interventions (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017). Section 3.3 details using the implementation science and PRA principles in developing the intervention.
1.5 Key Theoretical Concepts
has become increasingly more complicated and more important as teachers struggle with fewer resources and researchers with how to intervene effectively in a given context (Greene, 2015; Murphy, 2015).
School-based interventions range in complexity and can reside at one or more system levels, e.g. classroom, school, province or nationally (Century & Cassata, 2016). The goal of the Isithebe SC Intervention study was to see if structured SC activities (indicated by teachers coming together regularly to enjoy arts activities together) enabled teachers to feel more connected (rather than isolated and lonely) in relaxed and creative ways that support them to resile professionally – despite the hardship of challenged contexts in which they teach (and live). Section 3.3 in Chapter 3 details the use of implementation science in developing the intervention.
1.5.3 Resilience
Currently, the literature recognises resilience as a multifaceted process that draws on various contextual and personal resources interacting in a complex manner over time (Beltman et al., 2011; Ebersöhn, 2017; Mansfield, 2018; Strümpfer, 2013). Resilience results when vulnerable people and their ecologies cooperate in providing and capitalising on life-sustaining resources (Theron & Malindi, 2010). Additionally, resilience is process orientated and explores how adversity and risk in one system co-exist and mobilise protective resources in aligned systems (Ebersöhn, 2016). Research highlights resilience as a dynamic process that requires adaptive responses in adverse conditions to achieve positive outcomes (Beltman et al., 2011;
Ebersöhn, 2017; Mansfield, 2018). A shift in resilience research resulted in less focus on the individual and a move towards understanding the relevance of the individual’s context (Ungar, 2012). Due to the interconnectedness of systems, the capacity to adapt is dynamic and ever- changing depending on how factors influence different domains of the system (Masten, 2018).
Research on resilience has established empirical evidence for situational and environmental factors, which entails significantly more intricate elements than only internal characteristics or assets (Theron & Theron, 2010). Individuals, their environments, and the process by which they overcome adversity at various points in their lives all add to the complexity of resilience (Beltman & Mansfield, 2018; Liebenberg et al., 2016; Masten, 2001;
Maurović et al., 2020). Resilience is defined as the ability to achieve better-than-expected results despite adversity and the dynamic processes that contribute to positive development (Masten, 2001; Ungar, 2011). Current views of this notion of resilience emphasise risk management despite the chronic and cumulative constraints of working within a challenged context. Ebersöhn (2012, 2013, 2019) proposes an analytical framework of RRR as one indigenous pathway to resilience in adverse South African environments. My study aims to
pathways to resilience are operationalised as adaptive processes employed where hardship has an enduring impact on functioning (Ebersöhn, 2014; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007).
Ebersöhn (2014) positions resilience processes in poverty as a “lifeline chain” (Ebersöhn, 2014, p. 1), where incidences of positive adaptation are linked to one another, enabling individuals and communities to adapt to chronic hardship.
1.5.4 Teacher Resilience
For my study, TR is aligned with studies done in similar contexts where chronic and cumulative risk prevails (Coetzee et al., 2015; Ebersöhn & Loots, 2017). As discussed in Section 1.5.3, resilience in severe adversity requires adaptation and the use of available protective resources to achieve positive outcomes. There may be fewer opportunities to distribute resources in less equitable communities. (Ebersöhn, 2017). The availability of resources or capital, such as spiritual, social and cultural resources, feeds into the resilience process (Ebersöhn, 2017;
Papatraianou et al., 2018). Resilience includes teachers’ adaptation to constraints, focusing on individual characteristics, strategies and the use of available protective resources. It is assumed that teachers can recognise, navigate and access these resources to manage adversity (Ebersöhn, 2014, 2017). Thus, TR is defined as teachers who can cope within a stressful education system by drawing on individual and environmental resources that enable them to adapt despite significant stressors (Coetzee et al., 2015).
