Well-being in Students and Teachers Study

NCT06203288 | Active Not Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: STUDY2023-1289
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 405
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The goal of this randomized trial is to test the effectiveness of two universal classroom-based mindfulness social and emotional learning (SEL) programs (one for students and one for teachers) by examining behavioral outcomes on 5th and 6th grade students and their teachers. The main questions it aims to answer are:

• What are the singular and combined effects of a mindfulness-based SEL education programs for teachers and their students on the development of students' and their teachers' social, emotional, and cognitive competence, and well-being?
• Can mindfulness-based SEL education programs for students and teachers foster the creation of caring, inclusive, equitable, and collaborative classroom contexts?
• Can mindfulness-based SEL education programs support the development of students' and teachers' prosocial attitudes, mindsets that positively impact student learning?
• Are the effects durable beyond the end of the programs with regard to the singular and combined mindfulness-based SEL interventions? A total of 24 classrooms will be randomized into one of three study conditions:
• Mindfulness SEL program for Educators only
• Mindfulness SEL program for Educators and Mindfulness SEL program for Students in combination, and
• "Business as usual" (comparison groups in which regular classroom SEL curricula is implemented).

Conditions

Prosocial Behavior; Community Sense; Optimism; Anxiety; Social Competence; Self-Compassion; Stress, Psychological; Burnout, Professional; Efficacy, Self; Self Awareness

Keywords

social and emotional learning; SEL; mindfulness-based intervention; MBI

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (14)

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Prosocial Behavior Scores measured with Peer Nominations at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Following the procedures outlined by Parkhurst and Asher (1992), unlimited and cross-gender peer nominations will be used to obtain independent assessments of prosociality, whereby students are asked to nominate (circle all the names of) classmates who fit particular behavioral characteristics: (1) share and cooperate, and (2) help other kids when they have a problem. This methodology is consistent with published investigations in which peers' ratings of behaviors are considered to be a reliable and valid way in which to assess students' social behaviors in a school context (Schonert-Reichl, 1999; Wentzel et al., 2004; Oberle et al., 2010). Students' nominations are standardized within each classroom, and a proportional nominations score is calculated per student for each of the behaviors. Higher scores indicate higher levels of prosocial behavior.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Prosocial Behavior Scores measured with Peer Nominations at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Following the procedures outlined by Parkhurst and Asher (1992), unlimited and cross-gender peer nominations will be used to obtain independent assessments of prosociality, whereby students are asked to nominate (circle all the names of) classmates who fit particular behavioral characteristics: (1) share and cooperate, and (2) help other kids when they have a problem. This methodology is consistent with published investigations in which peers' ratings of behaviors are considered to be a reliable and valid way in which to assess students' social behaviors in a school context (Schonert-Reichl, 1999; Wentzel et al., 2004; Oberle et al., 2010). Students' nominations are standardized within each classroom, and a proportional nominations score is calculated per student for each of the behaviors. Higher scores indicate higher levels of prosocial behavior.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Optimism Scores on the Optimism Subscale of the Resiliency Inventory at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Student self-report with a 9-item subscale (Noam \& Goldstein, 1998; Song, 2003) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Not at all like me, 2=A little bit like me, 3=Kind of like me, 4=A lot like me, 5=Always like me. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of optimism. Five items are reverse scored.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Optimism Scores on the Optimism Subscale of the Resiliency Inventory at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Student self-report with a 9-item subscale (Noam \& Goldstein, 1998; Song, 2003) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Not at all like me, 2=A little bit like me, 3=Kind of like me, 4=A lot like me, 5=Always like me. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of optimism. Five items are reverse scored.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Attention and Concentration Scores on the Attention and Concentration Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher-rating of students 7-item subscale (Kam \& Greenberg, 1998) measured on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=Almost Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often, 6=Almost Always. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of attention and concentration. Two items are reverse scored.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Attention and Concentration Scores on the Attention and Concentration Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher-rating of students 7-item subscale (Kam \& Greenberg, 1998) measured on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=Almost Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often, 6=Almost Always. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of attention and concentration. Two items are reverse scored.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Social and Emotional Competence Scores on the Social and Emotional Competence Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher-rating of students 7-item subscale (Kam \& Greenberg, 1998) measured on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=Almost Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often, 6=Almost Always. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social and emotional competence. No reverse scored items.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Social and Emotional Competence Scores on the Social and Emotional Competence Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher-rating of students 7-item subscale (Kam \& Greenberg, 1998) measured on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1=Almost Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often, 6=Almost Always. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social and emotional competence. No reverse scored items.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Self-Compassion Scores on the Teacher Self-Compassion Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 9-item scale (Neff, 2003; Roeser et al., 2013) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Not at all true of me, 2=Rarely True of me, 3=Somewhat true of me, 4=Often true of me, 5=Very true of me. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-compassion. Three items are reverse scored.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Self-Compassion Scores on the Teacher Self-Compassion Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 9-item scale (Neff, 2003; Roeser et al., 2013) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Not at all true of me, 2=Rarely True of me, 3=Somewhat true of me, 4=Often true of me, 5=Very true of me. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-compassion. Three items are reverse scored.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Stress Scores on the Stress Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 7-item scale (Pettegrew \& Wolf, 1982) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Unsure, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of stress. No reverse scored items.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Stress Scores on the Stress Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 7-item scale (Pettegrew \& Wolf, 1982) measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Unsure, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of stress. No reverse scored items.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Burnout Scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 23-item scale (Maslach \& Jackson, 1981) measured on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1=Never, 2=A few times, 3=Once a month or less, 4=A few times a month, 5=Once a week, 6=A few times a week, 7=Every day. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of burnout. Eight items are reverse scored.

