Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social Emotional Learning beliefs of preservice teachers : measuring the impact of a teacher education… Gist, Alexander 2018

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_may_alexander_gist.pdf [ 1.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0365945.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0365945-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0365945-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0365945-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0365945-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0365945-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0365945-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0365945-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0365945.ris

Full Text

        SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING BELIEFS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS:  MEASURING THE IMPACT OF A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM by ALEXANDER GIST  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Human Development, Learning and Culture)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   April 2018 © Alexander Gist, 2018  ii   Abstract The importance of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) for success in school and the workplace is increasingly being recognized.  Often, teachers are the ones tasked with implementing SEL programming and promoting it in the classroom. Yet, though future teachers will be expected to promote SEL, little attention is given to SEL in teacher education programs and there is a dearth of research on SEL in teacher education.  The teacher education program at the University of British Columbia (UBC) has a unique cohort of its elementary education program that focuses on SEL. This study examined changes in teacher self-efficacy, teaching beliefs and priorities, especially with regard to SEL, among students completing their teacher education program.  Preservice teachers in the SEL cohort were compared with students in other cohorts.  Students (n = 102) in four different cohorts of the teacher education program were surveyed at the beginning and the end of the academic year to measure change in self-efficacy over time and between cohorts.  Overall, the self-efficacy of students in the teacher education program improved in all areas measured over the course of the program.  On SEL-focused subscales, students in the SEL cohort reported the highest self-efficacy, though, in general, the SEL cohort students did not improve significantly more over the course of the year than students in other cohorts.  In fact, on the subscale measuring self-efficacy for preventing behavioral problems before they occur, though students in the SEL cohort had the highest self-efficacy, other cohorts showed greater improvements over the course of the year.  Results suggest that after taking part in UBC’s teacher education program, preservice teachers, regardless of their cohort, report higher self-efficacy in both academic and SEL-related areas regardless of the cohort.     iii  Lay Summary In addition to academics, interpersonal skills such as empathy and cooperation as well as emotional skills such as the ability to recognize and manage one’s emotions are increasingly being recognized as critical for students’ success.  Helping students learn these skills is called Social Emotional Learning (SEL) and is something teachers are increasingly being asked to do.  This study explored how teacher education programs can prepare future teachers in this area. To this end, students in a one-year teacher training program were surveyed on how effective they think they can be in different teaching areas including both areas that are SEL-focused and more academically-focused.  Students’ responses were compared to see if they had changed over the course of their program and also if there were differences between students in different sub-streams or “cohorts” within the program.  Each cohort had a slightly different teaching focus including one with an SEL focus.  Results indicated that, overall, the preservice teachers reported feeling more effective at the end of their one-year program than at the start.  This was true across cohorts and for both SEL-related and academically-related areas.       iv  Preface This thesis is the original intellectual product of the author, Alexander Gist, under the supervision of Dr. Shelley Hymel.  Data collection was conducted by the author and members of the Social, Emotional and Educational Development (SEED) lab.  UBC Research Ethics Board approval was obtained for this research (Evaluating Self-Efficacy among Teachers in Training; UBC BREB# H16-01746).      v  Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SEL in Teacher Education..................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Teacher Beliefs ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs ......................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Teacher SEL Beliefs ....................................................................................................... 9 1.2 The Current Study ............................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Method ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Measures ............................................................................................................................. 15 2.3.1 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale ................................................................................ 16 2.3.2 Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices ...................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Social and Emotional Learning Scale for Teachers ...................................................... 18 2.3.4 Teaching Priorities ........................................................................................................ 20 2.4 Design ................................................................................................................................. 20 Chapter 3: Results....................................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Preliminary analyses ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Primary analyses ................................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 4: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 37 4.1 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 41 4.2 Future Directions ................................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Significance ......................................................................................................................... 44 References .................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A: Consent Form For Research ................................................................................ 52 Appendix B: Time 1 - Pre-Program Survey .............................................................................. 53 Appendix C: Time 2 - Post-Program Survey ............................................................................ 57    vi  List of Tables  Table 1: UBC Teacher Education Program Cohorts with Descriptions ....................................... 11 Table 2: Number of Preservice Teachers who Completed the Questionnaire .............................. 14 Table 3: Study Design ................................................................................................................... 21 Table 4: Factors Loadings ........................................................................................................ 25-26 Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for all Subscales .......................................................... 27 Table 6: Intercorrelations (one-tailed) among Subscales.............................................................. 28      vii  List of Figures Figure 1: Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Adaptive Teaching  ............... 31 Figure 2: Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Critical Thinking ................... 32 Figure 3: Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Preventative Discipline ......... 35     viii   Acknowledgements          I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Shelley Hymel, not only for sharing her enthusiasm for research, but also for her thorough guidance and feedback which has challenged me to be a better researcher and communicator. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl and Dr. Cay Holbrook for their time, input and feedback. I would also like to thank my wife and partner, Sonja van der Putten, not only for her constant support, but also for her assistance with editing and for acting as a sounding board to help me think ideas through. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in the SEED Lab for providing feedback and especially for their assistance with data collection.   1   Chapter 1: Introduction How do we prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century?   Increasingly, traditional academic skills and content knowledge are not enough.  Another set of skills, those that were once considered the “soft skills” and which have their basis in social emotional learning (SEL), are being recognized as essential for university preparedness and for 21st century careers (ACT, 2014; AEI/Brookings Institute, 2015; CASEL, 2016a.; National Research Council, 2012).  In fact, about 80% of teachers believe that SEL will help prepare students for their career, for university, and to become good citizens (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013).  There is a growing body of research on SEL that supports these beliefs.  Meta-analyses of research conducted on high quality SEL programming have shown that participating students demonstrated increases in academic scores as well as improved pro-social behavior, attitudes, and strengthened social and emotional skills (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, and Weissberg, 2017).  SEL “is 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, 2007, p.234). This includes five core areas: Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Responsible Decision-Making, Relationship Skills, and Social-Awareness.  Self-Awareness is the ability to recognize one’s thoughts, feelings and emotions and the effects that these might have on one’s actions as well as having a positive, yet realistic sense of self efficacy.  Self-Management is the ability to effectively manage and regulate one’s behaviors, emotions and actions including dealing with stress, motivation and impulse control.  Responsible Decision-Making is the ability to make respectful, ethical decisions that consider possible  2  personal and social ramifications.  Relationship Skills include skills such as conflict resolution, teamwork, and cooperation that enable one to form and maintain strong, healthy relationships.  Finally, Social Awareness is the ability to have empathy for and take the perspective of others including those from different backgrounds (CASEL, 2017).  These five core competencies can be taught and implemented across diverse settings including the classroom, the school, the community, and at home (CASEL, 2015; 2016b; see also www.selresources.com).   Even though there are opportunities to help children develop and reinforce these SEL skills and abilities in a variety of settings from the home to the community, it is schools that are increasingly being tasked with promoting SEL skills because SEL is seen, not only as a way to develop 21st century skills, but also as a way to promote mental well-being (Hymel, Low, Starosta, Gill, & Schonert-Reichl, 2018; Hymel, Starosta, Gill, & Low, 2018; Morrison & Peterson, 2013; Weare, 2010).   It is primarily left to teachers, rather than other professionals, to implement SEL programming (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2012).  However, in addition to delivering high quality, evidence-based SEL programs, teachers can do much more to promote SEL skills.   In fact, Jones and Kahn (2017) argue that SEL is most effective and most sustainable when it is actively combined with and integrated into teaching practices and classroom curricula. For example, SEL plays an important role in the creation of positive classroom environments that encourage learning (Jones & Kahn, 2017; Shanker, 2014) because it is a critical element of classroom management (Jones, Bailey, & Jacob, 2014).  Teachers can help students learn from conflict and encourage cooperation, effective communication, and prosocial behavior between students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones, Bailey, & Jacob,  3  2014).   They can also help reduce, and even prevent peer victimization and bullying in their classrooms (Ahn & Rodkin, 2014).  Teachers are also role models for the SEL skills they promote (Farmer et al., 2011; Hymel et al., 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones, Bouffard, & Weissbourd, 2013).  They also have a unique opportunity to develop the SEL skills of their students through their ability to form caring, supportive relationships and engage in positive interactions with their students (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones, Bailey, & Jacob, 2014; Shanker, 2014).  Not only are teachers the most effective people to deliver SEL programming and cultivate SEL skills in their students, their own SEL skills influence their relationships with students, their ability to effectively manage the classroom and instruct students, as well as how “burnt out” or overworked they feel (Jones, Bouffard, & Weissbourd, 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017).    Despite the growing arguments for the importance of the teachers’ role in cultivating SEL in their pupils, scant research exists on the effectiveness of teacher education programs to train future teachers in this important skill or the influences this type of training can have on SEL outcomes for students in schools (Markowitz, Thowdis, & Swanson, 2016; Markowitz, 2014; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015).  The purpose of the current study is to provide initial insight into the effectiveness of SEL training for pre-service teachers by exploring how a teacher education program with an SEL focus affects preservice teachers’ SEL beliefs and their reported self-efficacy for teaching SEL. In doing so, this study provides a starting point for further research on the incorporation of SEL into teacher education programs, which, in turn, can help guide the further integration of SEL into these programs. 1.1 SEL in Teacher Education  4  Incorporating SEL into teacher education programs is an important step in improving the effectiveness of SEL among children and youth, yet almost no research exists on SEL in teacher training (Markowitz et al., 2016; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015, 2016; Waajid, Garner, & Owen, 2013).  