness to take on challenges (growth mindset).
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learning takes the concepts described above, self-awareness, self-
concept, self-efficacy and motivation, and embeds them in a cyclical metacognitive
process that enables students to become mindful, strategic and resilient learners. Hadwin
(in Good, 2008) defines self-regulated learning (SRL) as “the deliberate planning,
monitoring, and regulating of cognitive, behavioural, and affective or motivational
processes toward completion of an academic task” (p. 175). Many perspectives on SRL
are rooted in Bandura’s (2001) social learning theory, which postulated that humans have
a unique ability to understand and control our processes, which he called “agency”. This
agency allows us to set goals and then plan, execute, reflect on and learn from our pursuit
of them. According to Cleary & Zimmerman (2004), “self-regulation involves learners
who proactively direct their behaviour or strategies to achieve self-set goals. They also
rely on affective, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural feedback to modify or adjust
their strategies and behaviours when unable to initially attain their goals” (p. 538). As
with all the other concepts already discussed, self-regulated learning is contextual and
RESILIENCE 15
individual. Social cognitive approaches stress the “triadic” nature of personal,
environmental and social factors that affect self-regulation (Bandura, 1986 in
Zimmerman, 2000), that continually change depending on home life, the task, the teacher,
the class, self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic motivation and expected outcomes, to name a
few.
Hadwin (in Good, 2008) summarized how many researchers in the field, including
Zimmerman, Winne and Hadwin, and Pintrich, have developed recursive, cyclical models
of self-regulated learning designed to help students analyze and plan for a task, choose
appropriate learning strategies and reflect on their success. Cleary & Zimmerman (2004)
described this process as encompassing three phases: forethought (goal setting, strategic
planning, motivational beliefs), performance control (self-control, self-observation,
strategy choice and implementation, self-monitoring), and self-reflection (self-judgment,
self-reactions, causal attributions, and adaptive inferences regarding the effectiveness of
strategies used), which will then influence the forethought phase going forward.
Butler (2010) described the critical elements of this process as “specific attention
to how students adapt strategies reflectively and flexibly within recursive cycles of task
analysis, use, and monitoring” (p. 82). In Butler’s model, monitoring includes self-
monitoring and also seeking and incorporating external feedback from teachers, peers,
etc. She also stressed other key instructional goals in this process: promoting a positive
self-concept (competence), motivational beliefs (attributions, mindset), and self-efficacy
(competence and autonomy). Her emphasis on motivation is supported in a meta-analysis
of the literature on goal orientation, self-regulated learning and performance conducted
RESILIENCE 16
by Cellar, Stuhlmacher, Young, Fisher, Adair, Haynes, Twichell, Arnold,
Royer, Denning and Riester (2011), which determined that a mastery goal orientation
“influences the frequency of self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-efficacy and more
positive self-reactions” (p. 478).
Building on a socio-constructivist model of SRL, Butler designed a program
called Strategic Content Learning (SCL), and has applied it in both post secondary and
secondary school environments with positive results (2003). In seven studies at the post
secondary level, her data showed improvement in “students’ task performance;
metacognitive knowledge about tasks, strategies, and self-monitoring; perceptions of self-
efficacy” and in “patterns of attributions strategies that addressed their individual needs.
They were also observed to take an active role in strategy development and to transfer
strategic performance across contexts and tasks” (p. 50). In a two-year study in a
secondary school setting, students supported by teachers drawing on SCL principles were
shown to have similar outcomes: “at all-schools meetings and in exit interviews, teachers
reported observing gains for students in terms of their (a) independence and self-
directedness; (b) self-confidence, pride, and sense of control over learning; and (c)
awareness of the value of their individualized learning strategies to their academic
success” (p. 53).
It is clear that we can create more resilient and successful students by enabling
them to become more self-aware and to have a realistic concept of their abilities, by
promoting a growth mindset, appropriate attributions and self-determination, and by
involving students in the recursive cycle of self-regulated learning.
RESILIENCE 17
The IEP Connection
When I was given the task of creating a new IEP process and program for our
school, I realized that this was an opportunity to increase student engagement,
motivation, agency and self-regulation by having students become more involved in their
IEPs. As seen above, goal setting and reflection are integral to resilience as they increase
feelings of self-efficacy, provide motivation and are essential to self-regulation. While
there is research regarding students participating in IEP team meetings, there is very little
research on students making contributions to their IEPs in the form of goals.
There is a large body of literature on how increased student participation in IEP
meetings and the transitions process increases self-determination. For example, Agran
and Hughes (2008) described the behaviour of self-determined students and it sounds
very much like self-regulation; they “make choices, act on those choices, experience the
results, and then make new choices” (p. 69). They go on to describe autonomous, self-
regulated and problem solving behaviours. Their study on students’ opinions of their
IEPs concluded that very few students were being given the chance to have input in IEP
development, which “negates their active and motivated involvement in their
development and learning” (p. 74).