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher Burnout Scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  Teacher self-report with a 23-item scale (Maslach \& Jackson, 1981) measured on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1=Never, 2=A few times, 3=Once a month or less, 4=A few times a month, 5=Once a week, 6=A few times a week, 7=Every day. Mean score calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of burnout. Eight items are reverse scored.

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

Secondary Outcomes (8)

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Anxiety Scores on the Anxiety Subscale of the Seattle Personality Questionnaire at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Student Anxiety Scores on the Anxiety Subscale of the Seattle Personality Questionnaire at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Classroom Supportiveness Scores on the Classroom Supportiveness Subscale of the Sense of Classroom as a Community Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

• Mean Change from Baseline in Classroom Supportiveness Scores on the Classroom Supportiveness Subscale of the Sense of Classroom as a Community Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  From 14 weeks to 6 months after the end of intervention

• Mean Change from Baseline in Teacher General Teaching Efficacy Scores on the General Teaching Efficacy Scale on the Teacher Efficacy Scale at 14 weeks and 6-month follow-up

  From baseline to end of intervention at 14 weeks

Study Arms (3)

MBSEL program for educators

EXPERIMENTAL

Teachers randomized to this arm will receive a mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for educators training outside the classroom. These teachers will continue to teach their regular "business as usual" social and emotional learning (SEL) curriculum in the classroom. Note: In the school district where this research study is being conducted, every teacher is required to allot at least one 50-min class period to implementing SEL programs and/or practices, and to embed SEL activities and practices throughout the school day.

Behavioral: Mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for educators

MBSEL program for educators and MBSEL program for students

EXPERIMENTAL

Teachers randomized to this arm will first receive training in a mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program designed specifically for educators and will complete the program on their own outside the classroom. Following, they will receive training for implementing an MBSEL program for their students, and then they implement weekly lessons of this program in their classroom to their students.

Behavioral: Mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for educators; Behavioral: Mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for students

Comparison "Business as Usual"

NO INTERVENTION

Teachers randomized to this arm will teach their regular "business as usual" social and emotional learning (SEL) curriculum to their student in the classroom. Note: In the school district where this research study is being conducted, every teacher is required to allot at least one 50-min class period to implementing SEL programs and/or practices, and to embed SEL activities and practices throughout the school day.

Interventions

Mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for educators BEHAVIORAL

MBSEL for educators is a program designed to improve teachers' ability to deal with stress and enhance their well-being and teaching. Lessons include: (1) Introduction to the Science, (2) Brain, Attention, \& Well-being, (3) Positive Neuroscience, (4) Mindful Teaching, (5) Embracing Self-Compassion, (6) Finding Your Compass: Intentions for Mindful Living. This 2-hour program is self-paced and delivered online.