In one of the only studies to date exploring this issue, Waajid et al. (2013) conducted a qualitative, case study on a single Curriculum and Instruction course with 15 teacher education students.  The authors found that a teacher education class infused with SEL can help prospective teachers make the link between SEL and academic skills, help shift their focus from teacher-centered to student-centered learning, and stimulate interest in further professional development in SEL. Several promising practices have been suggested regarding how SEL can be integrated into preservice teacher training. For example, SEL can be integrated into teacher training programs by having preservice teachers learn about the theory and research behind SEL, cultivate their own SEL skills and competencies, and learn how to create a safe, supporting, caring environment in classrooms that are conducive to promoting SEL skills (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; 2016). To do this, teacher preparation programs need to have curricula that includes SEL content and theory, as well as practical application of SEL skills through classroom-based video examples and role plays, supervised student teaching practicums, and mentorship (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Shanker, 2014). Few teacher education programs have an explicit SEL focus (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2016).  One teacher education program to do so is San Jose State University in partnership with the university’s Collaborative for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (CRTWC).  The CRTWC has attempted to integrate SEL into all aspects of their K-8 teacher education program with the goal of developing SEL dispositions in both teachers and students.  To this end, they  5  provide SEL-focused professional development for the faculty of their teacher education program, for the university supervisors who work with preservice teachers during their practica in local schools, and for the cooperating classroom teachers who host the preservice teachers during their practica (Markowitz, 2014; Markowitz et al., 2016).   The CRTWC has also developed SEL-focused videos and case studies that faculty can use, a SEL-infused lesson plan template required for all preservice teachers, and assessment tools used when observing preservice teachers during their practicum that allow university supervisors to identify how the preservice teachers are able to implement SEL strategies learned in the university classroom into their practice (Markowitz et al., 2016).  Preliminary, qualitative findings on the program indicate that the CRTWC’s efforts are affecting the practice of both the faculty and university supervisors as they incorporate SEL into their coursework, teaching practice, and observations.  Preservice teachers in the program have also indicated that they plan to incorporate SEL into their practice when they enter the teaching field (Markowitz et al., 2016). The University of British Columbia (UBC) has developed another program that integrates SEL into teacher education.   In 2009, UBC’s teacher education program developed a unique SEL training cohort for a subset of their pre-service elementary school teachers.  The first of its kind in North America, the program incorporates SEL throughout both courses and practicum experiences. However, until now, the effectiveness of the program has not been evaluated (Schonert-Reichl et al. 2016; Schonert-Reichl, 2017).  UBC’s teacher education program, including its SEL cohort, is the focus of the current research. The development and promotion of an SEL-focused, preservice teacher training program is timely, especially in British Columbia which has recently redesigned its elementary and secondary education curriculum to include a much stronger focus on SEL skills.  Specifically, in  6  the fall of 2016, the BC Ministry of Education rolled out a new curriculum for elementary education with plans for implementation in secondary schools in the fall of 2018 (BC Ministry of Education, 2016; Hymel et al., 2018).  A major aspect of the redesigned curriculum is the identification of three core competencies that span all grade levels and subjects: Communication, Critical and Creative Thinking, and Personal and Social Responsibility. These core competencies “are sets of intellectual, personal, and social and emotional proficiencies that all students need to develop in order to engage in deep learning and life-long learning” (BC Ministry of Education, n.d., para. 1). The Personal and Social Responsibility competency has a very strong SEL focus and is further broken down into three sub-competencies: Positive Personal and Cultural Identity, which includes many aspects of SEL’s Social Awareness; Personal Awareness and Responsibility which includes many aspects of SEL’s Self-Awareness, Self-Management, and Responsible Decision Making; and Social Responsibility which includes many aspects of SEL’s Relationship Skills (BC Ministry of Education, 2016).  According to Hymel et al. (2018), this new curriculum is an important first step, not only in enhancing students’ social and emotional development, but also in formally promoting positive mental well-being in students. Though BC has become a leader in promoting SEL by including comprehensive SEL standards into its curriculum across all grade levels, it is not the only place to do so.  According to CASEL (2016c), there are four states in the United States that also have comprehensive SEL curricular standards across grade levels, an additional five states that have such standards across some grade levels, and yet another six states that have some SEL standards in their state-wide curriculum.  With more states and provinces in North America adopting SEL into their curriculum, it becomes more important than ever to set up the teachers of tomorrow for success by training them in SEL and by making sure that the SEL training is effective.  7  1.2 Teacher Beliefs Teacher’s beliefs are strong predictors of their decisions and behaviors (Brackett et al., 2012; Pajares, 1992).  According to Pajares, teachers’ beliefs affect their perceptions and judgments of matters both inside and outside of the classroom, which then affect their decisions and practices when teaching.  Therefore, understanding the beliefs of both preservice and practicing teachers is essential for improving teacher training and teaching practices. Accordingly, the current study examined how effective UBC’s efforts to promote SEL in their teacher education program are in improving preservice teachers’ SEL beliefs, with particular interest in their perceptions of their own self-efficacy to teach SEL over the course of their one-year training program.   1.2.1 Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs   One set of teacher beliefs that have been well researched are teacher feelings of self-efficacy.  Over the last 30 years, numerous studies have been conducted that link teachers’ sense of self-efficacy with a number of important outcomes.  According to Bandura (1994, p. 14), “perceived self-efficacy is concerned with people's beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning and over events that affect their lives”.  Rooted in Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and Rotter’s (1966) theory of locus of control, teacher self-efficacy beliefs reflect a teacher’s perceptions of their ability to teach and motivate all students, even the most difficult ones (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).  Theoretically, perceived self-efficacy affects one’s thoughts, actions, and emotional states by influencing one’s motivation, choices, and ability to handle setbacks, including how susceptible one is to stress and depression (Bandura, 1994).  Teacher self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to be related to the thoughts, actions, and emotions of teachers, including how  8  satisfied they are in their job (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006), how committed they are to the teaching profession (Coladarci, 1992), how much they experience emotional exhaustion and burnout (Egyed & Short, 2006; Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010), how likely they are to try new and innovative instructional practices (Guskey, 1988), and how long they will persist with struggling students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In addition, teacher self-efficacy has also been shown to be related to a number of important factors for students, including achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Armor et al., 1976; Caprara et al., 2006; Ross, 1992) and students’ beliefs about their own performance and potential (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).  Finally, with regard to SEL, teacher perceptions of self-efficacy have been linked to the quality of the SEL programming they deliver (Ransford et al., 2009; Reyes et al. 2012).   Given the numerous important outcomes that have been linked to teacher self-efficacy among practicing teachers, it is hardly surprising that the self-efficacy of preservice teachers has also been studied.  The development of teacher self-efficacy has strong roots in preservice teachers’ experiences during their teacher training, especially during their student teaching practica (Hoy & Spero, 2005; Mulholland & Wallace 2001).  Most studies have found that preservice teachers’ efficacy increases over the course of their training program (Hoy & Wolfolk, 1990; Smolleck & Mongan, 2011, Wenner, 2001: Wolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005).  However, Pendergast, Garvis, and Keogh (2011), found that, among 76 Australian preservice teachers, self-efficacy decreased over the course of their training.  The authors attributed this decline to preservice teachers overestimating their abilities at the start of their program and having a more realistic view of their abilities at the end of the program.   9  Importantly, self-efficacy is thought to be domain- and context-specific (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).  Accordingly, measures have been developed to test self-efficacy in a variety of areas, from self-efficacy for teaching science to self-efficacy for Special Education (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).  Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have also been sub-divided into different skills, including efficacy for instructional strategies, efficacy for classroom management, and efficacy for student engagement (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). One domain of self-efficacy that has not been examined or measured is self-efficacy for promoting SEL.  This gap in the research needs to be addressed because most studies that examine SEL and teacher efficacy have looked at how SEL beliefs affect teacher self-efficacy generally (Collie, Shapka,& Perry, 2012) or how teachers’ overall self-efficacy predicts the quality of SEL programming they deliver (Ransford et al. 2009; Reyes et al. 2012; Schonert-Reichl, 2017), but have not directly assessed self-efficacy for promoting SEL. 1.2.2 Teacher SEL Beliefs Teachers are often the ones who deliver SEL programming and who model SEL skills.  Their beliefs, therefore, most likely have an effect on the quality of SEL delivery (Brackett et al., 2012; Zinsser, Shewark, Denham, & Curby, 2014).  Though less research has been conducted on teacher’s SEL beliefs than has been done on overall teacher self-efficacy, the research that has been completed suggests that SEL beliefs are, indeed, important.  Brackett et al. (2012), for example, examined SEL beliefs of teachers including teachers’ confidence in delivering the program, their level of commitment to developing their own skills for delivering SEL programs, their beliefs about how important SEL is for students, and how supportive they believe the school environment and administration is for SEL.  They documented links between these SEL beliefs and effects on the delivery, evaluation and outcomes of SEL programming.  Other  10  researchers have found that the quality of SEL programming and promotion is affected by how important teachers believe it is to share their own emotions with their students (Hanson-Peterson, Schonert-Reichl, & Smith, 2016) and their beliefs about the role of the teacher in SEL instruction (Zinsser et al., 2014). Finally, teachers’ reported comfort and confidence with SEL has been associated with their sense of stress on the job, how satisfied they are as a teacher, and their overall self-efficacy as a teacher (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012). 1.2 The Current Study This study examined the effectiveness of an SEL-infused teacher education program by exploring whether and how the SEL beliefs of preservice teachers change over the course of their year-long program.  Specifically, the study examined changes in the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers, including teachers’ confidence in promoting SEL and their perceptions of the relative importance of SEL as a teaching priority.   Data for this study were collected from the University of British Columbia’s teacher education program.  Unlike four-year undergraduate teacher education programs, UBC offers an intensive, one-year training program for students who have already completed a bachelor degree and have relevant work or volunteer experience with youth. Upon successful completion, graduates of the program receive a Bachelor of Education degree and are qualified to teach in British Columbia and a number of other jurisdictions.    Each year, approximately 600 students complete UBC’s one-year teacher training program.  Students specialize in either elementary, middle or secondary school age groups, with teacher candidates in the elementary and middle programs enrolling in various “cohorts” of 18-20 students that emphasize particular foci (see Table 1 below for a list of cohorts with descriptions; UBC, 2017).      11  Table 1: UBC Teacher Education Program Cohorts with Descriptions Cohort Description  Social-emotional Learning (SEL)   The SEL cohort focuses on teaching and learning approaches that promote positive attitudes thoughts and behaviours in order to foster healthy development and academic success.  Kindergarten— Primary Program (KIPP)  Though the KIPP cohort prepares pres ervice teachers to work with all grade levels of elementary school, the cohort focuses on pedagogical practices that support the learning of children in grades K-3.  Teaching English Language Learners Through Cross Curricular Inquiry (TELL-3C)   In the TELL-3C cohort, preservice teachers use case studies and inquiry to learn pedagogical approaches that promote the learning of students who are English Language Learners. Montessori  Preservice teachers in the Montessori cohort are trained in the Montessori approach which focuses on both the cognitive and social development of children by encouraging learning that is experiential, child-centred and independent.  International Baccalaureate (IB)  The IB cohort prepares preservice teachers to teach in International Baccalaureate programs exploring pedagogical processes that are hands-on, inquiry-based, and promote critical thinking about international and real-world issues.  