Martin, Van Dyke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner and Lovett (2006) conducted
research that measured the increase in self-determined behaviours in students who had
been given instruction in the Self-Directed IEP (Martin et. al., 1997) instructional
program. When compared to a control group, students who had received instruction in
RESILIENCE 18
how to lead their IEP meetings showed significant gains in both starting, leading
and participating in their meetings. Students also reported “significantly higher positive
perceptions of their IEP meetings” (p. 313).
In 2010, Bernard and Lechtenberger conducted a groundbreaking study to
determine if there was a link between IEP participation and academic
achievement. Using the data collected from the Special Education Elementary
Longitudinal Study (SEELS, 2005), they concluded that there was a “significant positive
association between IEP participation and academic achievement” (p. 346).
Unfortunately, as stated above, the nature of our school and the IEP process
prohibits physical IEP meetings, and therefore student led meetings. Instead, I decided to
have students contribute a goal to their own IEP and use the self-regulation cycle to see if
it would increase self-determination and feelings of autonomy.
An initial search of the literature showed there was very little peer reviewed
research on student contributions to the IEP. In fact, I only found one PhD thesis that
contained aspects of my enquiry. Kunsch (2010) conducted a study with four middle
school students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Her enquiry focused on whether self-
monitoring certain behaviours (calling out, time spent on task, organizational skills and
asking for help) would increase goal attainment. Results of the study were
inconclusive. According to Kunsch, results were “highly variable across participants and
within participants. All participants experienced some improvement in their target
behaviors, but a functional relationship was established for only one participant” (p.
73). She was originally planning on having students create their own goals to increase
RESILIENCE 19
student engagement, but as this was not possible, she chose a behaviour related
goal from the IEP. Stated limitations of the study include possible negative motivational
effects rising from this lack of choice. As discussed above, motivation is an essential
component in studies linking self-regulated learning, self-efficacy, resilience and student
achievement. The outcome of this study reinforced the importance of having students
create their own goals to give them ownership and autonomy in the process.
My enquiry will explore what I can observe from having students contribute their
own goals to their IEPs; will I see steps towards self-awareness, self-efficacy, increased
motivation and self-regulated learning, ultimately resulting in greater resilience,
depending on student’s individual circumstances? What can I learn from the literature
and from implementing the project to inform my own practice and that of the school as a
whole?
The Project: Vision vs. Reality
The original vision was that in September a short survey would go out to the
students to give a baseline about how much the students knew and understood about their
IEP and its function in their education. Then the tutoring department would deliver a
lesson about creating SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time
bound), and the entire student body would create a goal with their tutors, in a multi
sensory way, which would appeal to them and provide engagement and motivation. To
ensure student autonomy and self-direction, there were to be no qualifications around the
type of goal a student could set, and it could be academic or personal. Then the students
RESILIENCE 20
would enter their goal, objectives and strategies into a special student tab on the
IEP itself and upload pictures of their multi-sensory goal, with the objective of giving
them more ownership of their IEP. There would be an area on this student tab where they
could revisit their goals each term and reflect on them—what worked, what didn’t—and
revise their goal throughout the year, building self-regulated learning and creating more
self-awareness and self-efficacy.
Within this timeline I would have two sets of reflections to examine to see if the
process was having the effect I was hoping it would have. I would interview a selection
of students to get qualitative comments about their feelings and thoughts about having
their own area on the IEP and I would also have the feedback of the tutors who were
going through the process with the students to correlate with student feedback. This
seemed achievable when I was planning it in the summer. Then real life happened.
When I started this project I had no idea how complicated it would end up
being. Developing an entirely new product from the ground up was turbulent at best. It
was great to have input on how the IEP would function so it was tailored to our own
needs, but there were three issues that were outside of my control. The first revolved
around getting the IEP built and working. What actually happened was that the IEPs
were not ready for teacher input until later than we had anticipated and we barely had
time to get our own goals done in time for review and a Ministry accreditation visit at the
end of October.
In November we were unable to do goal setting with the students because
benchmark testing was being conducted through tutoring and took approximately three
RESILIENCE 21
weeks to finish. The second issue was that the IEP was only one part of the new
School Information System (SIS) being customized, and many things not deemed
“essential” were tabled until a later date to make way for other areas that needed
attention. Once IEP essentials were in place, reports cards were due, so the student goal
section was put on the back burner so the company could build our reporting section. I
revised my plan and we settled on doing the goal setting in January when we returned
from break. My colleague in charge of the SIS assured me that the student goal section
would be complete by then.
