Abstract
College students report high psychological distress, mental health problems and anxiety. Research indicates that faculty and staff can help support these students in crisis, but there is limited trauma-informed training for higher education professionals who are not mental health counselors. This study explored an evidence-based online training program designed to help faculty/staff members facilitate well-being and resilience among college students. To test the training, a systematic program evaluation was conducted. Prior to completing the training, participants (n = 52) took a pretest. Then, after completing the training, they took a posttest. Results indicated a significant difference between pre and posttest. There were more positive attitudes toward trauma-informed approaches and resilience resources; stronger beliefs about prevalence and effects of psychological trauma; greater self-efficacy to perform trauma-informed approaches; and greater confidence in trauma-informed knowledge. Additionally, participants reported they were likely to use tools learned during the training. Thus, indicating that a self-paced, convenient, and culturally sensitive training may be beneficial for faculty and staff as they aid in student success. Practical implications, participant comments and specific suggestions for colleges are also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
College students in the United States report greater psychological distress [1], mental health problems [2], and anxiety [1] than in the past, resulting in calls for higher education professionals to prioritize and reevaluate approaches to enhancing student resilience [3, 4]. Extant research is centered on student-facing interventions [5], such as traditional counseling [6] and digital interventions [7,8,9]. However, there are fewer studies testing faculty and staff-facing interventions designed to help support students adapt in the face of adversity (i.e., become more resilient). There is evidence that student-faculty-staff interactions can positively influence students’ adaptability [10], but there is limited empirical research evaluating faculty/staff’s knowledge and application of trauma-based training to support students [11]. Trauma-informed approaches acknowledge and respond to the impact of individual and collective traumas [12].
Although faculty and staff members are often considered the first line of defense in identifying students experiencing distress, many are concerned about approaching students without any formal training [3]. Studies show that faculty/staff recognize the critical need to help distressed students but feel ill-prepared and would prefer more formal guidance [11, 13, 14]. Increasingly, there are calls for mental wellness training among higher education professionals [14, 15]. However, research indicates that faculty/staff members feel they have limited access to formal training [14] and/or face other barriers to availability [13, 16].
After severe disruptions on college campuses due to COVID-19, narratives are continually emerging about faculty members willing to be kinder and more empathetic to students because of the “shared traumatic reality” [17, p.308]. There are indications that faculty/staff may be talking to students more often about their mental health— and that students are relying on them for guidance [18]. In fact, for several years, there has been a push for more campus professionals to promote mental well-being [19], and faculty members recognize that they play a critical role in supporting mental well-being among students [20]. However, it remains unclear whether faculty members are appropriately trained about trauma-informed care and/or have the tools with which to apply their knowledge. Preventative measures (e.g., raising awareness of available services, improving attitudes toward help-seeking) and reactive measures (e.g., recommending professional treatment; encouraging peer methods) to support students have been generally prescribed to faculty/staff members [21] and a handful have been explored in specific circumstances, such as student distress in medical school [22]. It is hoped that efforts to promote campus-wide mental well-being will expand [19], so it is fruitful to consider broader collegiate contexts and scientifically test whether faculty training and certification can help faculty/staff better meet the needs of students.
Specifically, to help bridge the gap in the literature, the present research programmatically evaluates an online training program that enables higher education professionals to develop the knowledge they need to understand the impact of adult and child trauma, along with the keys to helping build resilience among students. Although scholars have given it many definitions, the training refers to resilience as the dynamic process of positive adaptation in the face of adversity or significant stress [23].
2 Literature review
2.1 Faculty/staff interactions on student well-being
Research indicates that quality, frequent interactions between students and faculty/staff enhance students’ well-being and academic motivation [10, 24,25,26]. Well-being is a concept broadly defined as having positive emotions and relationships, good health and functioning, and the psychological resources to manage everyday adversities and painful emotions [27,28,29,30].
