Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
218
TRAUMA-INFORMED FLEXIBLE LEARNING: CLASSROOMS THAT
STRENGTHEN REGULATORY ABILITIES
Tom Brunzell, Helen Stokes, and Lea Waters
Abstract: This study explores the implementation of the first of three domains,
increasing regulatory abilities, within a trauma-informed positive education (TIPE)
approach with flexible learning teachers as they incorporated trauma-informed principles
into their daily teaching practice. Trauma-informed teaching approaches have particular
relevance for flexible learning settings, and can help meet the complex needs of students
who have experienced violence, abuse, or neglect. This paper proposes that redressing a
trauma-affected student’s regulatory abilities should be the first aim in this
developmentally-informed TIPE pedagogy. Drawing from research with nine teachers
working in trauma-affected flexible learning settings in a large metropolitan region, this
study employs a qualitative appreciative inquiry action research methodology to explore
the use of TIPE perspectives with their students. Under the domain of increasing
regulatory abilities, four arising subthemes hold particular application for teacher practice
and planning: rhythm; self-regulation; mindfulness; and de-escalation. These four
subthemes are positioned as promising pathways to increasing regulatory abilities in
students as they strive toward successful learning outcomes.
Keywords: trauma-informed classroom, flexible learning, regulatory abilities, student
management, classroom strategies
Tom Brunzell (corresponding author) is a PhD Candidate at the University of Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, 5th Floor, 100 Leicester Street, Parkville, VIC 3010. Email:
tbrunzell@student.unimelb.edu.au
Helen Stokes, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer at the Youth Research
Centre at the University of Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Email:
h.stokes@unimelb.edu.au
Lea Waters, PhD is the Gerry Higgins Chair in Positive Psychology and the Director of the
Centre of Positive Psychology at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Email:
l.waters@unimelb.edu.au
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
219
Within alternative and flexible education pathways, there is growing concern about the
impact of childhood trauma on students and the subsequent impact on successful learning and
classroom engagement. Working from a trauma-informed pedagogy, teachers can meet the
learning and behavioural needs of students who are trauma-affected (Bloom, 1995; Downey,
2007; Wolpow, Johnson, Hertel, & Kincaid, 2009). This study contributes to pedagogical debate
within the context of flexible learning classrooms and the argument for the inclusion of
developmental perspectives (Milbourne, 2009; te Riele, 2007). However, trauma-informed
practice models require further research to better understand how teachers incorporate and apply
these strategies in their classrooms with trauma-affected students. Such understandings
contribute to flexible learning settings by positioning the classroom as a daily therapeutic milieu
intervention, in which the environment itself promotes post-traumatic healing and growth (Perry,
2006).
This study uses the Trauma-Informed Positive Education (TIPE; Brunzell, Stokes, &
Waters, 2015) approach, which embeds trauma-informed pedagogy within a positive education
strengths-based paradigm (Waters, 2011). A TIPE approach positions learning within a dual-
continuum model of mental health (i.e., addressing one’s deficits and building on one’s strengths
are two specific and differentiated pathways for intervention) in order to address domains of
healing and of growth in trauma-affected students (Keyes, 2002; Keyes & Annas, 2009).
Classroom pedagogies and student management are enhanced for trauma-affected students if
teachers seek to directly redress the disrupted capacities (e.g., regulatory abilities and relational
attachment) that have been compromised by traumatic stressors; and nurture learning
experiences that allow students to identify and build upon their strengths (Brunzell, Waters, &
Stokes, 2015).
The first domain of TIPE, repairing regulatory capacities, is the focus of this qualitative
study, which gathers evidence from an investigation with nine teachers participating in an
appreciative inquiry action research methodology (Ludema & Fry, 2008; Zandee & Cooperrider,
2008) that cycles teachers through six stages to discover, dream, design, act, observe, and reflect
when using trauma-informed positive education interventions with their students.
Literature
Trauma-affected Students
Trauma is consensually defined as an overwhelming experience that undermines the
individual’s belief that the world is good and safe (Berry Street Victoria, 2013). The American
Psychiatric Association (APA; 2013) advises that directly experiencing, witnessing, or learning
about trauma can lead to trauma- and stress-related disorders such as reactive attachment
disorder, disinhibited social engagement disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute
stress, and adjustment disorder. Children who experience traumatisation may have a severely
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
220
compromised ability to regulate their body’s stress or arousal responses, which is the result of the
impact of trauma on key neurological and psychological systems (Coade, Downey, & McClung,
2008; Downey, 2007). In addition to impacting a child’s regulatory abilities, trauma’s impact on
the developing brain can significantly impair a child’s ability to form a healthy attachment to the
primary care-giver; and thus compromises the child’s capacity for creating and maintaining
healthy relational bonds (van der Kolk & McFarlane, 1996). Trauma-affected students may
experience ongoing difficulties within the classroom resulting from daily classroom stressors,
such as new learning, physical and cognitive delays, and behavioural expectations that trigger
their already dysregulated arousal responses (Brunzell, Waters, & Stokes, 2015).
The impact of childhood trauma on biological, psychological, and social disorders can
have devastating outcomes on a young person’s ability to learn in educational settings. In large
epidemiological studies of adults who underwent adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in their
youth, individuals who experienced ACEs are 2.5 times more likely than those who did not
report ACEs to experience problems in school, such as having lower achievement assessments,
being at risk for language delays and difficulties, being suspended or expelled more often, being
designated to special education, failing a grade, and dropping out of mainstream education (Anda
et al., 2005). Adverse childhood experiences due to trauma from abuse or neglect have
significant and potentially devastating effects on effective classroom learning and connections to
future education or vocational pathways.
