Carreira Zafra, C., Signes Signes, M. T. (2024). Identification of teaching needs regarding resilience before a formation program. Aula de Encuentro, volumen 26 (2), Monográfico, pp. 188-210

IDENTIFICATION OF TEACHING NEEDS REGARDING RESILIENCE BEFORE A FORMATION PROGRAM

IDENTIFICACIÓN DE NECESIDADES FORMATIVAS SOBRE RESILIENCIA PREVIO A LA ELABORACIÓN DE UN PROGRAMA DE FORMACIÓN

Carreira Zafra, Cintia¹; Signes Signes, María Teresa²

¹Universitat Abat Oliba CEU,
ccarreiraz@uao.es
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5597-250X

²Universitat Abat Oliba CEU,
msigness60@uao.es
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-5229

Recibido: 11/10/2024. Aceptado: 26/11/2024

ABSTRACT

This study is framed within one of the objectives of the ANDREIA R&D research project, namely the possibility of promoting and building resilience in schools, which requires the active collaboration of primary school teachers.

To make this participation possible, one of the actions carried out in the first phase of ANDREIA was to identify the training needs of teachers in terms of resilience. Once contact had been established with more than twenty schools, interviews were carried out with primary education teachers. After the application of EDINRES+M, the results obtained and classified were assessed using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti.3.

Following the qualitative analysis of these interviews, and taking into account the needs expressed by the teachers, both on a theoretical and practical level, a teacher training course was designed. As set out in this article, the training took place with a marked theoretical-practical format.

In addition to the characteristics and contents of the course itself, the evaluation carried out by the teachers at the end of the course is presented, thus opening up reflection and subsequent debate on the positive consequences of the training.

KEYWORDS: Qualitative diagnostics, formative resiliency assessment, ANDREIA I+D.

RESUMEN

Este estudio constituye un producto derivado de uno de los objetivos del proyecto de investigación ANDREIA I+D, concretamente, de fomentar y construir resiliencia en las escuelas, lo que requiere indefectiblemente la colaboración activa de los docentes de educación primaria.

Para posibilitar esta participación, una de las acciones realizadas en la primera fase del proyecto ANDREIA fue identificar las necesidades formativas de los docentes en relación con la resiliencia. Tras establecer contacto con más de veinte centros educativos, se llevaron a cabo entrevistas con profesores de educación primaria. Mediante la aplicación de EDINRES+M, los resultados obtenidos se analizaron y clasificaron utilizando el software de análisis cualitativo Atlas.ti.3.

A partir del análisis cualitativo de estas entrevistas, y considerando las necesidades expresadas por los docentes, tanto a nivel teórico como práctico, se diseñó un curso de formación para profesores. Como se expone en este artículo, la formación se llevó a cabo con un formato claramente teórico-práctico.

Además de describir las características y contenidos del curso, se presenta la evaluación realizada por los docentes al finalizar la formación, lo que permite abrir un espacio de reflexión y debate sobre las consecuencias positivas derivadas de esta capacitación.

Palabras clave: Diagnóstico cualitativo, evaluación formativa de la resiliencia, ANDREIA I+D.

1. RESILIENCE AS AN EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE

The 20^th century was a violent and turbulent time, as shown by world wars, totalitarian regimes, genocide, etc. These events required our forebears to develop extraordinary abilities to overcome and survive in radically different conditions. In this context, one of the most relevant concepts arose in the field of positive psychology and, later, in that of education: resilience. More recently, in 2019, we were immersed in a global pandemic that affected not only people from the five continents but, above all, the social and economic structure of all the countries of the world. This situation led to many people suffering job losses, developing great uncertainty about their well-being and that of their families, and personal losses, such as the death of loved ones, known people, with practically no opportunity to say goodbye and thus close the bond and life cycle with that person. With or without a pandemic, it seems essential to develop personal skills that allow us to overcome not only traumatic situations including bullying, gender-based violence, behavioural disorders and learning difficulties, but also other minor difficulties and challenges of everyday life.

Thus, fostering resilience in the social and ecological system is an urgent challenge towards the resolution of which the policies of international organizations (UN, 2019; UNICEF, 2015) dedicated to protecting the rights of human beings try to orient themselves. Resilient infrastructures, resilient societies, resilient climate environments and resilient livelihoods are some of the issues that have come to light. We start from the conviction that, as Forés and Grané (2012) express, “we reverse causality and accept that the future can also condition the present and serve as a vector of human action to recreate that future.” (p.9).