Middle Years Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)  In the SRL cohort, preservice teachers explore the unique needs of middle years students.  In addition, they learn practices that encourage self-regulated learning such as helping students self- evaluate their learning and control how challenging their work is.  Community of Inquiry in Teacher Education (CITE)  Preservice teachers explore teaching practices through inquiry in a community composed of fellow preservice teachers, faculty, and even past graduates.  Inquiry workshops often take place in schools.  Elementary French Specialists - Core French / French Immersion (French)  The French cohort prepares preservice teachers to teach French as a first or second language.  The majority of classes are conducted in and assignments completed in French. Arts-Based & Creativity (ABC)  The ABC cohort seeks to develop teaching specialists in music, art and drama through inquiry into arts-based pedagogical practices.  Indigenous Education (Indigenous)  Preservice teachers in the Indigenous cohort explore indigenous ways of learning and knowing in order to prepare them to work with indigenous students, community members, and indigenous education in the curriculum.  12   Applicants to the program select cohorts based both on their preference for the theme of the cohort and also on the location of the practicums available for that cohort. Though students in all cohorts take the same classes, and students in each cohort take classes together, their professors adapt the course content to fit the focus of the cohort, and the practicum placements that the students have are in districts and with supervising teachers that support the cohort’s focus. In the 2016-2017 academic year, there were two SEL cohorts in the UBC teacher education program.    13  Chapter 2: Method  As part of a larger evaluation of preservice teacher beliefs in teacher preparation programs, data for the current study were collected from preservice teachers enrolled in a one-year teacher education program at the University of British Columbia during the 2016-2017 academic year.  Specifically, self-report data were collected at the beginning and end of their one-year program, as described below.   2.1 Participants Approximately 600 students in the UBC teacher education program were invited to participate in this research including preservice teachers in the elementary, middle, and secondary school programs.  Of interest in the current study were the data collected from those enrolled in the elementary and middle years programs.  A total of 244 of these students completed a self-report questionnaire at the beginning of the academic year, representing students in all ten thematic cohorts.  At the end of the academic year, 191 completed questionnaires were collected from students in nine of the ten elementary and middle school program cohorts; unfortunately, due to scheduling issues, data were not able to be collected from the “Community of Inquiry in Teacher Education” elementary cohort.  This resulted in a sample of 166 of 255 total elementary and middle years students (65.1%) who completed the survey at both the beginning and end of the academic year, with data collected from nine of ten thematic cohorts.   Of the students who completed the questionnaire at both time points, 83.7% were female and 16.3% were male. Table 1 below provides an overview of participant information by cohort for the students who completed the questionnaire at both Time 1 and Time 2. 2.2 Procedure  14  After receiving the support of the UBC Teacher Education Office (TEO) and UBC ethics approval, individual Teacher Education instructors of a required, first-term course on developmental considerations (EPSE 308 – Human Development and Learning) were invited to participate in this study during the third and fourth week of the teacher education program (September, 2016) by allowing their students to complete a brief (20 minute) survey during class time regarding their current beliefs and perceptions about teaching.  All instructors agreed to this request, and all preservice teachers present in each of the classes were invited to participate in the study at Time 1 at the start of their program.  Subsequently, at the end of the 2016-2017 academic year (Time 2), elementary and middle years students were again invited to complete the questionnaire during a class in their final summer term.  Students in six sections of a class on Ethics and Teaching (EDST 404) or in a final Inquiry Seminar (EDUC 452) were invited to complete the survey for a second time. No incentives were provided to students or instructors. Table 2: Number of Preservice Teachers who completed the Questionnaire Elementary and Middle School Cohort Time 1  Time 2  Time 1 & Time 2  (Valid Cases) Social-emotional Learning  30 27 23 Kindergarten— Primary Program  18 27 16 Teaching English Language Learners Through Cross Curricular Inquiry  30 28 28 Montessori  16 12 10 International Baccalaureate  24 13 13 Middle Years Self-Regulated Learning  29 28 26 Community of Inquiry in Teacher Education  32 0 0 Elementary French Specialists - Core French / French Immersion 34 28 25 Arts-Based & Creativity  17 15 14 Indigenous Education Cohort 14 13 11 Total  244 191 166  15  At both time points, at a time arranged with course instructors, trained Research Assistants (including the author and an experienced doctoral student) visited each classroom to explain the study to the students and invite them to participate. The Research Assistants distributed student assent forms (see Appendix A) and the questionnaire (see Appendix B for Time 1 questionnaire and Appendix C for Time 2 questionnaire). To ensure that each students' decision to participate was confidential, course instructors were asked to leave the room during this time. Once participating students provided assent, they completed the survey on their own. Following completion and collection of the surveys by the research assistants, the instructor was invited to return to the room and resume class.  Students in the class were thanked for their participation. 2.3 Measures  Participating preservice teachers completed a 49-item questionnaire (see Appendix B) at the beginning of the academic year (Time 1) and a slightly revised 50-item version of the same survey at the end of the academic year (Time 2, see Appendix C).  The original questionnaire included six questions about demographic information, including sex, age, whether they plan to teach in elementary, middle or secondary school, the cohort within UBC’s teacher education program to which they belong (for students in the elementary and middle programs only), the grade level which they hoped to teach, and their previous experience with children relevant to teaching. At the end of the academic year, two of the demographic items were revised and an additional item was added (see Appendix C1).  Specifically, one item, asking what level of school they planned to teach (elementary, middle or secondary), was changed to ask which                                                  1 UBC ethics approval for the changes to the survey was obtained.  16  program they were completing at UBC (elementary, middle or secondary).  Another question, asking about previous experience teaching or working with youth was revised from a series of open-ended questions about their experience, to a two-part, multiple choice question (i.e., Prior to starting the teacher education program, what experience did you have in teaching children and/or youth? (a.) I had taught classes in schools (e.g. Educational Assistant, youth worker, teacher in another country, etc.), (b.) I had worked with children/youth in other contexts (e.g., summer camps, after school programs, coaching in sports, etc.))  Both parts of the question on previous experience asked participants to respond by choosing (a) None, (b) 0-1 year, (c) 1-3 years, or (d) 3+ years. Finally, a question was added asking them to self-evaluate how well they performed during their school-based practicum, rating their performance on a 4-point, Likert scale (1= Poor, 2= Adequate, 3= Good, 4= Excellent).  The remaining 43 items included on both the initial (Time 1) and end-of-program (Time 2) surveys, asked about teacher perceptions and beliefs, as described below. 2.3.1 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale  The surveys included 16 items adapted from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale.   Questions from the scale were re-worded so that all questions begin with the stem “As a teacher, I think I can…”.  Following Sharma et al., (2012), the response format was adapted from a 9-point Likert Scale to a 6-point Likert Scale since a 6-point scale forces participants to decide how much they agree with or disagree with the statements by not allowing an average or neutral score (1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Disagree Somewhat; 4= Agree Somewhat; 5= Agree; 6= Strongly Agree).  Questions from the scale assess teachers’ self-efficacy in three main domains: efficacy for instructional strategies (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can implement alternative teaching strategies when lessons aren’t  17  effective), efficacy for classroom management (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson), and efficacy for student engagement (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork).  In its original form, items from the three domains formed three factors with moderate intercorrelations for in-service teachers.  However, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) found that a single factor structure was more appropriate for preservice teachers. The measure has shown strong internal consistency (α=0.94) and reasonable validity as it positively correlates with other measures of teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). 2.3.2 Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices    To complement the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale, six items assessing self-efficacy for managing behavior and for using inclusive instruction were adapted from the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices scale (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012).  In its original form, the scale included three factors: managing behavior (α=0.85), using inclusive instruction (α=0.93), and collaboration (α=0.85) with high overall internal consistency (α=0.89, Sharma et al., 2012).    All of the items that were included in the current study were part of either the managing behaviour or inclusive instruction factors.  These items, though similar to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) factors of efficacy for classroom management and instructional strategies, were included to give a more inclusive perspective and better reflect the heterogeneity of today’s classrooms (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can adjust my lessons to the proper level for individual students including students with disabilities).  Questions from the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices scale were re-worded so that all questions begin with the stem “As a teacher, I think I can…”.  Responses kept the 6-point Likert Scale of Sharma et al., (1= Strongly  18  Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Disagree Somewhat; 4= Agree Somewhat; 5= Agree; 6= Strongly Agree).   Most of the items for self-efficacy in classroom and behaviour management referred to practices that could be construed as authoritarian or controlling where teachers make the children follow the rules (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can, deal with students who are disruptive, defiant, or physically aggressive, or As a teacher, I think I can get children to follow classroom rules).  Although a few of the items reflect more of a proactive approach (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs and As a teacher, I think I can keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson), none of the items take an explicitly prosocial, SEL approach to classroom management in which teachers model and encourage respectful communication and problem solving, help students learn from conflict, and generally create a positive, respectful, supportive classroom environment (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).  Accordingly, four additional items were created by the author and Dr. Shelley Hymel to examine efficacy for prosocial classroom management practices (As a teacher, I think I can help students learn from conflicts with other students; As a teacher, I think I can discipline students effectively without intimidation and punishment; As a teacher, I think I can eliminate bullying in my classroom; and As a teacher, I think I can teach students to solve conflicts peacefully). 2.3.3 Social and Emotional Learning Scale for Teachers  In order to assess teacher confidence and self-efficacy for promoting SEL, four items were adapted from Brackett et al.’s (2012) Social and Emotional Learning Scale for Teachers.  This scale was designed to assess teacher’s SEL beliefs.  The original scale included three factors with four items each, assessing teachers’ comfort with SEL (α=0.76), their commitment to SEL (α=0.82), and how supportive of SEL they believe the school culture to be (α=0.74).  By  19  examining how well the subscales of their measure were correlated to different school and teacher characteristics such as teacher burnout, teacher efficacy, and perceived support from school administration, the authors found that the measure had good concurrent validity (Brackett et al., 2012).   Brackett and colleagues also examined how well the subscales predicted the quality teachers’ implementation of an SEL intervention, how they felt about the intervention at the end of the year, and how supported they felt by their administration in their implementation of SEL and found that the measure had good predictive validity (Brackett et al., 2012).   In the present study, only items related to comfort (e.g., Taking care of my students’ social and emotional needs comes naturally to me) were included in the survey.  The culture items were excluded because beginning preservice teachers are not yet part of a school culture, and commitment items were excluded because these items refer to commitment to improving their practice through professional development activities which is not yet relevant to preservice teachers.  Finally, all items were adapted from a 5-point Likert Scale to a 6-point scale to match the rest of the questionnaire. To further understand preservice teachers’ perceived self-efficacy regarding SEL, a number of new items, created by the author and Dr. Shelley Hymel, were also included in the surveys. Two items were created to measure self-efficacy in promoting positive mental health (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can support students in my class who experience mental health challenges), given arguments that SEL is a foundation for positive mental well-being (Hymel, Low, Starosta, Gill, & Schonert-Reichl, 2018; Morrison & Peterson, 2013; Weare, 2010).  