A Trauma-Informed Positive Education Response
Trauma-informed pedagogical approaches are required to address the special and
complex needs of trauma-affected students (Bloom, 1995; Downey, 2007; Wolpow et al., 2009).
Although teachers are not therapists, they often find themselves acting as front-line trauma-
workers for young people who do not have access to clinical care (Brunzell, Waters, & Stokes,
2015). Perry (2006) suggests that the classroom is sometimes the most consistent and stable
place in a trauma-affected student’s world and must be seen as a therapeutic milieu wherein the
structured environment itself is the most consistent and effective intervention.
A synthesis of extant understandings within the trauma-informed teaching and learning
literature supports the current study. Brunzell, Stokes, and Waters (2015) found that existing
trauma-informed education models focus on two major themes: (a) repairing regulatory abilities
and addressing the dysregulated stress response; and (b) repairing disrupted attachment
capacities through the nurturing of strong student-teacher relationships. Both of these themes
hold potent implications for teaching and learning within the trauma-informed therapeutic milieu
of the classroom.
Repairing regulatory abilities within the classroom context can occur when teachers
create learning environments designed for co-regulatory experiences (e.g., side-by-side
interactions with a well-regulated teacher); self-regulatory capacities (e.g., opportunities for
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
221
students to monitor and practice self-regulatory strategies); working with difficult emotions (e.g.,
understanding one’s stress triggers and strategies to shift emotions); and encouraging
individualised strategies for managing student behaviour (e.g., empowering the student to create
self-strategies pre-emptively and throughout the school day). Two regulatory pathways can be
employed in trauma-informed classrooms: (a) cortical mediation (i.e., top-down regulation)
whereby a student can effectively direct their own regulation; and (b) improving the body’s
ability to self-regulate (i.e., bottom-up regulation) whereby a student is given multiple
opportunities to increase the body’s regulatory rhythms, thus resetting their baseline arousal
responses in order to fortify parasympathetic nervous system capabilities (Australian Childhood
Foundation, 2010; Cole et al., 2009; Perry, 2006).
Repairing disrupted attachment styles refers to repairing the ability of students to form
strong relationships. Attachment refers to an enduring relationship with another person (e.g.,
parent, carer, teacher, friend) that enhances soothing, comfort, pleasure, or safety (Ludy-Dobson
& Perry, 2010). Attachment is a core developmental task for healthy maturation and aidsthe
formation of self-protection strategies in the face of perceived threats or danger (Baim &
Morrison, 2011). In trauma-informed classroom practice, it is paramount that the student-teacher
relationship be a safe conduit to learning; and that student-student peer relationships fortify
safety and belonging within the learning environment. Teacher-student relationships which
emphasise teacher empathy, warmth, genuineness, and non-directivity yield positive student
outcomes (Cornelius-White, 2007). Students often benefit from the feelings of connectedness
and belonging they experience in the classroom, feelings that help them cope with healthy
stressors (e.g., learning something new) within the classroom (Roffey, 2013; Stewart, Sun,
Patterson, Lemerle, & Hardie, 2004).
Two approaches included in trauma-informed learning pedagogies — repairing
regulatory abilities and repairing disrupted attachment styles — both have an emphasis on
healing. While this healing approach is a critical part of trauma-informed classroom practice,
these two domains can be further enhanced by integrating a strengths-based perspective. This
argument is based on Keyes’ two-factor theory which recognises that building mental health
requires more than addressing deficits of ill-being (Keyes, 2002; Keyes & Annas, 2009).
Moreover, the two-factor theory can be used to argue that since trauma-informed education must
teach students in ways that both heal weaknesses and build strengths two different trajectories of
learning are required (Magyar-Moe, 2009). A student who struggles in the domains of regulation
or relationship may show promise in other areas that can then be developed as strengths of
character and capability. Healing and growth are two perspectives that can assist teachers in
understanding students and their developmental needs.
Trauma-Informed Positive Education (TIPE; Brunzell, Stokes, & Waters, 2015) is
informed by positive psychology. Positive psychology is the study of wellbeing, human
strengths, and optimal functioning (Gable & Haidt, 2005); it aims to foster the two conditions of
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
222
wellbeing: feeling well and doing well (Jayawickreme, Forgeard, & Seligman, 2012). The TIPE
model enhances understandings of trauma-informed pedagogies by building on regulatory
capacities and relational attachments to also emphasise teaching practices that foster positive
emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (Seligman, 2011) as
psychological resources for vulnerable students.
One goal of the TIPE model is to assist teachers to promote this set of classroom-based
interventions in a developmentally aligned way by increasing student capacity within regulatory
abilities, which fortifies the development of strong classroom relationships, and leads to student
readiness to increase psychological resources in their areas of strength. This links to
understandings of hierarchical brain organisation in that the lower parts of the brain govern the
body’s regulatory tasks; the limbic system mediates relational and emotional capacities; and the
neocortex is the seat of higher-order thinking (Perry, 2006; 2009). The TIPE model emphasises
classroom intervention principles that build regulation (lower brain), strengthen relationships
(limbic system), and prepare the student for the learning of psychological strategies such as
resilient thinking and leading with character strengths (neocortex). Using the TIPE model,
teachers may assist trauma-affected students to nurture the necessary healing and growth for
successful learning, while providing significantly more intervention pathways for classroom
adaptation to meet specific student needs.
