Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Taylor, Carolyn
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Students who have anxiety are at an increased risk of experiencing a myriad of academic difficulties, which can be mitigated with appropriate supports from their teachers. Research is presently lacking on the ways that teachers respond to the academic needs of students who struggle with anxiety. It is important to also understand the beliefs teachers hold about whether it is possible for these students’ academic performance to improve. The purpose of this study was to understand the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about academic abilities for students with anxiety, as well as the way pre-service teachers choose to respond to these difficulties in the classroom. Pre-service teachers represent a particularly important population when considering implications for the development of teacher training programs that will prepare teachers who have a strong sense of efficacy in their ability to effect change in their students. The present study utilized a repeated measures survey design in order to address a number of research questions focused around pre-service teachers’ implicit theories and related responses in the classroom. Results showed a general trend of more incremental theories (students can change with intervention) across all student types. Pre-service teachers in the present study were also likely to implement supports for all types of students presented, with the strongest likelihood indicated for students with anxiety. The specific types of supports that pre-service teacher were willing to implement varied among typical students, students with anxiety, and students with learning difficulties. Incremental theories of academic achievement appeared to be associated with stronger beliefs that supports could make a difference, and stronger likelihood to implement supports for students with anxiety specifically. The results are discussed in detail in relation to existing literature, along with implications for practice in the field of education and possibilities for future research.
PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ IMPLICIT THEORIES ABOUT ACHIEVEMENT IN STUDENTS WITH ANXIETY AND RELATED USE OF CLASSROOM-BASED STRATEGIES by CAROLYN TAYLOR B.A., St. Francis Xavier University, 2016 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (School and Applied Child Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2019 © Carolyn Taylor, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Pre-Service Teachers' Implicit Theories About Achievement in Students with Anxiety and Related Use of Classroom-based Strategies submitted by Carolyn Taylor in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in School and Applied Child Psychology Examining Committee: William McKee, School and Applied Child Psychology Supervisor Rachel Weber, School and Applied Child Psychology Supervisory Committee Member Serge Lacroix, School and Applied Child Psychology Additional Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Supervisory Committee Member Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Students who have anxiety are at an increased risk of experiencing a myriad of academic difficulties, which can be mitigated with appropriate supports from their teachers. Research is presently lacking on the ways that teachers respond to the academic needs of students who struggle with anxiety. It is important to also understand the beliefs teachers hold about whether it is possible for these students’ academic performance to improve. The purpose of this study was to understand the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about academic abilities for students with anxiety, as well as the way pre-service teachers choose to respond to these difficulties in the classroom. Pre-service teachers represent a particularly important population when considering implications for the development of teacher training programs that will prepare teachers who have a strong sense of efficacy in their ability to effect change in their students. The present study utilized a repeated measures survey design in order to address a number of research questions focused around pre-service teachers’ implicit theories and related responses in the classroom. Results showed a general trend of more incremental theories (students can change with intervention) across all student types. Pre-service teachers in the present study were also likely to implement supports for all types of students presented, with the strongest likelihood indicated for students with anxiety. The specific types of supports that pre-service teacher were willing to implement varied among typical students, students with anxiety, and students with learning difficulties. Incremental theories of academic achievement appeared to be associated with stronger beliefs that supports could make a difference, and stronger likelihood to implement supports for students with anxiety specifically. The results are discussed in detail in relation to existing literature, along with implications for practice in the field of education and possibilities for future research. iv Lay Summary Schools play an important role in identifying and supporting children with mental health challenges of all kinds, but many teachers admit that their resources and training in this area are limited. Anxiety is a particularly common challenge in students, and it can greatly diminish their overall well-being, as well as their ability to engage academically in the classroom. The way that teachers perceive their students, and the supports that they choose to implement are important and can also have considerable impact on student’s achievement. It is important to understand the nuances of teacher perceptions of students who have anxiety and how these inform their responses to students experiencing difficulties. The findings from the present study contribute to the literature by helping to highlight the perspectives of newly emerging educators, and have implications for the training of pre-service teachers to understand and appropriately respond to students with anxiety in the classroom. v Preface This thesis is the original, unpublished, independent work of the author, Carolyn Taylor, under the advisement of her research supervisor, Dr. William McKee. The research study involved human participants, and was reviewed and approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB). The original UBC BREB Certificate of Approval number pertaining to this study is: H18-00740. vi Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iv Preface............................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... x Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 5 Anxiety in the School Setting ............................................................................................. 5 Learning Difficulties in the School Setting ........................................................................ 6 Academic Achievement ...................................................................................................... 6 Teachers’ Beliefs About Students ....................................................................................... 7 Implicit Theories. .................................................................................................. 10 Teachers’ Implicit Theories About Students. ....................................................... 10 Implicit Theories of Academic Ability. ................................................................ 11 Teacher Responses to Student Difficulties ....................................................................... 12 Responses to Learning Difficulties. ...................................................................... 13 Responses to Mental Health Difficulties and Anxiety. ......................................... 14 Perspectives of Pre-Service Teachers ............................................................................... 17 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 18 Research Questions & Hypotheses ................................................................................... 19 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 21 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 21 Participants and Recruitment ............................................................................................ 21 Materials ........................................................................................................................... 22 Vignettes. .............................................................................................................. 22 Measures ........................................................................................................................... 23 Demographics. ...................................................................................................... 23 Implicit Theories of Academic Achievement. ...................................................... 23 Perception of Student Difficulty. .......................................................................... 25 Accommodations and Support. ............................................................................. 25 Expectations of Efficacy ....................................................................................... 26 Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 26 Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 27 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 28 Preliminary Analysis. ............................................................................................ 28 Research Question 1. ............................................................................................ 28 Research Question 2. ............................................................................................ 29 vii Research Question 3. ............................................................................................ 30 Research Question 4. ............................................................................................ 30 Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 32 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 32 Characteristics of the Sample............................................................................................ 32 Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33 Internal Consistency of TOAA Measure. ............................................................. 33 Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 34 Implicit Theories of Student Academic Achievement. ......................................... 34 Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 34 Likelihood of Providing Support. ......................................................................... 34 Types of Supports Provided. ................................................................................. 35 Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 42 Expectations for Efficacy of Supports. ................................................................. 42 Likelihood to Provide Support and Expectations for Efficacy. ............................ 43 Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................... 44 Implicit Theories and Beliefs About Whether Supports Could Make a Difference................................................................................................................................ 44 Implicit Theories and Likelihood to Provide Supports. ........................................ 45 Implicit Theories and Expectations for Student Improvement. ............................ 46 Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 49 Discussion of Findings with Reference to Literature ....................................................... 49 Implicit Theories About Academic Achievement. ............................................... 49 Responses to Student Difficulties. ........................................................................ 51 Expectations for Students’ Academic Achievement............................................. 55 Implicit Theories and Related Responses and Expectations................................. 57 Considerations for Psychologists and Educators .............................................................. 60 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 61 Considerations for Future Research .................................................................................. 62 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63 References ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix A: Vignettes ................................................................................................................. 79 Appendix B: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 80 Appendix C: Survey Text ............................................................................................................. 82 Appendix D: Debriefing Form ...................................................................................................... 89 Appendix E: Recruitment Email ................................................................................................... 90 Appendix F: Recruitment Poster ................................................................................................... 91 viii List of Tables Table 1. Characteristics of the Sample………………………………………………..…………32 Table 2. Definitions of Themes Used to Classify Types of Support………………….…….…...36 Table 3. Supports Endorsed within Broad Themes, as Number of Responses and Percentage of Responses within Student Condition……..….………………….………….…….….37 Table 4. Examples of Supports Related to Learning Endorsed within Sub-themes, for Each Student Condition………………………………………………………………...38 Table 5. Supports Related to Learning Endorsed within Sub-themes, as Number of Responses and Percentage of Responses within Student Condition………………...……..……….40 Table 6. Examples of Supports Related to Anxiety Endorsed within Sub-themes, for Students with Anxiety………………………………………………………….....………………41 Table 7. Beliefs About Whether Supports Could Make a Difference, Grouped by Implicit Theories, as Number of Participants in Each Group and Mean (Std. Deviation) Scores..…………………………………………………………………………….……45 Table 8. Expectations for Improvement in Student Achievement, With and Without Support, Grouped by Implicit Theories, as Mean (Std. Deviation) Score…………………………………………………………….…………….………..48 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Supports Endorsed within Broad Themes, as Percentage of Responses within Student Condition……………………….……………………………………………..38 Figure 2. Supports Related to Learning Endorsed within Sub-themes…………………..………40 Figure 3. Supports Related to Anxiety Endorsed within Sub-themes………………….………..41 Figure 4. Likelihood to Provide Support and Expectations for Student Achievement, With Support………………………………………………………………............................44 Figure 5. Beliefs About Whether Supports Could Make a Difference, Grouped by Implicit Theories….………………………………………………………………..…………....45 Figure 6. Likelihood to Provide Support, Grouped by Implicit Theories…………………… …………………………………………………………..46 Figure 7. Expectations for Improvement in Student Achievement, With Support…………………………………………………………………………………………...47 x Acknowledgements I offer my gratitude to the participants who contributed their valuable perspectives to this study, as well as the faculty and staff in the UBC Faculty of Education who enabled me to collect data from within this population. I would like to thank my research supervisor, Dr. William McKee for his support, wisdom, and humour throughout the course of my studies. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Rachel Weber, and Dr. Serge Lacroix for their helpful feedback on this study. Lastly, I am grateful to the members of my cohort for their friendship and teamwork over the course of this graduate program. 1 Chapter One: Introduction Overview More than one third of Canadian secondary school students report experiencing symptoms of psychological distress consistent with depression and/or anxiety (Boak, Hamilton, Adlaf, & Mann, 2016). Older estimates of anxiety alone place the prevalence at 10-13% among middle and secondary school students in Canada (Tramonte & Willms, 2010). Anxiety in the school setting can interfere with both academic engagement and overall well-being (Martin, 2008; Roeser, Strobel, & Quihuis, 2002). As it has become apparent that many mental health challenges, including anxiety, have an early age of onset, there has been increasing attention paid to the mental health needs of Canadian students (Kutcher & Wei, 2012). However, it is important to investigate how this increased attention is manifest at the classroom level for students who disclose their mental health difficulties to their teachers (Buchholz, Aylward, McKenzie, & Corrigan, 2015). It has been well established in the literature that teachers have generally embraced the inclusive classroom model and in that context are willing to implement classroom-based supports and adaptations to meet the specific needs of students with specific learning difficulties, particularly in elementary schools (Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996; Vaughn, Schumm, & Kouzekani, 1993). There is some evidence that the use of adapted instructional strategies by teachers can be effective in improving the academic performance of students with anxiety as well, but there has been considerably less research indicating the willingness of teachers to implement such supports (Hancock, Nichols, Jones, Mayring, & Glaeser-Zikuda, 2000). The beliefs that teachers hold about their students, and their related responses to their students are important and can have considerable impact on students’ achievement (Rattan, 2 Good, & Dweck, 2012). One way that teacher beliefs have been conceptualized is with implicit theories. Implicit theories are beliefs held, usually subconsciously, by individuals regarding the nature of various human characteristics (Ross, 1989). Specifically, the implicit theories perspective suggests that people hold beliefs that characteristics such as intelligence or personality are fixed and cannot be changed, or they may see them as malleable and liable to change as a result of hard work (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Implicit theories have been found to drive teachers’ beliefs about their students in domains such as intelligence and behaviour, as well as influencing the way they respond to students in the classroom (Jonsson & Beach, 2012). For example, one study found that teachers who believed that intelligence was fixed were more likely to comfort their low achieving students than to provide strategies for improvement (Rattan et al., 2012). Additionally, research on the implicit theories that teachers hold about students’ intelligence indicates that those who feel that intelligence can be changed are more likely to implement interventions and supports to help students (Patterson, Kravchenko, Chen-Bouck, & Kelley, 2016). Teachers’ implicit theories about the academic achievement of their students with anxiety could also influence their willingness to implement classroom-based supports for these students. If teachers believe that the academic achievement of their students with anxiety is malleable, and thus remediable, it follows that they may be more likely to adjust their teaching response accordingly to help the students improve. Alternatively, if teachers believe that the academic achievement of their students with anxiety is fixed, they may not feel that any additional teaching efforts would be effective. Teachers with stronger beliefs in their own efficacy to effect change in their students tend to use more behaviours that lead to academic success (Gibson and Dembo 1984). It is important to investigate and understand the nuances of teachers’ beliefs about 3 students with anxiety and how these inform their responses to students experiencing difficulties. The implicit theories perspective offers a useful theoretical framework through which these beliefs and their impacts can be conceptualized. The present study evaluates the concepts described above through the lens of pre-service teachers, who are in the midst of their training but have not yet entered the professional field. Because pre-service teachers have limited experience, they might be more open to new ideas, roles, and ways of perceiving particular types of students (Bostock, Kitt, & Kitt, 2011). Additionally, in order to continually improve upon current teaching practices, it is important to begin with pre-service teachers to prepare them to develop more effective responses. For this reason, pre-service teachers are an important population to consider when evaluating teacher perspectives in educational practices (Armstrong, Macleod, & Brough, 2019). Purpose While it is common practice for teachers to provide supports for their students who struggle with various learning difficulties, research is lacking on the ways that teachers respond to the academic needs of students who struggle with anxiety. Although teachers are not necessarily in a position to remediate the symptoms of anxiety itself, there are many ways they can support their students’ academic endeavors and reduce the impact of their anxiety on academic performance. In order to investigate the supports teachers are willing to provide for students with anxiety, it is important to also understand their beliefs about whether it is possible for these students’ academic performance to improve. Pre-service teachers represent a particularly important population when considering implications for the development of teacher training programs that will prepare teachers who have a strong sense of efficacy in their ability to effect change in their students. 