Introduction

There are risk factors facing children at individual, family, school and community levels (^{Rowe & Stewart, 2009}). These risk factors could have an impact on the social, mental and physical health of individuals (^{Babayigit & Okray, 2018}; ^{McCann et al., 2013}; ^{McDonald, Jackson, Wilkes & Vickers, 2013}; ^{Pinar, Yildirim & Sayin, 2018}; ^{Szeri, Şahin, Cevahir & Say, 2010}). Therefore, resilience is considered as one of the important interventions that protects children from the negative impacts of risk factors and offers operational source of coping (^{McGillivray & Pidgeon, 2015}; ^{Pinar, Yildirim & Sayin, 2018}; ^{Zhao Guo, Suhonen & Leino-Kilpi, 2016}). So, understanding factors that help promote resilience can be informative for designing preventative interventions (^{Beardslee, Solantaus, Morgan, Gladstone, & Kowalenko, 2012}; ^{Mahedy et al., 2018}).

Resilience is described as the successful adaptation and functioning within threatening adverse events (^{Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000}). Accordingly, resilience has two main aspects, including the surrounding circumstances that disturb the development of children as well as children’s successful dynamic adaptation (^{Rutter, 1979}; ^{Rutter, 2006}). However, resilience is not only the ability to overcome the threats but also external strength factors, including educational and family support (^{Chu, Sen, Saucier, & Hafner, 2010}; ^{Go, Chu, Barlas & Chng, 2017}). Resilience strengthens adaptation, Resilience strengthens adaptation, promotes recovery, protects mental health, and maintains integrated positive functioning over the passage of time in the aftermath of adversity (^{Lou, Taylor & Di Folco, 2018}; ^{Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick & Yehuda, 2014}).

Conceptualizing resilience in children marks salient internal factors including biological and psychological factors, while external factors are reflected in the nature and quality of relationships established within or outside the family group (^{Jenney, Allagia & Niepage, 2016}). Likewise, ^{Rojas (2015}) (as cited in ^{Johnson, 1997}) suggests that human relationships are the most critical factor in school child resiliency, followed by child attributes, school programs, community variables, and family factors. Internal factors are the personal attributes of the resilient children, such as empathy and self-esteem (^{Dumont & Provost, 1999}; ^{Karatas, Tagay & Cakar, 2016}; ^{Masten & Gramezy, 1985}; ^{Rutter, 1987}) self-efficacy (^{Masten & Coatsworth, 1998}; ^{Al-Bataineh, Brenwall, Stalter & York, 2019}) and intellectual functioning (^{Freitas & Downey, 1998}; ^{Masten et. al., 1999}). Contextually related external factors include positive peer influence, supportive family peers, caring school and community environments (^{Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000}; ^{Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990}; ^{Werner & Smith, 1982}).

The school plays a significant role in contributing to children’s wellbeing, resilience and academic learning by following a strengths-based perspective model (^{Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich & Linkins, 2009}). The strengths-based perspective can provide advantages to teachers that extends the resilience paradigm currently accepted within school education (^{Brownlee, Rawana & MacArthur, 2012}). The school resiliency factors consist of two broader categories, including school culture (^{McCashen, 2005}; ^{O’Connell, 2006}) and commitment to learning at school (^{Cetinkaya, 2019}; ^{Walsh & Park-Taylor, 2005}). Children’s personality positive development is mostly determined by the commitment of effort and time they give in their schools and the impact of school teachers, school peer groups, and school- parent school- communication to become highly educated and socially effective responsible individuals (^{Plotnikova, & Strukov, 2019}; ^{Mukhopadhyay, 2010}).

^{Benson (1997}) views resilience as a paradigm shift from identifying individual’s risk factors to identifying individual’s strengths. A resilient individual is characterized by stress-resistance and less vulnerable despite experiencing significant adversity (^{Garmezy, & Masten, 1994}; ^{Garmezy, 1996}). Accordingly, interventions have moved increasingly toward creating a coordinated sequence of positive experiences and providing key developmental supports and opportunities (^{Alvord & Grados, 2005}). Rather than the traditional perspective of engaging an individual with a problem orientation and risk focus, a strength-based approach seeks to understand and develop the strengths and capabilities that can transform the lives of people in positive ways (^{Barton, 2005}).