Another five items were created to examine self-efficacy in interpersonal skills, both between the teacher and students as well as between the students themselves (e.g., As a teacher, I think I can encourage acceptance among all students despite their differences).  Responses to these  20  additional items used the same stem (“As a teacher, I think I can…”) and the same 6-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) as those above. 2.3.4 Teaching Priorities An additional five items were included to assess the current priorities of the preservice teacher participants.  Two items were included to assess the relative importance of SEL versus academic subjects (i.e., Helping students develop socially and emotionally is as important as helping them develop academic skills and The primary focus of school is to teach academic subjects). Responses to these two items were made on the same 6-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree).   For the last three questions, participants were asked to rank order a number of items in the following categories: classroom management, adapting and modifying lessons, and the focus of their teaching (e.g., What is most important as a focus of your teaching (rank order from 1-8): (a) teaching core curriculum (elementary)/teaching my subject matter curriculum (secondary), (b) supporting and accepting students with mental health difficulties, (c) motivating students to learn and take ownership of their learning, (d) promoting student social and emotional well-being, (e) bringing music, drama and art into my teaching , (f) managing classroom behaviour so that students can learn material presented, (g) establishing and maintaining positive relationships with students, (h) promoting social justice and social responsibility in students).  All items are presented in Appendices C and D.  2.4 Design The primary purpose of the study was to determine whether the SEL beliefs of preservice teachers vary across the cohorts of the elementary teacher education program at UBC (between-subjects factor), and whether they change over the course of their one-year program (within- 21  subjects factor).  The number of participants in each cohort who completed the questionnaire at both the beginning and the end of the academic year varied considerably with a range of 11 (Indigenous Education cohort) to 28 (TELL 3C cohort).  Given the unequal number of students with valid data across the two time points in each of the elementary/middle school cohorts (see Table 1 above), only cohorts with at least 20 students who completed surveys at both Time 1 and 2 were compared.  Accordingly, the primary study involves a 2 (time) by 4 (cohort) repeated measures design, as depicted in Table 2 below, with Cohort as a between-subjects factor and Time as a within-subjects factor.   However, for some initial analyses (e.g., factor analysis of items), all participating students in the elementary and middle school programs were included, as described below. Table 3: Study Design Cohort Time 1 (pre-program) Time 2 (end-of-program) Time 1 & Time 2   (Valid Cases) Social-emotional Learning (SEL)  30 27 23 Teaching English Language Learners Through Cross- Curricular Inquiry (TELL -3C)  30 28 28 Middle Years Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)  29 28 26 Elementary French Specialists - Core French / French Immersion (French) 34 28 25 Total  123 111 102  A power analysis was conducted in G*Power 3.0 using Power Sensitivity Analyses (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to determine the effect size needed given the current study design.  Results of the Power Sensitivity tests indicate that with 102 valid cases, four cohort-groups, and two time points, an effect size of f = .29 will be needed to find a statistically  22  significant effect.  This is slightly larger than a medium effect size of f = .25 (Cohen, 1988; Prajapati, Dunne, & Armstrong, 2010).   23  Chapter 3: Results 3.1 Preliminary analyses The 40 items that were included in the initial survey to assess SEL beliefs and teaching self-efficacy were either adapted from their original measures or created for the purpose of this study.  Accordingly, an initial factor analysis was performed to determine the underlying factor structure of the items and to inform efforts at data reduction.  Specifically, an exploratory factor analysis (Principal Axis Factor, oblique [direct oblimin] rotation) was conducted on responses to the 40 items provided by all 244 elementary and middle school preservice teachers at Time 1. Oblique rotation was used as the factors are expected to correlate (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Field, 2013).  The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure confirmed the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .93 (Field, 2013).  Results of the factor analysis yielded nine factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00.  In addition, scree plot analysis indicated inflection points at ten, five and three suggesting nine, four, or two factors (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Field, 2013).  A nine-factor solution was examined, since it was supported by both scree plot analysis and Kaiser’s criterion of factors with eigenvalues above 1.00 (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Field, 2013). Items with factor loadings greater than or equal to .4 were retained (Pituch & Stevens, 2015;  Field, 2013).  At the .4 cutoff, there was only one item which cross-loaded on more than one factor; this item, Taking care of students' emotional and social needs comes naturally to me, loaded on both the SEL Efficacy factor (.446) and the Interpersonal SEL (-.492) factor and was included on the latter due to the higher loading on that factor. The nine resulting factors included: (1) Classroom Environment, (2) SEL Efficacy, (3) Adaptive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners (Adaptive Teaching), (4) Dealing with Difficult Students, (5) Promoting  24  Critical Thinking and Creativity (Critical Thinking), (6) Preventative Discipline, (7) Interpersonal SEL, (8) Motivation, and (9) Teaching Priorities.  According to Costello and Osborne (2005), factors with less than three items are generally considered unstable.  Therefore, after dropping items that did not meet the .4 threshold, one of the nine factors, Dealing with Difficult Students, only had one item remaining, and was dropped from further consideration.  Two other factors, Teaching Priorities and Motivation, which had only two items, were not dropped, given their potential relevance to the current study, although it is recognized that scores reflecting these two factors would need to be interpreted with caution.   For each of the remaining eight factors, composite subscale scores were then created for each subject, computed as the average of the responses provided across relevant items included in each subscale (range 1-6), with relevant items reversed as necessary.  For each composite, higher scores reflect greater self-efficacy for the domain being assessed. Reliability analyses were then conducted for each of the eight subscales to determine internal consistency.  Seven of the eight factors had Chronbach’s α indices above the .7 threshold (Field, 2013). One of the two-item factors, Teaching Priorities, only had a Chronbach’s α of .329, and was therefore dropped.  Factor loadings for each of the final seven subscales are presented in Table 3 below.   25  Table 4: Factors Loadings Factor Name and Chronbach’s α  Item Factor Loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Classroom Environment  Chronbach’s α = .870 I can eliminate discrimination in my class. .622       I can eliminate bullying in my classroom. .603       I can teach students to solve conflicts peacefully. .577       I can help students get along with one another. .567       I can discipline students effectively without intimidation or punishment. .452       I can teach students to work together effectively.  .413       SEL efficacy  Chronbach’s α = .745 I am comfortable providing instruction on social-emotional skills to students.  -.851      Informal lessons in social-emotional learning are part of my regular teaching practice.  -.784      I feel confident in my ability to provide instruction on social and emotional learning.   -.740      Adaptive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners  Chronbach’s α = .848 I can adjust my lessons to the proper level for individual students, including students with disabilities.   .654     I can use a variety of assessment strategies.   .613     I can accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have taught.   .567     I can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.   .526     I can support students in my class who experience mental health challenges.   .450     I can implement alternative teaching strategies when lessons are not effective.    .446     Promoting Critical thinking and creativity  Chronbach’s α = .752 I can help my students think critically.    .646    I can craft good questions for my students.    .507    I can respond to difficult questions from students.    .482    I can foster student creativity.    .410    I can provide an alternate explanation or example when students are confused.     .405     26   Interpersonal SEL  Chronbach’s α = .754 I can form strong connections/positive relationships with all of my students     -.580   I am comfortable listening empathically to students' personal experiences.     -.561   Taking care of students' emotional and social needs comes naturally to me.  .446   -.492   I can encourage acceptance among all students despite their differences.      -.476   Preventative Discipline  Chronbach’s α = .804 I can establish routines to keep activities running smoothly.      .728  I can prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs.      .657  I can keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson.       .578  Motivation  Chronbach’s α = .719 I can motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork.       .704 I can get students to believe they can do well in school work.        .464 Unused Items (Factor loading   < .4) Helping students develop their social and emotional skills is as important as helping them develop academic skills. The primary focus of school is to teach academic subjects. I can enhance the well-being of all students. I can help students learn from conflicts with other students. I can help my students value learning. I can improve the understanding of a student who is failing. I can get children to follow classroom rules. I can make my expectations clear about student behaviour. I can deal with students who are disruptive, defiant, or physically aggressive. I can get students to work together cooperatively in pairs or in small groups. I can get through to the most difficult students.    Means and Standard Deviations for each of the resulting subscales are presented in Table 4 below for each cohort and each time point.        27  Table 5: Means and standard deviations for all subscales  Valid Cohorts Classroom Environ-ment  M (SD) SEL Efficacy    M (SD) Adaptive Teaching    M (SD) Critical Thinking    M (SD) Inter- personal SEL  M (SD) Prevent-ative Discipline  M (SD) Motiva-tion   M (SD) Time 1 SEL      (n=23) 4.54 (.64) 5.07 (.56) 4.54 (.58) 4.63 (.49) 4.76 (.69) 4.62 (.73) 4.46 (.62) TELL 3C  (n=28) 4.13 (.70) 4.26 (.74) 3.67 (.97) 4.14 (.64) 3.95 (.74) 3.81 (.93) 4.48 (.67) SRL         (n=26) 4.12 (.69) 4.68 (.69) 3.95 (.69) 4.39 (.66) 4.20 (.75) 3.76 (.87) 4.31 (.80) French     (n=25) 4.28 (.81) 4.63 (.76) 3.97 (.78) 4.48 (.68) 4.29 (.73) 4.12 (.65) 4.40 (.74) Total      (N=102) 4.26 (.72) 4.64 (.74)  4.01 (.83) 4.39 (.64) 4.28 (.78) 4.06 (.86) 4.41 (.71) Time 2 SEL (n=23) 4.99 (.46) 5.52 (.39) 4.81 (.44) 4.89 (.44) 5.35 (.32) 4.97 (.50) 4.89 (.56) TELL 3C (n=28) 4.81 (.57) 4.88 (.62) 4.66 (.44) 4.88 (.39) 4.83 (.56) 4.74 (.49) 4.73 (.59) SRL         (n=26) 4.57 (.59) 5.09 (.72) 4.67 (.46) 4.99 (.41) 4.84 (.58) 4.50 (.61) 4.94 (.65) French     (n=25) 4.63 (.43) 5.11 (.62) 4.61 (.53) 4.74 (.48) 4.90 (.55) 4.53 (.47) 4.60 (.52) Total      (N=102) 4.75 (.54) 5.13 (.64) 4.68 (.47) 4.87 (.43) 4.97 (.55) 4.68 (.55) 4.79 (.59)   Pearson Product Moment correlations (one-tailed) were computed to evaluate the overlap in resulting subscale scores.  As can be seen in Table 5 below, all seven factors were significantly correlated, with correlations ranging from weak to strong.   The strongest correlations observed were between the SEL Efficacy and Interpersonal SEL subscales (r = .740), and between the Interpersonal SEL and Classroom Environment subscales (r =.710), all three of which reflect SEL-related constructs.  Not surprisingly, the two most academically-focused  28  factors, Adaptive Teaching and Promoting Critical Thinking, were also highly correlated (r =.718).  The weakest correlations were observed between SEL Efficacy and Promoting Critical Thinking (r =.397) and between SEL Efficacy and Motivation (r =.377).  Table 6: Intercorrelations (one-tailed) among Subscales  Classroom Environment SEL  Efficacy Adaptive Teaching Critical  Thinking Interpersonal SEL Preventative Discipline 1. Classroom Environment 1      2. SEL  Efficacy .513** 1 .    3. Adaptive Teaching .662** .494** 1    4. Critical Thinking .589** .397** .718** 1   5. Interpersonal SEL .710** .740** .601** .551** 1  6. Preventative Discipline .567** .416** .582** .508** .519** 1 7. Motivation  .558** .377** .518** .494** .444** .445** ** p<.01 (1-tailed).  3.2 Primary analyses For the primary questions of the study, data were analyzed using a series of 2 (Time) by 4 (Cohort) repeated measures Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs), exploring how participants’ beliefs changed over time and varied across different cohorts (N=102). One analysis was conducted for each of the seven dependent variables (subscale composite scores), with Cohort as a between-subjects factor and Time as a within-subjects factor.  Given the large number of analyses that were conducted, alpha inflation was of concern.  With seven analyses and an alpha level of .05, there is a 30% chance of making at least one Type I error (Field, 2013).  Therefore, a Bonferroni correction was applied and an alpha level of .007 (.05/7) was used with findings  29  above the .007 level, but below .05 considered trends or marginally significant.  Where applicable, post hoc tests were run using multiple comparisons (pairwise t-tests using Student’s t statistic) with Bonferroni corrections also at the .007 level. Before conducting these repeated measures ANOVAs, all relevant tests of normality were conducted in order to ensure that applicable assumptions were met.  Following Gamst, Meyers, and Guarino (2008), four assumptions were tested: Normality, Homogeneity of Variance, Sphericity, and Homogeneity of Covariance Matrices.  The assumption of normality was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test.  Homogeneity of variance across the various cohort groups was evaluated using Levene’s test.  