Linguistic literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, produce, and communicate through texts in various contexts. It includes both the comprehension and evaluation of spoken and written texts, as well as the ability to produce them (Sälzer and Roczen, 2018). Proficient linguistic literacy requires a rich linguistic repertoire to navigate between communication modalities, convey focused meanings, respond logically to texts, and organize content appropriate to context (Berman and Ravid, 2008; Ravid and Tolchinsky, 2002; Tolchinsky, 2022).

Our understanding of linguistic literacy has evolved with social and technological changes. Today, it also includes dealing with digital texts and meta-cognitive aspects of reading and writing (Binkley et al., 2019; OECD, 2019b, 2021; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2023). The recognition of the importance of meta-cognitive aspects in linguistic literacy leads to an examination of the central role of self-regulated learning in developing and applying literacy skills (Saks and Leijen, 2018).

Self-regulated learning is a process in which learners control their learning through goal setting, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. It is essential for academic success and lifelong learning (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). SRL includes cognition: strategies for understanding and problem-solving, metacognition: awareness and regulation of cognitive processes and motivation: beliefs about abilities and tasks (Bandura and Cervone, 1986; Flavell, 1979). This process is particularly crucial in complex tasks such as writing, where self-regulation and transcription skills play a vital role in development (Graham and Harris, 2000).

Research shows that students who regulate their learning achieve higher academic performance (Veenman and Beishuizen, 2004). SRL skills assist in time management, goal setting, adapting learning approaches, and persisting through challenges (Bandura, 1991; Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2007).

The impact of SRL extends to various domains, including writing instruction, where cognitive self-regulation has been shown to significantly improve writing skills in planning, monitoring, and evaluating writing (Boscolo and Hidi, 2007; Fidalgo et al., 2017; Fidalgo and Torrance, 2017; Lichtinger and Kaplan, 2011, 2015). Furthermore, observational learning in writing, which involves SRL processes, has been found to enhance writing performance (Braaksma et al., 2012; Rijlaarsdam et al., 2006; Rijlaarsdam et al., 2009; Rijlaarsdam et al., 2018).

SRL aids in monitoring comprehension and identifying difficulties in reading (Mohseni et al., 2020). Integrating SRL strategies in literacy instruction leads to more effective learning (Amir et al., 2021; Nurjanah and Pratama, 2020; Zare, 2007).

Educators play a crucial role in fostering SRL through opportunities for self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection (Zumbrunn et al., 2011). Recent studies emphasize the importance of self-efficacy, motivation, and support for basic psychological needs in academic achievement, reinforcing the significance of SRL in education (Basileo et al., 2024).

The integration of linguistic literacy and self-regulated learning creates an essential basis for the development of a new concept: literacy resilience.

Although the concept of resilience has been studied for decades, there remains a lack of consensus regarding its definition, conceptualization, and measurement (Vella and Pai, 2019). Resilience is a term that arises in various contexts, including the emotional, mental, and social realms. In the research literature, there is an ongoing debate about whether resilience should be classified as a personality trait, a process, or an outcome (Pooley and Cohen, 2010). When resilience is regarded as a trait, an individual characteristic, it has been defined as adaptive resistance to stress (Ahern et al., 2008). However, when conceived as an outcome, resilience alludes to proficient, stable, and consistent adaptation under challenging conditions (Masten, 2001).

Research on resilience has mainly focused on developmental and clinical psychology (Jowkar et al., 2014; Richardson et al., 1990). In the context of education, the term “academic resilience” as an increased likelihood of achieving success in school despite environmental adversities resulting from personal traits, conditions and early experiences, such as stress and academic research (Mallick, 2016; Wang et al., 1997). Furthermore, within the framework of perceived academic resilience, motivation appears as a key component (Radhamani and Kalaivani, 2021). This suggests that resilient students tend to be more motivated and achieve success despite the presence of stressful events and conditions that put them at risk, such as dropping out of school. Research in this area has largely focused on ethnic minority groups (e.g., Davis and Paster, 2000; Masten, 2001), mental health (Jowkar et al., 2014), and potential sources of support that can foster academic resilience and hope in coping with academic challenges (Radhamani and Kalaivani, 2021).

Studies that examined the relationship between academic resilience and achievement indicated a positive and distinct relationship between academic resilience and academic achievement among students (Mwangi et al., 2015; Zuill, 2016). Also, academic self-efficacy was correlated with academic resilience, and a significant predictor of academic resilience (Fallon, 2010).