A strengths-based approach is linked to the traditional foundation of counselling and guidance since this approach emphasises human development, prevention, positive assets, wellness, and strengths, rather than weaknesses and psychopathology (^{Ratanavivan, 2015}; ^{Lotfi, 2007}). It operates from the assumption that resources and strengths available within and to children that help them improve participation and achieve success in many areas of their life (^{Hollenbeck & Morris, 2016}; ^{Trujillo, 2017}). It pursues to understand and advance the capacities and strengths that can transform the lives of children in positive ways (^{Alvord & Grados, 2005}; ^{Barton, 2005}). Accordingly, much of the interventions on promoting children development have been shifted from focusing on vulnerabilities and mitigating risks to an emphasis on nurturing strengths, capabilities and resources of a child (^{Ager, 2013}; ^{Almedom & Glandon, 2007}; ^{Namy et al., 2017}).

Worldwide, interest in strength-based approach has increased considerably as a means to improve the positive development of school children as counsellors, researchers, educators, practitioners and community care providers shift from the prevention of specific problems to a more holistic concentration on positive factors of children development (^{Alberta, 2012}). Counsellors using a strengths-based approach perceive that each child has strengths to cope with difficulties and to maintain functioning in the stress (^{Brasler, 2001}). Thus, counsellors develop treatment plans based on children's attainment of skills, competence, interests, motivation, emotions and resources (^{Bozic, 2013}). This will help children move forward from problem-talking in the past to realistic expectation and solutions in the future (^{Colville, 2013}; ^{Hughes, 2014}). Apart from the individualised perspective, some professionals of student affairs use a strengths-based approach to link their education programmes with larger institutional objectives, including student engagement, retention, and success (^{Soria & Stubblefield, 2015}). However, academic achievement of students declines during the preparatory school and children’s low achievement is the biggest challenge facing today’s schools (^{Dukmak & Ishtaiwa, 2015}).

Four overlapping waves of resilience research have been conducted over four decades (^{Marie & Johns, 2018}) including: 1. individual traits, 2. protective mechanisms, 3. developmental assets at individual and community levels and 4. social ecological: culturally entrenched understanding of resilience and ‘new voices’ (^{Sagone & Elvira De Caroli, 2016}; ^{Ungar, 2012}; ^{Ungar, Brown, Liebenberg & Othman 2007}; ^{Masten, 2007}). The first wave of research was emerged around 1970 on resilience in the behavioural sciences where the initial conceptualisation of resilience focused on individual traits (^{Anthony, 1987}; ^{Garcia-Dia, DiNapoli, Garcia-Ona Jakubowski & O'flaherty, 2013}). The second wave attempted to conceptualise resilience as a dynamic process and the interaction between genetic and environmental factors (^{Rutter, 2012}) so that the resilience can be a process of using internal and external protective factors to adapt to a situation (Garcia-Dia et al., 2013). The third wave of resilience conceptualisation is the shift to developmental assets, both individual and community where scholars argued that resilience can be an outcome of interactions between individuals and their environments (^{Ungar, 2008}), children’s resilience in schools can be enhanced by focusing on individual and environmental factors (^{Bosworth & Earthman, 2002}; ^{Masten, 2001}). The fourth wave of resilience science viewed the cultural context to play a significant role in the collective resilience of the individual and community within a politically violent context (^{Sousa, Haj-Yahia, Feldman & Lee, 2013}).

^{Scheper-Hughes (2008}) completed studies and worked in the areas of political unrest says that the Western understanding of resilience is insufficient in other cultural contexts, especially in politically conflicted places where there is an everyday form of resilience within oppressed communities. ^{Marie, Hannigan & Johns (2018}) assert that there is a near absence of research studies which investigate resilience within conflict areas and in underdeveloped or developing countries, and a lack of research studies that investigate resilience within an Arabic or Muslim cultural context. They clarify that few relevant studies on the resilience of Palestinians were found, particularly related to the fourth wave of resilience. Therefore, they recommend further studies in Gaza that include focus on resilience in children which draws on wider cultural contexts and responses.