We understand resilience as a process of strength in the face of adversity, which implies accepting it and also positively overcoming it, thereby implying personal growth. Readers are encouraged to refer to the works of Barudy and Dantagnan (2009; 2011), Cyrulnik (2007; 2018) and Anaut (2016), Forés and Grané (2008; 2012), Manciaux (2003), Puig and Rubio (2011) and Rojas Marcos (2010), who have contributed to the development of this process and its subsequent application to education over recent decades, since originally resilience referred, in the field of physics, to those materials that, after being subjected to a deforming pressure, could return to their original state.

Currently and increasingly, progress is being made towards the application of the concept to teaching practice, emphasizing a change of perspective in the development of prevention and intervention programs in different disciplines. In this regard, as has been said, it is assumed that resilience can be built and can be built through school education. In the words of Forés and Grané (2012) “building resilient educational environments means strengthening trust, optimism and hope as constitutive elements of the school fabric” (p.15). Precisely for this reason, one of the objectives of the ANDREIA R&D research project is building resilience in schools together with the active collaboration of primary school teachers.

2. IDENTIFICATION OF TEACHING NEEDS: EVALUATION INSTRUMENT, METHOD AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

One of the actions carried out in the first phase of ANDREIA was to establish contact with twenty-four schools, both state and grant-aided, in Madrid, Valencia and Barcelona in order to interview teachers¹. The objective of EDINRES+M, which is related to the results of the study presented in this article, was to identify those training needs of teachers in terms of resilience. Thus, the question that arose was: “What would you need in order to increase your level of preparation in terms of resilience (face-to-face or online training, reading materials, access to professionals in the field, space for the exchange of ideas between teachers…)?” Next, we present the analysis of the results obtained and classified using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti².

To assess the resilience training needs expressed by teachers, the study applied a qualitative methodology using semi-structured interviews. This approach provided in-depth insights into teachers’ perspectives on their existing preparation, their perceived gaps, and their specific needs for resilience-related training.

The mentioned EDINRES+M tool, specifically designed for the ANDREIA study, includes eight dimensions. One of these focuses directly on identifying the types of training and support that teachers require to enhance their resilience-building capabilities. This dimension captures teachers’ self-identified theoretical and practical training needs, preferences for face-to-face or online modalities and suggestions for specific resources, materials, or external support that could enhance their ability to foster resilience.

The data collection followed these structured steps:

-Interview Implementation:

A total of 89 teachers from 24 schools in Madrid, Valencia, and Barcelona participated in the semi-structured interviews. These were conducted face-to-face or via video conferencing, ensuring accessibility and adherence to COVID-19 restrictions. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and fidelity.

-Question Design:

The key question, “What would you need to increase your level of preparation in terms of resilience?” was complemented by follow-up prompts, such as: “What specific tools or resources would make you feel more prepared?”; “How would additional training benefit your ability to work with students?”; “Would you prefer theoretical or practical training—or a mix of both?” These questions encouraged detailed responses and reflections on the teachers’ current challenges and potential improvements.

-Ethical Considerations:

The interview protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Abat Oliba CEU University, ensuring adherence to ethical standards in data collection. Participation was voluntary, and all data were treated confidentially.

As said, the responses were analyzed using Atlas.ti (version 22), a qualitative data analysis software. Thematic coding was used to categorize and interpret the data systematically. This process involved the following:

Teachers’ responses were assigned codes based on recurring themes, such as Theoretical Needs (e.g., “I lack the theoretical base to understand resilience”), Practical Needs (e.g., “I want examples of activities for different age groups”), and Resource Gaps (e.g., “We don’t have enough external help or materials”).

Findings from teacher interviews were triangulated with responses from school directors gathered via EDINRES+D. This ensured consistency in identifying training needs across different educational roles.

Each coded segment was assigned a unique identifier. For example: “(28:42_84)2 would be “Document 28, quotation 42, coded as Theoretical Needs; (7:45_95): Document 7, quotation 45, coded as Practical Needs”. These codes ensured traceability and context for each response.