Faculty and staff interactions with students play a pivotal role in impacting student well-being [10]. Frequent, high-quality student and faculty/staff interactions are also shown to enhance academic self-concept, particularly among marginalized students [31]. Supportive and responsive relationships between students and faculty/staff can help bridge gaps in academic outcomes such as retention and graduation rates [32]. These interactions can provide a crucial support system for students, offering a safe space to discuss academic struggles and personal challenges [25, 33]. When students feel connected to faculty/staff on campus, they are more likely to persist and succeed academically [34, 35]. Faculty/staff who can help identify signs of distress early on can give students information about timely interventions and access to campus resources [36, 37]. In this way, fostering meaningful student and faculty/staff interactions contributes not only to academic success but also to the overall well-being of students, creating a more nurturing and supportive higher education environment [10, 24, 25, 32, 33]. Positive student-faculty interactions can impact student well-being, foster a sense of belonging, and enhance student academic outcomes. Encouraging opportunities for students to develop deeper relationships with faculty can ensure their individual needs and academic goals are being met [31].
2.2 Trauma-informed approaches in higher education
Although studies reveal the effects of positive student-faculty interactions, they do not necessarily test or prescribe specific pedagogies to determine how faculty can engage in these quality interactions with students. There is compelling evidence indicating a widespread prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and trauma in young adult student populations [38,39,40] and that ACEs are associated with increased student distress [41,42,43], health risk behaviors [44], and victimization. Thus, when working to cultivate college student resilience, it is important to consider a trauma-informed approach.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines the Four R’s of a trauma-informed approach as one that “(1) realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery; (2) recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, families, staff, and others involved with the system; (3) responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices; (4) and seeks to actively resist re-traumatization” [12, p. 1]. A trauma-informed approach in higher education acknowledges that many students have experienced significant childhood adversity before entering college and that students may also experience traumatic events while in college.
In the field of social work, there is overwhelming support for trauma-informed pedagogies, with many suggested tools and resources that can be implemented in a classroom setting [45]. A trauma-informed approach utilized in higher education settings is built on the assumption that an institution realizes the widespread impact of trauma in students, recognizes signs and symptoms of trauma, incorporates trauma-informed practices to respond to students in need, and avoids re-traumatizing students [12].
2.3 Current uses of online trauma-informed training among faculty/staff
Collegiate faculty and staff are regularly recommended to receive training to enhance their knowledge [46]. In particular, there is extensive research to support faculty and staff training, as it relates to typical/core job responsibilities, such as teaching, scientific research, community service and quality assurance [46]. Moreover, studies indicate that faculty/staff themselves prefer programs with specific outcomes, clear objectives, topics and activities [47]. Historically, many of these professional trainings have been offered face-to-face and/or in group settings.
Increasingly, there are calls for more training programs to be delivered in hybrid and/or online modalities [48,49,50]. Specifically, an online environment could be a strong alternative to face-to-face faculty and staff development that reduces the barriers to providing students with access to mental health knowledge. Additionally, evidence indicates that digital mental health interventions improve psychological well-being in the workplace [51,52,53].
2.4 Development and description of new faculty/staff trauma-informed training
Based on the needs for more and better faculty/staff-student interactions related to student well-being, along with evidence regarding the efficacy of online mental health intervention, the researchers designed a trauma-informed faculty/staff training to provide practical resources for higher education professionals. The goal of the curriculum was to help faculty/staff better understand and be more confident in a trauma-informed approach designed to bolster student resilience. The course, available exclusively online, also addresses faculty and staff stress management, burnout, and vicarious trauma and promotes healthy coping strategies. Content was created using traditional adult curriculum and instructional design principles [54, 55]. The process by which the course was developed was influenced by the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) theoretical model of instructional design [56, 57].
After determining learning objectives, based on gaps in existing training programs, researchers created an e-learning instructional plan. The course was built using the Articulate® 360 program [58], a subscription online learning course creation tool [59, 60]. Articulate 360 facilitated the use of learning features such as interactive content blocks, embedded videos, and flashcards in the course, which were designed to maintain adult learners’ attention and encourage them to engage with the course content.
The “4 R’s” of a trauma-informed approach were woven throughout the curriculum. Modules included detailed research-based information on the impact of trauma as well as the potential path to recovery through resilience. Additionally, participants learned about how students might respond to trauma. For example, a student’s responses to trauma and their coping mechanisms might be misinterpreted as apathy, exhaustion, or refusal to participate. Faculty/staff are taught about how to help avoid re-traumatizing students, and respond and accommodate students who are coping with the impact of trauma. A section of the training also helps faculty and staff apply trauma-informed principles throughout the institution. These principles are divided into physical and emotional safety, classroom communication that avoids retraumatizing students, practical ways to assist students, such as integrating low-stakes assignments that provide feedback before exams. Several sections of the curriculum emphasize that faculty/staff should have an understanding of trauma-informed approach principles and how they can make small changes in different aspects of their work, from curriculum development to classroom teaching style, in order to implement these principles. Participants are also frequently reminded of the importance of positive interactions between faculty/staff and students.