When we returned to school in January it was still not done, and he wasn’t getting
any communications from them about when it would be ready. Two weeks after the goal
setting had occurred, I was informed they would not have the student tab ready. And so I
began to revise again. If I couldn’t implement the idea school wide (yet), what could I do
to create a “pilot project” that would come as close to the original idea as possible? It
was certainly a test of my own resilience!
The reality of the project occurred as follows. We went ahead with multi-sensory
goal setting in January with the whole school. As mentioned above, students were
encouraged to create goals in their own way and had autonomy in choosing the type of
goal they would like to add. Many students chose academic goals as they had just
received their first term report cards. We created bulletin boards on the tutoring floor with
the intention of fostering a community of goal setting in accordance with self-
determination theory and the concept of relatedness, modeling goal setting and making it
RESILIENCE 22
an integral part of the school. Examples of the goals created by the students and
the goal board are included below:
RESILIENCE 23
RESILIENCE 24
Then I chose one class that I teach myself to be part of the pilot project
so I would have access to them and be able to use some class time to do surveys, conduct
interviews and talk to them during the process. To still provide the experience of
entering a goal into their IEPs, I decided to have them enter their goals into the teacher
area where we add our goals. Though not ideal, I hoped that it would still mean
something to them to see their name on the document. I chose my grade 11 class simply
because they are the only class I have that doesn’t have a provincial exam, so I have more
time to play with. There are seven students in the class, six boys and one girl. They are a
higher functioning class, despite being at our school because of a variety of learning
disabilities such as disorders of reading and written expression, disorders not otherwise
specified (working memory and processing speed) central auditory processing disorder,
and various combinations of ADHD and ADD (inattentive, combined-type, unspecified
type). To compensate somewhat for the loss of motivation I felt was inevitable because
the student goal tab was not ready yet, I explained to them what a pilot program was and
explained that the intention in the future is for them to have their own goal area. We
defined and looked at examples of “early adopters,” and I asked if they would be early
adopters by allowing me to track their thoughts during and after the process. I explained
that their feedback would shape how we will be doing things in following years. I
assured them their feedback would be anonymous, and I would value anything they had
to say whether positive or negative to attempt to mitigate any response bias.
About five years ago we established a procedure for students to review their IEP
annually with their tutors with the express purpose of building self-awareness. I was
RESILIENCE 25
hoping they would have a general knowledge of the components of the IEP:
cognitive scores and diagnoses, strengths and weaknesses, accommodations and goals. I
wanted to establish a baseline for myself of what they currently understand about these
components. To do so I asked them two simple questions. The first was “What do you
think about your IEP?” The second was “Do you think your IEP is useful to you?”
The responses were interesting to read. Only one student mentioned that it is a
legal document. Another recognized that it would be with her forever. The component of
the IEP that received the most comments was the accommodations section. Most of the
student comments revolved around the accommodations they receive and how important
this is for them to be successful in school and moving on into post secondary. Only one
of them mentioned their “percentiles,” the cognitive scores from the WISC as being what
qualified them for their accommodations. Several mentioned that it documented their
strengths and weaknesses, and one student commented that it showed her weakness and
strengths for current and future teachers “to better understand who I am as a
student.” Another student commented that the IEP documented strengths and
weaknesses, but also contained potential ideas and tools to help him succeed. I was
pleased to see this knowledge in play; we have done a good job in explaining this to our
students and teaching them self-advocacy around their accommodations.
It was interesting to note that none of them recalled the teacher’s goals for them
except one student who had a goal that he disagreed with. His unhappiness reinforced the
idea that students can feel that their education is something that is done to them, and not
with them, and this lack of autonomy can be detrimental to student motivation and
RESILIENCE 26
involvement in their IEPs. I noted this comment for future growth—how can
we make this more meaningful? Where can we build in time for teachers to discuss their
goals with the students? I will present this question to the IEP team at our next meeting to
brainstorm some ideas to implement this idea.
The next step was to meet with the tutors of my students to ask their help in
entering the goals into the IEP system. I gave them similar guidelines about how to
introduce and accomplish the task, taking care to address bias and avoiding leading
questions, and brainstormed lesson plans with them that addressed the unique learning
styles of their particular students. I felt that the tutors should deliver this in their own
way so the process would be natural and organic, rather than “scripted.” I also asked
them to take notes on any reactions or questions the students had.