Alternative and Flexible Education
Alternative and flexible learning settings strive to educate students who are no longer in
mainstream schools. In the Australian context, many alternative education programs have been
established in the last 20 years, in part to address the political pressure to increase school
retention (Wilson, Stemp, & McGinty, 2011).
McGregor and Mills (2012, p. 843) identify the concept of alternative education as being
firmly rooted in the “progressive tradition” of education. te Riele (2014) notes that these
programs, which may be referred to as alternative education, second chance education, or re-
engagement programs, attempt to meet the needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds
(e.g., trauma-affected, low socio-economic, Indigenous, rural areas), who are disproportionally
represented in alternative education. This paradigm of education has given rise to a general
“blurriness” in both the terms that are used to describe the sector and the sector’s education
contexts, services, and outcomes (Aron & Zweig, 2003, pp. 20–21).
As of 2014, there are over 900 flexible learning programs educating over 70,000 students
each year in Australia (te Riele, 2014). te Riele (2007, p. 54) argues that this has created a
“bewildering array” of initiatives, specialist units, flexible learning options, and curricular
models established by State Departments and community service organisations. While these
options may provide promising pathways, many of them are working in isolation. This sector has
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
223
been labelled confusing, inefficient, unstable, and lacking a shared framework (Cole, Griffiths,
Jane, & Mackay, 2004; te Riele, 2007).
Despite the multiple alternative education options for many communities, there are
surprisingly few examples of pedagogical approaches (Milbourne, 2009). te Riele (2007, p. 55;
2014) argues that pedagogical responses in flexible learning contexts should take developmental
perspectives, rather than framing students via their deficits where often, the term ‘youth at risk’
has connotations of deficiency and minority status. Such developmental approaches should
originate from a student’s strengths and surrounding systems of support. Alternative or flexible
learning options are necessary to provide viable education pathways for at-risk students who are
often blamed for a lack of motivation or irresponsibility (Aaltonen, 2012). te Riele advocates
changing the approach, rather than problematising the student; and that developmental
perspectives can empower all children through whole-school change.
Best practice depends on the mix of a number of factors and variables. Pedagogical
factors include teaching practices and learning experiences that are consistent, structured, and
clearly defined; relationship-based teacher-student interactions; student-centred curricula that
encourage diversity and creativity, and facilitate positive outcomes; and flexible assessment
protocols and procedures (Stokes & Turnbull, 2011).
We contend that using the TIPE model provides a pedagogy based on a developmentally-
informed approach that has previously not been applied in flexible learning settings. As shown,
the TIPE model is based on three sequential and synergistic domains. The first domain, repairing
regulatory abilities, is the focus of this study, in which teachers explore developmentally-
informed regulatory strategies for students within trauma-affected flexible learning cohorts.
Method
The present study draws on the investigation and first findings of a larger, longitudinal
study of the developmentally-informed, hierarchical TIPE model. The aim of this first study is to
show the action research outcomes of the first 13 weeks of intervention which corresponded to
the first 13 weeks of the academic calendar. Within the TIPE model, the domain — increasing
regulatory abilities — is theorised as the first area of pedagogical focus when establishing
teaching and learning routines in a flexible learning classroom. Due to limitations of time-frame
and reporting, this study focused on increasing regulatory abilities as the intervention concern for
teachers in the first quarter of their school year as they worked with trauma-affected students in a
flexible learning unit.
Design
A longitudinal (13 week) qualitative design was used. Located within a constructivist
paradigm of qualitative interpretivist research, this design is an adaptation of participatory action
research: appreciative inquiry action research (Ludema & Fry, 2008; Zandee & Cooperrider,
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
224
2008). In this approach, the embedded researcher and the research participants are both situated
and reflexive, working towards democratic and practical knowledge (Reason & Bradbury, 2006);
the inquiry is qualitative and interpretative which privileges teacher self-reflection and meanings
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000); and the exploration is in keeping within the positive psychology
paradigm focus on growth and increasing positive psychological resources (Ludema & Fry,
2008).
Sample
The qualitative research data were collected in a school (kindergarten through year-12) in
a growing outer-metropolitan suburb. Although the total student population in this school is large
(1900 students), the school has supported a flexible learning unit on-site that caters specifically
to secondary students (aged 12–17) who have disengaged from the mainstream cohort. This
school was selected based on teacher-reports of increasing numbers of trauma-affected students
in both the flexible learning unit and mainstream student populations. This judgment was also
supported through the school’s psychologist, wellbeing teams, and the school’s involvement with
child protection services, youth justice, and refugee and newly arriving families. The school
reports 42% of students have a language background other than English (South East Asian,
Middle-Eastern, African and Polynesian languages); and 42% of families are in the lowest
quartile for socio-economic status. The nine participants (N = 9), all classroom teachers between
23 and 38 years of age, were seven females and two males. They ranged in years of teaching
experience from one to six years. Only three teachers had been teaching for more than four years.
At this time of this study, the flexible learning unit was in its second year of operation.
Procedure
Permission to conduct the research was granted through the University of Melbourne
Human Ethics Advisory Committee and the State Government Victoria Department of Education
and Training prior to the research being conducted.