4 The present study takes a comparative look at the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about academic abilities for typical students and those with learning difficulties or anxiety, as well as the way pre-service teachers choose to respond to these difficulties in the classroom. In light of increasing rates of anxiety among students, the present study has implications for the preparation of pre-service teachers to understand and appropriately respond to these issues in the classroom (Boak, Hamilton, Adlaf, & Mann, 2015). 5 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature Anxiety in the School Setting Anxiety is an adaptive process that is characterized by worried thoughts, feelings of tension, and physical symptoms such as increased blood pressure (American Psychological Association, 2015). It is a common human experience that is essential to survival, but when anxiety reaches unmanageable and disordered levels, it can cause considerable distress and interfere with success in everyday life (Anxiety BC, 2017). High levels of anxiety have become an increasing difficulty in the lives of Canadian students, with 34% of secondary students in 2015 endorsing moderate to severe symptoms of psychological distress– a 10% jump from previous reports from students in 2013 (Boak et al., 2015). Further, more than 60% of secondary school students in Ontario reported having concerns about their own levels of anxiety (Ipsos Public Affairs, 2017). Anxiety is considered to be the most common mental health difficulty in children as well, and the onset of any anxiety disorder typically occurs during childhood (Beesdo, Knappe, & Pine, 2009). Research from the 2013 BC Adolescent Health Survey revealed similar reports in British Columbia, where 13% of students reported having diagnosed anxiety disorders, and 83% reported experiencing stress (Smith, Stewart, Poon, Peled, Saewyc, & McCreary Centre Society, 2014). Despite the finding that anxiety disorders are the most common mental health difficulty experienced by children, they are also the least frequently treated (Chavira, Stein, Bailey, & Stein, 2004). When students are dealing with overwhelming symptoms of anxiety, it can greatly diminish their overall well-being, as well as their ability to engage academically in the classroom (Martin, 2008; Roeser et al., 2002). Students with high levels of anxiety exhibit worse performance on classroom tasks, decreased concentration, and consequently decreased learning, 6 compared to their peers (Rappo, Alesi, & Pepi, 2017). Proposed reasons for these detrimental effects include the theory that high anxiety overuses cognitive resources by focusing on perceived threats, in turn reducing the cognitive capacity of a student to engage in their academic work (Fox, 2010). As it is the goal of any educational institution to maximize its’ students’ learning, it is essential that schools take steps to mitigate the effects of high anxiety on students’ learning. Learning Difficulties in the School Setting A more commonly addressed barrier to academic success in students is specific learning difficulties. These can include diagnosed learning disorders, which have a prevalence of 3-9% and cause children to experience difficulties with listening, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or mathematics (Moll, Kunze, Neuhoff, Bruder, & Schulte-Körne, 2014). Many other students without formal diagnoses may also have specific difficulties with learning that require support. Depending on the specific area in which learning difficulties are present, students may find it difficult to learn to read, spell, or understand mathematical concepts, all of which can significantly interfere with students’ academic achievement (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Schools in British Columbia and across Canada typically have resources in place to identify students with specific learning difficulties, and most of these children will receive an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that specifies their needs, goals, and the instructional methods that are instrumental to their success (HealthLink BC, 2017). Academic Achievement Throughout all levels of education, students continuously have their academic achievement evaluated. This can happen in the form of tests on learned material, progress monitoring measures, exams, and assignments. The extent to which a student is able to grasp 7 learned material, as shown through their academic performance, is liable to change and improve over time. This is possible with students of any age, and is particularly evident when students are provided with support such as extra attention from teachers, targeted assistance, and planned interventions and accommodations to support their learning (e.g. Farrell, Alborz, Howes, & Pearson, 2010; Lai, Wilson, & McNaughton, 2014; Tinger, Cavlazoglu, Caliskan, Koklu, & Intepe-Tinger, 2017). Although students with learning difficulties typically present with lowered academic abilities compared to their peers, there is evidence to indicate that their academic ability and outcomes can improve, either by remediating their difficulties or providing sufficient support to lessen the impact of such difficulties (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Lovett et al., 2003). Limited research on the academic ability of children and youth with anxiety also suggests that specific instructional strategies and supports can be effective in improving their academic performance, and reducing the impact of their anxiety on their academics (Hancock et al., 2000). However, considerably less research exists on the use of academic instructional strategies for students with anxiety as opposed to students with learning difficulties. This indicates that it is important to further investigate the factors that may influence the use of such accommodations and support with students with anxiety. One such factor that is closely tied to this is the beliefs that teachers hold (their implicit theories) and the way that these beliefs influence teachers’ responses to their students’ difficulties. Teachers’ Beliefs About Students The beliefs that teachers hold about their students and their related responses to their students are important and can have considerable impact on students’ achievement (Rattan et al., 2012). Research conducted with pre-service teachers has uncovered links between teachers’ 8 chosen interventions for responding to specific student behaviours, and their beliefs about the intentionality of students’ behaviour (Robinson, 1996). For example, pre-service teachers were more likely to respond with punishment to students whose problem behaviour they believed was highly intentional (Robinson, 1996). Additionally, teachers who believe that their students’ low achievement is being caused by low abilities rather than low effort tend to show more pity than anger, and are more likely to persevere in helping the student improve (Georgiou, Christou, Stavrinides, & Panaoura, 2002). Evidently, the nuances of teacher beliefs about their students can have important implications for the responses that teachers make to specific student difficulties. With regard to specific student difficulties such as anxiety and learning difficulties, it is important that teachers hold accurate beliefs about their students while also maintaining high expectations. It has been long understood that teachers need to be able to form accurate understandings of their students’ specific strengths and weaknesses in order to inform instruction and enhance student learning (Garfield, 1994). Further, the expectations that teachers have for their students can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that having high expectations for student performance can cause teachers to respond to students in ways that cause those expectations to be met (Good & Nichols, 2001). Researchers have documented that regardless of students’ actual baseline achievement levels, those for whom teachers have high expectations tend to actually perform better than those for whom teachers have low expectations (Rubie-Davies, Peterson, Sibley, & Rosenthal, 2015). Evidently, accurate beliefs about their students’ difficulties and strengths, as well as high expectations for achievement in all students, can be seen as essential factors in effective instruction from teachers at all grade levels. 9 Teachers’ specific beliefs about their students’ anxiety is an under-researched area in the literature, although the limited number of studies in this area have shown mixed results in terms of the accuracy of teacher beliefs. Comparisons of teacher and student perceptions of students’ fears and anxieties have shown that teachers in a middle school environment had overall more positive perceptions of students’ environment, safety, and social support systems than the students held themselves, indicating that teachers may underestimate the degree to which students experience feelings of anxiety (Milner, 2006). Conversely, a different study of elementary school teachers found that teachers tended to overestimate their students’ emotionality and worrying related to academics (Karing, Dörfler, & Artlet, 2015). In each of these cases, it is apparent that teachers’ beliefs are imperfectly aligned with the realities of their students’ anxieties, a barrier that could prevent teachers from appropriately responding to and supporting each student’s needs. With regard to academic expectations, a study focusing on high school teachers found that students with anxiety were perceived as less likely to participate in class and less prepared for enrolling in higher level academic classes (Wilbert, 2009). Teachers’ beliefs about students who experience learning difficulties also have implications for the responses these teachers make to these students and, in turn, to student academic outcomes. Teachers in both elementary and secondary schools have been shown to have lower educational expectations for students who have been labelled as having a learning difficulty, and this has been associated with students having lowered expectations for themselves (Shrifrer, 2013; Woodcock & Vialle, 2011). Additionally, teachers who hold negative attitudes towards students with learning difficulties have been shown to give lower ratings on students’ academic achievement than teachers who do not hold such negative attitudes (Hornstra, Denessen, Bakker, Bergh, &Voeten, 2010). Evidently, teachers’ beliefs about their students with 10 learning difficulties may not accurately reflect the students’ ability to benefit from instruction, which can have significant implications for student outcomes. Implicit Theories. As outlined above, teacher beliefs about their students can be subject to significant nuance and variability, making them somewhat difficult to conceptualize. One more specific way that teacher beliefs have been conceptualized in the literature is with implicit theories. Implicit theories are a longstanding theoretical construct that describes the underlying and often subconscious beliefs held by individuals regarding the nature of various human characteristics (Ross, 1989). Specifically, the implicit theories perspective suggests that people hold either entity theories (beliefs that a trait is a fixed disposition that cannot change) or incremental theories (beliefs that a trait is malleable and thus liable to change) about characteristics such as intelligence or personality (Dweck et al., 1993; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). People’s beliefs in fixed versus malleable human attributes are essential factors in how they perceive reality and ascribe meaning to events (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). In this way, implicit theories are thought to play a significant role in creating mental frameworks and directing responses to situations that fit that framework (Dweck et al., 1995). This makes implicit theories a useful way to conceptualize both teachers’ beliefs of their students, as well as the related ways in which they respond to student characteristics and difficulties. Teachers’ Implicit Theories About Students. Implicit theories have been found to shape teachers’ beliefs of their students as well as consequently influencing the way that they choose to respond to students in the classroom (Jonsson & Beach, 2012; Rattan et al., 2012). This has most commonly been studied with regard to implicit theories of intelligence, including research conducted by Rattan and colleagues (2012) that found that participants who read vignettes of students with varying mathematics ability were less likely to expect future 11 improvement from students if they held entity theories of math intelligence. Participants holding entity theories also reported that they would provide comfort-oriented feedback to low achieving students in order to reassure them that not everyone is skilled at math. This finding is significant in its implication that the student is innately unskilled at math, and thus there is no need for strategy-oriented feedback to help them improve (Rattan et al., 2012). Teachers’ implicit theories about intelligence have also been found to impact students’ own beliefs about their intelligence, which has implications for the students’ resulting achievement and motivation to succeed (Dweck 1999; Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997). Implicit Theories of Academic Ability. In addition to intelligence, teachers can also hold different implicit theories about their students’ academic abilities. People who hold entity theories about academic abilities would attribute a student’s performance to fixed factors that cannot be controlled, whereas those who hold incremental theories about academic abilities would attribute performance to effort, use of strategies, or other remediable factors (Dweck, 2006). Examinations of students’ own implicit theories of academic ability have shown that they can affect students’ responses to academic challenges. For example, a student who believes that their academic ability is fixed and cannot change would view learning challenges as a measure of their innate ability in that subject, whereas one who believes that their academic ability can change might view the same challenge as an opportunity to improve upon their skills (Dweck, 1999) Research has shown that low achieving “underdog” students can benefit greatly from adopting incremental theories of their own academic ability, as such a mindset strengthens the student’s own self efficacy (Davis, Burnette, Allison, & Stone, 2010). Considerably less research exists in this area when it comes to teachers’ implicit theories of academic ability. However, given that teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence, as well as their beliefs about their students’ 12 ability as communicated through expectations, can impact students’ views of their own ability, it follows that teachers’ implicit theories of academic ability may be impactful to their responses to students in the classroom (Pretzlik, Olsson, Nabuco, & Cruz, 2003; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015). The implicit theories that teachers hold about their students can also be related to the students’ ability to respond to instruction, and consequently the kind of instruction delivered by the teacher. A study of teachers’ implicit theories about intelligence found that those teachers who held entity theories of their students’ intelligence viewed themselves as less responsible for their students’ academic performance (Patterson et al, 2016). This is in line with previous research that found teachers who hold strong entity theories are not as likely to implement teaching strategies that are ambitious yet effective (Brophy & Good, 1974; Rattan et al., 2012; Rogers, 2009). These findings indicate that teachers’ implicit theories about their students’ abilities are related to their optimism about the efficacy of teacher-implemented strategies for improving achievement. As such, it is essential to investigate how this association manifests with regards to teachers’ implicit theories about the abilities of their students who have anxiety, as well as their related willingness to implement classroom-based supports or adaptations. If teachers hold incremental theories about their students’ ability regardless of mental health difficulties, and thus believe their students’ academic difficulties are resolvable, it follows that they may be more likely to adjust their response in the classroom accordingly to help students improve. Teacher Responses to Student Difficulties As the heads of their classroom, teachers play an essential role in successfully including and engaging students of all abilities and backgrounds in the learning process. (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). Elementary 13 school teachers who possess more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of all students in their classroom have been shown to be more willing to adapt their teaching methods in order to benefit students with a range of learning needs (Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006). There is a rich history of literature emphasizing the important role of teachers in responding to the varied needs of their students, but it is also important to consider the different ways that teachers respond to differing categories of learning needs. While many schools across Canada have indeed begun to respond to the rising levels of anxiety in their students, it is important to continuously evaluate the efficacy of these responses in actually addressing the needs of students. Kutcher and Wei (2012) conducted a review of school-based mental health programs across Canada, concluding that while these programs exist in abundance, interventions that are designed to be delivered to an entire school environment often lack substantive impact. (Kutcher & Wei, 2012). Schools are not homogenous environments, and the varied experiences of students should be addressed on as individual a level as possible to account for the different ways that “mental health difficulties”, including anxiety, can manifest in each student. Responses to Learning Difficulties. Over the past several decades, research has emerged to support the notion that specific learning difficulties can be either remediated or sufficiently supported such that overall academic outcomes can improve (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Lovett et al., 2003). It has been well established over decades of research that elementary school teachers are generally willing to implement classroom-based supports and adaptations to meet the specific needs of students who have specific learning difficulties (Minke et al., 1996; Vaughn et al., 1993). Research has also shown that there is a willingness of teachers in middle and secondary school to differentiate instruction in response to student difficulties, 14 given that they receive sufficient training in how to do so (Stanton, Cawthon, & Dawson, 2017). Supports used for students with learning difficulties commonly include differentiated instruction, extended time on tests and assignments, preferential seating, and individualized learning tools. This is particularly evident at the elementary school level, whereas secondary schools commonly support students with learning disabilities by providing small group and individual instruction separate from the general classroom (Clunies‐Ross & Wimhurst, 1984). Thus, students in secondary school typically receive less individualized support and instruction in the general classroom than students who struggle in elementary school (Marita & Hord, 2017). While elementary school teachers in general education classrooms are accustomed to providing specific supports, secondary teachers are typically less likely to be directly involved in providing theses supports. Responses to Mental Health Difficulties and Anxiety. In addition to their efficacy with students who have learning difficulties, adapted instructional strategies used by teachers have also been shown to be effective in improving the academic performance of students with anxiety (Hancock et al., 2000). Specifically, highly anxious students have been shown to achieve better academic outcomes when provided with teacher-centered instruction that does not require significant student interaction (Hancock et al., 2000). Due to a lack of focused research in this area, it is as of yet unclear if there is a specific method of teaching that can work to alleviate anxiety for all students. However, it is apparent that the specific methods employed by teachers in the classroom can impact the achievement of students with anxiety. Killu, Marc, and Crundwell (2016) compiled a variety of possible strategies could be used with students with anxiety, while noting the significant lack of research focusing on academic instruction for children with emotional and behavioural issues in general. For example, teachers can focus on 15 the academic skill deficits that result from anxiety, such as difficulties with concentration, memory, and attention, and implement interventions that are commonly used to address these issues in other students. Additionally, teachers can address the socioemotional and behavioural difficulties associated with anxiety by providing plenty of clarification and advance warning for changes, assisting them in considering alternate viewpoints about things that worry them, and working with the student to identify specific triggers to their anxiety (Killu et al., 2016). Little research exists on the willingness of teachers to make such anxiety-related adaptations to their teaching; however, many studies have investigated the other ways that teachers respond to disclosures of mental health difficulties from their students. For example, Buchholz and colleagues (2015) interviewed