This paper seeks to fill a knowledge gap within resiliency research and neglect of incorporating the cultural context of a strength-based proactive approach (SBPA) for building resilience in school children under political crisis taking into account the factor of gender.

The case of Gaza as a region under occupation and prolonged blockade of borders since 2006 and internal Palestinian division is a home to more than 931,200 children under the age of 18, more than one-half children are school students, drop-out rate was 1.2% among school children, 1.2% of school children are engaged in paid and unpaid labour, and 0.9% of the children have at least one form of disability (^{PCBS, 2018}). Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip experienced the variety of traumatic events, including bombardment, demolition of homes, witnessing killing and arrest of relatives, and arrest of relatives that caused post-traumatic disorder, depression and anxiety. These severely deteriorated children’s sleep and cause uncontrollable fears among babies and children, causing anxiety, panic attacks and poor concentration (^{Thabit & Thabit, 2015}). Military trauma in middle childhood and stressful life-events in early adolescence formed a risk for post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive and decreased satisfaction with the quality of life in adolescence (^{Qouta, Punamäki, Montgomery & El Sarraj, 2007}). Likewise, ^{Thabit (2017}) states that the children living in Gaza have been exposed to and are suffering from a range of trauma and abuse, which out them at high risk factor for the development of mental health problems in young life and their continuation into adulthood and the next generation of parents.

Methodology

This research incorporates descriptive and correlational research designs and follows a multi-method approach to answer the main research question ‘What are the interventions used by school counsellors in helping school-children in Gaza to be more resilient and aiding them in personal and school adjustment’ via responding to following most pressing questions (Qs):

All the above research questions are critical to be answered, since the resilience appears to be adopted as the ideal psychological approach across the globe. Q1 is answered through review of related articles on the concept and determinants of resilience. Q2 is explained via analysing existing well-established resilience models such as strengths-based model and a whole-school model. Q3 is tackled by forming Conceptual Strength- Based Proactive Approach (CSBPA) based on literature review and analysing strength-based and a whole-school models. Finally, Q4 is addressed via applying (CSBPA) to analyse the existing preparatory school educational models in Gaza to investigate their strengths, weaknesses, replicability and scalability in the Palestinian and regional school education.

Results

In Figure 1, there were important themes with the core theme “resilience in school children” and other internal and external strengths. In our model the majority of children have the capacity for successful adaptation despite challenging circumstances. Fawzi, a father said, ‘My daughter in Al Ramla Girls’ Basic School has high ability to adapt and succeed and she can face difficulties and solve problems under the current changing circumstances in Gaza. However, she sometimes needs our help’. Likewise, Jaber, a father said, ‘My son in Hetteen Boys’ Basic School can adapt and succeed but we encourage him’. This indicates that the students in both sexes (males and females) in the Gaza City have the same ability to adapt and succeed despite the difficult surrounding circumstances.

Figure 1.  Emergent Themes from Qualitative Data. 

Findings from the quantitative method

Awareness about building resiliency in school children

Table 1 shows only 8.1% of students’ respondents usually read about building resilience in school children which reflects the inadequate understanding of children resiliency in terms of their capability to cope successfully in the face of stress-related situations. The internet is found as the most reading source about building resiliency in school children.

Table 1.  Awareness about building resiliency in school children. 

Concept of resiliency

Table 2 explains that about two thirds of students assert that the concept of resiliency is integrated into school curriculum. It displays also that about a quarter of students’ respondents are highly influenced by the concept of resiliency.

Table 2.  Concept of resiliency. 

Building resiliency in school children

According to Table 3, three quarters of students agree that the school counsellor and teacher talk about building resiliency and ways to strengthen it. Table 3 indicates also that more than one third of students are highly influenced by what was stated by school counsellor and teacher.

Table 3.  Building resiliency in school children. 

Analysis of internal and external strength factors that contribute to building resilience

Table 4 highlights high score (86%) given by the students for having the capacity for successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances.

Analysis of internal strength factors

Table 5 shows that Students’ respondents gave the highest score (89.2%) for cultural and social sensitivity & empathy followed by self-concept (87%) and then gave the lowest score (80%) for empowerment and self-control.

