Direct and Moderating Impacts of the CARE Mindfulness-Based Professional Learning Program for Teachers on Children’s Academic and Social-Emotional Outcomes
Brown, J. L., Jennings, P. A., Rasheed, D. M., Cham, H., Fosco, S. D., Frank, J. L., Davis, R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2023). Unpublished manuscript. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2afys.
-
examining4,453Students, gradesK-5
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- 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 cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absence Rate |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
8.56 |
8.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales Enablers: Engagement subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.53 |
3.42 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales Enablers: Motivation subscale |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.27 |
3.18 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) |
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE for Teachers) vs. Business as usual |
7 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.06 |
3.07 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
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 3% Black 23% Other or unknown 70% Two or more races 1% White 3% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 65% Not Hispanic or Latino 35% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 88% No FRPL 12%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in New York public schools located in high poverty areas (the Bronx and Upper Manhattan). Although the study only recruited teachers from kindergarten through grade five, the school sample also included K-6 and K-8 schools. Kindergarten through grade five classrooms, including a small proportion of blended classrooms (K-1, 2-3, and 3-4) were included. All participating classrooms were general education classrooms.
Study sample
The sample included elementary students in grades K-5, with an average age of 8 years. There were slightly more females (51%) participating. About 65% of participating children were Hispanic. Approximately 23% of children were Black, about were 3% Asian/Filipino, 3% were White, and less than 1% were multiple races. Seventeen percent of the students were English language learners, and 9% received special education services. The majority of the students (88%) received free or reduced-price lunch. About 3% of the students had previously been suspended.
Intervention Group
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) is a psychoeducational professional development program for teachers that targets mindfulness and is designed to reduce teachers’ stress and promote teachers’ social and emotional competences. Practices in mindful awareness, instruction in emotion skills, and practices in listening and compassion are the core components of the program. The intervention was delivered in person 6 hours per day for 5 days (a total of 30 intervention hours) between the months of November and February. The first two intervention days were consecutive days in November. The following intervention days were separated by several weeks to allow teachers the opportunity to apply what they learned and reflect on the application of the intervention. Each intervention training was facilitated by a team of three trainers who held a minimum of a master’s degree, at least 2 years' experience with the program, and practiced mindfulness. Teachers received a workbook and audio recording of mindful practices to use at home.
Comparison Group
The comparison teachers were teachers who were waitlisted to receive the intervention after the study data collection ended.
Support for implementation
Teachers were assigned to a coach for the intervention period and received three one-on-one phone calls from their coach. The phone calls were scheduled after training days 2, 3, and 4, and were intended to provide support to the teachers in developing their mindful awareness practices and applying what they learned from the CARE program to their teaching. Coaches discussed with participants their use of practices, program concepts or skills that they found helpful, and whether they had any questions or challenges.
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).