The procedure includes a series of longitudinal interviews conducted with the nine
participants. Interviews for this study were conducted over a thirteen-week period. Participants
each took part in three interviews, conducted as group interviews. Interviews, conducted face-to-
face with participants, were audio-recorded and fully transcribed. In addition to participating in
group interviews, each teacher completed two reflective journal entries based on prompts such
as: “Reflect on and describe a specific students(s) that was particularly impacted by the changes
you made in your classroom.” Journal entries were included in the data analysis procedures
outlined below.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed through an adaptation of qualitative content analysis:
interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA, Smith 1996). Framed through an IPA
perspective, the procedure for qualitative content analysis included a fluid and iterative data
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
225
reduction sequence, in which transcriptions of interviews were collected for reading and
rereading; data reduction occurred through the categorisation of themes and patterns (open
coding); coherent categories were created and compared to patterns, interrelationships, and
matching themes back to data (axial coding); and broad subthemes were determined in order to
structure the framework for analytical discussion (selective coding) (Miles & Huberman, 1984).
NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used to support the sorting and categorisation of
interview and journal transcriptions. Table 1 outlines the qualitative content analysis and data
reduction.
Table 1
Data analysis and framework conceptualisation
Coding Procedures Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4
Open Codes
• Assign preliminary
codes
• Compare the data
across articles and
reorganise codes
when necessary
Rhythm
Brainbreaks
Heartrate
Physical activity
Patterned and
repetitive
Yoga
Self-regulation tools
Stress
Defining stress
Stress in body
Mindfulness
Breathing
Noticing
Being present,
centred, and
grounded
De-escalation
Escalation Maps
Calmer students
Safety Plans
Axial Codes
• Examine
relationships
between codes
• Categorise codes
into themes
• Match themes back
to data
Rhythm Self-regulation Mindfulness De-escalation
Selective Code
• Core variable that
includes all data in
set
Repairing regulatory abilities
Results and Discussion
According to the TIPE model, the first priority of teacher focus is to ensure a predictable
classroom environment that nurtures strong regulatory capabilities for trauma-affected students.
As such, the present findings and discussion maintain specific focus on the first TIPE domain,
increasing regulatory capacities within students. These qualitative data are from the first 13
weeks of the school year, and thus represent the first developmental TIPE task of a teacher with a
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
226
new group of students at the start of the academic year: establishing a regulated classroom of
strong student (self-)management to set clear expectations for safe and successful learning. From
the appreciative inquiry action research data, four subthemes describe teachers’ learning about
creating, implementing, and reflecting on classroom interventions that potentially regulate
trauma-affected students for effective learning: rhythm, self-regulation, mindfulness, and de-
escalation. Findings within each of these four subthemes will be explored in the following
discussion.
Rhythm
As a specific focus for classroom action research, teachers narrowed their practice to
three strategies that incorporated rhythm throughout the school day: (a) proactively using rhythm
in the form of “brainbreaks”; (b) applying rhythm as a form of triage intervention to address
heightened or resisting students; and (c) specifically focusing on heart rate as a rhythmic form of
body regulation. Trauma and chronic stress exposure for children can have significant impacts on
the body’s ability to regulate the arousal response, including the basic body functions of blood
pressure, body temperature, and heart rate. Children who have experienced acute trauma may
have a resting-heart rate that far exceeds the desired 60 to 80 beats per minute as a result of
continuous activation and re-activation of their stress response systems (Perry, Pollard, Blakely,
Baker, & Vigilante, 1995; Perry & Szalavitz, 2006). Effective classrooms that help students to
build stamina for self-regulation can employ ‘bottom-up’ regulation opportunities to give
students opportunities to physically strengthen their body’s capacity to regulate (ACF, 2010;
Cole et al., 2009).
First, teachers learned about, then designed, short-burst opportunities for students to
physically regulate. They named these brainbreaks. Brainbreaks were both time-tabled in lesson
plans and called on in an impromptu manner when teachers judged that students were unable to
concentrate or their students were showing decreased capacity for effective learning in a given
lesson. Sometimes teachers introduced these brainbreaks after transition from lesson to lesson or
coming in and out of the classroom during the day.
Brainbreaks lasted between two and five minutes and incorporated physical movement
including: “silent ball” (e.g., a game where a ball was thrown from student to student, using non-
verbal cues such as eye-contact and hand gestures; students compete as a class to beat their prior
score of successful ball-passes without the ball dropping to the floor); clapping call-and-response
games; Brain Gym physical activities (Dennison & Dennison, 1989); and mindfulness breathing
exercises or visualisations (see following section).
One example of using physical rhythm as a form of regulation within a student-
intervention was presented by a teacher who explained that, when disruptive students are asked
to leave the classroom, this teacher employs a strategy of using physical rhythm as a form of
regulation before directly talking to the student or asking the student to express themself
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
227
verbally. Once removed from the classroom, the teacher walks the student directly to the sport
oval. The teacher recounts:
I gauge on the way to the oval what their pace is. So when we get to the oval, I get how
heightened they are. Sometimes I will take control, and I will set the pace for them and
say, “I think you need to get a few things out of your system.” But then once I sense them
drop a notch, I let them take their pace because then they can self-regulate better. So I
gauge their levels. And that’s if I know the student well.
Here, the teacher is adapting the principles of rhythmic regulation to behaviour
intervention in a heated moment with a student who is struggling with emotional regulation.
Within the action research discussions, teachers acknowledged that lecturing students on their
behavioural choices did not promote the desired effects. Often, these kinds of lectures elevated
both the stress-arousal of both teachers and students. Instead, teachers tried strategies such as
these to reinforce a sense of physical rhythm when students presented symptoms of restlessness
or frustration. Additionally, this teacher is employing relational attachment principles, remaining
side-by-side with the student in order to co-regulate the student by matching or directing the
student’s rhythms (Crittenden, 2008).
