During the past 50 years, journals in the field of instructional design have been responsive to the changing needs of both scholars and to a lesser degree, the practitioner. Of particular importance is the rise in the number of instructional designers with doctorates who consider themselves practitioners, but not necessarily scholars. ETR&D is a widely recognized, scholarly journal in our field that maintains rigorous standards for publications.

Theory and practice of instructional design was almost exclusively influenced by the academic community. With the growth of instructional designers, the theory and practice is now defined by both academics and practitioners. There is a need for greater communication between the scholars and the practitioners in a scholarly journal that will support innovation and growth of our knowledge base. The journal establishes and maintains a scholarly standard with the appropriate rigor for articles based on design and development projects. ISSN: 2160-5289 Goals The purpose of this journal is to bridge the gap between theory andpractice by providing reflective practitioners a means for publishing articles related to the field.

Articles include evaluation reports (summative and formative), lessons learned, design and development approaches, as well as applied research. Rigor is established through articles grounded in research and theory. A secondary goal of this journal is to encourage and nurture the development of the reflective practitioner in the field of instructional design.

The journal recognizes the role of the practitioner in the work environment and realizes that outside constraints may limit the data collection and analysis process in applied settings. The limitations of real-world instructional design can still provide valuable knowledge for the field. JAID is an online open-access journal and is offered without cost to users.

Journal staff are from the University of Georgia, Old Dominion University, Ohio University, Virginia Tech, and Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design. Staff are also from Brigham Young University, Arizona State University, Brigham Young College, and the U.S. Naval Academy. Editor is Jill E. Stefaniak. Assistant editors are Mohan Yang, Royce Kimmons, Lauren Bagdy and Rebecca Clark-Stallkamp. Editor-in-Chief is Andy Gibbons.

The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) is a professional association of instructional designers, educators and professionals. AECT provides leadership and advise policy makers in order to sustain a continuous effort to enrich teaching and learning. Our members may be found around the world in colleges and universities, in the Armed Forces and industry, in museums, libraries, and hospitals, and in the many places where educational change is underway.

Our research and scholarly activity contribute to the knowledge base in the field of Learning. We are on the cutting edge of new developments and innovations in research and application. AECT is the premier organization for those actively involved in the design of instruction and a systematic approach to learning. We provide an international forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas for our members and for target audiences. We have 24 state and six International Affiliates all passionate about finding better ways to help people learn.

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design (JAID) is a refereed online journal designed for the publication of scholarly articles. The journal is for practitioners, instructors, students, and researchers of instructional design. The purpose of JAID is to provide the reflective ID scholar-practitioners and researchers a means for publishing articles on the nature and practice of ID that will support the innovation and growth of our knowledge base. Other journals sponsored by AECT include Educational Technology Research and Development and TechTrends.

JAID is for reflective scholar-practitioners who make significant contributions to the knowledge of our field. Authors are invited to submit articles documenting new or revised approaches to ID. Articles must be based on instructional design projects as opposed to pure research projects. The journal will establish and maintain a scholarly standard with the appropriate rigor for articles based on design and development projects.

JAID is an applied journal serving a practicing community. Our focus is on what practitioners are doing in authentic contexts and their observed results. The articles should represent issues of practical importance to working designers. The resulting articles should inform both the study and practice of ID. Submit an Article The journal currently accepts submissions of three article types: Research Studies on Applied Instructional Design, Theory and Practice, and Practice and Theory.

Quantitative and qualitative studies are welcome. Position papers must be based in the context of a theoretical framework. The paper must also provide enough information to allow the replication of the innovation or continuation of the research in other settings. Efficacy data is strongly preferred, but not always required.

The journal will focus on in-depth applications of the ID process and publish a variety of articles. The articles in the journal will be from the perspective of the scholar-practitioner rather than from the researcher. When applicable, articles should include supplementary materials including examples of ID products, evaluation instruments, media files, and design artifacts.

Each article must have an abstract (75-100 words) and a list of keywords. Articles, including tables or figures, must follow APA 7th edition formatting. Identifying information must only be located on the cover page including contact information for the first author. If in doubt, contact the editor prior to submitting the article.

In the face of significant trauma across PK-12 through adult learner populations, education has increasingly become a tool for significant societal change. Tools to reach these lofty goals have historically included strong instructional design approaches and, more recently, attention to social emotional learning (SEL) Bridging these methods to advance teaching and learning practices is urgently needed as schools and other institutions serve learners who are increasingly affected by trauma.

It is important to reflect on instructional design practices that are sensitive to learners with traumatic histories. There is not a clear consensus nor is there a body of literature for what it means to have a “trauma informed’ or ‘trauma sensitive’ approach to instructional design. This special issue of JAID begins to bridge the gap between the theories of social emotional learning/traumainformed learning with instructional design offering specific cases of design and development projects that illustrate the confluence of these two broad areas.

We share these articles with our ID community in the hopes of creating principles for “compassionate instructional design” (Thomas et al., 2019) This special issue is a collection of practitioner cases and research articles on applied instructional design practices that are responsive to trauma-affected learners. We hope to address questions such as: In what ways have instructional designers drawn upon the domains of SEL for supporting learners who have been affected by traumatic situations and environments? What are the effects of these practices on learning outcomes?

This special issue includes 7 articles, 1 interview and a conclusion. The first article, Lawless & Bogard, is an examination of the use of trauma-informed case-based instruction in a preservice teaching program at the University of Dayton. This contribution is a good beginning to thinking through adjustments that are vital to the instructional design process as we understand it post COVID.

This research looked specifically at the impacts of a special topics course focused on trauma-informed instructional practices among a teacher education summer study abroad group of learners. When controlling for the abroad experience, which can of course also impact preservice teachers’ perspectives in significant ways, the trauma- informed group of teachers had significant increases in resiliency measures. Because this was a case-based course, these findings are significant in pointing to specific ways that universities preparing teachers can approach the increased needs for traumainformed pedagogies among new teachers.

Online learners who were highlighted during the pandemic need significant support. Explicitly embedding social emotional academic learning (SEAL) training within online courses as part of the design process increases the likelihood of learner success. LaDuca’s conceptual paper proposes the use of “innovative and collaborative trauma-informed learning community” in order to overcome the existing burnout among faculty and staff in higher education.

LaDuca offers a Learning Community Planning Framework (LCPF) that supports resilience, and also attends to the sense of belonging highlighted by Herman & Gill. This conceptual framework accounts for many of the primary concerns for traumatized learners including reflection, collaboration, patience and the luxury of time. Turcotte, McElfresh, and Meehan extend the idea of questioning the cannons of sustainability and teaching by asking graduate students to share their understandings of ungrading. Couched within the understanding that we must attend to care for students and their well-being as part of a trauma-informed approach, LaDuca rightly recognizes the importance of leadership support for some of these practices which may be seen as less than sustainable over time.

Turcotte et al. finds that this is a potential tool for decreasing stress for all learners. Thomas approaches the question of how we address student and learner care in teacher preparation through a focus on community. Thomas challenges us as designers to use tools that move toward intentional attention to trauma-informed learning communities.

Plum, Plum, and Conceicao take up the very real barriers to implementation of SEL approaches and discuss a district-wide implementation via a case study in a K-12 district. The pandemic clearly has increased attention on trauma-informed pedagogy and this case looks at the realities of teachers’ experiences in the midst of the pandemic. According to Plum et al., teachers saw that students were isolated and teachers knew that they needed to do more to help with student care. In terms of specific tools, Cook-Sather and Nguyen point to Google Docs as a way to educate the whole person, affirm each learner, and address the negative impacts of the Pandemic.

This paper lays out the various ways that the tool is used and the impacts it had on a course focused on change in higher education. What is most compelling about this paper is the use of language like love, trust, life-affirming, care, affirmation, and grace. Seeing the tool interpreted in this powerful way is an exciting interpretation of what others may see as a “dry” or ubiquitous piece of technology that has been recast in a powerful way.

Among some of the lessons from the text, we found the connection between trauma and equity, re-examining assumptions, student voice and the pre-eminence of relationship. The final piece of the trauma-informed ID puzzle is a new model that will inform instructional designers who are dealing with traumatized learners specifically. While there are already a good number of ID models, many would argue we do not need new ones. The twin pandemics of COVID and racism have had deep and lasting impacts. We were honored to be able to spend some time plumbing the depths of their work.

Drawing from all of the work submitted to the special issue as well as our understandings of the needs of both instructional design models and trauma-informed pedagogy, the model focuses on the importance of a number of issues. These include love, care, relationship.

At least one in four children from birth to 18 in the United States has experienced one or more traumatic events. Early exposure to trauma impacts brain development and can have lasting negative influence on a child's physical, behavioral, and mental health. Trauma-responsive schools support educators in recognizing signs of trauma and mitigating its impact on student learning and development. Using trauma-informed instructional practices (TIIP), educators create instructional scaffolds and learning environments that provide trauma-affected students “buffering protection” with “stable, responsive relationships”

In the post-pandemic education landscape, students’ learning and wellness needs are greatly intensified. It is incumbent upon teacher education programs to advance instructional practices that are responsive to the behavioral and academic challenges of trauma-exposed learners. Preservice teachers (PTs) must be prepared to integrate TIIP in their administration of the teaching-learning cycle, classroom structure, and routines.

Trauma-informed Instructional Practices (TIIP) mitigate the negative impact of trauma on student learning and development. Using TIIP, teachers establish positive student relationships and classroom structures that provide cognitive, social, and emotional support for learning. This may include providing instructional support for reducing cognitive load and increasing attention. It may also include scaffolds for regulating negative emotions, coping with anxiety, and maintaining positive peer relations.

TIIP focuses not only on supporting cognition, but also the intra-personal (self-management skills) and inter-personal skills. TIIP encompasses a generalized set of cognitive scaffolds, supports for social-emotional learning, tips for building positive teacher-student relationships, strategies for deescalating trauma responses. In practice, there is no single uniform instructional design model for implementing T IIP within the teaching-learning cycle.

Being a trauma-informed educator involves recognizing signs and symptoms of trauma, hypothesizing cognitive/social/emotional supports, and discerning which combination of instructional supports produces the best results. Teachers are susceptible to vicarious trauma, secondary trauma, and compassion fatigue that result in them feeling overwhelmed, burdened, and in need of support. In doing so, educators approach trauma-induced barriers to learning “through an equity and inclusive education lens, rather than an individual deficits-oriented lens”

Teachers struggle to balance staying emotionally distant with becoming too emotionally involved and having the emotional burden impacting their lives outside the classroom. It is vital that teacher preparation programs provide practice-based learning experiences that develop their self-efficacy and resilience for imparting TIIP. When teachers believe they can be successful, they are more likely to persevere through challenges.

Teachers with high self-efficacy may demonstrate commitment and effort in adopting approaches such as TIIP to support a diverse range of students. Resilience is multifaceted. It includes building and sustaining supportive relationships (personal/professional support networks), maintaining wellbeing and positive outlook in the wake of difficulty, as well as maintaining motivation and regulating emotion during repeated setbacks.

TIIP incorporates many areas where teachers are most tested in developing resilience and self-efficacy. These include being proactive with classroom management, de-escalating disruptive student behaviors, differentiating instruction, meeting needs of disadvantaged learners, and coping with a heavy workload and lack of time. Resilience can be developed with tools for managing task complexity.

Tait (2008) suggested that resilience and self-efficacy can be developed through case-based instruction in which PTs respond to challenging teaching situations. In order to better prepare PTs for supporting trauma-affected learners, it is important that teacher preparation programs structure opportunities for PTs to practice TIIP in a manner that promotes self- efficacy and resilience-building.

Learners engage in an iterative cycle of providing interpretive explanations of the problem. There are two types of case-based instruction approaches. A goal-based case presents a real-world scenario and places learners in a professional role in which they are required to achieve a goal. The other type of case utilizes a design-based scenario. Activities are organized around building a product or completing a project. TIIP might engage PTs in recognizing signs of a trauma affected learner, infer causes and effects of the student’s trauma-responses, and make recommendations for behavioral, cognitive, and environmental supports.

What is designed becomes an artifact of one’s learning, a representation of applied knowledge and skills acquired in-situ. A design-based case focused on applying TIIP might guide PTs in the development and implementation of an intervention plan for supporting a trauma-affected learner. Several features of case-based instruction may support the development of self-efficacy and resilience.

Case-based reasoning approaches provide tools for collaborative problem solving. With these tools, it is possible for PTs to develop a sense of self-efficacy and resiliency. In a case-based approach, learners’ failure explanations contribute to reformulation of the problem and development of mastery learning orientations.

When teachers’ expectations for implementing TIIP fail, they want to explain what happened so that they can gain perspective and re-strategize their approach. A well-designed case will embed prompts for reflective reasoning that heighten the agency of the problem solver. Guided reflection helps learners connect information and variables affecting the case to discern patterns of cause-effect to form an integrated problem-solution narrative (Riesbeck & Schank, 1989; Tawfik & Keene, 2013). Structured opportunities for reflective learning is yet another feature of case-based instruction that may enhance self-efficacy and resilience.

Teachers wanted to know if case-based instructional scenarios focused on trauma-affected learners had any significant impact on PTs' self-efficacy toward classroom management, instructional strategies, student engagement, and their own personal resilience. The study was published in the journal Teaching and Learning in the Context of Trauma.

This project attempts to address the following questions through a quantitative analysis of the candidates' growth. The participants were 26 pre-service teachers (PTs) who took part in a four-and-a-half-week study abroad in London, England. All PTs were from the same Midwestern private university in their third or fourth year of a 4-year teacher preparation program. Twenty-five of the participants were female, and one was male. All were between 18-22 years of age and studying to be early childhood (grades pk-5) or intervention specialist (grades k-12) teachers.

During the project, PTs registered to take two of three offered courses. All participants (n=26) chose a course on educating diverse student populations in inclusive settings. 16 chose one on children's literacy (control group) and eight chose a special topics course focused on developing trauma-informed instructional practices (treatment group) The treatment group of eight PTs examined TIIP through a case-based instructional approach.

The instructor assisted the PTs in narrowing the case focus to a specific situation with the student that had perplexed them and could serve as a case for identifying symptoms of trauma for relating TIIP. Examples of cases they selected from their prior field experiences included a withdrawn middle schooler whose parents were getting a divorce; a child struggling with emotional regulation; and an autistic teen triggered by touch, noises, and transitions between activities. An example of one of the case scenarios presented for analysis follows: Each morning James arrives at school we never know what he will be feeling like. Some days, like most kids, he is excited and wants to see his friend. However, most days tend to be frustrating for him.

James' parents work long hours at their jobs at the local hospital. James and his siblings get up early, eat a quick breakfast, and are headed to before-care around 6AM. When his dad drops him off, he tends to be more relaxed and transitions into the school routine without much issue. When it is his mother, he gets angry and acts out. It is mostly on these days, when things don't go his way, we see him say whatever his is thinking (most often negative comments) and defy any adult. The behavior is most extreme after being dropped of at school. The PTs, having gathered information and analyzed the case during the first phase of the inquiry, now poses it as a problem

In the iteration of the case analysis, the PTs draw upon their own prior knowledge that they have gathered from their own inquiries into trauma-informed practices. To measure the effect of this case-based approach, all participants electronically completed the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) on separate occasions before traveling abroad. While the surveys were considered part of the course, participation in the research project was voluntary, and the university's Institutional Review Board granted approval.

The TSES measures self-efficacy through a self-rating 24-item Likert scale. It has been used extensively to measure teacher efficacy. A factor analysis for construct validity was conducted, and it has published reliabilities of 0.91 (instructional strategies), 0.90 (classroom management), and 0.87 (student engagement)

It is used to identify a person’s ability to respond to setbacks and “bounce back.” The instrument has extensive psychometric research to establish validity and reliability. It can be used to measure growth in resilience over just a few weeks (Davidson JRT, 2022). On the final day of the courses, all participants again electronically completed both the CD-RISC-10 and TSES (Tschannen-Mornan & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Swan et al., 2011).

This study examined whether case-based instructional scenarios focused on trauma-affected learners impacted PTs' self-efficacy toward classroom management, instructional strategies, student engagement, and their own personal resilience. Results indicated that all participants, as well as the control and treatment groups independently, made statistically significant gains in overall self- efficacy. There were no significant differences though in a comparison between the control or treatment groups.

