4.3 Article

A principle-based approach to the design of a graduate resilience curriculum framework

Journal

HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 1325-1339

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1882400

Keywords

Resilience; mental health; curriculum development; graduates; principles

Funding

  1. ATN Network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the principles and structure of the Graduate Resilience Curriculum Framework, designed to help academics develop students' resilience as a key graduate attribute. The framework takes a systemic approach that is strengths-based, learner-centered, and viewed through an ecological lens. The three learning domains of knowledge, skills, and application guide students to develop a sense of themselves as resilient.
This article describes the principles and structure used to create the Graduate Resilience Curriculum Framework intended to support academics to develop higher education students' resilience as an important graduate attribute. Enhancing student resilience requires a structured approach to learning that articulates the factors that are important for the building of resilience, in a format that reflects incremental development across the student journey. This paper describes the principles used to inform the design and development of the curriculum framework including the adoption of a systemic program approach that is strengths-based, learner-centred and viewed through an ecological lens to support students' resilience over time. The three learning domains of knowledge, skills and application guide students to develop a sense of themselves as resilient. The Graduate Resilience Curriculum Framework provides an evidence-based guide for university staff to embed strategies that develop student resilience in a planned, supportive and scaffolded way.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available