Early adolescence is the changing phase of life from middle childhood to adolescence in which the individual is aged between 10 to 15 years. People also experience rapid physical, cognitive, emotional, and psychosocial growth [1]. Grade 7 students are early adolescents who have changed from elementary to junior high school. They have rapid physical growth, which affects their self-image, and they need independence in their life and acceptance from society [1]. Early adolescence learning is also a result of participation in various occupations, which the most important occupation for this age is education. Education has activities needed for learning and participating in the educational contexts [2]. Furthermore, early adolescents could encounter challenges and academic problems that could cause stress and anxiety [3]. These include academic problems; such as academic pressure, workloads during online education, division of the study, etc. To prevent mental health problems, reduce the severity of facing adverse situations, promote the ability to participate in activities, and promote mental health, resilience should be promoted in early adolescents. Resilience helps people effectively face stressful and adverse situations in their life [4-7]. Previous studies found that resilient students could cope with challenging situations and academic pressure effectively. Moreover, resilience could predict the student’s academic performance, self-esteem, life satisfaction and lead to well-being [8-10].

Resilience can contribute to four levels: individual, family, school, and community [11]. Resilience has three components that consist of “I have”, “I am”, and “I can”. “I have” infers external support factors of people, such as, having good role models, a trusting relationship with others, freedom, health, education, welfare, and safety services. “I am” infers a person realizes about themselves; such as, self-esteem, self-identity, self-responsibility, and self-confidence. “I can” infers that the individual realizes their abilities through interaction with other people; such as, communication, problem-solving, interpersonal, and emotional skills [6].

From the literature review, resilience was strengthened using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and Grotberg's resilience concept through the individual and group. The CBT focused on understanding and adjusting automatic thoughts. The CBT was used for clinical treatment for adolescents; such as depression [12] and adolescents at high risk from parents with alcohol dependence [13]. The duration of the programme was once a day for eight consecutive days for 50 minutes each time [14], and once a week for 10 weeks for 50 minutes each time [13]. The ACT was applied in the resilience programme, which emphasized understanding, acceptance, and the present. This helped people to face adversity consciously. The duration of the programme was once a week for eight weeks for 60 to 90 minutes each time [15], and 11 sessions for two hours per session [16]. Additionally, a systematic review showed that the CBT and mindfulness training was effective in promoting resilience. The combination of the two treatment approaches had a positive effect on resilience at the individual level. The duration of the programme was varied ranging from one session of two hours to multiple sessions totaling 28 hours, with most sessions being 60 to 90 minutes each for several weeks. Thus, this was the right time for a person to learn and develop new skills [17]. From all the above, the CBT and ACT have been effective in promoting resilience in early adolescents. Most resilience programmes were conducted in group activities because early adolescents seek self-identity and social acceptance. Group dynamics also helped individuals learn and develop themselves through interactions with others, as this promoted trust and cooperation in therapy [18]. In occupational therapy, group dynamics not only encouraged learning and interaction, but also helped to develop the role of individuals in group collaboration [19].

From previous studies, it could be seen that the resilience programme was developed by applying the CBT, ACT, or combining both approaches for adults in the workplace. However, the ACT in resilience programmes had never been applied to early adolescents in Thailand. Thus, the researchers focused on developing a resilience programme based on Grotberg’s resilience concept [6], CBT [20, 21], and ACT [22, 23] through Cole’s seven-step model of group dynamics [19]. The duration of this programme was once a week for 11 weeks at 60 minutes each time. This present study focused on developing a resilience programme for Grade 7 students of the Chiang Mai University Demonstration School because all students had to pass the foundation academic knowledge test. As such, they had to adapt themselves to a new educational environment; for example, institutions, learning, teachers, staff, friends, etc. All students were assorted by Thai consonant names, consequently resulting in each classroom having assorted students with diverse learning abilities. In addition, some students had to relocate from their home to live in dormitories, which caused students having to adjust. From all the above, the researchers aimed to develop a resilience programme and evaluate the effect of the programme on the academic problems of Grade 7 students of Chiang Mai University Demonstration School.

The results are shown in two phases: 1. The developing resilience programme phase and 2. evaluating the effect of the resilience programme phase.

3.2. Evaluating the Effect of the Resilience Programme Phase

The results in evaluating the effect of the resilience programme phase were divided into four parts: 1. General information, 2. the participants’ academic problems, 3. resilience, and 4. academic performance and satisfaction.