Both groups made significant gains on the TSES but neither group made significantly greater gains. The results of a dependent sample t-tests (p < 0.05) reveal significant increases in general efficacy scores for all participants (t(622) = 21.42, p <.001), as well as the control and treatment groups. All groups also madesignificant gains in each of the three subtests of classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement.

Results for Q2 in whether there is a difference in pre and post self-efficacy scores between those receiving case-based TIIP and those that did not (control group, N =16) are detailed in Table 2. The results for Q3 are also detailed in table 2.

The results of a t-Test of Two Samples Assuming Unequal Variances indicate that both the pre (t(337) = 6.95, p <.001) and post ( t(430) = 8.27, p =.001), scores were significantly different. In both instances, the control group scored higher, but the resulting change in scores between the two groups was not significantly different, according to the study. These results were consistent in general efficacy and for the three subtests.

The results indicated that while both groups made significant increases in self-efficacy, there were no statistical differences in the results. Table 2 shows the comparison of Pre and Post Scores Between the Control and Treatment Groups. The results indicate that while the Control group made significant Increases in Selfefficacy and Student Engagement, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the pre- and post-test results.

The control group made greater gains in general efficacy than the treatment group. The treatment group made a more significant gain on the CD-RISC than the control group. All participants, and the control and treatment groups, had statistically significant gains from the pre to post scores. In comparing pre and post scores, the pretest results did not indicate a significant difference, but the post-tests did.

There was no significant difference in resilience between the two groups at the start of the program. While both groups made significant gains, the treatment groups' gains were significantly greater. Table 3 shows the results of Q1 in terms of the impact of case based TIIP on candidates' resilience. The results of a dependent sample t-test (p < 0.05) reveal significant increases between the pre and post scores for all participants (t(257) = 7.57, p <.001) as well as both the control and treatment groups.

All participants, the control and treatment groups, had statistically significant increases in the pre and post-scores on the CD-RISC-10. The results of a t-Test of Two Samples Assuming Unequal Variances indicate that the pre-test score (t(145) =.616, p =.538) between the two groups was not significantly different, but the post test scores ( t(213) = 4.08, p <.001) were significantly different.

There was no significant difference in resilience between the two groups at the start of the program, but there was a significant difference after the program. The treatment group made statistically more significant gains in the pre to post scores than the control group. In terms of self-efficacy for teaching, as measured by the TSES, participants made significant gains over the course of theprogram.

The researchers had expected to see greater gains in teaching efficacy from the treatment group compared to the control group. Both groups made significant gains regardless of the content, indicating that trauma-informed instruction using a case study approach may potentially increase a teacher's self-efficacy, similar to a traditional academic content-driven course. The sample size of this study was too small to determine any conclusion and indicates an area for further research.

In terms of self-reported resilience, as determined through the CD-RISC-10, both groups again made significant gains, but the treatment group made greater statistically significant gains. There was no significant difference between the pretest scores between the two groups, but there was in the post-test scores. This difference may indicate that using a case-based, trauma-informed approach may help better facilitate a PT's overall self-resilience. This finding is important as Sharifian et al. (2022) identified that teacher training programs are essential in helping teachers develop protective factors that increase their resiliency through practice-based learning.

Although this study did not examine the instructional design features that resulted in resiliency gains, we point to two features that we believe set conditions for resilience building. The first feature is prolonged inquiry into a situated problem of practice that can serve as a locus of resilience building and that is complex enough for critically framing professional skillsets, dispositions, discourse practices, and interpersonal relations. PTs in the treatment group recalled a situation from a prior field experience that involved a trauma-affected student that had left them with lingering uncertainties and concerns about how to support the student. The situation each PT identified became the locus. of inquiry into TIIP and the source material from which they developed a case scenario to solve with their peers.

Using the perspectives gained from phase 1 to develop a case scenario for others to solve; Phase 3). Presenting the case to peers and engaging them in isolating the underlying issue and addressing them from a TIIP perspective. The other feature we believe was important for optimizing resilience building is a collaborative learning environment that honors the sharing of challenges and failure stories around the cases presented. PTs fostered collaboration in sharing failure explanations that initiated new avenues of thought and application of T IIP.

Case-based instruction provides sustained inquiry into authentic problems of practice. However, instructional designers will need to expand learning tools and cognitive scaffolds for problem solving to include tools for building and modeling resilience. These might include tools that map to the different facets of resilience building. For example, to leverage personal and contextual resources, tools can be provided for reflecting and discussing with peers, mentors and teachers.

For promoting self-regulation and management of task complexity, tools for goal setting, time management, help-seeking, reframing failure, and managing emotions can be integrated into the learning environment. More research is needed to discern how these and other scaffolds may be embedded within case-based instruction and used to build PTs resilience. In doing so, PTs may be more prepared to model resilience building and support within the teaching-learning cycle. These findings contribute to the research in providing PTs with a cased based TIIP approach may have the potential to increase self-efficacy to a similar degree and increase resilience to a greater degree than a traditional academic content-driven course.

This study indicated the benefit of implementing a TIIP case study approach to promote self-efficacy and resiliency in PTs. Limitations Further research would benefit from using a larger sample size for both the control and treatments group. While not all treatment group members had taken the children's literature course provided to the control group, some had. This does not negate the gains made but may indicate a greater maturity in the treatment group, which may impact scores.

Designing a similar study using a mixed method approach that incorporated the PTs’ voices could also further the research into trauma-informed practices and building resilience. The TIIP case study approach better facilitated the “support and encouragement” to develop PTs protective factors in this research project.

Teacher’s perspectives on providing support to children after trauma: A qualitative study. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(1), 51–59. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall. Bethell, C., Jones, J., Gombojav, N., Linkenbach, J. & Sege, R. (2019). Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: Associations across adverse childhood experiences levels. JAMA Pediatric, 173(11), e193007.

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 75(4), 202–205. Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 172–179. Burke, N. J., Hellman, J. L., Scott, B. G., Weems, C. F., & Carrion, V. G. (2011). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(6), 408-413.

https://www.nctsn.org/resources/child-trauma-toolkit-educators Chow, K. A., Mistry, R. S., & Melchor, V. L. (2015). Homelessness in the elementary school classroom: Social and emotional consequences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(6), 641–662. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Manual . Unpublished.

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 321-331. Garner, A. S., Shonkoff, J. P. (n.d.). Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, & Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician. Pediatrics 2012; 129:e224–e231. Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers’ resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness.Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302-1316. Hall, P., & Souers, K

https://wasa-oly.org/WASA/images/WasA/6.0%20Resources/Hanover/BEST%20PRACTICES%20FOR%20TRAUMA-INFORMED%20INSTRUCTION%20.pdf Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 7(4), 399-420.

Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 77-87. Park, S. (2018). Motivation theories and instructional design. In R. E. West (Ed), Foundations of learning and instructionaldesign technology. EdTech Books.

Initialteacher education and trauma and violence informed care in the classroom: Preliminary results from an online teacher education course. Psychology in Schools, 57(12), 1798–1814. Savery, J. R. (2018). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions.

Tait, M. (2008). Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and retention. Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the studentteaching experience through the third year of teaching. Tawfik, A. A., & Keene, C. W. (2013). Applying case-based reasoning theory to support problem-based learning.

Trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422–452. The continuing importance of supporting and educating teachers, according to Tobin, Bower, C., Andermann, R., & Moulton, M. (2018). Conceptions of homeless education. SSRN, Article 3295497.

The heart of learning and teaching: Compassion, resiliency, and academic success. http://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/compassionateschools/pubdocs/ theheartoflearningandteaching.pdf

An effective approach to trauma-informed, social-emotional-academic learning (SEAL) includes providing space for students to develop and practice key SEAL competencies. This approach contributes to the creation of safe, predictable learning environments where students are empowered and supported to manage the adverse effects of trauma. Adults’ awareness and sensitivity help avoid the perpetuation of trauma throughout the school day.

Moore (2021a) reframes this relationship, suggesting when SEAL competencies are positioned as learning objectives rather than necessary prerequisites, access to more equitable learning opportunities become available to all students. This design case highlights how Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding allowed a K-12 public school district in southeastern PA to prioritize two initiatives as students returned from emergency remote modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Four specific design considerations inspired by Whitbeck’s (1996) conceptualization of ethics as design, are described. Documenting design cases allows for a rich explanation of design practice in authentic environments (Smith, 2010) While not intended to be generalizable, design cases present practical application precedent (Gray & Boling, 2016) and make explicit ways in which core values influence design decisions.

The focus of this design case is on how centering equity as a core design value drove the development, implementation, and planned evaluation of opportunities for SEAL competency development over the course of a calendar year. Our design team consisted of two Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funded individuals. ESSER funds were awarded by the US Department of Education to a variety of educational agencies to address the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on various educational programming.

The nature of funding is relevant here as ESSER funds stipulate schools have three years in which to use the funding, throughout which documented steps need to be provided on how district initiatives are being made endemic to existing systems. Using this revenue stream for positions provides an interesting perspective to district initiative planning. Anything we built needed to be fully developed at the end of three years and sustainable, possibly without continued direction from the individuals responsible for design.

Notably, in the return to in-person learning for the 2021-2022 school year, 130 CSD students chose to remain in a virtual placement. CSD has expanded their counseling team to include two certified mental health counselors. As we move to an increasingly endemic phase of the pandemic, approximately 60 students, Grades K-12, have chosen to remain completely virtual for the 2022-2023 school year. Additionally, in response to growing demands for students who want virtual opportunities without being siloed into a completely virtual pathway, a blended schedule pilot for Grade 12 students only was offered this year.

Seniors can take up to four credits virtually, with the remainder of their required credits being offered via traditional face-to-face modalities. Fifteen students have chosen to take part in this blended learning pathway. CSD teachers are responsible for the facilitation of courses for our Grade 12 students, both those involved in our blended schedule pilot and those remaining in a 100% virtual pathway. Curriculum continues to be provided by a third-party partner but is aligned to district standards and level of rigor. This shift has allowed us to use our own learning management system (LMS), Canvas, for course delivery.

Social Emotional Academic Learning (SEAL) is a position dedicated to social-emotional learning. CSD created the initiative title “Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning’ or, “SEAL” Conceptually, this addition was to position social, emotional, and academic skill development as all being equally important. In practice, this title set the trajectory within the district for prioritizing classroom practices that integrate social- Emotional learning into academic content instruction.

The results of this FEA directed the SEAL Coordinator to first ensure a common mission and vision for SEAL implementation district-wide. Prioritizing a distributive leadership model, a district SEAL team, including seven building-level faculty liaisons, was convened. Together, these individuals conducted stakeholder surveys, a climate and culture survey, and a review of discipline referral data. Triangulation of this data identified implementation and outcome goals aligned to four identified district priority areas.

For the 2021-22 school year, both the Online and Digital Learning coordinator and SEAL coordinator worked within the vertical structures of their respective departments. This intradepartmental focus, while necessary to some extent, can create initiative silos defined by myopic focus on departmental goals. In our case, continued development within our individual silos as we entered year two of our tenure, would have perpetuated inequities wherein students in the brick-and-mortar setting would be given access to opportunities for SEAL skill development and belonging, while those in the CVLA program would not.

CSD’s mission, vision, beliefs, and values (CSD, 2022) set the intention to support and prepare all students for post-secondary college, career, and life-readiness. In-person elementary students began to participate in a daily Morning Meeting and in-person middle school students participated in regular SEAL activities during a new “What I Need’ time. The high school established a schoolwide focus on building positive relationships along with clear shared expectations.

District leaders are collaborating to integrate SEAL into existing systems. Staff are encouraged to choose a SEAL focus for their evaluation pathway. Online learners, by nature of their chosen learning pathways, are often assumed to already be proficient in various SEAL competencies. Growing body of research on K-12 SEAL competency development focuses primarily on in-person learning.

A growing population of online K-12 learners from developing these career-ready skills creates an inequitable learning environment. The need for virtual learners to have equitable opportunities to develop SEAL competencies became our design opportunity. A priori theoretical and conceptual frameworks may not actually be appropriate for design cases. However, within the real-world context of a school system, policy often drives the need for design.

True et al.’s (2007) punctuated equilibrium model suggests that policy change is incremental and arises when new understandings, theories, or ways of thinking about policy problems come to light. As such, sharing theory that shaped the policy driving the need for this design case is relevant. Venet (2021) conceptualization of trauma-informed education suggests a focus on the educational ecosystem instead of the individual classroom or, worse, a need to “fix” the individual student. District policy, school climate, and classroom practice should all be aligned to provide a trauma- informed environment (Venet, 2021)

In Fall 2021, the CSD school board adopted a policy to direct district staff to develop and implement a trauma-informed approach to education. Special attention was called to reviewing procedures on attendance, opportunities for relationship building, and opportunities for curriculum and instruction development with embedded social emotional learning. This reminder that resiliency is a systems issue, as opposed to a trait we seek to develop in individuals, allowed for an important reframing of our design opportunity (Svhila, 2020).

Instead of suggesting students’ trauma was a problem that needed fixing, we sought to develop a system that would not perpetuate traumas. Restorative practices, culturally responsive practices, and embedded SEAL opportunities are all mentioned within the policy as tools for reviewing current district practice. Embedding a trauma-informed practice into the domains of SEAL is common practice for public school systems across the nation.

Some educational leaders have suggested a focus on trauma-informed practices is distracting from the need to engage in larger-scaled equity work within public school systems. In Spring 2022, CSD also adopted an educational equity policy, with the directive that CSD students should be provided with equitable access to educational opportunities. With district policy in place, but perhaps a lack of an operational implementation plan for a trauma- informed approach, we made the decision to center equity as the core design value.

Centering equity as a core design value to our growing conceptualization of a trauma-informed approach led to the realization of a need to build a resilient system that would be flexible enough to adapt to individual needs. Infusing equity throughout the design process required our team to look outside of traditional instructional design models for our process.

Our team had concerns that traditional prescriptive design models would fail to honor our commitment to our core design value. Whitbeck’s approach to ethics as design provided us with four broad considerations guiding constant reanalysis of systemic constraints at multiple points of our iterative design process. These considerations encouraged us to: 1.) embrace uncertainty, 2.) iterate, 3.) develop ongoing feedback loops, and 4.) balance flexibility with fidelity.

Consider: Embracing Uncertainty While designers go through multiple processes to help resolve uncertainties that surround design opportunities, Whitbeck (1996) suggests waiting to act until one is certain is a “license to avoid action” Strategies such as reflection-in-action can help designers mitigate uncertainty and continue moving through the design process. One of the major sources of uncertainty surrounding our design opportunity was selecting the correct localized context of use within our system. Our objective was to create opportunities for students to practice SEAL development– but who would support these opportunities? Should students need to self-regulate and reflect–two skills we were hoping to develop but not require as prerequisites?

Should faculty collect and analyze data on student progress on top of navigating content dissemination and course facilitation in a new modality? Could we embed opportunities for SEAL competency development directly in the virtual curriculum or course design? External representations can assist the design team to engage in reflection in action while undergoing a fluid design process, capturing their (perhaps varied) interpretations of how the design is progressing (Stefaniak et al., 2021).

A persona of a virtual learner from the Centennial School District had been developed (see Figure 1). This persona suggested a typical virtual student who was juggling school, work, and home responsibilities. A discussion board for faculty in response to a summer professional development on how the district envisioned the intersection between equity, SEAL, and digital learning provided a second external representation.

This artifact allowed us to reflect on where faculty were with district initiative implementation, examined on Freire’s (1970/2000) name-reflect-act continuum of critical consciousness. A trauma-informed practice requires a shift in approach from a deficit model to a more supportive model. Preliminary analysis of this discussion board uncovered that faculty were, by and large, still in the naming stage of conceptualizing an operational definition for equity at CSD and not yet ready for reflection or action.

While our centering of equity had allowed our design team to internalize this shift, examination of our second external representation suggested that perhaps faculty at large needed more time to understand and be ready to implement a trauma-informed practice. As such, we decided to narrow our focus on elements of course design that could impact virtual learning experience without necessarily requiring any additional action from either students or faculty. Literature suggests that creating and maintaining an environment of belonging can be more empowering than specific interventions that address trauma explicitly. Consider: Uncertainty has been shown to promote an iterative design process (Stefaniak et al., 2022).

