Chapter 16
Different Approaches to Teaching Positive Psychology

AMY C. FINEBURG AND ANDREW MONK

From the beginning of the movement, education has been one of the main pillars of positive psychology (Seligman, 1998) and has become regarded as one of the most appropriate forms for its effectiveness (Burns, Andrews, & Szabo, 2002). Education as an institution is a natural fit into the positive psychology realm in that its entire goal is to enact positive change in individuals through learning. The institution of education also works to provide a positive outcome for communities by producing informed citizens who can interact knowledgably with society. Positive psychologists concern themselves with research and practice into what aspects of school assist students' learning and well-being, while also investigating how people within the educational system can enhance and be enhanced by their experiences in school. Researchers have examined the roles of strengths (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Lopez & Louis, 2009), hope (Lopez, Rose, Robinson, Marques, & Pais-Reibero, 2009; Snyder et al., 2002; Worrell & Hale, 2001), gratitude (Bono, Froh, & Emmons, 2012), self-regulation (Duckworth, Grant, Loew, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2011), grit (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Duckworth, 2013), and resilience (Gillham et al., 2007) in how well students perform in schools. This research has translated into lessons and strategies that teachers use in their classrooms either to teach the academic content of positive psychology or to teach the hidden curriculum of soft skills inherent in positive psychology interventions.

In the first edition of Positive Psychology in Practice (Linley & Joseph, 2004), this chapter focused on the teaching of positive psychology to the introductory psychology student. A decade ago, positive psychology was a relatively new movement, and the emphasis at that time was to introduce positive psychology to students as early as possible. The positive psychology unit plan (Fineburg, 2001) for high school classrooms was published by Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools (TOPSS), the high school teacher affiliate group of the American Psychological Association (APA). Authors (i.e., Blair-Broeker & Ernst, 2003; Myers, 2014) were beginning to put positive psychology concepts into their textbooks. The implications and possibilities of teaching positive psychology to students, regardless of age level, were just beginning to be explored. The need for a discussion of how positive psychology might best be introduced to students provided the impetus for the chapter in the first edition.

Since then, the theory of positive psychology has quickly been taken up by the education sector with vigor. Positive psychology now bridges into a plethora of areas related to education. This chapter broadly aims to present an overview of where positive psychology within education has progressed. More specifically, it is useful to hear of the types of approaches schools have taken to place positive psychology into their existing frameworks, the depth of their intervention, and how they have utilized this information to ameliorate positive psychology in all education circles.

The inclusion of positive psychology into a school's curriculum depends on the comfort level of the faculty and staff and the needs of the students. Three levels of implementation seem to emerge from the literature and practice. The first level is the shallowest level of implementation as individual instructors incorporate positive psychology–themed lessons into existing courses or programs. The second level goes a little deeper as instructors teach courses specifically in positive psychology. The third and final level is the deepest level of implementation. With this level, school-wide positive psychology instruction and interventions are implemented. Often, community outreach is included in this level of implementation. We see these three levels of implementation as akin to learning how to swim—some people begin to learn by dipping their toes into the water, testing it out to see if it is too hot or cold. Others wade in, gradually getting used to the water and testing their own abilities for swimming. Yet others jump right in, eager to swim on their own in the quickest way possible. The three levels can also be considered as a sequential pathway for schools to guide themselves to effectively implement organizational change or curriculum development. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and we will discuss each level in more detail throughout this chapter.