Cross-referencing findings from the teachers’ responses with data from school directors (EDINRES+D) ensured the reliability of the results.

Broadly speaking, in all the answers the teachers agreed that they needed training in relation to resilience. The type and modality of training was disparate, being grouped into four categories:

1.Theoretical preparation in which the teacher expressed the need to go deeper into aspects related to the concept of resilience, of a theoretical type in any methodological variant (face-to-face or online).

2.Practical preparation in which the teacher expressed the need for training in terms of strategies, activities, dynamics, sharing experiences with other teachers and elements to work on resilience with pupils in any methodological variant (face-to-face or online).

3.Combined theoretical-practical preparation in which the teacher expressed the need for training that combines the two previous ones.

4.Other training needs in which the teacher explained that they needed other types of resilience training, even referring to other educational agents.

In relation to the first category, theoretical preparation, we found a slightly higher demand for this type in grant-aided schools than in state schools. However, in both entities, teachers recognized this need as something fundamental and agreed that they lack it: “We lack all this theoretical part that you mention” (28:42_84); “I think I’m missing all the theoretical part” (28:43_85); “It’s true that I don’t have the knowledge or the bases” (12:30_54); “There’s not enough training in this” (13:30_58).

In different ways, reference was made to the importance of a common solid theoretical base that had not been subjectively filtered by each person but was taught by trained professionals capable of transmitting these fundamentals, which, in the medium (or even short) term, allowed the teaching practice to be guided and helped to objectively judge the individual work of each teacher: “I think it is important to know what we are talking about specifically and that the people who know the most are the specialists, those who can provide us with this theoretical documentation” (3:25_39). This would solve the persistent reflection of some teachers about whether they were doing it well: “Perhaps I lack this base that you say we need in order to have the basics and to truly say I am doing it well or that something needs to be changed” (28:40_82).

In the same way, as can be deduced from these answers, a concern common to most of the interviewees was to talk correctly about the concept of resilience itself. In other words, to have a notion shared by all teachers on which to understand each other, a common language: “I guess I don’t put the word resilience in the terms I have to, in other spaces or other places or emotions, or meetings and I don’t say it, and I think I’m missing the theory more in that way” (28:43_85).

Finally, in terms of the theoretical training they believed they needed, the importance was highlighted of providing bibliographic resources, reading materials, ... all with the aim of achieving better training for students: “Some references, of saying ‘Look, we would recommend this type of reading’, to absorb the content a little more” (21:36_90); “Being better trained and knowing what resilience is and how we can develop it in pupils will be much better” (7:48_99); “Some reading material that we didn’t know about?” (20:34_83 – 85).

In the second category, practical preparation, the answers revolved around the program of specific activities, which we detail later, and the importance of all of them being framed in cases that take into account the child’s developmental stage and specific everyday situations: “Facing adversity is very different for a 9-year-old or a 12-year-old. It should therefore be very specific according to age and characteristics. I think this is what we lack, a more specific training, to, maybe, be able to enrich our projects even more; that they are more specific on this issue of resilience” (7:45_95); “Knowing which tasks or activities are more suitable for younger children, apart from continuous activities, what they are able to understand when they are younger or how to convey the same idea when they are younger and a bit older, despite the fact that older pupils face this more” (22:23_68).

Both on the part of state and grant-aided schools, we observed a notable preference for face-to-face training rather than online. This preference probably derived from the rise in online training that the global COVID-19 pandemic caused by obligation, which allowed both teachers and students to continue their education but at the cost of sacrificing certain valuable aspects, such as being in front of another person without the mediation of a screen: “I would need a face-to-face course”(5:15_35);“I’m a big fan of face-to-face, because I personally learn more or know how to interact better in a face-to-face way” (4:11_42); “Face-to-face training is also very important” (15:35_70). Likewise, teachers demanded that this face-to-face presence be experiential, inspired by the teaching examples of other colleagues and occasionally based on trial and error: “Learning from other colleagues live in the classroom”(10:66_90 );“You learn from other teachers about how they have acted or how you can act” (15:38_72); “Experiential and that has to be close to reality” (24:76_130); “But all very experiential and very practical, and very applicable” (9:45_127); “That they are things that you can do with pupils, more experiential, more practical” (25:46_82); “Yes, learn and remember it” (27:40_133 – 134).