It is crucial to delve into the concept of resilience beyond its conventional definitions, particularly in educational environments where students encounter a range of challenges related to literacy skills. The research perspective outlined in the article on resilience within the educational context revolves around the notion of “literacy resilience.” This concept encompasses the abilities necessary to tackle academic tasks that demand literacy skills, which students must possess in conjunction with self-regulated learning (SRL) skills.

The term “literacy resilience” (LR) is based on a theoretical relationship between linguistic literacy and regulated learning skills (SRL). In this article, I define the term “literacy” (LR). To the best of my knowledge, this term as I define it is not found in the professional and research literature. Figure 1 shows the Key Elements of Literacy Resilience which the broad definition of literacy resilience that will be presented later is based.

When students are given a task that requires literacy skills, for example, to compare different topics, to merge information, to assert a claim and substantiate it, to what extent is the student responsible for the task from start to finish and to deal with the task alone, without the mediation of an adult? To what extent do they know how to identify what is difficult for them regarding the specific task? To what extent do they know how to choose strategies that can help them? And no less important, to what extent do they know how to manage their time and prioritize?

A student who can be responsible for the task from beginning to end, knows how to identify what is difficult for him, how to ask questions relevant to the task, how to choose appropriate strategies for the task, and manage the task correctly, also in terms of the time available to him, can be said to have reading resilience, that is, he has the tools, and ways to overcome the literacy challenges and know how to deal with the difficulties.

These components helped me refine the definition of Literacy resilience (LR).

The learner’s ability to deal on his own with assignments that require a variety of literacy skills, and to have self-direction and self-ability to deal with oral and written texts. Meanwhile, the learner must carry out the tasks himself from start to finish, know how to identify difficulties, ask relevant questions that may advance him in the performance of the task, and hold a reflective dialogue with himself.

Linguistic literacy skills anchored in SRL are the cornerstones of a learner’s literacy resilience, as shown in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, literacy resilience has two anchors: one related to literacy skills and the other related to SRL skills. Only the combination of them constitutes the foundation for building literacy resilience.

Literacy skills are cognitive skills that include meta-linguistic and meta-textual awareness, and the skills of SRL include, among others, executive functions and emotional functions.

This resilience is evident in the learner’s independent handling of assignments requiring diverse literacy skills, self-directed engagement with oral and written texts, proficient learning management, autonomous planning, and the execution of literacy tasks from initiation to completion. Additionally, it entails the learner’s awareness in identifying challenges, selecting appropriate strategies, and engaging in reflective dialogue about his learning.

Students who have literacy resilience are aware of their ways of learning and know how to identify which ways of learning are effective for them. When the learners have metacognitive control, they can decide on the literacy strategies they should take, and in what order to carry them out, and conduct a meta-linguistic and meta-textual dialogue about the effectiveness of these and other literacy strategies. For instance, in the domain of reading comprehension, the learner must possess the ability to approach the text, understand the genre, and discern the reading objectives (Banditvilai, 2020). They should be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses to the subject, formulate questions that assist in tackling difficulties, apply prior knowledge, determine what to read first, select appropriate strategies, and navigate the reading effectively, among other tasks. A reader who is adept at engaging in a meta-cognitive dialogue with themselves and their environment concerning a task that demands literacy skills can be said to possess literacy resilience. This means they exhibit awareness and self-control in addressing the literacy-related challenges of the task. Even when faced with a complex assignment, such a learner is unlikely to give up, and they are skilled at posing questions and identifying areas of difficulty.

Learners who lack metacognitive awareness are unable to reflect on their cognitive processes and be aware of their literacy activities. In such a case it is difficult to expect that actions will be taken, for example, in the structuring of meaning from the text, or to deal with difficulties when failing or disrupting understanding. Literacy resilience is gradually built and is the result of mastery of the different skills and modalities: speaking, listening, reading, and writing combined with metacognitive, meta-linguistic, and meta-textual awareness and self-management. These abilities involve the learner’s behaviors and thoughts and his self-efficacy to cope with the difficulties and literacy tasks in effective ways. Literacy resilience allows the learner to be independent and gradually reduces the need for mediation by a teacher or other adult (Amir, 2024a, 2024b).

Literacy skills and a sense of self-efficacy for coping with literacy tasks are important for creating a learning space and fostering literacy resilience (Amir, 2024a). Their importance is even deeper when students do not show independence spontaneously but are dependent on the mediation of the teacher and have difficulty performing tasks on their own. This is especially true when it comes to complex tasks that require searching for information, assessing the reliability of information, reading many sources, integrating and synthesizing information from various sources, skills of research, critical reading, production of texts, etc. The ability to cope with literacy difficulties independently combined with high self-efficacy constitutes literacy resilience, which may also contribute greatly to the emotional resilience of the learner. Literate resilience, therefore, is also related to meta-linguistic and meta-textual awareness, executive functions, and emotional functions.