adolescent students and their teachers to understand their thoughts on whether youth should disclose their mental health difficulties at school. Some students expressed concern that disclosing such difficulties would increase the likelihood of them being pitied by teachers, and given excuses for being treated more leniently in school. While the researchers concluded that there were more benefits than drawbacks to students disclosing their mental health difficulties to teachers, the fact remains that research is mixed on how positive teachers’ responses to mental health difficulties can be for students (Buchholz et al., 2015). A qualitative case study that investigated the responses of preservice teachers to vignettes of young people with mental health related symptoms found that teachers were eager to try and “diagnose” the students (Armstrong, Price, & Crowley, 2015). Further, less than 20% of interviewed teachers actually offered up ideas of follow up actions they would take to respond to the presented mental health difficulties in their students. Findings such as these emphasize the importance of understanding how teachers respond to student anxiety, in order to ensure that 16 their responses include actions that are effective in not only recognizing students’ difficulty, but also supporting them. Many schools across Canada have begun to implement school-wide responses to mental health difficulties faced by their students. Often this is in the form of training teachers to be better informed, and implementing new curriculum on topics related to mental health (Kutcher & Wei, 2012). While programs such as these can be successful in educating those in the school community, students who have experienced the programs have reported that they experienced no difference in the individual support provided by teachers regarding their mental health (Jorm, Kitchener, Sawyer, Scales, & Cvetkovski, 2010). With specific regard to anxiety, Kutcher and Wei (2012) noted that while there is a significant and growing base of research on classroom interventions designed to decrease anxiety symptoms in elementary schools, there are no recent studies addressing responses to anxiety in secondary school students. This appears to be parallel with the previously discussed evidence that while elementary school teachers frequently implement classroom-based accommodations and interventions for learning difficulties, there are fewer of these being implemented in secondary school classrooms. Secondary school students with learning difficulties receive most of their support in smaller group settings (Marita & Hord, 2017). While students who struggle with anxiety in secondary school may also receive support in small group or individual settings such as counselling, it is important to also provide support for the ways anxiety manifests in the classroom and impacts academic learning. Teachers already receive training on how to support varied learning difficulties that may present in their students, but they report feeling less prepared to handle mental health difficulties in the classroom (Moon, Williford, & Mendenhall, 2017; Reinke, Stormont, Herman, Puri, & Goel, 2011). Further, it is important to ensure that teachers are informed not only about anxiety symptoms themselves, but 17 also about ways that they can alter their instruction to support the academic outcomes of struggling students. Teachers cannot be expected to resolve anxiety symptoms or eliminate their students learning difficulties altogether, but they are certainly in a position to support and enhance students’ academic outcomes, regardless of the underlying difficulties faced by the student. Understanding how teachers respond to anxiety is critical in both elementary and secondary school students, considering the prevalence of anxiety disorders in each of these populations. Perspectives of Pre-Service Teachers Although much research has been focused around the perspectives and practices of experienced teachers, it is also worthwhile to examine the perspective of pre-service teachers who have yet to formally enter the field. Spratt, Shucksmith, Philip, and Watson (2006) posited that the perspectives of pre-service teachers versus experienced teachers can be considered through the Bourdieuan concept of habitus. That is, experienced teachers have been acculturated into a habitus over their years of teaching, in which they remain surrounded by fellow teachers, preferring to learn from fellow teachers, and potentially isolating themselves from new ways of thinking. Because pre-service teachers have limited experience, they might be more open to new ideas, roles, and ways of perceiving particular types of students (Bostock et al. 2011). Further, it was described above that teachers’ implicit theories about their students’ abilities are related to their optimism about the efficacy of teacher-implemented strategies for improving achievement. Previous studies have shown that beliefs about efficacy are malleable early in a teacher’s career, but become more rigid with increased experience (Hoy & Spero 2005; Pajares 1996). It follows that it is important to understand the factors affecting pre-service teachers’ beliefs about their 18 efficacy with specific student populations, so that teacher training programs may be better attuned to building stronger efficacy beliefs as teachers begin their careers. Summary Students who have anxiety are at an increased risk of experiencing a myriad of academic difficulties, which can be mitigated with appropriate supports from their teachers (Hancock et al., 2000; Rappo et al., 2017; Roeser et al., 2002). Although it has been shown through decades of research that teachers are willing to provide academic supports for students with learning difficulties, the same is not clear with regard to how teachers respond to the unique academic needs of students with anxiety (Killu et al., 2016; Minke et al., 1996; Vaughn et al., 1993). Research focusing on teachers’ beliefs about their students, as well as their implicit theories, has shown that teachers are more likely to implement necessary supports for their students when they believe that students have the capacity to change (Georgiou et al., 2002). The implicit theories that teachers hold about their students, and whether the students’ academic achievement can improve with support, can be instrumental factors in leading to the implementation of such support (Jonsson & Beach, 2012; Rattan et al., 2012). This suggests that teachers are more likely to initiate academic supports that they believe will be effective, based on the characteristics of the student, and the students’ potential for academic achievement. Research has been mixed in identifying the accuracy of teachers’ beliefs about their students’ anxiety, and students’ mental health needs more broadly are less commonly addressed than learning difficulties in the classroom (Karing et al., 2015; Milner, 2006; Moon et al., 2017). As such, in order to explore how anxiety and its related academic difficulties are addressed in the classroom, it is important to investigate the beliefs that teachers’ hold about the academic achievement of their students with anxiety, and how these are related not only to the supports teachers are willing to introduce for 19 students with anxiety, but to the teachers’ expectations of whether such supports will be effective. Research Questions & Hypotheses Based on the research cited above, the following research questions emerged as the focus through which to investigate pre-service teachers’ implicit theories about their students with anxiety, and pre-service teachers’ related responses to student difficulties: 1) What is the nature of the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about the academic achievement of their students who are anxious? H1: It was hypothesized that pre-service teachers’ implicit theories about students who are anxious would differ in comparison to implicit theories about non-anxious students. 2) What support are pre-service teachers willing to introduce for students who are anxious? H2: It was predicted that there would be a difference in the likelihood and types of support that pre-service teachers were willing to offer to students who were anxious or non-anxious. 3) What expectations do pre-service teachers hold about the efficacy of their given support for students who are anxious? H3: It was hypothesized that pre-service teachers’ expectations of their students’ success would differ between students who were anxious or non-anxious. H4: Additionally, it was predicted that pre-service teachers who were more willing to provide additional support across students would have higher expectations of students for whom they provided that support. 4) What is the relationship between pre-service teachers’ implicit theories about students’ academic achievement, and their expectations and support for those students? 20 H5: It was hypothesized that pre-service teachers who had incremental theories about students in each condition would be more likely than those who had entity theories to believe that supports could possibly make a difference in student achievement. H6: It was hypothesized that pre-service teachers who had incremental theories about students in each condition would be more likely than those who had entity theories to offer additional supports for those students. H7: Additionally, it was hypothesized that pre-service teachers who had incremental theories about students in each condition would possess higher expectations of students for whom they provided support, compared to the expectations of per-service teachers who had entity theories. H8: Additionally, pre-service teachers who had incremental theories about students in each condition would possess higher expectations for students who received support when compared to students who did not. H9: Conversely, pre-service teachers who had stronger entity theories about students in each condition would possesses equivalent expectations for students who did and did not receive supports. The following chapter describes the methodology that was used to explore these research questions. 21 Chapter Three: Methodology Overview This chapter reviews in detail the selected methodology for the present study, which is a repeated measures survey design. Ethical considerations, as well as the procedures for participant recruitment and data analysis are also described. Participants and Recruitment Eligible participants were pre-service teachers enrolled in the Bachelor of Education program at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Data was collected in the Summer of 2018, when pre-service teachers were nearing the end of their 11-month program. At this point in the program the pre-service teachers had completed their school-based practice as well as the majority of their coursework. This group was chosen to comprise the sample for the study for a number of reasons. First, as the pre-service teachers were still immersed in their education, they represented an updated sample that have been exposed to current pedagogical theory and practices. Second, conducting research with a sample representative of recently educated teachers would be telling of how the teacher education (at UBC) is currently preparing student teachers for practice. In this sense, the findings of the proposed study could have implications for what is covered in teacher education programs, and possible changes to curriculum that can better prepare teachers for appropriately responding to their students’ difficulties. A power analysis run using the G*Power statistical program estimated that the study would require a minimum of 30 participants in order to have a moderate effect size. In total, 85 participants took part in the survey, which allowed for sufficient effect size as well as sufficient randomization in the presentation of measures to participants to account for effect size. 22 Participants were recruited via email sent out to the Faculty of Education, which allowed them to click through to complete an online consent process and survey. Materials Vignettes. Three vignettes were created, each depicting a hypothetical student who is experiencing specific difficulties with learning an academic concept. Each vignette describes three pieces of information: a description of the current academic difficulty, an indication of the student’s overall ability and effort, and information identifying the student as either anxious, prone to specific learning difficulties, or typical. The academic difficulties described in each vignette are specific and of equivalent severity, and all three students are depicted as being of average ability and expending an equal level of effort on their work. This was to eliminate the effect of ability or effort on participants’ judgements of each students’ achievement potential, and compare students based only on their status as having anxiety, experiencing learning difficulties, or being otherwise typical students. Reasons for the student’s current difficulties were not stated. The student with anxiety was explicitly described as such and was shown to exhibit some symptoms consistent with age-appropriate presentation of Generalized Anxiety Disorder as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (APA, 2013). The student with persistent learning difficulties is also described as such and is indicated to hold an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and receive additional learning support at school. For example, the drafted vignette of a student with anxiety reads as follows (refer to Appendix A for the full text of all three vignettes): Alex is a student in your class. They are rarely absent, and typically hand in assignments on time. They try to pay attention in class, although you often notice them “zoning out” and failing to concentrate. They often seem tired in class, and they avoid raising their 23 hand during class discussions. Their parents told you that they have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, and you notice that they often seem nervous or worried, especially before and during tests. Alex has an average aptitude for most academic tasks, but they have been having a hard time remembering and applying the steps you have taught for organizing a piece of writing. On a recent test, Alex stayed in class into recess in order to finish the test, but their writing on the test was still disorganized and did not seem finished. In order to ensure that participants interpreted the vignettes as intended, a social validation study was conducted in which nine graduate students in the Faculty of Education read the vignettes and were asked to identify each vignette as a student with anxiety, a student with specific learning difficulties, or a typical student. They were also asked to report on the perceived levels of ability, and effort, and the severity of each described learning difficulty to determine if these appear equal across vignettes. Minor revisions were made to the vignettes on the basis of this social validation, prior to presenting the vignettes to the target sample. Measures Demographics. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete a series of questions providing background demographic information about themselves. This information included participant age, gender, educational level, and program stream within the Bachelor of Education, as well as information on their previous classroom experience (grade level, specific populations of students taught) and the classroom environments in which they plan to work in the future. Implicit Theories of Academic Achievement. In order to quantify pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the academic achievement of their students, the study measured their implicit 24 theories of academic achievement. This was done using a four-item “Theories of Academic Achievement” (TOAA) measure adapted from the Theories of Intelligence Scale (Dweck, 2000). The Theories of Intelligence Scale has been well validated in a number of previous studies, and has been shown to hold acceptable psychometric properties including internal consistency and test-retest reliability (e.g. Dweck et al., 1995; Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1999). Items from the original scale were modified in two ways. First, to specifically reference students of the three types presented in the vignettes (students with anxiety, students with specific learning difficulties, students in general) rather than “you” more broadly. Secondly, each item’s reference to “intelligence” was modified to refer to “academic achievement”. For example, an item from the original scale, “You have a certain amount of intelligence and you really cannot do much to change it” was changed to read, “Students with anxiety perform at a certain level of academic achievement and they really cannot do much to change it”. The method described here of replacing “intelligence” with an alternative term has been used previously to create implicit theories measures for a variety of domains, including body weight, anxiety, and shyness (Burnette, 2010; Schroder et al., 2014; Valentiner, Mounts, Durik, & Gier-Lonsway, 2011) The four-item TOAA scale was presented three times to each participant, in order to have each participant complete the scale with reference to students who have anxiety, students with specific learning difficulties, and typical students separately. For each item, participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the given statement on a Likert-type scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Mean scores for each four-item scale were then calculated, with higher mean scores indicating a more entity (less incremental) theory of academic achievement for each type of student. 25 Perception of Student Difficulty. In order to situate participants’ initial perceptions of the student difficulties presented in the vignette, participants answered the following Likert-type questions describing the extent of their opinions on the students. 1) To what extent do you understand the challenges that this student is facing that may be impacting their learning? 2) To what extent do you think accommodations, classroom support, and/or changes in instruction could make a difference in this students’ learning success? The purpose of Question 1 was to gauge the participants’ prior knowledge of how anxiety and/or specific learning difficulties can impact students’ learning, but it was extraneous to the focused analyses of the present study. Question 2 was used as a marker of participants’ general beliefs of whether supports could, in theory, be effective for improving the learning outcomes of the student in the vignette. Both questions were presented as Likert-type items with a 1 – 4 range of responses. Accommodations and Support. The following questions were used to understand the specific responses that the participants might actually have in the classroom when presented with the described student. 3) To what extent do you have access to or know of instructional strategies, resources, and/or materials that could be used to support this student in their learning through accommodations, classroom support, or changes to instruction? 4) Please briefly describe the strategies, resources, and/or materials you have access to or know of that could be used to support this student in their learning. 5) How likely are you to use the strategies and materials available to you and referenced in Question 4 to provide additional support to this student? 26 Questions 3 and 5 were presented as Likert-type items with a 1 – 4 range of responses, while Question 4 was an open ended question where the participant wrote in the appropriate answer. Question 5 was intended to quantify the likelihood of pre-service teachers implementing supports for the students in the vignettes. Question 3 was intended to identify those participants who indicated that they were not likely to implement support based on whether they simply did not know how to support the student, or do not feel it would be beneficial. Expectations of Efficacy. Regardless of participants’ responses to the above questions, they were also asked to respond to the following questions, presented as Likert-type items with a 1 – 4 range of responses, indicating the expectations they held for the students described in the vignettes. 6) How likely is this student’s academic performance to improve, if you DID implement the accommodations or support referenced above? 