Some of the examples of activities proposed, with a special emphasis on the teachers from grant-aided schools, were: activities including role-playing: “Role-play that they can interpret, ‘nothing has happened to us today, but we are going to pretend to see how you would act’” (9:49_134);the exchange of experiences between teachers: “Because one thing is the theory at university and another thing is what a colleague has experienced” (20:35_87);cooperative work, study of literary texts and film material, dialogues: “Here we are very much about dialogue, about looking for those meeting places with the kids and that maybe is not an activity that materializes on a piece of paper, but rather a conversation based on a situation” (10:56_80); and directed practices and supervision of cases and experiences. In short, “Training in which you end up relating a little of what you already do, a pooling of different resources, materials, experiences, experiences of other schools, other professionals or yourselves, contributions, I mean, in the end, sharing is growing and enriching” (21:35_89).

Beyond resilience skills, introducing issues not directly associated with these, such as emotional work, punishment and conflict management, and even neurodevelopment, which some teachers said they had been previously trained in, was proposed.

The third category related to combined preparation, i.e. theoretical-practical preparation, and many respondents agreed on the need for an adequate balance between both, thus being a reflective practice: “It’s true that it always has to be framed in something theoretical, because knowledge does not take up space” (10:60_85);“That it has a bit of everything, in other words, that it’s not all theoretical, that there’s also a more practical part, but a sharing practical” (28:46_89 – 93); “For me, yes, practicals, but I think it’s also good that they make us think, I don’t know if I’m explaining myself, that making you think also helps you do better later”(19:44_84).

However, there was evidence of a clear position on the part of all teachers for training that is more practical than theoretical: “Theoretically it is very good to know what a word is, but it’s really in practice where you learn, so I like it when we do practical training, ‘If I encounter this, what do I have to do, how can I help you?’” (16:27_128); “The [courses] that helped me the most were the ones that really landed and gave practical examples or were even practical classes that you could later take to your classroom at the level pupils require” (10:60_85); “Sharing experiences, ideas, educational application because ultimately what we need is to see how we can do it” (28:46_89 – 93).

On the other hand, those who proposed a possible combination of theoretical and practical contents favoured the introduction of resources related to the cross-curricular, skills-oriented programming of different subjects: “With these dynamics we can make or have as a school, a cross-curricular program, not only activities carried out, but that have a meaning, linking them, doing them well, not that you give us a program, but if we have the dynamics and the theoretical part that we can work on in the course, we can relate it to these dynamics and we can leave it at school” (25:48_85); “As a basic skill, I haven’t worked on it, it would be good to do so” (28:37_75).

Once again, following the thread of the previous category, teachers were in agreement vis-à-vis face-to-face training. Moreover, activities such as the case method guided by an expert, reflection with some literary experience or the introduction of other topics such as grief or content on child neurological development, were proposed.

Finally, in the category referring to other training needs, other types of resilience training were mentioned, even other educational agents such as the family or extracurricular activities.

It was notable that the answers in this category seemed to lead to an overall improvement in that they referred to previous training received. The teachers referred to it to suggest other types of training content they would like to explore further, being aware that they do not necessarily always be about resilience. Indeed, one of the EDINRES+M interview questions asks about the type of previous training received in terms of skills related to resilience. Although this dimension of the interview was not the subject of the results presented in this article, we would like to share in this regard that both teachers from grant-aided schools and state schools affirmed that they had received training in resilience skills, although not what they themselves considered necessary in terms of going into the variety, quantity and quality of the contents dealt with. Similarly, we would like to highlight the fact that both also coincide in having received other types of training on skills more associated with classroom management and other current aspects, such as neuroeducation or restorative circles, for example.

The teachers did not specify here whether they needed theoretical or practical training, but simply put forward proposals for activities linked to skills not directly associated with resilience: “We have done teamwork things. Ways of cooperating at the curricular level” (7:35_65); “We’ve had continuous training, maybe we haven’t given it the name resilience, but we have all the aspects of values that have been worked on a lot and that go a little hand in hand”(15:27_53); “Of how the brain works applied to education to get the most out of it and here I was talking about resilience, but not as a basic skill, as a basic skill I haven’t worked on” (28:36_75). Thus, they deal with, for example, personal aspects, team management, neurolinguistic programming, discussions, emotional intelligence or courses to increase awareness of everything they already do in terms of resilience.