Teachers’ perceptions significantly influence their classroom actions and curriculum planning (Albion and Ertmer, 2004; Park et al., 2006; Kimpston and Anderson, 1986; Louws et al., 2017; Pajares, 2003; Summers, 1977). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching SRL predict their classroom behavior, whether or not they have implemented practices that promote self-direction (Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf, 2012; Lawson et al., 2019). For example, Dignath-van Ewijk (2016) found a correlation between teachers’ belief in the importance of SRL, its use, and self-efficacy for teaching it. Studies have shown that teachers generally attach great importance to SRL (Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf, 2012), with some finding no differences between age groups (Huh and Reigeluth, 2018). Despite this recognized importance, many teachers do not teach SRL; some lack knowledge (Dignath and Veenman, 2021; Glogger-Frey et al., 2018), while others do not believe in its explicit instruction (Lawson et al., 2019; Vosniadou et al., 2020). Some believe SRL skills develop spontaneously or cannot be taught at all. Therefore, it’s crucial to identify and develop positive beliefs about teaching self-direction in learning across different age groups (Heaysman and Kramarski, 2021).

Teachers play a significant role in developing learners’ linguistic literacy skills, including learning management and SRL skills (Karlen et al., 2020). Their perceptions of linguistic literacy and its characterizing skills, alongside the learning environment they create, are of great importance. As agents of knowledge and skills, teachers shape their students’ habits of using information and linguistic literacy skills. Understanding teachers’ perceptions of linguistic literacy and their assessment of students’ literacy levels is crucial. Studies show that increased exposure to the field’s teaching importance and participation in relevant training or professional development enhances teachers’ positive perceptions (Heaysman and Kramarski, 2022).

This study aims to illuminate perceptions of elementary, middle, and high school teachers regarding literacy resilience’s importance for learning. Examining these perceptions is crucial as they significantly influence instructional practices and the learning environment. Understanding these views can reveal gaps between the importance teachers attribute to these skills and their classroom implementation. Assessing teachers’ views on students’ literacy resilience levels can provide insights into the current state of literacy education and highlight areas needing additional focus. Examining perceptions across different education levels and disciplines can uncover patterns or disparities that could inform targeted professional development initiatives. This research aims to contribute to the broader understanding of literacy resilience in educational settings and its potential impact on students’ academic success and lifelong learning skills. These perceptions have led to the formulation of the following research questions:

RQ1: The importance of literacy resilience:

RQ2: The literacy resilience level of students:

The participants were teachers who chose to attend a lecture or a PD (Professional Development) course about literacy that was provided by the researcher through the Ministry of Education. Before the lecture or course began, the teachers were invited to fill out the questionnaire voluntarily, and anonymously. Out of the 512 teachers who attended the lectures or courses, 409 teachers responded to the questionnaire; of whom 26 teachers whose discipline was “other” were excluded because their discipline was unspecified, leaving a total of 383 participants. The teachers varied in age, tenure, teaching subject, and school level. The gender distribution (As seen in Table 1, 87.2% women) is similar to that of the general population of teachers in Israel, in which 82% are women (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020). See Table 1 for teachers’ background characteristics.

The research methodology included a survey of 349 teachers in various fields who filled out a valid questionnaire dedicated to the study. The questionnaire consists of Likert scale questions with the following ratings: 1 (neither/neither), 2 (to a small degree/infrequently), 3 (to a large degree/frequently), and 4 (to an extremely great degree/always). Each question was based on one of the aforementioned facets of the definition of literacy resilience (see Figure 1). To validate the questionnaire, I took the following steps:

An initial version was drafted. Three experts in the field of literacy evaluated the statements and recommended corrections. The statements were corrected according to their comments. The final version was tested using Cronbach’s α for internal reliability.

In the initial phase, a pilot version of the questionnaire was distributed to 30 teachers who attended a lecture about linguistic literacy. The questionnaire was distributed at the beginning of the lecture. It was explained that no personal details are included and the questionnaire is anonymous. After the first phase, several questions were reformulated. After determining the final version of the questionnaire, it was distributed to teachers who attended various lectures or PD courses on the subject of linguistic literacy in the same manner, right before the lecture or PD course began.