Within the subtheme of rhythm towards increased regulation for trauma-affected
classrooms, teachers also learned about the specific effects of trauma-exposure on heart rate.
They brainstormed ways to teach students about their own heart rates, how to measure heart rate
in a variety of ways, and to notice the effects of heart rate throughout the day and in specific
situations. One teacher reflects:
I mean they’re right on-board with doing their heartbeat. They love that and in numeracy
they’re graphing them. They get that when your heart rate is up, you’re stressed out and
so on.
Within their discussions, teachers noted the importance of using heart rate as a rhythmic
strategy in a proactive way. Accurately measuring one’s heart rate requires a certain amount of
careful attention, which might be hard for the student to access in a heated moment of behaviour
triage. In order that students should frame their learning about heart rate in a positive and
proactive way, the teachers agreed that they would not use heart rate on such occasions. Rather,
they introduced the concept within wellbeing, numeracy, and science contexts, which they aim to
refer back to for the rest of the school year.
The theme of rhythm can be seen in adaptations that incorporate brainbreaks, use
physical activity proactively and as triage, and teach about heart rate. Teachers voiced value in
re-visioning student struggles in regulation as opportunities to increase the frequency of bringing
a strong sense of rhythm to their pedagogical practice. In this way, rhythm as a form of
intervention can frame student-teacher interactions to better decrease the arousal response, build
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
228
stamina for learning, and nurture the body’s capacity for sustained concentration. Teachers can
apply this suggestion by planning these classroom interventions in a regular and predictable way.
Likewise, these data suggest that, when used as an intervention strategy, teachers will want to
build consistent expectation for physical, rhythmic, and relational contact when resistant students
require one-on-one attention to regulate and return to the classroom.
Self-regulation
The second subtheme arising from the data was self-regulation. Specifically, the explicit
teaching of self-regulation to students in two forms: teaching students about their own stress-
response with strategies to shift their arousal; and using specific self-regulation tools to help
students identify their own ability to self-regulate and identify their readiness for learning.
Within the initial meetings of the action research cycle, teachers were exposed to the literature on
self-regulation and the stress-response, with particular focus on the adverse developmental
effects of trauma on the child’s stress-response.
The trauma-informed literature suggests that self-regulation can be defined as the
domains of sensory processing, executive functioning, and emotional regulation (Hughes, 2004,
2006; Perry, 2006; Bath, 2008). An important aspect of self-regulation learning for adolescent
students is psycho-education. Teachers shared that students needed more knowledge on specific
regulation of their own stress-response and prior to this action research, they had not taught or
discussed these lessons with their students. Thus, in the action research planning and reflection
meetings, teachers were provided with materials (based on the above studies) and participants
incorporated their own ideas along with the group’s suggestions to best embed learning about
self-regulation and the stress response into their curricular unit plans. The following reflection
comes from a group interview:
It’s been quite interesting and fun to get the kids to be able to articulate their physical
responses to stress, and what it looks and feels like to them. We’ve focused a lot on the
body with questions like, “What are you physically feeling or noticing in your bodies?”
And yes, the stress triggers … and drawing pictures of where on their physical bodies
they feel their physical response. They’ve loved doing that.
These teachers continued to describe their particular adaptations of the stress-response
research to their classroom curriculum including: student brainstorming on the stressors most
relevant to student experiences; the effects of stress on the body; specific student reflections on
experiencing stress; and different coping strategies both in and out of school. Teachers reflected
that they were able to connect the students’ learning responses to other areas of the curriculum,
notice improvements in their cohort’s readiness to learn, and increase their knowledge about
individual students themselves (e.g., their triggers, their stressors, and environmental
threats/supports).
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
229
Due to the enthusiastic responses of the students, teachers saw value in taking academic-
instruction time to teach students about self-control in the face of stressors and adversity. They
voiced throughout the interviews that students did not have, and desperately needed, strategies
for coping with stressors throughout their day. Teachers also experienced a dialogue opening
between students and teachers about topics that had not been previously a part of the classroom
domain. Teachers saw great value in this dialogue as a way to encourage student voice and
student advocacy for their own needs within the classroom setting.
Another area of self-regulation was the use of self-regulation tools within the classroom.
One such tool was a self-regulation rubric which allows students to self-identify where they are
on a ready-to-learn scale. One teacher discussed her classroom ready-to-learn rubric that
coordinated emotional states with colours. Her students each had their name on a moveable icon
to place or move during different time-points throughout the day. Their teacher recounts:
With self-regulation, initially the boys couldn’t even tell when they were angry. So we
talked about being angry, what behaviours they showed, how they felt, and now they’re
able to actually self-regulate and say, “I need to get out, I need a drink.” Once the boys
are ready, I will go around one at a time and ask where they are, and accept their answer
no matter what.
Here the teacher is emphasising both the importance of unconditional positive regard
(Rogers, 1961) and attachment (Bowlby, 1971; Crittenden, 2008) as a regulatory strategy as the
students enter the classroom. Her willingness to “accept their answer no matter what” expresses
a patience and desire to encourage the students to express their affective state, along with their
self-perceived readiness for learning. She continues:
In our classroom, we made a “Ready-to-Learn” chart where students place themselves in
the morning. Sometimes, one of the boys wants [his name card] placed off the chart.
Okay, that’s fine, I’ll put it on the wall next to the chart until you’re ready to actually
articulate how you’re feeling.