Regarding this category, many positively valued their level of training and were able to transfer certain previously acquired concepts to the novelty that resilience represents from the perspective of the ANDREIA project. Also –as in previous categories– teachers spoke of organizing all this activity in relation to the pursuit of the good of pupils.

3. THE ANDREIA PROJECT TRAINING PROGRAM

Following the qualitative analysis of these interviews, a teacher training course was designed. This was carried out between June and July 2022 with approximately 100 teachers from the schools participating in the ANDREIA project, which totalled more than twenty centres located in Madrid, Valencia and Barcelona. The course was integrated into the teacher training plan of the Department of Education of the Government of Catalonia. Much to the authors’ regret, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other organizational issues beyond our control, the course was held online. It included a total of 15hours of training of 3 hours a day for 4 days, of which 12were theoretical-practical sessions and 3wereindependent work.

3.1. Course Objectives

Regarding the objectives and contents, as will be seen, the main axes were those needs identified as a result of the interviews:

-The first objective aimed to promote participants’ awareness of themselves as resilient individuals and resilience coaches. This involved expanding their own knowledge of themselves and their role as classroom teachers and resilience coaches.

-The second objective aimed to awaken participants’ desire and motivation to foster resilience in the classroom in an attractive and innovative way, including it in their regular classroom practice.

-The last two objectives addressed the didactic context referred to previously, namely to offer transfer tools to the classroom and not just theoretical knowledge, thus finding an Aristotelian and very necessary middle ground. This also included knowledge of programs and other already-implemented resilience-building projects that had positive results from which to draw inspiration. This increase in resilience was thus twofold: increasing it in the teacher increases it in the learner as well.

3.2. Contents

-First, the bases of resilience were examined: where the concept comes from and why it is so necessary today. This meant addressing its definition and its types (primary and secondary resilience).

-Second, the bases of resilience, its risk and protection factors, were explored in greater depth, emphasizing the prevention and positive fostering of attitudes of strength.

-Third, to raise awareness of the potential of every teacher, the influence that resilience coaches have on the lives of others and the responsibility of teachers as coaches was explored further.

-Finally, the knowledge of social and problem-solving skills was examined further, as these are highly relevant in terms of establishing the attitudes and behaviours necessary for a resilient life.

Table 1 shows the schedule of the teaching given to the primary education teachers participating in the ANDREIA project. With the aim of generating knowledge of a theoretical-practical nature through a method based on cooperation and dialogue between the participants, each day began with a brief 30-minute welcome in which the objectives to be achieved were established, thereby determining a certain level of expectation that could be achieved by the end of the day and the course. Next, one hour was dedicated to establishing a solid theoretical framework in order to make explicit notions about applied resilience. The following hour consisted of putting the case method into practice, also using narrative and audiovisual tools with which to transfer the case study in order to work on resilience in the classroom. The last half hour was dedicated to sharing different reflections on what had been learned. The fourth day of training followed a different dynamic: participants were offered a talk by the renowned expert in resilience Anna Forés, a testimony on resilience by Eduard Sala, head of the diocesan Cáritas Social Action of Barcelona, and a round table with a number of directors of the schools participating in the ANDREIA project in which they discussed the situation of the schools and proposed a number of actions required in order to become more resilient, as well as their own examples of activities that they carry out in their own educational realities.

4. CONCLUSIONS

After completing the training course, participants answered an evaluation and satisfaction questionnaire designed to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the fulfillment of their expectations and determine whether their knowledge, motivation, and perceived self-efficacy as teachers in fostering resilience had improved. The questionnaire was developed with a mixed-methods approach, including closed-ended questions to measure satisfaction and perceived improvement on a 5-point scale (e.g., “Rate your overall satisfaction with the training course”) and open-ended questions to gather qualitative insights (e.g., “What aspects of the course did you find most beneficial?”). The design process included a pilot test with 10 educators to ensure clarity and alignment with the course objectives, with refinements made based on feedback. The questionnaire was administered digitally immediately after the course, achieving a high response rate of 85%, as participants were encouraged to provide honest and anonymous feedback. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data, which showed that 92% of participants rated their satisfaction as 4 or 5, and 87% reported feeling significantly more confident in implementing resilience strategies. Thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses using Atlas.ti software, identifying key themes such as the practical nature of the training (e.g., “The specific strategies provided are easy to adapt to my classroom”) and areas for improvement, such as the need for more age-specific examples (e.g., “I’d like to see more activities for younger children”). To validate these findings, the questionnaire results were triangulated with pre- and post-training self-assessments conducted during the course, confirming a positive impact on teachers’ preparedness. Overall, the questionnaire provided valuable insights into the course’s effectiveness, highlighting its success in meeting participants’ needs while also offering actionable feedback for refining future training sessions.