Whitbeck (1996) encourages those working on ethical dilemmas to not hesitate in taking action as long as they are simultaneously willing to revise or combine design solutions. The front-end needs analysis (FEA) of past and current SEAL implementation and practice within CSD allowed us to pull recommendations from several existing frameworks including CASEL and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) With the formal adoption of our equity policy, there was a need to move beyond recommendations and into a cohesive implementation plan. Initially, we began iterating design around the CASEL framework (see Figure 3), with the goal of creating an opportunity for each SEAL competency development to be addressed at some point during the scholastic year.

Self-awareness and self-management are seen as overlapping as are social awareness and relationship skills. Responsible decision making is the fifth stand-alone section. As our plans for in-person implementation evolved, a shift from the CASEL framework to the PDE framework occurred. In considering other members of our system, such as our school board and community, grounding our implementation in recommendations from the state provided concrete alignment back to our district mission and vision in a way that using a third-party tool could not.

PDE conceptualizes social awareness as social problem solving skills and separates relationship skills. Responsible decision-making is dropped. Another area of uncertainty our team embraced concerned rollout timeline. Our high school operates on a modified block schedule with full credit courses meeting every other day for an entire year.

In-person learners would benefit from a slower rollout with larger chunks of the scholastic year dedicated to each individual competency. In wanting to align implementation timeframe across modalities, rollout for virtual learners adopted this plan. The second iteration of our implementation timeline allowed us to provide deeper engagement with each SEAL competency before moving on (see Figure 5) albeit in an extended two-year rollout cycle.

Within our distributive leadership model, our SEAL faculty liaisons collaborated with our district equity team to recommend an entire year focusing on relationship skills. Sub-focus areas, such as belonging, built off of previous district initiative work of our equity team and as such, are expected to have an operational level of understanding across buildings, departments, and students. Tying relationship skills to belonging allowed for a natural entry point into development of this SEAL competency. With a timeframe now in place, we turned our attention to artifact development.

Hanover Research (2019) suggests consistent and predictable learning environments are building blocks of trauma-informed SEAL practices. As such, it was of paramount importance that any artifact we designed for building belonging in virtual courses was both consistent across subject matter and provided predictable learning pathways for virtual students. To promote self-management and self-awareness, we developed mandatory pacing calendars inherent in our school learning management system (LMS), Canvas. These pacing calendars suggested completion dates for assignments so as to help students manage time throughout the semester but do not necessarily penalize students for late submissions.

Hanover Research (2019) recommends clear expectations for helping to promote psychological safety. A pacing calendar provides a visual of these expectations while offering more flexibility than a list of traditional inflexible due dates. Assignments are scheduled daily as opposed to weekly to further help students start to conceptualize how they may need to think about time management when developing a virtual learning schedule for themselves.

Landing pages included teacher name, course name, teacher image, and teacher contact, as well as our three school-wide SEAL goals for the year. Teachers were allowed to customize elements of the landing page to include a link to a daily agenda or a weekly check-in board. Each landing page also contained a water-cooler type discussion board where students could crowdsource answers to questions.

One artifact shelved for later iteration was the use of an optional LMS feature that would create student profile pages, to help promote social awareness. As this design element would require engagement from students, it was ultimately decided that this feature did not belong in our initial rollout. An initial feedback loop came from a design reveal with members of both building administration and central administration. Open-ended feedback was solicited for each design element. In response to a request for more tools to promote self-awareness and self-management, sequential ordering was shared. In particular, the administrative team was very supportive of the pacing calendar with suggested due dates.

Students cannot jump ahead in the assignment sequence. This feature was ultimately left off, as it was determined that such a granular level of assignment management would actually hinder learners from developing SEAL skills in self-management. Hanover Research (2019) supports the idea that students benefit from some choice which allows them opportunities to develop self-control over their environment. Due to our school calendar, our primary source of student feedback came once courses had started, as there was not an opportunity to pull a focus group together over the summer months. Students were asked a series of Likert-style questions (delivered via Google Form) to determine the extent to which various elements of course design led to an increased perception of belonging.

Students were explicitly directed to consider their online learning experience holistically so as to avoid specific reactions to one teacher or course. We visited hybrid classes at the beginning of the semester to inform students about the intentional design elements of the course. Wildman and Burton (1981) contend informing participants about the purpose of design elements ahead of asking them to evaluate the impact of those elements can actually lead to more accurate feedback.

Our survey was distributed via school email to all virtual learners, both full-time and blended, at the end of the first month of virtual classes. Virtual students and their families participate in our annual Climate Survey. Such data provides broad stroke feedback on learner sense of belonging and can point to directions for future collaboration. A broader scope for community feedback on culture and climate is also planned for this scholastic year.

The iteration of this design is specific to our current context, in which we are continuing to use a third-party digital curriculum to facilitate virtual learning. As our district seeks to develop and digitize its own digital resources, there may be additional avenues through which SEAL competency development can be embedded within our very curriculum.

Continuing professional development in both digital course facilitation and SEAL may allow our faculty the opportunity to develop greater agency and ownership of trauma-informed course design. While the scope, design team members, and points of access to our audience may change as both our digital learning and SEAL initiatives continue to evolve, what endures is our commitment to designing for equitable SEAL competency development regardless of modality.

Despite our commitment to de-siloing our roles as a unified design team, we still felt the need for additional perspectives that could contribute to both richer front-end design and increased feedback loops. As we were still developing an understanding of the district’s intentions to operationalize a trauma-informed approach, we chose to center equity as our core design value. A key perspective missing from our design team was the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, a position that was vacant within the district at the time of this design. While it was reassuring to realize a commitment to equity lives within our school systems as opposed to any one individual, including those with a formal background in inclusive educational practices would have benefited the initial framing of

A richer approach to design and feedback would include the perspectives of district teacher leaders, the Superintendent's Parent Advisory Council and the Superintendent’s Student Advisory Council. Centering equity as a core shared organizational value also safeguards the system against varied levels of individual commitment. Surveying our faculty to capture their personal conceptualization of the intersection of equity, SEAL, and digital learning, uncovered a group that was open to learning but not yet ready to implement change.

Although we desired increased participation at the design table, understanding faculty needs allowed us to approach their reticence with a trauma-informed lens ourselves. By being open and transparent about our “top-down’ design plans, faculty who were ready to participate ended up adding their own unprompted elements for SEAL competency development to courses. When working within a system with so many components, it is essential for communication to be clear and for what is being communicated to be reflective of the audience’s background knowledge and implementation readiness.

For example, in sharing our ideas for a common course landing page design, we discussed how accessibility considerations led us to use text to direct students to common navigation paths instead of a series of buttons. This discussion led the central leadership team into a rich discussion of their understanding of accessibility, ultimately expanding it to include elements of digital accessibility. This was an important reminder that for us to increase opportunities for students to experience belonging, we needed to ensure all members of the system felt as if they understood our vision and belonged to it first. As K-12 learning modalities expand beyond traditional face-to-face classroom offerings, systems must be redesigned (or designed anew) to provide places of belonging for online learners.

The purpose of this design case is to help begin establishing precedent on how a trauma-informed approach can inform online course design. Centering equity as our course design value, we turned to the field of ethics to help guide our design process. In explicitly breaking down this process to highlight both challenges and opportunities encountered during design, this case adds to the growing body of practical application research on trauma- informed approaches.

Centennial School District (CSD) (2021) Trauma-informed approach (146.1) Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2022) Fundamentals of SEL. Centennialsd.org (1922) Mission, vision, beliefs, values, goals, etc.

Dusenbury, L., Calin, S., Domitrovich, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2015) What does evidence-based instruction in social and emotional learning actually look like in practice? A brief on findings from CASEL’s program reviews.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 969-1001. Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M. Kizilboga, R., Tomita,K., & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. Hanover Research (2019). Best practices for trauma-informed instruction.

“Faced with given circumstances”: A localized context of use approach. “Social-emotional learning is essential to classroom management.” “Toward inclusive learning design: Social justice, equity, and community.“ “Participatory design of learning environments: integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers.

Effects of trauma-informed approaches in schools: A systematic review. Moore, S. (2022) Reclaiming resilience: Building better systems of care. Morrison, G. R., Ross, M., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. (2013) Designing effective instruction (7th ed.) W. W. Norton & Company. Ngo, V., Langley, A., Kataoka, S., Nadeem, E., Escudero, P., & Stein, B. D. (2008) Providing evidence-based practice to ethnically diverse youths: Examples from the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) program.

Journal Of the American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(8), 858-862. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). (2022). Elementary and secondary school relief fund. US Department of Education. (20 22). Pennsylvania career ready skills. Commonwealth of PA. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10–20.

Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J. & Stapleton, L. (2022). An exploration of conjecture strategies used by instructional design students to support design decision-making. Educational Technology Research and Development 70(2), 585–613. Svhila, V. (2020). Problem framing. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds. ), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books.

Thomas, M. S., Crosby, S., & Vanderhaar, J. (2019) Trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422-452. Venet, A. S. (2021) Equity-centered trauma-informed education . W. W. Norton & Company. Whitbeck, C. (1996) Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems.

Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9-16. Wildman, T. M. & Burton, J. K. (1981). Integrating learning theory with instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 4(3) 5-14.

This paper proposes a design for a trauma-informed learning community for faculty and staff (herein called educators) The TLC for Educational Professionals aims to support and respect the resilience of all faculty and Staff in higher education. It aims to deliver a sense of belonging through the communal facilitation of trauma- informed curricula, connection, and collaboration for isolated and disheartened educators. Through a structure for community, identity, meaning, and practice, this educator learning community aims to provide a shared positive, life-giving, and enriching environment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has pressed higher education leaders to create ambiguous, ever-evolving policies over semesters of uncertainty and disorder. For university faculty and staff to survive and thrive in the face of such ambiguous factors, a collaborative process to support an educator’s sense of belonging and mental health should be developed. Research continually highlights that stress among higher education faculty and Staff contributes to overall dissatisfaction and can lead to burnout.

A resilient educator learning community would provide a collaborative opportunity for colleagues to recognize how the experiences of all faculty and staff are connected. The development of self-worth and self-esteem and the chance to make constructive contributions to their institution’s learning community are all essential for educators' emotional well-being. A new sense of affirmative connection will provide a positive emotional balance of resilience and mental health for faculty, staff, and student success.

This conceptual paper provides a foundation for understanding how the LCPF phases provide the framework for trauma-informed education. In the analysis phase, the educators should establish a distinct objective for their learning community. Leverage communication to help forge intentional connections to cultivate community. This collaborative concept can provide institutions of higher education with a model for how a trauma- informed learning community can support the need for building a supportive work environment focused on safety, empowerment, community, and meaning.

The cultivation of a safe learning environment connected through trust-building and transparent relationships with and among educators is the recommended first step in developing the TLC for Educational Professionals. It is not surprising that higher rates of stress, burnout, low morale, and job discontent have been reported by college students, teachers, and staff in all areas of American higher education since the onset of COVID. Uncertainty, isolation, and the loss of meaning continue to be emotional triggers that all members of the higher education academy have continued to combat since March 2020 (Imad, 2021, p. 7).

University faculty and staff have been facing a prolonged state of stress on their physical, emotional, and social existences. This increased exhaustion from actions due to COVID and the mental health pandemic has disconnected faculty from their original motivations for joining the higher education community. Still, the stress and chronic overwork have seemingly been accepted as ordinary in many institutions across the nation, which are eager to return to what “once was’ (Gaard & Ergüner-Tekinalp, 2022)

The American Council on Education polled college and university presidents to better understand how they and their institutions were handling the COVID-19 pandemic. What emerged as the most pressing issue in the first (February 2021) and second (April 2021) distributions of survey results was students’ mental health. Workshops, videos, and toolkits for faculty and staff to help support stronger trauma-informed learning environments for student success are needed.

In most cases, the trauma-informed strategy is for teaching students or engaging classroom spaces for student use. Rarely are the tools and systems in place to help faculty and staff members foster a safe and connected learning environment. The lack of intentional connection between educators has become nationally pervasive and continues to elevate the necessary need for academic interdependence in stressful times. Trustworthy communication and cultivating community will help to connect how trauma- informed approaches can support the purposeful development of a trauma-sensitive faculty/staff learning community.

The TLC for Educational Professionals aims to tackle professional obstacles and reduce the uncertainty faculty and staff stakeholders are feeling. The design phase aims to determine what kind of learning community is needed, with a focus on membership, delivery, duration, and disciplinary formats. Step 2: LCPF Design Phase + Trauma-Informed Education Strategy (Empowerment): Reduce uncertainty to help foster a sense of safety.

The TLC for Educational Professionals aims to foster safe connections and self-advocacy among faculty and staff on a campus. The design process should focus on balancing regular communication with interested campus colleagues around the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the community. The curriculum of a topic-based learning community is designed to meet a particular campus teaching and learning need, concern, or opportunity.

The TLC is focused on trust and combating educators’ feelings of isolation and stress (Cox & Richlin, 2004). This specific faculty learning community, in collaboration with trauma-informed educational practices, should be designed as a face-to-face cohort-based community. The TLC will be long-term, open to all faculty and staff, and flexible enough for all colleagues to come and go as they feel they need the support.

The TLC for Educational Professionals design should be communicated through all university educator channels. In the early communication to faculty and staff, a first draft structure of goals and outcomes should be shared that focuses on the "team aspect" of support. This communication should highlight how the design of the TLC connects trauma-informed educational practices to faculty learning community best practices. It should create a framework for assisting educators in reaffirming their purpose, reforming deliberate relationships, and reconnecting with the specific meaning and community that sparked their initial purpose to be educators.

The educators leading the early design of the TLC should also consider providing examples of pedagogical approaches that could be explored within the learning community. For example, a biweekly, 8-session TLC for Educational Professionals schedule aligned with trauma-informed educational practices could introduce the strategies around “reducing uncertainty to help foster a sense of safety” in the first session. By simply introducing evidence-based strategies such as gratitude journals, “done” lists, and focusing on the process versus the outcomes of positive mental health, the educators can model through transparent communication the building, development, and core values that are expected within this learning community (Cox & Richlin, 2004).

The LCPF Implementation Phase is where culture is developed, core values and norms are determined, as are policies, roles, and resources. The TLC for Educational Professionals will provide faculty and staff with consistent professional and personal development days or hours so they can design a growth and learning culture for themselves. The previous phases of analysis and design implement very specific trauma-informed practices to build trust and provide choices to combat the potential ambiguity that may surround such an ambitious educator learning community. At the implementation phase, early stakeholders have been identified, and the initial community experiences have begun.

Teachers should take the initiative to discover the shared desires and motivations surrounding their trauma. To implement the collaborative teaching and learning structure for the TLC, educators should consider using Lombardi’s emerging “construction of understanding” framework for active learning possibilities. This person-to-person approach provides an operationalized model that gives educators in the community control of their learning through active reflection and agency.

The “construction of understanding” framework aims to implement a system of dialog to help educators find meaning in their work as they might connect to trauma-informed educational practices. To understand how Lombardi’s system might work within the developing TLC for Educational Professionals structure, compare traditional learning, which takes place in a model where learning funnels through the teacher, or head of the class. The faculty and staff can explore the different ways they can engage with trauma- informed educational practices while providing the agency to “intentionally make things happen by one's actions” (Badura, 2001; Lombardi & Shipley, 2021, p. 15).

The “construction of understanding” framework aims to implement a system of dialog to help educators find meaning in their work as they might connect to trauma-informed educational practices. The system provides communication connections between all educators while building self-efficacy and assisting in their commitment to their own personal wellness and growth. Giving educators options and empowering them to speak up can remind them that their diverse experiences benefit everyone's learning (Iman, 2022). Educators will benefit from this structured process for active, peer-to-peer learning that provides great empathy towards their colleague’s current state of mental health. It gives the faculty and staff a sense of personal power and helps them work toward getting back to a healthier mindset.