This teacher reflected that she is ready for the potentially disruptive answer (e.g., the
student has placed himself off the rubric chart) and allows the icon to be placed off the chart;
then reinforces the expectation by moving the icon when the student begins to regulate and
shows learning readiness.
Even if I don’t ask them, I’ll sometimes find they’ll take their name and will have
repositioned their name card on the rubric by 10 o’clock. They’ll tell me, “Miss, I want
the shift or I want it moved into the red zone or the blue zone.”
This quote illustrates the teacher’s reflection on the importance of using tools like this
self-regulation rubric in a consistent and predictable manner. This suggests that once the students
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
230
in this class came to understand and to employ such tools, they recognised and sought positive
attention when they were ready to shift their icon into a new regulatory zone which signalled
increased readiness to learn.
Mindfulness
The third subtheme arising from the data was mindfulness. Coding in this subtheme
clustered around labels such as: breathing, noticing, present, centred, and grounded. Activities
that teachers developed or adapted for their specific classroom contexts included introducing
mindfulness concepts through brainbreaks or through short mini-lessons.
Within TIPE, mindfulness is positioned as a specific pathway towards mind-body
regulation (e.g., autonomic nervous system control of the parasympathetic branches) that in turn
can improve attuned communication (Hassed, 2008; Siegel, 2009; Thompson & Waltz, 2007),
cognitive functioning, and emotional regulation (Waters, Barsky, Ridd, & Allen, 2014). After
learning about these clear benefits for students and their classroom learning, teachers discussed
how mindfulness crosses over to foci such as rhythm and self-regulation; and they hoped to
interweave these concepts to increase student understanding throughout the school year. The
initial mindfulness classroom adaptations included: teaching about the benefits of focussing
attention on a single point such as their breath; listening to the sounds of the classroom; or short
visualisations of a favourite location (e.g., the comfort of their own bedroom, a beach or forest).
Additional activities within this suite of mindful minibreaks included visualisations around
colours, emotions, gratitude; and bringing mindfulness to simple actions such as conversation,
walking, or playing games (Brunzell et al., 2015).
In a recent evidence-based review, Waters et al. (2014) discuss the statistically significant
effects of mindfulness and meditation interventions in schools and conclude that meditation
positively increases student success by increasing cognitive functioning and emotional
regulation. However, their review was conducted in mainstream student samples, and there are
few studies on teaching and learning mindfulness in the context of trauma-affected or flexible
learning classrooms. These data suggest that teachers have to introduce mindfulness in a
purposeful way to establish clear classroom expectations of mutual respect and safety; and to
explain the benefits of mindfulness practices in relation to the daily stressors of secondary school
and life beyond.
In the current study, the teachers mutually agreed that incorporating mindfulness was the
beginning of a journey. They voiced commitment to the idea of mindfulness as an intervention
worth pursuing throughout the balance of the school year, and hoped to co-create strategies for
whole-group and individualised student need. Due to its flexibility and multiple uses, teachers
felt that teaching mindfulness held great potential for some of their students with severe
regulatory challenges — once they were able to get student buy-in and establish safe and
respectful routines.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
231
De-escalation
The fourth and final subtheme arising from the data was that of de-escalation. Within
their action research groups, teachers assisted students to de-escalate by specifically (a) learning
about de-escalation, (b) creating and using de-escalation maps, and (c) designing individualised
safety plans with and for students.
In the context of the TIPE classroom, de-escalation refers to a suite of mindsets,
strategies, and interventions that instil a strong self-regulatory student capacity. Put simply,
encouraging a calm, ready-to-learn affective state is the goal of these interventions. The present
data suggest that teachers, as classroom mediators, have a great deal of agency in this regard.
Teachers set the tone and must model de-escalation when student adversity arises in the
classroom. Teachers reflected that their own escalation can definitely escalate a student in a
negative way.
A teacher can make proactive steps towards de-escalation by creating a calm, routine, and
predictable environment; consistently monitoring and identifying aroused stress states; and
implementing interventions to maintain optimal states (Brunzell et al., 2015). Employing such
strategies for classroom de-escalation fosters nuanced understandings of individual student needs
and specific triggers or arousal stress responses. In the action research planning meetings,
teachers discussed their own strategies to properly assess a difficult situation: maintaining a calm
demeanour, leading with empathy, and offering choices. They also discussed the triggers that
trauma-affected students can bring to the classroom. These triggers often have nothing to do with
the teacher, and students can enter the classroom angry and upset about situations outside the
school or in the past.
Teachers also shared how understandings of de-escalation improved their knowledge of
particular students and how they can best learn. One teacher explains a specific adjustment for a
student below:
After finding out [a specific student] becomes stressed during most classes, I provide him
with stress balls, goo and his required toy that makes him safe.
This teacher continued to explain that learning about, and implementing, de-escalation
strategies has allowed her to notice and adjust stress-management strategies for students. As
shown above, creating a differentiated safe-space for students to learn helps to de-escalate the
entire cohort to stay on track for successful learning.
I have one particular student for whom it is a struggle just to sit down and have a
conversation with him, and he said, “I just want my own space.” So coming from a
traumatic background, he’s very distracted all the time, he’s very anxious, and you can
tell that by his movements. [The co-teacher] said, “This is your table, this is your space,
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
232
you can go there whenever you like. We’ll give you your own books; this is your space.”
This has stopped the whole class from being off task because of this one student.
Teachers reported that this, in part, gave students ownership within the classroom —
something that the teachers had not previously considered until speaking individually with the
student.