Table 4.  Relative weights (scores) of students’ capacity for successful adaptation. 

Table 5.  Relative weights (scores) of internal strength factors. 

Analysis of external strength factors

According to Table 6, students’ respondents gave the highest score (90%) for child learning at school, followed by peers (88%), family (83%), school culture (79.3%), community cohesiveness (76%), and then gave the lowest score (71.6%) for child protection and rights NGOs, Palestinian formal institutions at local and national levels, international NGOs (e.g., UNICEF).

Table 6.  Relative weights (scores) of external strength factors. 

Results of the research question

Is there a statistically significant differences in the effect of internal strength factors (empowerment, self-control, self-concept, cultural sensitivity, and social sensitivity) and external strength factors (community cohesion, family, peer group, school, school culture, learning at school, child protection and rights NGOs, Palestinian formal institutions at local and national levels, and International NGOs (e.g., UNICEF) on the extent to which children have the ability to adapt and succeed according to (gender variable)?

Table 7.  Results of the ‘t’ test for the independent samples to detect the differences between the average of the internal and external strength factors and the extent of students' ability to adapt and succeed due to the gender (male, female) variable. 

Significant at 0.01;

^*Significant at 0.05; //Not significant**.

Table 7 shows that there are no statistically significant differences (Significant at 0.01) between the averages of internal strengths factors to measure the extent of the ability to adapt and succeed in school children due to the gender variable (male and female) in the study sample in Gaza City, except for the cultural sensitivity and social sensitivity & empathy factor (Significant at 0.05). Table 7 also illustrates that there are no statistically significant differences between the averages of external strengths factors in general to measure the extent of the ability to adapt and succeed in school children due to the gender variable (male and female children) in the study sample in Gaza City, except for learning at school in favour of females, the social cohesion, and the child protection and rights NGOs factors in favour of males.

Discussion

The results of both quantitative and qualitative phases of this study show that the majority of children have the ability to adapt and succeed despite the difficult circumstances surrounding them, but with great difficulties. The quantitative results demonstrate high score (86%) given by students’ respondents for having the capacity for successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances. These results correspond to ^{Cénat, Derivois, Hébert, Amédée & Karray (2018}), in their research studying the multiple traumas and resilience experienced by the street children in Haiti. However, a large majority of street children present a moderate to very high level of resilience. These results are also consistent with ^{Marie, Hannigan, & Jones, (2018}) who indicate that resilient Palestinian youth are capable to live normally, while they face risks and inadequate resources, due to social support they receive in their homes. ^{Al Ajarma (2010}) introduces highly resilient Palestinian children, who live in threatening political and security environment, and characterises drivers of children’s resilience, such as arts, learning at school, caring family, friendly community and social support, and participation in political activities and awareness. It may be concluded that Palestinian school students have the capacity for successful adaptation and confronting learning and social problems under the prevailing stressful situation.

This study showed that only 8.1% of students’ respondents who usually read about building resilience in school children indicating inadequate understanding of their resiliency in terms of their capability to cope successfully in the face of stress-related situations. The internet is found as the most used reading source, reflecting high access of children in Gaza to internet and social media platforms. Despite the usefulness of engaging children in resiliency workshops organised by civil society organisations as demonstrated by this study; more than two thirds of students’ respondents have not participated in workshops on building their resiliency which clarifies the limited availability and accessibility of NGOs services that support children’s resilience to cope with difficult events.

The results present that the value of including resilience topics in the school curriculum and continuous teaching of students about it. However, quantitative method shows that about two thirds of students’ respondents assert that the concept of resiliency is integrated into school curriculum, and about quarter of students’ respondents are highly influenced by the concept of resiliency, while more than half of student respondents are normally influenced and one-eighth are influenced limitedly. On the contrary, qualitative method shows that very few topics related to resiliency are integrated in the school curriculum, often indirectly. This reflects the need to focus on educating students on the role of resiliency factors in their development.