7) How likely is this student’s academic performance to improve, if you DID NOT implement any accommodations or support? Procedure Participants were recruited via emails (Appendix E) and posters (Appendix F) in the Faculty of Education at UBC requesting participation. Eighty-five participants were recruited in total. Participants were provided with a link to an online survey. Although the survey was created using Qualtrics online software, a text version of the survey can be found in Appendix C. Before beginning the survey, participants read a Consent Form (Appendix B). Once this was read, participants checked a digital box confirming their consent to participate in the study. After informed consent was obtained, participants were directed through the online survey tool to a series of vignettes and Likert-type questions related to the content of the vignettes. Each 27 participant went through the survey starting with a request for demographic information. This was followed by three consecutive Theories of Academic Achievement Scales, for each of the three types of students in a randomized order. Following these scales, the participants were presented with each vignette followed by the 7 items described above. This process was repeated three times, once for each student type, and was also randomized in order. In total, participants read three vignettes and answered 33 items, in addition to the demographic information requested. The order of the survey was counterbalanced so that each participant was shown the three students ordered in 1 of 6 different possible sequences. The entire survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. After the survey was complete, participants were shown a debriefing form (Appendix D) to offer further information about their participation in the study. They were also presented with the option to enter their email address in a draw for a gift card to the UBC bookstore. Ten gift cards valued at $25.00 were given out, and one student won a gift card valued at $100.00. Ethical Considerations Prior to beginning recruitment and data collections with the participants, ethical approval was obtained through the Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB) at the University of British Columbia. Participants were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time during the survey. Participants were presented with a debriefing form after completing the survey to ensure their full understanding of how their data will be used. Confidentiality was ensured by storing the data on Qualtrics, the secure online platform where the survey was hosted. Once data collection was complete, the data was downloaded from Qualtrics onto the researcher’s password protected computer, where it is kept in encrypted data files. Participant identities remain 28 protected as their names were not given to the researchers, and their email addresses given for the prize draw were kept separate from their individual survey responses. Data Analysis Preliminary Analysis. After all surveys were completed, the data was entered into SPSS for statistical analysis. Prior to beginning analysis, the data was cleaned to identify any missing variables, outliers, and/or errors in data entry. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the sample based on the demographic information. Because this study used a modified version of a previously validated scale, a Cronbach’s alpha test statistic was computed for participants’ responses to each of the four items on the Theories of Academic Achievement Scale in order to ensure internal consistency of the modified scale. Given that the Theories of Academic Achievement Scale maintained consistency and was considered to be a reliable measure of participants’ implicit theories, primary analyses began as described below. Research Question 1. To address the research question regarding the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about the academic achievement of students who are anxious, descriptive statistics were run to determine the mean Theories of Academic Achievement score for students in each condition. In order to determine whether there was a meaningful difference between the implicit theories held about each student group, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed with the three conditions of student vignettes (Anxiety, Learning Difficulties, Typical) as the three levels of the independent variable Student Type. The dependent variable for this analysis was participants’ mean scores on the Theories of Academic Achievement Scale for each of the three conditions. Any significant F statistic was taken to indicate that there was a significant difference in participants’ implicit theories about different types of students, and was followed up with Post Hoc tests to compare all pairs of means. 29 Research Question 2. The remaining analyses all addressed the participants’ various responses to student difficulty. The second primary analysis addressed the research question asking what supports pre-service teachers are willing to introduce for their students who are anxious. This was done using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA with the three conditions of student vignettes (Anxiety, Learning Difficulties, Typical) as the three levels of the independent variable Student Type. The dependent variable for this analysis was participants’ numerical responses to Question 5 (likelihood to implement supports). A significant F statistic was taken to indicate that there was a significant difference in participants’ likelihood to provide supports for students, and was followed up with Post Hoc tests to compare all pairs of means. Additionally, this research question was addressed by analyzing participants’ qualitative responses regarding the types of supports they would offer to the students, in order to look for any patterns or conceptual groupings. For each condition, participants’ responses were read and broken down into the individual strategies listed by the participant. Each strategy was read through in full. Specific strategies named in responses were researched to ensure understanding of the strategy the participant intended to convey. Patterns and emergent themes were then identified and mapped. Each theme was given a title (code). Coding was done using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with participant responses listed in one column and subsequent coded themes indicated in adjacent columns. After each response had been individually coded, commonalities were identified among the themes. Similar themes were collapsed into broader themes. Ultimately, themes were brought together into a hierarchy of broad themes and sub-themes which allowed for a focused discussion and interpretation of the responses. An independent audit of the theme organization was undertaken by a school psychology graduate student who was familiar with the kinds of supports and strategies listed in the responses. They were provided 30 with the framework of broad themes and sub themes and asked to independently sort the strategies listed by participants into the hierarchy. The purpose of this exercise was to receive feedback on the logical soundness of the organization, and to provide suggestions for additional themes that may have been missed. Verbal feedback was provided to allow the researcher to confirm that the organization seemed logical and clear. Research Question 3. The third primary analysis in the proposed study addressed the research question asking what expectations pre-service teachers hold about the efficacy of their given support for students who are anxious. Two more one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with the three conditions of student vignettes (Anxiety, Learning Difficulties, Typical) as the three levels of the independent variable Student Type. The dependent variables for these analyses were participants’ numerical responses to Question 6 and Question 7, addressing participants’ expectations for the students’ academic performance, both with and without the addition of supports. A significant F statistic on either ANOVA was taken to indicate that there was a significant difference between participants’ expectations among different types of students, and was thus followed up with Post Hoc tests to compare all pairs of means. This question was also analyzed in light of participant responses to Question 5 (likelihood to implement supports). However, after reviewing the data, it was determined that statistical analyses could not be conducted on this specific relationship due to a lack of variance and non-normal distribution in the responses. Rather, a visual analyses of the mean responses for each group was undertaken to provide a basic understanding of the data. Research Question 4. The final primary analysis of the present study was intended to investigate the relationship between participants’ implicit theories about students’ academic achievement, and their expectations and supports for these students. Due to the lack of variance 31 and non-normal distribution of scores for the items of interest, planned linear regression analyses could not be completed. Rather, participants’ scores on the TOAA scale were recoded into dichotomous representations of each variable in order to allow for straightforward visual comparisons. TOAA scores were interpreted to mean that lower mean scores (1.00 – 3.00) indicated a more incremental theory of academic achievement (i.e., students can change their level of achievement with effort), while higher mean scores (3.10 – 6.00) indicated a more entity theory of academic achievement (i.e. no matter how hard they try, students cannot change their level of achievement). Thus, for the present analysis, mean TOAA scores were recoded into “Incremental Theory” (Scores of 1.00-3.00) and “Entity Theory” (Scores of 3.10 – 6.00). Participants were then split into two groups based on their implicit theory for each student, and the means of the responses to the other items of interest were compared on the basis of implicit theory, using a visual analysis of the data. This resulted in “Incremental Theory” groups that were much larger than the “Entity Theory” groups. The outcomes of all analyses described here are detailed in the following chapter. 32 Chapter Four: Results Overview The purpose of this research study was to gain an understanding of the perspectives held by pre-service teachers; specifically, the implicit theories they hold about academic achievement for students with both learning difficulties and anxiety, as well as the way they choose to respond to these difficulties in the classroom. 85 pre-service teachers enrolled in the Bachelor of Education program at the University of British Columbia (UBC) completed an online survey between June-August of 2018. Results are organized by specific research question. Characteristics of the Sample One participant was eliminated from analysis due to their indication that they had completed less than 2 weeks of practicum at the time of data collection. Five participants were eliminated from analysis due to only completing part of the survey. The participants remaining in the sample (N=79) ranged in age from 22 – 45, with an average age of 26.3 years. 70.9 percent of the sample identified as female, 27.8 percent as male, and 1.3 percent as trans masculine. All participants had, at minimum, a prior Bachelor’s degree, and 11.4 percent reported also having Masters degrees. 3.8 percent of participants reported possessing Red Seal trade certification. 41.8 percent of participants were enrolled in the Elementary/Middle Years stream of the Bachelor of Education program, and the remaining 58.2 percent were enrolled in the Secondary stream. 83.5 percent of the participants reported previous experience working with students who have diagnosed learning disabilities, and 82.3 percent also reported previous experience working with students who have anxiety. Characteristics of the sample can be further observed in Table 1. Table 1 Characteristics of the Sample Age in years M (SD) 26.30 (4.56) 33 Sex N (%) Female 56 (70.90) Male Transgender 22 (27.80) 1 (1.30) Highest Level of Education N (%) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Other 67 (84.8) 9 (11.40) 3 (3.80) Bachelor of Education Stream N (%) Elementary / Middle Years Secondary 33 (41.80) 46 (58.20) Previous Experience with: N (%) Students with Anxiety Students with Diagnosed Learning Disabilities 65 (82.30) 66 (83.50) Note. N = 79. Preliminary Analysis Internal Consistency of TOAA Measure. A Cronbach’s alpha test statistic was computed for participants’ responses to each of the four items on the Theories of Academic Achievement Scale in order to ensure internal consistency of the modified scale. The TOAA scale consisted of 4 items, and was found to have excellent internal consistency when referring to typical students (α = .89), students with anxiety (α = .95), and students with learning difficulties (α = .94). As such, the TOAA scale is considered to be a reliable measure of participants’ implicit theories regarding academic achievement. Participants’ answers to each of the four TOAA questions were averaged within each condition to create a mean TOAA score for each participant in each condition, which was used as the “TOAA score” across subsequent analyses. TOAA scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.50, on a possible scale of 1.00 – 6.00. Lower mean scores (1.00 – 3.00) indicated a more incremental theory of academic achievement (i.e., students can change their level of achievement with effort), while higher mean scores (3.10 – 6.00) indicated a more entity theory of academic achievement (i.e. no matter how hard they try, students cannot change their level of achievement). 34 Research Question 1 Implicit Theories of Student Academic Achievement. When evaluating the data for participants’ mean Theories of Academic Achievement (TOAA) scores across conditions, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated (χ2(2) = 7.47, p < 0.05), therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.92). It was predicted that participants’ TOAA scores, or implicit theories, would differ between students who were anxious and non-anxious. A repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed significant differences between participants’ mean TOAA scores for each student type, F(1, 142.80) = 7.538, p = .001. A medium effect size was present for the difference between groups, η2 = .088. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that participants’ mean TOAA scores were slightly higher for student with learning difficulties (M=1.87) when compared to students with anxiety (M=1.65) and typical students (M=1.63). TOAA scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.50, on a possible scale of 1.00 – 6.00. Lower mean scores (1.00 – 3.00) indicated a more incremental theory of academic achievement (i.e., students can change their level of achievement with effort), while higher mean scores (3.10 – 6.00) indicated a more entity theory of academic achievement (i.e. no matter how hard they try, students cannot change their level of achievement). This indicates that while participants on average had more incremental theories about all students, their implicit theories were less strongly incremental for students with learning difficulties, as opposed to students with anxiety and typical students. Research Question 2 Likelihood of Providing Support. Participants gave answers to survey item “How likely are you to use the strategies, resources, and materials described above to provide additional 35 support to Student?” on a Likert scale from 1.00 (I would not use them) to 4.00 (I would certainly use them). It was hypothesized that there would be a difference in participants’ likelihood to provide support between students who were anxious and non-anxious. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been met (χ2(2) = 2.13, p = .344. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference in participants reported likelihood to implement additional support across student types, F(2, 156) = 4.007, p = .020. There was a small effect size present for the differences between student types, η2 = .049. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that participants were more likely to introduce additional classroom support for students who were anxious (M=3.63) than for typical students who were struggling (M=3.43). Likelihood to provide supports for students with learning difficulties fell in the middle (M=3.52) and was not significantly different from either mean score. The difference between mean responses across student types was statistically significant, but not necessarily practically significant, as all mean responses fell within the Likert scale category of “I would likely use [the supports]”. These results did not fully support the prediction that there would be a difference in responses between anxious and non-anxious students, as the significant difference was only between anxious and typical students. Types of Supports Provided. It was also predicted that there would be a difference in the types of support that participants were willing to offer students who were anxious, when compared to those who were not anxious. Participants gave answers to the open ended survey item “Please briefly describe the strategies, resources, and/or materials you have access to or know of that could be used to support Student in their learning:”. Many responses listed multiple strategies in their response, and so answers were analyzed by each individual strategy listed, rather than by each participant. 79 participants gave a total of 175 strategies for addressing the 36 needs of the typical student, 226 strategies for addressing the needs of the student with anxiety, and 212 strategies for addressing the needs of the student with learning difficulties. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and organized into themes. Four broad themes emerged from the responses: No Answer, Seek Additional Information, Support Related to Learning, and Support Related to Anxiety. The majority of answers could be classified as either Support Related to Learning or Support Related to Anxiety, so these were further categorized into six sub-themes: Class-wide Strategies, Targeted Intervention, Modifications, Accommodations, and Not Specified. Definitions used to guide sorting of the responses into themes are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Definitions of Themes Used to Classify Types of Support Themes Definition Broad Themes No Answer Participants did not answer the question, or stated they would need more information in order to answer the question Seek Additional Information Participants indicated that they would seek more information about the student. (E.g. assessment, file review) Support Related to Learning Participants indicated an action that would be taken to directly support learning with the goal of academic improvement. Support Related to Anxiety Participants indicated an action that would be taken to directly support anxiety, with the goal of relieving anxiety symptoms (independent of academics) Sub-themes Class-wide Strategies Instructional Strategies that the whole class will participate in and/or benefit from (E.g. differentiated instruction, mindfulness lessons) Targeted Intervention Strategies that are specific to the individual student, whether in class or in a separate environment, with the purpose of remediating or improving skills (E.g. one on one tutoring, brain breaks) Modifications Curricular adaptations which change or lower expectations or standards (E.g. lower level readings, removing an assignment altogether) Accommodations Curricular adaptations which do not alter or lower standards, but may change how material is presented (E.g. extra time, oral instead of written assessment of understanding). Seek External Support Participant indicated they would either seek consultation from a colleague or research material, refer the student.. 37 Themes Definition Sub-themes Seek External Support .. for support, or involve other stakeholders (E.g. school based team, counselling support, involving parents) Not Specified Participant indicate they would support either anxiety or learning but did not give any specific strategies Broad Themes in Types of Supports Provided. Participants’ responses across each student type can be analyzed visually by observing the percentage of responses for addressing each students' need that fell into the broad categories identified above. Typical students were the condition most likely to elicit no answer (3.4% of responses in that condition), followed by students with anxiety (2.2%), and students with learning difficulties (1.4%). Typical students were also the condition most likely to prompt the seeking of additional information to explain their challenges (8.6% of responses in that condition), followed by students with learning difficulties (3.3%), and students with anxiety (0.4%). When looking at the responses that specified actions to support the student, 60.6% of responses regarding students with anxiety were aimed at reducing anxiety symptoms, while 36.7% were aimed at addressing academic difficulties. When looking at students with learning difficulties and typical students, participant responses were, unsurprisingly, almost entirely focused on addressing academic concerns. A breakdown of participant responses across broad themes is shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. Table 3 Supports Endorsed within Broad Themes, as Number of Responses and Percentage of Responses within Student Condition Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical No Answer 5 (2.2%) 3 (1.4%) 6 (3.4%) Seek Additional Information 1 (0.4%) 7 (3.3%) 15 (8.6%) Support Related to Learning 83 (36.7%) 202 (95.3%) 153 (87.4%) Support Related to Anxiety 137 (60.