Figure 2. Example of escalation map.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
233
One particularly helpful tool in the cluster of de-escalation strategies was the use of
escalation maps. This simple one-page tool allows students to draw a line on a continuum to
represent moments in their school day when they feel escalated and de-escalated, and to record
why they felt a shift in their escalation, perhaps pinpointing a particular event that occurred
(Brunzell et al., 2015).
Teachers shared their use of the maps and student responses when referring back to the
maps throughout the day:
Using the de-escalation and escalation maps, the kids can graph where they’re at through
their day and how they’re feeling; It’s worthwhile because they straightaway realise, “Oh,
this is the time of day that I’m always stressed and I don’t want to be here, and this is the
time of day where I’m happy or relaxed.”
Teachers shared that tools like the escalation map assist in getting students to articulate
information (e.g., their triggers, their emotions, outside contextual factors) that they may not
share in daily student-teacher exchanges. Additionally, the tool gives valuable insight for setting
up the classroom for optimal learning in a side-by-side relational manner.
In addition to escalation maps, teachers discussed the value of safety-plans. A safety-plan
within a TIPE classroom is an individualised plan, co-created with the student which details: (a)
the times when the student feels escalated; (b) the triggers or reasons for escalation that the
student identifies; (c) words or actions that the student will share with the teacher when
escalation occurs; (d) word or actions that the teacher can give to assist de-escalation; (e)
strategies that the student determines will be helpful for de-escalation or calmness. The teachers
agreed that the strategies must be determined with the student, and included only if the teacher
deems the strategy as appropriate for use in the flexible learning unit setting. Strategies within
the safety-plans at this flexible learning unit included: taking a short walk, requesting a friend for
a brief talk, getting a drink of water, reading in the back of the classroom, using a fidget toy,
listening to music on headphones, or seeking assistance from another adult. The plans were
created on either forms created by the teachers or individual cards created by the students
themselves and kept near or in the students’ desks.
As mentioned above, a key benefit of creating safety-plans with students is alerting the
teacher to particular self-identified triggers of the student. One teacher reflected that one of her
students was able to articulate how he wanted to be treated in his safety-plan, even when he
experiences rapid emotional dysregulation. She explains below:
Well, for some students, it’s getting them to identify: “I do like to be on my own when
I’m angry. Please don’t follow me. Leave me alone, or please go away and let the other
staff de-escalate the situation.” So it’s getting them to understand themselves; and
without it we wouldn’t know what triggers them, we wouldn’t know how to help them.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
234
This teacher’s reflection is a reminder that often, trauma-affected students may not be
able to communicate what they need or how best to support them. Throughout the action
research, an ongoing discussion with teachers centred on how trauma-affected students have
come to see themselves as failures in the classroom. In doing so, teachers shared how they
believe this sense of failure masquerades as aggression, resistance, or refusal within the
classroom. The quote above may also be interpreted as a reminder that students value being
asked about what works for them; and once they answer, they have invited the teacher into a
closer relationship — in itself a powerful form of regulation (Crittenden, 2008) — which helps
them to take on the challenges required for new learning.
Conclusion
This paper explores the perspectives of teachers participating in an appreciative inquiry
action research process in order to learn and to embed the first domain of the TIPE model,
increasing regulatory abilities ,within trauma-affected flexible learning cohorts. Particularly
within flexible learning settings, teaching pedagogies must address the previously unmet
developmental needs required for effective classroom learning.
The results of this study reveal how teachers integrated their own learnings about
increasing regulatory capacities. The results emerged through four subthemes: rhythm, self-
regulation, mindfulness, and de-escalation. Throughout this study, teachers incorporated
interventions that showed promising classroom practice such as: strengthening the rhythms of
students’ bodies through brainbreaks, awareness of heart rate, and “bottom-up” physical
regulation; increasing self-regulation through the use of psycho-education and tools for student
self-monitoring; introducing and practicing mindfulness at various points in the school day; and
placing particular focus on de-escalation in the classroom environment through the use of
student-friendly tools and strategies.
Throughout the action research process, teachers reflected and actioned classroom
interventions to promote an increase in student regulatory abilities and an increase in their own
abilities to manage classroom behaviours. This study provides the basis for future investigation
for the TIPE approach within flexible learning settings as teachers strive to meet their students’
needs for both healing and growth.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
235
References
Aaltonen, S. (2012). Subjective orientations to the schooling of young people on the margins of
school. Young, 20(3), 219–235.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C. H., Perry, B. D., Dube, S.
R., & Giles, W. H. (2005). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. European
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186. doi:10.1007/s00406-
005-0624-4
Aron, L., & Zweig, J. (2003). Educational alternatives for vulnerable youth: Student needs,
program types and research directions. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF). (2010). Making SPACE for learning: Trauma informed
practice in schools. Ringwood, VIC: Author.
Baim, C., & Morrison, T. (2011). Attachment-based practice with adults: Understanding
strategies and promoting positive change. Brighton, UK: Pavilion Publishing.
Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and Youth,
17(3), 17–21.
Berry Street Victoria. (2013). Foundations for practice: Trauma module. Melbourne: Author.
Bloom, S. (1995). Creating sanctuary in the school. Journal for a Just and Caring Education,
1(4), 403–433.
Bowlby, J. (1971). Attachment. London, UK: Pelican.