The assumption of Sphericity, as reflected in similar variances across all of the within subject IVs, was assessed using Mauchly’s Test.   Finally, the assumption of Homogeneity of Covariance Matricies, reflecting similar correlations both between the levels of time and across the different cohorts was checked using Box’s M.  All assumptions were met unless otherwise noted. Analysis 1: Classroom Environment The repeated measures ANOVA for the Classroom Environment subscale yielded significant main effects for Time: F(1, 98) = 43.92, p < .001, partial  = .309, indicating that all students improved in their self-efficacy for Classroom Environment over the course of their program (M = 4.26, SD =.72 at Time 1; M = 4.75, SD = .54 at Time 2).  In addition, there was also a marginally significant effect for Cohort F(1, 98) = 3.11, p =.03, partial = .087, but no significant interaction,  F(3, 98) =.943, ns.  Post hoc tests using multiple comparisons (pairwise t-tests) with a Bonferroni Correction revealed marginally significant differences (p = .024) between students in the SEL and SRL cohorts, with students in the SEL cohort reporting higher  30  self-efficacy for maintaining a positive classroom environment (M = 4.77, SE = .11) than students in the SRL cohort (M = 4.34, SE = .10). Analysis 2: SEL Efficacy  A 4 (Cohort) by 2 (Time) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the four cohorts’ SEL Efficacy at the beginning and end of their teacher education program. Significant main effects for Time emerged F(1, 98) = 41.80, p <.001, partial = .299 indicating that, in general, students efficacy for SEL increased over the course of the program (M = 4.64, SD =.74 at Time 1; M = 5.13, SD = .64 at Time 2).  There was a significant main effect for cohort as well F(1, 98) = 7.93, p < .001, partial = .195, but no significant interaction effect F(3, 98) =.38, ns.  As might be expected, post hoc analyses using multiple comparisons (pairwise t-tests) with a Bonferroni indicated that students in the SEL cohort generally reported greater self-efficacy for SEL (M = 5.30, SE = 1.10) than students in the other three cohorts with significant differences between SEL and TELL 3C (p < .001), and marginally significant differences between SEL and SRL (p =.046) and between SEL and French (p = .035), (M = 4.57, SE = .10 for TELL 3C, M = 4.89, SE = .10 for SRL, M = 4.87, SE = .11  for French).   Analysis 3: Adaptive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners Results of the 4x2 repeated measures ANOVA conducted to explore changes over time and across cohorts in efficacy for using Adaptive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners (Adaptive Teaching), indicated that, overall, preservice teachers in all cohorts improved significantly over time: F(1, 98) = 70.68, p < .001, partial =.419 (M = 4.01, SD =.83 at Time 1; M = 4.68, SD = .47 at Time 2).  There was also a significant main effect for Cohort, F(1, 98) = 4.58, p = .005, partial = .123,  with post hoc analyses (multiple comparisons with a  31  Bonferroni Correction) indicating significant differences (p = .003) between the SEL (M = 4.68, SE =.11) and TELL 3C cohorts (M = 4.17, SE -= .10). These main effects, however, were qualified by a marginally significant interaction, F(3, 98) = 3.62, p =.016, partial =.10.  As can be seen in Figure 1, students in the SEL cohort reported significantly higher efficacy for Adaptive Teaching than did students in the TELL 3C cohort at Time 1, but by Time 2 the differences were no longer significant.  Furthermore, the efficacy reported by students in the SRL, TELL 3C, and French cohorts improved significantly over the course of the year (p < .001 for all three cohorts), and although the SEL cohort improved as well, the improvements were not statistically significant.   Figure 1. Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Adaptive Teaching.   Analysis 4:  Promoting Critical Thinking and Creativity The 4x2 repeated measures ANOVA conducted for efficacy with regard to Promoting Critical Thinking and Creativity (Critical Thinking) yielded no significant main effects for cohort F(1, 98) = 1.44, ns, although the main effect for Time was again significant, F(1, 98) =  32  79.80, p < .001, partial = .423, (M = 4.39, SD =.64 at Time 1; M = 4.87, SD = .43 at Time 2). This main effect, however, is best understood in the context of a significant interaction effect, F(3, 98) = 5.22, p =.002, partial = .138, as depicted in Figure 2 below.  Results of post hoc analyses (multiple comparisons with a Bonferroni Correction) indicated that the efficacy reported by students in all four cohorts improved over the year, with TELL 3C and SRL improving significantly (p < .001) and marginally significant improvement for SEL (p =.032) and French (p = .022).  Interestingly, even though the SEL cohort reported the strongest efficacy beliefs in this area at the start of the program, significantly higher than students in the TELL 3C cohort (p = .033), by the end of the program, students in the TELL 3C cohort had almost caught up with the SEL cohort and the difference between the two was no longer significant.  The SRL cohort follows a similar improvement trend as the TELL 3C cohort, with even higher scores at the end of the program than the SEL cohort, though the differences were not statistically significant. Figure 2. Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Critical Thinking.   33  Analysis 5: Interpersonal SEL The 4x2 repeated measures ANOVA conducted for Interpersonal SEL revealed a significant main effect for Time: F(1, 98) = 80.40, p < .001, partial = .451 (M = 4.28, SD =.78 at Time 1; M = 4.97, SD = .55 at Time 2) .  Additionally, a significant main effect for Cohort was also found, F(1, 98) = 7.97, p < .001, partial = .196.  Post hoc tests (multiple comparisons with a Bonferroni Correction) showed that, not surprisingly, students in the SEL cohort reported significantly higher self-efficacy for Interpersonal SEL than students in the TELL 3C (p < .001) and SRL cohorts (p = .002) and marginally higher efficacy than students in the French cohort (p= .013; M = 5.06, SE = .11 for SEL, M = 4.39, SE = .10 for TELL 3C, M = 4.52, SE = .10 for SRL, M = 4.60, SE = .10  for French).  There was no significant Cohort by Time interaction effect, F(3, 98) = 0.89, ns. Analysis 6: Preventative Discipline A sixth ANOVA was conducted examining efficacy for Preventative Discipline.  Once again, students efficacy in this area improved significantly over the course of their training program as indicated by a significant main effect for Time: F(1, 98) = 53.53, p < .001, partial  = .353, (M = 4.06, SD =.86 at Time 1; M = 4.68, SD = .55 at Time 2).  Moreover, a significant main effect was also observed between the cohorts F(1, 98) =7.00, p < .001, partial =.176.  Post hoc tests (multiple comparisons with a Bonferroni Correction) indicated that students in the SEL cohort reported the highest efficacy for Preventative Discipline, significantly higher than SRL students (p < .001 ) and marginally higher than TELL 3C (p =.05) and French students (p = .018; M = 4.80, SE = .11 for SEL, M = 4.27, SE = .10 for TELL 3C, M = 4.13, SE = .11 for SRL, M = 4.33, SE = .11 for French).    34  These main effects were qualified by a marginally significant Time by Cohort interaction F(3, 98) = 2.77, p =.046, partial = .078.  As shown in Figure 3 below, all four cohorts improved from Time 1 to Time 2.  Students in the TELL 3C and SRL cohorts had significant improvements (p < .001) and students in the other two cohorts had marginally significant improvements (SEL p = .049, French p = .015), but the TELL 3C cohort’s reported efficacy for preventative discipline showed the greatest change over time.  At the beginning of the year, the TELL 3C and SEL cohorts were significantly different (p = .003), with the SEL cohort (M = 4.62, SD = .73) reporting higher efficacy than the TELL 3C cohort (M = 3.81, SD = .93). However, by the end of the year, students in the SEL cohort still reported higher efficacy, but the difference was no longer significant (M = 4.97, SD = .50 for the SEL cohort versus M = 4.74, SD = .49 for TELL 3C).  Though students in the SRL cohort showed a similarly marked increase in efficacy for preventative discipline, the students in the SEL cohort still reported higher efficacy beliefs in this area than students in the SRL cohort at both Time 1 (p = .002) and Time 2 (p= .013).  Furthermore, as shown in the figure, the efficacy reported by students in the SEL and French cohorts seemed to be increasing at similar rates, but the gap between the cohorts is actually widening slightly; at Time 1, the difference between these two cohorts in Preventative Discipline Efficacy was not significant, but by Time 2, the difference has become marginally significant (p =.028).    35  Figure 3. Interaction effects of Time and Cohort for Efficacy for Preventative Discipline.   Analysis 7: Motivation  The final ANOVA conducted on student reports of efficacy for Motivation (i.e., efficacy for motivating students), indicated that, overall, students reported stronger efficacy in this area at the end of the program than at the beginning, as reflected in a significant main effect for Time F(1, 98) = 20.59, p <.001, partial = .174, (M = 4.41, SD =.71 at Time 1; M = 4.79, SD = .50 at Time 2).  The main effect for Cohort was not significant, F(1, 98) =.532, ns, nor was there a significant interaction effect F(3, 98) =.506, ns.  As indicated in the factor analysis section, these results should be interpreted with caution since the factor only contained two items. Analysis 8: Rank Order Items Of further interest are preservice teachers’ priorities for SEL in their teaching, as reflected in the rank-order items included in the survey.  Two of the items were analyzed, item 47 on teaching priorities and item 49 on priorities for classroom environment.  Item 48 was not analyzed as its focus is on modifying lessons for different learners rather than SEL-related skills and therefore not relevant to this study.  Similar to the previous analyses, rank order items were  36  analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs with Cohorts as the between-subjects factor and Time as a within-subjects factor.  For question 47 on teaching priorities, participants’ scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were compared for item d) promoting student social and emotional well-being.  For question 49, the following items: c) promoting mental well-being in all students, d) creating a safe and caring classroom in which all students are respected, e) reducing or eliminating discrimination and bullying, f) maintaining positive relationships among students, and g) teaching students to work together collaboratively were averaged together to create a composite score. Unfortunately, the assumption of normality was violated (and not corrected through recommended transformations) for both of these analyses so the data were not analyzed further.    37  Chapter 4: Discussion This study set out to explore how the SEL beliefs of preservice teachers, especially their self-efficacy for SEL, changed over the course of their year in the teacher education program. This included whether students in a cohort with an SEL focus would change more than their peers in cohorts with other foci.  The most consistent finding of the study was that effect for Time was statistically significant for each of the seven subscales and accounted for the most variance in each of the models.  Across all teacher self-efficacy domains assessed in the current study, students’ reported efficacy increased from the beginning of the program to the end of the program — not only in areas related to academics, but also in areas related to SEL and motivation. This finding is consistent with previous research which found that preservice teachers’ self-efficacy improves over the course of their teacher education program (Hoy & Wolfolk, 1990; Smolleck & Mongan, 2011, Wenner, 2001: Wolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005).    Across all seven analyses, students in the SEL cohort had high efficacy.  The SEL students reported the highest efficacy at Time 1 for all subscales except for Motivation and at Time 2 for all subscales except Motivation and Critical Thinking.  Though it might be expected that the SEL cohort would report the highest efficacy with regard to SEL-related aspects of teaching (i.e., SEL Efficacy and Interpersonal SEL), and even for the Preventative Discipline and Classroom Environment subscales, it is surprising that they started the year with such high efficacy in Adaptive Teaching and Critical Thinking and ended the year with the highest efficacy for Adaptive Teaching.  It is possible this result is simply reflective of a sampling bias (i.e., the SEL cohort happened to include more efficacious students) and replication of this finding is warranted.  Although students in the SEL cohort reported higher self-efficacy, it remains a question for future research whether this higher self efficacy translates into better performance in  38  their future teaching practice or even translated into better course marks and practicum performance during their teacher education program. For the two most explicitly SEL-focused subscales, SEL Efficacy and Interpersonal SEL, not only did students in the SEL cohort begin and finish the year with the highest reported self-efficacy, but in general, the students in the SEL cohort had higher self-efficacy in these areas than students in the other three cohorts.  This is not surprising given the SEL Efficacy subscale was comprised of questions that explicitly asked about SEL in one’s teaching practice and the Interpersonal SEL subscale included questions regarding preservice teachers’ ability to form strong, healthy relationships between and with students.  Interestingly, the SEL students did not necessarily improve their efficacy in these two areas at a greater rate than students in other cohorts, as reflected in the non-significant Cohort by Time interaction on these two subscales. Although students in all four cohorts demonstrated increases in reported self-efficacy across their year in the program, on both of these subscales, it is possible the higher scores of the SEL cohort at the start of the year may be due to selection bias. That is, students in the SEL cohort chose the SEL cohort because they believed in the importance of SEL, and were more familiar with SEL.  Therefore, they started the year with higher reported self-efficacy and continued to improve their efficacy as the year progressed as a result of their SEL infused training.  Of interest is why the SEL cohort, given its strong focus on SEL, did not improve in self-efficacy at a significantly higher rate than the other cohorts.  One possibility is that there was a ceiling effect.  With such high reported efficacy on these scales at Time 1, there was not much room for the efficacy of students in the SEL cohort to improve (Everitt & Skrondal, 2010). In addition, this could in-part be due to the fact that BC has recently changed its core curriculum to include a strong focus on SEL as well as the fact that UBC’s teacher education program as a whole highlights SEL.  