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.6%) 38 Figure 1. Supports endorsed within broad themes, as percentage of responses within Student condition. Sub-Themes of Supports Related to Learning. Data on participant responses to each student’s academic difficulties can also be looked at by the sub-themes. For students with anxiety, the most commonly endorsed learning supports were accommodations (30.1% of responses in that condition), seeking external support (25.3%), and implementing class-wide strategies (22.9%). For students with learning difficulties, the most commonly endorsed learning supports were accommodations (27.7% of responses) and class-wide strategies (26.2%). For typical students, the most commonly endorsed supports were class-wide strategies (51.0% of responses) and targeted interventions (26.1%). Examples of responses that were categorized into each sub-theme are listed in Table 4. Table 4 Examples of Supports Related to Learning Endorsed within Sub-themes, for Each Student Condition Sub-theme Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical Class-wide Strategies Presenting Information in New Ways Multi-Sensory Learning Strength Based Approach Universal Design for Learning Contextualize Learning Multi-Sensory Learning Multi-Sensory Learning Group Work Presenting Information in New Ways Targeted Intervention Tutoring Graphic Organizers Tutoring Extra Practice Published Interventions Tutoring Extra Practice Instructional Videos 0102030405060708090100No Answer Seek Additional Info Support - Learning Support - AnxietyPercentage of ResponsesBroad ThemesStudent with AnxietyStudent with Learning DifficultiesTypical Student 39 Sub-theme Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical Modifications Shortened Tests Lower Level Reading Modify Assignments Accommodations Chunking Assignments Alternative Format for Assignments Assistive Technology Alternative Format for Assignments Extra Time Alternative Format for Assignments Extra Time Seek External Support Research Consulting Colleagues LAC LAC Consulting IEP Consulting Colleagues LAC EA When comparing learning support strategies among the three student types, class-wide strategies were much more commonly suggested for addressing academic difficulties with typical students (51.0% of responses for typical students) than with students who have anxiety (22.9% of responses) or students with learning difficulties (26.2% of responses). Targeted interventions were also most commonly suggested for typical students (26.1% of responses), followed by students with learning difficulties (17.8% of responses) and students with anxiety (16.9% of responses). Modifications were most commonly endorsed for students with learning difficulties (6.4% of responses), followed by students with anxiety (4.8 % of responses) and typical students (1.3% of responses). Accommodations were most commonly endorsed for students with anxiety (30.1% of responses), followed by students with learning difficulties (27.7% of responses) and typical students (16.3% of responses). Students with anxiety were also the most likely to elicit responses involving seeking external support (25.3% of responses), followed by students with learning difficulties (19.8% of responses) and typical students (16.3% of responses). A breakdown of participant responses across sub-themes of support related to learning is shown in Table 5 and Figure 2. 40 Table 5 Supports Related to Learning Endorsed within Sub-themes, as Number of Responses and Percentage of Responses within Student Condition Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical Class-wide Strategies 19 (22.9%) 53 (26.2%) 78 (51.0%) Targeted Intervention 14 (16.9%) 36 (17.8%) 40 (26.1%) Modifications 4 (4.8%) 13 (6.4%) 2 (1.3%) Accommodations 25 (30.1%) 56 (27.7%) 7 (4.6%) Seek External Support 21 (25.3%) 40 (19.8%) 25 (16.3%) Not Specified 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.0%) 1 (0.7%) Figure 2. Supports related to learning endorsed within sub-themes. Sub-Themes of Supports Related to Anxiety. When looking at supports endorsed that are related to anxiety, participants did not endorse any for students with learning difficulties, and only one strategy was endorsed for typical students. Of the 137 anxiety-related strategies suggested for students with anxiety, the most commonly endorsed supports were accommodations (37.2% of responses), followed by class-wide strategies (33.76%). The remaining responses focused on seeking external support (17.5%) and targeted intervention 0102030405060ClasswideStrategiesTargetedInterventionModifications Accomodations Seek ExternalSupportNot SpecifiedPercentage of ResponsesSub-themes of Supports Related to LearningStudent with AnxietyStudent with Learning DifficultiesTypical Student 41 (11.7%). No responses suggested modifications as a support related to anxiety. Examples of responses that were categorized within each subtheme are given within Table 6, and a breakdown of participant responses across sub-themes of support related to anxiety is shown in Figure 3. Table 6 Examples of Supports Related to Anxiety Endorsed within Sub-themes, for Students with Anxiety Sub-theme Examples of Supports Class-wide Strategies Stress Management Skill Lessons Reduce Environmental Stressors Mindfulness Lessons Calm Down Centre Targeted Intervention Brain Breaks Make Individual Connection with Student Modifications - Accommodations Extra Time for Tests Low Stakes Testing Alternative Setting for Tests Seek External Support Counselling Involving Parents Medication Figure 3. Supports related to anxiety endorsed within sub-themes. Overall, the qualitative data describing the types of supports that participants would provide to students does suggest a difference based on student condition. Students with anxiety 0510152025303540ClasswideStrategiesTargetedInterventionModifications Accomodations Seek ExternalSupportNot SpecifiedPercentage of ResponsesSub-themes of Support Related to AnxietyStudent with Anxiety 42 who were struggling academically were much more likely to receive support focused on their anxiety symptoms than on their academics, compared to students with learning difficulties and typical students. Further, for those responses that did aim to support academics and learning, students with anxiety were most likely to be supported with accommodations and external support. They were less likely than other types of students to be supported with class-wide strategies, targeted interventions, or modifications. Research Question 3 Expectations for Efficacy of Supports. Participants gave answers to survey items “How likely is Student’s academic performance to improve, if you DO implement the support or accommodations described above?”, and How likely is Student’s academic performance to improve, if you DO NOT implement the support or accommodations described above?” on a Likert scale from 1.00 (Their performance would not improve) to 4.00 (Their performance would certainly improve). For responses to the former item, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been met, (χ2(2) = .166, p = .921. Mauchly’s test also indicated the assumption of sphericity had been met for responses to the latter item, (χ2(2) = 1.252, p = .984. It was predicted that participants’ expectations of the students’ academic improvement would differ for students who were anxious and non-anxious. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference in participants expectations of students’ improvement, given support, across student types, F(2, 156) = 5.802, p = .004. There was a medium effect size present for the differences between student types, η2 = .069. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that, given support, participants expected the academic performance of students with learning difficulties to be more likely to improve (M = 3.10) when 43 compared to the performance of both typical students (M=2.92) and students with anxiety (M = 2.87). A second one-way repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was no difference in participants’ expectations of students’ improvement, without supports, across student types, F(2, 156) = 1.730, p = .181. Across each student condition, participants’ mean responses indicated that typical students (M = 1.71), students with anxiety (M=1.56), and students with learning difficulties (M=1.63) were all similarly unlikely to improve their academic performance without any supports. Likelihood to Provide Support and Expectations for Efficacy. Participants’ expectations for students’ improvement, given support, were also evaluated in light of their reported likelihood to provide such support. Participants gave answers to the survey item, “How likely are you to use the strategies and materials available to you and referenced in Question 4 to provide additional support to this student?” on a Likert scale from 1.00 (I would not use them) to 4.00 (I would certainly use them). It was predicted that participants who were more likely to provide support would also have higher expectations of the students for whom they provided support. A visual representation of mean responses for this item, as well as for reported likelihood to provide support is shown in Figure 4. Most participants indicated a fairly strong likelihood that they would implement supports across student types. Although participants as a whole indicated the strongest likelihood to provide supports for students with anxiety compared to other students, their mean responses regarding expectations for efficacy were the lowest for students with anxiety. A visual analysis of responses indicated that across student types, those responders who indicated they would not implement supports were also likely to have lower expectations for student improvement. 44 Figure 4. Likelihood to provide support and expectations for student achievement, with support. Research Question 4 Implicit Theories and Beliefs About Whether Supports Could Make a Difference. Participants gave answers to survey item “To what extent do you think that accommodations, classroom support, and/or changes in instruction could make a difference in Student’s learning success?” on a Likert scale from 1.00 (They would make no difference at all) to 4.00 (They would make a very big difference). It was predicted that participants who had incremental theories about students in each condition would be more likely than those with entity theories to believe that supports could make a difference. This prediction appeared to hold true when considering students with anxiety; there was a noticeable difference in mean responses across implicit theory groups. Participants with an incremental theory of the academic achievement for students with anxiety reported a mean score of 3.49 (They would make some difference), whereas the participants with an entity theory for this group reported a mean score of 2.50 (They would make a small difference). For students with learning difficulties and typical students, there 00.511.522.533.54Student with Anxiety Student with Learning Difficulties Typical StudentMean ResponseStudent TypeLikelihood to Provide SupportExpectations for StudentAchievement, With Support 45 was minimal difference in the mean scores across both incremental and entity theorists, with all mean scores falling within the range of “They would make some difference”. Mean scores for beliefs about whether supports could make a difference are presented by student type and implicit theory group in Table 7, and a visual representation of the mean scores between implicit theory groups is shown in Figure 5. Table 7 Beliefs About Whether Supports Could Make a Difference, Grouped by Implicit Theories, as Number of Participants in Each Group and Mean (Std. Deviation) Scores Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical Total Sample 79 3.47 (0.57) 79 3.48 (0.67) 79 3.33 (0.57) Incremental Theory 77 3.49 (0.55) 71 3.48 (0.67) 77 3.32 (0.57) Entity Theory 2 2.50 (0.70) 8 3.50 (0.76) 2 3.50 (0.70) Note. Scores ranged on a Likert scale from 1.00 (They would make no difference at all) to 2.00 (They would make a small difference) to 3.00 (They would make some difference) to 4.00 (They would make a very big difference). Figure 5. Beliefs about whether supports could make a difference, grouped by implicit theories. Implicit Theories and Likelihood to Provide Supports. Participants’ responses regarding likelihood to implement supports for students were also compared by their implicit theories. It was predicted that participants who had incremental theories about students in each 00.511.522.533.54Student with Anxiety Student with Learning Difficulties Typical StudentMean ResponseStudent TypeIncremental Theory Entity Theory 46 condition would be more likely than those with entity theories to offer additional supports for those students. Similar to their beliefs about whether supports would help for students with anxiety, participants with incremental theories about the achievement of students with anxiety demonstrated a stronger likelihood to implement supports than participants with entity theories. Participants with an incremental theory reported a mean score of 3.66 (I would likely use the strategies), whereas the participants with an entity theory for this group reported a mean score of 2.50 (I might use the strategies). For students with learning difficulties and typical students, there was minimal difference in the mean scores across both incremental and entity theorists, with all mean scores falling within the range of “I would likely use the strategies”. A visual representation of the mean scores between implicit theory groups is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6. Likelihood to provide support, grouped by implicit theories. Implicit Theories and Expectations for Student Improvement. With regard to expectations for students’ academic improvement, it was hypothesized that pre-service teachers who had incremental theories about students in each condition would possess higher expectations of students for whom they provided support, compared to the expectations of participants who 00.511.522.533.54Student with Anxiety Student with Learning Difficulties Typical StudentMean ResponseStudent TypeIncremental Theory Entity Theory 47 had entity theories. In looking at the mean scores of each group, it is evident that this prediction held true across student conditions, but to varying degrees. For students with anxiety and typical students, both incremental and entity theorists reported mean scores within the range of “Their performance might improve”. However, for students with learning difficulties, participants with incremental theories mean response suggested “Their performance would likely improve” (M=3.13) while the mean response for those with entity theories was within the “Their performance might improve” range (M=2.88). A visual representation of the mean scores between implicit theory groups is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Expectations for improvement in student achievement, with support. It was also predicted that incremental theorists in each student condition would possess higher expectations for students who received support when compared to students who did not. Conversely, it was predicted that participants who had entity theories about students in each condition would possesses equivalent expectations for students who did and did not receive supports. A comparison of expectations for students with and without support is shown in Table 8. Across all conditions, and for both incremental and entity theorists, expectations for 00.511.522.533.54Student with Anxiety Student with Learning Difficulties Typical StudentMean ResponseStudent TypeIncremental Theory Entity Theory 48 improvement were higher for students who received support compared to those who did not. However, the degree of difference in expectations was larger for incremental theorists. Table 8 Expectations for Improvement in Student Achievement, With and Without Support, Grouped by Implicit Theories, as Mean (Std. Deviation) Score Student Condition Anxiety Learning Difficulties Typical Support Implemented Total Sample 2.87 (0.65) 3.10 (0.67) 2.92 (0.68) Incremental Theory 2.88 (0.65) 3.13 (0.65) 2.94 (0.68) Entity Theory 2.50 (0.70) 2.88 (0.84) 2.50 (0.70) Support Not Implemented Total Sample 1.56 (0.62) 1.63 (0.66) 1.71 (0.64) Incremental Theory 1.56 (0.62) 1.66 (0.68) 1.70 (0.65) Entity Theory 1.50 (0.70) 1.38 (0.52) 2.00 (0.00) Note. Scores ranged on a Likert scale from 1.00 (Their performance would not improve) to 2.00 (Their performance might improve) to 3.00 (Their performance would likely improve) to 4.00 (Their performance would certainly improve) 49 Chapter Five: Discussion The purpose of this study was to learn about the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about academic achievement for students with anxiety, as well as the way pre-service teachers choose to respond to these difficulties in the classroom. A repeated measures survey design was used to gain a quantified understanding of participants’ perspectives, as well as a qualitative understanding of their unique responses in the classroom. Data was collected from 79 pre-service teachers at the University of British Columbia, who were nearing the end of their 11-month program and were able to provide insight based on their 12 weeks of practicum experience, in addition to their knowledge gained from coursework. Pre-service teachers represent a particularly important population when considering implications for the development of teacher training programs that will prepare teachers who have a strong sense of efficacy in their ability to effect change in their students. In light of increasing rates of anxiety among students, the present study has implications for the preparation of pre-service teachers to understand and appropriately respond to these issues in the classroom. In this chapter, findings are discussed in consideration of the current body of literature. Limitations of the study, as well as implications for future teacher education policy and practice, and considerations for further research are also discussed. Discussion of Findings with Reference to Literature Implicit Theories About Academic Achievement. The implicit theories perspective suggests that people hold either entity theories (beliefs that a trait is a fixed disposition that cannot change) or incremental theories (beliefs that a trait is malleable and thus liable to change) about characteristics such as intelligence, personality, or academic achievement (Dweck, Hong, & Chiu, 1993; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The first research question aimed to investigate the 50 nature of implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about the academic achievement of their students who are anxious. Results did not support the hypothesis that there would be a difference in implicit theories held by teachers for anxious and non-anxious students. Previous literature specific to students with anxiety has noted that students with anxiety were perceived by teachers as less likely to participate in class, and less prepared for moving on to higher level classes (Wilbert, 2009). Results from the present study did not follow suit, as these pre-service teachers’ responses suggested that they hold similar expectations for the academic attainment of both typical students and students with anxiety. Participants’ implicit theories were generally incremental across all students, suggesting that these student teachers believe all have a capacity to change, however, there was a small difference between implicit theories about students with and without learning difficulties. Specifically, participants had stronger incremental theories (i.e. stronger beliefs that achievement could change) for students without learning difficulties that for those with. Previous research has established that teachers are generally willing to implement classroom supports for students who have specific learning difficulties (Minke et al., 1996; Vaughn et al., 1993). Given the current results suggesting a somewhat weaker belief in these students’ capacity to change their academic achievement, it is possible that that willingness to provide support is based on a notion of accommodating an irremediable deficit, rather than an effort to intervene with the goal of improving ability. Indeed, for students with diagnosed learning disabilities, supports that accommodate for specific difficulties are critical to successful inclusion (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000). Although, research has also indicated that combining specific accommodations with interventions targeting specific skill acquisition may produce better outcomes than either support 51 alone (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; MacArthur, 2000, Schneider, Codding, & Tryon, 2013). Dweck and colleagues (1995) noted that implicit theories can play a significant role in creating mental frameworks, and directing individuals’ responses to situations in ways that fit that framework, and it follows that teachers who have a more incremental theory of their students’ academic ability may be more likely to implement supports with the goal of improving that ability. The specifics of the types of supports that pre-service teachers in this study were willing to offer each type of students were examined more closely in the second research question, discussed below. Responses to Student Difficulties. The second research question aimed to investigate the specifics of the support that pre-service teachers were willing to introduce for students who were anxious. With regard to their likelihood to provide supports, the results supported the hypothesis that there would be a difference between the level of support provided to students with anxiety and typical students, but did not support a difference between those for students with anxiety and students with learning difficulties. Specifically, results showed that participants were more likely to implement supports for students who were anxious than for typical students, while likelihood of support for students with learning difficulties fell in the middle. However, participants’ mean responses for all three student groups fell within the Likert scale category of “I would likely use [the supports]”, despite the small difference in scores. This indicates that for this sample of pre-service teachers, they are willing to provide supports to students who show learning difficulties of any sort. It has been suggested in previous literature that although teachers receive training on how to support varied learning difficulties, they feel less prepared to handle mental health difficulties in the classroom (Moon et al., 2017; Reinke, et al., 2011). The 52 results of the present study show a different perspective, in which these pre-service teachers did not substantially differentiate their likelihood to provide support based on the nature of the specific difficulty. It should be noted that these results are based on a sample of pre-service teachers who are all completing the same program at the same time; it is possible that with a larger sample encompassing pre-service teachers from a wider range of university programs with varying