Resilience elements in students with learning disabilities

Resilience Elements in Studentswith Learning Disabilities

Ä

Maurice MillerIndiana State University

Seven elements of resilience are identified in college students who havelearning disabilities. These elements become the bases for approachesto assisting children in constructing resilience when facing such diffi-culties. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 58: 291–298,2002.

Keywords: resilience; learning disability

Professional interest in resilience is increasing, and this interest appears to be heightenedby illustrative examples of famous people who have shown themselves to be resilient.This attention is particularly drawn to people who have achieved fame or distinction eventhough they have to contend with a disability. Famous figures from the historic (e.g.,Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to the current (e.g., Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder) quicklycome to mind. Questions arise as that resilience is considered, and those questions are thefocuses of this article. Three questions are particularly of note: What, in fact, is resil-ience? What goes into the construction of resilience? How can resilience be developed orenhanced? A study of resilient individuals who have learning disabilities (LD) will beused to address these questions.

What Is Resilience?

The fascination with resilience undoubtedly stems from comparing it with risk. That is,individuals who are regarded as being resilient are considered so because they are notsuccumbing to what are generally regarded as risk factors (Fraser, 1997), and some chil-dren present the “puzzling problem” of prevailing over great adversity (Fraser, 1997,p. 3). However, professionals have not reached consensus in defining or describing justwhat is meant when using the termresilience.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Maurice Miller, Department of CommunicationDisorders, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809; e-mail: [email protected].

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 58(3), 291–298 (2002)© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.10018

Some use the term to describe simply the absence of psychopathology or of maladap-tive behavior in high-risk situations where psychopathology or such behavior would havebeen anticipated (Luthar & Zigler, 1991). Beardslee (1989) succinctly defined resilience as“unusually good adaptation in the face of severe stress.” Undefined, though, is “unusuallygood adaptation.” Garmezy (1993) prefers the termresilientto other possible terms, suchas “invulnerable,” for resilience means to “spring back,” and “the central element in . . . re-silience lies in the power of recovery and in the ability to return once again to . . . patternsof adaptation and competence” (p. 129). Each of these definitions connotes the wonder—and the surprise—of achievement “against the odds” (Werner & Smith, 1982).

Alternatively, others describe resilience as accomplishment that would not have beenpredicted because of the individual’s situation. Spekman, Herman, and Vogel (1993), inreference to children with learning disabilities, note that outcome measures have beenbased exclusively on academic achievement, though, “this area needs expansion” (p. 62).Werner’s (1993) criteria are that the individuals are not different from the norm on dimen-sions of school or work, relationship with spouse or mate, relationship with children,relationship with peers, or in terms of self-assessment. Garmezy, Masten, and Tellegen(1984), specifically looking at children, considered achievement, classroom behavior,and interpersonal competence as indicators of resilience. Nevertheless, most have notedthe serious absence of measures to gauge resilience, particularly in children (Beardslee,1989; Spekman et al., 1993). Until a more precise procedure is developed, most resilienceresearchers will use these indicators of achievement and self-satisfaction, coupled withan absence of psychopathology (Vogel, Hruby, & Adelman, 1993).

It is evident, then, that some individuals do show resilience even in the face ofhindrances or obstacles that would be likely to result in difficulty. Miller (1996) describedwhat are generally regarded as risks, including having a specific learning disability. Infact, Keogh and Weisner (1993) characterize the outcome of many individuals who haveLD as distinctly “gloomy” (p. 4). Spekman, Goldberg, and Herman (1992) note that amajority of individuals with LD “remain financially dependent, live at home, and . . . arein low status jobs. Many are reported to have ongoing self-esteem and emotional diffi-culties, problems with self-perception and motivation, and high rates of dissatisfactionwith their lives” (p. 162).

Thus, researchers have acknowledged the hazards likely for individuals with learn-ing disabilities, and they have shown that some who do have LD succeed “against theodds.” However, there has been little investigation of the elements of that resiliencespecifically for individuals with learning disabilities. Both Miller (1996) and Morrisonand Cosden (1997) reviewed related literature and hypothesized what some of thesehazards and possibilities might be. Further, Werner and Smith’s (1982) seminal studydemonstrated that children with LD could be included in the same resilience pool asothers who faced resilience hazards (Werner, 1993). In addition, Gerber and Reiff (1991)showed the usefulness of having individuals with LD describe their own sources of strength.

Studying individuals whose histories include such risks who nevertheless show resil-ience and do succeed may help to discover what led to that resilience. Hopefully, one canthen design approaches which can lead to resilience in all who face similar circumstances(Richmond & Beardslee, 1988). Accordingly, this study was conducted to attempt todetermine the sources of resilience in these individuals.