Firstly, and referring to the first of the aforementioned objectives, most of the teachers achieved a certain level of self-awareness regarding the notion of resilience and their responsibility as resilience coaches in the classroom, i.e.: (28_et seq.) learning things about themselves and connecting emotionally, both intrapersonally and interpersonally: “I’ve learned and, what’s more, they motivated my interest in the subject and to expand and apply what I now know”; “The teachers introduced us, bit by bit, to the different themes to be worked on, managing, I think very appropriately, precisely because of the theme in question, to connect emotionally with them, allowing us to incorporate the new concepts more deeply”; “Although it’s a course aimed at helping our pupils to be resilient, it also helped me to see personal aspects from another perspective that could certainly also influence my working life”; “Knowing what resilience means and how we can apply it to grow personally and professionally”; “It’s a course that encourages participation and reflection of ourselves and our teaching practice”; “I started out knowing nothing about this subject and I think it’s been very useful for me because the programs and activities made me reflect a lot and I see them as very applicable to my pupils at school”.

The second objective, which was achieved according to the responses received, relates to the method by which the contents were presented, which was based on collaborative principles and fostering the participation of the attendees so that they could share their experiences with each other. It was based on the idea that the more attractive the teaching method, the greater the desire and motivation of the participants to, ultimately, foster resilience in their classrooms, i.e. (24_et seq.): “I loved the course, both for the content and the method. It was noticeable that there were experiences. The length seemed adequate. It greatly enriched the experience and contributions of all of us. Ten out of ten for theoretical part and another ten out of ten for the material. I found it easy to use”; “A new perspective on the subject. Attractive, up-to-date content in most of the sessions, which made them more interesting”; “Attractive methods and examples”; “We’ve been able to share experiences with colleagues from other schools (very enriching)”; “Very practical, on real cases; professionals from different branches and different colleges, cities, contexts”; “I want to highlight the teamwork”; “The great interaction we had. We felt listened to all the time”.

Lastly, in relation to the objective of transmitting both theoretical and practical knowledge –including transfer tools for the classroom–, the respondents maintained, i.e. (26_et seq.): “A varied course, combining theory and practice”; “Now I know a little bit more about resilience and I hope to continue learning!”; “I really liked the combination of theory and practice”; “The combination of theory with practical cases and the interventions of personal experiences”.

We would like to share in particular the reflection of a teacher who valued the expert talks on the fourth day of training because it underlines the notions of daily resilience and resilient life, which are those we are most in touch with rather than extreme cases of resilience, i.e. (18_et seq.): “I found the contents to be really enriching, since they provided depth and bases to be able to have a more complete idea of what resilience is. I think the course’s strongest points were the conferences on Friday, especially the testimony. I think his totally experiential perspective brought a practical perspective to resilience in everyday life, which provided a particular example of resilient living”.

