Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Teaching to diversity : creating compassionate learning communities for diverse elementary school students Katz, Jennifer 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_fall_katz_jennifer.pdf [ 2.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066410.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066410-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066410-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066410-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066410-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066410-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066410-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066410-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066410.ris

Full Text

TEACHING TO DIVERSITY: CREATING COMPASSIONATE LEARNING COMMUNITIES FOR DIVERSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS THE EFFECTS OF DEMYSTIFICATION ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING by JENNIFER KATZ M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2000 B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1993 B.A., The University of Ottawa, 1990 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Special Education) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  June 2008 © Jennifer Katz, 2008  i  ABSTRACT Across North America concerns have been raised about the social, emotional, and mental health of our youth. Many primary prevention programs have been proposed to address these issues, however, few have met the criteria for effective interventions, including being longitudinal, cross-curricular, emphasizing specific concepts and skills, and being within the skills and understandings of teachers and the school system at large (McCombs, 2004). The Respecting Diversity (RD) program is a social and emotional learning (SEL) intervention designed by teachers that uses a Multiple Intelligences (MI) framework to develop self-awareness, self-respect and respect for diverse others. It teaches skills such as goal setting, meta-cognition, and perspective taking that underlie SEL. The program is designed to develop, a safe, positive classroom climate to begin the school year, and facilitate social and academic learning. The study herein was intended to explore emotional and behavioral outcomes of the RD program. The study involved 218 intermediate (grades 4-7) students and their teachers, divided into intervention and control groups. Students were assessed pre and post intervention for the development of self-awareness, self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others. Measures of classroom climate were also included. Students completed several measures of SEL, and a selected sample were interviewed to obtain detailed information about their experiences in inclusive diverse classrooms, and with the RD program itself. Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods, including thematic content analysis procedures and repeated measures MANCOVA’s. Both students and teachers indicated that the RD program significantly increased students’ self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others, while students in control  ii  classrooms decreased in these factors. Classroom climate also significantly improved for treatment classrooms, and, similarly, decreased in control classrooms. Results are discussed in terms of their educational implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research.  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...  ii  Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………  iv  List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..  vii  List of Figures……………………………………………………………………....  viii  Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………....  ix  Dedication…………………………………………………………………………...  xi  CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Literature Review……………………………….....  1  Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)…………………………………….... What is Social and Emotional Learning?.……………………........... The Importance of SEL……………………………………………... Key Factors in SEL………………………………………………..... Self and social awareness………………………………….... Self and social respect……………………………………..... Operational Definition of SEL........……………………………….... Important Components of SEL Programs………………………...... Review of Existing SEL Programs………………………………..... Purpose of the RD Program……………………….………………... Goals of the “Respecting Diversity” (RD) Program…...………….... Multiple Intelligences……………………………………………………..... MI and SEL………………………………………………………..... Demystification……………………………………………………………... Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………... Research Questions……………………………………………………….....  5 5 6 11 13 13 14 14 15 19 19 22 23 24 25 27  CHAPTER 2 Method……………………………………………………………......  28  Background………………………………………………………………...... Program Evaluation………………………………………………………...... Design………………………………………………………………………... Participants and Settings …...………………………………………….......... School district...................................................................................... Schools……………………………………………………………...... Teachers…………………………………………………….... Students……………………………………………………..... The Intervention…………………………………………………………….... Training Procedures………………………………………………......  28 29 32 34 34 34 36 35 40 40  iv  Program Procedure……………………………………………………….......41 Data Collection…………………………………………………………........42 Measures…………………………………………………………………......43 CHAPTER 3 Results…………………………………………………………………….......50 Qualitative Student Data……………………………………………...........50 Quantitative Student Data…...…………………………………………......50 Qualitative Teacher Data…………..……………………………………....56 Quantitative Teacher Data……..…………………………………………..56 Student Experiences in Diverse Classrooms.................................................56 Question #1– “How aware of their own and others’ learning and social /emotional experiences are intermediate students in inclusive, diverse classrooms?”................................................................................................56 Question #2 – “How is respect for self and others experienced / demonstrated by students in intermediate inclusive, diverse classrooms?”.................................................................................................57 Formative Evaluation of the RD Program....................................................59 Question #3 – “Is the social and emotional development of students in diverse elementary classrooms facilitated by Multiple Intelligences curriculum and teaching, as measured by students’ self and social awareness and respect?”….................................................................….….59 Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles?........................................................................60 Quantitative Student Data……..………………………………..........60 Qualitative Student Data……..………………………………......…..61 Qualitative Teacher Data….....………………………………......…..62 Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles?..................................................................................................63 Quantitative Student Data……………..……………………......…....63 Qualitative Student Data……..………………………………......…..64 Quantitative Teacher Data………….…………………………......…67 Qualitative Teacher Data……….………………………………........68 Implementation…………………………………………...............………..68 CHAPTER 4 Discussion…………………………………………………………......………70 Self-awareness and Self-respect………...………………………………..………….72 Awareness of Others and Respect for Others……….……………..………………...74 Strengths and Limitations............................................................................................77  v  References……………………………………………......…………………………………..79 Appendix A Program Manual……………………………......……………………………...93 Appendix B Implementation Recording Sheets……………......………………………….110 Appendix C Table of Assessments…………………………......…………………………125 Appendix D Interview Questions…………………………......………………………......126 Appendix E Picture Stories…………………………………......…………………………127 Appendix F Code Definitions from Pilot Study………………......………………………131 Appendix G Curriculum Match……………………………………......………………….132 Appendix H Multiple Intelligences Survey – Elementary……….......……………………134 Appendix I Operational Definitions……………………………….......…………………..138 Appendix J Measurement Scales…………………………………......…………………...140 Appendix K Ethics Form......................................................................................................160  vi  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8  School Demographic Data…..…………......………………………………...35 Teacher’s Demographic Data….……….....………………………..………..36 Student Demographic Data………..……......………………………………..38 Participation Rates by Classroom……........…………………………………39 Scale Reliability Coefficients………….......………………………………...51 Aggregated Scale Reliability Coefficients.......................................................53 Comparison of Pretest Scores Across Treatment Groups................................54 Mancova Results..............................................................................................55  vii  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5  Means for self-awareness by treatment group……………......……………...60 Means for self-respect by treatment group…………………......……………61 Means for awareness of others by treatment group………......……………...63 Means for respect for others by treatment group…………......……………...64 Means for class climate by treatment group………………......……………..64  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Marion Porath for her ongoing support, both personal and professional, throughout this research project. I am in awe of her ability to nurture the gifts and talents of her students, while recognizing their heart, mind, and spirit. A special thank you to Maria Trache and Dr. Kadriye Ercikan, who spent many hours with me assisting with the statistical procedures and equations, and Dr. Ercikan also sat on my committee. I am grateful for their time, dedication, and perseverence. I would also like to thank Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichel, for sitting on my committee, introducing me to the world of SEL, and pushing me to be the best I can be. As well, I am grateful to all of my colleagues, who opened their doors and shared their classrooms and students with me. Your dedication to the well-being of “our kids” is inspiring. To all of the family, friends, mentors, and spiritual teachers who have guided my spirit, nurtured my heart, and enlightened my soul, my heartfelt thanks. A special thank you to Reb Zalman, for helping me to connect my past with my present, and my spiritual life with my profession – I am eternally grateful. To Reb Hillel, David, and Craig Worthing – my thanks for your support, and your ability to extend my thinking, and pose the right questions. I have been blessed with a sisterhood of incredible women who have mentored, nurtured, and prodded me to grow and learn. To Gina Rae, Andi Alexander, Janet Mierau, Mari-Jane Medenwaldt, Ida Ollenberger, Saida Desilets, Pat Mirenda, Ethel Amihude, Kathyrn D’Angelo, my Aunt Shirley, and especially, my sister - Vivi, my thanks, and my love. This project, as with all of what I do and how I live, is dedicated to the two guiding women in my life: my aunt Sheila, who introduced me to my love for special children, and  ix  gave me the confidence to believe I could make a difference, and to my mother, who for forty years has dried my tears, listened to my stories, and shown me how to live life with love, integrity, and spirit. I do my best to share their legacy.  x  DEDICATION To all of the children, past, present, and future, who have taught me more than I can ever teach them, thank you for your many gifts – with a prayer for a more peaceful and loving world for you to grow up in.  xi  CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Literature Review Children of the same age enter today’s classrooms with differing learning profiles (i.e., learning strengths and challenges), background knowledge, and experience (Schirmer & Casbon, 1995). Students do not learn alone but, rather, in diverse communities, interacting with their teachers, in the company of their peers, and bringing with them the values and teachings of their families. In recent years unacceptably high rates of school violence, bullying, school dropout, youth suicide, and other negative behaviors have been documented (McCombs, 2004; Zins & Elias, 2006). These behaviors have taken a toll on students’ social and emotional well-being, evidenced by rising rates of depression, emotion-related illnesses, and expressions of fear and hopelessness (Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, & Miller, 2006; ModrcinMcCarthy & Dalton, 1996). Students with mental health problems and deficits in socialemotional competence have difficulty learning, and in some cases, may disrupt the educational experiences of their peers (Cooper, 2008; Greenberg et al., 2003). According to Weissberg, Kumpfer, and Seligman (2003), while preventing these problem behaviors is a worthwhile endeavor, “it is undisputable that young people who are not drug abusers, who are not depressed or suicidal, who are not antisocial or in jail, and who are not school dropouts may still lack the resources to become healthy adults, caring family members, responsible neighbors, productive workers, and contributing citizens” (p. 427). Relatively few children have personal competencies, values, attitudes, and environmental supports that protect against high-risk behavior and encourage the growth of positive behaviors. Thus, developing all students’ self-respect and respect for others in a diverse community of learners has become a paramount challenge for educators (Levine, 2001).  1  To educate means “to develop and cultivate” (Merriam-Webster, 1978). To teach, on the other hand, is defined as “to cause to know; to show how; to guide; to make to know the consequences of” (Merriam-Webster). Education, therefore, includes more than instruction in academic subjects, and teaching includes more than just content delivery. Education must develop the whole child and cultivate all of the skills, attitudes, and knowledge necessary for successful integration into society. Thus, practices such as inclusion that aim to educate students in the full sense of the word must promote their social, emotional, and physical development, in addition to their academic achievement. As Elias (2001) eloquently put it, “Schools should prepare students for the tests of life, not a life of tests” (p. 1). Recent years have witnessed a growing proportion of school-age children demonstrating social-emotional and behavioral problems that interfere with their relationships, academic achievement, and their potential to be contributing members of their community (e.g., Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001; Zins & Elias, 2006). Findings from a number of recent research investigations indicate that schools are among the most effective socialization contexts in our culture, and among the most influential in guiding the social and emotional learning of elementary school children (Schonert-Reichl, Smith, & Zaidman-Zait, 2006). Schools provide a unique opportunity for encouraging the development of social competence because many of students’ interpersonal interactions occur in a setting in which adults can intervene and thus, foster positive growth and development. A growing number of studies exist suggesting that children’s social and emotional learning can be fostered via classroom and school-based intervention efforts (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Graczyk et al., 2000; Greenberg et al., 2001). Given the data indicating a rising rate of  2  children at risk, school-based programs that develop all children’s social and emotional learning must be a priority for educational researchers and practitioners. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees linguistic rights of the founding English and French cultures, Aboriginal rights, the right to an equitable education for all children, and the preservation and enhancement of our multicultural heritage. The right to an “equitable” education, and the enhancement of multiculturalism, influence inclusive school systems. Many schools in Canada take part in anti-racism and multicultural programming (Gill & Chalmers, 2007). Inclusive education, defined in British Columbia as “the principle that all students are entitled to equitable access to learning, achievement and the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of their educational programs,” has been mandated (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/special_ed.htm). Inclusion in this definition means that students attend their neighborhood schools, and are enrolled in regular education classrooms. According to the Ministry of Education, the emphasis on educating students with special needs in neighborhood school classrooms with their age and grade peers, however, does not preclude the appropriate use of resource rooms for short term pull-out instruction (e.g. for small-group reading intervention for a half hour a day). To support inclusion and diversity, several provinces have added social and emotional curricula to their mandate. For instance, in British Columbia, the province in which the current study took place, the Ministry of Education defines social responsibility as one of four “foundational skills,” equal in importance to reading, writing, and numeracy. In Ontario, the government has begun a $2 million initiative to support character education in schools. Despite these rights, and efforts, many Canadian youth continue to struggle socially and emotionally. Approximately 20% of children and adolescents, well over 800,000 children in  3  Canada, experience mental health problems severe enough to warrant mental health services (Kutcher & Davidson, 2007; Romano et al., 2001). In a recent study of 7,235 Canadian youth aged 10 to 16, 33% of boys and 30% of girls reported being the victims of bullying in the previous few months (Schonert-Reichl & Hymel, 2007). This victimization was associated with increased health problems, not only for the victims, but also for students who had witnessed bullying, who reported higher levels of depression than students who had not been so exposed. Substance abuse also continues to be a significant issue for youth in Canada (Leslie, 2008). Health Canada surveys indicate the mean age for the first use of alcohol is 11 years. Students in grades 7-9 reported initial use of cannabis at age 12, and 12.5% of these students reported using substances other than alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis. Recent reports indicate Canada spends about $14.4 billion dollars a year on the treatment of mental illness, and it is estimated that this number will continue to increase until it becomes the largest health care cost in the country (McEwan, Waddell, & Barker, 2007). Yet, about 75% of children with mental disorders do not seek or receive treatment. Programs in schools could reach many of these children. Thus, a combination of academic learning and social and emotional curricula with an emphasis on prevention and health is called for (Hymel et al., 2006). In the current study, the experiences of elementary school-aged children in diverse, intermediate (grades 4-7), inclusive classrooms were explored, and the effects of a multiple intelligences based program designed to increase students’ self and social awareness and respect, key factors in the development of social and emotional health, were evaluated. “Respecting Diversity” (RD) is a theoretically derived social competence program, based on  4  the framework for social and emotional learning (SEL) proposed by Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, and Walberg (2004), and using a multiple intelligences (MI) framework derived from the work of Gardner (1993). The study reported herein is the first attempt to examine its impact empirically. Social and Emotional Learning What is Social and Emotional Learning? The construct of social and emotional learning (SEL) has evolved from the research investigating emotional intelligence, which is based on the work of Salovey and Mayer, and popularized by Goleman (1995) (Elias, 2004; Kelly, Longbottom, Potts, & Williamson, 2004). The use of the term emotional intelligence is related to Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences theory where interpersonal intelligence is defined as the capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others and intrapersonal intelligence as the capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes (Lazear, 1992). Gardner’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences were combined in the construct of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2004). Emotional intelligence was defined as a type of social intelligence that involved the ability to recognize and monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, and use this information to guide thoughts and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The use of the term intelligence to describe social-emotional abilities is controversial (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2001). Regardless of the term, whether intelligence, competence, learning, or skills, we must not lose sight of the fact that there is a vast array of research to support the importance of social and emotional development in students’ academic and personal success and satisfaction (Kelly et al., 2004; Thomas & Rohwer, 1986).  5  SEL has been defined in several ways that have common themes. According to Zins et al. (2004), SEL is the process through which children enhance their ability to integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks. It has also been defined as the process through which we learn to recognize and manage emotions, care about others, make good decisions, behave ethically and responsibly, develop positive relationships, and avoid negative behaviors (Weissberg, Resnik, Payton, & O’Brien, 2003) or as “ (a) mastery and appropriate use of interpersonal and small-group skills…(b) internalization of prosocial attitudes and values needed to achieve goals, solve problems, become emotionally involved in school and work, and succeed in school and throughout life” (Johnson & Johnson, 2004, p. 40). According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), SEL is now defined as “the process of acquiring and effectively applying the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to recognize and manage emotions, developing caring and concern for others, making responsible decisions, establishing positive relationships, and handling challenging situations capably” (Zins & Elias, 2006, p. 1). The Importance of SEL Research indicates that SEL has positive effects on many aspects of children’s development, including academic performance, physical, mental, and emotional health, prosocial behaviors, and citizenship (Zins & Elias, 2006). SEL also affects job/career success, as employers seek employees who work well with others, and interact positively with the public (Goleman, 2006). SEL reduces the risk of maladjustment, failed relationships, interpersonal violence, substance abuse, and unhappiness (Elias et al., 1997). The classical analytic intelligence, or IQ, has been shown to account for only 20-25% of the variance in job/academic performance, leaving 75 – 80% of the variance unexplained, and accounted for  6  by a variety of factors, including SEL, since SEL has been show to be related to academic and career success (Hymel et al., 2006). Many studies in the field of prevention research have focused on risk factors for students in high-risk categories. However, it seems logical that prevention research should also focus on protective factors that prevent students from becoming at risk (Graczyk et al., 2000). Universal programs that promote protective factors for all youth can reach the broadest population possible at an early age (Hymel et al., 2006). Schools are being called upon to address the human need for connectedness with one another and with the teachings of diverse peoples (Palmer, 1998/1999). According to Palmer, when schools fail to do so, students become bored and alienated. Alienation in a population of any age is caused by failing to provide supports for social and emotional issues (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Alienation can result in an increased rate of loneliness for students, as they are unable to establish positive peer relationships and a social network (Marcoen & Goossens, 1993). Given that alienation has been shown to be significantly associated with school dropout, gang activity, and poor peer, school-student, and teacher-student relationships (Brown, Higgins, Pierce, Hong, & Thoma, 2003), reducing alienation has become a key goal for schools. Creating a classroom environment where students feel safe, secure, and have a sense of belonging will help reduce alienation, fear and anxiety (Curran, 2003; Dwyer, 2002). Classroom climates in which there is a high degree of cooperation result in greater academic achievement (Ghaith, 2003). Youths who are attached and committed to school, are highly involved in school, and have positive beliefs or aspirations towards school and school achievement are much less likely to become seriously involved in delinquency and drug use (Sprott, 2004). It seems logical, then, that the development of SEL skills is more likely to occur in environments in  7  which mutual respect, cooperation, caring, and decision making are the norm. In other words, classroom climate counts. In addition to fostering a sense of community, it is important for all teachers to promote the affirmation of diversity in their classrooms. Teachers are now faced with larger and more diverse classrooms that include students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges (Hymel et al., 2006). Alienation has been shown to increase for students with diverse cultural and learning profiles (Brown et al., 2003). Combating bullying and alienation, therefore, requires instilling in children a respect for all peoples, regardless of culture, ability, or appearance. When teachers and peers learn to see the diverse backgrounds of their students/classmates as resources, these students’ experiences and learning profiles become positive contributions to the social, emotional, and academic life of the classroom, and students develop respect for self and other (Brown et al., 2003). By recognizing that people have different talents, we accept that everyone has something to contribute to the community (Dwyer, 2002). Thus, teachers who meet children's diverse needs are more likely to have children in their classroom who perceive school favorably (Brock et al., 2008). Attention to social and emotional issues has thus become a necessity for teachers and schools, as they try to meet the challenge of teaching children in a changing and complex world where inclusion is valued (Hymel et al., 2006). There is little argument that, ideally, all children would learn to be compassionate, kind, and responsible citizens of their communities, and that schools have some role to play in this process. However, debate has raged over to what extent schools can or should be asked to devote time to social and emotional learning given their emphasis on academic learning (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003). What is not recognized in this argument  8  is the link between social and emotional development and academic success. Strengthening students’ sense of community in school increases academic motivation and aspirations, and has a substantial effect on academic achievement (Brock et al., 2008; Zins et al., 2004). Wang et al. (1997) examined 28 categories of influence on learning. They found that eight of the 11 most influential categories involved social and emotional factors, including studentteacher social interactions, classroom climate, and peer factors. SEL improves school attitudes, behavior, and performance, including performance on standardized tests (Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Porath, 2003; Zins & Elias, 2006). In a meta-analysis of 270 research studies, Weissberg et al. (as cited in Hymel et al., 2006) found that students participating in SEL programs ranked at least 15 percentile points higher on achievement tests than students who did not participate. In fact, Welsh, Parke, and Widaman (2001) found a significant direct-path coefficient from social to academic competence (.47) during the middle elementary school years. Not only do students in SEL programs improve academically, students who then leave schools with SEL programs for schools that do not have them decrease in academic achievement (Fonagy et al., 2005). Amazingly, Caprara et al. (2000) found that students’ academic achievement in grade 8 could be better predicted from knowing their grade 3 prosocial behavior scores than from knowing their grade 3 academic achievement. Clearly, then, social and emotional skills are a significant influence on academic development. This relationship between SEL and academic learning can be explained, at least in part, by brain function. Meaningful learning involves multiple aspects of the brain. According to Gardner (1993), anatomically distinct areas of the brain are responsible for processing different kinds of information (e.g. visual images, language, sensory information,  9  etc.), thus resulting in the concept of “multiple” intelligences. Brain research has shown that learning requires both cognitive and affective processes, as emotions control a variety of academic precursors such as attention and memory (Levine, 2001; McCombs, 2004). This means that students must feel safe, comfortable, and positive about themselves and their community for them to be able to stay focussed, learn, and remember (Dwyer, 2002). SEL interventions have been shown to have the capacity to change brain function, and indeed, brain structure, producing adaptive responses in social and intellectual functioning (Davidson, 2008; Goleman, 2006). Multiple areas of the frontal and prefrontal lobes of the brain are involved in processing social and emotional information and decision making. These same areas are also involved in critical and analytical thinking; therefore, development or overwhelming of this area affects academic learning as well as social and emotional learning (Dwyer, 2002). Training in skills related to SEL has been shown to regulate brain response, such that students with SEL training can recover more quickly neurologically (i.e., literally reduce the response in the amygdala; lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol) from a negative stimulus (e.g., an incident of bullying or fearful experience), allowing them to regulate their thinking, problem solve, and respond more appropriately (Davidson, 2008). Thus, focusing only on academic instruction in an effort to help students improve academic, personal/social, and job performance is unlikely to lead to success (Adelman & Taylor, 2000; Noddings, 1995). Addressing students’ social and emotional development is therefore not an “add on” to the curriculum, but rather is an integral and necessary process for helping all students succeed.  