Teacher resilience enables unexpected positive consequences, such as improved well- being, job satisfaction, commitment, retention, and quality of education (Gu & Day, 2013;
Mansfield et al., 2016). Occupational well-being encapsulates enabling coping mechanisms, traits, or strategies that are reported to assist teachers in maintaining a positive work-life balance to enhance job satisfaction and counteract stress and burnout inherent in the profession (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019; Wosnitza et al., 2018). Important coping mechanisms reported for teacher occupational well-being include good self-care habits, focusing on emotional, physical and mental wellness, an optimistic mindset, positive self-talk, and effective time management (Mansfield et al., 2016; Wosnitza et al., 2018). Furthermore, teacher well- being and job satisfaction may be indicators of teacher adaptation, which is critical for teacher retention (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019). Therefore, teacher resilience focuses on thriving teachers who deliver high-quality education, regardless of career stage, to all learners in different contexts (Gu & Day, 2013; Mansfield et al., 2016). Quality education can be defined as beneficial contributions from both teachers and learners that create the potential to improve lives, particularly for the youth (Pareek & Rathore, 2016). These conditions, in turn, encourage teacher commitment and retention, which may result in higher learner performance (Gu & Day, 2013; Pareek & Rathore, 2016).
The ENTRÉE scale with revised contextual questions was administered as part of the quantitative measurements before and after the intervention. “The ENTRÉE project was guided by a comprehensive definition of resilience developed from research associated with previous Australian projects” (Beltman & Mansfield, 2018, p. 4). In my study, “teacher resilience” refers to the ability of peri-urban primary school teachers to resile (in challenged contexts). TR was indicated in measures as “teacher professionalism, teacher emotion, teacher motivation, teacher sense of coherence, teacher efficacy” (Ebersöhn et al., 2020, p. 2), contextual factors and TR. Qualitative PRA indicators of TR included enablers of quality education (teacher professionalism – including leveraging social networks for PD – and T&L competencies) and enablers of occupational well-being (teacher adaptability; showing compassion for learners; acknowledgement of occupational inputs; and experiencing career purpose).
1.5.5 Teachers in Peri-Urban Primary Schools
A primary school is a school that accommodates children from Grade 1 up to Grade 7 (DBE, 2009). The peri-urban primary schools included in the Isithebe dataset are public government schools situated in an urban space (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality). In my study, the term
“teachers in peri-urban primary schools” specifically refers to 36 teachers at six peri-urban primary schools in the EC (n = 36, M = 2, F = 34).
1.5.6 Schools in Challenged Educational Contexts
For my study, challenged educational contexts denote schools in resource-constrained areas that may face structural and socio-ecological issues (Ebersöhn & Loots, 2017). My study's specific challenged educational context is public government peri-urban primary schools in an EC city. This province is largely characterised by a lack of formal housing, restricted access to drinking water, limited or no access to electricity, high levels of orphanhood (especially due to HIV/AIDS), crime, inadequate education, and poverty (StatsSA, 2018). Teachers from the six peri-urban primary schools who participated in my study live and teach in challenged educational contexts. Schools that met the requirements of the DBE’s “Quintile 3 categorisation - indicating that no school fees may be charged” (Ebersöhn et al., 2020, p. 10) - were designated as “challenged educational context” (Dass & Rinquest, 2017). The quintiles of the schools, and the socio-economic class of the area, were identified as indicators of challenged contexts. These no-fee-paying schools are usually situated in contexts characterised by disadvantaged socio-economic classes (determined by the level of education and household income) (Mattsson et al., 2017). Additionally, no-fee-paying schools have high learner-to-teacher ratios (LTRs), indicating the likelihood of large class sizes; the annual Government Gazette released by the DoE confirms this pattern (DoE, 2018). Furthermore,
is significantly higher compared to learners from Quintiles 1, 2 and 3 (non-fee-paying schools) (Dass & Rinquest, 2017).