On the other hand, when asked about the course’s negative aspects, the teachers were in agreement regarding certain organizational aspects related to the method of teaching the classes (online) and the dates and times i.e. (9_et seq.): “The dates, which coincided with the last staff meetings and the last week”; “The schedule. The face-to-face ones were during school hours and I could only attendance. The directors arranged a schedule for us to be absent from work for a couple of hours”; “I would have preferred to have done it face-to-face, I think it would have been more enriching”; “The dates weren’t the most appropriate, we’re in the middle of the end of the school year”; “During the sessions in which group work had to be done, we sometimes didn’t have time to share”; “The schedule coincided with other school activities”; “The times and dates, which were scheduled outside of school hours”; “The face-to-face version may be different”; “Face-to-face is always better, but the pandemic meant we were limited”; “I know it had to be online because of the circumstances. I hope if new training courses are offered and if the situation allows, they’ll try to do face-to-face sessions. This has been an excellent course, but I think face-to-face would be even better. Some of them also needed to include more dynamics of application and transfer in the classroom, meaning less theory –and not so philosophical– and more practice: “Include more dynamics of application in the classroom”; “The functionality. Sometimes too philosophical and far from my interests as a teacher”; “Perhaps it would have been interesting to add some activities with more specific cases, i.e. for the trainers to propose specific situations, leaving time for reflection and debate in order to get a proposal from the trainers at the end. And so to be able to compare our response with that of the trainers”; “Provide, perhaps, some practical aspects for daily work in the classroom”; “The level and depth of some presentations and practical activities”; “Some of the more theoretical sessions could have been more attractive”.

All in all, this leads us to assume two conclusive premises for this study: First, that through the ANDREIA training program, expectations were achieved and the needs of participating teachers were met in terms of increasing knowledge about resilience and the perception of self-efficacy for the fostering of this human skill in primary education classrooms. Second, that there are still avenues of future work with which to improve the quality of the training offered by ANDREIA in terms of taking a shorter theoretical approach in favour of the use of more practical cases and experiences of daily resilience. Similarly, suggestions from participants regarding the academic calendar and the time slots were collected to try, if possible, to achieve greater participation in the next phases of the project in which other training courses aimed at the same target groups will also be carried out.

Throughout this phase of the ANDREIA project, it has been fascinating to see the motivation and involvement of the teachers, to whom we are, as a team, very grateful: their participation in the course exceeded all our expectations and forecasts, both in number —a total of 57 participants were certified as qualified, reaching approximately 100 participants attending at the same time on some training days— and in the quality and quantity of their interventions, thanks to which spaces for debate and exchange of fruitful experiences were created, as well as very valuable moments of shared reflection. These moments made it possible to discover, together, that some teachers were already fostering resilience in their classrooms, only that, sometimes somewhat overwhelmed by day-to-day events, they had not been able to realise, from the outside, the immense value of their practices, which they can now put a name to and consciously specify in classroom activities for the fostering of resilience, this being the main objective of the ANDREIA project.

5. FUNDING

Project Code: PID2019-111032RB-I00, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and developed by the consolidated Family, Education and Inclusive School (TRIVIUM) research group (2021 SGR 00914).

6. REFERENCES

Barudy, J. and Dantagnan, M. (2009). Los buenos tratos a la infancia: Parentalidad, apego y resiliencia. Gedisa.

Barudy, J. and Dantagnan M. (2011). La fiesta mágica y realista de la resiliencia infantil. Gedisa.

Cyrulnik B. (2007). De cuerpo y alma. Neuronas y afectos: La conquista del bienestar. Gedisa.

Cyrulnik, B. (2018). Psicoterapia de Dios. La fe como resiliencia. Gedisa.

Cyrulnik, B. And Anaut, M. (2016). ¿Por qué la resiliencia? Lo que nos permite reaunudar la vida. Gedisa.

Forés, A. and Grané, J. (2008). La resiliencia. Crecerdesde la adversidad. Plataforma Editorial.

Forés, A. and Grané J. (2012). La resiliencia en entornos socioeducativos. Narcea.

Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General (2019). Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The future is now, Science for achieving sustainable development. United Nations. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf

Manciaux, M. (2003). La resiliencia: resistir y rehacerse. Gedisa.

Puig, G. and Rubio, J.L. (2011). Manual de resiliencia aplicada. Gedisa.

Rojas Marcos, L. (2010). Superar la adversidad. El poder de la resiliencia. Espasa.

UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (2015). Education and resilience. Nine priority paths for making schools safer and societies more cohesive [online]. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/UNICEF_Education-and-Resilience.pdf.

_______________________________

¹ We will refer to this interview for the initial detection of resilience training needs for teachers with the acronym EDINRES+M. Its aim is to diagnose the training needs of these active Year 5 and 6 primary education teachers in terms of skills associated with resilience.

² Reference is sometimes made to the variable school type for a better understanding of the answers to the EDINRES+M, although no examples are provided separating both groups because it is not part of the research to carry out a comparative analysis between the teaching needs according to this parameter.