Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on Teachers' Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom Interactions
Jennings, Patricia A.; Brown, Joshua L.; Frank, Jennifer L.; Doyle, Sebrina; Oh, Yoonkyung; Davis, Regin; Rasheed, Damira; DeWeese, Anna; DeMauro, Anthony A.; Cham, Heining; Greenberg, Mark T. (2017). Journal of Educational Psychology, v109 n7 p1010-1028. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1158314
-
examining216Teachers, gradesK-5
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2022
- Grant Competition (findings for Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.92 |
4.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Classroom Organization (CLASS) |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.13 |
5.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS: Instructional Support |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.49 |
2.51 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Positive climate subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.61 |
4.45 |
Yes |
|
||
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Teacher sensitivity subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.83 |
4.67 |
Yes |
|
||
|
CLASS - Classroom Organization domain: Productivity subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.45 |
5.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS: Emotional Support domain: Negative climate subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.57 |
6.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Classroom Organization domain: Instructional learning formats subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.64 |
4.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Classroom Organization domain: Behavior management subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.30 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Respect for student perspective subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.69 |
3.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Instructional Support domain: Quality of feedback subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.82 |
2.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Instructional Support domain: Concept development subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.18 |
2.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CLASS - Instructional Support domain: Language modeling subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.47 |
2.53 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 93%
Male: 7% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
-
Race Asian 5% Black 26% Other or unknown 31% Two or more races 5% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in high poverty region of New York (Bronx and Upper Manhattan). All schools were elementary K-5 public schools.
Study sample
The full sample was primarily female (93%) and racially/ethnically diverse with 33% of the teachers identifying as White, 31% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as African American/Black, 5% as Asian, and 5% as mixed racial background. Teachers were distributed across grades with 39% teaching Kindergarten, 18% 1st grade, 15% 2nd grade, 16% 3rd grade, 15% in 4th grade, and 18% in 5th grade. Additionally, 85% of teachers were in general education classrooms, 13% were teaching in combined language (bilingual, ESL, ELL or dual) classes, and 2% of teachers were in special education classrooms.
Intervention Group
The CARE for teachers program model was delivered to teachers assigned to the intervention group during the fall/winter of their initial year of participation (2012/13 or 2013/14). The program has a structured set of mindful awareness practices that were delivered in 30 hours over 5 in-person training days. Each training day was 6 hours in length, occured between November and February of the program year, and was led by three facilitators. Each facilitator met a standard set of criteria including having at least a master's degree in education or related area, minimum of 2 years of experience with the program, and a personal mindfulness practice. Over 90% of the intervention teachers attended at least 4 days of professional development focused on the CARE program. Intervention teachers were provided with program materials including a workbook, and audio recorded mindful awareness practices. Coaches were also provided to intervention teachers who engaged with teachers via three one-on-one phone discussions that lasted 26 minutes on average. During calls intervention teachers discussed their use of practices, what they found helpful, and questions/challenges for which they needed support.
Comparison Group
Teachers assigned to the comparison group received the standard professional development activities provided to all teachers at their school. Teachers in the comparison group were offered CARE following the completion of the study for their cohort. Approximately 51 percent of the comparison teachers completed CARE training.
Support for implementation
Teachers were compensated for participating in the program as they would be with normal district trainings. Schools were compensated for substitute teachers. Teachers were provided with trainings and offered coaches throughout the school year.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).