Method

This study was designed using college students who met criteria for being designatedas having learning disabilities, including (a) average to above levels of intelligence,

292 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

(b) significant deficits in specific academic achievement areas, and (c) discrepanciesbetween potential and achievement not being due to other factors such as sensory oremotional disabilities or stemming from disadvantaged environments (Brinkerhoff, Shaw,& McGuire, 1993). These individuals were interviewed because “the best place to beginin studying resilient individuals is with what they themselves report about their ownlives, especially about what has sustained them” (Beardslee, 1989, p. 267). Furthermore,standardized instruments for measuring resiliency “do not exist” (Beardslee, 1989, p. 267).

Participants

Students with learning disabilities at a Midwestern state university were solicited for thisstudy from those who were receiving services from an on-campus academic supportcenter. Ten students responded, and of those, six were designated as being resilient becausetheir grades averaged at least B1 in their college major even though their learning dis-ability predicted a less positive outcome. Four were considered nonresilient because theywere not achieving at this level. Thus, the designation of being “resilient” followed anestablished precedent of demonstrating achievement contrary to expectations (Beardslee,1989; Garmezy et al., 1984; Spekman et al., 1993; Vogel et al., 1993; Werner, 1993).

Procedures

Open-ended interviews lasting two hours were held with each participant. Interview ques-tions asked them to recall memories about elementary, middle, and high school as well asteachers, classmates, and events they remembered. Interviews were tape recorded andtranscribed.

Interviews were analyzed using qualitative procedures which have established prec-edent in resiliency studies (Miller, 1997; Richmond & Beardslee, 1988; Spekman et al.,1993). That is, the researcher scoured all transcriptions to identify consistent themes thenre-read each transcription to determine the way those themes appeared in the life of eachindividual (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Consistent themes in responses differentiating theresilient and the nonresilient students were (a) identifiable success experiences, (b) par-ticular areas of strength, (c) self-determination, (d) distinctive turning points, (e) specialfriendships, (f ) encouraging teachers, and (g) acknowledgment of the learning disability.The results were summarized by Miller (1997) and illuminated in a case study (Miller &Fritz, 1998). These themes represent the way these individuals saw, in their own histories,the elements which led to their resilience.

Results

Representative statements of resilient and nonresilient students are exemplified next.These have been edited somewhat because learning disabilities evident in oral expressionoften resulted in nonsequential, ungrammatical expressions.

Identifiable Success Experiences

One of the most noticeable differences between the resilient and nonresilient studentswas the resilient students’ ability to identify success experiences and describe these expe-riences as deliberate steps in their success. Thus, they were able to both identify activitiesin which they might find success and to used them to attain even more success.

Resilience and Students with Learning Disabilities 293

amy ( junior, Social Studies Education major): My eighth-grade year, I joined cross coun-try, and I started to run extra at home. And then I was a school winner, and I evenwent up to my coach and said, “I’m going to win conference.” So it was like, Iachieved—I could actually see achievement.

casey (senior, Recreation Therapy major): Job’s Daughters, you know, helped me a lot,’cause I went from the lowest position that you can take when you first start and Iworked all the way up to the highest. I was queen. I mean, I had my confidence levelpretty high, you know, pretty good at that time.

Less resilient students were either less able to identify such experiences or they werenot persistent in pursuing them. These students compared themselves to others whomthey saw as making accomplishments when they were not:

ann ( junior, English major): Oh, yeah, I mean the whole gamut of emotions, I meananger and fear and disgust and that sort of inner hatred, because there was, you know,the thing that everyone was trying so hard, and they could work themselves throughit, and I just couldn’t work myself through it. And I couldn’t figure how I seemed tobe as intelligent if not more intelligent than some of my friends, but, yet, they coulddo it.

april (senior, Communications major): [Referring to gymnastics] It was probably dumbon my part not to stay with it, and I should have. I wish I did, ’cause I know Icould’ve been good with it. I was very competitive and, not being conceited, but Iwas very good.

Particular Areas of Strength

Resilient students enthusiastically identified single areas of particular strength that theyhad had. They tended to describe them without modesty. They took singular pride in theseactivities, as if being aware that demonstration of this positive ability might outshine anydeficit they had in others areas.

amy: I was in art classes. I always was one of the better art students at the school. Therewas like one other person that was better.

casey: When I was in seventh grade I was one of the top in track and cross-country.derrick (sophomore, Electronics Technology major): I said football is my life, so I just

really practiced up and did my homework my junior year. My senior year I went out,made all city, all who’s who, and I love football. Football was the stuff.

eddie (sophomore, Architectural Technology major): School sports. My freshman year,only reason I was going to school was to socialize and play football and wrestle. It’sthe only reason I was going to school.

