The Future Is Worth It: Developing At-Risk Youth Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today’s children and youth face daily social, psychological, economic, and academic challenges as they grow to become independent, valuable members of society (Harrison et al., 2021). While many succeed and thrive despite these challenges, there are youth who face struggles too great to overcome without the proper support and resources. The term “at-risk” has been around for decades, and has been used to label children and youth of all ages, backgrounds, and circumstances (Riele, 2006). A factor of great significance in youth perseverance is resilience (Rak & Patterson, 1996), and though defined in slightly different ways, resilience examines one’s ability to bounce back’ from adversity in life (Sanders et al. 2016; Thakur & Cohen, 2020). The “dynamic process” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543) of resilience is more prominent in some youth than others, raising the question of whether or not resilience can be taught, or at least developed in learning environments. Teachers play a meaningful and positive role in curriculum and character education that supports at-risk students (e.g., Sanders et al., 2016). Despite a growing body of research examining dimensions of at-risk youth experiences in education (Cooper & Speece, 1990; Cipriano et al., 2019), there remains a lack of understanding about specific teacher actions that positively impact at-risk youths’ resilience (Sanders et al. 2016). Utilizing Resilience Theory (Ungar, 2004) and Positive Youth Development Theory (PYD) (Vierimaa et al., 2012) as the guiding theoretical frameworks, this narrative student-centred qualitative study sought to understand (1) the teacher qualities and actions that students identify as having a positive impact on the development of their resilience, and (2) how these specific actions and qualities contribute to the development of their resilience. Semi-structured independent virtual interviews with four participants, ages approximately 16-25 years, from a local organization in a mid-sized city in Eastern Ontario revealed that the biggest impact teachers can have on youth and their development of self is having meaningful and genuine student-teacher relationships. All youth reported their desire to be seen as a person, rather than just a student, and to have their teachers acknowledge the adversity they face, and accommodate as needed. The participants reflected the need for positive environments, relationships, and experiences, lining up with PYD methods (Hamilton et al., 2004). Study limitations, research implications, and implications for practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".