Supporting Teacher Self-Reflection, Supporting Teacher Self-Reflection, Sensitive Responding, and Well-being Sensitive Responding, and Well-being with Mindfulness Training: CARE for with Mindfulness Training: CARE for Teachers ProgramTeachers Program

Patricia A. Jennings, M.Ed., Ph.D.

Pennsylvania State University

TIES Summer InstituteMay 17-19, 2011

The Prosocial Classroom:

A Model of Teacher Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom and Child Outcomes

Healthy Teacher/Stud

ent Relationships

Healthy Classroom

Climate

Effective SEL implementati

on

Teachers’ Social &

Emotional Skills & Well

Being

StudentSocial,

emotional & academic outcomes

Effective classroom

management skills

School/Community Context Factors

Jennings & Greenberg, 2009

Improving Classroom Learning Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE): Results of Two Education (CARE): Results of Two Pilot StudiesPilot Studies

Patricia A. JenningsKarin E. SnowbergMichael A. CocciaMark T. GreenbergPennsylvania State University

2011, Journal of Classroom Interactions, 46.1, 37-48

CARE for TeachersCARE for Teachers• 30 Contact Hours over 4 weeks + booster• Emotion awareness

– Didactic lessons on nature of emotion– Emotions in relation to teaching & learning– Experiential exercises to promote emotional

awareness• Mindfulness Practice• Empathy & Compassion for self and other

– Caring practice– Mindful listening exercises

• Applications of these to teaching through discussion and role plays

The StudyThe StudyData from first year of a two-year IES-

funded intervention development project

CARE presented as in-service professional development program for working teachers

Two Samples◦Study 1: teachers working in a high-poverty

urban setting (pre-post only)◦Study 2: student teachers and some of their

mentors working in a semi-rural/suburban college town setting (pilot RCT)

HypothesesHypothesesStudy 1 & 2

◦Teachers and student teachers who received the CARE program will show increases in measures of well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy, and mindfulness

Study 2 only◦Classrooms will show improvements in

classroom organization, instructional support, and emotional support compared to control teachers’ classrooms

Study 1 SampleStudy 1 Sample CARE was presented to two cohorts of educators

working in Harrisburg PA From four low performing elementary schools (85%

economically disadvantaged, 95% minority). Cohort A (N = 15)

◦ 7 regular classroom teachers, 6 specialists, 1 counselor, and 1 psychologist

◦ Received CARE in the fall of 2009

◦ 2 men, 1 African American, 1 Asian

Cohort B (N = 16) ◦ 7 regular classroom teachers. 9 specialists

◦ Received CARE in the spring of 2010

◦ 0 men, 1 African America

Mean age = 40 years (SD = 11.8) Mean years of experience = 13.23 ( SD = 10.23)

Study 2 SampleStudy 2 Sample10 Student teacher/mentor pairs19 individual student teachers29 classrooms total 39 individuals totalSchools were located in State College and

surrounding areas (16% economically disadvantaged, 12% minority)

Primarily European American, one maleStudent teachers mean age = 21 years (SD

= .5)Mentor mean age = 43 years (SD = 12)Mentor mean years of experience = 16.7 (SD

= 11.8)

ProceduresProceduresPre-Intervention

◦ Self-report measures◦ Classroom observation (Study 2 only)

CAREPost-Intervention

◦ Self-report measures◦ Evaluation survey◦ Focus Groups◦ Classroom observation (Study 2 only)

Study 1 pre-post onlyStudy 2 RCT

MeasuresMeasuresWell-being

◦ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) Negative Affect Positive Affect

◦ The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977)

◦ Time Urgency Scale (TUS); Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991) Speech patterns Eating behavior Competitiveness Task-related hurry General hurry

◦ Daily Physical Symptoms (DPS; Larsen & Kasimatis, 1997)

MeasuresMeasuresMotivational orientation and teaching

efficacy◦ Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS; Deci,

Schwartz, Sheinman & Ryan, 1981) Highly autonomy supportive Moderately autonomy supportive Moderately controlling Highly controlling

◦ Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Questionnaire (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) Instructional strategies Classroom management Student engagement

MeasuresMeasuresMindfulness

◦Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) Observing Describing Acting with awareness Non-judgmental Non-reactive

◦Interpersonal Mindfulness in Teaching Questionnaire (IMT; Greenberg, Jennings & Goodman, 2010)

MeasuresMeasuresEvaluation Survey & Focus Groups

◦Program satisfaction◦Perceptions of effects on classroom

and studentsCLASS Observation (Study 2 only)

◦CLASS (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2003) Organization Instructional Support Emotional Support

AnalysesAnalysesStudy 1 - Pre-post questionnaire data

compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test

Study 2 RCT◦Compared treatment and control groups

and control group scores using covariance adjusted estimates

◦Each self-report measure was adjusted for its baseline measurement at the pre-test period

◦Least-square mean comparisons were then made to test for a treatment effect.