The self-paced curriculum includes nine chapters, each with a set of learning objectives and evidence-based readings, activities, and multimedia materials, for a total of approximately twenty hours of content. Each chapter ends with a quiz that all participants must pass with at least an 80% score before they are permitted to advance to the subsequent chapters of the course. The course begins with identifying what research identifies as common stressors for college students and discusses the trends in mental health among college students, including special populations such as first-generation students, neurodiverse students, students with disabilities, and BIPOC students. It is not a clinical course that results in the ability for participants to make diagnoses; instead, the content is constructed as a psychoeducational web training program appropriate for a wide range of professionals [61]. The course proceeds to lead participants through content that helps them better understand: how to help students adjust to stressors and pressures of academics and adulthood, systemic issues; components of resilience; trauma-informed research; culturally specific responses; and strategies/resources for developing further knowledge. Participants are also encouraged to think about the knowledge related to helping students adjust to stressors and pressures of academics and adulthood.
Based on existing research, researchers predicted that, after completing the program participants would report more positive attitudes toward trauma-informed approaches (H1) and resilience resources in higher education (H2). Additionally, it was anticipated that faculty/staff would strengthen their beliefs about the prevalence and effects of trauma on students’ well-being (H3). In turn, it was expected that after course completion, self-efficacy to perform trauma-informed approaches would improve (H4) and participants would feel greater confidence about their own knowledge of trauma-informed approaches (H5). Finally, it was anticipated participants would be highly likely to use the tools learned during training (H6).
3 Method
3.1 Participants and procedure
The study was designed as a systematic, within-subjects program evaluation that involved the distribution of a pretest and a posttest. Participants (n = 52) were higher education professionals (faculty and staff) across the United States, who chose to enroll in the online training program between 2021 and 2022. The study was approved by Florida State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Consent was obtained from all participants, who were offered entry into a $50 raffle as incentive to fully complete both parts of the study. To determine the minimum sample size, an a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power. Results revealed the required sample size to achieve 85% power for detecting a medium effect, at a significance criterion of α = 0.05, was n = 31 for paired sample t-tests. There were 167 participants who started the pretest, but did not fully complete the posttest and were removed from final analysis. Based on the power analysis, the final obtained sample size of n = 52 is considered adequate. An ID number, given to participants during the program registration process, was used to pair pre and posttest evaluations.
Participants were between 25 and 65 years old (M = 43.79; SD = 11.1), the majority were women (78.8%), who were white (83.3%) and non-hispanic (86.5%). Additional self-reported races represented in the sample were Black (5.6%), Asian (5.6%), and “other.” Participants held a wide-variety of faculty (e.g., professors, department directors, assistant dean, etc.) and staff roles that interfaced directly with students (e.g., student advisors, student coordinators, wellness coordinators, etc.) and some held multiple job titles (e.g., Director of Student Success/Associate Professor).
After indicating consent, participants completed an online pretest, which included the dependent variables, via Qualtrics. Then, they completed the program, over time (on average, about eleven weeks), for approximately twenty hours to complete. Participants were then directed to complete the aforementioned program content (using Articulate) and were required to pass end of chapter quizzes, developed based on chapter objectives, with at least 80% of responses correct in order to continue to the next chapter. Periodic knowledge checks reinforced course messaging and tested the learner’s comprehension and ability to apply course content to case scenarios. A task bar allowed participants to keep track of progress and to move back and forth through the course materials. Following completion of the program, participants were separately asked to voluntarily complete a posttest via Qualtrics, which again measured the dependent variables.
3.2 Measures
There were six dependent variables and all were measured using 7-point response categories (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Attitudes toward trauma-informed approaches (α = 0.93), a five-item index, measured participants attitudes toward adopting a trauma-informed approach at their school. Sample items included, “A trauma-informed approach can improve communication between faculty/staff and college students” and “College students will benefit from a trauma-informed approach.”
Attitudes toward resilience resources in higher education (α = 0.90), a five-item index, measured participants attitudes toward implementing resilience resources (which they learned about in the program itself; e.g., printable handouts, meditation guides, etc.) at their schools. Sample items included, “Resilience resources can improve college student outcomes” and “Resilience training can improve communication between faculty/staff and college students.”