3.2.1. General Information

From Table 3, the control group and experimental group had no differences in the general information. In the control group, a total of 69.70% of the control group were female. The socio-economic status of their family had money remaining (66.70%), and the average monthly income per household was between 25,001 and 50,000 Thai Baht (48.50%). Their residential style was allocated villages, single houses, and townhouses (84.90%). The parents’ marital status was together (94.00%), and the control group had warm family relationships (60.60%). In academic performance, they had a grade point average between 3.50 and 4.00 (87.90%). In the experimental group, a total of 69.70% were female. The socio-economic status of their family had money remaining (48.50%), and the average monthly income per household was between 10,001-25,000 Thai Baht (33.30%). Their residential style was allocated villages, single houses, and townhouses (75.80%). The parents’ marital status was together (81.80%), and the experimental group had warm family relationships (72.70%). In academic performance, they had a grade point average between 3.50 and 4.00 (90.90%).

Table 2. The index of item-objective congruence (IOC) of the resilience programme.

No.	Items	IOC
1	Conformity to theory	1.00
2	Appropriateness of the programme’s name	1.00
3	Appropriate sorting of activities	0.60
4	Content suitability is consistent with the objectives	0.60
5	Appropriateness of the programme’s duration	0.80
6	Appropriateness of the equipment	1.00
7	Consistency between the assessment and objectives	0.60
8	Consistency between the activities and programmes	0.60
The average IOC		0.78

Table 3. General information.

General Information	Control Group		Experimental Group		Asymp. Sig (2-Sided)
	n=33	%	n=33	%
Gender         Male         Female	10 23	30.30 69.70	10 23	30.30 69.70	1.000
Family’s socio-economic status         Have money remaining.         Have enough money.         Have debt.	22 11 0	66.70 33.30 0.00	16 15 2	48.50 45.50 6.00	.168
Average monthly income per household (Thai Baht)         < 10,000         10,001-25,000         25,001-50,000         50,001-100,000         more than 100,001	1 5 16 9 2	3.00 15.20 48.50 27.30 6.00	1 11 10 7 4	3.10 33.30 30.30 21.20 12.10	.337
Residential style         Allocated villages/single houses/townhouses   Commercial building   Condominium         Slum         Etc.	28 1 0 3 1	84.90 3.00 0.00 9.10 3.00	25 4 1 1 2	75.80 12.10 3.00 3.00 6.10	.367
Parents’ marital status         Live together         Separated         Divorced         Parents have died         Father died         Mother died	31 1 1 0 0 0	94.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00	27 2 2 0 1 1	81.80 6.10 6.10 0.00 3.00 3.00	.567
Family relationship         Warm relationship         Sometimes quarrel         Quarrel regularly	20 12 1	60.60 36.40 3.00	24 7 2	72.70 21.20 6.10	.366
Grade point average         3.50-4.00         3.00-3.49         2.50-2.99         < 2.49	29 4 0 0	87.90 12.10 0.00 0.00	30 2 1 0	90.90 6.10 3.00 0.00	.431

3.2.2. The Participants’ Academic Problems

The identification of the academic problems of the participants was received from the COPM. The participants determined the different academic problems, which were divided by intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors (Table 4).

3.2.3. Resilience

The resilience scores were used to compare the pretest and post-test of the participants in the control and experimental groups in the programme. The analysis of the comparative data on the pretest and post-test resilience scores showed a statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of the resilience programme through the group’s dynamics on changes in the resilience scores between the pretest and post-test in the control and experimental groups (p<0.05 and p<0.01) (Table 5; Fig. 2).

In terms of the data, the results of the comparison of the pretest and post-test resilience scores between both groups found that there was no statistically significant difference in the post-test resilience scores between both groups (Table 6).

Table 4. Participants’ academic problems.

Academic Problems
Intrinsic Factors	Extrinsic Factors
Students did not finish the assigned tasks on time.	Poor Internet connection.
Divisions on the study.	Electricity interruption.
Students felt bored while studying online.	The study environment was not conducive for studying; such as, devices, rooms, disturbances by the external environment, etc.
Did not understand the content of the lesson.	Students had workloads during online education.
Students felt stressed while studying online.	Online learning affected health.
Students had low motivation to participate in their studies.	Did not meet friends.
Studying online made learning more difficult to understand than studying at school.	Studying online made it difficult to understand the lesson.
Students felt anxiety.	The teacher taught quickly and did not explain the content clearly.
Time management.	Other academic problems.

Table 5. Comparative data on the pretest and post-test resilience scores in the control and experimental groups (n=66).