10  Key Factors in SEL In classrooms inclusive of children with diverse cultural backgrounds, languages, and abilities, social and emotional skills become increasingly important if a supportive and caring learning environment is to be established. Children are required to negotiate social situations with others who interpret these situations in light of their diverse background experiences, values, and beliefs. Diversity in much of the research has focused on racial and cultural diversity (Pickett, 2008). However, diversity in learning strengths and challenges also creates challenges for students working and living cooperatively in learning communities (Greenberg et al., 2001). Ideally, preventative interventions help all students develop resiliency and selfworth, while at the same time facilitating positive social interactions and classroom climates. It is important that educators recognize that diversity, or diverse learners, does NOT refer to children with exceptional needs, or to children who are members of minority races alone. All children are diverse – body type, socio-economic status, personalities, ethnicities, languages, family constructions, and learning styles all contribute to the makeup of a diverse classroom. What we know from brain research is that even a group of so-called “typical” learners from Caucasian, middle class families would be diverse in how they learn best, their interests, background knowledge, and their social and emotional development (Gardner, 1983). Thus, teaching to diversity requires that teachers create a learning climate and activities that allow all children to feel safe, respected, and valued for what they have to contribute. The most effective schools seem to be those that are most able to build upon and integrate all of their diverse elements with greatest “synergy” (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003, p. 306). According to Greenberg et al. (2001), SEL programs can develop protective factors in children that reduce the likelihood of psychological or mental health problems in adolescence  11  and later life. In the elementary school years, research has clearly demonstrated that key amongst these protective factors is self and social awareness, and respect (Greenberg et al., 2001; Zins et al., 2004). According to the framework proposed by Zins et al. (2004), and accepted by CASEL and many others in the field of SEL, there are five social and emotional competencies underlying SEL: 1. Self-Awareness 2. Self-Management 3. Social Awareness 4. Relationship Skills 5. Responsible Decision Making In this framework, self-awareness incorporates elements of self-respect delineated in the literature, such as taking pride in one’s accomplishments and developing self-efficacy. However, self-respect can be distinguished from self-awareness in children because selfawareness does not necessarily include an acceptance of, and pride in, one’s strengths and challenges. One can recognize that they have strength in athletics, for instance, and challenges with reading. This recognition implies self-awareness. However, depending on the value the child places on athletics and literacy skills, this recognition/awareness may or may not result in self-respect. Thus, in the current study, self-awareness and self-respect were separated into distinct concepts to be developed/assessed. To keep language consistent, relationship management and responsible decision-making were then referred to as respect for others, as this underlies engagement in positive interactions with diverse peers. Thus, a four factor model of SEL was developed for the study.  12  Self- and social awareness. Self-awareness involves recognizing and acknowledging one’s strengths and challenges (Brandt, 1998; Hippe, 2004; Jaouen, 1990). Children who are self-aware are reflective: they know their strengths and challenges, and set realistic goals based on them. They are able to recognize their own emotions, and are aware of how they are perceived by others. Social awareness, on the other hand, involves the ability to perspective take (Zins et al., 2004). Children with well-developed social awareness recognize that others have differing strengths and challenges, are therefore able to understand others’ reactions to situations, and suggest win-win solutions to problems. Self- and social respect. Children who show self-respect are neither harshly critical nor falsely confident in speaking of themselves. They accept their strengths and challenges, take pride in their accomplishments, and believe in their ability to achieve their goals. Selfrespect, then, involves “accepting one’s current reality as well as striving towards one’s future potential” (Hippe, 2004, p. 240). Children who have self-respect embrace their strengths and see them as tools for achieving their goals and overcoming their challenges (Hippe). They are willing to take risks and try challenging tasks. These students become emotionally involved in school, and feel a sense of belonging within its walls. Respect for others parallels self-respect, in that it not only implies a realistic understanding of others’ strengths, challenges, and perspectives, but also an acceptance/valuing of them. Students who are respectful of others demonstrate empathy for others, and accept the relative strengths and challenges of others in relation to their own. They can work cooperatively with others, utilizing their own and others’ abilities appropriately (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Socially, respect for others implies an appreciation for diversity (Zins et al., 2004). Students who respect others value the contributions of their  13  classmates, seek partnerships and friendships with others of diverse abilities and backgrounds, and show appreciation when supported by others. They take pride in others’ achievements, and develop prosocial goals. Students with well developed respect for others will stand up for others when they witness injustice, and avoid behaviors that negatively impact people in their environment. Previous research has found that school and classroom climates have important effects on children's perceptions and behaviors (Brock et al., 2008; Sprott, 2004). Classrooms provide different emotional, social, and academic environments, and these factors affect student’s social and emotional learning, which in turn, affects the classroom climate (Keogh, 1998). An emotionally supportive classroom when children are 10 to 13 years old has been shown to be related to lower levels of violence two years later, when the children were 12 to 15 years old (Sprott, 2004). In order to assess the outcomes of any program, intervention or curriculum designed to promote SEL, therefore, it is important to acquire baseline measures of classroom climate, and compare them to post intervention measures. Operational Definition of SEL In a diverse classroom community of learners in which the goal is to learn in ways that develop both academic and social success for all, social and emotional learning can therefore be defined as the process of developing self and social awareness and respect within a compassionate learning community. Important Components of SEL Programs Research has begun to document important attributes of effective social and emotional learning programs (Goleman, 2004). Effective programs for developing social and emotional learning have been found to have several key components, including teaching  14  specific skills such as self-awareness, self-respect, empathy (respect for others), perspective taking (awareness of others), and cooperation (Zins et al., 2004). As well, effective programs that address non-academic student needs must be integrated into comprehensive school programs if they are to be successful over the long term (McCombs, 2004). The use of traditional short-term, primarily didactic, isolated (uncoordinated) efforts to promote SEL is not as effective as long-term coordinated efforts. Despite these research findings, the vast majority of SEL programs continue to be designed and taught as separate curricula, for a short, specified period of time with little or no linkage to other subjects or daily life in the classroom (Cooper, 2008; Zins et al., 2004). As well, many current programs tend to focus on emotional regulation and problem solving rather than on developing self and social respect. Review of Existing SEL Programs RD’s emphasis is on the promotion of positive development among all children and youth. Protective factors such as bonding to school, learning to take the perspectives of others, and developing emotional resilience as the result of self-respect keep children from harm’s way or buffer the effects of negative experiences (Zins & Elias, 2006). According to Zins and Elias, SEL programming is “intended to enhance the growth of all children, to help them develop healthy behaviors, and to prevent engaging in maladaptive and unhealthy behaviors” (p. 2). As such, SEL programs have been developed with two distinct purposes: to promote protective factors and develop competencies for all children/youth, or to prevent maladaptive behaviors in targeted samples of children/youth deemed “at risk.” The RD program addresses the first purpose; many of the comprehensive programs in existence focus on the second purpose. For instance, recently a group of prevention researchers developed an SEL program called “Fast Track.” This program is a school wide program that is intended to  15  prevent conduct disorder and associated adolescent problem behaviors (Greenberg et al., 2001). The program targets those at risk for externalizing behaviors, and works with both the children and their families. In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, a commonly implemented SEL program is “Second Step.” The Second Step model focuses specifically on skills to understand and prevent violence (Grossman & Neckerman, 1997). In the Grossman and Neckerman study, Second Step was shown to reduce aggression as measured by coded observations, though not according to parent and teacher ratings. Second Step, while perhaps useful for this one specific aspect of SEL, does not meet the criteria set out by Zins et al. (2004) for effective SEL programs, as it is short term and not integrated into the regular curriculum of the classroom, nor does it extend beyond violence prevention to the larger scope of SEL. Another program being implemented across Canada and in New Zealand is “The Roots of Empathy” (ROE). ROE has as its cornerstone monthly visits by an infant and his/her parent(s) that serve as a springboard for lessons that teach infant development, emotion knowledge, and perspective taking (Gordon, 2007). This program focuses on developing empathy and emotional understanding, and reducing aggression. ROE thus has a wider focus than many programs. One of the first comprehensive SEL programs was cooperative learning. Students not only experienced the excitement of learning academic material from one another, they also developed important skills in negotiation and conflict resolution, and a peer culture for supporting academic achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). The Child Development Project (CDP) took this one step further, integrating cooperative learning opportunities, a developmental approach to discipline, and a democratic approach to classroom management  16  (Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004). The Child Development Project closely resembles the RD program in some specific ways; it involves students working together and building classroom climate, and it emphasizes the promotion of positive development, rather than prevention of negative paths. However, CDP does not focus on diversity issues explicitly, a critical element in inclusive classrooms. In fact, CDP was found not to impact concern for others (Battistich et al., 2004). One of the more promising universal prevention programs is Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS). PATHS focuses on developing social and emotional competence through cognitive skill building (Greenberg et al., 2001). It has shown significant promise longitudinally in promoting children’s social problem solving and emotional understanding. However, PATHS does not explicitly seek to develop respect for others in diverse learning communities; much of the research conducted on PATHS curriculum has been conducted in non-inclusive classrooms, or special education classes (see for instance, Kam, Greenberg, & Kusche, 2004) . As a program designed by teachers for teachers, the RD program therefore differs in some significant ways from other SEL programs. The program was initially designed by the author, and then reviewed and modified by many teachers of grades K-12 over a 6-year period. Most SEL programs are highly scripted in their implementation, requiring teachers to teach them as a separate curriculum. The RD curriculum provides teachers with a nine-lesson script which is flexible in its implementation. Teachers can break lessons into parts, integrate them with other curricula, and extend them as they wish. The curriculum is meant to be differentiated to fit the unique context of each classroom, while still maintaining particular concepts/skills, as most curricula are. For instance, most science curricula are meant to  17  promote scientific learning/thinking, and include particular concepts and skills, but do not prescribe to teachers exactly how they be taught, in what time frame, etc. Thus the curricula recognize teachers’ expertise and can flex to fit the context of individual classrooms. The RD curriculum is meant to promote social and emotional learning/thinking; includes particular concepts and skills; but similarly does not prescribe an exact delivery model. Another unique feature of the RD program is that it uses a multiple intelligences framework to facilitate SEL. MI theory is widely known as an educational framework for the delivery of content area curricula. A search of the Chapters bookstore website turned up 111 resource books for teachers and parents on the subject (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/). Many resources exist that support teaching through the intelligences, and whether they use MI specific language or not, most curricula and university teacher training courses instruct teachers in the use of multi-modal teaching (e.g. teaching through the use of visual tasks, hands-on kinesthetic learning, etc.). Thus the RD program fits within teachers’ skill set, and is easily extended across the curriculum. According to Taylor and Dymnicki (2007), researchers have offered little information about how to infuse SEL interventions into the regular academic curriculum and create opportunities for students to learn through authentic experiences. By using MI as a framework, the RD program aims to do just this. The potential benefits of promoting positive development among all youth, not just those with identified risk factors, have been recognized by others in the prevention field (e.g., Albee, 1996; Battistich et al., 2000; Cowen, 1994). However, the health promotion model has received far less consideration in the field than the risk-reduction, prevention of disorder model.  18  Purpose of the RD Program The purpose of the RD program is to provide a framework for SEL that integrates social and emotional learning with academic instruction for diverse learners, thereby facilitating the development of self-respect and respect for others. This framework is of critical importance if we are to create compassionate learning communities, and positively influence many of the problem behaviors in our schools and communities. Goals of the “Respecting Diversity” (RD) Program Given the framework for effective programs delineated by Zins et al. (2004), it is clear that SEL programs need to develop self and social awareness and respect, and do so in an integrated fashion that creates a compassionate learning community. Greenberg (2004) pointed out that if research in SEL is to move forward, researchers will be required to collaborate with schools and teachers rather than researchers approaching schools to get their permission to test programs not currently in use. Evidence based practices have not been as widely used as they could be, and researchers have had difficulty influencing teachers, educational leaders, and schools to adopt SEL practices (Zins & Elias, 2006). The RD curriculum was developed by teachers in elementary inclusive school classrooms (including the author of this study), with the intention of developing social responsibility, the term used in British Columbia for social and emotional learning and competence. The program was integrated across the curriculum, and directly reflected prescribed learning outcomes of the Ministry of Education related to Career and Personal Planning, Anti-Bullying, Inclusive Education, and Social Responsibility (see Appendix G). Goals of the program include developing specific components of self and social awareness and respect, such as selfefficacy, goal setting, demystification of individual and class learning profiles, emotional  19  resiliency, perspective taking, empathy, and valuing diversity, as well as the creation of a positive, inclusive classroom climate. Self-efficacy, or the belief that one can be successful, is an important part of selfrespect, and a factor in student achievement (Thomas & Rohwer, 1986). Perceived selfefficacy can also affect self-management and coping efforts, as a student is more likely to persevere in a task that is challenging if they believe they will ultimately be successful, and thus develop greater emotional resiliency (Carns & Carns, 1991). In turn, students are then more capable of setting goals and being self-motivated and disciplined. High self-efficacy may also protect students from internalizing the effects of any teasing or taunting related to bullying, or becoming bullies themselves (King, Vidourek, Davis & McClellan, 2002; Weir, 2001). Students' perceived control and competence are also significant predictors of selfesteem and academic performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Wiest, Wong, & Kreil, 1998). Thus programs that encourage teachers to project hope – convincing students of their worth, power, and ability to achieve - are vitally important in diverse learning communities (McCombs, 2004). A learning model that is based on developing caring relationships and respect for the unique way each child perceives the world and learns is therefore advocated. Developing self-awareness and respect necessitates helping students understand their unique learning profile. This in turn allows students to become aware of how they learn best, and see their strengths and what they can contribute (Brandt, 1998; Jaouen, 1990). Thus students need to know how their mind works, recognize their strengths and challenges, know how to use their strengths to make choices for academic activities (e.g. choosing a project or elective course that suits their abilities) and see how their learning profile can make valuable  20  contributions to their community and future career choices (Levine, 2001, 2002; Prescott, 2001). Social awareness and respect allow students to appreciate diversity, develop respect and empathy for others, and gain an understanding of diverse learning profiles and the advantages to this diversity within a community (Peavey & Leff, 2002; Smith, 1999). Valuing diversity increases students’ tolerance for each other’s differences, and allows students to manage their relationships within diverse learning communities in prosocial ways (Brandt, 1998; Jaouen, 1990). Students working together in classrooms make up social systems. The work atmosphere and the social relations in these classes constitute the classroom climate. Students, teachers and school management influence this climate (Sprott, 2004). In a class characterized by a nurturing climate, teachers emphasize co-operation and pupils work well together. A positive relationship between the climate and the children’s adjustment, including self-esteem, interest and motivation, behavior and school achievement, has been found in a considerable number of studies (Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almqvist, 2002). In terms of peers, it has been suggested by several authors that feelings of acceptance and being valued can be achieved through the development of peer support systems that encourage a sense of community (Humphrey, 2003; Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almqvist, 2002). Thus the social context of a classroom is extremely important in shaping the child’s sense of self (Humphrey, 2004). The RD curriculum seeks, therefore, to develop self and social awareness and respect through activities that allow students to learn about their own and their classmates’ learning profiles, and work cooperatively to achieve their goals.  21  Multiple Intelligences (MI) Traditional curricula and instructional techniques focus on a narrow range of information processing and teaching techniques, primarily written and text based, and therefore create an educational disadvantage by which some students are favoured over others (Gardner, 1995; Hearne & Stone, 1995). This leaves students with differing learning profiles (e.g., those who do not learn best through text) to struggle to learn in ways that do not best fit with their learning strengths. Thus, for instance, a student with strength in visual and spatial processing, who might one day be a great architect, can be made to feel incapable because he/she is not as good a writer as others, and art is seen as being of secondary importance. These same students are then perceived by peers to be less able, which can lead to bullying or taunting (Mishna, 2003; Norwich & Kelly, 2004). For these students, negative outcomes in emotional, social, and academic development are commonly the result (McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller & Killip, 2004; Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1995). Thus, the presence of students with diverse learning profiles in inclusive classrooms necessitates a curricular framework that supports both social and emotional learning and multiple methods of engaging students in academic activities. The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 1983) is a regular education reform movement that appears to include many of the teaching philosophies, techniques, and assessment methods found to be effective for developing social and emotional learning and positive classroom climates. Students learn well through their strengths, and are more motivated academically when given opportunities to work in strength areas (Dwyer, 2002; Elias, 2004). This can be accomplished by helping students work through their multiple intelligences (Armstrong, 1994). As Elias eloquently states, “Working through multiple  22  intelligences is more than just pedagogy. It represents finding windows into the souls of children and ways to reach them in powerful and meaningful ways” (p. 58). Based on Howard Gardner’s research with typical children and adults and those with brain injuries at Harvard’s Project Zero (Gardner, 1983), MI challenges current theories surrounding intelligence, learning, teaching, curriculum, and assessment (Blythe & Gardner, 1990). Gardner postulated seven different intelligences, and later added an eighth (Checkley, 1997), as an alternative to the current single intelligence construct reflected in traditional IQ measures. Gardner (1995) believed that traditional curricula and instructional techniques utilize only two of the eight intelligences, verbal-linguistic and logico-mathematical. Thus, practices based on MI have often been cited as appropriate and facilitative of inclusion, since they are designed to accommodate a diverse range of learners (Armstrong, 1994; Eichinger & Downing, 1996; Falvey, Givner, & Kimm, 1996). MI and SEL Gardner’s eight intelligences include two social and emotional constructs. Interpersonal intelligence Allows us to develop a genuine sense of caring and empathy for each other. Through interpersonal intelligence we ‘stand in another person’s shoes’, so to speak. It is a person-to-person way of knowing through which we maintain our individuality but also become more than ourselves as we identify with and become a part of others. (Lazear, 1992, p. 17). Intrapersonal intelligence, on the other hand, Involves an awareness of the internal aspects of self – feelings, thinking processes, intuition, or spirituality. Both self-identity and the ability to  23  transcend self are a part of intrapersonal intelligence. When we experience a sense of unity…feel the lure of the future, or dream of heretofore unrealized potentials in our lives, it is the result of our intrapersonal way of knowing. (Lazear, 1992, p. 18). Interpersonal intelligence appears to include the SEL components of social awareness and respect. Intrapersonal intelligence incorporates self-awareness and respect. The recognition of these intelligences, and development of them in students, would therefore provide a vehicle for SEL programs, as well as engaging students in academic activities that are more likely to be motivating and self-managed, and build self-efficacy. However, before these intelligences can be developed, they must be introduced to students and teachers, in a way that facilitates students’ self-understanding, and appreciation for others. Demystification A process that allows students to explore their own learning profiles, the diversity of profiles that make up their community, and the advantages to this diversity would be a powerful tool in the development of children’s social and emotional well-being. Demystification is a process that provides children with more accurate personal insight (Levine, 2001). Helping students understand their strengths and challenges, and the advantages of having diverse learners in a classroom community, helps students to develop emotional resiliency and acceptance of others (Adelman & Taylor, 1984; Shepard, 2004). Demystification can take place one to one, in small groups, or in a classroom setting. The goals of demystification are to develop student’s self and social awareness and respect. In this study, the process of facilitating understanding of self and others is therefore referred to as demystification.  