Following De Coninck et al. (2020), scales were constructed and validated using a Factor Analysis to identify the number of factors and confirm they are in line with a theoretical model. Following Costello and Osborne’s (2005) recommendations for non-normally distributed items and correlated factors, the Principal-Axis Factoring (PAF) method was used with direct oblimin rotation (oblique rotation). The latter allows factors to be correlated and produces estimates of correlations among factors. Initially, the Kaiser (1960) criterion was used to exclude factors with eigenvalues smaller than one, followed by a Scree plot analysis (Cattell, 1966) to determine factor numbers. Finally, all items with loadings of 0.35 or less were excluded from further analysis, as were items with strong cross-loadings on more than one factor (Costello and Osborne, 2005). All analyses were conducted using SPSS 25.0 and are summarized in Table 2. Next, internal consistency of the scales were determined. Cronbach’s α common threshold of 0.70 (Taber, 2018) was used to determine a factor’s internal consistency.

To validate the measurement instrument, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the items within each factor. As reported earlier, the ‘Perception of the importance of literacy resilience’ index showed high reliability (α = 0.938), as did the ‘literate resilience’ index (α = 0.913). These high alpha values indicate strong internal consistency of the items in each measure, supporting the reliability of the instrument. These reliability measures provide confidence in the coherence of the scales used in this study.

To answer the two research questions, first, a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for each section of the questionnaire, including the mean, standard deviation, and range (minimum and maximum). Second, for each of the indices, three level-based categories were established: low, medium, and high. In the initial phase, the mean of each participant’s statements for each index was determined. In the second step, the averages in each index into three categories were sorted: low, medium, and high. The low level included averages between 1 and 1.99, medium between 2 and 2.99, and high between 3 and 4. Thirdly, the frequency of each category was determined (low, medium, and high). Lastly, using ANOVA, the prevalence between age groups was compared. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine association between the indices.

The first research question examined the degree to which educators value the literacy resilience of their students. It was separated into three sections.

To this end, participants rated the importance of literacy resilience in terms of academic achievement. The findings indicate that teachers place a high value on literacy resilience (M = 3.52, SD = 0.76, min. = 1.00, max. = 4.00).

Examining the prevalence of averages by category (low, medium, and high), it was discovered that the majority of teachers (87.47%) rated the importance of literacy resilience as high, while most of the remainder (8.60%) rated it as medium. Few teachers rated the significance as low (4.44%).

Figure 3 displays the data by education level, while Figure 4 displays the data by discipline.

To determine whether there are differences between the education levels, a one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was performed. The findings indicate that there are no significant differences between teachers in different education levels (elementary school, middle school, high school) in the perception of the significance of literacy resilience: [F(2,381) = 0.273; p < 0.05].

To determine if there are differences between the disciplines, a one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was performed. The results indicate that there were significant differences in the perception of the importance of literacy resilience across disciplines: [F(3,380) = 10.075; p < 0.001]. Further tests revealed that the perceived importance of literacy resilience was higher among Science (M = 3.89) and Language (M = 3.7) teachers than Math teachers (M = 3.1). No differences were found compared to the social domain teachers.

The second research question examined how teachers perceive their students’ literacy resilience. To this end, the participants ranked the students’ literacy resilience based on their literacy level and their SRL skills. Similarly, this question is divided into three parts:

The findings indicate that teachers perceive students’ literacy resilience to be low (M = 1.64, SD = 0.56, min = 1.00, max = 3.38).

Examining the prevalence of averages by category (low, medium, and high), it was found that 73% of teachers perceive the level of literacy resilience of students to be low, 24% perceive it to be medium, and no teachers (3%) perceive it to be high.

The prevalence of the level of student resilience was measured, as perceived by teachers, according to education levels, as seen in Figure 5.

To determine whether there are differences between the education levels, a one-way ANOVA variance analysis was performed. The results indicate that there are no significant education level differences in teachers’ perceptions of their students’ literacy resilience [F(2,381) = 0.273; p > 0.05].

The prevalence of teachers’ perceptions of their students’ level of literacy resilience across disciplines was measured, as seen in Figure 6.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether or not there were differences between the various disciplines. The results indicate that there are no significant differences between disciplines in teachers’ perceptions of their students’ literacy resilience [F(3,380) = 1.596; p > 0.05].

Table 3 summarizes the findings regarding teachers’ perceptions of the importance of literacy resilience and their assessment of their students’ literacy resilience levels in different subject areas and education levels.

As can be seen in Table 3, while teachers generally attribute high importance to literacy resilience, they perceive their students’ levels of literacy resilience as low.

There was no significant correlation between teachers’ perceptions of the importance of literacy resilience and students’ levels of literacy resilience, as perceived by their teachers (rPearson=0.049; p > 0.05).