The Participants	Pretest	Post-test	t	P-value
	Mean ± S.D.	Mean ± S.D.
Control group (n=33)	108.36 ± 17.394	113.94 ± 16.058	-2.587	.014*
Experimental group (n=33)	105.52 ± 21.796	119.64 ± 17.412	-3.938	.000*

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Fig. (2). Comparative data on the pretest and post-test resilience scores in the control and experimental groups.

Table 6. Comparative data on the pretest and post-test resilience scores between the control and experimental groups (n=66).

Test	Control Group (n=33)	Experimental Group (n=33)	t	P-value
	Mean ± S.D.	Mean ± S.D.
Pretest	108.36±17.394	105.52±21.796	.587	.559
Post-test	113.94±16.058	119.64±17.412	-1.382	.172

Table 7. Comparative data on the differences in the pretest and post-test resilience scores between the control and experimental groups (n=66).

Test	Control Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.	Experimental Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.	t	P-value
The differences in the pretest and post-test resilience scores.	5.576 ± 12.382	14.121 ± 20.600	-2.042	0.045*

*p < 0.05.

When comparing the differences of the pretest and post-test resilience scores between the control and the experimental groups, it was found that there was statistically significant differences (p<0.05) (Table 7).

3.2.4. Academic Performance and Satisfaction

The comparison data of the academic performance and satisfaction between the pretest and post-test in both groups are shown in Table 8. There were no statistically significant differences between the control group's academic performance and satisfaction in the pretest and post-test. For the experimental group, there was a statistically significant difference in the pretest and post-test (p<0.01). Thus, it could be summarized that after treatment, the experimental group had an academic performance and satisfaction higher than before participating in this programme.

The comparison data of the academic performance and satisfaction between the control and experimental groups in the pretest and post-test are shown in (Table 9). In terms of academic performance, there was no significant difference in the pretest on academic problems between both groups. Moreover, in terms of academic satisfaction, there was no significant difference in the pretest on academic problems between both groups. However, in the post-test, there was a statistically significant difference in academic satisfaction between the control and experimental groups (p<0.01).

Table 8. The comparison data of the mean and standard deviation of the academic performance and satisfaction between the pretest and post-test in the control and experimental groups (n = 66).

The Participants	Academic Performance		t	P-value	Academic Satisfaction		t	P-value
	Pre-test Mean ± S.D.	Post-test Mean ± S.D.			Pre-test Mean ± S.D.	Post-test Mean ± S.D.
Control group (n=33)	6.11 ± 1.57	6.85 ± 1.98	-1.868	.071	5.87 ± 1.79	5.87 ± 2.29	-.004	.997
Experimental group (n=33)	6.03 ± 1.78	7.00 ± 1.38	-3.216	.003**	6.25 ± 2.10	7.33 ± 1.80	-3.878	.000**

**p < .01.

Table 9. The comparison data of the mean and standard deviation of academic performance and satisfaction between the control and experimental groups in the pretest and post-test (n = 66).

The Participants	Academic Performance		t	P-value	Academic Satisfaction		t	P-value
	Control Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.	Experimental Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.			Control Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.	Experimental Group (n=33) Mean ± S.D.
Pretest (n = 66)	6.11 ± 1.57	6.03 ± 1.78	.209	.835	5.87 ± 1.79	6.25 ±2.10	-.807	.423
Post-test (n = 66)	6.85 ± 1.98	7.00 ± 1.38	-.364	.717	5.87 ± 2.29	7.33 ±1.80	-2.877	.005**

**p < .01.

The study of the effect of the resilience programme through group dynamics on the academic problems of Grade 7 students of Chiang Mai University Demonstration School can be discussed as follows:

The first item is resilience. After treatment, the control group and the experimental group had different changes in resilience because this programme was developed based on the CBT and ACT through the groups’ dynamics. As such, these therapies were effective in promoting resilience. The CBT was the process for assessing and understanding thoughts, affectiveness, body, and behaviour in several situations. Furthermore, the researchers used the ACT because this therapy focused on understanding, acceptance, and the present. Thus, it helped people to face adversity consciously. A combination of both therapies was also appropriate in promoting resilience. This programme was verified for the content validity using the IOC and validated the principles. The researchers practiced the procedures of the activities with other similar participants. Therefore, this programme was consistent with the theory, activities, procedures, duration, and early adolescent development.