Approaches to Teaching Positive Psychology

The early approach to teaching positive psychology took two main forms (Seligman, 1998)—dedicated instruction in positive psychology principles and infusing positive psychology into existing courses. Positive psychologists worked early on to “build the fifth pillar” of the discipline (Seligman, 1998) by developing specific teaching materials on positive psychology for teachers to use. Although the original goal was to produce two unit plans for high school teachers, only one was written and eventually disseminated by the American Psychological Association (Fineburg, 2001). Since that unit plan's publication, other resources have emerged, most recently with the publication of an activities handbook for positive psychology (Froh & Parks, 2012) and a sequential set of well-being lessons for secondary school students based upon principles and findings of positive psychology (Boniwell & Ryan, 2012). Using these resources, instructors can incorporate as much positive psychology as they feel comfortable with, fulfilling the first two levels of implementation described in this chapter. In doing so, instructors should also pay attention to the importance of school settings to not only be a place to teach students tools for a successful life but also to teach fulfillment and well-being (Seligman, 2009), which can also be successfully achieved with the understanding of positive psychology principles such as character strengths. Beyond this, positive psychologists envisioned teachers emphasizing positive traits and helping students focus on participating in activities of which to be proud, such as service learning projects. This approach most closely mirrors the deepest level of implementation, in which school-wide and community efforts are used. With each level of implementation, the goals of positive psychologists to get educators and schools to teach positive psychology are in the process of being fulfilled.

Testing the Waters

Because the intersection of positive psychology and education is easily drawn, educators seem naturally interested in lessons that introduce or apply positive psychology principles. As psychologists and educators discover positive psychology, they may seek out specific activities to teach positive psychology concepts in their existing courses. Although this conservative approach is slow and steady, it allows for a degree of exploration and flexibility within the comfort zone of students and staff. Justifying the introduction of applied positive psychology into a school setting may be based upon the grounds of building student knowledge, seeking evidence-based outcomes for student well-being, or applying positive psychology concepts to a context relevant to the students' lives (i.e., sport, academic achievement, building relationships in the school environment, overcoming obstacles such as social and emotional challenges). Regardless of the type of introduction, the promotion of teaching principles and concepts of positive psychology seems to be a fulfillment of positive psychology as a discipline.

These concepts are most easily integrated into the introductory psychology course, which is typically a course providing an overview of the discipline as a whole. Some positive psychology concepts have been included in traditional introductory psychology textbooks for a long while (i.e., love and attraction, prosocial behavior), whereas others have only been included in recent years (i.e., flow, optimism, hope). The gradual yet steady inclusion of positive psychology concepts into introductory psychology texts shows that the discipline has been accepted into the mainstream of psychology as a whole.

Not all psychologists and educators readily embrace positive psychology. Several detailed critiques of positive psychology have surfaced throughout the last 20 years. Some propose that positive psychology is merely a repackaging of other schools or movements, such as humanistic psychology or positive thinking (Ehrenreich, 2009; Lazarus, 2003; Schneider, 2011). This criticism may contribute to some educators and psychologists being hesitant to teach a full course in positive psychology at their institution. Budget constraints or limited time in a school's schedule also prevent schools from fully embracing positive psychology. So instead of courting criticism or altering a school's schedule or course offerings, teachers teach individual lessons or units on positive psychology topics. Data on the number of lessons in positive psychology that are taught or on the number of instructors who use this level of implementation for teaching positive psychology have not ever been collected in a formal way. However, in Australia there is anecdotal support to indicate the number of schools implementing some form of educational approach based upon the concepts of positive psychology may be in the region of 40–50 schools as of 2012. Considering there were reportedly 9,427 schools located in Australia in 2012 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013), at most 50 schools who are implementing an explicit approach in school represents about 0.5%, an extremely small percentage.

According to the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, 65 psychologists have identified themselves as positive psychologists. These instructors likely incorporate teaching positive psychology in their courses in a tangible way, but they do not seem to have other colleagues at their institutions that also self-identify as positive psychologists or with positive psychology in general. Since its publication in 2001, over 300 instructors worldwide have requested the 7-day unit plan on positive psychology published by the American Psychological Association, which gives some indication of how widespread the interest in teaching positive psychology is on the most basic level (A. Fineburg, personal communication, August 25, 2013).