The feedback from them was good. They felt that the students took their time and were
thoughtful about the goals they created; they took it seriously and were engaged in the
process. Most of the tutors got the goals entered by the beginning of February, but one
tutor did not, and then her students were both away sick for more that a week, so their
goals did not get entered into the system until February 16th, three weeks before the first
reflection date, set for March 9th. Again, this was not ideal, but when we finally did get
them entered and the students saw their names there with the teacher’s names they
appeared to be both pleased and proud. I have included a sample of goals entered into the
teacher area of the IEP below:
RESILIENCE 27
Tutors then helped students track their goals, again using a variety of methods suited to
the learning style of the student. Here are examples of a checklists created by the
students and the tutors:
Term 2 Goals To hand assignments in on time. Practice using Dragonspeak once a term.
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RESILIENCE 28
Check email and calendar at 5:30 pm. every day.
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Check with every teacher once a week to make sure everything is up-to-date.
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Check goals every Friday with tutor.
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Two weeks later the Student Goal Area was added to the IEP, just in time for the
students to review their progress. It was not perfect; it had grammar errors and the
uploaded picture of the student’s multisensory goal was only there as an attachment, not
as a picture as we had hoped. The goal appeared on the front page, which we didn’t
RESILIENCE 29
want. We put in tickets to have these areas fixed but went ahead with using the
tab so that the rest of the student body got to have the experience of seeing their own
goals on the document. The tab looks like this on the goals page of the IEP:
Once opened, this is the student view:
Note that the third area should read, “What do I need TO get there,” and should include
the word “strategies” in brackets. The fifth area that reads “Attachment” is where the
picture of the student’s goal is uploaded.
One week later we started the assessment of and reflection on the goals. I wanted
to ensure that students were assessing their progress with a growth mindset. I was
concerned that students may feel a lack of self-efficacy if they were not achieving their
goals. The head of Learning Services and myself collaborated on an email that was sent
to all tutors with general guidelines for the review process that read as follows: Please go
RESILIENCE 30
over the following guiding questions to help your student reflect on the their
goals. This information can then be entered into the student goal section on the IEP.
(Most students can do this themselves). Please have them only enter the relevant
information. We want the answers to be in the student’s words so that they take
ownership of their learning by having input into their own IEP. Kindly complete this
activity before we go for Spring break.
Student SMART goal reflection:
1. Review your SMART goal 2. Was it achievable? 3. If yes, what strategies did you use to achieve it? 4. If no, what changes could you make to make easier to achieve? For this question got through the SMART acronym with your student. 5. How did the process of setting a goal help your learning? 6. In what other areas of your life could you set goals?
Here is an example of a goal assessment generated from the general student body:
To reinforce this growth mindset message, I met once more with the tutors of my pilot
students and asked them to highlight the learning potential of the review process. The
RESILIENCE 31
focus of the review was to look at the goal, the objectives and the strategies and
try to objectively evaluate their effectiveness. If the student was on the way to meeting
their goal, what was working for them in the process? Did they find an effective strategy
or monitoring tool that helped them achieve their goal? If the student was not meeting
their goal, what was not working for them? Were the goal and/or the objectives too
broad? Were the strategies ineffective and if so, what new strategies could they try? Did
their monitoring tool work for them or could they find a better way to track their
achievement? Once they analyzed their goals in this way they were asked to utilize this
knowledge to assess their progress and begin the cycle of self-regulated learning. Here is
an example of a finished goal assessment from my pilot group:
Out of the seven, two fully met their goals, four partially met them and one did
not. The one who did not was able to evaluate his goal and came to the realization that it
had not been achievable and that he had learned the importance of that particular piece of
RESILIENCE 32
the SMART acronym. The ones who partially met their goals were able to
reflect on their strategies and evaluate why they were effective or not and suggest other
strategies they might use. They all stated that they were continuing with their goals for
term three with their adjusted strategies. The one who met their goals also wanted to
continue and set a new goal for term three, even when this was not “required”. Many of
the assessments from the rest of the student body also provided displayed the same
determination to continue with goal setting.
RESILIENCE 33
Discussion
Motivation is reinforced when students feel that their voice is heard and respected, and when they feel they have some control over what transpires in their lives (Brooks, 2014, p. 9).
The driving question behind my Master’s program and ultimately this project was
why some students with LDs are able to overcome negative experiences and move on to
become successful adult and some do not. A review of the literature showed that there
are environmental and dispositional characteristics that have been identified as
“protective factors” (Bernard, 1998). These factors allow individuals to respond to their
environment in a positive way, even when facing failure or obstacles. To examine these
factors more closely I broke them down into components from various bodies of research
to examine how they could be incorporated into student goal setting and allowing
students to contribute to their own IEPs.
The factors that I chose because they were highlighted for LD students include
self-awareness, changing self-perceptions, motivation, emphasizing autonomy, and
building a cycle of self-regulated learning. After interviewing my pilot group and
reading the goal assessments done by the general student body I feel that I observed many
of these resilience factors in action. By examining some examples of the relationships
between the literature and these reflections, I am hoping that I can inform and revise both
my personal teaching practice and the IEP student goal project going forward.
