Definitions of what constitutes trauma are varied and range from considering trauma through the primary and vicarious experiences and events to acute, chronic, and complex ones (Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 2014). For the present study, we define trauma as being a deeply distressing or disturbing event or circumstance that overwhelms an individual’s capacity to cope. Such a definition recognizes that trauma may involve an event, stimulus, or social circumstance, as well as an individual’s personal history and response to said event. Additionally, while trauma support is often labeled as trauma-aware, trauma-sensitive, or trauma-informed approaches, we choose trauma-inclusive in an attempt to move beyond awareness and information to a more actionable approach. This study, therefore, begins the process of providing a concrete set of strategies to support a trauma-responsive approach in postsecondary settings.

While there is a paucity of literature focused on the impact of trauma on learners in postsecondary settings, much has been done in the neurosciences from which we can glean a better understanding. It is largely known that traumatic experiences and chronic stress changes the brain, especially in areas related to attention, learning, and memory (Clark, 1995; Kim & Diamond, 2002; Perry, 2006; van der Kolk, 2014). Although these changes in the brain have been investigated largely in terms of their impact on development (CDC, 2022; Harris, 2018; Perry et al., 1995), recognition of long-term psychosocial effects (Perry, 2006), exposure to traumatic experiences as adults (van der Kolk, 2014), learner identity and past educational trauma (Wartenweiler, 2017), and educational trauma due to marginalization (Daniels, 2022) all provide rationale for addressing the impact of trauma on learners in the postsecondary setting.

In addition to exposure to traumatic experiences as adults, adult learners may come to classrooms with triggered memories of failure and shame or may also be sensitive to stressors related to being evaluated (Cozolino & Sprokay, 2006). Given this, instructors should create trauma-informed environments in which learners can ultimately examine their emotional state and self-identity with the goal of reducing fear and stress. Daniels (2022) also recognizes that adults who have been marginalized by the educational system will come to the postsecondary classroom with educational trauma experiences. Any instance or combination of occurrences of these traumatic experiences leave adults in a traumatized state, or a state of fear conditioning (Perry, 2006).

Trauma has been shown to reorganize the way the mind manages perceptions, changing not only how we think but also our capacity to think (van der Kolk, 2014). For instance, chronic activation of the amygdala—referred to by van der Kolk (2014) as the “smoke detector” of the brain—can lead to a sensitization effect, enhancing defensive responses and leaving individuals in a constant, often unrecognized, state of hypervigilance (Clark, 1995). This level of fear conditioning inhibits many cognitive processes, including access to memory consolidation and retrieval processes that are needed to achieve and succeed in academic settings (Sandi & Pinelo-Nava, 2007).

Perry (2006; Perry et al., 1995) put forward that the result of fear conditioning and traumatic stress exposure is that learners either become hypersensitive to any threat-related signals or they learn to “tune out” or dissociate. Perry’s arousal continuum describes the impact on brain activity and cognition as learners encounter increasingly intense levels of fear or trauma. For instance, in a state of calm, learners have access to regions of the brain that help produce abstract thought and critical thinking. Conversely, as they experience heightened levels of stress or trauma, higher-level thinking capabilities become downregulated and put learners in a more reactive and reflexive state of action. According to Perry:

The key to understanding the long-term impact of trauma on an adult learner is to remember that [they are] often, at baseline, in a state of low-level fear. This fear state reflects either hyperarousal or a dissociative adaptation pattern, or a combination of both.

Through understanding the impact of stress on the brain and Perry’s arousal continuum, instructors have a starting place to better support students on various points of the continuum. Being able to reframe student behaviors and dispositions through the lens of trauma allows instructors to better engage with students empathetically. From a trauma-inclusive lens, an instructor may be more likely to check in on a student scrolling through their phone in the back of the classroom (potentially dissociating) instead of writing them off as lazy or disengaged. However, to date, little research exists that provides empirical evidence of the impact of trauma-inclusive practices on student success, with existing scholarship framing the topic from a conceptual lens (Costa, n.d.; Daniels, 2022; Imad, 2021). Below, we present a framework for trauma-inclusive pedagogy in higher education that we use to test the efficacy of trauma-informed practices on student success, particularly for students exposed to one or more traumatic life events.