Students who were less resilient were less able to identify activities in which they feltthey were particularly able. They also were less apt at describing their performance inareas which might be considered strengths.

ann: Along the way, I got a lot of ‘no’s,’ like, no that’s not right for me, but not a lot of‘yes’s’ along the way. You know, maybe every once in a while, like I was good intheater. I had limited things.


april (cheerleader in college): It does take me a little bit longer to pick things up thansome other girls, but I practice and practice and practice more than anybody elsebecause I need to. And I do it, you know.

Self-Determination

A distinctive element that has been described in previous research is a definite reachtoward self-determination. That this also was found in these individuals is shown in thestudents’ responses.

amy (in response to a question about reactions from classmates): Not that I can remem-ber, but I blocked those things out. I block bad memories out.

casey: I like to do things on my own, and if I going to learn it, I’m going to keep drillingmyself and doing it on my own, like, until it sinks in.

Distinctively, nonresilient students displayed no comparable attribute. Self-determination and self-drive, as in the lack of perseverance noted earlier, were not notedin their comments.

Distinctive Turning Points

Often resilient individuals were able to identify and describe very specific times or eventswhich they then or subsequently saw as turning points. They appeared to keep these intheir memory and reflect on them as motivators at times of subsequent difficulty.

eddie: I said, “Well, I’m gonna show everybody,” you know? I said, “Oh, so I can’t learnwriting?” And, so, I went and made the honor roll. And then I said, “Well, I’m goingto college. That’s what I’m going to do.” And I said I want college prep courses, andthey said, “No, you don’t need college prep courses, you are this.” And I was like,“No, I want college prep courses.” So they said, “Alright. You know, it won’t hurtnothing.” So I got into college prep courses and did really well. I was just, you know,I could do it. And they were like, “Whoa. Well, he could do it.” The more you tell meI can’t do something, the more I’m going to do it. So, going to college was like agrudge against everybody.

Individuals who were not regarded as resilient simply did not reveal any such turningpoints.

Special Friendships

Special friendships—sometimes just one—marked the experiences of those who wereresilient. They appeared to be able to identify individuals who would be compatiblefriends. They made use of these friendships to boost themselves when they were depressedor frustrated.

amy: When I moved [to a private academy for high school] was when I started makingmore friends.

casey: All my friends are back here again. My friends know me and they know my weakpoints to where they can back me up and help me work.


eddie: And one person that actually believed in me was my girlfriend. She just said,“Look, you know, you can do this.” And she was actually the first person that justsaid, “You can do this” and “I believe in you.”

derrick (sophomore, Electronics Technology major): He was always there when Ineeded—not the type of person who would come and go, or leave you when youreally needed them.

Less resilient students’ comments about friendship were, not surprisingly, less dis-tinctive. They were less able to secure friendships, and they were less certain aboutknowing how to rely on friends for support.

john ( junior, Communications major): I never really had the standard amount of friends.april: I think I’m one of the few people in this world who are actually a friend to their

friends. I get stepped on a lot because my friends take advantage of it.

Encouraging Teacher

Resilient students identified particular teachers or school personnel who either foundways to teach these students despite their learning disabilities or who gave them extraattention. It was evident that this was not only because of the characteristics of thatparticular professional but also because the student determined ways to rely on them andseek their assistance.

derrick: My electronics teacher believed in me. He was like, you know, “The sky’s thelimit. Work with your problems, don’t let your problem work on you.”

amy: A teacher assistant. She was an older woman and I’m still real good friends withher. She helped me through the hard time and said, “You can do it.”

Those who were less resilient were quite clear about the discouragement they feltfrom their teachers. Some of their statements were quite emotional, even after severalyears away from that teacher. This element stands out for it illustrates the harshness thatsome teachers showed toward the student’s learning difficulty. In contrast, the more resil-ient students, who surely also had experiences with such teachers, developed ways ofresponding to unsympathetic teachers and not allowing them to shape their self-perceptions of their school performance.

ann: My teachers usually didn’t understand, didn’t have a clue why this smart personcouldn’t do her work. [A seventh-grade teacher] used to have a phrase, and it’s stillin my head: “Tell me no excuses for excuses are only lies.” And sometimes, whenmy disabilities sort of gang up on me and I know I’m not performing well, I hear hisvoice in my head.

brittany (freshman, Pre-Dentistry major): I just had a hard time because my teacherwould just tear up my papers, and she didn’t talk to me or say, “This is what you’redoing wrong.” It was just an F on my paper and she’d hand it back. I didn’t under-stand that.

Acknowledgment of the Learning Disability

Interestingly, the students who demonstrated resilience found it useful to specificallyacknowledge that they had learning disabilities and confronted the way that they affectedtheir achievements. Compensations or additional study efforts were described.


amy: I’ve never hidden my disability from anybody at all. A lot of times I don’t eventhink I have a learning disability, just ’cause I’m so used to it. And then somethingwill happen and it will just remind me that, yeah, I do have one. Doing all this extrastuff, it’s what I’m used to.