Beliefs about psychological trauma (α = 0.84), a five-item index, measured participants' beliefs about the prevalence of trauma on campus and its effect on students’ cognitive processes and behaviors. Sample items included, “Many of the college students served by my institution have a history of psychological trauma” and “When college students have experienced psychological trauma (current or in the past), this can influence their current behavior.”
Self-efficacy to perform trauma-informed approaches (α − 0.86), a five-item index, measured participants’ belief in their own ability to successfully implement a trauma-informed approach. Sample items included, “If my university adopts a trauma-informed approach, I feel I can handle it with ease” and “I have the knowledge that is needed to make a trauma-informed approach work.”
Confidence in one’s own trauma informed knowledge was measured through seven items (α = 0.86; e.g.) and evaluated how confident participants were about the knowledge they gained through the program. Specifically, whether they were certain about the information they just learned. Sample items included: “I am confident that I understand the elements of a trauma-informed approach” and “I can identify trauma symptoms.”
Likelihood to use tools learned during training was measured using a single item on the posttest only to determine participants intent to use the tools they learned during the training program. That item was “How likely are you to personally use the resilience tools you learned about in this training?”
Participants were also asked a single item question on the posttest about the extent to which they would feel confident serving on a university wide committee about a trauma informed approach. This item was followed by two open-ended questions, asking participants: (a) to share an example of how they might apply what they learned during the training and, (b) what improvements to the training would make it more effective.
4 Results
Paired sample t-tests were conducted, using SPSS, to assess differences in the dependent variables between the pre and posttest (H1-H5).
The results indicated there was a significant difference between pre and posttest on attitudes toward trauma-informed approaches, t(51) = − 3.24, p = 0.001, attitudes toward resilience resources in higher education t(51) = − 2.14, p < 0.05, beliefs about psychological trauma t(51) = − 17.00, p < 0.001, self-efficacy to perform trauma-informed approaches t(51) = − 8.13, p < 0.001 and confidence in their own trauma-informed knowledge t(51) = − 12.18, p < 0.001. Specifically, participants reported more positive attitudes, stronger beliefs, greater self-efficacy, and greater confidence in their own trauma-informed knowledge. Thus, H1-5 were supported. In support of H6, descriptive frequencies revealed that more than 70% of participants were likely to use the tools learned during training. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations. Additionally, after the certification, 80.8% of participants indicated they would feel confident serving on a university-wide committee about implementing a trauma informed approach on campus.
Responses to the first open-ended question, regarding application of the training, revealed positive sentiment regarding how participants envisioned applying the knowledge learned. For example, one participant responded, “When I begin to work with students again this fall, I will go into it with a more open mind and take into account any past trauma that they might be dealing with in addition to their current stressors in school. I will be more mindful of how I speak to the students and try to help them identify their strengths and promote resiliency. I will be more compassionate, I believe, and less judgemental.” Another indicated, “As a faculty member I feel that I can now see students’ behaviors through different lenses and will be able to better assist them and guide them.” Similarly, another participant wrote, “I would like to begin each of my classes by acknowledging the trauma-informed approach, informing my students I will try to improve their resilience by focusing on their strengths, and encouraging them to do the same.”
Responses to the second open-ended question, regarding what could be changed about the training, revealed a greater preference for all materials to be available for print/download. For example, one participant stated, “I thought the videos, activities and quizzes were right on track with helping me learn. At the end, I wish there was a place to download all of the available resources to have to refer back to later.” Many participants indicated in their responses that the content that was most helpful included the learning activities, case studies and videos. In fact, several asked for additional interactive assignments.
5 Discussion
This study was designed to test whether an online training program can help faculty and staff members better meet the mental well-being needs of students. Specifically, the study tested whether participation in an online program could help higher education professionals acquire knowledge and resources needed to understand the impact of trauma on students’ current needs and behaviors and help them feel more positive toward and confident about interacting with students. Also, it explored whether the program directed them to important resources they would use to help manage common stressors as well as mental health challenges. Given the increased prevalence of distress experienced by students, along with the potential for faculty/staff members to provide additional support and guidance, it seemed important to develop and test the efficacy of a highly accessible, online training program for faculty and staff. By voluntarily completing this online training, faculty/staff demonstrated that they seek trauma-informed knowledge to help students who are struggling with stress and other challenges in college. Such effort seems to acknowledge that participants understand that students are struggling, recognize that colleges can play a role in providing assistance, and show a willingness to learn how to be part of the path forward for students.