focuses on mental health, that differences in likelihood to implement support may have been more pronounced. The second part of this research question looked at the specific types of supports that pre-service teachers were referencing when considering their likelihood to implement support, and may better explain whether this sample’s comfort with supporting students who have anxiety is limited to the academic difficulties of these students, or extends to supporting their mental health as well. Several interesting themes and patterns emerged from the data regarding the types of supports participants were willing to implement, supporting the hypothesis that there would be a difference in types of support between anxious and non-anxious students. For students with anxiety, the majority of participants’ responses were related to specific symptoms of anxiety, rather than simply supporting academics. Specifically, participants were most likely to turn towards accommodations for reducing the impact of symptoms of anxiety (e.g. extra time or a separate environment for work, alternative ways to participate other than speaking in front of class), and class-wide strategies for managing anxiety (e.g. lessons on stress management). Previous research would indicate that this comfort with specifically addressing anxiety in the classroom is positive and could potentially have a subsequent effect on students’ academics. When students are dealing with overwhelming symptoms of anxiety, it can greatly diminish their overall well-being, as well as their ability to engage academically in the classroom 53 (Martin, 2008; Roeser et al., 2002). Further, research by Hancock and colleagues (2000) has shown that highly anxious students can achieve better academic outcomes when provided with adaptations to decrease the impact of their anxiety, such as instruction that reduced the need for student interaction. It is difficult to say with certainty whether it is more important for teachers to focus on the root anxiety symptoms rather than the academic difficulties that follow, but it is certainly helpful for teachers to implement supports to this end. Positive mental health is associated with higher academic achievement, so focusing on both can lead to better academic outcomes overall (O’Connor, Cloney, Kvalsvig, & Goldfeld, 2019). While relatively few studies examining interventions for promoting positive mental health have specifically looked at academic achievement as an outcome, those that have tend to suggest a relationship (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicky, Taylor, and Schellinger, 2011). Additionally, the tendency of the pre-service teachers in this sample to favour individual accommodations and class-wide interventions for anxiety is encouraging as well, as it suggests a dual focus on both mitigating the impact of symptoms while also working to prevent or reduce the symptoms themselves. A study by Etherington and Costello (2018) found that a class-wide anxiety intervention was as successful as a small group intervention for reducing the symptoms of children with previously high levels of anxiety, while also having the added benefit of providing preventative strategies to all other students in the class. When looking at participants’ responses across all student types, it was shown that pre-service teachers in this sample were more likely to indicate a need for additional information when considering typical students rather than students with identified anxiety or learning difficulties. This suggests a desire of the pre-service teachers in this sample to seek identifying diagnoses or information to help better define the student before selecting specific supports. 54 Further, when comparing supports specifically related to learning across student types, participants allocated the greatest portion of their responses to class wide strategies when considering typical students, suggesting that barring a specific diagnosis or identified challenge, they were likely to keep to universal supports (e.g. multi-sensory learning, presenting information in new ways, and group work) that could support the struggling student as well as many others. This strategy is indeed in keeping with the established Response to Intervention framework, which discourages teachers from moving on to targeted interventions until after they have observed a students’ response to universal strategies (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Another pattern that emerged among participant responses was related to the use of accommodations and modifications in the classroom. Both of these are types of support that allow students with difficulties to participate in inclusive environments by compensating for their specific weaknesses. Modifications include curricular adaptations which change or lower expectations, and accommodations do not alter or lower standards but level the playing field by changing how material is presented (Conderman, Liberty, & DeSpain, 2017). It is important to evaluate the differences between these types of support and their use because while they all could be considered “support” for the student, there are differences in intent and expectation for what the student will achieve. Pre-service teachers in this sample demonstrated a likelihood to suggest academic accommodations for students with anxiety and learning difficulties over typical students, as well as a likelihood to suggest academic modifications for students with learning difficulties over other students. The latter observation is in line with participants’ slightly weaker incremental theories regarding the academic achievement of students with learning difficulties. If they are perceived as less likely to improve their achievement, there is an increased likelihood of pre-service teachers to support them by altering expectations rather than 55 intervening. Previous research has shown that despite challenges, specific learning difficulties can be either remediated or sufficiently supported such that overall academic outcomes can improve (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Lovett et al., 2003). It is unclear if pre-service teachers who indicated they would adapt or modify curriculum for students with learning difficulties would do so with the intent of subsequently improving academic outcomes, or under the belief that academic outcomes would not improve regardless. In any case, as described above, it is important for pre-service teachers to learn that both accommodations and interventions can be used in tandem to support students who are struggling. Also, despite evidence suggesting that class-wide interventions targeting anxiety can be effective for supporting both anxious and non-anxious students, when it comes to academic supports, consideration should still be given to the supports that are best suited for each student, as all needs may not necessarily be met with global accommodation (Lock & Layton 2001). Overall, the results regarding the types of support that pre-service teachers are willing to implement indicate that while they are equally likely to provide support for each type of student, the specific modality of those supports differ based on the type of student. Expectations for Students’ Academic Achievement. The third research question was intended to investigate the expectations that pre-service teachers held about the efficacy of their given support for students who are anxious. Results did not support the hypotheses that expectations would differ among anxious and non-anxious students. However, a difference was found in the pre-service teachers’ expectations for the achievement of students with learning difficulties in comparison to the other students. Specifically, participants expected the academic performance of students with learning difficulties to be more likely to improve, given support, when compared to the performance of both typical students and students with anxiety. This 56 suggests a contradiction with the earlier result that participants held weaker incremental theories about students with learning difficulties, suggesting less confidence in their capacity for improving their academic ability. The observed result is also contradictory to previous research, which has suggested that teachers tend to have lower expectations for students who are labelled as having a learning difficulty (Shrifrer, 2013; Woodcock & Vialle, 2011). Participants were asked about their expectations for students’ academic improvement, rather than their academic standing compared to other students; so it is possible that the present results could reflect a perspective of the pre-service teachers having somewhat lower expectations for the achievement of these students overall, while still having more positive expectations for their capacity to improve in response to intervention. Further research would be needed to make this distinction. It is also possible that the unexpected direction of participants’ expectations for improvement could reflect the lack of meaningful difference in this sample’s implicit theories regarding each group. When considering students without any additional support given, participants indicated that all types of students were equally unlikely to improve their performance. When comparing participants’ earlier reported likelihood to implement supports with their expectations for student academic improvement given these supports, it was noted that across all student types, mean expectations for improvement were slightly lower than mean reported likelihood to provide supports. This suggests that perceptions of the students’ capacity to improve may not have had a strong effect on whether they would actually implement support, for this sample. Alternatively, this pattern could be related to the strong endorsements of accommodations, external supports, and class-wide strategies referenced by participants across student types; if participants have only moderate expectations for the efficacy of support, they gravitate to more passive types of support rather than time consuming individualized 57 interventions. As was referenced in the introduction, the expectations teachers have for their students can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that having specific expectations for student performance can cause teachers to respond to students in ways that cause those expectations to be met (Good & Nichols, 2001). Informal visual analysis of individual participants’ expectations and likelihood to provide support also supported the initial hypothesis that those who were more willing to provide support would have higher expectations for the students who received this support, compared to those who were less willing to provide support. More research to validate this phenomenon using a larger and more variable sample of pre-service teachers would be useful, as well as continued investigations into educator’s expectations for the effects of their supports. It is important that teachers feel efficacious, and have high expectations for the supports that they implement, as higher teacher efficacy is linked with improved student academic outcomes in both reading and math (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). This is a particularly important area for research with the pre-service teacher population, because previous research has shown that efficacy beliefs are malleable early in a teachers’ career, but become more fixed in experience teachers, with a general trend of an increase in teacher efficacy belief within the pre-service teaching years and a decline in efficacy beliefs for new teachers (Hoy & Spero, 2005; Pajares, 1996). With regard to the specific supports that teachers choose to implement, research also supports the view that the beliefs and attitudes of teachers are likely to influence their use of evidence based practices (Nelson & Steele, 2007). It is possible that teachers’ expectations and even implicit theories regarding specific student populations may play a role in their willingness to use certain interventions. Implicit Theories and Related Responses and Expectations. The final research question asked about the relationship between pre-service teachers’ implicit theories about 58 students’ achievement, and their expectations and support for the students. A number of hypotheses were presented related to this question. Results did not support the hypotheses that participants who had stronger incremental theories about students in each condition would be more likely to believe that supports in general could make a difference, and more likely to offer additional supports. Due to a very small sample of entity theorists, no statistical conclusions could be made, but with a visual analysis of the responses, only for students with anxiety did there appear to be any noticeable difference in beliefs between incremental and entity theorists. Participants who had incremental theories demonstrated slightly stronger beliefs in the difference that supports could make for students with anxiety, and a slightly stronger likelihood to use the strategies to support the student with anxiety. This suggests that for the few entity theorists in the sample, their implicit theories that students with anxiety were unlikely to change their achievement were related to a belief that supports would only make a small difference, and a decreased likelihood to implement the supports. Again, this is in line with previous research suggesting that teachers’ expectations of their students can shape their subsequent responses to them in the classroom (Good & Nichols, 2001, Rubie-Davies et al., 2015). However, while this pattern has been suggested generally in the literature, at present it is only shown for students with anxiety. Some possible explanations for this specificity could be an overall lower understanding of the supports used for students who have anxiety, or an underlying belief that classroom supports cannot adequately address mental health challenges. Papandrea and Winefield (2011) found that teachers do not feel equipped to recognize the symptoms of internalizing disorders due to inadequate mental health training. Depending on the extent of pre-service teachers’ training, they may have varying levels of understanding of both anxiety and the efficacy of supports for students who struggle with it, affecting their expectations for those 59 students. If this is the case, it is also important to continue building pre-service teachers’ knowledge about mental health and related supports, because research has indeed shown that classroom based supports can be helpful for mental health concerns, and teachers are in important positions to help identify and support students who show signs of anxiety (Etherington & Costello, 2018). By intervening at the classroom level early on, teachers can contribute to an increased probability of successful outcomes for affected students (Children’s Mental Health Matters, 2009; Sink & Igelman, 2004). Results from the present study weakly supported the hypothesis that pre-service teachers with incremental theories about students would possess higher expectations of students for whom they provided support, compared to entity theorists, across all types of students. The difference between incremental and entity theorists was most pronounced for typical students and students with anxiety, however it is important to note that the difference is still minimal as mean responses for both entity and incremental theorists indicated an opinion that the students’ performance “might” improve. These results are minimally meaningful, and are in contrast to the pattern of differences seen between entity and incremental theorists in this sample regarding their beliefs about whether supports could be effective. Some possible reasons for this are the small sample and even smaller group of entity theorists, as well as the possible construct differences in considering the hypothetical efficacy of supports as opposed to actual predictions for the specific student. The final two hypotheses, that participants who had incremental theories about students in each condition would possess higher expectations for those students who received support compared to those who did not, and that participants who had entity theories would possess equivalent expectations for students who did and did not provide support, were both partially supported by results. Results showed that regardless of implicit theories, pre-service teachers had 60 higher expectations for achievement in students who received support compared to those who did not. However, the degree of the difference in expectations was somewhat larger for the incremental theorists. These results are also minimally meaningful given the small sample of entity theorists. However, results suggest that despite the possible effects of implicit theory on provision of supports and expectations for success, having a more entity theory does not necessarily mean a complete lack of faith in any effect of intervention. The results do suggest stronger belief in the efficacy of intervention given an incremental theory. Considerations for Psychologists and Educators The present study highlights the perspectives of pre-service teachers, who in many ways hold similar views to one another. As a group, they demonstrated strongly incremental theories regarding academic achievement in students, as well as a willingness to implement a variety of classroom based supports for students with anxiety as well as students with learning difficulties and typical students. The homogeneity of the participants in these areas may be a direct reflection of the training they had recently received through their teacher education program at UBC. The Faculty of Education at UBC has many strong proponents for social and emotional learning and mental health. A former cohort of pre-service teachers at UBC were the first in Canada to receive training on mental health literacy from Dr. Stan Kutcher, and this familiarity with student mental health and anxiety is apparent in their responses in the present study. The encouraging attitude of many of the participants in the present study highlights the benefit of a strong base understanding of mental health on academic practices, and suggests a need for continued work in improving the capacity of all teachers to support their students who may be struggling with anxiety. This is an endeavor that can be implemented at the pre-service teacher level like it is at UBC, but it is also important to consider the continued development of such 61 skills for more experienced teachers. Mental health professionals in the schools, including school psychologists, are in an important position to extend their role to support teachers as well as students. By providing information to teachers on how to better recognize and understand the needs of students struggling with anxiety and other mental health challenges, they can empower teachers to provide increased levels of support for these students at the classroom level. Limitations A potential limitation of this study is the population, in that the sample was derived from pre-service teachers whose experiences cannot be generalized to the broader population of experienced teachers. However, this choice of population was intentional, as there are many reasons to focus specifically on individuals who are still in training to become educators. Previous researchers have chosen to focus on pre-service teachers because the findings from such research can be more directly applied into teacher education programs more easily (Bostock et al., 2011), and because pre-service teachers who have not yet acculturated to various school climates may be more open to taking on a role that goes beyond just academics and considers mental health as well (Spratt et al, 2006). However, results of this study cannot be generalized to more experienced teachers. Another limitation of the study related to the participants is the small sample that was collected from a single university setting. Results may have been more robust and variable had more participants been recruited from a variety of settings, as the participants in the present study were drawing from a similar body of knowledge gained through their training to respond to the survey. It’s also possible that the variability of responses was affected by limitations in the study design itself. Due to the hypothetical nature of the vignettes, participants’ responses may have reflected what they think they should do when encountering specific students, rather than their 62 actual actions if presented with the student in their classroom. A more realistic look at the actions they would take in a real classroom with other factors such as larger school climate, behaviour of other students, and pressure from parents and administration might have yielded more varied results. Lastly, a possible limitation comes from the content of the vignettes. They were designed to have each student (typical student, student with anxiety, and student with learning difficulty) struggling with a different academic subject (reading, writing, and math) that were written to convey equivalent severity of the difficulty. However, by varying the academic subjects, the researcher could not account for any bias the participants may have regarding the nature of a math difficulty as opposed to a reading difficulty, for example. This may have confounded the participants’ expectations or choice of supports on the basis of the academic subject rather than on the basis of the student’s profile. If this study were to be replicated it would be beneficial to either focus on a single academic difficulty, or vary the academic difficulties amongst the student types. Considerations for Future Research Reference is made in the introduction of this study to differences that have been found in the way teachers respond to students at the elementary and secondary level. It was beyond the scope of the present study to stratify the current sample by the grades that they teach, but doing so as part of future research endeavors could shed further light on the nuances of implicit theories, teacher expectations, and their chosen supports. There are significant developmental difference between early elementary and secondary school students, which may impact the expectations their teachers have for their academic potential, as well as the supports that teachers choose to support them with. Another avenue for future research would be to address the 63 limitation stated above regarding possible differences in participant responses on the basis of the specific academic subject that the student is struggling with. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the implicit theories that pre-service teachers hold about academic abilities for students with anxiety and learning difficulties, as well as the way that pre-service teachers respond to these difficulties in the classroom. Results indicated that the sample of pre-service teachers at UBC holds generally incremental theories of academic achievement, and a general likelihood to implement supports for typical students, students with anxiety, and students with learning difficulties. The participants also indicated generally lowered expectations for students’ academic improvement without receiving any support. This suggests a positive trend in the teacher education program at UBC toward producing teachers with strong beliefs that students can improve their academic achievement with support and effort, and a willingness to provide that support. The specific types of supports that pre-service teacher were willing to implement varied by the different student types; students with anxiety who are struggling academically were more likely to receive support focused on their anxiety symptoms than on their academics, compared to students with learning difficulties and typical students. Further, for those responses that did aim to support academics and learning, students with anxiety were most likely to be supported with accommodations and external support. The strong tendency of participants’ implicit theories to lean more incremental for all student types makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding the relationship between implicit theories and teacher responses; however the general trends in responses show that those who endorsed incremental theories of academic achievement were also likely to implement and believe in the hypothetical efficacy of classroom supports. These findings contribute to the 64 literature by helping to highlight the beliefs and reported practices of newly emerging educators, and identifying distinctions in educator-reported types of support on the basis of anxiety and specific learning difficulties. 65 References American Psychiatric Association (2013) DSM 5: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association. (2015). Anxiety. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/ anxiety/ Anxiety BC. (2017). When Anxiety is a Problem: What's Normal and What's Not. Retrieved from https://www.anxietybc.com/adults/when-anxiety-problem. Armstrong, D., Macleod, G., & Brough, C. (2019). Work done in the margins: A comparative study of mental health literacy in pre-service teacher education in Australia and in Scotland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12452 Armstrong, D., Price, D., & Crowley, T. (2015). Thinking it through: a study of how pre-service teachers respond to children who present with possible mental health difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20(4), 381-397. doi:10.1080/13632752.2015.1019248 Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17. 129-147 Beesdo, K., Knappe, S., & Pine, D. S. (2009). Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: Developmental Issues and Implications for DSM-V. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 32(3), 483-524. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2009.06.002 Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham 66 (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345-363). New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press. Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of school psychology, 46(1), 1-21. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., & Mann, R. E., (2015). Drug use among Ontario students, 1977-2015: Detailed OSDUHS findings (CAMH Research Document Series No. 41). Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., & Mann, R. E., (2016). The mental health and well-being of Ontario students, 1991-2015: Deatiled OSDUHS findings (CAMH Research Document Series No. 43). Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Bostock, J. A., Kitt, R., & Kitt, C. (2011). Why wait until qualified?: The benefits and experiences of undergoing mental health awareness training for PGCE students. Pastoral Care in Education, 29(2), 103-115. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Buchholz, B., Aylward, S., Mckenzie, S., & Corrigan, P. (2015). Should youth disclose their mental health challenges? Perspectives from students, parents, and school professionals. Journal of Public Mental Health, 14(3), 159-168. doi:10.1108/jpmh-03-2015-0008 Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 410–422. 67 Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., Bailey, K., & Stein, M.T. (2004). Child anxiety in primary care: Prevalent but untreated. Depression and Anxiety, 20, 155-164. Children’s Mental Health Matters. (2009). Facts for educators: Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Retrieved from www.childrensmentalhealthmatters.org Clunies‐Ross, L., & Wimhurst, S. (1984). The right balance: provision for slow learners in secondary schools. Educational Research, 26(1), 14-23. doi:10.1080/0013188840260103 Compton, S. N., Peris, T. S., Almirall, D., Birmaher, B., Sherrill, J., Kendall, P. C., . . . Albano, A. M. (2014). Predictors and moderators of treatment response in childhood anxiety disorders: Results from the CAMS trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(2), 212-224. doi:10.1037/a0035458 Conderman, G., Liberty, L., & DeSpain, S. (2017). Understanding accommodations, modifications, and interventions. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 53(2), 70-75. Davis, J. L., Burnette, J. L., Allison, S. T., & Stone, H. (2010). Against the odds: academic underdogs benefit from incremental theories. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 331-346. doi:10.1007/s11218-010-9147-6 De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Heimberg, R. G., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion Beliefs and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44(2), 128-141. doi:10.1080/16506073.2014.974665 De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Beliefs About Emotion: Links to Emotion Regulation, Well-Being, and Psychological Distress. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 497-505. doi:10.1080/01973533.2013.840632 68 de Boer, A., Pijl, S.P., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3). 331-353 Duffey, J.B., & Martin, R.P. (1973). The effects of direct and indirect teacher influence and student trait anxiety on the immediate recall of academic material. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 233–237. 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. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,6(4), 267-285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (1993). Implicit theories individual differences in the likelihood and meaning of dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(5), 644-656. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 Etherington, V., & Costello, S. (2018). Comparing Universal and Targeted Delivery of a Mindfulness-Based Program for Anxiety in Children. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 1-23. 69 Farrell, P., Alborz, A., Howes, A., & Pearson, D. (2010). The impact of teaching assistants on improving pupils’ academic achievement in mainstream schools: a review of the literature. Educational Review,62(4), 435-448. doi:10.1080/00131911.2010.48647 Fox, N. A. (2010). Factors contributing to the emergence of anxiety among behaviorally inhibited children: The role of attention. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 127, 33–49. doi:10.1002/cd.261 Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?. Reading research quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. Garfield, Joan B. (1994). Beyond testing and grading: Using assessment to improve student learning. Journal of Statistics Education, 2(1). doi: 10.1080/10691898.1994.11910462 Georgiou, S.N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failure and teacher behaviour toward the failing student. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 583-595. Doi: 10.1002/pits.10049 Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of educational psychology, 76(4), 569. 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. Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36, 113–126. Hancock, D.R., Nichols, W.D., Jones, J., Mayring, P., Glaeser-Zikuda, M. (2000). The impact of teachers' instructional strategies and students' anxiety levels on students' achievement in 70 eighth grade German and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 232-240. Hatton, V., Heath, M. A., Gibb, G. S., Coyne, S., Hudnall, G., & Bledsoe, C. (2016). Secondary Teachers’ Perceptions of their Role in Suicide Prevention and Intervention. School Mental Health, 9(1), 97-116. doi:10.1007/s12310-015-9173-9 HealthLink BC. (2017). Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/abl1797 Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599 Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., Bergh, L. V., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher Attitudes Toward Dyslexia: Effects on Teacher Expectations and the Academic Achievement of Students With Dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515-529. doi:10.1177/0022219409355479 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. Hughes, J. N., Im, M. H., & Wehrly, S. E. (2014). Effect of peer nominations of teacher–student support at individual and classroom levels on social and academic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 52(3), 309-322. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.004 Ipsos Public Affairs. (2017). Children and Youth Mental Health Survey: Getting Help in Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2017- 71 11/Children%20and%20Youth%20Mental%20Health%20Survey%20Findings_FINAL_Nov.pd Jonsson, A., & Beach, D. (2012). Predicting the use of praise among pre-service teachers: The influence of implicit theories of intelligence, social comparison and stereotype acceptance. Education Inquiry, 3(2), 259-281. doi:10.3402/edui.v3i2.22033 Jorm, A. F., Kitchener, B. A., Sawyer, M. G., Scales, H., & Cvetkovski, S. (2010). Mental health first aid training for high school teachers: a cluster randomized trial. BMC Psychiatry, 10(1). doi:10.1186/1471-244x-10-51 Killu, K., Marc, R., & Crundwell, A. (2016). Students with Anxiety in the Classroom: Educational Accommodations and Interventions. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 30-40. doi:10.1177/107429561602500205 Kutcher, S., & Wei, Y. (2012). Mental health and the school environment. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25(4), 311-316. doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e3283543976 Lai, M. K., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014). Improving achievement in secondary schools: Impact of a literacy project on reading comprehension and secondary school qualifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 305-334. doi:10.1002/rrq.73 Lock, R. H., & Layton, C. A. (2001). Confirming the need for individual accommodations for students with learning disabilities. NACADA Journal, 21(1-2), 59-69. Lovett, M.W., Barron, R.W., & Benson, N.J. (2003). Effective remediation of word identification and decoding difficulties in school-age children with reading disabilities. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.) Handbook of Learning Disabilities (273-292). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 72 MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in language disorders, 20(4), 85-100. Marita, S., & Hord, C. (2016). Review of Mathematics Interventions for Secondary Students With Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,40(1), 29-40. doi:10.1177/0731948716657495 Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239–269. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003 Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Milner, C. B. (2006). Adolescent fears and anxieties: A comparative analysis of parents' and teachers' perceptions of adolescent differences. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 67, 1650. Minke, K.M., Bear, G.G., Deemer, S.A., Griffin, S.M. (1996). Teachers’ experiences with inclusive classrooms: implications for special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186. Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2014). Preventing Symptoms of Depression by Teaching Adolescents That People Can Change. Clinical Psychological Science,3(5), 726-743. doi:10.1177/2167702614548317 Moll, K., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Bruder, J., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Specific Learning Disorder: Prevalence and Gender Differences. PLoS ONE, 9(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103537 73 Moon, J., Williford, A., & Mendenhall, A. (2017). Educators perceptions of youth mental health: Implications for training and the promotion of mental health services in schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 384-391. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.006 Nelson, T. D., & Steele, R. F. (2007). Predictors of practitioner self-reported use of evidence-based practices: Practitioner training, clinical setting, and attitudes toward research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 319–330. Oakes, J., Wells, A., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 482-510. O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive Mental Health and Academic Achievement in Elementary School: New Evidence From a Matching Analysis. Educational Researcher, 48(4), 205-216. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational research, 66(4), 543-578. Papandrea, K., & Winefield, H. (2011). It’s not just the squeaky wheels that need the oil: Examining teachers’ views on the disparity between referral rates for students with internalizing versus externalizing problems. School Mental Health, 3(4), 222-235. Patterson, M. M., Kravchenko, N., Chen-Bouck, L., & Kelley, J. A. (2016). General and domain-specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice and practicing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 180-190. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.004 Pretzlik, U., Olsson, J., Nabuco, M., & Cruz, I. (2003). Teachers’ implicit views of intelligence predict self-perceptions as learners. Cognitive Development, 18, 579-600. 74 Rappo, G., Alesi, M., & Pepi, A. (2017). The effects of school anxiety on self-esteem and self-handicapping in pupils attending primary school. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(4), 465-476, doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1239578 Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “Its ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731-737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012 Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Puri, R., & Goel, N. (2011). Supporting childrens mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 1-13. doi:10.1037/a0022714 Robinson, G. (1996). Teachers' responses to students with behavior problems: Attributions, affect, and interventions. (Unpublished master's thesis). The University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. Roeser, R. W., Strobel, K. R., & Quihuis, G. (2002). Studying early adolescents’ academic motivation, social-emotional functioning, and engagement in learning: Variable- and person-centered approaches. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 15, 345–368. doi:10.1080/1061580021000056519 Rogers, C. M. (2009). The relationship between teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence and their beliefs about teaching higher-order thinking skills to low-achieving students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database). Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341-357. 75 Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., & Rosenthal, R. (2015). A teacher expectation intervention: Modelling the practices of high expectation teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 72-85. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003 Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2014). The Role of Implicit Theories in Mental Health Symptoms, Emotion Regulation, and Hypothetical Treatment Choices in College Students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(2), 120-139. doi:10.1007/s10608-014-9652-6 Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2016). Evaluating the domain specificity of mental health–related mind-sets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 508-520. doi:10.1177/1948550616644657 Schroder, H. S., Yalch, M. M., Dawood, S., Callahan, C. P., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2017). Growth mindset of anxiety buffers the link between stressful life events and psychological distress and coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 23-26. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.016 Schleider, J. L., Abel, M. R., & Weisz, J. R. (2015). Implicit theories and youth mental health problems: A random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.001 Schneider, A. B., Codding, R. S., & Tryon, G. S. (2013). Comparing and combining accommodation and remediation interventions to improve the written-language performance of children with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 101-114. 76 Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teacher. International Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 80–93. Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a Label. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462-480. doi:10.1177/0022146513503346 Sink, C., & Igelman, C. N. (2004). Anxiety disorders. In F. Kline & L. Silver (Eds.), The educator’s guide to mental health issues in the classroom (pp. 171–191). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Smith, A., Stewart, D., Poon, C., Peled, M., Saewyc, E., & McCreary Centre Society (2014). From Hastings Street to Haida Gwaii: Provincial results of the 2013 BC Adolescent Health Survey. Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society Soles, T., Bloom, E.L., Heath, N.L., Karagiannakis, A. (2008). An exploration of teachers’ current perceptions of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties’. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 13, 275-290. doi:10.1080/13632750802442201 Spratt, J., Shucksmith, J., Philip, K. & Watson, C. (2006) Interprofessional support of mental well-being in schools: a Bourdieuan perspective. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(4), 391–402. Stanton, K., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2018). Self-efficacy, teacher concerns, and levels of implementation among teachers participating in drama-based instruction professional development. Teacher Development, 22(1), 51-77. Stronge, J., Ward, T., & Grant, L. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4). 339-355 77 Tamir, M., John, O.P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J.J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731 – 744. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.92.4.731 Tinger, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tinger, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K-12 student’s achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 355-369. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12184. Tramonte, L. & Willms, D. (2010). The prevalence of anxiety among middle and seconday school students in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 101(9). 19-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17269/cjph.101.2127 Valentiner, D. P., Mounts, N. S., Durik, A. M., & Gier-Lonsway, S. L. (2011). Shyness mindset: Applying mindset theory to the domain of inhibited social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1174–1179. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Kouzekanani, K. (1993). What Do Students with Learning Disabilities Think When Their General Education Teachers Make Adaptations? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 545-555. doi:10.1177/002221949302600808 Wilbert, L.T. (2009) High school mathematics teachers’ perception of students with math anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(1-A). 