Given the variety of ways in which trauma exposure and chronic stressors can impact learners in higher education settings, it is imperative that higher education instructors enter the classroom with the knowledge and skills necessary to create learning environments in which all learners can achieve and succeed. This study addresses this need by exploring a core set of instructional processes and practices that are aimed at supporting emotional regulation, developing supportive relationships with instructors and peers, and providing accessible and inclusive approaches to facilitating meaningful learning. The strategies investigated in this study are aligned with the long utilized Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) six guiding principles of trauma-informed care—safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment voice and choice; cultural, historical, and gender issues (CDC, 2020)—and framed using Perry’s (n.d.) 3 Rs (regulation, relationships, reasoning) for reaching the cognitive region of the brain. Furthermore, we posit that this framework is undergirded by the assumption that these principles occur within particular and nuanced sociocultural contexts. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of this framework.

Perry’s neurosequential model of therapeutics (Perry & Dobson, 2013) posits that regulating the core autonomic functions of the lower brain stem is the first step to addressing emotions related to trauma and chronic stress. Essentially, Perry contends that the human body is programmed to prioritize escaping from situations of perceived stress or danger (fight or flight). Unfortunately, this rapid bodily response inhibits a person’s ability to think rationally and creatively until they are once again emotionally regulated. Given this, it is paramount that instructors attend to processes that can support learners with emotional regulation. From a trauma-informed perspective, this process of “settling” the nervous system (Daniels, 2022) can be achieved by attending to the first two principles of trauma-informed care (CDC, 2020)—“providing a sense of safety” (Perry, 2006) and “fostering trust and transparency” (Daniels, 2022; van der Kolk, 2014).

One of the most effective emotional regulation strategies, according to Perry (Perry & Winfrey, 2021), is the connectedness that is achieved through relationships. Being able to attend to social engagement through developing relationships, therefore, plays a critical role in helping individuals who have experienced trauma become more regulated and bring their social engagement systems back online. van der Kolk (2014) emphasizes that traumatized humans recover in the context of relationships and that having a support network protects against becoming traumatized. While the classroom is not necessarily a space for recovery, providing a support network through practices that involve fostering peer support, collaboration, and mutuality (SAMSHA Principles 3 and 4) are required to help with emotional regulation and help prevent retraumatization.

Attending to regulatory functions that calm anxious or stressed brains and providing a sense of connection and support allow learners to access the “higher level” of the brain most closely associated with cognition (Perry, 2006). Therefore, cortical functioning is not only critical for the formation of new memories but also for the retrieval of preexisting knowledge. Once learners have been settled and connected, providing opportunities for retrieval, reasoning, and other higher-level thinking skills associated with learning are more possible. At this point, learners are ready to engage. It is vital that instructors attempt to maintain this sense of emotional regulation and safety through empowerment, voice, and choice (SAMSHA Principle 5).

Learner-centered principles locate choice, voice, and empowerment under the broader principle involving balancing power (Blumberg, 2019). Allowing students more opportunities for choice is an approach that empowers the learner to develop agency in their learning process. Blumberg also recommends empowering students through appropriate freedom of expression and responding to feedback from students related to improving teaching and learning as two strategies for achieving this goal. Through embedding choice, acknowledging student voice and agency, and empowering students through the learning process, instructors may continue to build on earlier elements of the framework through safety and connectedness.

The purpose of this study was to use a framework for trauma-inclusive pedagogy in postsecondary education environments to explore differences in perceptions of student success in a population of college students. Guided by our research questions, we developed a 23-item quantitative survey instrument attempting to measure the extent to which students reported their professors’ use of practices that were consistent with trauma-informed philosophies including safety (5 items), transparency and trustworthiness (5 items), choice and voice (4 items), collaboration and mutuality (4 items), and empowerment (5 items). Participants were able to rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The instrument was reviewed for face validity by five subject matter experts including licensed mental health professionals and postsecondary educators. Additionally, this study was reviewed and approved by the Appalachian State University Institutional Review Board (IRB #22–0071)