Another approach for a school to teach positive psychology has been to build both the students' and the teachers' understanding of the most contemporary findings of positive psychology by infusing concepts into existing psychology curricula. This approach has been well-received in the past (Fineburg, 2004). An alternative integration method applies the principles of positive psychology to build levels of well-being and fulfillment as an evidence-based outcome approach. This form can have more of an active or experiential approach rather than an explicit curriculum-based approach, which may be easier for younger children and adolescents to grasp. These experiential lessons can be one-off lessons or delivered as part of an existing well-being or pastoral care program within the school; however, the level of successful integration needs to be thought through prior to implementation. Educators need to be mindful of the learning environment and learning capacities of the students in regard to the complexity of the concept being taught and the outcomes desired.

Although the effects of a single lesson or activity may be difficult to gauge, it is known that reduced levels of subjective well-being in children through negative affect is linked with decreased academic performance, whereas interventions that increase the frequency of positive emotions enhance learning (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). In addition, high levels of school satisfaction in children via greater frequency of positive affect were associated with school-based benefits such as higher GPAs, a greater sense of agency, fewer adolescent problems, and student engagement (Huebner, Gilman, Reschly, & Hall, 2009). Achieving a greater level of school satisfaction may be found in schools that contribute to social acceptance, peer support, appropriate praise, “flow,” a focus on strengths rather than deficits, and promotion of autonomy and choice (Huebner, Gilman, Reschly, & Hall, 2009). It seems that simply teaching positive psychology and providing a school environment that reflects positive psychology concepts may improve school satisfaction and the learning capacity of the students.

Testing the waters of positive psychology in schools can begin with a subject-centered approach in which existing psychology curricula are enhanced or as a student-centered approach in which existing pastoral, well-being, or social-emotional learning curricula are reinforced with identified concepts and theory. Underlying this low-level approach is fidelity to the concepts taught and an exploration of the impacts of the learning and experience on student health and well-being.

Wading In

A second way to introduce positive psychology into a school is for instructors to complete courses in positive psychology. This secondary stage of implementation extends self-interest for an individual or organization to a point where formal education can be undertaken and then applied in personal and professional environments. Course options range from overview courses such as Introduction to Positive Psychology, to concept-specific courses such as Well-Being and the Practice of Law (offered by Dan Bowling in 2012 at Duke University), Psychology of Happiness (offered by Jamie Burk in 2006 at the University of Virginia), and Psychology of Leadership (offered by Tal Ben-Shachar in 2006 at Harvard University). According to the Positive Psychology Center's website, 36 colleges and universities have two or more faculty that identify with positive psychology, either as positive psychologists or as actively interested in topics within the positive psychology domain. At institutions with multiple faculty members who identify with positive psychology, specific courses in positive psychology are likely taught.

Educators can also wade into positive psychology by implementing programs that address specific student issues or outcomes. Programs that address so-called “noncognitive” skills that fall comfortably within the realm of positive psychology can help students build positive skill sets and tackle negative student behavior. The movement of positive psychology into the education sector has highlighted the importance of schools in the development of social, emotional, and psychological well-being of children for their lives and for academic learning. Many schools in Australia have taken on positive psychology–based interventions such as using character strengths; however, concepts such as building resilience have been instilled into education programming in Australia for some time. Programs such as Bounceback! (Noble & McGrath, 2013), Resourceful Adolescent Program (RAP; Queensland University of Technology, 2013), MoodGYM (Australian National University, 2013), and Mindmatters (Mindmatters, 2013) have been developed to assist in the development of individuals' well-being. On a much larger scale, a major step in incorporating the philosophy of positive psychology is the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (ACARA). ACARA has been in a process of developing a national curriculum, and under the subject of health and physical education, a focus has been proposed to take on a strengths-based approach in ACARA's commitment to promote psychological well-being and prosocial behavior (ACARA, 2013). This level of governance demonstrates the steady progress being made to expand the horizons of education beyond the traditional academic means.