The TLC for Educational Professionals should not demand any experience in clinical psychology or social work to use this trauma-informed approach. The learning community should be human-centered, focused on the well-being and care of their faculty and staff colleagues. The final phase of the LCPF asks the community to decide what evidence will be provided, what assessment format will be applied, and the general design of the program evaluation report.

The short-term and long-term learning community goals should be identified and then mapped to trauma-informed educational practices. The TLC for Educational Professional’s learning outcomes and goals (see Table 1) would be influenced by a similar learning community developed at California State University San Marcos. Once created, the current educators within the TLC should communicate with the larger campus community of educators as a way to continuously communicate the invitation of the learning community to all faculty and staff members.

Table 1: Outcomes, Practices and Strategies for the TLC for Educational Professionals. Outcome Trauma-Informed Educational Strategy (Meaning) Initial Support Strategies. Demonstrate an understanding of how trauma can affect faculty and staff behaviors and responses within and outside the university setting. Reduce uncertainty to help foster a sense of safety. Make intentional connections to cultivate community.

Help faculty and staff identify short-term goals that connect to their long-term “why’ Integrate trauma informed care practices into university policy and practices to reduce re-traumatization. Reaffirm or re-establish goals to create meaning. Leverage communication to help forge trust. Reframe obstacles to reaffirm meaning and purpose. Remind that small actions can make a big difference.

Carello (2020) has developed seven trauma-informed principles in support of students’ trauma. These principles can be adapted to evaluate key outcomes of TLC educators focused on trust, connection, and educators’ mental health (see Table 2): Table 2 Draft adaptation of Trauma-Informed Teaching and Learning Environments: Self-Assessment Questions (Carello, 2020)

How do you handle dilemmas between role clarity and accomplishing multiple tasks? To what extent do educators share common goals and share power? Is faculty and staff accountability or impairment handled in a way that conveys “What’s happened to the educator?”

Do educators get clear, consistent, and appropriate messages about their rights and responsibilities? To what extent are policies and practices responsive to issues of privilege and oppression and respectful of diverse individual and collective experiences and identities? Resilience, Growth, and Change: Do learning and feedback emphasize faculty and staff growth more than student deficits? Conclusion According to research, trauma-informed teaching and learning increase faculty and Staff capacity and experience, which lowers attrition while also reducing burnout (University of Michigan School of Public Health, 2022)

The TLC for Educational Professionals will engage all faculty and staff on college campuses and provide ways for educators to put contemplative practices at the center of their academic lives. Through a model of discretionary leadership, this specific trauma-informed faculty learning community will develop a powerful group of people who can lead the practice of contemplation. This learning community design focuses on the total wellbeing of the campus community using an evidence-based, effective educational framework that understands and makes use of the power of relationship through shared teaching and learning.

Any evaluation of a trauma-informed faculty learning community should always take into account campus institutional policies and practices. Intentionality should be given to the tone and rhetoric of the university in relation to what emerges from the learning community’s understanding of their own informed trauma (Gaard & Ergüner-Tekinalp, 2022). This collaboration between the educators who make time for the learning. community and university leadership’S understanding of the intended impact of the. learning community must be collaborative, patient, and provide opportunities for shared reflection of the learning impact that. will occur when the TLC for Educational Professionals is established on their campuses.

Developing Effective Faculty Learning Communities to Improve Student Performance. California State University San Marcos. (2021). FLC trauma-informed pedagogy. Stanford Report. Survey reveals COVID-19’s significant stress on faculty. The Trauma-Informed Teaching Blog. (2020, March). Creating trauma- informed teaching and learning environments.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/02/26/survey-reveals-covid-19s-significant-stress-stanford-faculty. Feng, S., Hossain, L. & Paton, D. (2018). Harnessing informal education for community resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(1), 43-59. Gaard, G., & Ergüner-Tekinalp, B. (2022) Contemplative Practices and Anti-oppressive Pedagogies for Higher Education: Bridging the Disciplines.

Educational policy analysis archives, 12(42), n42. Hanson, R. (2018, March 26). Trauma and resilience: Rick Hanson and Peter Levine. YouTube.com/watch?v=UjTwRKg%20_2S8%20. Imad, M. (2021). Transcending adversity: Trauma-informed educational development. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 39(3).

Powerful learning communities: A guide to developing student, faculty, and professional learning communities to improve student success and organizational effectiveness. Levine, P. A. (1997). Waking the tiger—healing trauma: The innate capacity to transform overwhelming experiences. Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., & Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering, Geography, Geoscience Team, and Physics Team. Talbert, R. (2022, January 28). A new framework for active learning.

Robert Talbert, Ph. D. (2021, May 20) College and university presidents respond to COVID-19: 2021 Spring term survey, part II. University of Michigan School of Public Health (2022) Trauma-informed resilience oriented schools learning community. National Center for School Safety.

Progressive, holistic education is more demanding than conventional critical or feminist pedagogy. Unlike these two teaching practices, it emphasizes well-being. The Covid-19 pandemic, coupled with racial injustice, disrupted students’ educational experiences. McKinney de Royston and Vossoughi (2021) suggest that as society is eager to return to normal, we must not seek to reestablish what was ‘normal’

‘Normal’ education ignored the deep disconnects between academic learning, well-being and the realities of social and political life. In many instances, traditional grading practices “treat students like a product, a vessel to be filled with knowledge as opposed to a person who is central to the learning process” (Ferns et al., 2021, 4502).

An ungrading approach to assessment is one that prioritizes narrative feedback. With ungrading, students receive narrative feedback aimed at fostering reflection and a purposeful connection to their learning. The goal is to deemphasize the talk of grades in exchange for dialogic engagement with students’ learning and personal and professional needs.

As alternative forms of assessment grow in popularity, researchers have begun to examine students’ perceptions of ungrading. In this article, we examine graduate students' perceptions of being in an ungraded course, paying particular attention to how they articulate their ungraded experience. We leverage this special issue as an opportunity to draw connections between ungrading and a trauma-informed approach.

In a recent study, Gorichanaz (2022) interviewed students that had experienced multiple courses with him, experiencing both ungrading and more traditional grading systems. Students felt that ungrading “de-gamified” their learning experiences, where their learning was less about making a specific grade in exchange for a better understanding of the material. Students perceived ungrading to encourage a view of learning as a collective endeavor instead of an isolated and comparative event.

Students associated ungrading with a positive course experience and an increase in intrinsic motivation. Guberman (2021) notes that deeper qualitative analysis is needed to understand how students’ experiences of ungrading can demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach. We discuss how the Covid-19 pandemic brought scenes of student trauma to the forefront and initiated discussions of how our educational systems need to change to better suit learners.

We frame the “pandemic pause” as an opportunity to address many of the challenges students face. We theorize how treating assessment as part of a system of care can better support students learning in times of trauma. Trauma-informed instructional practices are a growing interest among educators and educational researchers.

We view trauma as the fixed-term or “ongoing physical, social, and/ or psychological strain’ One pedagogical strategy central to dealing with trauma is to refocus pedagogy practices on students’ well-being. We briefly discuss how “normal’ assessment–assessment that prioritizes numerical ranking and quantification–furthers mental health and academic concerns.

Even before the pandemic, grading practices and the effects of grades were a concern for educators and educational researchers. Two of the primary concerns have revolved around how grades affect students’ academic motivation and mental health. As such, we use this space to explore how ungrading fosters both a trauma-informed approach and one that centers on students' needs and lived experiences. Then, we examine literature that explores the negative effects ofgrades and discuss how assessment, as part of a system of care, is critical.

Chamberlin and colleagues’ (2020) research continues to support the notion that feedback is more effective for intrinsic motivation than grades by themselves. Seligman et al. (2021) found that medical students perceived the shift to a pass/fail system coupled with formative feedback from numerical-based assessment positively, especially in terms of student well-being.

Formative feedback is a well-known strategy for supporting students learning. Butler’s ( 1988) research that indicates that when formative feedback. is accompanied by the presence of a grade, the feedback is often disregarded. While research continues to point to the mental health concerns associated with grades, medical programs and schools are increasingly shifting to qualitative-based assessment.

According to a recent questionnaire, the grading systems used in medical school have transitioned overwhelmingly to narrative-based assessments. Rates of anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation have spiked dramatically in recent years, and academic stress tied to grades is the leading cause of this escalation. The effects of grades continue to wreak havoc on students no matter their academic interests or programs, and should be of serious concern (Burke, 2020; Eyler, 2022).

The pandemic has only exacerbated this problem, and as a result, students across the U.S. are advocating for a change in grading structures. As educators aware of these findings, we present ungrading as a possible solution. The last two years have brought about increased interest and discussion of alternative and more holistic forms of teaching and learning practices, including assessment methods.

Considering the effects the pandemic has burdened students with, Veletsianos and Houlden (2020) call for “radical flexibility” and an “educational environment in which the people participating and supporting education are understood to be and thus treated as holistic beings” (p. 857) We sketch out a possible future, one where assessment prioritizes care and well-being–assessment as a system of care. Framing ungrading as trauma-informed practice, we are reminded of the literature that has explored teaching and learning practices, and education more generally. Nel Noddings ( 1988), for instance, inspires thoughtful dialogue around the role of care in education.

Noddings ( 1988) reminds us that relationships are fundamental to an ethic of care. Ungrading espouses personal relationships with students and a commitment to recognizing their interests, histories, and experiences. This commitment is one that trauma-informed approaches are built on. As students’ trauma continues to impact their learning, educators must be prepared to deal with these challenges and recognize their responsibility in mitigating the effects of trauma (Crosby et al., 2018). These traumas cannot be ignored either, as they are central to teaching.

Alvarez (2017), for instance, documented the practices of an educator who responded to their students’ needs after a recent shooting in their community. Imad (2021) argues that educational practices must center on care and well-being as part of a framework for trauma-informed practices. Ingrained in these principles is a recognition that learning is a relational endeavor and process that requires educators to be empathic of students' social realities. To develop these relationships, Ferns and colleagues suggest a care-focused approach requires personal knowledge along with sharing and empathizing with students.

A pedagogical approach that centers on care and well-being must include a willingness to embrace students’ needs and lived experiences. Meyers and colleagues (2019) argue cultivating empathetic relationships with students is critical for developing high-quality student-teacher relationships and learning. Douglas (2020) advocates “we teach, assess, and refine so that ultimately, we have lesson plans that anyone can teach that will cover exactly the outcomes we want to address and yield uniform results in learning. But learning is never uniform”

In that spirit, we present ungrading as an alternative to the ‘norm’ and ‘uniform’ that is positioned within a system of care by accounting for students’ needs, histories, and realities. This research took place at a large university in the southeastern United States. Graduate student participants included in this research were students in a graduate-level online Introduction to Educational Technology course taught by the first author in the fall of 2021. In total, 13 students were enrolled in the course, with eight willing to participate in interviews about their experience. Of the eight students, each of these individuals came with a range of educational experiences. For instance, some students had recently completed their undergraduate degrees and had moved directly into a

Students came into the course with a range of educational experiences and beliefs about the function and purpose of grading practices. Six of the eight students interviewed had careers in PK-12 educational settings as classroom teachers or teacher assistants. One student was a graphic designer, and one student worked as a designer and trainer in IT cybersecurity. To prepare students for the ungrading process, they were introduced to Stommel’s (2018) ungrading guide and Kohn's (1999) review of grading Practices.

Before this course, not a single student had experienced a grade-free course or had heard of ungrading. As expected, students were initially uneasy about the approach as it conflicted with their past educational experiences. Some students were worried about receiving credit from the university and their workplace for taking the course. So, it was explained to students that similar to any other college course, they would receive a grade at the end of the semester, however, how that grade was determined would be a bit different.

Leveraging Canvas for the course made this design feature easy to organize and maintain for both the students and the instructor. A core feature of the ungrading approach is the “process letters” that students write periodically throughout the semester. These letters serve as opportunities for students to engage in self-reflection and are designed to have students engage and discuss their learning in-depth.

At the end of each process letter, students are asked to provide themselves with a grade (0-100) that serves as a conversation starter between them and the instructor. The research followed a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 2014) bound by graduate students enrolled in the ungraded and online Introduction to Educational Technology course. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board of Research in the fall of 2021. Upon approval, the instructor informed the students that he would be conducting interviews after the semester to not interfere with their course experience or influence their perception and participation in the course in any way.

All 13 students enrolled in the course consented to have their course artifacts (e.g., process letters) included in the study. The interviews focused on their perceptions of being ungraded, including how they perceived ungrading to affect their learning. In many cases, students used their previous experiences with grades to contextualize how they felt about being in a grade-free course. The recorded interviews took place on Zoom and ranged from 20 to 50 minutes. During the interviews, the research team took fieldnotes that were referred back to when analyzing the transcripts. Each interview was transcribed using an automation transcription service and then manually corrected by members of theResearch team.

Students perceived ungrading as a break from the stressful and often anxiety-causing environment created by grades. Ungrading was perceived to foster and encourage deep collective reflection and feedback. Students also perceived it to promote the pursuit of personal and professional interests related to course material. The team analyzed the interviews, which included multiple rounds of iterative open coding, where interviews were first individually analyzed and then reviewed and discussed as a group (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After generating initial codes, the team met and discussed their codes, leading to a consensus on codes. We used the artifacts students created for the class, including students’ process letters to support our interpretation of their perceptions.

Findings In the following, we report on the themes that emerged from our interviews with students. Students spoke at great length about the concerning effects grades have had on their mental health and well-being. Students perceived ungrading to be an approach that shifted learning and assessment from an isolated effort to a collective and reflective endeavor, more concerned about the process of what and how students learned than getting a specific grade. We examine how ungrading encouraged deep student reflection, positioned learning as a collective endeavor, and resulted in students who are practicing teachers reflecting on their assessment practices.

Students’ concerns about grades were often exchanged for excitement about reflection in our interviews. Given the importance of narrative feedback to the ungrading approach, the instructor’s feedback, in many cases, drove reflection. Lois noted being in a gradeless class shifted her mindset from focusing on what she got as a grade on every assignment to what the feedback is.

The students’ interest in reflection was not just felt by the current educators in the course though. Denise, a designer and trainer, suggested the lack of grades paired with increased feedback allowed her to “just really focus more on reflecting on what I had learned during the course.” Nadia, a middle school teacher, suggested being ungraded lent itself to reflection opportunities, unlike previous experiences in graded courses.

Students' reflective processes included ensuring they were meeting their own learning needs. This endeavor, helped students recognize shifts in their learning, and placed students in a position to be responsive to their learning needs, the authors say. Kris, a current high school teacher, suggested the reflection and feedback cycles that accompanied each assessment positioned his learning as a collective endeavor with the teacher. ‘Hey, you can step it up here. Or ‘hey, you Can improve here.’ Or, ‘ hey you need to read more or you needto study,’ one student said.

In comparison to getting comments on previous work where the emphasis was on what they had done wrong, Kris framed the feedback he received as “not telling us what to do.” Lois, for example, suggests the emphasis on feedback encouraged her to provide feedback to her classmates in a way that would spark reflection. Kris positions this process as a collective endeavor that has cascading effects on students’ learning practices.

For Lois, the emphasis on feedback promoted reflective processes she wanted to engage in with her fellow students. Barrett questioned the role of grades, asking “who’s benefiting from assessment?!” suggesting it is not the learners. For the current and pre-service educators in the course, being ungraded led students to reflect on their assessment practices.

Students perceived ungrading as providing them with more opportunities to make connections to their personal and professional interests. Not having to deal with the pressure associated with grades, reduced their anxiety related to participating in class activities. As a result, in some cases, students felt this lack of stress encouraged them to engage further with course topics.

Olivia, a pre-service educator, felt that being in a grade-free course encouraged her to participate and learn in ways that were much different from her previous class experiences. "I definitely noticed myself doing my assignments slightly differently... But, overall, I think it changed for me because I did a lot more research," she said.

I definitely did my assignments a bit differently, and I involved myself more in the content that was provided versus just doing the assignment and calling it a day. For Olivia, removing grades provided her with the space to pursue course topics in greater detail and at her own pace. Denise perceived not being graded as an opportunity “to be more focused on the task at hand and do some deeper exploration into other topics that were closely aligned, but we’re more suited for what I do professionally.” For other students, the removal of grades allowed them to feel like they could put their personal touch on the course.