As  39  such, all of the preservice teachers take part in a workshop on SEL near the beginning of their year in the program (but prior to the administration of Time 1 surveys in this study). So, all students would have learned about SEL concepts as part of their familiarization with the BC education curriculum. As for the Classroom Environment and Preventative Discipline subscales, though not explicitly focused on SEL and interpersonal relationships, the subscales still incorporated strong aspects of SEL.  The Classroom Environment scale included questions about creating a safe, peaceful classroom environment in which all students respect each other, and the Preventative Discipline subscale included questions that examined how to prevent misbehavior rather than taking a punitive approach to behavior management.  It is not surprising that students in the SEL cohort had the highest reported efficacy on the Classroom Environment and Preventative Discipline subscales.  More notable is the fact that the SEL cohort’s students only had marginally significantly higher efficacy than one other cohort’s students (SRL) for Classroom Environment and that the TELL 3C students and the SRL students narrowed self-efficacy gap on the Preventative Discipline subscale.  Besides the possible ceiling effect for the SEL cohort, another possible explanation for these findings could be the focus that the UBC teacher preparation program, as a whole, puts on these areas.  All students in the elementary and middle programs are required to take a class called Cultivating Supportive School and Classroom Environments which focuses on creating supportive, respectful, and safe classroom environments as well as learning about alternatives to punitive discipline (Faber, 2016).  This could account for the similarities between the cohorts on the Classroom Environment subscale and for the significant improvement in efficacy for Preventative Discipline of students in all four cohorts over the course of the year.  It could also account for why the TELL 3C and SRL students almost caught  40  up with the SEL students.  Since the TELL 3C and SRL students entered the year with lower self-efficacy in this area, they had more room to learn and improve than the SEL students and therefore showed greater increases in self-efficacy for Preventative Discipline. The subscales Adaptive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners (Adaptive Teaching) and Promoting Critical Thinking and Creativity (Critical Thinking) focus less on SEL and more on differentiated learning in the case of Adaptive Teaching, as well as on teacher discussion and student thinking in the case of Critical Thinking.  Overall, it seems that though SEL students started out with higher efficacy in these two areas, the efficacy of students in other cohorts’, especially the SRL and TELL 3C cohorts, rose more over the course of the year.  For the Adaptive Teaching subscale, the SEL cohort’s students started and ended the year with the highest efficacy.  The SEL students’ efficacy, however, did not improve significantly over the course of the year, students in the other three cohorts did improve significantly over the course of the year.  Similarly, students in the SEL cohort still started the year with the highest efficacy for Critical Thinking, significantly higher than students in the TELL 3C cohort, even though this is not an SEL-focused subscale.  Yet, by the end of the year, the TELL 3C and SEL cohorts were comparable and the difference was no longer significant.  Like the TELL 3C cohort, the SRL cohort showed a steep increase over the course of the year and even surpassed the SEL group as having the most efficacy for Critical Thinking, though the difference was not significant. Though the fact that the SEL cohort starts out with higher reported efficacy in these areas is somewhat curious, the greater rise in efficacy of the other cohorts could be due to their greater focus on academics.   For the final analysis, student reports of efficacy for Motivation significantly improved over the year in all four Cohorts.  This is again in-line with previous research which suggests that  41  preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for motivating students increases over the course of their teacher education programs (Hoy & Woolfolk,1990).  Interestingly, this was the only subscale for which the students in the SEL cohort neither started nor ended the year with the highest reported self-efficacy.  Instead, students in the TELL 3C started off with the highest reported efficacy for motivating their pupils, and students in the SRL cohort started the year with the lowest efficacy in this area. Given the importance of motivation in self-regulated learning (Butler, Perry, & Schnellert, 2017), it is not surprising that the SRL cohort’s efficacy improved the most over the course of their teacher training program, ending the year with the highest reported efficacy in this domain.  4.1 Limitations One limitation in the present study is that is does not control for other individual characteristics such prior teaching experience or perceptions of a successful practicum experience, owing in large part to the limited sample size considered in the present study.  According to Tschannen-Moran, and Hoy (2007), early mastery experiences are supposed to affect self-efficacy beliefs, so experience in a related field or experience with youth prior to entering the teacher education program could potentially act as an early mastery experience and affect self-efficacy at the beginning of the program.  Similarly, the experience of preservice teachers during their practicum is thought to affect their self-efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). In future research with a larger sample, it would be worth examining whether such experiences had any significant impact on initially reported self-efficacy and/or on improvements over the course of the year in the teacher education program.  Secondly, because of the small N, the study was only able to compare four of the ten thematic cohorts that were included in the UBC elementary teacher training program.  Further  42  research is needed to compare a broader range of “cohorts” in terms of similarities and differences in self-efficacy beliefs.  It would have been especially interesting to compare the SEL cohort with more academically-focused cohorts such as the academically focused International Baccalaureate cohort or a cohort such as the Kindergarten— Primary Program (KIPP) that likely also prioritizes SEL. Furthermore, with a larger number of study participants, the study could have had greater power and have been more sensitive in detecting significant interaction effects in the data.  This study set out to explore not only the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers, but also their teaching priorities.  Unfortunately, analyses exploring teaching priorities and their change over time were not conducted because the data violated the assumptions of normality.  It would be worth working with statisticians to further investigate ways of analyzing the rank order items.   4.2 Future Directions Since little research has been conducted regarding the promotion of SEL in teacher education, more research needs to be done to better understand how SEL-infused teacher education programs affect and change the beliefs of preservice teachers.   First, the long-term effects of this type of teacher education program needs to be examined.  Even though the students in the SEL cohort reported higher SEL Efficacy and efficacy for Interpersonal SEL than other cohorts, of interest is whether and how such beliefs translate into actual educational practices and, in turn, changes in SEL outcomes for their students.  In addition, given that teachers’ own social emotional competency is so important in promoting SEL (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones, Bouffard, & Weissbourd, 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017), research into the SEL competencies of preservice teachers would be valuable.  Data could be collected  43  through preservice teacher self-reports on their social emotional competencies and through observational methods during their practicum placements. This research could help understand how SEL-infused teacher education programs affect the social emotional competency of preservice teachers.   It could also be used to examine how SEL competencies and self-efficacy in SEL areas interrelate, including whether preservice teachers’ social emotional competency contributes to their perceptions of self-efficacy. Furthermore, although reported self-efficacy in SEL areas improved for these preservice teachers over the course of their teacher education program, Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005), found that efficacy beliefs then sharply decrease in their first year of teaching.  Follow-up research is needed to better understand how the self-efficacy changes for these preservice teachers once they enter the teaching profession.   Future research could also compare differences in reported self-efficacy across different teacher education programs, especially those that do and do not include a focus on SEL and social justice as is the case for the UBC teacher education program, or across BC and other provinces in which the mandated government curriculum does not have the same SEL focus. Finally, qualitative studies could help better understand the factors in the teacher education program that helped improve efficacy in the SEL related areas. This could be done through a case study of UBC’s SEL cohort.  Semi-structured interviews with students in the SEL cohorts could be conducted to better understand their experiences in the program, how their beliefs and practices around SEL changed, and how prepared they felt to promote SEL with future students.  Interviews could also be conducted with practicum supervisors, instructors, and administrators of the SEL cohort along with an analysis of documents pertaining to the SEL cohort such as syllabi, workshop descriptions, and lesson plans.  Interviews and analyses such as  44  these, would help shed light onto the practices that help or hinder preservice teachers in feeling more confident about bringing SEL into their future teaching practice. 4.3 Significance As the number of localities that include SEL in their mandatory curriculum increases, so too will the need to properly prepare future teachers to promote and foster SEL. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research in this area (Markowitz et al., 2016; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015, 2016; Waajid, Garner, & Owen, 2013).  This study, therefore, could help inform universities that are trying infuse SEL into their teacher education programs by providing initial insights into the effectiveness of including and promoting SEL in teacher education.  Additionally, it could help school districts that have an SEL focus to better understand new teachers in their district and areas where they might need support, mentorship, or professional development.  The present study represents a first step in creating a research base for SEL in teacher education programs that then could be used by SEL advocates to lobby state and provincial governments to include training for future preservice teachers in how to foster SEL in their students.    45  References ACT. (2014). Broadening the definition of college and career readiness: A holistic approach.  Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/ researchers/reports/pdf/ACT_RR2014-5.pdf   AEI/Brookings Institute: Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity. 2015. Opportunity,  Responsibility, Security: A Consensus Plan for Reducing Poverty and Restoring the American Dream The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Brookings Institution  Ahn, H. J., & Rodkin, P. C. (2014). Classroom-level predictors of the social status of aggression:  Friendship centralization, friendship density, teacher–student attunement, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1144  Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and  student achievement. New York: Longman.  Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., &  Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools, REPORT NO. R-2007- LAUSD. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243).  Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).  Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological  review, 84(2), 191.  Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.  British Columbia Ministry of Education (n.d.).  Core Competencies.  Retrieved from:   https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies   Berg, D. A., & Smith, L. F. (2014). Preservice teachers' efficacy beliefs and concerns in  Malaysia, England and New Zealand. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 21-40.  Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). Assessing  teachers’ beliefs about social and emotional learning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3), 219-236.  Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The Missing Piece: A National Teacher  Survey on How Social and Emotional Learning Can Empower Children and Transform Schools. A Report for CASEL. Civic Enterprises.    46   Butler, D. L., Perry, N. E., & Schnellert, L. (2017). Developing self-regulating learners. Toronto:  Pearson.  Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy  beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490.  CASEL. (2015). CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs—Middle  and High School Edition.  Retrieved from: http://secondaryguide.casel.org/casel-secondary-guide.pdf   CASEL. (2016a). SEL Impact. Retrieved from: http://www.casel.org/impact/   CASEL. (2016b). What is SEL?.  Retrieved from: http://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/   CASEL. (2017). Core SEL Competencies.  Retrieved from: https://casel.org/core-competencies/   CASEL. (2016c). State Scan Scorecard Project.  Retrieved from:  http://www.casel.org/state-scan-scorecard-project/   Chesnut, S.R. & Cullen, T.A. (2014) Effects of Self-Efficacy, Emotional Intelligence,  and Perceptions of Future Work Environment on Preservice Teacher Commitment, The Teacher Educator, 49:2, 116-132, DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2014.887168.  Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J: L.  Erlbaum Associates.  Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of  experimental education, 60(4), 323-337.  Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:  Predicting  teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189.  Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social‐Emotional  Competence: An Essential Factor for Promoting Positive Adjustment and Reducing Risk  in School Children. Child Development, 88(2), 408-416.  Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The  impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child development, 82(1), 405-432.  