In the United States, comprehensive programs that look beyond the academic elements of school have developed alongside programs that have specific positive psychology roots. One such program is the Whole-Child Initiative, developed by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Since its launch in 2007, this initiative has been supporting educators, parents, communities, and policymakers to change their perspective of education from one based primarily on academic achievement to one that encompasses long-term development and success of the child. This approach underscores the change occurring in education and the need to ensure each child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged (ASCD, 2013). Such support is assisting in guiding individuals, groups, and communities to enact positive change in learning at any level of positive psychology implementation.

Diving In

A few schools and departments around the world have implemented a comprehensive approach to teaching positive psychology. This approach not only offers direct instruction in positive psychology concepts and principles, but also implements school-wide and community interventions that apply positive psychology. One institution has embraced positive psychology more fully than others. The University of Pennsylvania, the home institution of Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology, also houses the Positive Psychology Center (PPC), a comprehensive research program responsible for implementing programs in neuroscience, resilience training, and well-being. The University of Pennsylvania is one of only two institutions offering a degree-granting program in positive psychology, and the PPC provides support and research opportunities for undergraduate students. Undertaking such a degree enforces rigor in the teachings of positive psychology beyond simply learning about positive psychology into a domain supported with the most up-to-date findings and access to global researchers teaching about their findings. Another university that has undertaken the challenge to offer a positive psychology degree is the University of Melbourne, Australia. Akin to the Master of Applied Positive Psychology degree at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Melbourne launched a Master of Applied Positive Psychology, and in 2013, it hosted its first course to equip its students with positive psychology principles for application in their professional and personal lives (Melbourne Graduate School of Education, 2013). Issues with the comprehensive teaching of positive psychology principles are the level of pedagogical skill of the teacher (Seligman et al., 2009), the teaching methods used, and level of training the teacher has had (Hale, Coleman, & Layard, 2011). Undertaking explicit training at a recognized postsecondary level is an important step in committing to a sustainable and effective implementation of positive psychology in schools. The degree programs offered in applied positive psychology can help build the skills of teachers in the classroom and provide resources for choosing appropriate activities and teaching methods.

Another project that teaches positive psychology in a comprehensive way is the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP). This longitudinal program, lead by Jane Gillham and Karen Reivich, trains teachers to implement lessons in schools that teach students how to be resilient. The lessons are designed for elementary and middle-school students and last 60 to 90 minutes, depending on the format chosen. The PRP is what's commonly known as a “pull-out program,” where students leave their traditional classrooms and engage in the lessons in a separate environment. Trained facilitators (who can be teachers at the school or researchers with the program) teach the lessons on resilience using techniques derived from cognitive psychology. The lessons use active learning strategies and assign students homework through which they implement the skills learned in the lessons into their daily lives. The students who are involved in this program are identified as at-risk for depression. Extensive research conducted on this program has shown that the PRP is successful in helping students avoid depression later in high school (see Brunwasser, Gillham, & Kim, 2009, for a recent review of the program).

Positive psychology in schools has been particularly popular in Australia. In 2008, Seligman, Gillham, Reivich, and their team partnered with Geelong Grammar School outside of Melbourne to institute a school-wide program implementing positive psychology. Geelong Grammar is a comprehensive day and boarding school serving students from preschool to year 12. The school consists of five campuses serving different populations of students. Students in year 9 attend the Timbertop campus as full boarding students. Students spend the year learning independence, teamwork, and leadership in a natural, rustic setting. The initial partnership between Geelong and the Positive Psychology Center consisted of two phases. The first trained teachers in research and practical applications of positive psychology. Then, scholars and practitioners worked in residence at Geelong during the school year to dialogue and implement practical strategies for incorporating positive psychology principles into the daily lives of students. The program has worked to teach specific lessons in positive psychology within the traditional curriculum and infuse a focus on mental health and well-being into the daily lives of students. The partnership has developed a comprehensive definition of positive education that has identified six domains that promote flourishing in students: relationships, emotion, engagement, accomplishment, health, and purpose (Geelong Grammar School, 2013). Through this partnership, the school has implemented positive psychology instruction, mental health protocols, and positive psychology–based experiences for students; a positive leadership program for teachers and nonteaching staff; and a positive psychology retreat for parents. The school has been at the forefront of developing a truly comprehensive positive psychology emphasis in a school community.

