本研究主要透過學障大學生生命敘事，獲得當事人內在觀點，用以理解其韌性發展歷程。本研究邀請三位學障大學生（Y, W, J）參與，以六次半結構深度訪談，對學障大學生及其母親收集研究資料，藉由不同發展時空（國中小、高中、大學）、人我社會情境系統（自我、社會、學校）、以及韌性概念基本元素（危險、保護、適應），建構學障大學生韌性經驗敘事探究空間；並以「內容－類別」分析法，將其韌性發展歷程內容進行重述與論述。研究發現，三位學障大學生韌性發展包括抗衡與復原功能，前者意指抗衡學障帶來的危險威脅，後者則是從適應危機中復原；促進韌性發展的保護機制涉及自我與社會系統，是結合情感與專業的社會支持，藉由發展過程裡的情境事件或轉折點，促使自我系統產生螺旋式向上發展的轉變而成。自我覺知是促發學障大學生韌性發展的關鍵；三位學障大學生自我覺知學障經驗內涵包括學業與非學業適應層面，由學障引發的負向情緒反應與自我和社會他人覺知內容的不一致有關，致使對隱形的學障影響機制產生歧異認知或誤解。來自家庭、同儕、有關專業人員的社會支持，能提供不同比重的情感與專業支持力量，促進三位學障大學生在不同發展階段展現韌性。學障鑑定產生的標籤效應並未在三位學障大學生發展過程產生汙名化影響；鑑定後引進的專業資源，能助益學障大學生與社會他人一致共覺學障現象，進而藉由共尋問題解決之道克服適應困難、防止惡化自我表現，藉由成就感發展正向心理，終於展現韌性。學障相關介入考量與建議於文後陳述。

Purpose: Understanding experiences of resilience building in college students with learning disabilities (LD) is important because information on the positive dynamics of adaptive systems during the development process could provide insights into preventive measures and intervention for students with LD. In this study, the development of resilience in college students with LD was explored to further understand manifestations of resilience on the basis of the insiders' views on the experiences of living with LD. Methods: We used a narrative approach to explore life stories of three college students with LD through six in-depth interviews, with the individuals and their mothers. The participants recognized their mothers as the most important significant others; hence, the mothers were asked to provide sufficient information on resilience development during early time. The participants' life stories concerning resilience-building experiences were analyzed through the categorical-content approach in which participants' narratives were derived from the space constituted by different developmental stages of their life, adaptive systems of self-social context dimensions, and essential elements of resilience framework. Results/Findings: Resilience functions of the three participants included resisting or mitigating LD effects, which could potentially disrupt the normal course of development or functioning, and recovering from the crisis worsened by LD and resuming normal functioning relatively quickly. Both the self and social systems played essential roles in building resilience throughout the course of the participants' development. Social support embedded with close relationships and professional knowledge can help such students launch an upward spiral of development and eventually perform protective mechanisms in which transitions and life events might benefit the self-awareness processes. Conclusions/Implications: Participant narratives highlighted that mature self-awareness was the key to resilience building. All participants were aware of the academic and nonacademic challenges in their development. The vulnerability caused by negative emotions might be related to the self-awareness processes when the self and others cannot have identical co-awareness of the LD phenomenon, which leads to misunderstanding or misinterpreting the invisible LD mechanisms. Rather than stigmatizing participants, the eligibility determination process secured appropriate resources and services. Moreover, the participants' resilience was further enhanced by developing adaptive strategies with their significant others to overcome challenges, prevent worsening performance, boost positive psychology by instilling a sense of achievement, and eventually manifest resilience. It may be appropriate to employ resilience framework to design preventive interventions for individuals with LD that can enhance the protective mechanism operations of the self and social systems. With regard to the manifestation of resilience indicated in participants' life stories, educational practitioners are suggested to pay more attention to the self-awareness processes of individuals with LD.