24  Purpose of the Study Prevention Research aims to promote the well being of children and youth and to reduce the prevalence of high-risk behaviors and poor outcomes in children, families and communities (The College of Health and Human Development Prevention Research Centre, 2008). The current research was designed in the Prevention Research paradigm, and had two distinct purposes: 1. to investigate children’s experiences of respect for diversity in inclusive classrooms, and 2. to investigate the extent to which the RD curriculum, which involves the demystification of learning profiles using a series of multiple intelligences-based learning investigations, facilitates the development of students’ self and social awareness and respect. Intermediate classrooms (grades 4-7) were introduced to an RD curriculum that allows students to become metacognitively aware (i.e., be demystified) of their learning strengths and challenges, and explore the advantages and disadvantages of a diversity of learning profiles within classroom communities. The present study contributes to and extends the literature on evaluations of school-based primary preventive interventions in several ways. First, this research was designed to investigate the efficacy of an SEL curriculum that develops self and social awareness and respect, rather than emotional regulation or problem solving. Controlling anger, and developing conflict resolution skills teaches children how to react when a problem has occurred, but they do not create a climate where respect for others and a sense of security decreases conflicts overall. Second, the RD program is long term in its implementation, and is cross-curricular. Third, this research focuses on the evaluation of a curriculum exploring children’s experience of respect for self and others in diverse, inclusive classrooms. Fourth, this research investigates the use of a Multiple Intelligences (MI) framework for developing social and emotional learning. While there is much talk of the  25  intuitive utility of MI for differentiating instruction, the author was unable to find any research investigating the outcomes of MI curriculum and instruction for social and emotional learning. Finally, this investigation focuses on the evaluation of a social emotional competence promotion program that is a “routine practice program” – that is, a program that is already being implemented in elementary schools by school staff. Wilson et al. (2003) pointed out the need to differentiate between evaluations of demonstration programs and routine practice programs. They defined demonstration programs as those in which researchers set up a program evaluation under very controlled conditions. Demonstration programs tend to be implemented by the researchers and/or teachers who are closely supervised by the researchers. By contrast, routine practice programs are programs that have been in practice in schools for some years. Evaluations of demonstration programs often have high internal validity; however they have questionable external validity because they tell us little about the program’s effectiveness under normal daily implementation by classroom teachers in the field. The RD curriculum, as stated earlier, is flexible in its implementation, and in practice by teachers – thus increasing its external validity. Internal validity for such programs can be increased and supported by cooperative work between researchers and teachers, thereby insuring fidelity to the goals of the program, while providing flexibility in its delivery. The demands on schools to be accountable for educational achievement, behavioral management, health education, and social, emotional, and character education have grown immensely. Unfortunately, researchers are often unaware of the competing demands on teachers and schools, and each discipline proposes additional programming without an adequate understanding of the precarious balance of time, resources, priorities, and skills  26  school staffs must manage (Sarason, 1996). Schools have thus been overwhelmed by wellintentioned, but fragmented, isolated prevention and promotion programs for such issues as substance abuse, racism, multiculturalism, emotional regulation, violence prevention, teen pregnancy, and conflict resolution, among others. These programs are often unrealistic in their expectations, if not actually disruptive to the central mission of schools (Greenberg et al., 2003). Thus, a program developed by teachers, that fits within the curriculum, professional skills, and vision of the schools, may be more likely to be implemented and thus sustainable (Greenberg, 2004). Research Questions 1. How aware of their own and others’ learning and social/emotional experiences are intermediate students in inclusive, diverse classrooms? 2. How is respect for self and others experienced/demonstrated by students in intermediate inclusive, diverse classrooms? 3. Is the social and emotional development of students in diverse intermediate classrooms facilitated by Multiple Intelligences curriculum and teaching, as measured by students’ self and social awareness and respect? Specifically: i.  Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles?  ii.  Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles?  27  CHAPTER 2 Method It is critically important to create a classroom climate and set of opportunities that allow social-emotional learning (SEL) skills to flourish in ways that also reflect individuals’ strengths (Elias, 2004). In so doing, students are able to develop self-respect as they become aware of their own strengths, and how to use them to achieve academic and social success. As they learn alongside others, they are also given the opportunity to recognize and see value in the strengths of others. Background Until recently, children have rarely been asked about their experiences in the education system (Hennessey, 1999). However, as diversity increases, and the complexity of the educational environment grows, it is less and less likely that adults alone, without the invested participation of the students themselves, can know all there is to know about, and solve, all of the problems our students face. Student perspectives can improve educational programming by making curriculum more accessible, creating collaborative processes, empowering students, and motivating them to participate in their education (Cook-Sather, 2002). School aged children have been shown to make competent decisions regarding personal health and education (Weithorn & Campbell, 1982). This research, therefore, was designed to be a dual investigation, first, of teachers’ and children’s experiences of respect for diversity in inclusive classrooms, and second, of the extent to which an SEL program, Respecting Diversity (RD), involving the demystification of learning profiles using a series of multiple intelligences-based learning investigations, facilitates the development of students’ self and social awareness and respect. Multiple intelligences pedagogy could  28  provide a framework for connecting social and emotional learning with academic pursuits. However, this has not previously been proposed. The current research is therefore connecting two bodies of literature in unique ways. Program Evaluation In the field of prevention science, programs often undergo a four phase sequence of evaluations to determine their efficacy in achieving their aims (College of Health and Human Development Prevention Research Centre, 2008). In the Etiology phase, an examination of etiological work that may lead to the creation and implementation of an intervention is undertaken. In the Formative Evaluation phase an evaluation is designed to produce qualitative and quantitative data and insight during the early developmental phase of an intervention, including an assessment of (1) the feasibility of program implementation; (2) the appropriateness of content, methods, materials, media, and instruments; and (3) the immediate (e.g., 1 hour to 1 week) or short-term (e.g., 1 week to 6 months) cognitive, psychosocial, psychomotor (skill), and/or behavioral impact of an intervention for a welldefined population at risk. In the Efficacy Evaluation phase an evaluation of the extent to which a new (untested) intervention produced significant changes in a behavioral impact or a health outcome rate is explored: Did the intervention produce significant changes among a sample population at risk under optimal program-practice conditions? In the final phase, An Effectiveness Evaluation of the extent to which an existing (tested) intervention with documented internal validity produced a significant change in a behavioral impact or health outcome rate is undertaken: Did the intervention produce a significant change among a large, representative sample of a well-defined population at risk under normal program-practice conditions?  29  The RD program was created and implemented as a grassroots response to the growing diversity in inclusive, elementary school classrooms. The etiology phase, therefore, occurred prior to the undertaking of this research. Teachers honed this program initially in primary classrooms, before it began to be taught to practicing teachers from K-7, and later at the university level to student teachers preparing to teach grades K-12. Thus feasibility of implementation and the appropriateness of content, methods, and materials were also confirmed in clinical practice before formal research was ever undertaken. In a pilot study (Katz & Porath, 2005) designed to provide further, more detailed formative evaluation, the RD program was implemented by the first author with fourteen students in grades 4-7 who were both gifted and learning disabled. Following the program, students and parents were interviewed to explore their perceptions of the outcomes of this experience for themselves and/or their child. Parent and student responses were then coded using a content analysis procedure reflecting outcomes related to self-awareness, self-respect, social awareness, respect for others, and/or other themes. Results indicated that students believed that the program had increased selfawareness, and awareness and respect for others. Parents, by contrast, felt strongly that the program’s greatest impact was on their child’s self-respect, and on other themes such as parent-child relations, and improved attitudes toward school. The pilot study was used to hone interview questions and frameworks for coding responses and outcomes in the current study. However, the outcomes are limited in terms of their generalizability, due to the small sample size, lack of a control group, and uniqueness of the profiles of students who are both gifted and learning disabled.  30  The current phase of assessment reflects, therefore, a final phase of the formative evaluation of this curriculum. That is, this study focused on the immediate (e.g., 1 hour to 1 week) or short-term (e.g., 1 week to 6 months) cognitive, psychosocial, emotional, and/or behavioral impact of an intervention for a well-defined population. The study thus expanded and developed the pilot study in several ways. First, the sample (218 students) was much larger, and was comprised of diverse students (i.e., students of all ability levels and learning styles, including students with exceptional needs) from regular education classrooms. Second, a control group was used, and classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or control group situations. Third, because a “central question (of current research) is how effective are prevention programs under ‘real world conditions’” (Greenberg, 2004, p. 8), regular classroom teachers were trained in program implementation, and implemented the program in their own classrooms. Fourth, a blind coder was used to review qualitative interviews to first surface students’ and teachers’ experiences of the program, before thematic analysis took place by the author. This allows outcomes related and not related to self and social awareness and respect to be surfaced directly from the data, and reliability measures to be taken. Finally, quantitative measures were included in addition to the qualitative measures to triangulate the data. The methodology for this study parallels common practice in the field of SEL program evaluation (e.g. Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma, 1995). This involves pre intervention/program delivery and post intervention measurement processes using both qualitative and quantitative measures. A quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design was used. To address the research questions, there is no choice but to adopt a quasiexperimental design. One of the realities of program adoptions in school districts is that these  31  decisions are driven by district policy and not by evaluators interested in determining the effect of a particular program or intervention. As a result, evaluators, by and large, cannot control how students and teachers are assigned. This reality makes experimental design nearly impossible and forces evaluators to use quasi-experimental design at best (Slayton & Llosa, 2005). Statistical methods for control of these nesting effects were used, and will be discussed in a later section. A number of experts in the field of prevention science have suggested that program evaluations be directed by recent theory and research in children’s social and emotional development (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2006). In this methodology, the underlying theoretical framework of the program was used to determine the measures/variables to be studied (e.g. self and social awareness and respect), and explore the transformative nature of the program. Reviews of evaluations of prevention programs in the area of social competence promotion suggest the importance of examining multiple dimensions of competencies and behaviors (Graczyk et al., 2000; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2006). Thus, self and social awareness and respect (4 factors of SEL), and class climate were investigated, in addition to other variables students perceive as important outcomes of diverse classrooms, and the RD program, as surfaced by thematic coding analysis. Design Debate has raged over the benefits of qualitative and quantitative research in the field of program evaluation for many years (Slayton & Llosa, 2005). However, recent research has indicated that a combination of the two methods may be most powerful (Ercikan & Roth, 2006; Smith, 1994), and many authors now argue that, in addition to the use of quantitative methods, scientifically based research designs should employ qualitative methods when the  32  goal of the research is to evaluate program effectiveness (Patton, 1987). Elias and others have identified the need for a new model of researcher they term “a participant conceptualizer and praxis explicator” (as cited in Greenberg, 2004, p.10). To conduct program evaluation research, Greenberg argued that multiple methodologies are needed, including naturalistic and descriptive studies in addition to experimental trials. Quantitative research can clearly indicate whether there are changes from pre to post intervention. Qualitative methods have the power to explain why and how program outcomes were or were not attained, as they allow researchers to eliminate potential explanations for differences between the treatment and comparison groups (Rossi, 1994). A second benefit of using rich narrative data can be that they add significantly to the usefulness of the findings for policy-making purposes (Slayton & Llosa, 2005). Finally, it seems misdirected to talk about program outcomes related to students’ feeling about themselves without directly speaking to them; children’s insights can help us to understand the effects and evaluate the effectiveness of SEL programs (Hennessy, 1999). As Cook-Sather (2002) poignantly states, “There is something fundamentally amiss about building and rebuilding an entire system without consulting at any point those it is ostensibly designed to serve” (p. 3). In the study herein, therefore, several dimensions of social and emotional learning were examined both quantitatively and qualitatively, including class climate, self-awareness, self-respect, social awareness, and respect for others. Other themes that emerged from content analysis of the interviews are also discussed.  33  Participants and Settings School District Participants were drawn from a large suburban public school district in British Columbia, Canada, in which the author teaches part time. The district serves 22,512 students from grades K-12. The district supports a full inclusion model (based on the BC Ministry of Education definition) for elementary students – all students attend their neighborhood school and are enrolled in regular education classrooms. Support services are provided in school and in class to facilitate inclusion. Students in the schools speak more than 57 languages, and more than 60% of the student population is learning English as a second language. Schools Five elementary schools participated in the study (see Table 1). All schools enrolled students from K- Grade 7. Treatment group classes and control group classes were located in separate schools, to avoid transference of program materials/ideas. Two schools served as treatment schools. Teachers in the schools participating in the study supported each other through co-planning and discussion. Three schools served as control group schools, and no intervention was made in these schools between pre and post testing.  34  Table 1 School Demographic Data Group  School #  Number of  Total  ESL %  classrooms  Student  Below  /teachers  Population  Poverty  involved  SES (%  Line)  Treatment  1  3  300  58%  26.4  Treatment  2  2  403  67%  33.2  Control  3  1  300  48%  26.4  Control  4  2  507  72%  19.3  Control  5  1  385  56%  33.2  Teachers. Teachers involved in the study ranged in experience, age, and education level (see Table 2).  35  Table 2 Teacher’s Demographic Data Teacher #  Age  Experience  Education Level  1  54  15  Masters  2  60  36  Bachelors  3  45  8  Bachelors  4  59  19  Post Baccalaureate  5  38  6  Bachelors  6  56  18  Masters  7  32  5  Bachelors  8  59  24  Post Baccalaureate  9  41  2  Bachelors  Students. Two hundred and eighteen students from grades 4-7 took part in the study (See Table 3 for demographic information). Forty-nine and a half percent were boys, while 50.5% percent were girls. Mean age was 11 years. Students for whom English was a second language made up 67.4% of the sample, which is common in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The dominant languages spoken were Asian in origin; for specific breakdowns of first language spoken, see Table 3. The treatment group consisted of 121 students, while the control group had 97 students. Chi square analyses were used to investigate any group differences, including differences in gender, age, first language, and ability. A significant difference was found for grade (X2 [3,N=218]=7.754, p<.051), with the treatment group  36  having more grade fives, while the control group had more grade sixes. All subsequent analyses controlled for grade.  37  Table 3 Student Demographic Data Category Grade  Age  Gender  First  Treatment Group  Control Group  Total  4  34  23  57  5  28  12  40  6  18  26  44  7  41  36  77  9 years  34  22  56  10 years  28  13  41  11 years  18  26  44  12 years  40  36  76  13 years  _1  0  _1  Male  59  49  108  Female  62  48  110  English  45  26  71  Language Chinese  56  44  100  Punjabi  1  4  5  Tagalog  11  8  19  Spanish  1  2  3  Other  7  12  19  20  16  36  101  81  182  Ability  Exceptional Needs Typical  38  Participation in the study was high (see Table 4 for specifics), with 94% of eligible students participating. Students who had moderate to severe cognitive disabilities, or who had not developed sufficient proficiency in the English language to take part in the programs’ activities and complete measurement scales and interviews were excluded from the study. Table 4 Participation Rates by Classroom Classroom #  Grade Level  Group  Participants  % Participation  /Eligible Participants 1  7  Treatment  22/26  85  2  4/5  Treatment  23/23  100  3  5/6  Treatment  24/24  100  4  4/5  Treatment  24/27  89  5  6/7  Treatment  28/28  100  6  6/7  Control  25/26  96  7  6/7  Control  22/25  88  8  5/6  Control  27/27  100  9  4  Control  23/25  92  218  94  Total Participation  39  The Intervention Training Procedures SEL programs, no matter how well developed, researched, and acclaimed, can only be successful with appropriate implementation. When important program components are not delivered, or are altered, or when pacing or affective quality is changed, program outcomes can be affected. Previous research has indicated five components of successful implementation: (a) the degree to which program components were delivered as prescribed (adherence), (b) the frequency and duration of the program administered (dosage), (c) qualitative aspects of the program delivery (e.g. content, affective quality), (d) participant responsiveness, and (e) program differentiation - the extent to which only the experimental group received the intervention, (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000). Few studies in the literature have throughly investigated implementation. In their review, Domitrovich and Greenberg (2000) found that only 21% of studies investigated more than one dimension of implementation, despite linking variability in implementation indices to program outcomes. Dane and Schneider (1998) differentiated between strategies that promote integrity and implementation, and procedures that verify them. For instance, creating a manual with clear instructions and training of program deliverers promotes implementation, while meeting with deliverers throughout the intervention period and having them keep records of adherence, dosage, etc. verifies implementation. To promote program implementation, intervention teachers attended a three hour training workshop with the author and were provided with a manual detailing lesson plans, extensions, etc. (see Appendix A). Weekly consultation and observation meetings were held on an individual basis, intended to enhance the quality of implementation through modeling,  40  coaching, and providing ongoing feedback regarding program delivery. At times these meetings were one to one after school, and at other times, took place in the classroom with students present, during RD lessons. At these times, the author co-taught lessons, gave feedback to the teachers, or clarified ideas for students when requested to do so. To verify implementation, teachers were asked to keep records of any changes they made to lesson plans, dosage, their feelings about each section/lesson, and the reponses of the children. Teachers also kept records of the extensions of the program, for instance, the frequency of use of the language of multiple intelligences across the curriculum, references to program lessons, etc. Finally, teachers were surveyed at the end of the program to ascertain their feelings about the RD program, and the extent to which it was extended throughout their teaching (see Appendix B). Program Procedure Quality SEL programs have been found to share several common characteristics. They view students as active learners, and employ interactive techniques such as group work, discussions, cooperative learning, and role-plays (Graczyk et al., 2000). The RD program involves nine introductory lessons in which students explore their own learning strengths and challenges, and those of others in their community (see Appendix A). They work both individually and in small groups on tasks that require a variety of intelligences/approaches, and discuss how their strengths, and the strengths of others, are reflected in task outcomes. They complete a survey which identifies their strengths and challenges by intelligence and explore career options related to their profile. They engage in role-plays and discussions concerning what the world would be like without different types of diversity. Students also study brain anatomy to gain an understanding of how different learning profiles all reflect  41  strengths in different aspects of brain function, and are equally "smart" and important to a community's survival. All of these lessons are in keeping with British Columbia Ministry of Education “Health and Career Education” (2006) learning outcomes for these grade levels, and thus posed no ethical risk to participants. Teachers were encouraged to use the vocabulary and framework of multiple intelligences theory throughout their curriculum to connect this program to the everyday life of the classroom. Resources were provided to teachers to facilitate their ability to plan science, social studies, math, and literacy activities using an MI framework. Data Collection The school district in which the study was conducted has a formal process for application to conduct research. Once district permission was received, principals were approached at a meeting to recruit volunteers to participate in the study. Five principals volunteered. Teachers within these five schools were then presented with the opportunity to take part in the study at school based staff meetings. Nine teachers volunteered, and all were included in the study. Classes were divided into upper intermediate (grade 6/7) classes, and lower intermediate (grade 4/5) classes, and then randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Following this, parental consent and student assent were sought and received. Teachers were asked to send home and collect consent forms from parents (using active consent). The researcher then introduced the study to the students, and assent was sought in writing. Thus teachers, parents, and students were all asked to actively give consent/assent to the study. As schools are often reluctant to have students placed in non-treatment groups, it has been suggested that analyses that utilize a phase-in of a program over time may lead to more acceptable design models for collaboration between schools and researchers  42  (Greenberg, 2004). Thus, subsequent to the end of data collection, teachers from the control group classrooms were trained in the RD program, so as not to deny any of the participants its benefits. Each child was individually assessed twice, pre- and post-intervention, over a two month period. Multiple measures, including qualitative and quantitative measures, were used to assess all five variables (self- awareness, self-respect, social awareness, respect for others, and class climate) (see Appendix C). Completion of these scales took approximately an hour each time (i.e., one hour pre-intervention, and one hour post-intervention). Measures Many of the quantitative scales used were created and/or utilized by the Child Development Project (CDP), a consortium involved in designing and assessing SEL programs (scales can be attained from their website, http://www.devstu.org/cdp/). 