RESILIENCE 34
Self-Concept, Self-Awareness and Self-Efficacy
Research in this area showed that academic self-concept is crucial to success in
school for LD students. According to Elbaum & Vaughn (2001), negative academic self-
concept affects performance in school, motivation to persevere, and future life
outcomes. To create a more positive self-concept, students must have a realistic view of
the strengths and weaknesses in their unique learning profiles so they can capitalize on
their areas of strength and develop effective strategies to assist them in their areas of
weakness (Butler in Wong, 2004).
I was pleased to see that most of the students involved in my pilot project
demonstrated a high level of self-awareness about their LDs. This showed me that our
yearly IEP review is working, and has enabled our students to discuss their strengths and
weaknesses openly both individually with me and as a group. I have always included
frank discussions of this kind in my classroom, and find it is one of the most valuable
ways for students to “normalize” their LD by showing them that everyone in the class
struggles with some form of learning. Adding the goal-setting piece to this discussion in
the class was valuable; I observed students having conversations about their goals and
what strategies were working for them, and also making recommendations to each other
about trying particular strategies. I observed more confidence and self-efficacy arise from
these conversations as the students were able to take on the role of expert and advise each
other. This was a great result and I will definitely incorporate this into the class culture I
create through these frank discussions next year.
RESILIENCE 35
When I reviewed the goal assessments I saw many comments that
demonstrated a positive tone that I associated with more self-confidence. One example
from the general population was a middle school student who had a goal to learn three
new vocabulary words every week and to include them in his written work. This student
was enthusiastic about meeting his goal, seemed to make a connection between how
applying his goal had a positive effect on his English mark, and wanted to continue with
the goal in term three of his own volition. Another student from my pilot group had a
goal to improve his English mark by expanding his writing with more detail, analysis and
examples. I observed a change in the way he tackled his writing as we started our unit on
producing a 1500 word research paper, a task that he did not think he could accomplish. I
was pleased to see that he raised his English mark by 10% (which was independently
marked to avoid bias). I also observed a change in this student’s behaviour in class. He
is usually very quiet and shy about speaking in class, and he volunteered to read a large
part in the Shakespeare unit we just started, something he would not have done before. Is
it possible that these two things are related? My feeling is that the confidence he gained
through his success made him more confident in contributing to the class. This is another
area to monitor next year.
These two students stood out for me as examples of how the goal setting process
could possibly contribute to feelings of self-efficacy. If we can help students to link their
goal directed behaviour to positive outcomes in achievement, it could result in a more
positive self-concept, both in academics and in other areas. These examples also give me
RESILIENCE 36
confidence to recommend to the school as a whole that we incorporate this into
our practice going forward.
On the other hand, I observed that some students who did not achieve their goal
seemed to be able to use the metacognitive aspect of assessment to enhance their self-
knowledge. For example, a student had a goal to improve her mark in science, and had
chosen the strategies of going to flex block for extra support from the teacher, creating
study materials and reviewing them more before tests and quizzes. Barriers to achieving
her goal revolved around being unable to do those things as often as she had intended due
to being involved in the school play. She was unable to attend flex block as much as she
had hoped to, and time for review was eaten up with learning her lines. She transferred
her goal to term three, when the play is finished. I felt that her assessment showed a step
towards understanding what she was able to accomplish in a certain time frame, thus
improving her self-knowledge. If she can learn from this experience she may be more
aware of outside factors that impact her achievement and take this into account when
setting goals in the future. This reinforced for me how important reflection is in the
attainment of resilience.
Another student had created a goal to focus for at least half of the day. I observed
that he partially achieved this, and his reflection revealed that he had not put as much
effort into it as he could have. My interpretation of this is that he became more aware
that focusing is a choice and that he doesn’t always make that choice. I noted that he had
added a strategy to his original goal to use headphones during work times so his
classmates do not distract him, which led me to believe that he had gained more insight
RESILIENCE 37
into why he lost focus at certain times. I felt that this was a crucial step for
him. If he can use this self-knowledge to first identify what kinds of choices he is
making and then to alter them, he will be able to self-monitor and self-regulate his
attention more.
These examples were very helpful to me because they reinforced my idea that a
positive framing of the goal assessments was crucial when dealing with students who had
not achieved their goal to ensure they were not discouraged by it. The questions we
developed for the tutors to guide them in helping their students to evaluate the process
were crucial to ensure that students became more self aware in a positive way, and to
keep the students from attaching negative attributions when they did not attain their
goal. I will use these guiding questions to develop more in depth training materials for
next year’s goal setting.