Study 1 ResultsStudy 1 ResultsWell-being – significant effects (see chart)

◦ Time Urgency Scale (p < .10) Task-related hurry (d = .24) General hurry (d = .27)

◦ No significant effects found for PANAS, CES-D or Daily Physical Symptoms (DPS) although all scores except DPS changed in the expected direction

Motivational orientation and teaching efficacy ◦ No significant effects found for Problems in

Schools Questionnaire (PIS) or the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSES) however all scores changed in the expected direction

Mindfulness – significant effects among both measures (see chart)

Time UrgencyTime Urgency

N = 29 (H1 = 14, H2 = 15)Task Related Hurry: S = -84.0, p = .01, d = .22; General Hurry: S = -56.5, p = .08, d = .14

Five Facet MindfulnessFive Facet Mindfulness

N = 29 (H1 = 14, H2 = 15)Observe: S = 192.0, p < .01 , d = .66; Describe: S = 120.5 , p < .01, d = .30; Non-judge: S = 68.0, p = .07 , d = .28; Non-react: S = 136.0, p < .01, d = .47

Interpersonal MindfulnessInterpersonal Mindfulness

N = 29 (H1 = 14, H2 = 15)Interpersonal Mindfulness: S = 110.5, p = .01, d = .2

Study 1 ResultsStudy 1 Results Program Satisfaction

◦ 93% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this type of program should be integrated into preparation and in-service training for all teachers

◦ 97% reported CARE improved self-awareness

◦ 93% reported CARE improved well-being

◦ 83% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” they are “better able to manage classroom behaviors effectively and compassionately”

◦ 79% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” they are “better able to establish and maintain supportive relationships” with the children they teach

◦ 74% “much better” or “better” prosocial and on-task student behavior on-task behavior (74%, n = 20), and

◦ 65% “much better” or “better” student academic performance

Study 1 ResultsStudy 1 Results Focus Groups

◦ Teachers adopted new habits

Noticing anxiety and stopping to take some deep breaths

Choosing to prioritize self-care

Cultivating greater caring and empathy for others.

◦ Increased emotional awareness and acceptance of their emotional states

◦ Helped reduce stress

◦ New awareness of emotional triggers in school and in their personal lives

◦ New ability to calm down and respond more appropriately to challenging situations rather than automatically reacting out of strong emotions

◦ Feeling calmer at work and choosing to verbalize their emotional states with their students, leading to greater understanding between teachers and students and faster resolution of disruptive or conflict situations.

Study 2 ResultsStudy 2 Results Well-being

◦ No significant effects found for PANAS, CES-D, TUS or Daily Physical Symptoms (DPS) although all scores changed in the expected direction

Motivational orientation and teaching efficacy

◦ Significant treatment effect on Problems in Schools (PIS) motivating total score (p < .05) where CARE teachers showed more autonomy supportive orientation at post-test compared to the controls

◦ No significant effects found for Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSES) however all scores changed in the expected direction

CLASS

◦ No treatment effect on any of the three dimensions of the CLASS

Problems in SchoolProblems in School

Study 2 ResultsStudy 2 ResultsProgram Satisfaction

◦ 88% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this type of program should be integrated into preparation and in-service training for all teachers

◦ 81% CARE improved self-awareness

◦ 69% CARE improved ability to establish and maintain supportive relationships with the children they work with

◦ 81% “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the CARE program content

◦ 75% “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the program in general

Study 2 ResultsStudy 2 Results Focus Groups

◦ CARE program was helpful in broadening awareness of emotions, emotional triggers, and stress level

◦ New awareness of habits such as rushing but felt powerless to change these things due to schedule and workload

◦ Found difficulty concentrating during some of the longer practice segments

◦ Found difficulty with the program length

◦ Some were uncomfortable with some of the exercises

◦ Reported few changes in classroom dynamics or student relationships citing that district needs little improvement in this regard

DiscussionDiscussionDistrict Differences

◦Study 1 Urban District High levels of poverty and large numbers of

children with behavioral and academic difficulties Marginal institutional support District in political turmoil

◦Study 2 Suburban/Semi-rural District Low numbers of children at-risk Strong institutional support – stable and well-

funded Mentors chosen based upon outstanding

performance

DiscussionDiscussionType of Stress?

◦Student teachers’ stress associated with the pressure of academic performance and CARE may not have been relevant to them

Social Hierarchies?

◦Presence of mentors during CARE program may have inhibited the uptake of the material by the student teachers

Mentor as Buffer?

◦Presence of mentor teacher in the classroom may have provided a buffer for the students protecting them from occupational stress

DiscussionDiscussionThe CARE program may be

particularly suited to supporting teachers working with at-risk populations of students

CARE may need to be modified to be more helpful to student teachers

Sample size limited power to detect significant effects