Other schools in Australia have followed Geelong's lead in adopting positive education. There are too many to describe in detail; however, some of the more progressive institutions and their approaches are summarized. Notably these schools reflect the three ways of implementation discussed throughout this chapter and demonstrate a clear dedication in translating research into lessons and strategies that are used in explicit classroom lessons or taught in a way that may be experientially based and considered as an implicit intervention. It is encouraging to see a common theme in that schools appear to be seeking to make positive change in individuals, groups, or communities through the use of the research findings of positive psychology. Although the vision is not a written plea shared among these schools, it seems that educating students in human flourishing, well-being, social-emotional education, or positive psychology itself is an evolutionary change in education that is for the betterment of humankind.

Scotch College Adelaide is a coeducational day and boarding school that has successfully adopted a positive education program throughout the school since 2010. The school accommodates nearly 1,000 children from ages 3 to 18 and, importantly, made a strategic decision to embed a philosophy of whole-child education in which the social-emotional learning is as important as the academic learning of the student. Explicitly, it has embedded the use of character strengths across subject areas to enhance learning and, similarly to Geelong Grammar School, extended Seligman's PERMA theory and created its own positive education model based upon six domains: Meaning and Purpose, Engagement, The World and Environment, Resilience, Positive Relationships, and Physical Health (Scotch College Adelaide, 2013). The school is also building upon research in the field of teaching gratitude, and by incorporating such interventions it will promote positive emotions, increase life-satisfaction, and build upon positive relationships, while also assisting in academic motivation (Bono, Froh, & Forrett, 2014). The school also explicitly measures student well-being through the use of the Middle Years Development Instrument (MDI; Department of Education South Australia, 2013) and the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI; Australian Government, 2013). The commitment to this approach has been extended recently to a point where the timetable has been adapted to accommodate over 250 explicit classroom Well-Being and Values Education (WAVE) lessons, which include an evidence-based set of personal well-being lessons (Boniwell & Ryan, 2012). The implementation of Educational Coaching (Monk & Kemp, 2013) at Scotch Adelaide School is promoting an engaging and learning culture for both staff and students and facilitates their model of positive education. This is manifest in courses for students and staff and leadership programs, in the hope of enhancing well-being across the school, and in doing so to apply the findings of evidence-based research (Grant, Green, & Rynsaardt, 2010; Knight, 2012).

Knox Grammar School, in Sydney, is an independent boys school of over 2,000 students ranging from kindergarten (age 5) to year 12 (age 18). The school reflects a multilevel, strategic approach to creating a positive school climate that supports academic performance, mental fitness, resilience, and well-being of staff and students. This has been achieved through the application of organizational psychology, appreciative inquiry, and evidence-based coaching (Knox Grammar School, 2013). St Peter's School in Adelaide is an Anglican boys' school that has largely contributed to the broader South Australian education community in partnering with the Adelaide Thinkers in Residence Program and was visited by Martin Seligman in 2012 and 2013 (St. Peter's College, 2013). The school invested in building human resources by training all of their staff in positive psychology through the University of Pennsylvania's PPC. Their dedication was promoted beyond the physical space of the school and facilitated greater awareness in the importance of positive psychology and its value in education for the public. Specifically, the school has introduced the teaching of both explicit and implicit lessons for their boys in their Early Learning Centre to year 10 of secondary school. The programs chosen include evidence-based psychological approaches and teaching strategies such as the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) and the Strath Haven Program. In the government sector of education, Mount Barker High School, set in the Adelaide Hills of South Australia, has also spent time working with Martin Seligman and incorporated his PERMA theory into its curriculum. This high school has been pioneering in that it garners the support of people in and outside of the school and aims to develop a “whole of community” approach to enhance the well-being of the students in their locality (Mount Barker High School, 2013). Another government-funded school that has adopted positive education is Tully State High School in Queensland, Australia. The positive education program is designed under the guidance of psychologist Suzy Green (The Positivity Institute, 2013) and specifically aims to promote resilience and positive thinking following natural disasters. Importantly, this unique program identified the needs of the school and based its approach upon evidence-based positive psychology principles such as journal writing, random acts of kindness, gratitude, and optimistic thinking (Keegan, 2013).