1. Scales of Self-Awareness: a. The Revised Self-Consciousness Scale, (Scheier & Carver, 1985) includes sub-scales on private and public self-consciousness. This measure has been used in a wide variety of studies, and reports internal consistency of .75 and .84, respectively. Test-retest reliability was also reported at .76 and .74, respectively. The private self-consciousness scale focuses on children’s “tendency to think about and attend to the more covert, hidden aspects of self…for example, one’s privately held beliefs, aspirations, values, and feelings.” (p 687). Items such as “I generally pay attention to my feelings” and “I’m constantly thinking about my reasons for doing things” measure children’s inner awareness and propensity for reflective thinking. Public self-  43  consciousness refers to an awareness of those aspects of self observed by others and the import given to how one is perceived by others. Items such as “I care a lot about how I present myself to others” and “I’m concerned about what other people think of me” are used to assess students’ degree of reflectivity regarding the impression they create of themselves in social settings. 2. Scales of Self-Respect: a. Two subscales of the Marsh Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) (Marsh, 1992) were used to measure students’ self-respect. The Academic Self Concept Subscale was used to assess participants’ respect for their abilities and accomplishments in school. Reliability for this subscale was reported at .89. Items such as “I learn things quickly in all school subjects” and “I like to try challenging projects/activities” reflect students’ confidence and emotional involvement in an academic realm. In addition, the General Self Concept Subscale was used to measure students’ respect for their abilities and accomplishments outside of school. Reliability for this subscale was reported as .89. Items such as “I have a lot to be proud of” and “In general, I like being the way I am” reflect students’ acceptance of their strengths, achievements, and challenges in and out of school. b. In addition to the SDQ, items from the self-efficacy, emotional control, and relationships with peers subscales of the Resiliency Inventory (RI) (Song, 2004), were used to assess students’ belief in their ability to achieve their goals, emotional management, and their sense of belonging within a social  44  network. Items such as “When there is a lot to think about or do, I can break it into smaller pieces and handle one thing at a time until everything gets done” and “I am popular among friends” reflect these factors.  3. Scales of Social Awareness: a. The Perspective Taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983) was used to assess students’ awareness of others’ points of view. Reliability for this subscale was reported as .79. Items such as “I know when people are upset, even when they say nothing” and “It’s easy for me to understand why other people do the things they do” reflect students’ comfort with the skills involved in perspective taking. b. As well, the Compliance Goals subscale of the Social Goals Questionnaire (Wentzel, 1993) measures the import children give to others’ perspectives, with items such as “How often do you think about how your behavior will affect other kids? Reliability for this subscale was reported as .74. c. Finally, the Extrinsic Motivation scale (CDP) assesses the motivations behind children’s helping behavior. Children who help “Because I want to get a reward or praise from the teacher” are aware of how they are perceived by others, but are not empathically motivated. Internal consistency for this scale is reported as .68. 4. Scales of Social Respect: a. The Empathic Concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983) was used to assess students’ concern for others and prosocial  45  behavior. Items such as “I often feel sorry for other children who are sad or in trouble” and “I try to understand how other kids feel before I decide what to say to them” reflect students’ empathic thinking and behavior. Reliability for this subscale was reported as .80. b. As well, the Prosocial Goals subscale of the Social Goals Questionnaire (Wentzel, 1993) was used to investigate the degree of thought and import given to setting prosocial goals. Items such as “How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has happened to them?” and “How often do you try to help your classmates learn new things?” reflect students’ empathic and helping behaviors. Reliability for this subscale was reported as .84. An additional item (“How often do you try to choose a partner with a different learning strength or language than you?”) was added to this scale to explore students’ willingness to work with diverse others. c. The Altruistic Behavior subscale of the Intrinsic Prosocial Motivation scale (CDP) was used to assess the degree of students’ prosocial motivation behind their helping behaviors. Reliability for this subscale was reported as .82. d. Seven items from the CDP’s classroom supportiveness scale were adapted by changing the prefix “In my class kids…” to “I” to assess students’ willingness to work with diverse others, be supportive and encouraging, and take pride in the achievements of others. For instance, the item “In my class kids care about my work as much as their own” was converted to “I care about my classmates’ work as much as my own”.  46  e. Finally, the “Acceptance of Outgroups” scale (CDP) was used to assess students’ attitudes towards people different from themselves. Reliability for this scale was reported as being between .81-.85. 5. Scales of classroom climate a. To assess changes in classroom climate, the CDP –Student Autonomy and influence in the classroom and Classroom supportiveness and safety subscales of the “Sense of school as a classroom community” instrument was used. This scale explores students’ perspectives on the degree of student input and autonomy available in their classroom, and their feeling of safety and supportiveness as defined by such factors as the presence of respectful interactions, and helping behaviors, the feeling of caring, and the degree to which the learning community shared vision and goals. Reliability for these subscales was reported as .81 for the Student Autonomy and influence in the classroom subscale and .85 for the Classroom supportiveness and Safety subscale. The scale has been shown to be strongly correlated with observational measures of student supportive and friendly behavior (r = .60, p < .001), and student spontaneous prosocial behavior (r = .61, p < .001) (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994). b. In addition, the Global Portrait of Social and Moral Health for Youth (GPSMHY) (Davidson & Kmelkov, 2006) scale was used to assess students’ attitudes and behaviors relating to valuing diversity, and the extent of shared vision and goals present in their classroom. Items such as “Kids here do not talk to or include those who are different” and “Kids believe that working together, they can bring about a change in their school or community” are scored on a 5  47  point scale from completely disagree to completely agree. Reliability for this scale is reported as .73. c. Finally, the “Louvain Loneliness Scale for Children and Adolescents” (Marcoen, Goossens, & Caes, 1987) was used to assess the degree of belongingness/alienation and loneliness students experience in their classroom before and after the RD program. Reliability for this scale was reported as .87. 6. Interviews were conducted pre and post intervention regarding participants’ experiences of self and social awareness and respect and experience of the program (post intervention), with a targeted sample. This sample of participants was chosen to represent gender and age/grade balance, and a subset of students with learning disabilities and recent immigrants for selective analysis. These interviews took several forms: a. In the initial interview, a semi-structured interview exploring students’ experiences of diversity and respect was conducted (see Appendix D). As well, a case study/scenario depiction (e.g., a scenario of a student who struggles to read) was used with questions that focus on perspective taking ability (social awareness), attitudes to diverse others, and empathy (respect for others) (see Appendix E). b. Post intervention, a semi-structured interview exploring targeted students’ experiences of diversity, respect, and the RD program was undertaken (see Appendix D). As well, a second case study/scenario depiction was utilized (see Appendix E). Teachers were also asked to complete the aggressive with peers (alpha = .89-.92), excluded by peers (alpha = .93-.96), and prosocial with peers (alpha = .91-.92) subscales of  48  The Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) to triangulate children’s self-reports related to respect for others and classroom climate with teacher observations of children’s behavior. This “multiple informant strategy” (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993, p.19) has become a common framework for research in SEL and child behavior.  49  CHAPTER 3 Results Qualitative Student Data Interviews were conducted by a research assistant who was both a practicing teacher with students of this age, and a graduate student in Education. Interviews were conducted in the students’ home schools during school hours. Interviews were then transcribed verbatim. Responses to interviews were initially coded by this same research assistant, who was familiar with the process of thematic content analysis, but unfamiliar with the goals of this study. Subsequently, the research assistant was given the operational definitions of the five dependent variables, and asked to look for comments related to these variables. The author then coded the same interviews thematically, looking for content related to self-awareness, self-respect, social awareness, respect for others, and any other themes that emerged. These categorizations of statements from students related to the five themes were then compared to those surfaced by the research assistant, to ensure reliability. Reliability was calculated for a sub-sample of ten interviews, achieving 92% agreement. As quantitative data revealed no significant differences in outcomes for students with learning disabilities or for whom English is a second language, students responses were coded together as coming from a single pool. Quantitative Student Data Data were examined using a process recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998). Initially, negative items were recoded. Data from the scales for each variable were then aggregated to assess changes in class climate and self and social awareness and  50  respect pre and post intervention. Reliability was computed for each scale; all scales had reliability (coefficient alpha) greater than .7 (see Table 5). Table 5 Scale Reliability Coefficients Scale  Reliability (Pretest)  Reliability (Posttest)  Revised Self-Consciousness Scale  .79  .83  Marsh Self-Description Questionnaire  .92  .90  Resiliency Inventory (RI)  .90  .90  Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)  .91  .93  Social Goals Questionnaire  .91  .91  Acceptance of Outgroups  .88  .88  Sense of school as a classroom community: .80  .87  Student autonomy and influence in the classroom Sense of school as a classroom community: .81  .85  Classroom Supportiveness, Safety Global Portrait of Social and Moral Health  .70  .70  .91  .92  .79  .84  for Youth Louvain Loneliness Scale for Children and Adolescents The Child Behavior Scale  51  The five dependent variables studied are all conceptual groupings. For instance, selfawareness is understood theoretically to be a combination of factors such as an awareness of how one is perceived by others, emotional awareness, reflective thinking, etc. (see Appendix I for detailed information). Similarly, self-respect includes such attitudes and skills as accepting one’s strengths and challenges, taking pride in accomplishments, being emotionally involved in school, and seeking help when appropriate. Thus it was expected that, statistically, each of the five dependent variables would be composed of several subfactors that loaded onto the main factor. A factor analysis was conducted, and items from each conceptual grouping were loaded onto a single factor to determine if they were, in fact, related. Each of the five main factors explained from 30-50% of the variance, indicating a significant single factor for each aggregated variable, in addition to several smaller, subfactors, as would be expected from the theoretical framework underpinning the study. Following this, scales were aggregated (i.e. the items of all scales for each dependent variable were combined into a single measure) and reliability coefficients calculated to determine whether scales correlated with each other, as a second measure of relationship between the scales/factors. Alpha reliability scores for all five aggregated scales were above .7 (see Table 6).  52  Table 6 Aggregated Scale Reliability Coefficients Aggregate Variable  Reliability Pretest  Reliability Posttest  Self-Awareness  .79  .83  Self-Respect:  .94  .93  .88  .89  .94  .94  .77  .79    SDQ    RI  Awareness of Others   IRI    SGQ  Respect for Others   IRI    SGQ    Classroom Supportiveness    Acceptance of Outgroups  Class Climate   Classroom Supportiveness    Student Autonomy    GPSMHY    Louvain  53  Histograms were used to check for a normal distribution, and all data fit this criterion. Group means were then checked for any pretest differences in terms of demographics and pretest composite scores. As mentioned in the previous chapter, chi-square analyses showed no pretest group differences for sex, age, number of students with exceptional needs, SES, or ESL level, but did show a significant difference for grade level. Thus all subsequent analyses controlled for this factor. Between groups differences on pretest scores were not significant (Table 7). Table 7 Comparison of Pretest Scores across Treatment Groups Aggregate Variable  F  Significance level  Self-Awareness  1.703  .193  Self-Respect  2.104  .148  Awareness of Others  1.373  .243  Respect for Others  .817  .367  Class Climate  .609  .436  Missing data were then examined for patterns; none were found by individual or by item/scale. There are many arguments regarding the best ways to deal with missing data (Hair et al., 1998). For this reason, analyses were run twice, first with complete cases only, and then using imputation for missing data. In the case of the imputed analyses, missing data were replaced with the mean for that individual student on the scale involved.  54  As the dependent variables were aggregated, a principal components analysis was used to calculate factor scores for each of the five dependent variables, providing weighted scores for each. Using these weighted scores, a repeated measures MANCOVA was then computed using complete cases only, controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined, F (5, 141) = 8.88, p =000. A second repeated measures MANCOVA was then computed using imputed means and principal components, controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined, F(1, 209) = 23.244, p =.000. Finally, a MANCOVA was computed using a complex plan to control for nesting effects , F(1, 209) = 20.575, p =000. These results were all significant at the .01 level, thus demonstrating that the nesting of students in classrooms, and classrooms in schools, did not significantly impact results. Thus, the reported values are from the second (imputed means) MANCOVA, as it allowed for the greatest power and a repeated measures analysis (see Table 8). Table 8 MANCOVA Results Aggregate Variable  df  F  partial η  Overall  5,204  14.267*  .23  Self-Awareness  1,209  23.244*  .10  Self-Respect  1,209  48.635*  .17  Awareness of Others  1,209  23.974*  .08  Respect for Others  1,209  32.817*  .13  Class Climate  1,209  42.411*  .13  * = p<.01  55  Qualitative Teacher Data (Implementation and Program Effects) As implementation data were collected from treatment teachers only (n=5), data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics only, and a thematic analysis completed of teachers’ comments at the end of the program. Quantitative Teacher Data (Student Behavior) A similar process was undertaken for teacher data as was done with student data. There were no missing data. Thus, a principal components analysis was used to calculate factor scores. Using these weighted scores, a repeated measures MANCOVA was then computed controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined. These methods of analyses were conducted to allow for evaluation of the efficacy of the program; guide future research; and lend direction to the program’s refinement in an effort to support the social and emotional development of diverse students. Student Experiences in Diverse Classrooms Question #1 – “How aware of their own and others’ learning and social/emotional experiences are intermediate students in inclusive, diverse classrooms?” Before the program began, students were interviewed to explore their understanding of self and social awareness, and their personal experiences in diverse classrooms. Students supported many of the definitions in the extant literature related to self-awareness – they explained it primarily as being related to recognizing emotions, and being aware of how they are perceived by others. They spoke of a person who was aware of how they were perceived by others as “caring about what you do, your actions” (grade 6). Many students talked about the effects of bullying as illustrative of their emotional awareness. “If somebody hurts you,  56  your heart, you feel like broken in some way” (grade 6). Students also associated awareness with respect. Several students commented that one had to be a reflective, self-aware person to be respectful of self and others because “respect comes from your inner body, in your mind, because you think about it” (grade 4). The schools in which these students were enrolled were very multicultural, so it is not surprising to find that students discussed diversity and awareness of others most often in cultural terms, rather than in terms of abilities, challenges, or affinities. For example, “There are a lot of people from different places around the world” (grade 5) and “lots of different people in my class have different cultures” (grade 7). Perspective taking was rarely discussed, except in the case of helping behaviors and avoiding negative interactions, such as “you help but don’t do it for them” (grade 5) and “you don’t go into other people’s business and boss them around” (grade 7). Question #2 – “How is respect for self and others experienced/demonstrated by students in intermediate inclusive, diverse classrooms?” Students confirmed many of the factors associated with self-respect and respect for others in the literature, and also added some interesting qualities of their own. Again, students did not refer to the concepts of strengths and challenges, but instead talked about “being positive” (grade 7) and “confident” (grade 7). One student defined self-respect as “I had courage” (grade 5); another as “I am proud of myself” (grade 6). Students defined resiliency in terms of perseverence. “You don’t put yourself down because you have done something wrong. You’re trying to fix your mistakes and go back and try to improve” (grade 6). Several students referred to self-respect as avoiding self-destructive behaviors such as “not putting myself down” (grade 5) and “not doing bad stuff with yourself” (grade 6).  57  Students also added a new aspect of a youthful definition of self-respect not discussed in the literature. Interestingly, given the current concern about childhood obesity and dropping physical activity levels, students discussed healthy living as an aspect of selfrespect. They discussed taking care of yourself physically, such as eating healthy foods and exercising. One student remarked “I think I respect myself because I work out everyday. I have good hygiene” (grade 7). Students also commented that someone who has self-respect is independent, or does not just follow the crowd; instead, they “make their own choices” (grade 6). Students had a lot to say about respect for others. Again, students confirmed many of the factors associated with respect for others in the literature, but also added some unique interpretations. Students spoke of being respectful as showing empathy and kindness. “You respect others feelings” (grade 4) and “you are kind to them” (grade 5). The multicultural emphasis continued in their discussion of valuing diversity as an aspect of respect for others. Students talked about attending school with students from other countries and cultures as being an opportunity. “You can learn from different cultures; people think differently and that’s a good thing” (grade 6) and “it’s better with different – you get to learn from others” (grade 4). A truly respectful person, one student commented, “makes friends with someone they don’t normally talk to” (grade 6). Students did not refer to diversity in terms of abilities and interests except in one student’s case, who spoke of a classmate with autism and said, “You shouldn’t make fun of her” (grade 4). As before, students referred frequently to the absence of negative behaviors as defining respect for others. You are respectful when “you don’t hurt others, put them down, touch their stuff, etc.” (grade 4).  58  Students also added some interesting insights into what respect for others looks like in the pre-teen years. They talked about issues such as fairness (a respectful person treats others fairly) and admiration – respecting someone means you “think someone else is good at something” (grade 6). Respectful people, they said, are “friendly” and “share.” Students also repeated a lot of definitions from school settings. Being respectful means you “listen,” “pay attention,” “raise your hand,” “don’t distract others, etc.” Students also referred to respectful people as having good manners; “be polite.” Interestingly, many students linked respect for others with self-awareness and respect. A respectful person, they said, has a conscience. “My heart tells me to say I’m sorry” (grade 5) and knows “being respectful is a choice, and I choose to be respectful” (grade 6). Formative Evaluation of the RD Program Question #3 – “Is the social and emotional development of students in diverse elementary classrooms facilitated by Multiple Intelligences curriculum and teaching, as measured by students’ self and social awareness and respect?” Overall MANCOVA results indicated significant differences post intervention between treatment and control groups, F(5, 204) = 14.267, p=.000, with treatment group students increasing overall SEL scores, and control group students decreasing. This pattern of decreasing scores for control groups (i.e., students who have had no intervention for SEL), is commonly found in the literature (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Partial η for this MANCOVA was .23, which is considered to have “practical significance” in social sciences research (Barnett, 2008). According to Cohen (2003), large effect sizes are rarely found in education; small to moderate effect sizes predominate (see for instance, DuBois, Holloway, Valentine & Cooper, 2002; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007).  59  Univariate tests were then used to determine specific relationships between treatment groups and the five dependent variables, in an effort to answer the following questions. 1. Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles? a. Quantitative Student Data. Results indicated significant differences in the change from pre to posttest scores between treatment and control groups for both self-awareness, F(1, 209) = 23.244, p =.000, partial η = .10, and selfrespect F(1, 209) = 48.635, p =.000, partial η = .17. However, these results were opposite in direction. Students in the treatment group decreased in selfawareness, while students in the control group increased (Figure 1).  Figure 1. Means for self-awareness by treatment group.  However, students from the treatment group increased in self-respect, while students from the control group decreased (Figure 2).  60  Figure 2. Means for self-respect by treatment group.  b. Qualitative Student Data. Students’ definitions and feelings of self-awareness and respect changed significantly following the intervention. When asked, “Did this program change the way you think about yourself?” students overwhelmingly replied yes, and went on to describe how exploring their strengths and challenges had impacted their sense of self. “It feels like I’m learning the inside of my body,” (grade 7) one student remarked. “It was enlightening – interesting to find out what our strengths and challenges were” (grade 6). Students noted that they had rarely thought about their learning profile before. “Before I was confused, like which way I am good at … I thought I didn’t know that much about myself. I felt good” (grade 7). They felt more comfortable and accepting of themselves. “I know my strengths and I know what I need to improve, and it’s ok” (grade 7). Several students commented that this new found knowledge had encouraged them to set goals,  61  take risks with their learning, and persevere through challenges. “You set a goal with your weakness and you challenge yourself” (grade 7); “it feels like I can think about my future and do some plans” (grade 7). Some students also expressed a greater comfort level with themselves and how others perceived them. “I felt like I could finally show people that I learn this way and not that way. I’m sort of proud of it. I’m a little more happy because these people know” (grade 4). Another student remarked, “I liked learning about the intelligences because it wouldn’t look bad if just I wasn’t good at this one thing” (grade 5). This sense of belonging, of not being alone, was mentioned on several occasions. “You feel like you’re not the only one, and it’s ok” (grade 4). Students felt they had become more confident and resilient in their sense of self “even when everyone else says you’re dumb you’re like just because I can’t do this doesn’t mean I’m dumb. I’m just as smart as them, even smarter” (grade 4). This confidence allowed students to become more comfortable with exposing their challenges and asking for help. “I know what I’m good at and what I need help in and there’s lots of people that could help me” (grade 6). Perhaps most succinctly put, “Like about myself, I can like, um, about the inside of my body…I can let it out” (grade 7). c. Qualitative teacher data. Teachers felt the program impacted students’ selfesteem and their understanding of their unique learning profile. “It is a good way for students to understand that just because they find certain areas of school work challenging, they are not dumb. In fact, they are all smart in some way – this builds their self-esteem.”  