123. Woodcock, S., & Vialle, W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students’ learning disabilities? An investigation of preservice teachers’ attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61(2), 223-241. doi:10.1007/s11881-011-0058-9 Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J., Trzesniewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of 78 personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 106(6), 867-884. doi:10.1037/a0036335 79 Appendix A: Vignettes Student with Anxiety Alex is a student in your class. They are rarely absent and typically hand in assignments on time. They try to pay attention in class, although you often notice them “zoning out” and failing to concentrate. They often seem tired in class, and they avoid raising their hand during class discussions. Their parents told you that they have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, and you notice that they often seem nervous or worried, especially before and during tests. Alex has an average aptitude for most academic tasks, but they have been having a hard time remembering and applying the steps you have taught for organizing a piece of writing. On a recent test, Alex stayed in class into recess in order to finish the test, but their writing on the test was still disorganized and did not seem finished. Student with Learning Difficulties Sam is a student in your class. They are rather bright, and are engaged in class most days. They do not miss class often, and you see them putting just as much effort into assignments as other students. Despite this effort, Sam has been having persistent difficulty with reading for years. They have an IEP documenting this difficulty and they receive learning support 2 times per week to practice their skills. When you ask Sam to read aloud in class it is slow and effortful, and they have been getting low scores on quizzes about the content of the novel the class has been reading. Typical Student Riley is a student in your class. They attend class regularly and seem to have an average ability to understand most concepts. They work hard on assignments in class, and will ask for help when they need it. You consider Riley to be a typical student, and do not know of any particular ongoing difficulties that they experience. However, they have recently been struggling to with the concepts you are covering in math. They ask questions during the lessons, but they consistently make the same kinds of mistakes on their homework this unit, and you can tell from their low performance on the most recent test that they still are not understanding the concept. 80 Appendix B: Informed Consent Introduction We are interested in understanding the beliefs teacher candidates hold about student achievement and how they predict that they would respond to different kinds of students. You will be presented with information about different kinds of students and asked to answer some questions about them. Participants must: · Be currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Education Program at UBC · Have already completed their practicum placements. Procedures After giving your consent below, you will be asked to complete a demographics form. You will then read three short descriptions of different kinds of students, and will be asked to answer 11 questions about these students and the way you might respond to them in your classroom. The study should take you around 20-30 minutes to complete, and upon completion you will be given the chance to enter in a draw and win a gift card valued at $25-$100 for your participation. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason. Potential Benefits and Risks Participants will have the opportunity to learn more about how psychological research is conducted, and also know that they are helping to further academic understanding of common situations that arise in classrooms. There are no known risks associated with participating in this study. Confidentiality To ensure anonymity, you will not be asked to provide your name or any identifying information anywhere in the survey. The email address you provide for the draw will be submitted separately from your survey answers and will not be tied to them in any way. The list of email addresses for the draw will be destroyed once names have been drawn and prizes dispersed. The online survey is is hosted by a web survey company called Qualtrics, which is fully compliant with the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) because the survey data is kept secure and is stored and backed up in Canada. Consent By checking the “I AGREE” option below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is voluntary, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason. If you would like to contact the Principal Investigator in the study to discuss this research, you may contact Dr. William McKee. This study has received clearance from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia, and The original UBC BREB Certificate of Approval number pertaining to this study is: _______________. 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 81 distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598  I AGREE to participate, please begin the survey  I DO NOT AGREE to participate, please redirect me from this page 82 Appendix C: Survey Text 1. Please enter your age in years: ______ 2. What is your gender identity?  Male  Female  Other _____________ Prefer not to say 3. What levels of post-secondary education have you completed? Please check all that apply.  Bachelor Degree  Masters Degree  Doctoral Degree  Other _____________ 4. In what stream of the Bachelor of Education program are you enrolled?  Elementary / Middle Years → Please select your cohort  Arts-Based & Creativity (ABC)  Kindergarten – Primary Program (KIPP)  Community of Inquiry in Teacher Education (CITE)  Montessori  Elementary French Specialists  Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)  Indigenous Education  Teaching English Language Learners Through Cross-Curricular Inquiry (TELL-3C)  International Baccalaureate (IB)  Not Listed (please specify) ____________  Secondary → Please select your teachable subjects  Art  Mathematics  Business Education  Modern Languages  Computer Science  Music  Culinary Arts  Physical Education  English  Science  English Language Learner Education  Social Studies  French  Technology Education  Home Economics  Theatre 5. In what classroom environments do you plan on working in the future? Check all that apply  Elementary (K – Gr. 5)  Middle School (Gr. 6-8)  Secondary School (Gr. 9-12)  Special Education / Learning Assistance 6. How much practicum experience have you had in the past year?  Fewer than 2 weeks  2-10 weeks  10-12 weeks  More than 12 weeks 83 7. In what grades did you have your practicum experience in? check all that apply  Early Elementary (K – Gr. 2)  Intermediate Elementary (Gr. 3– Gr. 5)  Middle School (Gr. 6-8)  Secondary School (Gr. 9-12) 8. With what kinds of students have you worked? Check all that apply  Students with diagnosed learning disabilities  Students with significant behavioural concerns  Students with anxiety  Students with ASD  Students with depression  Students with physical disabilities  Students with ADHD  Students with intellectual disabilities --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements 1. Typical students have a certain level of academic achievement and they really cannot do much to change it 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 2. Typical students’ academic achievement is something that they cannot change very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 3. To be honest, typical students cannot really change how well they do in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 4. No matter how hard they try, typical students can’t change the level of achievement that they have in school 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements 1. Students with anxiety have a certain level of academic achievement and they really cannot do much to change it 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 84 2. Students with anxiety’s academic achievement is something that they cannot change very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 3. To be honest, students with anxiety cannot really change how well they do in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 4. No matter how hard they try, students with anxiety can’t change the level of achievement that they have in school 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements 1. Students with learning difficulties have a certain level of academic achievement and they really cannot do much to change it 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 2. Students with learning difficulties’ academic achievement is something that they cannot change very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 3. To be honest, students with learning difficulties cannot really change how well they do in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 4. No matter how hard they try, students with learning difficulties can’t change the level of achievement that they have in school 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please read the following description before moving on to the following questions. Riley is a student in your class. They* attend class regularly and seem to have an average ability to understand most concepts. They work hard on assignments in class, and will ask for help when 85 they need it. You consider Riley to be a typical student, and do not know of any particular ongoing difficulties that they experience. However, they have recently been struggling to with the concepts you are covering in math. They ask questions during the lessons, but they consistently make the same kinds of mistakes on their homework this unit, and you can tell from their low performance on the most recent test that they still are not understanding the concept. *Please note that the student’s gender has been intentionally left ambiguous and they will be referred to in the singular as “they”. Consider Riley, the student in your class described above, when giving answers to the following questions: 1. To what extent do you understand the challenges that Riley is facing that may be impacting their learning? 1 2 3 4 I do not understand at all I somewhat understand I mostly understand I fully understand 2. To what extent do you think accommodations, classroom support, and/or changes in instruction could make a difference in Riley’s learning success? 1 2 3 4 They would make no difference at all They would make a small difference They would make some difference They would make a very big difference 3. To what extent do you have access to or know of instructional strategies, resources, and/or materials that could be used to support Riley in their learning through accommodations, classroom support, or changes to instruction? 1 2 3 4 I do not have any resources or strategies I have limited resources and strategies I have some resources and strategies I have many different resources and strategies 4. Please briefly describe the strategies, resources, and/or materials you have access to or know of that could be used to support Riley in their learning. __________________________________________ 5. How likely are you to use the strategies and materials available to you and resources described above to provide additional support to Riley? 1 2 3 4 I would not use the strategies I might use the strategies I would likely use the strategies I would certainly use the strategies 86 6. How likely is Riley’s academic performance to improve, if you DID implement the accommodations or support referenced above? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve 7. How likely is Riley’s academic performance to improve, if you DID NOT implement any accommodations or support? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please read the following description before moving on to the following questions. Alex is a student in your class. They* are rarely absent and typically hand in assignments on time. They try to pay attention in class, although you often notice them “zoning out” and failing to concentrate. They often seem tired in class, and they avoid raising their hand during class discussions. Their parents told you that they have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, and you notice that they often seem nervous or worried, especially before and during tests. Alex has an average aptitude for most academic tasks, but they have been having a hard time remembering and applying the steps you have taught for organizing a piece of writing. On a recent test, Alex stayed in class into recess in order to finish the test, but their writing on the test was still disorganized and did not seem finished. *Please note that the student’s gender has been intentionally left ambiguous and they will be referred to in the singular as “they”. Consider Alex, the student in your class described above, when giving answers to the following questions: 1. To what extent do you understand the challenges that Alex is facing that may be impacting their learning? 1 2 3 4 I do not understand at all I somewhat understand I mostly understand I fully understand 2. To what extent do you think accommodations, classroom support, and/or changes in instruction could make a difference in Alex’s learning success? 1 2 3 4 They would make no difference at all They would make a small difference They would make some difference They would make a very big difference 3. To what extent do you have access to or know of instructional strategies, resources, and/or materials that could be used to support Alex in their learning through accommodations, classroom support, or changes to instruction? 87 1 2 3 4 I do not have any resources or strategies I have limited resources and strategies I have some resources and strategies I have many different resources and strategies 4. Please briefly describe the strategies, resources, and/or materials you have access to or know of that could be used to support Alex in their learning. __________________________________________ 5. How likely are you to use the strategies and materials available to you and resources described above to provide additional support to Alex? 1 2 3 4 I would not use the strategies I might use the strategies I would likely use the strategies I would certainly use the strategies 6. How likely is Alex’s academic performance to improve, if you DID implement the accommodations or support referenced above? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve 7. How likely is Alex’s academic performance to improve, if you DID NOT implement any accommodations or support? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please read the following description before moving on to the following questions. Sam is a student in your class. They* are rather bright, and are engaged in class most days. They do not miss class often, and you see them putting just as much effort into assignments as other students. Despite this effort, Sam has been having persistent difficulty with reading for years. They have an IEP documenting this difficulty and they receive learning support 2 times per week to practice their skills. When you ask Sam to read aloud in class it is slow and effortful, and they have been getting low scores on quizzes about the content of the novel the class has been reading. *Please note that the student’s gender has been intentionally left ambiguous and they will be referred to in the singular as “they”. Consider Sam, the student in your class described above, when giving answers to the following questions: 1. To what extent do you understand the challenges that Sam is facing that may be impacting their learning? 88 1 2 3 4 I do not understand at all I somewhat understand I mostly understand I fully understand 2. To what extent do you think accommodations, classroom support, and/or changes in instruction could make a difference in Sam’s learning success? 1 2 3 4 They would make no difference at all They would make a small difference They would make some difference They would make a very big difference 3. To what extent do you have access to or know of instructional strategies, resources, and/or materials that could be used to support Sam in their learning through accommodations, classroom support, or changes to instruction? 1 2 3 4 I do not have any resources or strategies I have limited resources and strategies I have some resources and strategies I have many different resources and strategies 4. Please briefly describe the strategies, resources, and/or materials you have access to or know of that could be used to support Sam in their learning. __________________________________________ 5. How likely are you to use the strategies and materials available to you and resources described above to provide additional support to Sam? 1 2 3 4 I would not use the strategies I might use the strategies I would likely use the strategies I would certainly use the strategies 6. How likely is Sam’s academic performance to improve, if you DID implement the accommodations or support referenced above? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve 7. How likely is Sam’s academic performance to improve, if you DID NOT implement any accommodations or support? 1 2 3 4 Their performance would not improve Their performance might improve Their performance would likely improve Their performance would certainly improve 89 Appendix D: Debriefing Form Teachers' Implicit Theories About Achievement in Students with Anxiety and Related Use of Classroom-Based Strategies June__ 2018 Thank you for your donating your time and effort to this study; your participation is greatly appreciated. This study is investigating teacher candidates’ beliefs about students with and without anxiety, and their related responses in the classroom. All students who participated were asked to read the same descriptions of fictional students, and then respond to questions about their opinions and responses to these students. Based on past research that has found that teachers’ underlying beliefs about students can influence the way they respond in the classroom, as well as limited research on the willingness of teachers to make classroom adaptations for students with anxiety, we were interested in looking at the possible relationship between beliefs about students with anxiety, and willingness to implement classroom based supports. We hypothesized that teachers would have different beliefs about students with anxiety compared to students without, and that teachers who believed students had the capacity to change would be more willing to implement supports. This study has received ethics clearance from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at UBC. Should you have any further questions or concerns about your participation in this study, please do not hesitate to contact the principal investigator for this study, Dr. William McKee. 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 Further Reading: Hancock, D.R., Nichols, W.D., Jones, J., Mayring, P., Glaeser-Zikuda, M. (2000). The impact of teachers' instructional strategies and students' anxiety levels on students' achievement in eighth grade German and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 232-240. Patterson, M. M., Kravchenko, N., Chen-Bouck, L., & Kelley, J. A. (2016). General and domain-specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice and practicing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,59, 180-190. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.004 Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “Its ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731-737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012 90 Appendix E: Recruitment Email Hello, My name is Carolyn Taylor and I am a Masters student in the School Psychology program in the ECPS department. I am seeking participants for my Master’s thesis research study, which I am conducting under the supervision of Dr. William McKee. We invite you to participate in an online survey study involving teacher candidates at UBC. We are interested in understanding the beliefs teacher candidates hold about student achievement and how they predict that they would respond to different kinds of students. You are eligible if: • You are currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Education program • You have completed your in-school practicum placements Participants will be asked to read some short descriptions of fictional students and complete a survey about the students. This will take 20-30 minutes and can be done from your own computer anywhere with an internet connection. Participants who complete the survey will have the option to be entered into a draw to win a gift card to the UBC Bookstore. There will be 10 prizes worth $25.00 and 1 grand prize worth $100.00. Participation in the study is completely voluntary and participants can withdraw at any time. The study has been cleared by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board. 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 To participate, please click the following link to be directed to the online survey: ____________________ Thank you and I appreciate your assistance with my study, Carolyn Taylor 91 Appendix F: Recruitment Poster ARE YOU CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN THE BACHELOR OF EDUCATION PROGRAM AT UBC? If you: • Are currently enrolled in the B.Ed. program at UBC • Have completed your in-school practicum placements • Are willing to spend 20-30 minutes completing an online survey Then we invite you to participate in an online study looking at the beliefs teacher candidates hold about student achievement and how they predict that they would respond to different kinds of students. Participants who complete the survey can enter a draw to win a gift card to the UBC Bookstore • 10 prizes worth $25.00 • 1 grand prize worth $100.00 This study is being conducted by Carolyn Taylor as part of her Master’s thesis under the supervision of Dr. William McKee. This study has received clearance from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia. If you would like to participate in this study or request more information, please contact: Carolyn Taylor ____________@email.com
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
School Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Pre-service teachers' implicit theories about achievement in students with anxiety and related use of classroom-based strategies
Text