The quantitative method shows that three quarters of students’ respondents agree that the school counsellor and teacher talk about building resiliency and ways to strengthen it, and more than one third of students’ respondents are highly influenced by what was stated by school counsellor and teacher, while less than half of student respondents are normally influenced and one-seventh of student respondents are influenced limitedly. Oppositely, the qualitative method shows that teachers do not talk about resilience due to insufficient time and a large content of the curriculum. This highlights the need to train school counsellors and teachers on the role of resiliency factors in children development. These results correspond to ^{Payton et al. (2008}) who suggest that effective school programmes include a combination of knowledge, social and life skills, normative approaches, critical thinking and negotiation skills; and should be delivered as a part of a broader health and personal development curriculum that incorporates a focus on a range of social, physical and mental health issues. They also link to ^{Woolf (2013}) who asserts that the use of stories and game plays as the most effective instruction medium to advance social and emotional learning in school children, providing them a space to be more self-aware, motivated, and able to manage feelings and develop social skills.

The study results show that students’ respondents gave (80%) for the empowerment and self-control factors. It displays the necessity of having child positive thinking, ability to solve problems, positive body image, good health, achievements, and encouraging and motivating adults to have a positive self- concept and empowerment. In addition to the importance of providing care, love, respect, encouragement, trust comfort, and safe environment for children.

The study presents the significance of creating a supportive school environment where the child learns more discipline and control than in the family and peer group. This coincides with ^{Waters (2011}) who argues that students need to know that school staff care is unconditionally available for them and educators must value and start the change process with what is important to the student.

The study pinpoints the necessity of building a strong relationship between school and family. This conforms with ^{Mathar (2013}) who reflects that whole-school approach leads to a sustainable school that incorporates active and participatory teaching and learning not only through aspects of the curriculum but also through sustainable school operations as community and parents’ involvement, long-term planning and monitoring and evaluation. Mathar calls also for an exchange between teachers, pupils, parents and experts from outside the school.

The study marks the advantage of joining a peer group for the child that which offers the opportunity to compete and for new interactions; merit of good relationship with neighbours and relatives to make the child feels supported, and that everyone cares for him and give him feeling of love, confidence, and acceptance.

The study declares that that there are no statistically significant differences (Significant at 0.01) between the averages of internal strengths factors to measure the extent of the ability to adapt and succeed in school children due to the gender variable (male and female) in the study sample in Gaza city, except for the cultural and social sensitivity & empathy factor (Significant at 0.05). These results imply that females have a cultural and social sensitivity & empathy and affection for others more than males which are attributed to biological nature of females who have a feeling of sympathy for others and love to provide support larger than males.

The results reveal that there are no statistically significant differences between the averages of external strengths factors in general to measure the extent of the ability to adapt and succeed in school children due to the gender variable (male and female) in the study sample in the Gaza City. The absence of differences between males and females is ascribed to the fact that both sexes are equally affected at this stage by the peer group and receive the same support from the family and culture. Except for learning at school in favour of females, this result is normal and the reason for this is that the females are more interested and attached to school than males. Accordingly, females are more affected than males by what they learned at school. The differences in the social cohesion and the child protection and rights NGOs factors are in favour of males due to the patriarchal system - male supremacy - gender power imbalances between men and women and hegemonic masculinity that predominates in the Palestinian society. Therefore, the impact of males is greater and male participation in activities organised by NGOs may be greater than the participation of females, as some conservative families in the Palestinian society may prevent girls from participating in activities implemented by NGOs.

Conclusions

This research work comes as the first effort to develop CSBPA model for the case of Gaza city and other similar cities experiencing political instability to be used by counsellors and psychologists to apply effective and proactive approaches and social and emotional learning programmes that enhance students' resilience, engagement and wellbeing. Therefore, the conceptual threads and correspondent priority indicators of CSBPA model should be emerged at the level of educational institutions.

The strength-based approach should be applied to foster and support the academic learning, resilience and wellbeing of children, enables children to develop personal and social capabilities and solve the problem of psychological disorders and low academic achievement of school children. This will-to a large extent-lead to solve behavioural and educational problems in children, enhance their ability to adapt and deal with crisis more strongly and better, and reduce the psychological effects of the difficult crisis.