Ester, an elementary teacher, perceived her experience as an opportunity to be more engaged in the course, especially during asynchronous class discussions. Lois found discussions without grades allowed her to add her personality to the class activity. Ester suggested how students interacted in this course conflicted with her previous experiences, recalling that “nobody's thinking about ‘Oh if I have to do something, it’s because I must answer two peers’”

Students perceived ungrading to be an opportunity for growth. As students who had never experienced being in a gradeless course, they had been conditioned to think about grades and grading practices in a specific way. As revealed throughout our findings, grades, for many, were the source of various traumas related to stress, pressure, and anxiety that inhibited their learning.

In addition to these perceived ill effects, several students mentioned ungrading seemed to overcome bias in grading practices. Kris, a non-native English speaker, shared that he felt graded assessments were often biased against him and his knowledge. Similarly, Ester, another non- native English speakers, spoke at great length about how she had often been marked lower compared to her English-speaking peers on writing assessments. She believed this to be the case not because she did not understand or demonstrate her knowledge of the content, but because she had trouble demonstrating the nuances of the English language. Ester expressed excitement for ungrading and Kris positioned it as creating a more “inclusive environment,” where their experience was “much more honest�

In addition to being more transparent for students, the release of pressure associated with getting a grade resulted in an opportunity for students to focus on their learning. Denise, spoke directly to this point in her interview, sharing: It was a lot easier to just focus on the assignment and not be so tied up with what grade am I actually going to get, which alleviated a lot of anxiety.

Students saw ungraded assessments as an opportunity to grow their understanding. Lois, for instance, perceived the ungrading process to “feel like there was less pressure involved and it was more about what I needed.” Instead, as was exemplified by Denise’s work, it led to greater effort on assignments and trying to deeply understand the material.

It was more about my own journey, instead of my own destination. Olivia, both simply and eloquently, articulates her greatest perceived benefit of ungrading. It encouraged her to approach her learning and assessment with a growth mindset. More specifically, Olivia saw ungrading as an opportunity to further develop her learning, not just to cover it once and move on to the next topic.

Olivia viewed her learning as cyclical and as a process that could vary in depth depending on her interest. Students were focused more on the process of learning, often associated with a growth mindset (Dweck, 2015), than fixating on an end result. Similar to Gorichanaz (2022) and Guberman (2021), our students’ previous experiences with ungrading and grades encouraged reflection of past trauma. However, as shown in our findings, students perceived ungrading to be a positive shift away from “normal” assessment and a more appropriate means for supporting their learning.

In many ways, grades created very traumatic experiences for a couple of students included in this research. One deeply troubling experience was shared by Ester while discussing how she felt some grading practices were biased against non-native English speakers. Ester shared that in her previous online courses, she would go back through the discussions and compare what she had written to what her peers had written. Frequently, she found that the theme of her posts were similar to her peers, and were often completed in greater detail.

The nature of traditional assessment completely ignores what ungrading champions. As interest in trauma-informed instructional approaches in educational settings garner more interest, ungrading is just one approach that prioritizes student well-being. We do not intend to position ungrading as the only approach to assessment that priorizes student learning, but we do leverage our understanding of the ungrading practice to question how other forms of assessment can prioritize student learning.

We suggest that ungrading prompts an audit of educators’ and designers’ assumptions about assessment and assessment practices to uncover the implicit biases they might promote. We suggest given the impact grades have on students’ mental health and well-being, and educational experiences in general, encouraging approaches that deemphasize the presence of grades are needed.

Based on students’ perceptions of ungrading in this article, we have positioned the ungrading method as one that leverages care for students and their learning. Ungrading can promote trauma-informed teaching practices by minimizing the stressful and anxiety-inducing effect grades manifest. We find it most interesting given the context in which students were enrolled in this course and this study–amid a global pandemic–not a single interview participant discussed the hardships they were facing. Instead, their perceptions focused on how ungrading made them feel free, excited, and engaged in theirlearning. Furthermore, ungrading is just one element in a system of care. It is unrealistic, at this moment in time, to expect grades to disappear in education entirely.

This article and research encourages thoughtful discourse of where and when grades are necessary or even not needed. We hope that this article will encourage thoughtful discourse about grades and the role of grades in students’ lives. We also hope that it will encourage a discussion of the role that grades play in students' lives and their experiences.

Ungrading: why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press. Brännlund, A., Strandh, M., & Nilsson, K. (2017). Mental-health and educational achievement: The link between poor mental-health. and upper secondary school completion and grades.

Potentially perilous pedagogies: Teaching trauma is not the same as trauma-informed teaching. Carol Dweck revisits the ‘growth mindset’ in Education Week, September 22, 2015. The impact of grades on student motivation in higher education, Active Learning in Higher Education, 2018, 49(4), 15–23.

Grades are at the center of the student mental health crisis. Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Best Practices for Trauma-Informed Instruction: Best practices for trauma-informed instruction. For more information, visit Inside Higher Ed's Grading For Equity page.

https://www.hanoverresearch.com/insights-blog/k-12-trauma-informed-resources-for-coping-with-tragedy-loss. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. Imad, M. (2021). Transcending adversity: Trauma- informed educational development. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 39(3).

Fixating on pandemic ‘learning loss’ undermines the need to transform education, says Truthout.com. The author of this article is a professor of education at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the author of the book “Teacher Empathy: A Model of Empathy for Teaching for Student Success”

From grading to assessment for learning: A qualitative study of student perceptions surrounding elimination of core clerkship grades and enhanced formative feedback. Jesse Stommel, J. (2018, March 11). How to ungrade . Stommel. https://www.jessestommel.com/how-to-ungrade/

We describe an intentional approach to classroom community building from a trauma-informed perspective. We reframed a first-semester course on building classroom community for teacher certification candidates. We facilitated a Professional Learning Community (PLC) during subsequent semesters to engage candidates in ongoing discussions.

In this work, we invoke the term community to refer to specific constructs depending on contexts. As part of course design, individual classrooms are described as learning communities. This intentional language usage reflects ongoing concerns around the reductionist nature of classroom management. The phrase building learning communities refers to the intentional processes teachers use to create safe, inclusive, supportive, and affirming environments that support all students’ learning. It is also in the name of the course.

Findings showed teacher candidates felt more knowledgeable about childhood trauma as well as how to incorporate this knowledge into their learning communities. Findings identified gaps in instruction and the need for better facilitation of shifts in candidates thinking about students affected by trauma. Many of the hallmarks of teacher preparation such as intentional integration of information, analysis, practice, and reflection were effective. However, we identified concerns with our instruction, along with areas needing more robust attention.

Traumatic stress in childhood can impede brain development and is associated with barriers to school performance. Attention to childhood trauma and the subsequent need for trauma-informed care has contributed to emerging discourses related to teaching practices, school climate, and the delivery of trauma-related in-service and pre-service teacher preparation. Psychological trauma, frequently experienced by school-aged children, includes experiences or events that are perceived as harmful, create intense distress, and impact an individual’s overall wellbeing.

Consequently, students’ behaviors may be perceived by their teachers as problematic, resulting in punitive teacher responses. Literature across disciplines documents the impact of trauma on children in schools, the need for school and community-wide approaches. Nevertheless, within the educational research literature, the gap between research and practice continues (Alvarez, 2017; De Pedro et al., 2011) and trauma-informed teacher preparation in this area remains underdeveloped (Rossen & Hull, 2013; Wong, 2008) and under-researched.

Recent studies frame TIP more specifically in teacher preparation. Reddig and VanLone (2022) found that five states require training in ‘trauma-informed pedagogy’ which they define as ‘a teacher’s collective use of trauma-informed practices’ They also found states often required elements associated with trauma- informed care, such as social-emotional learning and cultural responsiveness.

Without an explicit policy directive, it remains unclear to what extent teacher preparation programs are required to provide candidates information or training in trauma-informed teaching. Studies of preservice teachers in both Australia (Davies & Berger, 2019) and the United States (McClain, 2021) describe participants’ responses that their preparation programs did not prepare them with trauma-awareness nor responses to trauma.

In our state, we typically use teacher candidates. Preservice teachers who participated in Foreman and Bates (2021) study received instruction on trauma-informed care for the classroom during a single, 90-minute class meeting. Those in an Australian study completed by L’Estrange & Howard (2022) received a six-week unit. Findings indicated that the course increased participants’ attitudes and efficacy in using teaching practices to support children in schools.

The tools and strategies included information about how trauma can affect students’ behavior and learning as well as resources on vicarious trauma. Findings across these studies confirms the need for trauma-informed practices in teacher preparation. This framework is intended for professionals in health specialties, but adaptable for other “sectors...”

that have the potential to ease or exacerbate an individual’s capacity to cope with traumatic experiences. Rossen and Hull (2013) emphasize the need for educators to build “a classroom climate of mutual respect and empathy” Trauma-informed practice in schools requires educators to recognize the prevalence, impact, and indicators of childhood trauma and to respond to student behavior in ways that support traumatized youth without re-traumatization.

Trauma-informed teaching seeks to acknowledge the ways a young person’s life course is affected by trauma. It also requires teachers demonstrate insight and flexibility in their classroom management and instructional practices. Previous research considering practicing teachers found teachers responded positively to information around trauma-informed practices and consequently felt comfortable implementing these practices. That said, RB-Banks and Meyer (2017) advocate for candidates’ early exposure to trauma- informed practices, regardless of the difficult nature of such experiences.

We were concerned that TIP content would be perceived by candidates as an add-on, a series of tricks or tips. To that end, we strived to scaffold candidates learning of the TIP modules around larger discussions of equity, cultural responsiveness, and systemic challenges. Because of the educator preparation program’s intent to foster a shift in candidates’ perspectives around building classroom communities that are trauma-informed, this practitioner research informed by action research is grounded in a sociocultural perspective using a transformative design.

Sociocultural theory's inclusion of thought, language, and learning as dialogic pushed us as instructors and researchers to examine if and how the resources we used, along with the instruction we provided, shifted candidates toward more informed perspectives and guided actions. Action research processes included intentional, critical reflection and self-evaluation of candidates’ practice with emphasis on their roles in next steps, decision-making, and implementation of new learning. We intend for the findings of this study, as well as the insights offered by candidates, to improve the course and inform teacher preparation around trauma-informed practices.

We recognize the inevitability of multiple, socially constructed realities that are also affected by power and privilege, necessitating explicitness regarding each of our values and positionalities. Our work intends to support candidates to inform practices around building learning communities, create trauma-informed learning environments, and improve teacher preparation. We address a notable gap in the research regarding teacher preparation as a component of trauma- informed systems of care.

Further, Mertens and Ginsberg (2008) describe transformative, qualitative approaches and action research as potentially complementary. We include Brydon-Miller et al.’s (2003) definition of fundamental principles of action research to include “respect for people and for the knowledge and experience they bring to the research process” (p. 15) Our intentions with this study are to respect the perspectives and experiences of candidates while working with them to challenge deficit views of middle and high school students and explore more informed and transformational stances around trauma-informed teaching.

We viewed our work as an opportunity to problematize teacher preparation, more specifically, within a required course on building learning communities with newly added content around trauma-informed practices. Drawing from the conceptual umbrella of practitioner research (Cochan-Smith & Lytle, 2009) along with action research and self-study methodologies, we explored how teacher candidates developed and constructed their perceptions of trauma- informed teaching as a component of building classroom communities.

In Spring 2017, as a transdisciplinary team, we initiated a trauma-informed project in a required undergraduate teacher education course. The project addressed ways to establish and maintain a learning environment with specific attention to: cultural conflicts in the classroom. We also focused on engaging students who are the hardest to reach and explicit attention to childhood trauma from a social work perspective.

This project, titled Transforming Learning Communities (TLC), was informed with input from partners, including veteran teachers, school counseling staff, policy advocates, and recruitment and staffing personnel from the local public school system. The TLC team’s primary task for the project was to revise an undergraduate teacher preparation course, Building Learning Communities. The course was originally designed to engage pre-service teacher candidates to understand effective approaches to build and maintain learning environments that are academically, socially, physically and emotionally safe and productive.

This course is one of the first taken by students enrolled in the undergraduate program. The revisions to BLC’s focus on building learning communities were based on foundational principles of trauma-informed practices. As a result of this shift, instruction emphasized creating classroom structures that are flexible, consistent, and responsive to the needs of all students, particularly those impacted by trauma.

Teachers who build and communicate a sense of community within classrooms create welcoming and productive learning spaces to benefit students and teachers. Calls for community within educational spaces harken back to the works of both Dewey and Vygotsky as these scholars viewed learning as a social process. In P-12 classrooms, with explicit attention to community, students are involved participants who see themselves as members of a larger community.

Watson et al. acknowledge learning occurs in community and note the critical nature of the teacher’s role in not only building such a community but also in sustaining it over time. We also recognize challenges in building relationships and community with students whose prior experiences with teachers are negative while affirming the significance of the community building process for students' socio-emotional and academic learning.

Teacher candidates need instruction modelling practices supportive of classrooms as learning communities. Researchers have demonstrated how coursework can be a place where candidates experience community building firsthand. D'Souza (2017) modeled strategies such as greeting students by name, attending to classroom arrangement, connecting with students' lives outside the course, and engaging in active learning.

Candidates recognized these actions affected their learning and sense of belonging, viewing these actions as relevant for their future classrooms. As part of their own experiences, candidates' conceptualizations of the communities they wish to build with their students in the future. During the first semester, we established baseline data, using The Trauma Survey (Crosby et al., 2016) as a formative assessment. We created a sustainable course design to provide candidates with opportunities and tools supporting their ongoing learning, reflection, and action toward more inclusive classrooms.

Instructors delivered content on trauma-informed teaching via four modules spread throughout the 14-week course. Modules included directed readings, lectures, class activities and discussions. The two teacher educators were listed as co-instructors of record for the course and were responsible for grading. The course is included in an IRB allowing self-study for teacher preparation coursework that requires protections against coercion.

The invitation explains instructional tasks and assignments may be used as data. Candidates who chose not to participate in self-study can complete an opt-out form indicating their wishes. The instructors include a Black social work educator, a Black English and rhetoric educator, and two white teacher educators. We all identify as female.

Together, we form a multi-racial and multi-disciplinary group of scholar-activists with varying levels of relevant experience in schools and classrooms. Of the candidates, 12 out of 17 continued into the second semester PLC and research. Six of these completed the full student teaching experience and one withdrew. We do not identify gender because of the low number of participants. Participants chose their own pseudonyms.

Data Sources and Collection During the first semester, data include course assignments and candidates' reflections on their experiences. During the second semester, we facilitated the monthly PLC meetings to continue candidates’ engagement with trauma-informed perspectives after the course. Using both written and verbal prompts, candidates used stimulated recall (Heikonen et al., 2017) in focus groups to revisit the topics and assignments from first semester. In the third semester, candidates met in the PLC focus group to reflect on trauma- informed practices. Each of the seven candidates completed Critical Incident Descriptions (Angelides, 2001) twice; once at the midpoint of the student teaching semester and again at the end.

Candidates identified incidents in their classrooms and responded to prompts about the incidents. In Critical Incident Descriptions, each candidate described four different scenarios. Candidates described their perspectives and reflections on interactions with students who (a) acted out; and (b) shut down, as these are identified in the literature as behaviors presented by students who have experienced trauma.

Students were asked to describe one incident of a student acting out that ended with a positive resolution as well as one incident that ended in a negative resolution. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, a structured process using existing theory for predetermined codes. Transdisciplinary theories used to design the study directly informed the process of analysis and interpretation of findings.

Data analysis was a recursive process that began while we taught the course, prior to confirming the precise data set we would analyze. More formal data analysis began once the course ended. We determined our final data set from the course based on the candidates who had not opted out of self-study. Drawing from Saldaña (2015), we coded in two stages. As part of our first cycle codes, we applied codes across multiple passes of the data attending specifically to where candidates described that their thinking changed or where we saw shifts in their thinking.

Our second cycle of coding included closed coding derived from our theoretical framework. We reviewed our earlier logs written during the instruction along with the additional data. The findings revealed how candidates shifted their perspectives of classroom communities as they recognized their need, as teachers, to be trauma-informed.