To address the first research question, a series of paired samples t tests resulted in numerous statistically significant differences across student reports of trauma-inclusive practices between their most successful and least successful courses of the semester (Table 2). A large significant difference (Cohen’s d larger than .08) was found in the trauma-inclusive pedagogy scale between students’ most and least successful courses in the Fall 2021 term, suggesting that such practices have a meaningful impact on students’ perceptions of academic success within the classroom. Across scaled variables corresponding to the proposed framework (Safety, Transparency & Trustworthiness, Choice & Voice, Collaboration & Mutuality, and Empowerment), students reported large differences between overall trauma-inclusive practices between their most and least successful courses, with trauma-inclusive practices being heavily associated with students’ most successful course. The largest effective size was found within the Empowerment subscale, suggesting practices such as providing supportive feedback and empowering students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways may have a profound impact on student academic success.

Finally, large significant differences were also found across specific items including feeling empowered by their instructor, having a voice in the learning process, feeling as if the instructor wanted them to be successful, comfort communicating with the instructor, and feeling cared for as a student. See Table 2 for further detail.

Additional paired samples t tests were conducted to explore the magnitude of the effect of trauma-inclusive pedagogy between students’ most and least successful courses based on their level of trauma exposure. Analyses illustrated a stark contrast in the effect of trauma-inclusive pedagogy on students with moderate to high trauma exposure in both CTE (Table 3) and ACE (Table 4) categories. Put another way, students with histories of trauma exposure were more likely to report trauma-inclusive practices in the courses in which they felt most successful. When exploring these differences among subscales, results demonstrated the importance of student empowerment as a function of perceived success for students with a history of trauma exposure; however, for these students, their sense of safety also seemed to play an almost equally significant role. Interestingly, trauma-inclusive pedagogical practices seemed to have a larger impact for students with moderate ACE scores versus high ACE scores. Further research is needed to fully understand why there seems to be drop-off of impact for students with high ACE scores. See Tables 3 and 4 for further details.

In her article on transcending adversity, Imad (2021) identifies a framework of trauma-sensitive approaches to college teaching, focusing on strategies that instructors can use to foster safety, forge trust, create meaning, cultivate community, and center well-being and care. Aligned with these notions, the current study focuses on how course design and facilitation can include many of these elements of trauma-informed care to support student success. While models and discussions related to inclusive teaching and learning have proliferated in the past decade (Addy et al., 2021; Loya, 2021), models that include strategies or approaches specific to the impacts of trauma have not yet become prevalent. This article begins to contribute to that area of the literature and serves to inform educational development practices by providing a lens specific to how we can calm and center the learning experience for those who have been exposed to traumatic events, who are experiencing current life traumas or stressors, or who are struggling with learner identity or past educational traumatic experiences. Findings from this study support the efficacy of trauma-inclusive practices in promoting student success, extending earlier studies (Barr, 2018; Berardi & Morton, 2017; Thomas et al., 2019) that have explored this topic within the context of K–12 education into the postsecondary education sector. While findings provide evidence that such approaches may have larger benefits for students who have been exposed to traumatic life events, they also illustrate how such practices are of benefit to all students. Specifically, instructional practices that convey care and trust, develop connected communities, and provide voice, choice, and empowerment in the instructional process can have a deep impact on college student success in the classroom.

This study is particularly timely considering the COVID-19 pandemic, as students continue to grapple with ever-evolving policies around course delivery, support, and economic fallout. Given the connection between trauma exposure and human learning and development, as well as the widespread nature of trauma exposure in college students, it follows that adoption of trauma-inclusive teaching practices is one of many ways to improve college student success. The present study utilized a trauma-inclusive teaching framework to explore differences in student perceptions of success. Findings indicate significantly higher perceptions of success in courses where students reported their instructors’ use of trauma-inclusive teaching practices. Findings also show how students exposed to trauma were less likely to report trauma-inclusive practices in their least successful courses. While the sample limits generalization, our findings provide strong initial evidence of the benefit of our framework in bolstering student academic success within the postsecondary environment.