Faculty and staff participants in this study received training designed for them to acquire new knowledge and student-interaction strategies in a self-paced, convenient format. Results indicated that participants in the training program significantly increased their knowledge of and their attitudes toward taking a trauma-informed approach to helping and interacting with students. These findings provide evidence that such trauma-informed curriculum can be taught in an online format, and that those who increase their knowledge also feel that such approaches can be beneficial. Dozens of trauma-informed ideas are presented in the curriculum for professionals to use at the classroom level, at the students services level, and at the administrative level. These include practices such as acknowledging students' resilience and highlighting their strengths while taking time to provide constructive feedback; building choices for student empowerment (such as where students sit and how papers are to be formatted), and encouraging students to respect the experiences and identities of their peers. Professionals are also taught the importance of trauma-informed communication that avoids using shame and instead focuses on constructive, specific feedback geared to the objectives of the assignment. All professionals are encouraged to learn about the services of academic support services and counseling services to be listed in course documents such as syllabi. Handouts on resilience skills include many topics, including the components of resilience, grounding skills for stress, mindfulness lessons, how to identify your strengths, and many others to share with students and colleagues. Table 2 displays a list of additional free and low-cost training and resources related to student well-being, mental health, and trauma-informed services.
Similarly, participants’ attitudes indicated that they felt more positively about resilience resources available on campuses to help students after the training. Many campuses have developed such resources: in fact, national groups such as Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education [62] and American Council on Education [63] encourage the development of well-being programming to be offered by U.S. institutions of higher education. Although the curriculum is not clinical, it acknowledges in several sections that many colleges offer a variety of well-being tools in different formats, including mental health clinics, workshops on alleviating stress and developing healthy coping skills, campaigns to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health issues, and in-person/virtual opportunities to build a support network [64]. In order to assist students, it is essential for faculty/staff to be aware of and understand the clinical resources offered by their institutions and how to refer students to those resources [3]. When faculty and staff provide updated, curated information to students about both clinical and academic resources along with information on how to access them, three things can happen. First, faculty and staff feel more able to inform students of those resources. Second, students feel more empowered with knowledge about resources available for them when they are struggling. Third, such interest in resources has the potential to encourage institutions to invest in more such resources [65].
The study’s findings also indicate that participants' beliefs about trauma became more consistent with the existing literature after training. That is, participants shifted in their belief that students' past trauma can influence their current behavior. Because of this change, participants may feel more welcoming when approached by a student who discloses that they are struggling. These changes influenced by the training co-occurred with feelings of participant self efficacy: they felt more confident about their ability to use the trauma-informed approaches taught in the training. For example, they felt they could handle trauma-informed approaches with significantly (p < 0.001) greater ease (M = 6.23; SD = 0.70) than they did before the training (M = 5.15; SD = 1.46). This may be helpful for their own mental well-being, as research indicates that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of resilience [66, 67], which can help people, like these faculty/staff, prepare for highly stressful situations. Finally, the results indicated that participants were more likely to implement trauma-based tools and strategies after they learned about them in the training. Universities make significant investments in campus-based services for student wellness and mental health [68, 69]. Research indicates that academic advising staff members may be more aware of campus resources than faculty [70], still, both faculty and staff can be a conduit linking students to those important services. Therefore, any increase in knowledge, motivation, or confidence to help students access services should be beneficial.
The results of this study should be considered in light of some limitations. Participants voluntarily opted into the training and may have been more accepting of the content than those who may be required by their administrators to complete it. Additionally, although it is promising that most participants indicated they would be likely to use more trauma-informed approaches in the future, this study measured intended behavior rather than actual behavior as an outcome. However, meta-analyses indicate that intentions predict behaviors reasonably well, as long as the behavior is not too difficult or costly and as long as individuals feel (as these participants seemed to) capable of performing it [71]. Regardless, it would be worthwhile to conduct a follow-up longitudinal study to see the extent to which these behaviors were more directly implemented. Finally, although our power analysis indicated the sample size for this study was appropriate, it would perhaps be beneficial to expand to a larger population.