With our attention to development in the context of social and cultural interaction (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996) the findings illuminate how, throughout the study, they co-constructed those perspectives. As part of our action research and to inform us, as instructors, whether candidates were developing perceptions of trauma-informed teaching, they completed the School Faculty/Staff Trauma Survey (Crosby et al., 2016)

Responses to the Trauma Survey administered the second week of class during the first semester and again at the end of that semester demonstrated candidates' changes in their responses to questions. All students enrolled agreed with these statements. The other data sources revealed the nuances around these statements and how candidates' perspectives across each semester honed in around four actions. These actions serve as themes with respect to their perceptions of trauma-informed teaching within learning communities.

relationship building; c.) adding teacher moves; and d.) reframing teacher behaviors. Candidates’ reflections revealed how they constructed their understandings of these actions by framing course content and field experiences in support of learning trauma-informed practices. They continued to note that signs of trauma may be overlooked by teachers, and, in later semesters, noted potential instances in classrooms where that may have been the case.

During the first semester, while they were enrolled in the course, candidates’ mentions of trauma were specific (and often mandatory because of the directions for assignments) During the two later semesters, candidates often continued to explicitly mention trauma-informed practices without our prompting. At other times, they discussed topics that included responses that were often trauma- informed or trauma-sensitive without explicitly mentioning trauma. For example, in one of her Critical Incident Descriptions during student teaching, Jenny wished that she had de-escalated a conflict with a student rather than escalating it. Jenny's reflection on this critical incident was similar to others' shifts and recognition of the significance of their decisions and actions. In short, Jenny's developing perceptions of community building from

Hermione shares her perspective and owns her responsibility. There are many types of trauma signs that span externally and internally. I feel like it’s so easy for a child to fall through the cracks and go by unnoticed by those who can help. Not every child will react the same way or show equal signs. I need to be prepared to spot a potential child who is in need.

In later semesters, candidates revisited what they learned about trauma awareness, why this was significant for them, and they articulated how they might respond as a result. For example, in the second semester, Anna shared that “learning to understand how trauma affects students (by) looking from their perspective can help (teachers) be sensitive to their feelings/triggers” Anna recalled what she learned about how trauma may manifest in students' behaviors in the classroom and why that awareness was important. In the final PLC conversation of the semester following the class, candidates were asked what they were still thinking about from the class.

Margo's appreciation for exposure to the content which she described, “no one has really mentioned in any of my education classes before,” reflected a trend across the candidates. They had never encountered information about the causes and impact of trauma, and, consequently, they needed time to process.

After she student taught during the third semester, Hermione reconsidered her earlier writings about awareness of trauma. Over time, she realized she needed more than information and awareness about trauma. She also required additional opportunities for analysis and experience. As an instructional team, we were encouraged by candidates' increasing awareness. But we remained concerned that they were using trauma as a blanket explanation for everything they experienced in the classroom. Had we potentially replaced one set of assumptions with another?

We wondered if the central focus on community building was, in their minds, not as significant as the trauma-informed practices. During the first semester course, each candidate wrote a plan for their future classrooms that incorporated attention to student and teacher relationships, relationships with families, and relationships among peers. While they described relationships as key to safe, supportive learning communities, they did not initially frame relationship building specifically as a component of a classroom-based response to trauma.

During student teaching, Rose more explicitly connected relationships in the classroom to trauma-informed practices. Over time, and with experience, Rose's perspectives on community became more explicit in terms of what relationships entailed. Many of the moves or actions candidates planned or performed during student teaching incorporated what they learned about the trauma- informed modules in the first semester as well as the broader concepts about building learning communities from the course as part of their response to trauma.

For example, in an assignment completed during the course, Jessica planned to enact several different practices to ensure her classroom was trauma-informed. Reflecting on her original plan after she student taught, Jessica realized that a great deal of the trauma- informed practices she planned for were actually plans for what she would do as a teacher. She also reflected on her practice and regretted, “I probably should have implemented these a little bit better when I was student teaching.” Jessica realized honest reflection is critical for breaking away from her earlier, more naïve conceptions in order to replace them with more grounded stances and explicit actions.

Reframing Teacher Behaviors Candidates frequently mentioned they needed to avoid behaviors used as a means of surveillance or to connect with students. They realized they how these behaviors may trigger or re-traumatize students and named how they intended to reframe typical teacher reactions to potentially charged classroom scenarios. CJ was explicit during the first semester about his intention to “actively resist re-Traumatization and escalation”

Like Jessica, after student teaching, CJ also recognized the need for teachers to revisit their earlier ideas, and if needed, revisit their plans and reframe their behaviors. He explained how important he believed learning about and implementing trauma-informed teaching is for teachers, recognizing it as a process requiring ongoing work. During a focus group in the final semester CJ acknowledged “The best thing we can do is continue to have these conversations and continue to revisit what we know about trauma- informed teaching” as mechanisms to support reframing teacher behaviors.

For example, during the PLCs in the second semester, candidates continued to focus on teacher actions, including deescalating situations. Candidates reflected on what behaviors and decisions they might do differently next time they encountered a similar situation. They also found the opportunities to reflect on what they learned during the first semester in later PLC's helpful. Katie spoke to this, explaining, “I loved the trauma-sensitive practices conversations. These talks weren't always particularly fun, but they were so important. It was a huge reminder to try and understand why certain behavior manifests, rather than condemning it as'misbehavior'”

During the PLC, one candidate shared, “I feel that as long as I consider the themes individual identity, a safe community, equitable opportunities, cultural and gender inclusiveness, and how to deal with trauma.” As instructors, these types of responses helped us reconsider how we position trauma-informed practices. They reaffirmed our need to facilitate a shift in candidates' thinking as opposed to providing them with prescriptive tools.

Limitations to this study include the small sample size, as well as the use of self-reported data. We did not have the capacity to conduct classroom observations of teaching during the student teaching semester. We also recognize that attrition complicates the analysis as perhaps those who chose to continue in the study were more likely to “buy-in” to our central purpose. While we are cautiously optimistic that the shifts in their thinking will continue to take place, we continue to reflect, rethink, and revise how we can support candidates to create learning communities that truly transform.

This project was conceptualized as an intentional, long-term approach to teacher education around community building from a trauma-informed perspective. candidates revisited topics as they co-constructed what they learned in a first semester course throughout the second and third semesters of their programs. the through use of action research within practitioner inquiry explicated these processes. the documentation and evidence from this study, as analyzed and described by the transdisciplinary team, contributes to continuing course revisions.

Findings show teacher candidates felt more knowledgeable about childhood trauma as well as how to incorporate this knowledge into their teaching philosophy and practices. In essence, learning to be a trauma-informed teacher, like learning to teach, entails a long-term process that integrates information, analysis, practice, and reflection.

Learning to be a trauma-informed teacher also requires a commitment to considerations of the larger implications of teacher actions. Research has illustrated the need for exposing teaching professionals to this content earlier in their careers and even at the pre-service level. We found the content appropriate to introduce when candidates are first developing ideas about community building. By adopting a framework from social work (SAMHSA, 2014), we provided teacher candidates content to support shifts in their thinking.

We recognized teacher candidates likely do not have prior knowledge about trauma or of trauma-informed practices. It is highly unlikely such practices were part of their prior experiences in schools. Many candidates shared they had not been exposed to the research around the prevalence of trauma, similar to other studies of TIP in teacher preparation (Davies & Berger, 2019; McClain, 2021). Some have personal experience with trauma and traumatic events.

The introduction of that information forces them to focus and, perhaps, linger on the nature of the trauma. We wonder if they then over-attribute trauma to classroom scenarios. Not every student in schools has experienced significant trauma, and we remain concerned about candidates' assumptions around trauma. It is vital that through teacher education, candidates establish a pattern of thinking and a philosophical stance on trauma-informed teaching practices.

This study provides context for the ways in which discussion and reflection of learning communities that are trauma-informed can occur. We posit that endeavors to move teacher candidates toward such reflection and change requires intentional approaches and further research. In the time following the initial revisions to the course and the analysis of the action research data described here, we have engaged in continuous reflection and modifications.

We found that our core modification, comprised of the introduction to trauma awareness as a foundation to building community, began to shift candidates’ thinking. We needed additional modifications along with more deliberately designed tasks to engage candidates in processing what they learned. We became strategic about our pace of instruction; we devoted more time to targeted reflection. We also recognized that the introduction of content on trauma was triggering for some candidates. We identified the need to create a more race-conscious approach to trauma that included structural considerations of the circumstances in which trauma occurs and how racism shapes the conditions in which students experience trauma.

As mentioned previously, we now designate more in-class time for candidates to reflect and process, and we provide tools to support them. Those reflections followed deeper dives on the impact of trauma, and the implications of that impact for classroom learning and behavior. We also modified the critical incident description, originally used to capture candidates’ reflection on their actions during student teaching, for use in the course as means to engage them through the processes of building learning communities with a trauma-informed approach earlier in their programs.

We also added a module on self-care, adapted from social work education. Many candidates had also experienced trauma and were themselves struggling with mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, and depression. We believe candidates emerge from the course more informed and better prepared to transform their learning communities to support students who have experienced trauma.

“Seeing their eyes in the rearview mirror”: Identifying and responding to students’ challenging experiences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(1), 53–67. Alvarez, A. (2020). Seeing race in the research on youth trauma and education. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 583–626.

Action Research, 1(9), 1-28 . Chambers Mack, J., Johnson, A., Jones-Rincon, A. Tsatenawa, V., and Howard, K. (2019). Why do teachers leave? A comprehensive occupational health study evaluating intent-to-quit in public school teachers.

Trauma-sensitive schools for the adolescent years: Promoting resiliency and healing, grades 6–12. Davies, S., & Berger, E. (2019) Teachers’ experiences in responding to students’exposure to domestic violence. Day, A., Somers, C., Baroni, B., West,. S., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C. (2015) Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with girls in a residential facility school.

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(10), 1086-1105. De Pedro, K. M. T., Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Estrada, J., Smith, G. D., & Esqueda, M. (2011). The children of military service members: Challenges, supports, and future educational research. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 566-618.

School Mental Health, 8(1), 163-176. Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39. Gillies, A. (2017). Teaching pre-service teachers about belonging. International Journal of Whole Schooling, Special Issue, 13(1) 17-25.

Student-teachers’ strategies in classroom interaction in the context of the teaching practicum. Hoover, S. A., Sapere, H., Lang, J. M., Nadeem, E., Dean, K. L., & Vona, P. (2018). Statewide implementation of an evidence-based trauma intervention in schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 44–53.

Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 191-206. Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S., Wilson, C., Wong, M., Layne, C. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396–404.

Trauma-informed initial teacher education training: A necessary step in a system-wide response to addressing childhood trauma. Lortie, D. (1975/2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. McClain, M. P. (2021). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of preparedness of teaching students who experience trauma.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1573-1598. Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2015). Relational ways of being an educator: Trauma-informed practice supporting disenfranchised young people.

Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367. Rathvon, N. (2008) Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for improving student outcomes. RB-Banks, Y., & Meyer, J. (2017). Childhood trauma in today's urban classroom: Moving beyond the therapist's office. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 30(1-4), 63-75. Reddig, N., & VanLone, J., (2022) Pre-Service teacher preparation in trauma-informed pedagogy.

Initial teacher education and trauma and violence informed care in the classroom: Preliminary results from an online teacher education course. Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2 nd ed.) Sage. Sales, A., Traver, J., & Garcia, R. (2011). Action research as a school-based strategy in intercultural professional development for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(5), 911-919.

The National Center for Trauma-Informed Care (2015) provides guidance for a trauma-informed approach. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014) outlines SAMHSA’s concept of trauma. Thomas, M. S., Crosby, S., & Vanderhaar, J. (2019) Traumainformed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422–452.

Wolpow, R., Johnson, M. M., Hertel, R. R., Kincaid, S. O. (2009). The heart of learning and teaching: Compassion, resiliency, and academic success. Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools and communities. Children and Schools, 35(2), 123–126. Thomas, S., Howell, P. B., Crosby, D., Echols, K. L., Newby, L. D., Hodgson, H., Daneshmand,S. (2018). Classroom management through teacher candidates' lenses: Transforming learning communities. Kentucky Teacher Education Journal:

Wong, M. (2008). Interventions to reduce psychological harm from traumatic events among children and adolescents. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 35, 398-400. Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Compassionate Schools. http://www.osPI.org/compassionate-schools.

Social emotional learning (SEL) is gaining momentum across the nation. Evidence shows that SEL positively influences student academic growth and achievement. Current SEL implementation efforts focus on developing social emotional domains and measurable competencies that integrate developmental psychology, educational theory, and cultural relevance.

This article focuses on a case study of how a school district implemented SEL using the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework during the COVID-19 pandemic. We start the article with the barriers to SEL implementation and the need for trauma-informed instruction. We then present a district-wide implementation of SEL through an exploratory single case study by sharing the methodology and the strategies used by the district for implementing SEL.

We conclude with effective trauma-informed teaching practices and lessons learned. Studies show barriers and resistance to district-wide SEL implementation. Two known barriers to implementation are resources (such as professional development), support, and time. Teachers report that they do not have the time for SEL Implementation.

A report from the Foundation for Young Adult Success questions the practicality of giving “another thing” for teachers to design and disseminate. Another implementation barrier at the district level is a lack of SEL skills in the instructional staff, specifically in the competency of self-awareness. This might suggest that educators ought to frame their SEL experiences in a pluralistic context, thereby allowing students to apply multiple values to their experiences rather than assign meaning to the experience by the power structure operating in the district.

One common thread of inadequate implementation is the belief that SEL is just another fad in instruction. In addition to the known barriers to implementation, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the mental health of students. For many students, the pandemic created feelings of isolation, uncertainty, and profound loss. Within this environment, students experienced stressors that are known to increase the risk of toxic stress, defined by adverse experiences that lead to strong, frequent, and prolonged activation of the body’s stress response system.

In any given classroom across the U.S., it is estimated that two-thirds of all students will have experienced at least one traumatic event by age 16. For families already facing daily stressors such as poverty, illness, community violence, racism, discrimination, intergenerational trauma, or family dysfunction, the challenges brought forth by the pandemic only increased the risk of psychological trauma.

Microaggressions negatively affect the biological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral well-being of marginalized populations. What might appear to some as trivial or unintentional slights are often experienced as major stressors for persons of color, individuals from marginalized ethnic or religious backgrounds, and individuals in the LGBTQ+ community.

There are other psychological challenges such as the digital age, where students face obstacles in terms of navigating their social worlds and their evolving ego identities. These experiences can lead to psychological trauma for students in significant numbers. Research has demonstrated that psychological trauma impedes school performance, given its direct impact on social, emotional, and cognitive development. With the primary goal of educational institutions to prepare children for their future, it is no wonder why the importance of trauma-informed practices in the classroom and school community has become a national movement. Teachers are the engine that drive SEL implementation (Ross & Tolan, 2018).

Almost every state has specific SEL implementation standards, and these SEL standards align with the Every School Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) However, the literature regarding how SEL is implemented in a district is sparse. The absence of comprehensive district-wide implementation in the literature suggests a need to understand how all the pieces of implementing SEL fit together. Therefore, an exploratory single case study looked at how a school district implemented an SEL framework. The study focused on relationships that were interdependent in the phenomenon of SEL Implementation.

The intent was to investigate and capture complex action, perception, and interpretation of that implementation as applied to the synthesis of Greenberg's model of implementation. The case study focused on a medium-sized school district in the Midwest with a student population of 3,000–5,000 students. While the district did receive a small implementation grant from the state, the district administrators have stated that money is not a limiting factor. The data collection focused on the experience of administrators and teachers regarding the implementation of SEL using the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework.

The greatest limiting factors are personnel models with school counselors, counselors as SEL coaches, using a k-12 district language related to SEL competencies, and personal self-awareness and self-management. The discovery of participants’ constructivist understanding occurred through semi-structured open-ended interview questions. This research afforded the opportunity to focus on the participant experience, including the historical and cultural context (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The degree of interconnectedness of resources and processes was unique to the district and across the levels of leadership and teachers.

