Supporting Teacher SelfReflection Sensitive Responding and Wellbeing with

  • Slides: 27
Download presentation
Supporting Teacher Self-Reflection, Sensitive Responding, and Well-being with Mindfulness Training: CARE for Teachers Program

Supporting Teacher Self-Reflection, Sensitive Responding, and Well-being with Mindfulness Training: CARE for Teachers Program Patricia A. Jennings, M. Ed. , Ph. D. Pennsylvania State University TIES Summer Institute May 17 -19, 2011

The Prosocial Classroom: A Model of Teacher Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom and

The Prosocial Classroom: A Model of Teacher Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom and Child Outcomes Healthy Teacher/Student Relationships Teachers’ Social & Emotional Skills & Well Being Effective classroom management skills Healthy Classroom Climate Student Social, emotional & academic outcomes Effective SEL implementation School/Community Context Factors Jennings & Greenberg, 2009

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

Improving Classroom Learning Environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE): Results of Two Pilot Studies Patricia A. Jennings Karin E. Snowberg Michael A. Coccia Mark T. Greenberg Pennsylvania State University 2011, Journal of Classroom Interactions, 46. 1, 37 -48

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

CARE 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 Study �Data from first year of a two-year IESfunded intervention development project �CARE

The Study �Data from first year of a two-year IESfunded 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)

Hypotheses �Study 1&2 ◦ Teachers and student teachers who received the CARE program will

Hypotheses �Study 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 Sample � CARE was presented to two cohorts of educators working in

Study 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 Sample � 10 Student teacher/mentor pairs � 19 individual student teachers �

Study 2 Sample � 10 Student teacher/mentor pairs � 19 individual student teachers � 29 classrooms total � 39 individuals total � Schools were located in State College and surrounding areas (16% economically disadvantaged, 12% minority) � Primarily European American, one male � Student teachers mean age = 21 years (SD =. 5) � Mentor mean age = 43 years (SD = 12) � Mentor mean years of experience = 16. 7 (SD = 11. 8)

Procedures � Pre-Intervention ◦ Self-report measures ◦ Classroom observation (Study 2 only) � CARE

Procedures � Pre-Intervention ◦ Self-report measures ◦ Classroom observation (Study 2 only) � CARE � Post-Intervention ◦ ◦ Self-report measures Evaluation survey Focus Groups Classroom observation (Study 2 only) � Study 1 pre-post only � Study 2 RCT

Measures � Well-being ◦ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

Measures � Well-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)

Measures �Motivational orientation and teaching efficacy ◦ Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS; Deci, Schwartz,

Measures �Motivational orientation and teaching efficacy ◦ Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PIS; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman & Ryan, 1981) �Highly autonomy supportive �Moderately controlling �Highly controlling ◦ Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Questionnaire (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) �Instructional strategies �Classroom management �Student engagement

Measures �Mindfulness ◦ Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney,

Measures �Mindfulness ◦ 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)

Measures �Evaluation Survey & Focus Groups ◦ Program satisfaction ◦ Perceptions of effects on

Measures �Evaluation Survey & Focus Groups ◦ Program satisfaction ◦ Perceptions of effects on classroom and students �CLASS Observation (Study 2 only) ◦ CLASS (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2003) �Organization �Instructional Support �Emotional Support

Analyses �Study 1 - Pre-post questionnaire data compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test �Study 2

Analyses �Study 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 Results � Well-being – significant effects (see chart) ◦ Time Urgency Scale

Study 1 Results � Well-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 Urgency N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15) Task

Time Urgency N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15) Task Related Hurry: S = -84. 0, p =. 01, d =. 22; General Hurry: S = -56. 5, p =. 08, d =. 14

Five Facet Mindfulness N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15)

Five Facet Mindfulness N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15) Observe: S = 192. 0, p <. 01 , d =. 66; Describe: S = 120. 5 , p <. 01, d =. 30; Nonjudge: S = 68. 0, p =. 07 , d =. 28; Non-react: S = 136. 0, p <. 01, d =. 47

Interpersonal Mindfulness N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15) Interpersonal

Interpersonal Mindfulness N = 29 (H 1 = 14, H 2 = 15) Interpersonal Mindfulness: S = 110. 5, p =. 01, d =. 2

Study 1 Results � Program Satisfaction ◦ 93% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this

Study 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 Results � Focus Groups ◦ Teachers adopted new habits � Noticing anxiety

Study 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

Study 2 Results � Well-being ◦ No significant effects found for PANAS, CES-D, TUS

Study 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 School

Problems in School

Study 2 Results �Program Satisfaction ◦ 88% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that this type

Study 2 Results �Program 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 Results � Focus Groups ◦ CARE program was helpful in broadening awareness

Study 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

Discussion �District Differences ◦ Study 1 Urban District �High levels of poverty and large

Discussion �District 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

Discussion �Type of Stress? ◦ Student teachers’ stress associated with the pressure of academic

Discussion �Type 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

Discussion �The CARE program may be particularly suited to supporting teachers working with at-risk

Discussion �The 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