62  2. Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group demystification regarding the value of diverse learning profiles? a. Quantitative Student Data. Results indicated significant differences between treatment and control groups for awareness of others, F(1, 209) = 23.974, p =.000, partial η = .08, respect for others, F(1, 209) = 32.817, p =.000, partial η = .13 and class climate F (1, 209) = 42.411, p =.000, partial η = .13. In all three cases, scores for students from the treatment group increased, while scores for students from the control group decreased (Figures 3, 4, and 5).  Figure 3. Means for awareness of others by treatment group.  63  Figure 4. Means for respect for others by treatment group.  Figure 5. Means for class climate by treatment group.  b. Qualitative Student Data. When asked whether the program “had changed how you think about others,” students articulated a variety of attitudes, skills, and knowledge gained through their experiences with the RD program that impacted their relationships with others. Students expressed a growing awareness of the different strengths and challenges experienced by their peers, “knowing that everyone learns differently than you – it makes me understand that there’s different smarts – everyone is smart in different ways” (grade 4).  64  This increased students’ awareness of the perspectives of others when facing a challenge they did not share; “I really understood how they felt to be like that, how it would be harder” (grade 4). This understanding, in turn, impacted their attitudes and behavior towards these peers. “I can get to know them and know what their strengths are and what are their weaknesses like that. So I didn’t bully them about that” (grade 7). One student described how this awareness had allowed him to initiate friendships with diverse others he might not have previously associated with. “I can like know their strengths and maybe I could be friends with them and stuff” (grade 5). Many students expressed how they had come to empathize with the diverse learners in their class. “Before when I saw someone act a little different I was like, I think they are a little weird but now after I’ve seen this, I realize they’re all the same as us, they just might act a little different cause they have challenges” (grade 7). Students developed empathy for diverse others. “You care for other people, and you think about their feelings” (grade 5). In particular, students expressed how the lesson about challenges associated with each intelligence had increased their empathy for people with disabilities. “I realized how hard it is for disabled people to live. A lot of people are special in their own way – I should have known that before” (grade 5). Students differentiated this from pity, however. “I don’t feel bad for them; it just taught me something so I know that everybody has strengths. It feels ok. It feels good” (grade 6). In fact, students learned to appreciate the value of diversity for their lives. “It made me realize how the world would be without the MIs and how difficult it would be for  65  people” (grade 7). “If you didn’t have different smarts, the world would be just like one thing and it would be a mess kind of” (grade 4). One student summed it up: “It’s good to have different” (grade 4). This attitude translated into behavior that affected students’ interactions and the class climate. Students talked about how they treated each other with respect. “They help you and help you get better in other subjects and they make you learn more” (grade 7). We “use our manners,” “share,” and “ask what’s going on, do you have any problems, what’s on your mind?” (grade 5). This also translated into a reduction of negative behaviors. “Before some people might make fun of them and then when they like listen to it they stop making fun of them” (grade 7). “It explained how other people with disabilities feel, so people won’t go ‘haha you’re blind! Ahh ha!” (grade 6). In fact, not only did negative behaviors reduce, positive support seemed to increase. “If you are being teased by other people, they might stand up for you, people tell them to stop”(grade 7), and “you just say that’s ok, you’ll get better next time and just try to make them feel better” (grade 6). Students also referred to a reduction in racist comments and attitudes. “You don’t talk behind their back…just because they are from a different country” (grade 6). Perhaps as a result of this understanding, students expressed a belief that they had developed a sense of community in the classroom. “We help, sit next to each other at lunch” (grade 5). “When they do something good, you respect them kind of” (grade 4). One student expressed this feeling, “Since I started talking, and started getting around, being partners and groups - I started to  66  learn more about how you have to work as a team, and um, to be good to each other” (grade 7). c. Quantitative Teacher Data. Teachers responded to two questions regarding program effects: i. “Generally, how do you feel now about the RD program?” on a five point Likert scale ranging from very negative (1) to very positive (5). Mean score for this response was 4.5. ii. “Did the RD program have a positive effect on the students in your class this year?” on a five point Likert scale ranging from “No, not positive” to “Yes, very positive.” Mean score for this response was 4.0. In addition, teachers filled out the Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) for each student in their class, pre and post. Results indicated that teachers saw a significant difference in overall student behavior, F. (1, 209) = 4.07, p =.045, partial η = .11 with the treatment group increasing in positive behaviors and the control group demonstrating fewer positive behaviors. Specifically, there was no difference between groups in aggressive behaviors. However, prosocial behaviors increased for students in treatment classes, and decreased for students in control group classes, F(1, 209) = 5.15, p = .028, partial η = .15. As well, students in treatment group classes were less excluded by peers F(1, 209) = 3.72, p = .05, partial η = .10, and increased in social responsibility F(1, 209) = 3.9, p = .05 partial η = .97. By contrast, students in control group classes experienced increased exclusion, and decreased in social responsibility.  67  d. Qualitative teacher data. In general, teachers were quite positive about the outcomes of the program. All five teachers involved commented they would have liked to go deeper and spend more time, but heading into Christmas holidays, report cards, etc. they felt pressed for time. Teachers felt the program had helped the students to become better acquainted with one another. “I liked the lesson with the community brain – it really helped the students to appreciate each other. My students enjoyed the program.” Teachers, like students, noted that there was a greater level of comfort in facing challenges. “They realized how everyone can contribute and it’s ok to ask for help.” “Students who had difficulties in specific areas, for example, math, felt comfortable asking for help.” Several of the teachers commented in particular on the final lesson – exploring disabilities associated with the different intelligences. They felt this lesson had really impacted students’ understanding and behavior related to students with exceptional needs. “Most students began to think seriously about what it would be like to be severely challenged. They became more aware of our student with autism, and how they can try and include her.” Implementation Implementation for all five teachers was uniformly high. All teachers completed all nine lessons, and rated themselves as very engaged for each lesson with the exception of the optional lesson (#8), which they rated as “somewhat engaged.” Adaptations were minimal, such as adding an icon for each intelligence to the class poster, a sample flag for the class brain, etc. Teachers did not feel the need to adapt the actual lesson sequence at all, although  68  some noted they did a bit of review such as, “Let’s remember the nine intelligences,” “tell your partner what your strength was” at the beginning of the lessons to remind students of what they had done previously. All teachers made some effort to extend the program across the curriculum. All teachers reported extending the MI language and planning activities based on MI into language arts, social studies, mathematics, and personal planning curricula. However, the frequency of this extension varied widely, from “once or twice” to daily extension.  69  CHAPTER 4 Discussion Poet Carl Sandburg once said that the worst word in the English language is exclude. In recent years, the educational systems in both the United States and Canada have undergone significant educational reforms, including a movement toward inclusive education that places children of diverse racial, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and learning abilities together in regular education classrooms. If we are to include, however, we must build a compassionate learning community that recognizes the deeper needs of the human soul, including a sense of safety, of belonging, of being a part of something meaningful. This leads to lifelong understanding of who we are, why we’re here, and what we have to contribute (Palmer, 2007). Learning cannot be separated from living. The human mind cannot learn when overcome with a sense of anxiety, alienation, and stress (Grover, Ginsburg, & Ialongo, 2007). If we are to build a less violent and more compassionate world, we need to nurture a deeper sense of self in our children, while expanding their ability to empathize with and value diverse others (Miller, 1998/99). Palmer (1998/99) described a “system of education so fearful of things spiritual that it fails to address the real issues of our lives – dispensing facts at the expense of meaning, information at the expense of wisdom. The price is a school system that alienates and dulls us” (p. 6). At the same time, demands to prepare students for a global world require expanded curriculum, technological knowledge and skills, and higher literacy rates than ever before. Teachers struggle to balance the demands on time and energy, their own and that of their students. Thus, to combat alienation, growing rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide (Modrcin-McCarthy & Dalton, 1996), and at the same time meet academic and  70  curricular demands, schools must begin to explore instructional frameworks that integrate a spiritual paradigm with academic learning. By spiritual, I do not mean religious. Rather, spiritual education means teaching to the heart and mind. It means exploring the deeper meanings of what we learn, connecting with the community we learn and live with, and coming to know ourselves. Palmer describes spiritual questions of a general nature, such as, “Does my life have meaning and purpose?”, “Do I have gifts that the world wants and needs?” and discipline specific questions, such as, “Why does a historian care about the ‘dead’ past?” and “Why does a biologist care about ‘mute’ nature?” The answers always lie within our relationships to ourselves, our community, and our world. It is in this form of inquiry learning that compassionate classrooms evolve. In response to the need for a curriculum that addresses curricular and spiritual issues, the RD program was designed by teachers, for teachers. Developed initially in elementary school classrooms, it has now been implemented K-12. The intent of the program is to develop a compassionate classroom climate for diverse students, thereby supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic learning. Research in the field of SEL has identified four interrelated constructs that, when developed, lay the foundation for students social and emotional learning (Greenberg et al., 2001; Zins et al., 2004). Self-awareness and self-respect allow children to feel confident in their abilities; set goals and persevere through challenges; and develop the emotional coping skills necessary to stay healthy in the adolescent years. They allow children to answer broad spiritual questions with a resounding, “YES!” Yes, my life has meaning. Yes, I have gifts that the world wants and needs. Yes, I matter. Awareness of and respect for others help children to develop social skills, build positive relationships,  71  and work cooperatively with diverse others – skills necessary for employability and personal well-being across the life span. They allow children to develop a sense of being a part of something bigger than themselves, of connection to a living community, a living planet. The purpose of this study was to hear directly from the children about their experiences in diverse, inclusive classrooms, and to explore the outcomes of the RD program relevant to these four social and emotional factors – to the development of the spirit. Self-awareness and Self-respect Before the program began, students defined self-awareness and self-respect in terms of emotional regulation and self-confidence in both academic and social situations. By the end of the program, students had broadened their definition to one that included more focus on a metacognitive awareness of how they learned, their strengths and challenges, and what they had to contribute to their learning community. This allowed students to feel more comfortable taking risks, because, after all, “everyone has challenges”, and to persevere through these challenges. Quantitative data indicated a significant increase in treatment group self-respect. In contrast, self-awareness decreased for treatment group participants. This finding appears to be contradictory to past findings regarding the association between selfawareness and self-respect (e.g., Weissberg et al, 2004). However, the current finding may have been due to the instrument used to measure self-awareness. This scale was a measure of “self-consciousness,” and included items such as “I’m always trying to figure myself out”, and “I usually worry about making a good impression.” While the authors hoped this would assess students’ reflective tendencies and awareness of how they were perceived by others, students appear to have interpreted this as a negative statement; that is, someone who “worries” about their appearance/image actually lacks self-respect or confidence. Interviews  72  conducted post-analyses confirm this interpretation. Thus, self-awareness, in this definition (i.e., being concerned about one’s image, feelings, or behavior) became negatively correlated in participants’ minds with self-respect, a result born out by the statistical findings. Metacognitive knowledge and skill are necessary precursors to students’ ability to be motivationally and strategically active participants in their learning (Zimmerman, 1990). Metacognition refers to the awareness that learners have about their general academic strengths and weaknesses and of the cognitive resources they can apply to meet the demands of particular tasks (Winne & Perry, 2000). Students appeared to enjoy the spiritual, inner exploration and discovering their identity as a learner during the RD program. They used words such as “thrilled”, “exciting” and “enlightening” to describe their experience. “It was very educating. I felt pretty thrilled. Because I’ve never heard of some of the things I learned” (grade 7). This development of students’ metacognitive knowledge, in the context of a safe environment in which all students are recognized as having strengths and challenges and both something to contribute and something to learn, is at the heart of the RD program. Students and teachers felt that students had increased in self-awareness and respect – a primary goal of the first four lessons of the RD program. When asked what the most valuable lessons were in terms of “changing how you think about yourself,” students pointed to learning about the intelligences and their learning profile. “I think it is so important that you see what your strengths and challenges are” (grade 5) and the lessons exploring what the world would be like without diversity “made me realize how the world would be without the MIs, and how difficult it would be for people” (grade 7). These two concepts appeared to give students the language for a metacognitive framework - “Now I know the scientific names” (grade 4) - which in turn allows students to plan their learning (e.g., I learn best this  73  way); regulate their emotional experiences (this is one of my challenges, it’s ok); and seek help when necessary (I need help with this, and I can help others with another task). Students develop an inner core, a sense of self that allows them to cope with moments of challenge in the present and hopefully into the future. When students believe in themselves, they are better prepared to deal with challenging subjects, difficult peers, exams and other anxiety provoking situations, even, yes, difficult teachers. As one student succinctly put it, “I learned more about my intelligence. So now for every other program around the school I think – if you know that you’re intelligent then nothing can get on you” (grade 4). Students came to believe in themselves and felt that their peers and teachers believed in them. They had learned to say yes. “Believing in someone is a concern of the spirit, and it matters in the classroom.” (Wesley, 1998/99). Awareness of Others and Respect for Others Ideally, preventative interventions help all students develop self-respect, while at the same time building positive relationships and social networks within a classroom learning community. In fostering a sense of interdependence amongst students, a sense of the classroom as a supportive community emerged. “We help each other in things that we are not that good at. We look at our community brain and if we are not that good at something but we see someone who is we go ask them for help but then they don’t say that we are not good, that we are dumb because they know we have strengths too” (grade 6). The classroom had become so safe, one student said, “If you are down you don’t have to like say it’s always my fault. You can talk to some people, talk about yourself. You can say ‘I suck at this’” (grade 6).  74  Diversity in these classrooms became a positive contributor to the academic and social world. Students recognized the value of having classmates from a variety of cultures, and with a variety of learning strengths, together in a learning community. “I like it. We have different personalities, different languages, different sports, different intelligences, but inside we are all alike” (grade 7). Another student remarked, “Everyone thinks differently that’s for sure. Lots of people learn differently in different levels. But no one really pays attention to that now. It’s more of the personalities that count” (grade 7). When soul enters the classroom, fear drops away (Kessler, 1998/99). Students risk exposing the pain or the shame that might be judged as weakness or stupidity- “Like umm, like if you are down you don’t have to like say it’s always my fault. They can talk to some people, talk about themselves. Yeah, like they, for example I suck at this” (grade 5). Opening the window to the perspective of others, accepting what they thought shameful in themselves, students discover compassion and begin to learn about forgiveness “Don’t think to yourself, I’ve got such a bad mark on the test, I’m so stupid. Don’t think that” (grade 4). They develop a deep sense of connection to themselves, to others, and to their world – and experience a feeling of being known and understood (Kessler, 1998/99). Perhaps Jay, a grade 7 student with a learning disability and severe behavior problems, put it best. When asked what the most important thing he learned from the RD program was, he said, “The most important thing I have learned about was people. People such as me. How someone can shine a light on you even when you are in a dark place. How all people have something to contribute. Some kids believe that there is no hope in life. That they will always fail. But these children have never heard of hope for the better, of MI and  75  that there is something for you. I used to say that hope was a bunch of lying crap but I have seen now that there is hope in the world for people like me and others.” In “Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in the Classroom,” Rushworth Kidder (1998/99) describes how, after many years of asking people what the core, universal spiritual values we all share are, people inevitably reduce the list to five key terms: Compassion/Love, Honesty/Truth, Fairness, Responsibility, and Respect. He went on to say: Among educators, parents, and students, an agreement on core ethical values can:   Help build a common language    Help define a common purpose    Develop and maintain trust    Influence total school climate to enhance the teaching and learning goals    Provide the basis on which to nurture the spirit, extend the inspirational and holistic vectors, and create a deeper sense of meaningfulness. (p. 39 )  The most predominant finding in the qualitative analysis rests in the ability of students of this age to reflect in profound and meaningful ways about their sense of self, their respect for others, and the influence of the world around them. Students made clear that the opportunity to explicitly engage in honest and open conversations about themselves, their peers, and life in an inclusive, diverse, learning community had significant impact on self and social respect “I guess I learned more about different people, how they feel, what goes on. It kind of felt a little different, we never talked about this before, but it was enlightening I would say. As it was interesting to find out what our strengths and weaknesses were. It sort of felt a little better to know that well that um it’s sort of makes you feel better that you are not the only one, and that you can understand other people” (grade 6).  76  Compassion is developed when we learn to value ourselves and others, to temper our judgements with understanding, empathy, care and concern. Giving students the language, opportunity, and support to reflect on self and others in a safe place can nurture and facilitate the development of a compassionate learning community where all students experience success both academically and socially. Many have commented on the inherent tension between diverse cultural values and public education – but as Kidder’s work clearly shows, few would argue with the desire to create and engender a compassionate, respectful attitude in our students, our teachers, and our schools. Strengths and Limitations The RD program uses a multiple intelligences framework to provide teachers and students with the language and conceptual basis to explore ethical and spiritual values that can lead to the development of a compassionate classroom climate. By using an educational framework such as MI, the program hopes to allow teachers to then connect students’ learning in the RD program to the rest of the curriculum, and throughout the year. Many resources exist to support teachers in the use of an MI framework for curricular planning, but no such resource existed to outline its use for the development of SEL. The RD program is meant to fill that gap. A second strength of the study was the opportunity to hear the voices of the children themselves. Students had a lot to say about growing up in diverse, inclusive classrooms, and while they certainly mentioned the presence at times of bullying and conflict, for the most part, they were far more positive about their experiences than past research would indicate. It is hoped that this study will lead to further exploration regarding the outcomes of an MI / SEL framework. This study took place over a very short period of time, and being  77  before Christmas, teachers expressed frustration with the limited time they had to extend and supplement the curriculum. For the same reason, the ability of the author to mentor and support teachers, guide their delivery and extension, and follow up with students was limited. Effect sizes were small, perhaps as a result. After the study took place, the author worked with teachers to design science and social studies unit using an MI/RD framework. It would have been interesting to assess teachers’ and students’ feelings and performance related to these units. A more comprehensive study, beginning at the very start of the school year, and extending throughout the year and beyond, will shed light on the long term effects of this program. Further research is also necessary to explore academic outcomes, if any, of the RD program. As well, teachers in this study were a small group with support from the author and each other. They were also volunteers, and therefore a sample biased towards implementing an SEL program, hopeful about its outcomes, and with an interest in MI pedagogy. Without carryover into all areas of the curriculum, there is little point in implementing the RD program. Telling children that everyone is valuable regardless of their learning profile, and then teaching and assessing through only one intelligence, would most likely undo any positive results. Teachers, therefore, might require support to extend the RD program into their teaching of science, social studies, literacy, and numeracy. Further study regarding implementation, training, and their relation to outcomes is necessary, especially with regard to school or district wide implementation, where some teachers’ attitudes/expectations may be less positive, or teachers may feel less confident about their ability to implement/extend it.  78  References Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric of school improvement. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 11, 7-36. Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L. (1984). Ethical concerns and identification of psychoeducational problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13, 16-24. Albee, G. W. (1996). Revolutions and Counterrevolutions in Prevention. American Psychologist, 51, 1130-1133. Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N., (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students' 'connectedness' to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 243-262. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1994, April). Students and teachers in caring classroom and school communities. In D. Solomon (Chair), Schools as communities, recent investigations. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Blythe, T. & Gardner, H. (1990). A school for all intelligences. Educational Leadership, 47, 33-37. Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2006). Health and Career Education. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/irp_hce.htm  79  Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufamn, S. E. (2008). Children's perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129-149. Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Hong, E., & Thoma, C. (2003). Secondary students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of disability, gender, and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 227-239. Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression: some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19-36. Carns, A. W., & Carns, M. R. (1991). Teaching study skills, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive skills through self-diagnosed learning styles. School Counselor, 38, 341347. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven…and the eighth. A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55, 8-13. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Initial impact of the fast track prevention trial for conduct problems: ll. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648-657. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14. Cooper, J. L. (2008). The federal case for school-based mental health services and supports. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 4-8. Cowen, E. L. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness: Challenges and opportunities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 149-179.  80  Curran, M. E. (2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 42, 334-341. Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23-45. Davidson, M. L., & Kmelkov, V. T. (2006). A global portrait of social and moral health for youth. http://www.cortland.edu/character/instruments.asp Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113126. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-269. Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 193-221. Dubois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197. Durlak, J. A. & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after school programs that promote personal and social skills. Retrieved March 18th, 2008, http://www.casel.org/pub/articles.php  81  Dwyer, B. M. (2002). Teaching strategies for the twenty-first century: Using recent research on learning to enhance training. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 265-270. Eichinger, J. & Downing, J. E. (1996). Instruction in the general education environment. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Elias, M. J. (2001). Preparing children for the tests of life, not a life of tests. Education Week, Retrieved March 17th, 2008, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=04elias.h21 Elias, M. J. (2004). The connection between social-emotional learning and learning disabilities: Implications for intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 53-63. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303-320. Elias, M. J., Zins, , J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35, 14-23. Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C., & Kimm, C. (1996). What do I do Monday morning? In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion - A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.  82  Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S., Vernberg, E., Sacco, F. C., & Little, T. D. (2005). Creating a peaceful school learning environment: The impact of an anti-bullying program on educational attainment in elementary school. Medical Science Monitor, 11, 317-325. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1995). Multiple intelligences as a catalyst. English Journal, 84, 16-18 Ghaith, G. (2003). The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement and perceptions of classroom climate. Educational Research, 45, 83-93. Gill, H., & Chalmers, G. (2007). Documenting diversity: an early portrait of a collaborative teacher education initiative. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11, 551-570. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Goleman, D. (2004). Foreward. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. vii-viii). New York: Teachers College Press. Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Gordon, M. (2007). Roots of Empathy: Changing the world, child by child. Toronto: Thomas Allen Press. Graczyk. P. A., Weissberg, R. P., Payton, J. W., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Zins, J. E. (2000). Criteria for evaluating the quality of school-based social and emotional learning programs. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: The theory and practice of development, evaluation, education, and application--at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 391-410). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  83  Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: The researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5, 5-13. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, Article 1a. Retrieved February 13th, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/psycarticles/ Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117-136. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466474. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology. 83, 508-517. Grossman, D. C. & Neckerman, H. J. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605-1612. Grover, R., Ginsburg, G. & Ialongo, N. (2007). Psychosocial outcomes of anxious first graders: a seven year follow-up. Depression & Anxiety, 24, 410-420. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.  84  Hearne, D. & Stone, S. (1995). Multiple intelligences and underachievement: lessons from individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 439-448. Hennessy, E. (1999). Children as service evaluators. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 4, 153-161. Hippe, J. (2004). Self-awareness: A precursor to resiliency. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 12, 240-243. Humphrey, N. (2003). Facilitating a positive sense of self in pupils with dyslexia: The role of teachers and peers, Support for Learning, 18, 129–35. Humphrey , N. (2004). The death of the feel-good factor? School Psychology International, 25, 347-361. Jaouen, P. (1990). Fostering students' awareness of learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 14. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). The three cs of promoting social and emotional learning. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp.40-58). New York: Teachers College Press. Katz, J., & Porath, M. (2006). The impact of demystification on the social and emotional learning of students who are gifted and learning disabled. Manuscript submitted for publication. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence as an aspect of general intelligence: What would David Wechsler say? Emotion, 1, 258-264.  85  Kelly, B., Longbottom, J., Potts, F., & Williamson, J. (2004). Applying emotional intelligence: exploring the promoting alternative thinking strategies curriculum. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20, 221-241. Keogh, B. K. (1998). Classrooms as well as students deserve study. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 313-314, 349. Kessler, R. (1998/99). Nourishing students in secular schools. Educational Leadership, 56, 49-52. Kidder, R. (1998/99). Resolving ethical dilemmas in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 56, 38-41. King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A. Davis, B, & McClellan, W. (2002). Increasing self-esteem and school connectedness through a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal of School Health, 72, 294-300. Kutcher, S., & Davidson, S. (2007). Mentally ill youth: meeting service needs. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176, 417. Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024. Lazear, D. (1992). Teaching for multiple intelligences, fastback 342. Bloomington, IN.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Leslie, K. (2008). Youth substance use and abuse: challenges and strategies for identification and intervention. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178, 145-148. Levine, M. (2001). Educational care. Cambridge, MA.: Educators Publishing Service Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.  86  Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1-23. Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1993). Loneliness, attitude towards aloneness, and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. In: S. Jackson & H. Rodriguez – Tomé (Eds.), Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. 197-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L., & Caes, P. (1987). Loneliness in pre- through late adolescence: Exploring the contributions of a multidimensional approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 561-577. McCombs, B. L (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing academic achievement and social-emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers College Press. McDougall, J., DeWit, D. J., King, G., Miller, L. T., & Killip, S. (2004). High school-aged youths' attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: The role of school and student interpersonal factors. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 51, 287-313. McEwan, K., Waddell, C., & Barker. J. (2007). Bringing children’s mental health “out of the shadows.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176, 471-472. Miller, J. P. (1998/1999). Making Connections Through Holistic Learning. Educational Leadership, 56, 46-48. Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 336-347.  87  Modrcin-McCarthy, M.A., & Dalton, M. M. (1996). Responding to healthy people 2000: Depression in our youth, common yet misunderstood. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 19, 275-290. Newcomer, P. L. & Barenbaum, E. (1995). Depression and anxiety in children and adolescents with learning disabilities, conduct disorders and no disabilities. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 3, 27 – 40. Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, pages. Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils' views on inclusion: moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30 ,43. Palmer, P. J. (1998/1999). Evoking the spirit in public education. Educational Leadership, 56, 6-11. Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Peavey, K., & Leff, D. (2002). Social acceptance of adolescent mainstreamed students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 808-811. Pickett, L. (2008). Diversity education: Respect, equality, and social justice. Childhood Education, 84, 158. Porath, M. (2003). Social understanding in the first years of school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 468-485. Prescott, H. M. (2001). Helping students say how they know what they know. Clearing House, 74, 237-243.  88  Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F. Zoccolillo, M. & Pagani, L. (2001). Prevalence of psychiatric diagnosis and the role of perceived impairment: Findings from an adolescent community sample. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 42, 451-461. Rossi, P. H. (1994). The war between the quals and the quants: Is a lasting peace possible? In Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 23-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-167. Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York: Teachers College Press. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687-699. Schirmer, B. R., & Casbon, J. (1995). Inclusion of children with disabilities in elementary school classrooms. Reading Teacher, 49, 66 - 69. Schonert-Reichel, K. A., & Hymel, S. (2007). Educating the heart as well as the mind: Social and emotional learning for school and life success. BCTF – Research, Retrieved March 17th, 2008, from http://bctf.ca/publications/BCTF-research.aspx?id=14376. Schonert-Reichel, K. A., Smith, V. & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2006). Can an infant be a catalyst for change? Effectiveness of the “Roots of Empathy” program in fostering the socialemotional development of primary grade children. Manuscript submitted for publication.  89  Shepard, J. S. (2004). Multiple ways of knowing: Fostering resiliency through providing opportunities for participating in learning. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 12, 210-217. Slayton, J., & Llosa, L. (2005). The use of qualitative methods in large-scale evaluation: Improving the quality of the evaluation and the meaningfulness of the findings. Teachers College Record, 107, 2543-2565. Smith, L. (1999). True diversity. Education Week, 18, 33. Smith, M. L. (1994). Qualitative plus/versus quantitative: The last word. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 37-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Somersalo, H., Solantaus, T., & Almqvist, F. (2002). Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 285-291. Song, M. (2004). Two studies on the Resilience Inventory (RI): Toward the goal of creating a culturally sensitive measure of adolescent resilience. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B - The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4089. Sprott, J. B. (2004). The development of early delinquency: Can classroom and school climates make a difference? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 553-572. Taylor, R. D., & Dymnicki, A. B. (2007). Empirical evidence of social and emotional learning's influence on school success: A commentary on "Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say?," a book edited by Joseph E. Zins, Roger P. Weissberg, Margaret C. Wang, and Herbert J. Walberg. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 225-231.  90  Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. Jr. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19-42. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294. Weir, E. (2001). The health impact of bullying. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165 1249. Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth. American Psychologist, 58, 425-432. Weissberg, R. P.; Resnik, H., Payton, J., & O'Brien, M. U. (2003). Evaluating social and emotional learning programs. Educational Leadership, 60, 46-50. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 3-22). New York: Teachers College Press. Weithorn, L. A., & Campbell, S. B. (1982). The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions. Child Development, 53, 1589-1599. Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., & Widaman, K. (2001). Linkages between children's social and academic competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463482. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364 Wesley, D. C. (1998/99). Believing in our students. Educational leadership, 56, 42-45. Wiest, D. J., Wong, E. H., & Kreil, D. A. (1998). Predictors of global self-worth and academic performance among regular education, learning disabled, and continuation high school students. Adolescence, 33, 601 – 619.  91  Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136-149. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17. Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers College Press.  Zins, J.E., & Elias, M.E. (2006). Social and emotional learning. In G.G. Bear & K.M. Minke (eds.), Children's Needs III, (p1-13). National Assocation of School Psychologists.  92  Appendix A – Program Manual  Respecting Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning Communities To educate means “to develop and cultivate” (MerriamWebster, 1978). To teach, on the other hand, is defined as “to cause to know; to show how; to guide; to make to know the consequences of” (Merriam-Webster). Education, therefore, includes more than instruction in academic subjects; and teaching includes more than just content delivery. Education must develop the whole child and cultivate all of the skills, attitudes, and knowledge necessary for successful integration into society. Thus, practices such as inclusion that aim to educate students in the full sense of the word must promote their social, emotional, and physical development, in addition to their academic achievement. It is important that we all recognize that diversity, or diverse learners, does NOT refer only to children with exceptional needs! All children are diverse – fat/thin, rich/poor, personalities, ethnicities, languages, family constructions, and learning styles all contribute to the makeup of a diverse classroom. What we know from brain research is that even a group of so-called “typical” learners from Caucasian, middle class families would be diverse in how they learn best. Thus, teaching to diversity requires that teachers create a learning climate and activities that allow ALL children to feel safe, respected, and valued for what they have to contribute.  93  The Respecting Diversity (RD) Program The goals of the RD program include developing specific components of self and social awareness and respect such as self-efficacy, goal setting, emotional resiliency, perspective taking, empathy, and valuing diversity, as well as the creation of a positive, inclusive classroom climate. Helping students understand their strengths and challenges, and the advantages of having diverse learners in a classroom community, helps students to develop emotional resiliency and acceptance of others. Traditional curricula and instructional techniques focus on a narrow range of information processing and teaching techniques, primarily written and text based, and therefore create an educational disadvantage by which some students are favoured over others (Gardner, 1995; Hearne & Stone, 1995). This leaves students with differing learning profiles (i.e., those who do not learn best through text) to struggle to learn in ways that do not best fit with their learning strengths. Thus, for instance, a student with strength in visual and spatial processing, who might one day be a great architect, can be made to feel incapable because he/she is not as good a writer as others, and art is seen as being of secondary importance. These same students are then perceived by peers to be less able, which can lead to bullying or taunting. Introducing the concept of Multiple Intelligences (MI), in which all learning profiles are recognized as equally valid and valuable, can help to create a climate of self acceptance and acceptance of others. As Elias (2004) eloquently states, “Working through multiple intelligences is more than just pedagogy. It represents finding windows into the souls of children and ways to reach them in powerful and meaningful ways” (p. 58).  94  MI recognizes the different ways in which the human brain processes information. Proposed by Howard Gardner at Harvard, MI explores the types of information processed by the brain, and the ways in which people acquire knowledge, solve problems, and represent their knowledge and understandings. Gardner worked with patients with brain injuries to determine these processing pathways, and map them within the brain. Thus far, he has identified 8 different “intelligences”, that is, 8 different ways in which the brain processes a specific type of information, and uses it to solve problems, and demonstrate understandings.  The Intelligences VISUAL/SPATIAL - Visual spatial intelligence is the capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly. Information Processing Code = images. These children learn best visually and by organizing things spatially. They like to see what you are talking about in order to understand. They enjoy charts, graphs, maps, tables, illustrations, art, puzzles, and costumes - anything eye catching.  VERBAL/LINGUISTIC - Verbal linguistic intelligence is the capacity to develop verbal skills and sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words. Information Processing Code = language. These children demonstrate strength in the language arts: speaking, writing, reading, and listening. These students have always been successful in traditional classrooms because their intelligence lends itself to traditional teaching.  LOGICAL/MATHEMATICAL - Logical mathematical intelligence is the ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical or numerical patterns. Information Processing Code = numbers and patterns. These children display an aptitude for  95  numbers, reasoning and problem solving. This is the other half of the children who typically do well in traditional classrooms where teaching is logically sequenced and students are asked to conform.  BODILY/KINESTHETIC - Body Kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to control one's body movements and to handle objects skillfully. Information Processing Code = tactile information. These children experience learning best through activity: games, movement, hands-on tasks, and building.  MUSICAL/RHYTHMIC - Musical Rhythmic intelligence is the ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber. Information Processing Code = tones. These children learn well through songs, patterns, rhythms, instruments and musical expression. If you can remember the words to a song better than a poem, you know what this kind of learning is like!  INTRAPERSONAL - Intrapersonal intelligence is the capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes. Information Processing Code = feelings and perceptions. These children are especially in touch with their own feelings, values and ideas. They may tend to be more reserved, but they are actually quite intuitive about what they learn and how it relates to them.  INTERPERSONAL - Interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others. Information Processing Code  96  = nonverbal and verbal social cues. These children are noticeably people oriented and outgoing, and do their learning cooperatively in groups or with a partner.  NATURALIST - Naturalist intelligence is the ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature. Information Processing Code = sensory information. These children love the outdoors, animals, and field trips. More than this, though, these students love to pick up on subtle differences in meanings. The traditional classroom has not been accommodating to these children.  As well, a ninth intelligence has been proposed, though not confirmed:  EXISTENTIALIST - Existentialist intelligence is the sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why we die, and how we got here. These children learn in the context of where humankind stands in the "big picture" of existence. They ask "Why are we here?" and "What is our role in the world?" They want to know why what they are studying is important in the “bigger picture.” This intelligence is seen in the discipline of philosophy.  97  Introducing Multiple Intelligences to Students The RD Program Script Demystification is a process that allows students to explore their own learning profiles, the diversity of profiles that make up their community, and the advantages to this diversity. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone were verbal linguistic! We’d have lots of books, but no houses, roads, or music…. The truth is, it is only in schools that a homogeneously designed community of verbal linguistic learners is desirable. Demystifying children about their strengths and challenges leads to more accurate personal insight (Levine, 2001). Helping students understand their strengths and challenges, and the advantages of having diverse learners in a classroom community, helps students to develop emotional resiliency and acceptance of others (Shepard, 2004). The goals of demystification are to develop student’s self and social awareness and respect. Demystification can take place one to one, in small groups, or in a classroom setting. The RD program has been used in inclusive classrooms from Kindergarten to grade 7, in resource room settings, and with some adaptations, in high schools and one to one counseling situations. The nine lessons introduce vocabulary and concepts related to MI, make students aware of their own and others’ learning profiles, and build a positive learning climate.  98  RD PRO GRAM: Lesson #1 Introducing Multiple Intelligences • Brainstorm “what does it mean to be smart” • Discuss – what other ways can people be smart, what things are “you” good at, how do you learn best? • As kids give answers, record on chart paper, group into MI categories (e.g. can read well, knows lots of words, etc.) • Prompt until all 9 intelligences are on the board, fill in as necessary, e.g. “does anyone here play piano?” • Introduce vocabulary of multiple intelligences o E.g. “There are people who are word smart – they are good at…we call them Verbal Linguistic” – do this for each intelligence • Discuss, Draw and/or Journal Reflection – what do you think are your strengths? **Rationale: The intent of this lesson is to introduce language, develop accurate self-perception, recognize strengths, needs, and values, and expand children’s idea of what “smart” means, as a means of developing self-awareness. 99  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #2 MI Surveys • Complete surveys as a class • Add up totals, bar graph • Discussion and Journal reflection – were your predictions of your strengths correct? Why do you think this happened? Were there any surprises for you? How do you feel about your profile?  ** Rationale: Individual demystification allows children to develop accurate self-perception and a realistic selfconcept by recognizing their strengths, needs, and values, and increases self-efficacy as self-awareness grows. As well, journal reflections give students a chance to reflect, identify and recognize their emotions, and evaluate their reactions regarding their learning profile.  100  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #3 Community brain • Create a model of the brain from plasticene. • Have students write their strength on a flag, and put in the appropriate area of the community brain with their name. Discuss: o When you need help, look for someone with strength in that area. o We all have strengths and challenges – so we all will be the helpers sometimes, and the “helpees” sometimes. o Be sure to call on students at times for help (e.g. to draw on a chart for you, or fix something), using the brain  **Rationale: This lesson is intended to develop social awareness and relationship management skills by fostering a sense of interdependence, and community. All students have a chance to be the helper, and at times need help, thus developing students help seeking and providing skills, as well as problem solving skills. This also allows students a positive framework for managing cooperative relationships, developing communication and social engagement.  101  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #4 MI & Careers  • Looking at the earlier chart, brainstorm some activities, careers, famous people who would fit in each category (e.g. require or have great verbal-linguistic strength) • Discuss the career possibilities for people with various profiles  **Rationale: This lesson is intended to build selfmanagement skills related to self-motivation by demonstrating hope for students, as they see that there will be opportunities for success, and even fame, regardless of their learning profile.  102  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #5 MI & Interdependence • Discuss, role play, reflection journal – what would the world be like without people who have strength in ___? For instance, what would the world be like if no one was visual spatial? • What if everyone were ____? For instance, what would the world be like if everyone was verbal linguistic?  **Rationale: This lesson is intended to create social awareness of the value of diversity, and develop students’ respect for others.  103  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #6 Valuing diversity  •  Activity – Break students into groups by intelligence strength – assign a task. Then mix groups, repeat task – which worked better? Why?  **Rationale: The intention of this lesson is to build students’ explicit awareness of the value of diversity. It is intended to allow students to explore the pros and cons of working with similar and differing types of learners, and to see value in all. Students thus develop social awareness and relationship management skills.  104  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #7 Goal Setting Have students set goals: • Set goals for which intelligences you would like to develop, and how you will achieve your goal. • Set one goal in an area of strength, and one in an area of challenge. **Rationale: This lesson is intended to develop students’ self-management for goal setting and organizational skills, and self-awareness of the need to both develop strength areas, as well as challenge oneself in areas of weakness. Setting strength goals helps to explore stress management techniques for dealing with challenge goals, as students learn to use their strengths to overcome challenges. 105  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #8 Data Analysis • Have students create a survey regarding Multiple Intelligences (e.g. which of the following activities is your favorite, who do you think is the smartest, etc.). • Tally results. • Record using a variety of graph types. • Reflection Journal – What were the results of your survey? What does this tell you about how people think? **Rationale: This lesson is intended to develop students’ social awareness of common misconceptions about what intelligence is, and the diversity of learning profiles.  106  RD PROGRAM: Lesson #9 The Brain and Disabilities • Discuss with students: We all have strengths and challenges, but what would it be like to have a severe challenge in each one of the intelligences? (e. g., visual spatial – blindness). Go through each intelligence, noting the associated disabilities. Then have kids work with partners, groups to role-play. • If you had a severe challenge in one of these intelligences, what other things could you do for activities / careers? • What could you do to support community members with disabilities? **Rationale: This lesson is intended to develop students’ social awareness, and an awareness of and empathy for the challenges people with disabilities face through perspective taking role-plays. It also encourages students to reflect on their personal, moral, and ethical responsibilities within diverse communities - at the same time making students aware that having a challenge in one area doesn’t mean you are “dumb,” and that there are other things people with challenges can do. It develops students’ respect for others.  107  Extending The Program Across The Curriculum There are two primary methods of extending the RD program into the daily life of your classroom community: 1. Use MI language and activities across the curriculum. This reinforces the notion that we all have strengths and weaknesses, and allows all of your students to have a chance to develop leadership skills and self-esteem. You can extend the use of MI in each curricular area by: a. Language Arts- Using MI language when discussing ideas and activities, doing readers theatre (body kinesthetic), adding musical elements to performance of plays or scenes from books (musical rhythmic), giving value to illustrations of understanding (visual spatial), writing sportscasts (kinesthetic), having students discuss their thinking in groups or book clubs (interpersonal), exploring nonfiction related to the natural world (naturalist), and discussing deeper themes such as racism, spiritual values, globalism, etc. (existentialist) and it’s relation to students lives (intrapersonal). b. Math – Using MI language when discussing ideas and activities, having students work at math centres related to different intelligences such as tangrams (visual spatial), geoboards (kinesthetic), measurement tools (kinesthetic), musical patterning (musical rhythmic), architecture and 3D shapes (visual and kinesthetic), solving word problems (linguistic), etc. c. Science and Social Studies - Using MI language when discussing ideas and activities, engaing students in explorations and investigations such as research (linguistic and logical), experiments (kinesthetic), murals (visual spatial),  108  building models (kinesthetic), cultural studies (musical, visual, linguistic, existential), environmental studies (naturalist), etc. 2.  Emphasizing the social curriculum as extensively as the academic curriculum – holding class meetings weekly, goal setting and reflecting on strengths and challneges, reading books about diversity, writing about community issues / interdependence, having students work in flexible groupings, developing a class code of conduct, and weaving social issues across the curriculum.  109  Appendix B – Implementation Recording Sheets  RESPECTING DIVERSITY IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION INSTRUCTOR THEME REPORT Please complete each question set AS YOU COMPLETE EACH LESSON  110  INSTRUCTOR NAME______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear RD Instructor, Each page of this document addresses specific parts of each of the lessons in each of the nine themes in the RD program. The following directions will be helpful to complete this report: 1. Please note the date the lesson was completed. 2. Estimate the time it took you to complete the lesson. 3. Note if all of the materials were available for you to complete the lesson. 4. For each lesson, circle the activities of the RD program that were completed. If you were unable or did not have time to complete some parts, please do not circle that activity. If an activity was only partially completed, please note this in the margins. 5. If there is anything that you would like to add about how the lesson went, please note this in the space allotted. 6. Please note if any students are absent during the lesson (i.e., this may include students who are not at school that day, are out for Learning Assistance or ESL, or other special circumstances). This information is particularly useful for us as it helps us understand how much of the program each student received. 7. Finally, on the scale of 1 – 5 provided, rate the level of student engagement for MOST students during the lesson. Please complete the question sets AS YOU COMPLETE EACH LESSON. Provide any additional comments on the back pages of the questionnaire. Your answers will be kept completely confidential to the evaluation team at UBC. Your accurate responses to this questionnaire will greatly facilitate our understanding of the impact of the RD program. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  111  Lesson 1: Introducing Multiple Intelligences Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  ____________________ Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): ___________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did? ________ No  • • • •  ____No •  •  Brainstorm “what does it mean to be smart” Discuss – what other ways can people be smart, what things are “you” good at, how do you learn best? As kids give answers, record on chart paper, group into MI categories (e.g. can read well, knows lots of words, etc.) Prompt until all 9 intelligences are on the board, fill in as necessary, e.g. “does anyone here play piano?” Introduce vocabulary of multiple intelligences o E.g. “There are people who are word smart – they are good at…we call them Verbal Linguistic” – do this for each intelligence Discuss, Draw and/or reflection Journal – what do you think are your strengths?  ________ Yes.  Please note:  Names of Students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  112  Lesson 2: MI Surveys Date Implemented: ____________________ Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): __________________ Materials Available?  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed • Complete surveys as a class • Add up totals, bar graph • Discussion and Journal reflection – were your predictions of your strengths correct? Why do you think this happened? Were there any surprises for you? How do you feel about your profile?  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did? ________ No Please note:  ________ Yes.  ____Yes ____No Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  113  Lesson 3: Community Brain Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ Create a model of the brain from plasticene. • Have students write their strength on a flag, and put in the community brain with ____________________ their name. Discuss: o When you need help, look for Materials Available? someone with strength in that area. ____Yes ____No o We all have strengths and challenges – so we all will be the helpers sometimes, and the “helpees” sometimes. Be sure to call on students at times for help (e.g. to draw on a chart for you, or fix something), using the brain Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson: •  Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes):  ________ No Please note:  ________ Yes.  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  114  Lesson 4: MI and Careers Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ •  Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): _____________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  Looking at the earlier chart, brainstorm some activities, careers, famous people who would fit in each category (e.g. require or have great verbal-linguistic strength) Discuss the possibilities for people with various profiles  ________ No Please note:  ________ Yes.  ____No  Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  115  Lesson 5: MI & Interdependence Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ •  Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): ____________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  •  ____No  Discuss, role play, reflection journal – o What would the world be like without people who have strength in ___? For instance, what would the world be like if no one was visual spatial? What if everyone were ____? For instance, what would the world be like if everyone was verbal linguistic?  ________ No Please note:  ________ Yes.  Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  116  Lesson 6 – Valuing Diversity Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ 1. Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes):  Activity – Break students into groups by intelligence strength – assign a task. Then mix groups, repeat task – which worked better? Why?  ________ No note:  ________ Yes. Please  ____________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  ____No  Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  117  Lesson 7: Goal Setting Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  Have students set goals: • Set goals for which intelligences you would like to develop, and how you will achieve your goal. Set one goal in an area of strength, and one in an area of challenge.  ________ No Please note:  ____________________ Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): ____________________  ________ Yes.  Materials Available? ____Yes ____No Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  118  Lesson 8: Data Analysis Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): ____________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  •  • • •  ____No  Have students create a survey regarding Multiple Intelligences (e.g. which of the following activities is your favorite, who do you think is the smartest, etc.) Tally results Record using a variety of graph types Reflection Journal – What were the results of your survey? What does this tell you about how people think?  ________ No Please note:  ________ Yes.  Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  119  Lesson 9: The Brain and Disabilities Date Implemented:  Please circle all parts of the lesson that were completed  Is there anything you would like to add about how the lesson went and what you did?  ____________________ •  Estimated Implementation Time (i.e., # of minutes): ____________________ Materials Available? ____Yes  •  ____No  Discuss with students: We all have strengths and challenges, but what would it be like to have a severe challenge in each one of the intelligences? (e.g. visual spatial – blindness). Go through each intelligence, noting the associated disabilities. Then have kids work with partners, groups to role-play : o If you had a severe challenge in one of these intelligences, what other things could you do for activities / careers? o What could you do to support community members with disabilities?  ________ No note:  ________ Yes. Please  Names of students who were ABSENT for this lesson:  Level of Student Engagement 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  How did you feel delivering this lesson: 1 not engaged  2  3 somewhat  4  5 very engaged  3 somewhat  4  5 very important  I think this is an important lesson: 1 not very important  2  Please provide any additional comments/issues you think are important for us to learn as part of this evaluation.  Thank you so much for this information! Your accurate responses to this questionnaire will greatly facilitate our understanding of the impact of the RD program.  120  TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE – 2006 – 2007 (Completed at end of Program)  Name:  _________________ School: __________________  Gender: _____Male ______Female Grade Currently Teaching:____________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Participating Teacher; Thank you again for participating in this study. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Please complete the entire questionnaire. If you have any questions, please call Jennifer Katz at 604-272-1233.  1. Please look at the class lists that are attached to the envelope where you found this questionnaire. Indicate: a. Students who have moved away from the school or your classroom since September b. The names of any students who are new to your class since September. c. The first language of each student 2. What importance do you give to activities or teaching strategies that influence social and emotional development in your classroom? 1 not very important  2  3 important  4  5 very important  3. List any social/emotional development programs implemented in your school or classroom this year. Name of program/strategy (e.g., Second Step; Feeling Yes, Feeling No; Virtues Project, Bully Beware; Classroom Meetings)  Schoolwide / Classroom or Both?  o o o o o o o o o  Schoolwide Classroom Both Schoolwide Classroom Both Schoolwide Classroom Both  How much influence did this program have on the students in your class?  1 not at all  2  3 some  4  5 a lot  1 not at all  2  3 some  4  5 a lot  1 not at all  2  3 some  4  5 a lot  121  Note: (If you have additional programs, please list them on the back of this page). 4. Classroom RD Extension Activities  □ Please check this box, if you have not extended the RD curriculum in any way in your general classroom curriculum and move on to question #5. If you extended the RD curriculum, for instance by using MI language, discussing diversity issues, etc., please consider the following subject areas, determine if you offered any RD related activities in that area, and estimate the frequency. Subject Language Arts (examples of activities: using MI language, reading books about diversity, writing about community issues, interdependence, etc; ) Math (example of activity: use of MI language, extending diversity MI issues into math activities; MI centre activities)  Science (examples of activities: Use of MI language, MI centre activities)  Social Studies (examples of activities: Use of MI language, MI centre activities, diversity investigations)  Art (examples of activities: Use of MI language, MI centre activities)  Personal Planning (examples activities: Use of MI language, MI centre activities, discussions of strengths and challenges, goal setting)  RD Related Activities? (yes or no)  □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No  Frequency (please check one)  o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o  Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe) Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe) Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe) Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe) Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe) Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe)  122  Other (Describe)  o o o o o  □ Yes, RD related activities □ No, RD related activities  Once or twice Monthly (once a month all year) Weekly Daily Other (please describe)  4. Generally, how do you feel now about the RD program? 1 Very negative  2  3 Neutral  4  5 Very positive  Please provide any additional comments that you feel may help us understand your rating:  5. Did the RD program have a positive effect on the students in your class this year? 1 No, not positive  2  3 Not sure  4  5 Yes, very positive  Please provide any additional comments that you feel may help us understand your rating:  6. Which component(s) of the RD program did you feel had the most positive effect on your class?  123  7. To what degree did you feel that the principal at your school was supportive of the RD program that was conducted in your classroom this year? Read the following statements and circle one overall rating of how you felt generally, throughout the school year about your principal’s support of RD. Not supportive at all: As evidenced by not speaking positively or knowingly 1  about the RD program. Generally, expressed no interest in the process.  Somewhat supportive: Occasional support for the RD program, but did not go 2 3  4  out way to share the program “moments” and was not overt about providing logistical support for the instructor (e.g., use of school photocopier and paper, school laminator, or school camera (if available)). Supportive: Supportive of teacher’s efforts, spoke positively about RD, showed evidence of problem solving obstacles to implementation, and logistical support was offered and provided Very supportive: Acted as a “cheerleader” for the RD program. Supported the program and capitalized on its features by sharing RD within the school and the school community. Other staff and guests may have been invited into the class to see the program in action, including teachers from the school. Principal may have shared information about the RD program with other schools.  8. What is your current level of education? ____ 4 year degree  ____ 5 years  ____ Masters degree  ____ Masters +  ____ PHD 9. During this year, have you taken any special coursework/workshops in social and emotional development that applies to your current teaching position? No______ Yes______If yes, please describe: 10. Please provide any additional comments that you think might be important for us to know as part of this evaluation.  THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED WILL HELP US WITH OUR EVALUATION.  124  Appendix C – Table of Assessments Quantitative  Revised Self Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver) o “Thinking About Me” Self - Awareness  Teacher Ratings (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) o “Child Behavior Scale”  Marsh Self Description Questionnaire (1992) o “Thoughts About Me”  Resiliency Inventory (Song, 1982) Self – Respect o “More About Me”  Teacher Ratings (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) o “Child Behavior Scale”  Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) Social o “Thoughts & Feelings” Awareness  Social Goals Questionnaire (Awareness of (Wentzel, 1983) Others) o “How often do you try to…”  Developmental Studies Questionnaire (2003) Social Respect o “Helping Others” (Respect for  Teacher Ratings (Ladd & Profilet, Others) 1996) o “Child Behavior Scale”  Sense of Classroom as a Community (CDP) o “In My Classroom, Part 1 & 2”  Global Portrait of Social and Moral Health for Youth (Davidson Class Climate & Kmelkov) o “In My Classroom, Part 3”  Louvain Loneliness Scale for Children & Adolescents o “I Think / I Feel”  Analyses of Teacher  Implementation Records Implementation  Demographic Data  Qualitative  Interviews   Interviews   Interviews  Picture Stories   Interviews  Teacher Implementation Records  125  Appendix D – Interview questions Initial Interview 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  What does respect mean? Tell me a story of a time when you felt respected or disrespected. What is happening when you respect yourself? What is happening when you respect someone else? Where does respect come from? What does respect look like in your classroom? How do you experience diversity in your class? Final Interview  1. How did learning about Multiple Intelligences feel for you? 2. Looking at the summary of the RD program, what pieces were the most valuable for you? Why? 3. What pieces were not valuable? Why? 4. Did this program change the way you think or feel about yourself? How? 5. Did this program change the way you think about others? How? 6. How do you experience self-respect? 7. How do you experience respect for others? 8. How do people demonstrate respect in your classroom? 9. How do you experience diversity in your class?  126  Appendix E Picture Stories  John, Sara, Jas, and Coco were working on their project. Their teacher, Ms. Miller, had asked the students to research a country of their choice, and then create a poster they would present to the class.  The group had decided to research Japan. They discussed what to do. Jas, Sara, and Coco thought they should all go and read books about Japan, and take notes about what they learned.  John didn’t want to read books, reading was hard for him and he hated reading. So he said, “I don’t want to read. I’ll look at pictures on the net, and draw the poster. You all can read and do the writing for it.”  127  1. What do you think John is feeling? Why?  2. What do you think John is thinking? Why?  3. What do you think the other group members are feeling? Why?  4. What do you think the other group members are thinking? Why?  5. What do you think the group should do?  128  David was a grade 6 student with special needs. It took him longer to learn, and sometimes he acted like he was much younger than he was, even though he was really 11 years old. He had an aide who helped him learn in the classroom. David was really good at music and art, but he had trouble reading and understanding hard books.  The class was working on their novels. The students were sitting in groups, reading their book, and discussing what it meant. Then they were supposed to create a presentation for the class about their books.  David was sitting at the back corner table with his aide, Mr. Brown. They were reading a book and talking about it. David got up and walked over to the table where Sandi’s group was working. He looked at Sandi. “I want to work with you guys, ok?” he asked.  129  1. What do you think David is feeling? Why?  2. What do you think David is thinking? Why?  3. What do you think Sandi and the other group members are feeling? Why?  4. What do you think Sandi and the other group members are thinking? Why?  5. What do you think the group should do?  130  Appendix F – Code Definitions from Pilot Study  Sample Quotation  Category   Self Awareness      Self Respect      Social Awareness   Social Respect    (i.e. respect for others)    “Cleaning up in my mind and like letting me understand why I’m smart in this way and not in this way” “Knowing I was different than other people and encouraged me to work harder and think better” “I found out is was ok to be me!” “Some of my strengths are art, drawing, building, using Popsicle sticks, clay etc., oral presentations and my vivid imagination” “Understanding peoples needs and how people are different from each other and stuff, like they have different intelligences” “Being able to know that others and teachers understand you” “There’s other people like me around me … it makes me have hope” “I think differently about people now, I think it’s good we’re different”  131  Appendix G – Curriculum Match PLO’s addressed by the RD Program: Personal Planning Curriculum • analyse changes in personal dreams and goals • use a goal-setting process to set short-term, long-term, and group goals • analyse the factors that could influence personal goals • outline their progress in meeting short- and long-term goals • use time management and planning strategies that are personally relevant • relate components of a safe school to those of a safe community • demonstrate an awareness of factors that influence self-esteem • consistently demonstrate behaviours that contribute to a safe school and community • describe the dynamics of individual and group friendships • propose ways to be self-reliant • encourage others to contribute to a safe school and community • demonstrate interpersonal skills for maintaining positive relationships • describe their individuality within a social group • access and evaluate sources of information related to their physical, emotional, and social development • assess factors that influence their decision making regarding relationships • compile an inventory of their own attributes, skills, and successes • demonstrate an appreciation of the diversity of people’s attributes • identify effective study habits • describe changes in their personal attributes and skills • identify the talents and skills of people they admire • modify and extend their inventories of personal attributes, skills, and successes • identify the talents and skills of positive role models in a variety of occupations and careers • relate their personal inventories to occupational classifications Language Arts Curriculum • form opinions and modify viewpoints to gain further understanding of self • create a variety of oral and written communications to express their feelings and concerns • demonstrate a willingness to assume a variety of roles in group interactions • listen to and show respect for the ideas of others • review their contributions and communications within the group • use the language of praise and constructive feedback when working with others • encourage others to participate • demonstrate a willingness to work with others toward a common goal • demonstrate an awareness of the diverse languages, ideas, opinions, cultures, and contributions of their peers • demonstrate an awareness of how to use language to connect their own understanding and experience to those of others  132  • • • • • • • •  demonstrate respect for the diverse languages, ideas, opinions, cultures, and contributions of their peers demonstrate an awareness of how they can use language to display empathy and make connections with others use language to acknowledge people, commemorate special events, and honour accomplishments within the community describe the diverse ideas, opinions, cultures, and contributions of their peers acknowledge, honour, and affirm their accomplishments and life events and those of others use language to demonstrate consideration of others' perspectives and to invite participation use language to display empathy, acknowledge others' viewpoints, express the value of others' ideas, and invite participation demonstrate respect for the diverse