Data collection consisted of 15 semi-structured interviews for a duration of 40-60 minutes each. Participants included district and school-level administration, including members of student services, SEL coaches, and teachers. Students were not interviewed in this case study. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and recorded with the permission of the participant during the pandemic.

Table 1 Study Participants. Admin/Teacher Level Gender Experience Years of Experience. Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted using the Elemental methodology, using descriptive and process coding, and the Affective methodology. (Miles et al., 2014)

Elemental methods are a type of first cycle coding that provides both the description and detail of the process (descriptive and process coding) (Miles et al., 2014) Effective methods allow for the coding of the participants’ subjective experiences. This includes the values, attitudes, and beliefs associated with implementation (values coding) and the judgment and value that the participants have for the process, policies, and organizational structures. Subcodes were developed after interviews were transcribed and provided more specific qualitative analysis of the data. Analysis of the subcodes led to the development of patterns, second cycle coding, that emerged from cross-referencing values and evaluative codes with descriptive and process codes.

This allowed for the identification of how teachers and administrators felt or valued certain processes or the value of certain resources. An example of coded data can be found in Table 2. Coded as an Implementation Process statement (I.P.) can also be used as an Informational Resource (R.I.)

Evaluation Administrator: “SEL is becoming more important in this district, with the state moving in the direction of, and providing support for, a comprehensive school counseling model.” Coded as an Evaluative statement (E) Data Triangulation The study used three forms of data triangulation to increase the accuracy of the findings: 1.) interview data with different district and school leadership and teachers (themes were built on converging data and perspectives given by participants. The coding of the interview transcripts validated the reviewer's lens), 2.) colleague coding of transcripts to check for consistency, and 3.)

Study participant feedback (three participants responded to the coded data with a sense of affirmation) (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Strategies for Implementing SEL in a School District. The case study sheds light on important strategies for implementing Sel in a school district. The first step in implementing SEL was to select a framework. The district in the case study chose the CASEL framework for two reasons: 1.) the district's existing programs were flexible enough to be integrated into the SEL framework, and 2.) the Sel framework was adopted by the state and aligned well with existing programs.

The school district used human resource strategies to implement the SEL framework in the classroom. The first key resource management decision to implement SEL was to create new positions, dedicated SEL coaches. The teachers were not involved in the framework decision-making process, but were highly engaged in the implementation process.

The SEL coaching position was a realignment of the school counselor role and integrated with student services. One innovative component of the role was to work with both students and teachers. Professional development for both instructional practice and teachers’ self-management and self-awareness was a large component.

Coaches were asked to analyze local survey data, specifically for school perceptions. They were also asked to co-teach with teachers in the classroom. Professional development started with the coaches’ training. Following their own training, the coaches provided professional development for the teaching staff. This process allowed teachers to integrate the SEL framework into the classroom, collaborate with other peers, and develop their own SEL self-awareness and self-management.

SEL coaches co-taught with content teachers in the classroom. Coaches as co-teachers helped the classroom teachers perfect their craft of SEL integration into classroom instruction. Co-teaching model included working with students in large group instruction, problem-solving with students and working and planning with staff.

One SEL coach said, “co-teachers have a more proactive role with students and in SEL implementation in the classroom.” Part of the district’s organizational structure for managing resources for implementation was the development of a Professional Learning Community (PLC) The PLC had a focus on data assessment and support for implementation improvement. Teachers and administrators referred to data assessment as a core function in their PLC.

Data assessment teams developed learner profiles from grade-level data and culture and climate surveys. The data sets are used to assess the growth of the program at grade levels. Learner profiles travel with the student, and as the student moves onto the next grade level, the new teacher receives the learner profile. This process increases the productivity of implementing SEL.

These data allow PLCs to determine the growth areas and areas of success that can be used across the district. The staff that stays in the district develops self-awareness and self-management that promotes continuous improvement. One key factor was COVID-19, which became a catalyst for implementation. The pandemic highlighted the need for SEL support for students.

Two types of intervention that have been identified as effective means for teachers to utilize in their classrooms to meet the needs of students impacted by trauma are 1.) teacher assistance of student self-regulation followed by 2.) teacher engagement in a positive connection. Both interventions were supported in the case study through professional learning for staff, addressing and increasing their own self-awareness and self-management skills. SEL coaches were instrumental in this professional learning and development.

It has been established in trauma-informed literature that when students increase self-regulation and develop teacher and peer relationships based on positive regard, new learning is enhanced. Brunzell et al. (2016) explored how teachers implemented a practice pedagogy model referred to as Trauma-Informed Positive Education (TIPE) TIPE presents a tri-consecutive method of teacher practice to engage their trauma-impacted students in the classroom. The first two phases of this intervention, outlined above, increased student self- regulation through teacher assistance and teacher engagement in positive connection.

The third phase involves increasing student agency in accessing psychological resources. This final step is a part of wellbeing-informed education models. Literature provides evidence of the success of increasing student access to psychological resources with the integration of well-being interventions in the classroom. The ability to be open to new learning and new skills is inherent in the strategies required for students to increase Psychological resources.

The case study outlined in this article demonstrated the success of using SEL coaches to assist teachers throughout the school year. Coaches became a bridging factor for the learning community and the informational resources in the school district. Without the coaches, the professional development of teachers and the development of learning communities would not occur. One limiting factor for SEL implementation is the limited self-awareness and self-management of teachers.

The root problem lies in the teachers’ inability to address ways to develop the self-awareness of students. This case study offers options for professional development for teachers by working with the SEL coaches who have backgrounds in clinical psychology. While professional development is often difficult for teachers, this case study provided professional development to the teachers in a non-threatening and personalized manner. Though the process was stressful for some teachers, there was no evidence of long-term stress on teachers. One teacher stated, “I feel like COVID might have helped us with respect to understanding that kids’ needs are beyond the four walls.”

Co-teaching coaches allowed for real-time coaching in the classroom. Co-teachers worked with students in large group instruction, problem-solving with students and working and planning with staff. Developing a co-te teaching structure increases caring student-teacher relationships and provides a foundation for increased self-management (Rabin, 2020). Professional development of scope and sequence integration and common language development happened in real time as SEL coaches co-taught with content teachers.

An added benefit was discovered that teachers developed their own self-awareness and self-management. Coaches as co-teachers helped the classroom teachers perfect their craft of SEL integration into classroom instruction. Social awareness and responsible decision-making competencies of CASEL aligned well as the district worked through the challenges presented by the pandemic.

PLC in the district addressed student needs associated with social awareness by developing empathy for students in their socially restricted lives. Coaching occurred in the PLC as teachers recognized the increasing needs of students. COVID-19 quarantines and isolations heightened the need for developing social awareness among students. The SEL coach position provides the bridging factor between the professional development of teachers and the teaching and learning of informational resources.

Both coaches and teachers spoke to the pandemic as a factor that allowed the acceptance of professional development. The adjustment from face-to-face instruction to virtual learning increased the potential for social isolation. SEL instruction and coaching is the most likely process that could equalize the setbacks to students due to COVID-19.

Meaningful progress in district initiatives requires commitment and effort from many moving parts. Coordinated programs in the context of the systemic district and school-wide programming can provide the most significant benefit for students. Administrative and policy support is necessary for teachers to effectively provide SEL programming. Without coordination between teachers, administrators, policymakers, district leaders, and support staff, a district may not realize the benefits promised by SEL implementation.

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. The framework is based on the OECD study on social and emotional skills for student success and well-being. For more information on the framework, visit: http://measuringsel.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Framework-A.3.pdf.

Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth edition) . SAGE publications. Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: Basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333–345. Gorski, P. C., & Dalton, K. (2020). Striving for critical reflection in multicultural and social justice teacher education: Introducing a typology of reflection approaches. Journal of Teacher Education, 71 (3), 357-368.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27(1), 13–32. Kamei, A., & Harriot, W. (2021). Social emotional learning in virtual settings. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(3). Miles, B. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña,. J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third edition). SAGE Publications.

Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2014). Historical trauma as public narrative: A conceptual review of how history impacts present-day health. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 128–136. Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for school-wide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297. Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S.

Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2019). An empirical basis for linking social and emotional learning to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 193–204. Quraishi, S. O. ( 2019). Teachers’ individual and collective sense-making of a social andotional learning program. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University). ProQuest LLC. Rabin, C. (2020). Co-teaching: Collaborative and caring teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 135–147. Rosanbalm, K. (2021).

Social and emotional learning during COVID-19 and beyond: Why it matters and how to support it . Hunt Institute. Social and emotionallearning in adolescence: Testing the CASEL model in a normative sample. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199.

Do universal social and emotional learning programs for secondary school students enhance the competencies they address? A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 56(10), 1545–1567. The Guilford Press. The Handbook of Social and emotional Learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19)

The heart of learning and teaching: Compassion, resiliency, and academic success. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Compassionate Schools. The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta-analysis.

Interview Protocol Guide for District Level Administration. Introduction and Demographics. Deciding on a Framework. Allocating Resources. Looking back, what turned out to be the most critical resources. How much time does it take to implement SEL? What would you have done differently, or did it go as planned?

Research suggests that there is an 11:1 return on every dollar invested. What are some examples of professional development for the staff? Do you feel that the professional development was sufficient? How did you know when you implemented SEL or when you achieved the goal? Wrap up and concluding thoughts: Thank you very much for your time, is there anything else you would like to share that we have not covered?

For School Level Administration, we want to know about your background. Tell us about the first time you heard about SEL, and what were your impressions of the idea. What advice would you give a school leader regarding the implementation process? What resources would you say are required for implementation? Was there a perception of “building the plan while you were flying?” What did the professional development look like for the staff? Was the staff compensated?

All SEL frameworks have competencies. Can you tell me how you track student advancement? What are your thoughts on students assessing and tracking their progress? Interacting human resources: Did you ever think that SEL implementation was too difficult? If yes, what kept you moving? If no, would your staff agree? Who were the key stakeholders that make-or-break implementation?

What positions have you had over that time? Deciding on an SEL Framework Tell me about the first time you heard about SEL, and what were your impressions of the idea. What were the key resources that allowed the teachers to implement SEL? Can you tell me how SEL planning is different from content area planning? How much time were staff allowed for development? Was the staff compensated for their implementation work?

Can you tell me about the technology resources such as the learning management system software (LMS) specific for SEL? Would you suggest something specific for tracking and reporting competency progress? How did you know when you had implemented SEL in the Classroom? If you were to advise a teacher just starting out with SEL, what would you tell them? How important is the support of other leadership or counselors in the implementation process? Can you share a story about the positive impact of SEL on students?

As the COVID-19 pandemic extended into its third year, the trauma students in colleges and universities experienced intensified rather than abated. Some students experienced the pandemic’s intersection with other sources of trauma, such as systemic racism, which added to and exacerbated existing injustices. These wider realities, as well as careful attention to the particular group of enrolled students, shaped a trauma-informed instructional design practice that we, a faculty member (Alison) and student co-facilitator (Van), developed in an undergraduate education course at one tertiary-level institution.

This practice included the co-creation and three related uses of numerous shared Google Docs. This practice was not only responsive to enrolled students’ particular needs and contextualized within the wider realities of the recent pandemic and ongoing systemic inequities. It was also situated in expanding understandings of trauma. While research on trauma has traditionally focused on the experiences of war veterans and survivors of childhood trauma, notions of “trauma-informed care” have expanded to recognize the impact of a wide range of traumatic experiences on individuals across contexts, including schools.

In contrast to early conceptions of trauma, which labeled victims as morally weak, trauma-informed practice in educational contexts avoids approaching students from a deficit perspective. Brunzell and colleagues (2019) offer a “practice pedagogy’ that includes attention to “aspects of healing (i.e. trauma- informed practice) and growth” in the classroom.

We created this environment by inviting every student to complete a Course Commitment Form to be shared with us as co-facilitators. This approach reflects three of the six key principles of a trauma-informed approach identified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2014) This approach embraces empathy rather than deficit thinking (Thomas et al., 2019) and reflects additional SAMHSA (2014) principles: safety; moving past historical biases and stereotypes; and recognizing and addressing historical trauma.

Alison and Van's course involved weekly entries in personal journals, contributions to a collective annotated bibliography, fieldwork projects, research studies, and portfolios. All assignments endeavored to support life-affirming learning opportunities designed to ensure that social and emotional content were integrated with subject-specific content of the course. As part of our ongoing process of trauma-informed, self-care practice, our writing process has also been on a co-created, shared Google Doc on which we drafted and revised as well as invited enrolled students to comment. We offer recommendations for educators across institutional contexts and courses who might be interested in adapting this design strategy.

The course we co-facilitated in the Spring-2022 semester was called “Exploring and Enacting Transformation of Higher Education” This undergraduate education course was co-created in 2015 by Alison and then-undergraduate Crystal Des-Ogugua (Cook-Sather et al., 2018) It employs anti-racist pedagogy and is always co- Facilitated by a faculty member and an undergraduate student of color. The goal of this course was to make space for students to put their lived experiences into dialogue with published work and with other students’ lived experiences in order to explore, advocate for, and enact diversity, equity, and inclusion in the course, and in higher education more broadly.

Who we are also informed how we co-created a trauma-informed learning space and practice in this course. Alison, a tenured faculty member who identifies as a middle-aged, white, cis-gendered female, has taught this course numerous times since co-creating it with Crystal. Van, a third-year student, completed the course in Spring of 2021 and co-facilitated it in spring of 2022 while conducting an independent study on embodiment pedagogy. This work is premised on collaboration, mutuality, empowerment, voice, and choice. It specifically strives to redress the epistemic, affective, and ontological harms many equity-denied students experience in higher education.

Doing trauma-informed work with and for one another as facilitators was essential for us to be able to create a space for students to do analogous work of self-care and life-affirming learning (Imad, 2021). Discussion of Design Choice to Use Multiple, Shared, Co-created Google Docs During the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years, a great deal of teaching and learning unfolded via virtual platforms such as Zoom. It was a matter of necessity to find ways for faculty and students to engage with subject matter and its application. Our use of multiple, co-created, shared GoogleDocs was not necessarily required for those purposes.

Imad (2021) contends that it is critical for those facilitating learning to engage in self-care. In her discussion of what teachers need to manage their own trauma while supporting students, she writes: A calm nervous system can help calm other people’s nervous systems.

When our nervous system is calm, we are able to engage socially, be productive, and process new information. To calm our nervous systems and to plan class sessions for each week of the course, we met on each Sunday afternoon during the semester. We co-facilitated “Exploring.” Our collaboration began via Zoom, and as we talked, we used a single, co-created, shared Google Doc to record our hopes for the course overall and also to draft plans for specific components of each class session. This Doc, shared only between the two of us, captured emotional as well as practical aspects of our experiences. Bringing the social and intellectual into a single conversation space built trust, connection, and care that was

Because our goal for this course was to foster this kind of community for students, to construct such a space intentionally for ourselves allowed us to experience expressions of who we are and what we brought to our co-facilitation. The process of engaging in this way contributed to our continued growth and capacity to be flexible and responsive in relation to our collaboration with one another. We used this space to acknowledge our positionalities and how they informed our perceptions. These perceptions, in turn, informed our choices to push forward or step back on certain topics, and to engage in particular ways with individual students or groups. This use of a shared, co-created Google Doc allowed us. to develop a “practice pedagogy” that consistently attended

Our primary goal as co-facilitators was to address the needs and concerns of students. To do that well, we needed to attend carefully to the extent of our own capabilities. Using our meetings and co-creation of the Google Doc as a way to check in with one another both provided us with support and generated more ways in which we could enact trauma-informed care and facilitation for students. This kind of collaborative work is trauma informed and healing centered, and it allowed us to facilitate in ways that were also traumainformed and healing centric. Enacting this form of care is engaging in healing.

We used the co-created, shared Google Docs to map out daily plans. These included consistent components of each class session (e.g., check-in times) and estimated times after each segment of a class session. We also discussed reflective questions and substantive points we wanted to be sure to raise under each segment. These documents provided detailed documents to return to and build on for subsequent class sessions to ensure continuity. They also allowed us to generate the detailed plans we want to have so that we could focus our energy on engaging with students.