Developing the resilience programme through the groups’ dynamics had a positive effect on resilience because the groups’ dynamics promoted individual learning and self- development through interaction with others in the group. People also learned new skills and had trust. In this research, the participants were early adolescents, who were concerned about social acceptance and friends. Therefore, developing the resilience programme through the groups’ dynamics was appropriate with the participants, as they could understand their academic problems, solve the problems, and learn from each other. Additionally, the participants reflected their learning in sharing, processing, generalising, and the application of the groups’ dynamics. In this research, the researchers gave an assignment, which helped the participants apply their skills, knowledge, and resilience components to cope with their daily academic problems. Moreover, the groups’ dynamics could be used to promote cohesiveness. Consequently, the participants coped with the academic problems together and learned to cope with the academic problem strategies from others. Comparing the current research with previous studies, it was found that previous studies had only focused on psychoeducation, whereas this research was a combination of psychoeducation and applying knowledge to cope with the academic problems. From the above, the experimental groups had a statistically significant difference in the pretest and post-test.

The findings could be discussed based on the psychological theories related to behaviour and early adolescent development as follows: In the post-test, the experimental group had increased resilience because they had learned under social conditions through the group’s dynamics. This was consistent with Erickson's psychosocial theory, which explained that adolescent psychosocial development was an effect of mental adaptation under social support [30]. The resilience components consisted of self-awareness. In the identity vs role confusion stage, early adolescents searched for their identity, so self-awareness could result in complete development. As such, they could perform according to their role. When discussing these findings based on Kohlberg’s moral development, it could be explained that the moral development stage in early adolescents was conventional morality. People performed by following their roles and social conditions [31]. From Piaget’s cognitive development theory, it could be explained that after treatment, the experimental group realised their abilities, themselves, and supportive factors that led to increased resilience, so they had formal operational cognition [32]. Developing this programme based on the CBT and ACT contributed to the participants analysing their academic problems. The process was consistent with the development, so the participants could learn appropriately. From previous studies, resilience was considered to be a dynamic process of positive adaptation. Therefore, it could be developed at any time. This would be because each person would have different resilience at varying times [7, 33, 34]. This supported the findings that the control group had different resilience scores between the pretest and post-test similar to the experimental group. However, Grotberg explained that resilience seemed easy to notice and promote, but in reality, not all children were resilient. This was due to the fact that their family did not contribute to the children’s resilience. Therefore, in the results of this present study, there were statistically significant differences in the resilience score in the pretest and post-test between the control and experimental groups. Hence, it could be summarised that this resilience programme could be used to promote individual resilience, and resilience should be promoted to early adolescents.

Secondly, the findings in the academic performance and satisfaction showed that this resilience programme emphasised promoting the resilience components. The experimental group practiced analysing their academic problems; as such, they could understand their automatic thoughts, emotions, behaviour, and body changes in-depth. The experimental group practiced a cost-benefit technique, pie chart, muscle relaxation, and diaphragm breathing. They realised themselves, and gained self-esteem from their perspective and others. About the skills and abilities, they learned positive communication skills, problem-solving skills, emotional assessment, and emotional management. Regarding the external supportive factors, they analysed their supportive factors, which helped them to cope with problems. As a consequence, they applied their resilience components to cope with their academic problems. Therefore, they had the strategies to cope with the problems, which led to increased academic satisfaction.

The findings in the academic performance and satisfaction were based on the Person-Environment-Occupation (PEO)model in the occupational therapy perspective. This programme focused on promoting the resilience components, which this was consistent with the PEO model. The resilience programme was used to contribute to the resilience components, self-awareness, skills, and a supportive environment. Self-awareness and skills were categorised in person according to the PEO model and recognised the supportive environment, which corresponded to the environment according to the PEO model. The increasing resilience and recognised supportive environment made it more consistent between the person and the environment. As a result, the students had increased academic performance and satisfaction, which was consistent with the PEO model. The PEO model was described as an occupational performance, as a result of the interaction between the person and the environment. If the environment corresponded with a person's interests and abilities, the person would increase their participation in the occupation and increase their ability to perform activities. If the person and environment were less consistent, then the person had less satisfaction in the occupational performance [35]. For the control group, there were no differences in academic performance and satisfaction between the pretest and post-test because they did not receive the programme. As a result, the control group did not have any positive adjustment to the academic problems. This made the composition of the person and environment less consistent. This caused the control group to have less participation in the activity, thus resulting in decreased academic performance and satisfaction.

From the results, it could be summarised that the resilience programme through the group’s dynamics could be applied to the contribution of resilience, academic performance, and satisfaction on academic problems.

This resilience programme, through group dynamics could contribute to the resilience, academic performance, and academic satisfaction with academic problems.