6 Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that an easily accessible, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based online training program can help faculty/staff members facilitate mental well-being and resilience among college students by helping them: become more aware of the influence of early trauma on students’ current behaviors, feel more confident about using trauma-informed tools in their interactions with students, and feel more positively about resilience resources already available on their campuses. Moreover, beyond supporting students, the results of this study also suggest an opportunity to enhance the individual resilience of faculty/staff, who felt greater self-efficacy after the training. Future studies should explore, in greater detail, individual resilience among these academic professionals, which in turn, could potentially enhance organizational resilience. Given that online programs such as this one can be self-paced and convenient for faculty and staff while potentially enhancing student mental health and success, additional, similar programs and more investigations of their impacts seems warranted.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the researchers.
References
American College Health Association. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment III: undergraduate student reference group data report fall 2022. Silver Spring: American College Health Association; 2023.
Lipson S, Zhou S, Abelson S, Heinze J, Jirsa M, Morigney J, Patterson A, Singh M, Eisenberg D. Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: findings from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021. J Affect Disord. 2022;306:138–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.038.
Abrams Z. Student mental health is in crisis: campuses are rethinking their approach. Monit Psychol. 2022;53(7):60.
Liu CH, Pinder-Amaker S, Hahm HC, Chen JA. Priorities for addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(5):1356–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1803882.
Worsley J, Pennington A, Corcoran R, Carrà G. Supporting mental health and wellbeing of university and college students: a systematic review of review-level evidence of interventions. PLoS ONE. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266725.
Center for Collegiate Mental Health. Annual report. Pennsylvania State University. 2022. https://ccmh.psu.edu/assets/docs/2022%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Ferrari M, Ferrari S, Allan C, Arnold D, Eleftheriadis M, Alvarez-Jimenez A, Gumley JF. Digital interventions for psychological well-being in university students: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.2196/39686.
Hendrickse J, Ray EC, Arpan L, Perko A, Bradley L, Oehme K, Clark J. Well-being on campus: testing the impact of a web-based intervention for resilience on first-year students. South Commun J. 2024;89(1):41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2023.2250323.
Lattie EC, Adkins N, Winquist C, Stiles-Shields QE, Wafford AK. Digital mental health interventions for depression, anxiety, and enhancement of psychological well-being among college students: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2196/12869.
Trolian T, Archibald GC, Jach EA. Well-being and student–faculty interactions in higher education. High Educ Res Dev. 2022;41(2):562–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1839023.
Constantinou CS, Thrastardottir TO, Baidwan HK, Makenete MS, Papageorgiou A, Georgiades S. Training of faculty and staff in recognising undergraduate medical students’ psychological symptoms and providing support: a narrative literature review. Behav Sci. 2022;12:305. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12090305.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Practical guide for implementing a trauma-informed approach. 2023. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep23-06-05-005.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Brewster L, Jones E, Priestley M, Wilbraham SJ, Spanner L, Hughes G. ‘Look after the staff and they would look after the students’ cultures of wellbeing and mental health in the university setting. J Furth High Educ. 2022;46(4):548–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1986473.
Gulliver A, Farrer L, Bennett K, Ali K, Hellsing A, Katruss N, Griffiths KM. University staff experiences of students with mental health problems and their perceptions of staff training needs. J Ment Health. 2018;27(3):247–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1466042.
Margrove KL, Gustowska M, Grove LS. Provision of support for psychological distress by university staff, and receptiveness to mental health training. J Furth High Educ. 2014;38(1):90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.699518.
Chugani C, Kass G, Miller E. Managing student suicidality on campus: Perspectives from diverse student affairs staff. Qual Rep. 2020;25(9):3224–39. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4388.
Cartee JL. Kindness in shared trauma during times of crisis: breaking the barriers of resilience among faculty and students. Commun Educ. 2023;72(3):305–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2023.2207029.
Flaherty C. Faculty: ‘Gatekeepers’ of student mental health? Inside Higher Ed. 2021. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/04/08/faculty-gatekeepers-student-mental-health. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Eisenberg D, Lipson SK, Posselt J. Promoting resilience, retention, and mental health. New Dir Stud Serv. 2016;2016(156):87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20194.
Kalkbrenner MT, Jolley AL, Hays DG. Faculty views on college student mental health: Implications for retention and student success. J Coll Stud Retent Res Theory Pract. 2021;23(3):636–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119867639.