These particular schools all follow the notion that applying explicit lessons based upon principles of positive psychology is an integral first step for students to fully grasp the experience of a particular concept and sustain confidence in developing their social-emotional learning pathway. If individuals, groups, and communities are going to flourish through the promotion of positive psychology interventions in education, and hopefully attempt to reduce the disharmony mental illness can bring, then there needs to be a commitment to transform a school and its community so they can fulfill their obligation in raising the whole child. The schools aforementioned are well on their way to achieving this outcome.

Future Directions

Positive psychology in education has already yielded exciting outcomes for students, teachers, and schools. Research has demonstrated that schools that incorporate positive psychology through pull-out programs or as a comprehensive school approach produce significant mental health benefits for students. As these programs are implemented in other settings, more research is needed to ensure that the programs remain effective with growth.

Research is needed to see if less-comprehensive approaches to positive education are effective in any way. Little, if any, research has been done to see how widespread positive psychology instruction is in high schools or universities. Although instructors have self-identified as positive psychologists or report that they teach positive psychology in some way, no formal research has been done to measure the quantity or quality of this instruction. In addition, research that examines whether more light-handed positive psychology interventions have any affect on student behavior or performance is scant. It is not known whether learning about positive psychology in general or participating in positive psychology lessons or activities has any effect on a student's well-being in the short or long term. Such research would be important for creating lessons and activities that not only teach the concepts of the discipline but also enhance the well-being of students learning about them.

Another area of potential for positive education is the study of qualities that enhance student learning. Educational psychologists have long been interested in student, teacher, and school qualities that enhance learning. Positive psychology has much to offer in this area. The Penn Resiliency Program has demonstrated that interventions originally targeted toward clinical psychology can be adapted for work with students at risk for doing poorly in school. As schools struggle with rising dropout rates and greater scrutiny for producing successful students, it seems as though interventions from positive psychology, with its more proactive approach to health and well-being, may offer avenues to addressing student and school failures. The Whole Child Initiative (ASCD, 2013), Duckworth's (2013) work on grit, and Dweck's (2006) work on growth mindset have all contributed to the discussion of “noncognitive” or nonacademic factors that can determine a student or school's success. These areas point to the need for more interaction between educational and positive psychology to address some of society's greatest concerns about educational systems.

Overall, there seems to be an abundance of examples in which schools have made a starting point of implementing positive psychology, which reflects the three levels of implementation. These starting points do have their weaknesses, and many future failures can be thought of, such as biased interest and enthusiasm from particular individual school members, selected positive psychology concepts failing to stand up to public scrutiny or promise too much but deliver very little, and the proponents of the implementation being self-serving and using the ideas for their own personal advantage (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2011). There is an opportunity here to create guiding principles for schools to implement different levels and types of positive psychology approaches and for differing reasons. The challenge may be to create a set of globally agreed-upon standards to guide schools in teaching positive psychology concepts before interventions can be achieved. This would transform educational circles by reducing negative outcome repetitiveness, encouraging collaboration, and providing at least some framework for schools to have a confident starting point. Education may take a journey similar to Huppert and So (2011), whose 10 features of flourishing were identified as the opposites to diagnostic criteria for depression and anxiety. This created a starting framework of flourishing to compare, measure, and possibly better equip researchers in developing well-being on large scales, such as through national interventions (Huppert & So, 2011).