Brunzell, T., Norrish, J., Ralston, S., Abbott, L., Witter, M., Joyce, T., & Larkin, J. (2015). Berry
Street Education Model: Curriculum and classroom strategies. Melbourne, Australia: Berry
Street Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.childhoodinstitute.org.au/EducationModel
Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2015). Trauma-informed positive education: Using
positive psychology to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemporary School Psychology,
20(1), 63–83. doi:10.1007/s40688-015-0070-x
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected
students: A new approach to healing and growth in the classroom. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 85(1), 3–9.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
236
Coade, S., Downey, L., & McClung, L. (2008). Yarning up on trauma: Healing ourselves,
healing our children and families, healing our communities. Melbourne, Australia: Take 2,
Berry Street Victoria.
Cole, P., Griffiths, B., Jane, G., & Mackay, T. (2004). Learning in diverse settings. (Report for
the Victorian Department of Education & Training). Victoria, Australia: PTR Consulting.
Cole, S., Greenwald, J., Gadd, M. G., Ristuccia, J., Wallace, D. L., & Gregory, M. (2009).
Helping traumatized children learn: Supporting school environments for children
traumatized by family violence. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Advocates for Children.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 114–143.
Crittenden, P. M. (2008). Raising parents: Attachment, parenting, and child safety. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge/Willan.
Dennison, P. E., & Dennison, G. E. (1989). Brain gym: Teacher’s edition. Ventura, CA: Edu-
Kinesthetics.
Downey, L. (2007). Calmer classrooms: A guide to working with traumatized children.
Melbourne, Australia: State of Victoria, Child Safety Commissioner.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General
Psychology, 9(2), 103–110.
Hassed, C. (2008). The essence of health. North Sydney, Australia: Ebury Press.
Hughes, D. A. (2004). An attachment-based treatment of maltreated children and young people.
Attachment & Human Development, 6, 263–278.
Hughes, D. A. (2006). Building the bonds of attachment. Lanham, MD: Aronson.
Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M., & Seligman, E. P. (2012). The engine of well-being. Review of
General Psychology, 16(4), 327–342.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Keyes, C. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
237
Keyes, C., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in
ancient philosophy and contemporary science. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–
201.
Ludema, J. D., & Fry, R. E. (2008). The practice of appreciative inquiry. In P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 280–296). London, UK: Sage.
Ludy-Dobson, C. R., & Perry, B. P. (2010). The role of healthy relational interactions in
buffering the impact of childhood trauma. In E. Gil (Ed.), Working with children to heal
interpersonal trauma: The power of play. New York, NY: The Gilford Press.
Magyar-Moe, J. L. (2009). Therapist’s guide to positive psychological interventions. Burlington,
VT: Academic Press.
McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2012). Alternative education sites and marginalised young people.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 843–862.
Milbourne, L. (2009). Engaging disaffected young people. In K. te Riele (Ed.), Making schools
different: Alternative approaches to educating young people, (pp. 74–85). London, UK:
Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perry, B. D. (2006). Applying principles of neurodevelopment to clinical work with maltreated
and traumatized children: The neurosequential model of therapeutics. In N. Boyd Webb
(Ed.), Working with traumatized youth in child welfare (pp. 27–52). New York, NY: The
Guildford Press.
Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical
applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics, Journal of Loss and Trauma,
14(4), 240–255. doi: 10.1080/15325020903004350
Perry, B. D., Pollard, R., Blakely, T., Baker, W., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trauma, the
neurobiology of adaptation, and “use-dependent” development of the brain: How “states”
become “traits”. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271–291.
Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog. Philadelphia, PA: Basic
Books.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world
worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action
research (pp. 1–14). London, UK: Sage.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
238
Roffey, S. (2013). Inclusive and exclusive belonging: The impact on individual and community
wellbeing. Educational & Child Psychology, 30(1), 38–49.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey.
Siegel, D. (2009). Mindful awareness, mindsight, and neural integration. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 37(2), 137–158.
Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and disclosure: Using interpretative
phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11(2), 261–271.
Stewart, D., Sun, J., Patterson, C., Lemerle, K., & Hardie, M. (2004). Promoting and building
resilience in primary school communities: Evidence from a comprehensive 'health
promoting school' approach. The International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6(3),
26–33.
Stokes, H., & Turnbull, M. (2011). The Berry Street School Practice Approach. Melbourne,
Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.berrystreet.org.au/Assets/3209/1/Berry-
Street-School_Practice-Approach.pdf
te Riele, K. (2007). Educational alternatives for marginalised youth. Australian Educational
Researcher, 34(3), 53–68.
te Riele, K. (2014). Putting the jigsaw together: Flexible learning programs in Australia. Final
report. Melbourne, Australia: The Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and Lifelong
Learning.
Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. (2007). Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation:
Overlapping constructs or not? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1875–1885.
van der Kolk, B. A., & McFarlane, A. (1996). Traumatic Stress: The effects of overwhelming
experience on mind, body and society. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Waters, L. (2011). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. The Australian
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75–90.
Waters, L., Barsky, A., Ridd, A., & Allen, K. (2014). Contemplative education: A systematic
evidence-based review of the effect of meditation interventions in schools. Education
Psychology Review, 27(1), 103–145.
Wilson, K., Stemp, K., & McGinty, S. (2011). Re-engaging young people with education and
training: What are the alternatives? Youth Studies Australia, 30(4), 32–39.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2016) 7(2): 218–239
DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs72201615719
239
Wolpow, R., Johnson, M., Hertel, R., & Kincaid, S. (2009). The heart of learning and teaching:
Compassion, resiliency, and academic success. Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction Compassionate Schools.
Zandee, D. P., & Cooperrider, D. L. (2008). Appreciable worlds, inspired inquiry. In P. Reason
& H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 190–198). London,UK:
Sage.