Motivation
Goal setting and motivation go hand in hand. As the literature indicates, goal
setting can help students develop a growth, or incremental mindset (Dweck,
2000). People with a growth mindset believe that intelligence is malleable and can be
increased through effort; working hard to attain a goal can reinforce this mindset. When I
first learned about this theory I thought it was far too simplistic, but applying it in this
project really highlighted for me the power mindsets can have. My student who
increased his English mark by ten percent consciously put more effort into adding detail
and examples into his written work. It was amazing to watch his growth. It will be
RESILIENCE 38
interesting to track his progress next year to see if by working together we can
ingrain a mindset shift that not only applies to his writing but can also be generalized to
other situations.
Another example of the power of mindsets at work was a student whose goal was
to hand in homework on time. She chose two strategies; going to flex block with her
teachers on a rotating basis each week, and finishing her homework when she got home
before watching TV. She seemed to associate the effort she expended with a better
homework record and a better understanding of the material to be learned, which then
resulted in a higher grade. The exciting thing for me about her reflection was the insight
she gained about how to improve her understanding and confidence with the course
content. Her focus was not on the improved grade (fixed mindset), but on how her effort
resulted in a growth in her knowledge.
These student examples also demonstrated to me that my ideas about the
connections between mindsets, attributional style and self-efficacy are important to
highlight as we move forward. I observed that these students learned that their success
did not depend on their lack of ability, but in fact could be attributed to how much effort
they expended. These adaptive attributional shifts could help them to reinforce a growth
mindset and give them motivation to continue with this level of effort. If we can help
these students to continue in this positive cycle, I believe that their feelings of self-
efficacy will continue to increase. Once I finish my degree I envision creating a series of
professional development seminars to introduce these motivational concepts to our staff
RESILIENCE 39
and to support them in modeling and teaching growth mindsets and adaptive
attributions in all areas of school life.
Adopting a growth mindset and changing attributions are initial steps in creating
the internalization of motivation that is central to self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 2000, 2009). In order for people to associate with and internalize motivation to
complete tasks, such as schoolwork, that do not hold intrinsic motivation for them, three
basic psychological needs must be met: relatedness, competence and autonomy. A good
example of this theory manifesting in practice was illustrated by a severely dyslexic grade
five student who set a goal to read a chapter book. Reading is a very difficult task for
her, but I observed from her reflection that she had support from her tutor and her parents
that led to a successful outcome. She read three pages a day with her tutor in class and
three pages at home with her mother, alternating turns to read. It is possible that the
value placed on this behaviour created a feeling of relatedness with her tutor and her
family when reading, which motivated her to continue with it.
It seemed to me that this also helped her with her feelings of competence. Instead
of reading one book, she continued on to finish three more, which could be interpreted as
a growing self-confidence and increased internalization of the goal. The student chose
the books she wanted to read, which ensured she experienced autonomy and agency. By
going through the goal setting process she progressed from being primarily externally
motivated to read because she had to for school to becoming intrinsically motivated to
read for the joy of it.
RESILIENCE 40
The need for relatedness is often the spur for people to internalize
behaviours they are not intrinsically motivated to do, because individuals, peers, or
societal groups they want to be connected with value these behaviours. Upon reflection, I
feel that creating a goal oriented culture within the school and valuing it by having the
goal boards prominently displayed contributed to feelings of relatedness, as did openly
discussing goals with students. I feel that this will grow as we continue with student goal
setting an it becomes part of what we do every semester. A note for future growth in this
area would be to engage parents in the value of supporting this at home. I could include
relevant articles and items in the school newsletter and offer a parent presentation on
what we are doing and how they can increase motivation and goal setting at home.
Feeling competent when engaging in behaviours that are not intrinsically
motivated is also crucial to internalizing motivation; this links with the concept of self-
efficacy and the confidence to succeed in a task. Our school uses the Orton-Gillingham
method of language tutoring, and the key tenet in this program is to start at a place where
the student can be successful and go from there. Using the vehicle of the IEP to set and
reach achievable goals gives the students the opportunity to increase their feelings of
competence. The gains shown by my student with the research paper and my
observations of comments from other students who had reached their goal demonstrated
once again how crucial feeling competent is. I have learned that choosing to do this
through the IEP has focused the growth in competence in the areas of greatest weakness
for the students, and having success in these crucial areas should continue to be the focus
going forward.
RESILIENCE 41
Feeling autonomous is also a critical element in internalizing motivation.
Choosing to engage in an activity or behaviour means that you understand why you are
engaging in it and understand its worth to you. This project was based in the idea that
giving students autonomy to choose a goal for themselves could have a beneficial effect
in their own self-determination. Observing how students reacted to being able to choose
during this process was both enlightening and celebratory. In many cases I observed
increased motivation when working on a goal of choice as opposed to a teacher set
goal. I feel that incorporating the key tenets of self-determination theory was critical for
the success of this project. These observations have convinced myself, other faculty and
administration that this project should be implemented as policy in the school.