Egyed, C. J., & Short, R. J. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, experience, and decision to  refer a disruptive student. School Psychology International, 27, 462–474. doi:10.1177/0143034306070432  47   Everitt, B., & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics (4th ed.). Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Faber, S. (2016). EPSE 311: Cultivating Supportive School And Classroom Environments  [Syllabus].  Vancouver, British Columbia: Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia.  Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical  power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175-191.  Farmer, T.W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children's peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 247–256.  Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.  Gamst, G., Meyers, L. S., & Guarino, A. J. (2008). Analysis of variance designs: A conceptual  and computational approach with SPSS and SAS. New York, NY: Cambridge.  Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of  Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.  Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,  measure, and  impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,37(2), 479-507. doi:10.2307/1163531  Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation  of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.  Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of  teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and teacher education, 21(4), 343-356.  Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational  Research Journal, 93, 279- 300.  Hanson-Peterson, J. L., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Smith, V. (2016). Teachers' beliefs about  emotions: Relations to teacher characteristics and social and emotional learning program Implementation/Prepricanja uciteljev o custvih: Povezava z znacilnostmi uciteljev ter implementacijo programa socialnega in custvenega ucenja. Solsko Polje, 27(1/2), 13.  Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015). Addressing school bullying:  Insights from theories of group processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 16-24  48   Hymel, S., Low, A., Starosta, L., Gill, R. & Schonert-Reichl, K. (2018, in press).  Promoting mental well-being through social-emotional learning in schools: Examples from British Columbia, Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. Hymel, S., Starosta, L., Gill, R., Low, A.S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities in promoting mental well-being and addressing violence through schools.  In . P. Slee, G. Skrzypiec & C. Cefai (Eds.) Child and adolescent wellbeing and violence prevention in schools (3-13). NY: Routledge. Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional  Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educational  Research, 79(1), 491-525. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/40071173  Jones, S.M., Bouffard, S.M., & Weissbourd, R. (2013).  Educators’ social and emotional skills vital to learning.  Phi Delta Kappan, 94,  62-65.  Jones, S. M., Bailey, R., & Jacob, R. (2014). Social-emotional learning is essential to classroom management. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 19-24.  Jones, S. M., & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development. Consensus statements of evidence from the Council of Distinguished Scientists. Washington, DC: National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development & the Aspen Institute. Retrieved from: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/09/SEAD-Research-Brief9.12_updated-web.pdf   Kress, J., Norris, J., Schoenholz, D., Elias, M., & Seigle, P. (2004). Bringing Together Educational Standards and Social and Emotional Learning: Making the Case for Educators. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 68-89. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/424720 doi:1  Manuel, J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in in- service and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 641-652.   Markowitz, N. (2014). Integrating Social-Emotional Learning in K-8 Pre-Service Teacher  Education:Processes, Products, and Outcomes. American Educational Research Association Conference symposium presentation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Markowitz, N., Thowdis, W., Swanson, P. (April, 2016). The Heart of the Matter: Integrating  and Evaluating the Impact of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Skills in Teacher Preparation. American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education 2016 Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada.   49  Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and  task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258.  Morrison, W. & Peterson, P. (2013). Schools as a Setting for Promoting Positive Mental Health:  Better Practices and Perspectives. Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jcsh-cces.ca/upload/JCSH%20Best%20Practice_Eng_Jan21.pdf   Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching:  enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.  National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable  knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W.   Pajares, M. F. (01/01/1992). Review of educational research: Teachers' beliefs and educational  research: Cleaning up a messy construct American Educational Research Association. doi:10.2307/1170741  Pellegrino & M. L. Hilton (Eds). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science  Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press  Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Preservice student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs:  An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 4.  Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2015). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences:  Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge.  Prajapati, B., Dunne, M., & Armstrong, R. (2010). Sample size estimation and statistical power  analyses. Optometry today, 16(07), 10-18.  Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M., & Jacobson, L. (2009). The  role of teachers' psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 510.  Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). The  interaction effects of program training, dosage, and implementation quality on targeted student outcomes for the RULER approach to social and emotional learning. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 82.  Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement.  Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65.  50   Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of  reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.  Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Hanson-Peterson, J. L., & Hymel, S. (2015). Social and emotional  learning and preservice teacher education. In J. Durlak, R. Weissberg, C. Domitrovich, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social & emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 406-421). NY: Guilford  Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Kitil, M.J., LeRose, M., Sipl, M., Sweiss, L., Teja, Z., Sauve, J. (2016).   Social & Emotional Learning and Teacher Education: What do we know and where do we go from here? Hope Lab. Retrieved from: http://www.hopelab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SELinTeacherEducation_WhitePaperforHopeLab_April152016KSR.pdf   Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of  Children, 137-155.  Shanker, S. (2014). Broader Measures for Success: Social/Emotional Learning. In Measuring  What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.  Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement  inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12-21.  Smolleck, L. A., & Mongan, A. M. (2011). Changes in Preservice Teachers' Self-Efficacy: From  Science Methods to Student Teaching. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 133.  State, T.M., Kern, L., Starosta, K.M., Mukerjee, A.D. (2011). Elementary Preservice Teacher Preparation in the Area of Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems. School Mental Health, 3, 13-23.  Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A. and Weissberg, R. P. (2017), Promoting Positive Youth  Development Through School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Effects. Child Dev, 88: 1156–1171.  “The Mission of Teacher Education at UBC.” (2017).  Retrieved from: http://teach.educ.ubc.ca/about/mission/   Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and  measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.  Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive  construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.     51  Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs  of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956.  Tsouloupas, C., Carson, R., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M., & Barber, L. (2010). Exploring the Association between teachers’ perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173– 189.  UBC.  (2017).  Elementary & Middle Years Option: 11-Month Teacher Education Program.  Retrieved from: http://teach.educ.ubc.ca/bachelor-of-education-program/elementary-middle-years/  Waajid, B., Garner, P.W., Owen, J.E. (2013). Infusing Social Emotional Learning into the Teacher Education Curriculum. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 5 (2), 31-48.  Weare, K. (2010). Mental health and social and emotional learning: Evidence, principles,  tensions and balances.  Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 3, 5-17.  Wenner, G. (2001). Science and mathematics efficacy beliefs held by practicing and prospective teachers: A 5-year perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 181-187.  Woolfolk Hoy, A. and Burke Spero, R. (2005) Changes in Teacher Efficacy during the Early Years of Teaching: A Comparison of Four Measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.  Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2 & 3), p. 191-210.  Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development  of  all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2-3), 233-255.  Zinsser, K. M., Shewark, E. A., Denham, S. A., Curby, T. W. (2014) A mixed-method  examination of preschool teacher beliefs about social–emotional learning and relations to observed emotional support. Infant and Child Development 23 (5), 471–493.  Version 2                                                                                                                                          4 September 2016   Appendices Appendix A: CONSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH:   Evaluating Self-Efficacy Among Teachers In Training  Dear Teacher Education Student, We are researchers within the Faculty of Education at UBC who are interested in finding out about how students’ beliefs about their teaching abilities change throughout their teacher education program.  To do this, we are asking teacher candidates to fill out a short survey (15-20 minutes) that asks about you feelings of self-efficacy about teaching and how effective you think you are or will be in handling different situations when you are in the classroom. We are asking students to complete the survey now and again at the end of the teacher education program, and later (1-2 years) once you have been a teacher in practice.  What are the benefits of participating?  Your input can really help us to understand how best to train pre-service teachers. Also, if you are interested in the results, a written report of the results of this study will be sent via email to all participating instructors as well as administrators of the Teacher Education program and participating students who share their email address (below). Results will only be presented at the group level, without identifying specific students or instructors. Who takes part? All UBC students in the teacher education program will be invited to take part in this project, but only if you want to take the survey.  Participation is voluntary, and you can stop at any time without penalty.  Confidentiality? All answers to our survey are confidential. We will identify your survey with identification (ID) codes, not names, and no one other than the researchers will have access to the data. Results will only be reported at a group level (not individuals).  Questions? If you have any questions about the project, feel free to call Dr. Shelley Hymel (604-822-6022).  Complaints or concerns about the study?: If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598.  Thank you very much for your help with this project. Sincerely,  Shelley Hymel, UBC Professor  Consent: 1) ____ Yes, I am willing to participate in the “Evaluating Self-Efficacy Among Teachers in Training” project.   (please check if you give consent to complete the survey).       2) _____Yes, I am interested in receiving a report on the results of this study.   (please check if you want us to email a report of our findings).  If yes, provide your EMAIL address (please print VERY clearly):  __________________ ________________  3)  ____Yes, I am willing to be contacted via email in 1-2 years about completing the survey again.  (please check if you give consent to be contacted later).  If yes, provide your EMAIL address (please print VERY clearly):  ___________________ ________________  Print your name (first and last): ________________________________________________________  Signature: ___________________________________        Date: _____________________________  Version 2                                                                                                                                          4 September 2016   Appendix B: Time 1 - Pre-Program Survey Tell Us About Yourself 1) Are you male or female (check one):  Male  Female  Prefer not to answer  2) What year were you born? ________  3) What level do you plan to teach?  Elementary  Middle School  Secondary   4) For students in the Elementary or Middle School program: What cohort are you in? _____________________________  5) What grade levels do you hope to teach? (Choose only one)   Primary years (K   1   2   3)     Intermediate years (grades 4   5   6   7)      Middle school years (grades 6 7 8 )   Secondary years (grades 8   9  10   11   12)   6) What experience do you have in teaching children and/or youth?   Have taught classes in schools or other contexts:   Where?____________  How long? ______      Have worked with children/youth in other contexts (e.g., summer camps, after school programs, coaching in sports, etc.)                             Where? __________________  How long? ______   Have served as a teacher assistant/youth worker in schools:  Where? ______ How long?____   Other (please describe): _______________________________________________________                                  _____________________Where? ____________ How long?