Patricia A. Jennings, M.Ed., Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University

1. 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

2. 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 Healthy Classroom Climate Student Social, emotional & academic outcomes Effective classroom management skills Effective SEL implementation School/Community Context Factors Jennings & Greenberg, 2009

3. 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

4. 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

5. The Study • Data 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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)

11. Measures • Motivational 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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)

16. Time 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

17. Five 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

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

19. 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

20. 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 teachers and students and faster resolution of disruptive or conflict situations.

21. 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

22. Problems in School

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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