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated learning combines self-awareness, planning and goal setting,
strategic choices, motivation and reflection in a cyclical and metacognitive process to
successfully complete academic tasks or regulate behaviours that support academic
success. When setting SMART goals, students had to engage in task analysis and
planning by breaking down their goal into smaller objectives and choosing strategies and
identifying tools they would need to achieve it. They engaged in self-observation, self-
monitoring and metacognition while implementing their strategies and working on their
goals. They reflected on the effectiveness of their tools and strategies when they assessed
their progress, came to conclusions about their effectiveness and made causal attributions
about why they had the outcomes they did.
RESILIENCE 42
One of the most crucial elements of self-regulated learning is to use
these conclusions to then inform the planning phase going forward. Due to technical
problems and time constraints I was unable to move the project into a second phase of
goal setting. Nevertheless, I was able to observe instances of students evaluating their
strategies, deciding which ones they would use again and which ones they would
abandon as not effective, and to observe that many students were continuing with their
goals of their own volition. For example, one of my pilot students chose to set reminders
for himself on his iPad to remind him to check his agenda for homework that needed to
be completed that night. I noted from his assessment that this did not work for him
because he forgot to set them or he did not always hear the alarm when it went
off. Instead he changed his strategy and set an alarm clock at home to go off at 5:30
every day. It was good to observe that this student was able to reflect on the
effectiveness of his strategy and is continuing to use it.
Another example was from an elementary student with a goal of paying attention
to instructions in class. He had a strategy of asking his teacher to put a smiley face in his
agenda. Through reading his assessment I could see that he thought he was better at
paying attention, but had lost track of his smiley faces because he kept forgetting to ask
his teacher to circle them. He changed his strategy to having a smiley face calendar on
his desk to remind him to ask the teacher daily. He is also continuing with his goal in
term three. My interpretation of these examples is that these students were taking steps
to becoming more self-regulated through using metacognition to evaluate their strategies
and replace them if needed. These examples highlighted for me the importance of
RESILIENCE 43
reflection in this process and the need to build in several check in points
throughout the year to create opportunities for evaluating strategies, building
metacognition and increasing self-regulated learning in our students. Did evaluating and
refining their strategies give them the internal motivation to continue with their goals
after the “required” time frame? Have these students moved into another cycle of
regulation autonomously? Only time will tell, and I look forward to seeing what gains
the students make next year.
The IEP Connection
The questions that connected resilience attributes to Individual Education Plans
revolved around research from transitions literature that showed that students who were
trained to be involved in their IEP meetings showed gains in self-determination and self
efficacy when participating in those meetings. So in an environment where there are no
IEP meetings, what could I learn from having students add their own personal goal to that
document? Once my group of seven students had reflected on and assessed their goals I
asked them about the experience of goal setting and of contributing to their own IEPs. I
conducted a brief personal interview with them to collect their feedback. I once again
asked two questions. The first was “How did you feel about the goal setting process in
general?” The feedback I received reinforced in my mind the benefits of goal setting. I
observed a positive tone in both the written reflections and the interviews. I was able to
identify a few common themes in the responses. The first was that setting goals for
themselves seemed to be useful, whether they met the goal or not. The second was that I
observed them making an association between how writing their goals down made them
RESILIENCE 44
more concrete, helped put into perspective what they wanted to achieve, and
allowed them to focus more on the steps to get there.
The second question was “How did you feel about having your goal on your
IEP?” The feedback here was also positive about setting goals themselves rather than
have others do it for them. The autonomy to choose for themselves seemed to be
associated with having more input into their own education, and with an increased sense
of ownership in their learning.
An interesting point arose from this question that I had not considered
beforehand. This revolved around having teachers being able to observe the goals. For
some, having teachers check in with them and remind them almost became a strategy in
itself to help them keep on track. There seemed to be a shift towards a feeling of
partnership, allowing more discussion and making it easier to ask for help. I also saw a
down side to this, as having the goals made public could also result in feelings of pressure
and embarrassment. This gave me pause, because this could backfire on a student who is
non-resilient and contribute to a negative self-concept if not framed correctly. It will be
important to carry on with training both staff and students in growth mindsets to avoid
any negative impact.
Other points of interest I am taking away from the interviews are
recommendations to start earlier in the year and to include more discussion between
students and teachers about both the teacher created goals and the student goals. I believe
that these will be the next crucial steps to make the process more authentic for everyone
involved. If teachers and students can discuss the outcomes they are looking for it will
RESILIENCE 45
allow students to become more involved in all of the goals, giving them more
responsibility and autonomy. Another point of interest was that I observed a growing
appreciation for how much work went into the IEPs and the value they could have when
transitioning to post secondary or employment, and an enthusiasm to continue with
contributing to their IEPs in the future.