Although we may hope that many schools will begin their journey to implement positive psychology sometime in the future, we can be confident education has made significant progress so far. We are at a point where the term positive education is commonly viewed in schools today and a more all-encompassing education is deemed to be vital for future thriving in our students. Research is needed into the degrees of implementing positive education programs and how they are actively enhancing the well-being of the children into their adulthood.

Many positive psychology interventions for adolescents have successfully demonstrated the reduction of mental illness, such as the PRP and the RAP; however, there are opportunities for schools to investigate alternative measures of well-being, such as Keyes' two continua model (Westerhof & Keyes, 2010), which considers mental illness and mental health as interrelating dimensions and considers flourishing as a state of high subjective well-being and optimal psychological and social functioning. This would provide schools with an avenue to focus on becoming proactive with prevention of mental illness, such as depression and anxiety, while also enabling a co-focus on the measures of mental health. There is potential for research to measure and identify the symptoms of positive optimal functioning in terms of flourishing students, teachers, parents, and entire communities for the purpose of teaching skills and concepts that explicitly aim to enhance such optimal functioning. Finally, there is opportunity to discover where the correlation of positive psychology implementation with these measurements of flourishing can be demonstrated in a school environment.

Conclusion

This chapter has described the three suggested levels of implementation a school can take to teach positive psychology to students. Positive psychology has certainly evolved and is becoming more popular for preparing youth for their future and facilitating schools to better address the need of whole-child education (social, emotional, physical, psychological, and cognitive well-being). In summary, one of the main pillars of positive psychology has been the field of education, and it is unquestionable that schools have successfully begun to implement explicit and implicit interventions.

Summary Points

  • There are three main levels of intervention for a school to take on; we have affectionately termed these testing the waters, wading in, and diving in.
  • Interventions in education can be based upon building knowledge of positive psychology in current psychology classes.
  • Interventions may take on an evidence-based approach and attempt to build students' levels of resilience, optimism, gratitude, character strengths, and self-regulation, to name a few.
  • Schools may invest in human resources and support teachers in completing a formal degree in positive psychology.
  • National or international standards to assist schools in implementing evidence-based programs are a recommended area for development.