In these two ways, the co-created, shared Google Docs kept us connected and attentive to ourselves and to one another, as well as consciously aware of and attentive in our planning for an organization of students’ learning experiences. The physical and psychological environment should be a “welcoming and organized space” that includes “similar daily structures, reliable warmth, clear and consistent expectations, and predictability” (p. 4).

In addition to our awareness that students needed structure for engagement and organization, we had learned during our initial Zoom meetings with the class that enrolled students had different modes of and needs in learning, such as the use of the captioning while on Zoom. This specific understanding of the students enrolled, along with the general knowledge of students’ need for supportive structure, informed our decision to develop a set of co-created, shared Google Docs. We were affirming what students brought to the course, which helped students affirm themselves and experience empowerment, voice, and choice (SAMHSA, 2014).

The structures we created, designed to include everyone, both sent a message that people matter and demonstrated it in what students offered and what they gained through contributing. While we consistently provided these structures in class sessions, not everyone always participated; there was always choice. Having a clear agenda for the day “increases predictability and decreases student stress” (Hanover Research, 2019, p. 4). While we did not always stick to times allocated for each segment of the class session, the time windows were intended to provide structure.

Our outlines also responded to student interests and created a sense of stability, follow through, and reliability. Many, but not all, students followed along on the Google Doc outline during class, used it to access resources, and consulted it after class to follow up on ideas or resources shared. Another set of shared Google Docs we co-created for structure and organization was generated in response to subject-matter-focused resources that all students read, watched, or listened to in preparation for class sessions.

The experience of watching everyone type collectively contributed to the community building. A final set of shared Google Docs that we co-created for structure and organization collected strategies, reactions, and recommendations regarding students’ individual work on major assignments for the course, such as fieldwork and research projects. We created shared GoogleDocs on which all enrolled students could pool their thoughts and affirm one another’s efforts at different moments.

These moments included while students were preparing to undertake fieldwork and research projects, as they were in the midst of working on each. This set of Docs became a collection of both practical advice and affective support for student engagement in, and work for, the course. Enrolled students embraced and enacted a generative combination of introspection and sharing, which was nurtured as much by the comfortable silence in which we wrote together as by what we ended up sharing out loud. Our third use of co-created, shared Google Docs addressed specifically our recognition that students needed us and one another to pay attention to the social and emotional aspects of their learning. As Imad (2021) notes, “in our society in general

Yet the role of emotions in the human experience, including learning and healing, is indispensable. Centering well-being and care can help facilitators of student learning stay healthier themselves. Trauma-informed teaching includes creating “meaningful, positive teacher-student relationships”

recording student responses to “checking-in” prompts, and c.) capturing insights and inspirations. All of these were about making space for students and facilitators to share feelings, lived experiences, struggles, and successes. These methods recognize the importance of attending to needs on the human level and prioritizing how responding to those needs can inform learning in the class. They conveyed care for students’ well-being, and made students feel that they belonged in the course and mattered to others.

They unfolded at the intersection of two trauma-informed practices: co-creating “a safe, supportive, and trauma-sensitive classroom environment” and co- creating “community-building curricula” Having a Google Doc as a physical manifestation of the work of co-creation offered further affirmation of the time we spent enjoying and celebrating. We opened nearly every class session with a check-in prompt, a practice that is as important for facilitators as for students. The table below presents several examples of the kinds of prompts we offered and the questions themselves (see Table 1).

Use of check-in prompts and our collection of responses into shared Google Docs is another way of giving space for students to be heard, to feel important, and to attend to “aspects of healing and growth (Brunzell et al., 2019)

The final use of shared, co-created Google Docs we share here focused on ensuring that affective experiences were integral to course content. For example, we used snowball activities to ensure that students had embodied, community-building, affirming, and encouraging learning experiences.

Next, we went around in a circle reading aloud what was written with no framing or comments. Following that sharing, we discussed what we heard. Finally, one of us transcribed the student responses onto a shared Google Doc. Approaches such as this were very well received by the enrolled students and contributed to both classroom camaraderie and “community-building curricula” (Hanover Research, 2019, p. 3).

This design approach supports facilitators and enrolled students in co-creating life-affirming learning. It makes social and emotional as well as subject-matter content accessible to everyone. The approach also contributes to notions of what it means to be present (virtually and in-person)

We were careful to balance choice, autonomy, initiative, accountability, structure, and guidance. Working as co-facilitators, and even designating ourselves facilitators rather than teachers, contributed to the dynamic. When there was silence, or struggle, there were other spaces—outside of the actual classroom. The Google Docs could be a space students entered when they needed to in these moments or later.

The Docs offered possible next steps in the particular set of experiences we had planned but also made it possible to sit in silence and uncertainty. Often times, those affected by trauma are on an alert response (Imad, 2021), and sitting in silence can be a form of healing. This practice once again links trauma-informed care and healing-centered engagement. The trauma that students experienced has intensified rather than subsided as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to drag on. As more traumatizing events unfold in the world, we need even more attention to students’ and facilitators’ experiences.

The use of co-created, shared Google Docs could work in a course in any institutional context with any number of enrolled students. facilitators are intentional about creating a safe and trusting learning environment, and take into consideration the recommendations and cautions we have offered. We issue this call to action: Make space for and affirm being as a way to acknowledge trauma and extend grace and love, and consider design strategies such as the development of shared GoogleDocs to co-create life-affirming learning.

Cook-Sather, A., Des-Ogugua, C., & Bahti, M. (2017). Articulating identities and analyzing belonging: A multistep intervention that affirms and informs a diversity of students. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 374-389. Cook-S Heather, A. (2022). Co-creating equitable teaching and learning: Structuring student voice into higher education. Harvard Education Press.

https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/promoting-equity-and-justice-through-pedagogical-partnership/ Ezarik, M. (2022). Student mental health status report: struggles, stressors and supports. Hanover Research (2019) Best practices for trauma-informed instruction.

The study was published in the Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422–452. The study looked at trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades. The report also looked at the role of students as co-teachers in anti-racist pedagogy. The findings were published in a book called Picture a professor: intersectional teaching strategies for interrupting bias about faculty and increasing student learning. The book was published by West Virginia University Press. For more information, visit: http://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4884.pdf.

The way that trauma and inequity connect and affect one another is complicated. Teachers must reexamine their assumptions about childhood and children in order to focus on equity and trauma-responsiveness. In order to educate the whole child, teachers must commit to enabling student voice. The process of truly listening to children, to the student voice and what they have to say about safety and healing in schools is likely to cause teachers to re-think their current practices. This level of re-examination and self-reflection require humility and courage.

Teachers have to be open and willing to change their daily practice, to embrace improvisation and collaboration. In order to see significant and equitable change, particularly across whole school cultures, there must be supportive agents across the school, district and community. Rural schools, which are the focus of this particular book’s examples, do have important implications and lessons for urban and suburban schools. We were fortunate to have the opportunity to interview two of the authors to help make this linkage more clear in this special issue.

JAID: Trauma informed Pedagogy may be considered a lens or a practice with strategies. AU: I think one of the big things that we learned through this project was just a reinforcement of the importance of relationships between instructors and their students. The project really foregrounded that relationships aren't just about learning the things that motivate students to coerce them into better engagement in the classroom. But that it's really about understanding at a fundamental level their emotional lives.

Students need to feel that they're being listened to and that their needs matter. We saw lots of evidence that this listening is the key to building the relationships that are essential to healing. We have lots of examples of that happening, and we wrote about a lot of them in the book.

AU: "Healing begins with voice being heard, and with a claim to humanity" "It's not rocket science, you know the teachers can do it. I mean, one quick example is our “Some days” initiative" "We believe that that means incorporating their voices into the instructional design process" "I think we were able in our project to have coaches in each school who were former teachers who were really steeped in the trauma responsive work"

This is where each kid is asked what do they want to do in school “some day” and then try to make that come true. One of the stories in the book is about a little boy who wants to play Beyblades with his teacher someday. They didn’t have a great relationship, but she reluctantly agrees, and she sits down, and he teaches her how to do the battling tops. It radically transforms their relationship. So that's one example. The other thing is making the decisions in this moment about this, and making sure our learners voice is represented. Thestructures Just drive that, and a lot of that comes from the idea that the teacher is the God of the world.

The structure is so counter-normative to the way that we do education now that even just building it is the starting point. It's still pretty rare. If you let students have that agency, a voice in the design, that’s healing for the kids who’ve experienced trauma. So yes, this is radical, counter normative. And maybe you all in your world have lots of examples of students as instructional designers, but it just doesn’t happen.

There are a lot of opportunities, particularly with older kids, to get them to articulate their emotions, their experience of the world in different ways, right? And they have the kind of cognitive wherewithal to do that. When we were working with much younger kids we struggled with this question of how do we create space for that? And stories are such a generative way to understand the world. But they also bring in this incredible opportunity to connect to kids’ home lives in different way, you know, by allowing in culturally responsive stories, for example, and holding that space for students.

Carol Duffy developed this process out of her own individual therapeutic work, her clinical practice with kids. It started out as play therapy in the clinical setting, and then she expanded it to a group setting. It provides a kind of physical model so that the stories are chosen carefully–really powerful children's literature. Then they're literally acted out and then they are asked to respond and to tell their own story.

Sometimes they draw as a way into telling their own stories. And there's somebody who's listening, either another kid or a grown up in the room. And so there's an audience. It has to be the right setting and not every kid's comfortable with that. But it seems to me it's a structure that really helped–this holding space.

You get this incredible insight into the dynamics of a classroom, just watching the kids interact with the sand tray as a group, you know. And so, as a teacher being able to sit back and look at this and understand it from a social perspective. What is happening here emotionally is just through this very simple structure. You get some really powerful information from that. I think there’s a kind of messiness in this. When you hold that space, you don't know what's going to emerge out into it, and that's the whole point. But that is so counterintuitive to the way that we do teaching and learning right now where we have standards and expected outcomes to get us from Point A to Point B.

Teacher preparation programs should be moving away from behaviorist ideas about student behavior management. One thing that I don't see enough of is authenticity–authentic approaches to listening to students. I really think it just starts there, which from an instructional design perspective, prompts several questions. What are the structures that you build in your classroom to listen to students? What is the ways in which they can determine their own learning?

There's a huge emphasis right now, especially post pandemic on whole child education. We've been so much behind our zoom screens, and locked down for so long that we have lost connection with our moving, sensing body. So I'm thinking about this notion of embodied education as part of a whole child approach. Perhaps the best example we discuss in the book is the use of micro-adventures as a way to structure outdoor education within the school day.

i.e, Mico-adventures are intended to align with the curriculum and to be genuine learning opportunities within the context of a set of curriculum targets in science and math. We also partnered with an outdoor education organization called the Main Outdoor School. They trained outdoor educators who worked with kids to do all kinds of experiential learnings around nature and habitats, and constructing shelters. The simple part of it is you getting kids out of the classroom, moving around in the natural world, engaged with each other, not having to sit in rows and raise their hand. It can be chaotic at times, but we have lots of examples, formal and informally, where the kids learned a lot and also benefited socially and emotionally from those

So the kids said they wanted more recess, but then they asked the kids, “Why do you want more recess?” And it was like, ‘Well, we want to spend more time outside. We want to spending more time moving our bodies.’ And so then it waslike, "Well, how can we do that and leverage the natural assets of these rural schools?" And so that's what we're looking at going forward.

If school is a place that supports the healthy development of kids, then their relationship to that supportive environment is disrupted. I think we're grappling with a crisis of isolation, and the mental health effects even more than the disruption of learning itself. It's so easy to get completely obsessed with learning loss and worrying about lower academic achievement. But to address that we must also acknowledge the causes, one being that so many young people are trauma-exposed and isolated.

AU: We're critical of the automatic assumption that all SEL approaches or SEL curriculum are trauma-informed. I'd say one of the reasons that SEL and Trauma-informed pedagogy get confused is that they're both universal approaches. We were inspired deeply by the work of Judith Herman and others in the trauma world, who talk about the importance of voice and reclaiming story and agency and control for adult trauma survivors. Helping kids build and develop their social and emotional capacities and skills, they can't be passive participants in that process. They have to be empowered, they have to been given the opportunity to make choices.

It's about centering the healing of the person who's experienced trauma and preventing retraumatization. SEL is a cognitive approach to emotional learning. So SEL may offer children some words and vocabulary and tools to enhance emotional awareness, but it doesn't have a healing objective.

The authors of Trauma-responsive schooling: Centering student voice and healing were interviewed. The conversation was both spirited and engaging for all. The authors are Lyn Brown, Catharine Biddle & Mark Tappan, 2022. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

As we move closer to a model of instructional design with positions itself to be responsive to learner trauma and needs, we see the alignment of many needs based models of design including traditional ID, Social Emotional Learning (SEL) Universal Design (UDL) and Trauma-informed pedagogy. Rural settings have a lot to tell us about trauma-informed learning models and these learnings can be translated to urban and suburban settings.

As Carr-Chellman (2022) points out, we must find ways to integrate this into our daily practice as the pandemic will likely point all of us toward more need for trauma-informed instructional design models. From this interview we can hear the importance of suspending our traditional top down model where the teacher and the designer make all the decisions. Rather the need for student voice, agency, storytelling, and decision-making control are essential to the critical relationship building that is needed for post-traumatic healing and growth. This represents a significant and well-documented departure from traditional ID models with supportive evidence from the book’s case study in Maine. We are grateful to the book authors for their time and patience in guiding us

Lyn Mikel Brown is a professor of Education at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. She uses qualitative, voice-centered methods to explore the intersections of culture, context, and development. She is a founder of three youth-driven organizations and the author of six books, including her first, Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development (with Carol Gilligan)

Catharine Biddle is an associate professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Maine. Her research focuses on ways in which rural schools and communities respond to social and economic change in the twenty-first century. Mark Tappan is a professor of Education at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

He is a developmental and educational psychologist whose early work focused on narrative and sociocultural approaches to identity development, moral development, and moral education. Currently, his research interests include equity and social justice in elementary, secondary, and higher education; the development of healthy forms of masculinity among children, adolescents, and young adults; and trauma-responsive education in rural schools and communities.

Care involves listening to learner preferences, recognizing learning needs, anticipating potential barriers to learning, embedding targeted tools and supports, and remaining adaptive to the population served. Designers should explicitly promote the importance of care across their design practices when considering populations that are likely to be significantly impacted by trauma.

This special issue has focused on the importance of integrating mentoring, ungrading and other high-touch, low-stress tools in cases where trauma can be assumed. Lawless & Bogard, in their exploration of the impact of case-based instruction in use with preservice teachers, advocated for resiliency both among learners and as models in teachers’ lives. Herman & Gill consider how designers can support social-emotional-academic-learning (SEAL) within a virtual setting. In this piece, principles of equity, personal growth and development are emphasized within the design process.

LaDuca suggests a planning framework for university faculty development that includes principles such as safety, trust, transparency, support, connection, collaboration, mutuality, empowerment, voice, choice, social justice, resilience, growth and change. Turcotte exposes the positive impact of ungrading in terms of reducing stressors, a critical aspect of trauma-informed design.

Cook-Sather & Nguyen point us toward the appropriate use of tools in trauma-informed settings. They ask us to consider tool use to advance the cause of empathy, healing and growth for our learners through shared co-creation in Google Docs. Plum et al. found that student isolation was common and the need for social-emotional learning is high. They find that intentionally introducing information about trauma, giving opportunities for self-care, as well as slowing the pace to allow for reflection and focusing on communities created much stronger alignment for preservice teachers with their own trauma and that of their future students.

We are seeing the beginning of the end of the pandemic as the American government moves to end the official status of the COVID health emergency. Our daily practices within instructional design necessarily need to change and shift as our culture changes. We can see now that the “normal” is gone, the way we have practiced in the past will have less and less relevance as we increasingly recognize the impacts of COVID on those we design learning for. While COVID is not gone, vulnerable populations must remain vigilant, and health experts warn of future potential pandemics in the near term, nevertheless, it is time to take stock of the trauma that the Pandemic has left in its wake.

The articles in this special issue have given us all much to consider in terms of ways that we can explicitly and intentionally attend to trauma in our design work. Given the impacts that the twin pandemics have had on all of us, isn’t it time? “Coronavirus is constantly attacking society’s vulnerable classes and spaces.” – Park Won-soon.