languages, ideas, opinions, cultures, and contributions of peers and the wider community  Social Studies Curriculum • identify and clarify a problem, issue, or inquiry • assess at least two perspectives on a problem or an issue • design and implement strategies to address school problems or projects  133  Appendix H - Multiple Intelligences Survey - Elementary  Part I Complete each section by placing a “1” next to each statement you feel accurately describes you. If you do not identify with a statement, leave the space provided blank. Then total the column in each section. Section 1 _____ I enjoy sorting things into groups _____ I care about animals and saving trees _____ Hiking and camping are fun _____ I like taking care of plants or helping in the garden _____ I think we should save parks for animals and trees to live in _____ I like putting things in order _____ Animals are important in my life _____ I recycle cans, bottles, paper _____ I like learning about animals, plants, and science _____ I like playing outside a lot _____ TOTAL for Section 1 Section 2 _____ I hum or sing a lot to myself without even realizing I’m doing it _____ I pay attention to noise and sounds _____ Moving to a beat is easy for me _____ I am interested in playing an instrument _____ I like listening to poetry _____ I remember things by putting them in a rhyme _____ I like listening to music when I’m studying/doing homework _____ I like lots of different kinds of music _____ I like movies with singing and dancing in them _____ Remembering the words in songs is easy for me _____ TOTAL for Section 2 Section 3 _____ I keep my things neat and orderly _____ Step-by-step directions are a big help when I’m trying to do things _____ Solving problems comes easily to me _____ I ask a lot of questions about how things work _____ I can do math in my head quickly _____ Word problems and brain teasers are fun _____ I can’t start my work until I know for sure all the things I have to do _____ It’s easier if teachers or parents tell me exactly how to do things _____ I like using the computer to do my work  134  _____ Things have to make sense to me or I get upset _____ TOTAL for Section 3 Section 4 _____ It is important to me to know how I fit in with the world or a group _____ I enjoy discussing questions about life _____ Religion is important to me (I like going to church/temple/mosque – praying) _____ I like looking at paintings and sculptures _____ I like relaxation and meditation exercises _____ I like visiting beautiful places in nature _____ I enjoy reading about what ancient and modern people thought about the world _____ Learning new things is easier when I know why it’s important _____ I wonder if there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe (like aliens) _____ Studying about what people used to do and think long ago is interesting _____ TOTAL for Section 4 Section 5 _____ I learn best when I work with others _____ I like having lots of people around _____ It helps me to practice things with a partner _____ I like talking to people on the phone, email, etc. _____ I have more than 3 friends _____ I am a leader amongst my friends _____ I understand how other people feel and I try to help them _____ I like to teach other kids _____ Clubs and extracurricular activities are fun _____ Lots of people ask me to play with them _____ TOTAL for Section 5 Section 6 _____ I enjoy making things with my hands _____ Sitting still for long periods of time is difficult for me _____ I like outdoor games and sports _____ I pay attention to the looks on peoples faces when they’re talking _____ I try to keep my body healthy _____ I like to take things apart and put them back together again _____ I like watching people dance _____ I like working with tools _____ I do a lot of sports or exercise _____ I learn by doing and touching _____ TOTAL for Section 6  135  Section 7 _____ I enjoy reading books, magazines, comics, etc. _____ I know a lot of words for a kid my age _____ I like writing letters, e-mail, poems, or stories _____ It is easy for me to explain my ideas to others _____ I can spell words accurately _____ I like listening to other people talk or read stories _____ I write for fun, or keep a diary _____ I enjoy playing with words like puns, anagrams or tongue twisters _____ It is fun to make up stories _____ I like talking in front of the class _____ TOTAL for Section 7 Section 8 _____ I know what is appropriate and what is not right to do _____ I learn best when I care about what I’m studying _____ Fairness is important to me _____ I like playing alone _____ I am very independent and like to do my own thing _____ I like to work alone _____ I need to know why I should do something before I agree to do it _____ When I like something I try my hardest _____ I know what I am good at _____ I tell people if I think something is not nice _____ TOTAL for Section 8 Section 9 _____ I can imagine ideas in my mind _____ Rearranging a room is fun for me _____ I enjoy creating art _____ I remember well using webs, mind maps, pictures, etc. _____ Watching people perform (act, dance, sing) is fun _____ I like making pictures on the computer _____ I like making things with Lego, K’Nex, etc. _____ I daydream more than other kids _____ I can recall what things looked like from a long time ago _____ I am a good artist _____ TOTAL for Section 9  136  Part II  Now carry forward your total from each section:  Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Score  Part III Key: Section 1 – This reflects your Naturalist strength Section 2 – This suggests your Musical strength Section 3 – This indicates your Logical strength Section 4 – This illustrates your Existential strength Section 5 – This shows your Interpersonal strength Section 6 – This tells your Kinesthetic strength Section 7 – This indicates your Verbal strength Section 8 – This reflects your Intrapersonal strength Section 9 – This suggests your Visual strength  137  Appendix I – Operational Definitions  Indicators  Category    Self Awareness          Self Respect            Social Awareness         Social Respect    (i.e. respect for others)         Knows strengths and challenges, interests Reflects on inner values, beliefs, thinking, feeling Aware of how they are perceived by others Recognizes emotions Sets realistic goals Asks for help when needed Accepts strengths and challenges Takes pride in accomplishments Believes in ability to achieve goals Takes risks in learning Comfortable with emotional experience Emotionally involved in school Feels a sense of belonging Emotionally resilient Asks for help when appropriate Aware that others have different perspectives, emotional experiences Able to perspective take Aware that others have different strengths and challenges Aware of the strengths and challenges of others in their immediate environment Recognizes when others need help or assistance Can suggest win-win solutions to problems Empathic - Sensitive and responsive to others Values diversity, includes others Treats others with respect, including those who differ Stands up for others when being unjustly treated Provides help and companionship appropriately Encouraging and supportive Takes pride in others achievements Works cooperatively with a variety of classmates Develops positive relationships with diverse others Avoids negative behaviors Internalizes prosocial attitudes and values  138     Class Climate      Develops prosocial goals Classroom supportiveness - respectful interactions - helping behaviors - caring - shared vision, goals Student input Valuing diversity Safety Students have a sense of belonging, reduced alienation  139  Appendix J – Measurement Scales School: ______________________ First Name:___________________ Last Name:___________________ Grade:_______________________  Respect in Diverse Classrooms  Thank you for helping us learn more about what kids in diverse, inclusive intermediate classrooms experience. By taking part in our research project you will help us better understand how respect for diversity is experienced by students your age. REMEMBER -- this is not a test. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS, WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS, SO PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY. The information you put in this booklet will not be shared with your teacher, principal, parents, or your school friends. The researchers will be the only people to collect your booklets. When we get back to the university, we will take off the page that has your name on it and we will give you an ID number. In this way, no one will see your name with your answers. The information will then be used by the researcher to find out about respect for diversity in intermediate classrooms. Remember that NO ONE at school or in the community (not even your parents) besides the researchers will ever see your answers. Therefore, feel free to give answers that truly reflect your own feelings, situations, and understanding. Thank you for your help and co-operation!  140  OFFICE USE ONLY  OFFICE USE ONLY  School District ID  Classroom ID  School ID  Student ID  TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF  1. Are you a boy or a girl? (CIRCLE ONE)  2. What grade are you in? (CIRCLE ONE)  3. What is your birth date?  BOY  4  GIRL  5  6  ___________  7  _____  4. What is the first language you learned at home? English  Chinese  Punjabi  Tagalog  Spanish  Other  5. Which language(s) do you speak at home? English  Chinese  Punjabi  Tagalog  Spanish  Other  6. Which language do you prefer to speak? English  Chinese  7. Where were you born? Canada China  Punjabi  Tagalog  Spanish  Other  India  Japan  Philippines  Other  8. If you weren’t born here, how long ago did you come to Canada? 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years More than 5 years  141  Self-Awareness Scales Operational Definition: Self Awareness  1. Knows strengths and challenges, interests 2. Reflects on inner values, beliefs, thinking, feeling 3. Aware of how they are perceived by others 4. Recognizes emotions 5. Sets realistic goals  Scales Chosen: 3. Revised self-consciousness scale, Scheier & Carver. a. Private Self Consciousness i. Renamed: Thinking about me ii. Reliability alpha = .75 b. Public Self Consciousness i. Renamed: Thinking about me ii. Reliability alpha: .84  142  #  Questions  A lot like me  Somewhat like me  A little like me  Not at all like me  Thinking About Me  1  I’m always trying to figure myself out  1  2  3  4  2  I think about myself a lot  1  2  3  4  3  I often daydream about myself  1  2  3  4  4  I never take a hard look at myself  1  2  3  4  5  I generally pay attention to my inner feelings  1  2  3  4  6  I’m constantly thinking about my reasons for doing things  1  2  3  4  7  I sometimes step back in my mind in order to examine myself from a distance  1  2  3  4  8  I’m quick to notice changes in my mood  1  2  3  4  9  I know the way my mind works when I work through a problem  1  2  3  4  10  I’m concerned about my style of doing things  1  2  3  4  11  I care a lot about how I present myself to others  1  2  3  4  12  I’m self conscious about the way I look  1  2  3  4  13  I usually worry about making a good impression  1  2  3  4  14  Before I leave my house, I check how I look  1  2  3  4  15  I’m concerned about what other people think of me  1  2  3  4  16  I’m usually aware of my appearance  1  2  3  4  143  Self-Respect Scales  Operational Definition: Self Respect  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Accepts strengths and challenges Takes pride in self, accomplishments Believes in ability to achieve goals Takes risks in learning Comfortable with emotional experience Emotionally involved in school Feels a sense of belonging Emotionally resilient  Scales Chosen: 1. Marsh self-description questionnaire. a. Renamed: Thoughts about me iii. Academic Self Concept Subscale – Reliability alpha = .89 iv. General Self Concept Subscale – Reliability alpha = .89 2. Resiliency Inventory (RI), Song 1982. b. Items from Self-efficacy, and relationships with peers subscales. c. Renamed: More about me i. Reliability alpha =  144  Thoughts About Me # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  Questions I am good at school subjects I enjoy doing work in all school subjects I do lots of important things (not just in school) I get over my bad moods quickly I get good marks in all school subjects Overall, I have a lot to be proud of (not just in school) I learn things quickly in all school subjects I can do things as well as most other people (not just in school) I am interested in all school subjects Other people think that I am a good person I look forward to all school subjects A lot of things about me are good Work in all school subjects is easy for me I’m as good as most other people I like all school subjects When I do something, I do it well I like to try challenging projects/activities When I’ve had a bad day, I can cheer myself up In general, I like being the way I am  Never  Hardly Ever  Sometimes  Often  Always  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  145  More About Me Questions  Not at All Like Me  A Little Bit Like Me  Kind of Like Me  A Lot Like Me  Always Like Me  1. I am proud for defending what I believe in.  1  2  3  4  5  2. I make friends easily.  1  2  3  4  5  3. When there is a lot to think about or do, I can break it into smaller pieces and handle one thing at a time until everything gets done.  1  2  3  4  5  4. I like being around friends.  1  2  3  4  5  5. I try to look at a situation in different ways to understand it from different points of view.  1  2  3  4  5  6. I have fun with my friends.  1  2  3  4  5  7. Even if there are bad things, I’m able to see the good things about me and my life.  1  2  3  4  5  8. If the way that I am doing something isn’t working I try to think of different ways to do it.  1  2  3  4  5  9. I have a friend I can trust.  1  2  3  4  5  10. I am just as important as anyone else.  1  2  3  4  5  11. I have many friends.  1  2  3  4  5  12. I am popular among friends.  1  2  3  4  5  13. I am happy with the choices that I have made in my life.  1  2  3  4  5  14. I get along well with my friends.  1  2  3  4  5  15. There are lots of things I am good at.  1  2  3  4  5  16. I will get good grades in school.  1  2  3  4  5  146  Social-Awareness and Respect Scales  Operational Definition: Social Awareness  Operational Definition: Social Respect  1. Aware that others have different perspectives, emotional experiences 2. Able to perspective take 3. Aware that others have different strengths and challenges 4. Aware of the strengths and challenges of others in their immediate environment 5. Recognizes when others need help or assistance 6. Can suggest win-win solutions to problems 1. Empathic – Sensitive/Responsive to others 2. Values diversity, includes others 3. Treats others with respect, including those who differ 4. Stands up for others when being unjustly treated 5. Provides help and companionship appropriately 6. Encouraging and supportive 7. Takes pride in others achievements 8. Works cooperatively with a variety of classmates 9. Develops positive relationships with diverse others 10. Avoids negative behaviors 11. Internalizes prosocial attitudes and values 12. Develops prosocial goals  Scales Chosen: 4. Interpersonal Reactivity Index a. Renamed: Thoughts and Feelings Questionnaire b. Empathic Concern Subscale, Reliability alpha = .80 c. Perspective Taking Subscale, Reliability alpha = .79 5. How often do you try to… a. Prosocial Goals subscale, Reliability alpha = .84 b. Compliance Goals subscale, Reliability alpha = .74 6. Developmental Studies Questionnaire a. Renamed: Helping Others b. Altruistic Behavior subscale, Reliability alpha = .82 c. Intrinsic Motivation subscale, Reliability alpha = .71  147  THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS QUESTIONNAIRE The following sentences describe ways children might feel about others. For each sentence, indicate how well it describes you by circling the number that describes HOW TRUE it is for you. Read each question carefully. Thank You!! Thoughts and Feelings 1. I often feel sorry for people who  don’t have the things I have. 2. It’s easy for me to understand why  other people do the things they do.  Not at A Little Kind of A Lot Always All Bit Like Like Me Like Me Like Me Like Me Me 1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  3. Sometimes I feel very sorry for  other people when they are having problems. 4. When I see someone being picked  on, I feel kind of sorry for them. 5. I know when people are upset,  even when they say nothing 6. Even when I’m mad at someone, I  try to understand how they feel. 7. I often feel sorry for other children  who are sad or in trouble. 8. I try to understand how other kids  feel before I decide what to say to them. 9. When I see someone being treated  mean, it bothers me. 10. Even when I know I’m right, I  listen to what other people think. 11. I often have strong feelings about  things that happen around me. 12. Before I say anything bad about  anyone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were that person.  148  Thoughts and Feelings 13. I am a person who cares about the  feelings of others.  Not at A Little Kind of A Lot Always All Bit Like Like Me Like Me Like Me Like Me Me 1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  14. There are different ways to think  about a problem and I try to look at all of them. 15. When there is a problem, I try to  think of a solution that will make everyone happy 16. I care about my classmates work as  much as my own 17. I make fun of people when they  make a mistake 18. Sometimes I try to understand my  friends better by imagining how they think about things. 19. I like to work with people who are  different from me 20. I usually can tell how other people  are feeling 21. When someone in my class does  well, I feel good.  149  HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRY TO . . . ? For each sentence, indicate how well it describes you by circling the number that describes HOW TRUE it is for you. Read each sentence carefully. Thank you.  How Often Do You Try To . . . ?  Never  Hardly Ever  Sometimes  Often  Always  1. How often do you try to cheer someone up when something has gone wrong?  1  2  3  4  5  2. How often do you to try to share what you’ve learned with your classmates?  1  2  3  4  5  3. How often do you try to keep promises that you’ve made to other kids?  1  2  3  4  5  4. How often do you try to keep secrets that other kids have told you?  1  2  3  4  5  5. How often do you try to do what your teacher asks you to?  1  2  3  4  5  6. How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has happened to them?  1  2  3  4  5  7. How often do you try to help other kids when they have a problem?  1  2  3  4  5  8. How often do you try to help your classmates learn new things?  1  2  3  4  5  9. How often do you think about how your behaviour will affect other kids?  1  2  3  4  5  10. How often do you try to do the things you’ve told other kids you’d do?  1  2  3  4  5  11. How often do you try to be quiet when others are trying to study?  1  2  3  4  5  12. How often do you try to keep working even when you’re tired?  1  2  3  4  5  13. How often do you try to keep working even when other kids are goofing off?  1  2  3  4  5  14. How often do you try to help your classmates solve a problem once you’ve figured it out?  1  2  3  4  5  15. How often do you try to choose a partner with a different strength than you?  1  2  3  4  5  150  Helping Others Please show how many times you have done each of the following things since the start of the school year. Circle the number that shows your answer: 1 for Never, 2 for Once or Twice, 3 for A Few Times, and 4 for Many Times. Since the start of  Never  Once or Twice  A Few Times  Many Times  1  2  3  4  I cheered someone up who was feeling sad. 18. I helped someone who was being picked on. 19. I shared my lunch or snack with someone who didn’t have any.  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  20.  I got help for someone who was hurt.  1  2  3  4  21.  I stopped someone from hurting another student.  1  2  3  4  22.  I helped an older person.  1  2  3  4  23.  I stopped someone from hurting an animal.  1  2  3  4  this school year . . . 16.  I helped someone who was hurt.  17.  When you help another student in your class, why do you usually do it?  Not a Reason  A small Reason  A BIG Reason  24.  Because I think it is good to help.  1  2  3  25.  So I will get help in return.  1  2  3  26.  Because I would feel bad if I didn’t.  1  2  3  27.  Because I want to get a reward or praise from the teacher.  1  2  3  28.  Because the teacher told me to help.  1  2  3  29.  Because I am concerned about the other person.  1  2  3  151  Class Climate Scales  Operational Definition: Class Climate  1. Classroom supportiveness a. Respectful interactions b. Helping behaviors c. Caring d. Shared vision, goals e. Discussions of SEL issues f. Accountability, responsibility 2. Student input 3. Valuing diversity 4. Safety 5. Students have a sense of belonging, reduced alienation  Scales chosen: 1. CDP – Sense of school as a classroom community a. Student autonomy and influence in the classroom i. Renamed: “In my classroom…part 1” ii. Internal consistency reliability = .81 b. Classroom supportiveness, Safety i. Renamed: “In my classroom part 2” ii. Internal consistency reliability = .85 2. Global Portrait of Social and Moral Health for Youth a. Valuing Diversity, Safety i. Renamed: “In my classroom part 3” ii. Reliability alphas = .73 3. Louvain Loneliness Scale for Children and Adolescents a. Peer Loneliness subscale i. Renamed: “I Think/ I Feel” ii. Reliability alpha = .87 \  152  In My Class… (Part 1) #  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Questions In my class students have a say in deciding what goes on The teacher lets us do things our own way In my class the teacher is the only one who decides on the rules The teacher lets me choose what I will work on In my class the teacher and students together plan what we will do In my class I get to do things that I want to do In my class the teacher and students decide together what the rules will be The teacher in my class asks the students to help decide what the class should do Students in my class can get a rule changed if they think it is unfair In my class the students get to help plan what they will do  Never  Hardly Ever  Sometimes  Often  Always  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  153  In My Class… (Part 2) # 1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  11  12 13  14  Questions Students in my class are willing to go out of their way to help someone My classmates care about my work just as much as their own My class is like a family The students in my class don’t really care about each other A lot of students in my class like to put others down Students in my class help each other learn Students in my class help each other, even if they are not friends Students in my class don’t get along together very well Students in my class just look out for themselves Students in my class are mean to each other When I’m having trouble with my schoolwork, at least one of my classmates will try to help Students in my class treat each other with respect Students in my class work together to solve problems When someone in my class does well, everyone in the class feels good.  Never  Hardly Ever  Sometimes  Often  Always  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  154  4 5 6  7  *8 9 10 *11  Kids believe that working together, they can bring about a change in their school or community Kids make fun of people when they make a mistake Teachers talk with kids about moral values Teachers hold kids accountable for their actions It’s ok to be me  Completely agree  3  Kids here do not talk to or include those who are different (e.g. someone from a different culture or country, or someone with a disability) Kids make fun of ideas that are different Kids are willing to share with others, even if they are not their friends Kids make racist comments When kids see someone being picked on, they try to stop it  Somewhat agree  2  Kids would help someone who is new here feel accepted  Neither agree nor disagree  1  Questions  Somewhat disagree  #  Completely disagree  In My Class… (Part 3)  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  155  Never true about me  Seldom true about me  Sometimes true about me  Often true about me  I Think / I Feel  1  I think I have fewer friends than others  1  2  3  4  2  I feel isolated from other people  1  2  3  4  3  I feel excluded by my classmates  1  2  3  4  4  I want to be better integrated in the class group  1  2  3  4  5  Making friends is hard for me  1  2  3  4  6  I am afraid the others won’t let me join in  1  2  3  4  7  I feel alone at school  1  2  3  4  8  I think there is no single friend to whom I can tell everything  1  2  3  4  9  I feel abandoned by my friends  1  2  3  4  10  I feel left out by my friends  1  2  3  4  11  I feel sad because nobody wants to join in with me  1  2  3  4  12  I feel sad because I have no friends  1  2  3  4  #  Questions  156  Teacher Rating Scale The teacher rating scale is a shortened version of “The Child Behavior” scale by Gary Ladd. It incorporates all items from three of the six subscales Ladd included: 1. Red numbered items– Aggressive with peers, alpha =.89-.92 2. Blue numbered items– Excluded by peers, alpha = .93-.96 3. Yellow numbered items – Prosocial with Peers, alpha = .91-.92 I have also added the items in black, from the social responsibility standards.  It is intended to give insight into each of the variables (i.e. self and social awareness and respect).  157  Doesn’t Apply  Applies Sometimes  Certainly Applies  Child Behavior Scale  1  Fights with other children  1  2  3  2  Not much liked by other children  1  2  3  3  Bullies other children  1  2  3  4  Fair and respectful  1  2  3  5  Attempts to include others, including those who are different  1  2  3  6  Shows support and appreciation  1  2  3  7  Kicks, bites, or hits other children  1  2  3  8  Peers avoid this child  1  2  3  9  Helps other children  1  2  3  10  Does well in art  1  2  3  11  Shows a recognition of the feelings of others, is empathic  1  2  3  12  Does well in writing  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  #  13 14 15  Questions  Not chosen as playmate/partner by peers Seems concerned when others are distressed Aggressive child  158  16  Taunts and teases other children  1  2  3  17  Does well in math  1  2  3  18  Kind toward peers  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  19 20  Takes pride in achievements and efforts Accepts differences; works and interacts easily with those who are different in some way  21  Excluded from peers activities  1  2  3  22  Stands up for others when being unjustly treated  1  2  3  23  Is ignored by peers  1  2  3  24  Cooperative with peers  1  2  3  26  Argues with peers  1  2  3  27  Friendly toward other children  1  2  3  1  2  3  1  2  3  28 29  Able to take the perspectives of others Shows concern for moral issues (fairness, welfare of others)  30  Ridiculed by peers  1  2  3  31  Offers help or comfort when other children are upset  1  2  3  32  Does well in reading  1  2  3  33  Sets realistic goals given learning profile  1  2  3  34  Threatens other children  1  2  3  35  Does well in sports  1  2  3  36  Peers refuse to let this child play/work with them  1  2  3  159  Appendix K - Ethics Form  160  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0066410/manifest

Comment

Related Items