Wiest LR, Treacy AC. Faculty preparation to work with college students with mental health issues. Educ Res Theory Pract. 2019;30(1):46–50.
Langness S, Rajapuram N, Marshall M, Rahman AS, Sammann A. Risk factors associated with student distress in medical school: associations with faculty support and availability of wellbeing resources. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(4): e0265869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265869.
Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000;71(3):543–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164.
Bovill C. Student-staff partnerships in learning and teaching: an overview of current practice and discourse. J Geogr High Educ. 2019;43(4):385–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1660628.
Hill J, Healey RL, West H, Dery C. Pedagogic partnership in higher education: encountering emotion in learning and enhancing student wellbeing. J Geogr High Educ. 2021;45(2):167–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1661366.
Trolian TL, Jach EA, Hanson JM, Pascarella ET. Influencing academic motivation: the effects of student–faculty interaction. J Coll Stud Dev. 2016;57(7):810–26. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0080.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Well-being concepts. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm. Accessed 1 May 2024.
Huppert FA. Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2009;1(2):137–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x.
Ryff CD, Dienberg Love G, Urry HL, Muller D, Rosenkranz MA, Friedman EM, Davison RJ, Singer B. Psychological well-being and ill-being: do they have distinct or mirrored biological correlates? Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(2):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1159/000090892.
Young T, Macinnes S, Jarden A, Colla R. The impact of a wellbeing program imbedded in university classes: the importance of valuing happiness, baseline wellbeing and practice frequency. Stud High Educ. 2022;47(4):751–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1793932.
Parker ET III, Trolian TL, Stolzenberg EB. Student–faculty interaction and academic self-concept: the intersection of race and gender. High Educ Res Dev. 2022;41(7):2292–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2010666.
Guzzardo MT, Khosla N, Adams AL, Bussman JD, Engleman A, Ingraham N, Gamba R, Jones-Bey A, Moore MD, Toosi NR, Taylor S. “The ones that care make all the difference”: perspectives on student-faculty relationships. Innov High Educ. 2020;46:41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09522-w.
Baik C, Larcombe W, Brooker A. How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: the student perspective. High Educ Res Dev. 2019;38(4):674–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596.
Chory RM, Offstein EH. Too close for comfort? Faculty–student multiple relationships and their impact on student classroom conduct. Ethics Behav. 2018;28(1):23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1206475.
Miller AL, Williams LM, Silberstein SM. Found my place: the importance of faculty relationships for seniors’ sense of belonging. High Educ Res Dev. 2019;38(3):594–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1551333.
Di Placito-De Rango ML. Situating the post-secondary instructor in a supportive role for the mental health and well-being of students. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2018;16:284–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9740-4.
Halladay J, Woock R, Xu A, Boutros Salama M, Munn C. Professor Hippo-on-Campus: developing and evaluating an educational intervention to build mental health literacy among university faculty and staff. J Am Coll Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2115305.
Read JP, Ouimette P, White J, Colder C, Farrow S. Rates of DSM-IV-TR trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder among newly matriculated college students. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2011;3:148–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021260.
Smyth JM, Hockemeyer JR, Heron KE, Wonderlich SA, Pennebaker JW. Prevalence, type, disclosure, and severity of adverse life events in college students. J Am Coll Health. 2008;57:69–76. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.1.69-76.
Wiehn J, Hornberg C, Fischer F. How adverse childhood experiences relate to single and multiple health risk behaviours in German public university students: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5926-3.
Dube SR, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Chapman DP, Williamson DF, Giles WH. Childhood abuse, household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide throughout the life span: findings from the adverse childhood experiences study. JAMA. 2001;286(24):3089–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.24.308.
Dube S, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Chapman DP, Giles WH, Anda RF. Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics. 2003;111:564–72. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.3.5649.
Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8.
Hingson RW, Zha W, Weitzman ER. Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. College students ages 18–24, 1998–2005. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;16:12–20. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsads.2009.s16.12.
Carello J, Thompson P. Lessons from the pandemic: trauma-informed approaches to college, crisis, change. 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan Cham; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83849-2.
Abouelenein YAM. Training needs for faculty members: towards achieving quality of university education in the light of technological innovations. Educ Res Rev. 2016;11(13):1180–93.
Muammar OM, Alkathiri MS. What really matters to faculty members attending professional development programs in higher education. Int J Acad Dev. 2022;27(3):221–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1897987.