Overall, I believe that this was a good first step to give student’s more ownership
and autonomy, but it was only a step.
Next Steps
After reviewing the results of this enquiry we started a team to work on
incorporating the feedback from the students into our plans for next year. We had
intended to have the goal setting occur earlier in the year, and will do so going
forward. We are currently working on how to incorporate an IEP day into the fall
semester where teachers can meet with their students to discuss the teacher’s goal one on
one, thereby allowing for student input about strategies that work for them and creating
more communication, partnership and self-regulation for the student. Student goal setting
will be planned immediately after this so students have had input that could help them
formulate their own goal based on their learning profile and level of skill development.
Then we will have another IEP day where students will meet with their teachers to review
their goals and discuss methods of support and strategies to attain them.
We are discussing professional development sessions for staff on motivation,
goal setting and self-regulated learning to increase staff engagement and skills in working
RESILIENCE 46
with the students on their goals. I will lead the team to create these materials
based on the feedback from this project. Parent understanding, support and partnership in
supporting and modeling these ideas have also become a priority that was sparked by the
implementation of this project. We began with a parent education night in February on
the topic of resilience that was the best-attended parent event in recent memory.
We are also discussing using this process as a platform for a student led parent
teacher conference at the end of the year; this could take the form of a portfolio
presentation where students can share their work with their parents and express what they
have learned, how their skills have developed and how they accomplished that, which
will build in more reflection and highlight competence, relatedness and autonomy.
This project has been an amazing learning experience that has helped the school
develop a large section of our strategic plan and will be the basis for implementing
professional development, parent education and initiatives to increase student
involvement and ownership in their learning. I feel that it has strengthened the
connection for all stakeholders between the IEP and resilience factors to help our students
to become successful both in school and in their future lives. It has also strengthened my
conviction that we are truly aligned with our mission statement and are “Changing
destiny by changing minds”.
RESILIENCE 47
References
Agran, M. & Hughes, C. (2008). Students’ opinions regarding their individualized
education program involvement. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals 31(2), 69-76.
Association, A. (2007). What is resilience? Psych Central. Retrieved on August 13,
2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-resilience/0001145
Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology 52(2001). 1–26.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bernard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school,
and community. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development. ED 335, 781.
Barnard-Brak, L., & Lechtenberger D. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic
achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 343
349. doi:10.1177/0741932509338382
Blackwell, L.S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007) Implicit theories of
intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
study and an intervention source. Child Development, 78 (1), 246-263.
Brooks, R. B. (2004). To touch the hearts and minds of students with learning
disabilities: The power of mindsets and expectations. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 2, 9-18.
Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into
RESILIENCE 48
Practice, 41(2), 81-92.
Butler, D. L. (2003). Structuring instruction to promote self-regulated learning by adults
and adolescents with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11 (1), 39-60.
Cellar, D., Stuhlmacher, A., Young, S., Fisher, D., Adair, C., Haynes, S., Twichell,
K., Arnold, A. K., Royer, K., Denning, B.L. & Riester, D. (2011). Trait Goal
Orientation, Self-Regulation, and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 26(4).
Cleary, T.J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A
school based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of
student learning. Psychology in the Schools 41(5), 537-550.
Chodkiewicz, A. R. & Boyle, C. (2014). Exploring the contribution of attribution
retraining to student perceptions and the learning process. Educational
Psychology in Practice: theory, research and practice in educational psychology
30(1), 78-87. DOI:10.1080/02667363.2014.880048
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. (2012). Handbook of resilience in children
(Revised/Expanded.). New York: Springer.
Hadwin, A. (2008). Self-regulated learning. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A
reference handbook. (pp. I-175-I-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781412964012.n19
Kunsch, C. A. (2010). Effects of student self-monitoring of behaviors selected
RESILIENCE 49
from IEP goals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. UMI 3439738)
Learning Disabilities Statistics | LDAO. (2011, January 1). Retrieved August 13, 2014,
from http://www.ldao.ca/introduction-to-ldsadhd/ldsadhs-in-depth/articles/about
lds/learning-disabilities-statistics/
Ofiesh, N. & Mather, N. (2013). Resilience and the child with learning disabilities. In
S. Goldstien & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children. (pp.
329-348). New York, NY: Springer.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. U., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., &
Lovett, D. L. (2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings:
Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidence-based practice. Exceptional
Children, 72(3), 299-316.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement:
Motivation, learning and well-being. In Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school, 171-196. New York: Routledge
Yeager, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When
students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational
Psychologist, 47(4), 302314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.72280