______  Version 2                                                                                                                                          4 September 2016   Instructions: Please respond to each item below by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statements.  14. ….respond to difficult questions from students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. …. craft good questions for my students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. …. implement alternative teaching strategies when lessons are not effective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. .... use a variety of assessment strategies (for example, portfolio assessment, performance-based assessment, modified tests , etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. …. provide an alternate explanation or example when students are confused. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. … adjust my lessons to the proper level for individual students , including students with disabilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. .... accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have taught. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. .... provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.  1 2 3 4 5 6 22. …. get students to work together cooperatively in pairs or in small groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. …. keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. ….. establish routines to keep activities running smoothly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. …. prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs. 1 2 3 4 5 6   As a teacher I think I can…..: Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 7. .... get through to the most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. .... help my students think critically.  1 2 3 4 5 6 9. .... improve the understanding of a student who is failing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. .... foster student creativity.  1 2 3 4 5 6 11. .... motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. .... get students to believe they can do well in school work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. .... help my students value learning.  1 2 3 4 5 6  Version 2                                                                                                                                          4 September 2016   As a teacher I think I can: Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 26. .... make my expectations clear about student behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. ….. deal with students who are disruptive, defiant, or physically aggressive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. …. get children to follow classroom rules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. ... support students in my class who experience mental health challenges. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. … enhance the well-being of all students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. … help students learn from conflicts with other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. …discipline students effectively without intimidation or punishment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. … eliminate bullying in my classroom.  1 2 3 4 5 6 34. … teach students to solve conflicts peacefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. … help students get along with one another.  1 2 3 4 5 6 36. … eliminate discrimination in my class.  1 2 3 4 5 6 37. … teach students to work together effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. …. encourage acceptance among all students despite their differences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. …form strong connections/positive relationships with all of my students 1 2 3 4 5 6   Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 40. The primary focus of school is to teach academic subjects.  1 2 3 4 5 6 41. I feel confident in my ability to provide instruction on social and emotional learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. I am comfortable listening empathically to students’ personal experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43. Taking care of students’ emotional and social needs comes naturally to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44. Informal lessons in social-emotional learning are part of my regular teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. I am comfortable providing instruction on social-emotional skills to students.  1 2 3 4 5 6 46. Helping students develop their social and emotional skills is as important as helping them develop academic skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6     Version 2                                                                                                                                          4 September 2016   For the last three items, please RANK ORDER, with 1 being MOST important and 6 (or 7 or 8) being LEAST important for you in your teaching.  We realize that all of these may be important to consider as a teacher, but request that you consider your priorities in each case.  47. What is most important as a focus of your teaching (rank order from 1-8):   _____ a) teaching core curriculum (elementary)/teaching my subject matter curriculum (secondary)  _____ b) supporting and accepting students with mental health difficulties   _____ c) motivating students to learn and take ownership of their learning   _____ d) promoting student social and emotional well-being  _____ e) bringing music, drama and art into my teaching   _____ f) managing classroom behaviour so that students can learn material presented   _____ g) establishing and maintaining positive relationships with students   _____ h) promoting social justice and social responsibility in students  48.  What is most important to you in modifying or adapting your teaching? (Rank order from 1-6)  _____ a)  focusing my teaching on the majority of students (who don’t need modifications)  _____ b) providing alternative teaching approaches for students who are struggling  _____ c) providing additional challenges for students who are gifted or high achievers  _____ d) modifying lessons and activities for students who have learning or intellectual difficulties _____ e) modifying lessons and activities for students who have physical, emotional or behavioural                 disabilities or mental health challenges  _____ f) modifying lessons and activities for students who are English Language Learners   49.  What is most important to you in establishing your classroom environment (Rank order from 1-7)  _____ a) managing student behaviour in the classroom   _____ b) managing the behaviour of students who are aggressive and/or disruptive   _____ c) promoting mental well-being in all students   _____ d) creating a safe and caring classroom in which all students are respected   _____ e) reducing or eliminating discrimination and bullying  _____ f) maintaining positive relationships among students  _____ g) teaching students to work together collaboratively      Appendix C: Time 2 - Post-Program Survey Tell Us About Yourself 1) Are you male or female (check one):  Male  Female  Prefer not to answer  2) What year were you born? ________  3) Which program are you in at UBC?  Elementary  Middle School  Secondary  4) For students in the Elementary or Middle School program: What cohort are you in? _____________________________ 5) What grade levels do you hope to teach? (Choose only one)   Primary years (K   1   2   3)     Intermediate years (grades 4   5   6   7)      Middle school years (grades 6 7 8 )   Secondary years (grades 8   9  10   11   12)    6) Prior to starting the Teacher Education program, what experience did you have in teaching children and/or youth? a. I had taught classes in schools (e.g. Educational Assistant, youth worker, teacher in another country, etc.) o None o 0-1 year o 1-3 years o 3+ years  b. I had worked with children/youth in other contexts (e.g., summer camps, after school programs, coaching in sports, etc.)                              o None o 0-1 year o 1-3 years o 3+ years  7.  Overall, how well do you think you did as a teacher during your practicum experiences: o Excellent o Good o Adequate o Poor      Instructions: Please respond to each item below by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statements. 15. ….respond to difficult questions from students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. …. craft good questions for my students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. …. implement alternative teaching strategies when lessons are not effective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. .... use a variety of assessment strategies (for example, portfolio assessment, performance-based assessment, modified tests , etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. …. provide an alternate explanation or example when students are confused. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. … adjust my lessons to the proper level for individual students , including students with disabilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. .... accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have taught. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. .... provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.  1 2 3 4 5 6 23. …. get students to work together cooperatively in pairs or in small groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. …. keep a few problem students from ruining an entire lesson. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. ….. establish routines to keep activities running smoothly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. …. prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs. 1 2 3 4 5 6   As a teacher I think I can…..: Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 8. .... get through to the most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. .... help my students think critically.  1 2 3 4 5 6 10. .... improve the understanding of a student who is failing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. .... foster student creativity.  1 2 3 4 5 6 12. .... motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. .... get students to believe they can do well in school work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. .... help my students value learning.  1 2 3 4 5 6     As a teacher I think I can: Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 27. .... make my expectations clear about student behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. ….. deal with students who are disruptive, defiant, or physically aggressive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. …. get children to follow classroom rules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. ... support students in my class who experience mental health challenges. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. … enhance the well-being of all students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. … help students learn from conflicts with other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. …discipline students effectively without intimidation or punishment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. … eliminate bullying in my classroom.  1 2 3 4 5 6 35. … teach students to solve conflicts peacefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. … help students get along with one another.  1 2 3 4 5 6 37. … eliminate discrimination in my class.  1 2 3 4 5 6 38. … teach students to work together effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. …. encourage acceptance among all students despite their differences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. …form strong connections/positive relationships with all of my students 1 2 3 4 5 6   Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 41. The primary focus of school is to teach academic subjects.  1 2 3 4 5 6 42. I feel confident in my ability to provide instruction on social and emotional learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43. I am comfortable listening empathically to students’ personal experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44. Taking care of students’ emotional and social needs comes naturally to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. Informal lessons in social-emotional learning are part of my regular teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 46. I am comfortable providing instruction on social-emotional skills to students.  1 2 3 4 5 6 47. Helping students develop their social and emotional skills is as important as helping them develop academic skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6        For the last three items, please RANK ORDER, with 1 being MOST important and 6 (or 7 or 8) being LEAST important for you in your teaching.  We realize that all of these may be important to consider as a teacher, but request that you consider your priorities in each case.  48. What is most important as a focus of your teaching (rank order from 1-8):   _____ a) teaching core curriculum (elementary)/teaching my subject matter curriculum (secondary)  _____ b) supporting and accepting students with mental health difficulties   _____ c) motivating students to learn and take ownership of their learning   _____ d) promoting student social and emotional well-being  _____ e) bringing music, drama and art into my teaching   _____ f) managing classroom behaviour so that students can learn material presented   _____ g) establishing and maintaining positive relationships with students   _____ h) promoting social justice and social responsibility in students  49.  What is most important to you in modifying or adapting your teaching? (Rank order from 1-6)  _____ a) focusing my teaching on the majority of students (who don’t need modifications)  _____ b) providing alternative teaching approaches for students who are struggling  _____ c) providing additional challenges for students who are gifted or high achievers  _____ d) modifying lessons and activities for students who have learning or intellectual difficulties _____ e) modifying lessons and activities for students who have physical, emotional or behavioural                 disabilities or mental health challenges  _____ f) modifying lessons and activities for students who are English Language Learners   50.  What is most important to you in establishing your classroom environment (Rank order from 1-7)  _____ a) managing student behaviour in the classroom   _____ b) managing the behaviour of students who are aggressive and/or disruptive   _____ c) promoting mental well-being in all students   _____ d) creating a safe and caring classroom in which all students are respected   _____ e) reducing or eliminating discrimination and bullying  _____ f) maintaining positive relationships among students  _____ g) teaching students to work together collaboratively   THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0365945/manifest

Comment

Related Items