Contrastingly, although the less resilient students were aware of their learning dis-abilities, they did not report effective ways of coping with them.

april: I would do homework and stuff, but I’d do it and be like, “Well, if it’s right it’sright, and if it’s wrong it’s wrong. I’ll study for this test. If I know it, I do, and if Idon’t, I don’t.”

brittany: I will not admit [the learning disability]. I will not broadcast it out. I want tobe treated the same. I’ve been treated differently all through junior high and highschool. I want to be treated the same.

Discussion

Although resilience-enhancing strategies are not in ready evidence in the literature, theways these individuals with learning disabilities constructed resilience for themselves isinstructive. Luthar and Zigler (1991) and Rutter (1987) derived strategies for assistingindividuals who are not showing resilience by focusing on the kinds of elements, shownhere, with these individuals. There is, in fact, evidence that individuals can change andcan move from being less strong to being stronger (Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1993). Millerand Fritz (1998) described a variety of approaches which teachers might consider todevelop resilience using the resilience factors emanating from this study. Clearly changecan happen, even among adults who had to deal with learning disabilities as children(Gerber & Reiff, 1991).

The focus of this and most resilience research has been on the developing child.Therefore, suggestions for professionals who can assist in the construction of resiliencealso will pertain to those working with children. Some of the elements identified in thisresearch are less likely to be manipulated by professionals. That is, one cannot assure thata child will have a special friend. One can, however, arrange situations where friendshipsare more likely to occur and strive to overcome the child saying, as John did, “I neverreally had the standard amount of friends.” Further, helping the child both to developfriendship skills and to deal with situations where others are not being friendly can fosterstrength in that child. Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff (1992) describe the process of refram-ing as a way of helping the individual cope with difficult situations. Reframing is “reinter-preting the learning disability experience in a more positive or productive manner” (p. 481).The professional can provide support for the child to reframe negative experiences.

Additionally, it is clear that the professional can assist the child simply in identifyingand interpreting experiences which can be elements of resilience. It is likely, for example,that—possibly because of the learning disability—some positive experiences are over-looked by the child. The professional can help the child identify, describe, and build onsuccess experiences. The child may begin to identify areas of strength, activities withfriends, and approaches used by teachers which may well be bases of resilience once theyreceive focus and attention. These may be used as building blocks in the construction ofresilience.

Elements identified in this study reveal themselves as elements which need particu-lar attention. Itis important for the individual to make statements of self-determinationand to take steps toward accomplishing stated goals. Further, it is quite important that the


individual be aware of and understand the impediment to resilience—in this case thelearning disability.

References

Beardslee, W.R.C. (1989). The role of self-understanding in resilient individuals. American Journalof Orthopsychiatry, 59, 266–278.

Brinkerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education forstudents with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Fraser, M.W. (1997). The ecology of childhood: A multisystems perspective. In M.W. Fraser (Ed.),Risk and resilience in childhood (pp. 1–9). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127–136.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children:A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97–111.

Gerber, P.J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H.B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment suc-cess for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,25, 473–487.

Gerber, P.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1991). Speaking for themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adultswith learning disabilities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Keogh, B.K., & Weisner, T. (1993). An ecocultural perspective on risk and protective factors inchildren’s development: Implications for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 8, 3–10.

Luthar, S.S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resiliencein childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6–22.

Miller, M. (1996). Relevance of resilience to individuals with learning disabilities. InternationalJournal of Disability, Development and Education, 43, 255–269.

Miller, M. (1997). Resilience in university students who have learning disabilities. Learning Dis-abilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 89–95.

Miller, M., & Fritz, M.F. (1998). A demonstration of resilience. Intervention in School and Clinic,33, 265–271.

Morrison, G.M., & Cosden, M.A. (1997). Risk, resilience, and adjustment of individuals withlearning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 43–60.

Richmond, J.B., & Beardslee, W.R. (1988). Resiliency: Research and practical implications forpediatricians. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 9, 157–163.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry, 57, 316–331.

Spekman, N.J., Goldberg, R.J., & Herman, K.L. (1992). Learning disabled children grow up: Asearch for factors related to success in young adult years. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 7, 161–170.

Spekman, N.J., Herman, K.L., & Vogel, S.A. (1993). Risk and resilience in individuals with learn-ing disabilities: A challenge to the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 59–65.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park: CA: Sage.

Vogel, S.A., Hruby, P.J., & Adelman, P. (1993). Educational and psychological factors in successfuland unsuccessful college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 8, 35–43.

Werner, E.E. (1993). Risk and resilience in individuals with learning disabilities: Lessons learnedfrom the Kauai longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 28–34.

Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilience inchildren and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Documents

Resilience elements in students with learning disabilities