Gao Y, Wong SL, Md. Khambari MN, Noordin N. A bibliometric analysis of online faculty professional development in higher education. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn. 2022;17(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00196-w.
Keese J, Ford DJ, Luke SE, Vaughn SM. An individualized professional development approach for training university faculty in using a technological tool. Educ Inf Technol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11792-8.
Turnbull D, Chugh R, Luck J. Transitioning to E-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: how have higher education institutions responded to the challenge? Educ Inf Technol. 2021;26(5):6401–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w.
Carolan S, Harris PR, Cavanagh K. Improving employee well-being and effectiveness: systematic review and meta-analysis of web-based psychological interventions delivered in the workplace. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(7): e271. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7583.
Smith-Millman M, Bernstein L, Link N, Hoover S, Lever N. Effectiveness of an online suicide prevention program for college faculty and students. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(5):1457–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1804389.
Stratton E, Jones N, Peters SE, Torous J, Glozier N. Digital mHealth interventions for employees: systematic review and meta-analysis of their effects on workplace outcomes. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(8):e512–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002267.
Morrison GR, Ross SJ, Morrison JR, Kalman HK. Designing effective instruction. 8th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2019.
Wager WW, Keller JM, Gagné RM, Golas K. Principles of instructional design. 5th ed. London: Thomson/Wadsworth; 2005.
Aldoobie N. ADDIE model. Am Int J Contemp Res. 2015;5(6):68–72.
Branson RK, Rayner GT, Cox JL, Furman JP, King FJ, Hannum WH. Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Executive summary and model (Vols. 1–5) [TRADOC Pam 350–30]. Ft. Monroe: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command; 1975.
Articulate Global, Inc. Articulate 360. 2023. https://articulate.com/360. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Benson L, Rodier K, Enström R, Bocatto E. Developing a university-wide academic integrity E-learning tutorial: a Canadian case. Int J Educ Integr. 2019;15(5):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0045-1.
Donnellan J. Articulate storyline 360. Computer Assist Lang Learn Electron J. 2021;22(3):251–60.
Sarkhel S, Singh O, Arora M. Clinical practice guidelines for psychoeducation in psychiatric disorders general principles of psychoeducation. Indian J Psychiatry. 2020;62(8):319. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_780_19.
NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. Health and well-being in higher education: a commitment to student success. 2019. https://nirsa.net/nirsa/wp-content/uploads/health-and-wellbeing-in-higher-education-statement.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
American Council on Education. Campus mental health and well-being. 2023. https://www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/Student-Support/Student-Mental-Health.aspx. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Mental health, substance use, and wellbeing in higher education: supporting the whole student. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.17226/26015.
Abelson S, Lipson SK, Eisenberg D. What works for improving mental health in higher education. American Council on Education. 2023. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/What-Works-Mental-Health.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Aydogdu BN, Celik H, Eksi H. The predictive role of interpersonal sensitivity and emotional self-efficacy on psychological resilience among young adults. Eur J Educ Res. 2017;17(69):37–54. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.69.3.
Schwarze R, Warner LM. Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In: Prince-Embury A, Saklofskie DH, editors. Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults: translating research into practice. New York: Springer; 2013.
Brocato N, Luebber F, Taylor M, Gonzalez A, Chessman HM, Zhao Y. Well-being for students with minoritized identities. American Council on Education. 2021. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Well-Being-Minoritized-Identities.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of education statistics 2020, tables 334.10 and 334.30. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, NCES; 2020. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2020menu_tables.asp. Accessed 29 Apr 2024.
Winger AT, Olson MR. College student mental health: the experiences of faculty members and student affairs personnel. Focus Coll Univ Sch. 2015;9(1):1–16.
Yzer M. Reasoned action theory: persuasion as a belief-based behavior change. In: Dillard JP, Shen L, editors. The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice. 2nd ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage; 2013. p. 120–36. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors (Elizabeth C. Ray, Ann Perko, Karen Oheme, Lyndi Bradley and Laura Arpan) contributed to and reviewed the main manuscript text. E.C.R. analyzed the data. E.C.R. and A.P. also prepared tables.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by Florida State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (STUDY00002427). There is no funding and no conflicting interests to report.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ray, E.C., Perko, A., Oehme, K. et al. Facilitating well-being: an examination of an online trauma-informed faculty/staff training designed to support college student resilience. Discov Educ 3, 105 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00199-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00199-3