References

  1. ABS. (2013). 4221.0—Schools, Australia, 2012. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4221.0%20Features202012
  2. ACARA. (2013). Health and physical education. Retrieved from www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Revised_HPE_curriculum_for_publication_on_ACARA_website_-_FINAL.pdf
  3. ASCD. (2013). The whole child. Retrieved from www.wholechildeducation.org
  4. Australian Government. (2013). Australian Early Development Index. Retrieved from www.rch.org.au/aedi
  5. Australian National University. (2013). The MoodGYM. Retrieved from https://www.moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome
  6. Blair-Broeker, C. T., & Ernst, R. E. (2013). Thinking about psychology. New York, NY: Worth.
  7. Boniwell, I., & Ryan, L. (2012). Personal well-being lessons for secondary schools. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
  8. Bono, G., Froh, J. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2012). Searching for the developmental role of gratitude: A 4-year longitudinal analysis. In J. Froh (chair), Helping youth thrive: Making the case that gratitude matters. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Orlando, Florida.
  9. Bono, G., Froh, J. J., & Forrett, R. (2014). Gratitude in school: Benefits to students and schools. In M. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (2nd ed., pp. 67–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. Brunwasser, S. M., Gillham, J. E., & Kim, E. S. (2009). A meta-analytic review of the Penn resiliency program's effect on depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1042–1054.
  11. Burns, J. M., Andrews, G., & Szabo, M. (2002). Depression in young people: What causes it and can we prevent it? MJA, 177, S93–S96.
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2011). Positive psychology: Where did it come from, where is it going? In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Department of Education South Australia. (2013). Middle Years Development Instrument. Retrieved from www.mdi.sa.edu.au
  14. Duckworth, A. L. (2013). True grit. The Observer, 26(4), 1–3.
  15. Duckworth, A. L., Grant, H., Loew, B., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 17–26.
  16. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.
  17. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
  18. Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
  19. Fineburg, A. (2004). Introducing positive psychology to the introductory psychology student. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph, Positive psychology in practice (pp. 197–209). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  20. Fineburg, A. C. (2001). Positive psychology: A seven-day unit plan for teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  21. Froh, J. J., & Parks, A. C. (2012). Activities for teaching positive psychology: A guide for instructors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  22. Geelong Grammar School. (2013). Model of positive education. Retrieved from http://www.ggs.vic.edu.au/PosEd/Model-of-Positive-Education.aspx
  23. Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Freres, D. R., Chaplin, T. M., Shatte, A. J., Samuels, B.,…Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). School-based prevention of depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled study of the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 9–19.
  24. Grant, A. M., Green, L. S., & Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Developmental coaching for high school teachers: Executive coaching goes to school. Coaching Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(3), 151–168.
  25. Hale, D., Coleman, J., & Layard, R. (2011). A model for the delivery of evidence-based PSHE (personal wellbeing) in secondary schools. London, England: Centre for Economic Performance.
  26. Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  27. Huebner, E. S., Gilman, R., Reschly, A. L., & Hall, R. (2009). Positive schools. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder, The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 561–568). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  28. Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2011). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110, 837–861. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
  29. Keegan, B. (2013, February 1). Students go back to school for lessons in resilience. Cairns Post.
  30. Knight, J. (2012). Coaching to improve teaching: Using the instructional coaching model. In C. van Nieuwerburgh (Ed.), Coaching in Education (pp. 93–113). London, England: Karnac Books.
  31. Knox Grammar School. (2013). Positive education. Retrieved from www.knox.nsw.edu.au/positive-education
  32. Lazarus, R. S. (2003) Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14, 93–109.
  33. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psychology in practice (pp. 197–209). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  34. Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. The Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1940–1639.
  35. Lopez, S. J., Rose, S., Robinson, C., Marques, S. C., & Pais-Reibero, J. (2009). Measuring and promoting hope in schoolchildren. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Promoting wellness in children and youth: Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Routledge.
  36. Melbourne Graduate School of Education. (2013). Master of applied positive psychology. Retrieved from http://education.unimelb.edu.au/study_with_us/professional_development/course_list/the_melbourne_master_of_applied_positive_psychology
  37. Mindmatters. (2013). About Mindmatters. Retrieved from www.mindmatters.edu.au/about-mindmatters/what-is-mindmatters
  38. Monk, A., & Kemp, T. (2013). Educational coaching. Adelaide, SA, Australia: The Educational Coaching Framework.
  39. Mount Barker High School. (2013). Positive education. Retrieved from mtbhs.sa.edu.au/positive_education.htm
  40. Myers, D. G. (2014). Psychology for APTM (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
  41. Noble, T., & McGrath, H. (2013). Bounceback! Retrieved from www.bounceback.com.au/bounce-back
  42. The Positivity Institute. (2013). The Positivity Institute. Retrieved from www.thepositivityinstitute.com.au
  43. Queensland University of Technology. (2013). Resourceful Adolescent Program. Retrieved from www.rap.qut.edu.au
  44. Schneider, K. (2011). Toward a humanistic positive psychology: Existential analysis. Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis, 22, 32–38.
  45. Scotch College Adelaide. (2013). Wellbeing and positive education. Retrieved from www.scotch.sa.edu.au/wellbeing---positive-education.html
  46. Seligman, M. E. (2009). Foreword. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp. xviii–xix). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  47. Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293–311.
  48. Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Positive psychology network concept paper. Retrieved from http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/ppgrant.htm
  49. Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams, V. H., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 820–826.
  50. St. Peter's College. (2013). Partnerships. Retrieved from www.stpeters.sa.edu.au/wellbeing/partnerships
  51. Westerhof, G. J., & Keyes, C. L. (2010). Mental illness and mental health: The two continua model across the lifespan. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 110–119.
  52. Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future of perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 370–388.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.12.74.18