MBSEL program for educators; MBSEL program for educators and MBSEL program for students

Mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (MBSEL) program for students BEHAVIORAL

MBSEL program for students consists of 17 lessons taught about once a week (40-50 minutes per lesson). The core mindfulness program practices (done every day for 3 minutes three times a day) consist of focusing on one's breathing and attentive listening to a single resonant sound. The lessons focus on promoting prosocial behavior (e.g., kindness, altruism), resiliency, well-being, and reducing stress in students. It also incorporates an eco-behavioral systems orientation.

MBSEL program for educators and MBSEL program for students

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• th and 6th grade teachers (minimum .5 full time equivalent) and their students

You may not qualify if:

• Part-time teachers (less than .5 full time equivalent), substitute teachers, school counselors, school administrators, or other school staff

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Illinois at Chicago: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of Illinois at Chicago

Chicago, Illinois, 60607, United States

Location

Related Publications (32)

• Schonert-Reichl KA. Relations of peer acceptance, friendship adjustment, and social behavior to moral reasoning during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 1999; 19(2): 249-279.

  BACKGROUND

• Wentzel KR, Barry CM, Caldwell KA. Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004. 96: 195-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/\0022-0663.96.2.195

  BACKGROUND

• Oberle E, Schonert-Reichl KA, Thomson KC. Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: gender-specific predictors of peer acceptance. J Youth Adolesc. 2010 Nov;39(11):1330-42. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9. Epub 2009 Nov 29.

  PMID: 20091211 BACKGROUND

• Noam GG, Goldstein LS. The Resilience Inventory. 1994. Unpublished protocol.

  BACKGROUND

• Song M. Two studies on the resilience inventory (RI): Toward the goal of creating a culturally sensitive measure of adolescent resilience. Dissertation Abstracts International. 2003. 64 (8B). (UMI No. 3100166) Harvard: ProQuest Information and Learning

  BACKGROUND

• Kusche CA, Greenberg MT, Beilke R. Seattle Personality Questionnaire for young school-aged children. Unpublished manuscript. 1988. University of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle.

  BACKGROUND

• Rains C. Seattle Personality Questionnaire-Original (Fast Track ProjectTechnical Report). 2003. Retrieved October 2005 from sanford.duke.edu/centers/child/fasttrack/techrept/s/spq/spq3tech.pdf

  BACKGROUND

• Kam C, Greenberg MT. Technical measurement report on the teacher social competence rating scale. Unpublished technical report. 1998. Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University

  BACKGROUND

• Battistich V, Solomon D, Watson M, Schaps E. Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist. 1997. 32: 137 - 151.

  BACKGROUND

• Neff KD. The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion, Self and Identity. 2003. 2: 223-250.

  BACKGROUND

• Roeser RW, Schonert-Reichl KA, Jha A, Cullen M, Wallace L, Wilensky R, Oberle E, Thomson K, Taylor C, Harrison J. Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013. 105(3): 787-804.

  BACKGROUND

• Pettegrew LS, Wolf GE. Validating measures of teacher stress. American Educational Research Journal. 1982. 19(3): 373-396.

  BACKGROUND

• Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour. 1981. 2: 99-113.

  BACKGROUND

• Woolfolk AE, Rosoff B, Hoy WK. Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1990. 6: 137-148.

  BACKGROUND

• American Institutes for Research and Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Student self-report of social and emotional competencies. 2013. Washington DC and Chicago: Authors.

  BACKGROUND

• Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. 71: 364-374.

  BACKGROUND

• Parkhurst JT, Asher SR. Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. 1992. Developmental Psychology. 28(2): 231-241. Doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.231

  BACKGROUND

• Battistich V, Solomon D, Watson M, Schaps E. Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students' attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. 1995. American Educational Research Journal. 32: 627-658.

  BACKGROUND

• Miller R. Tales of teacher absence: New research yields patterns that speak to policymakers. 2008. Center for American Progress: Washington, DC.

  BACKGROUND

• Colaianne BA, Galla BM, Roeser RW. Perceptions of mindful teaching are associated with longitudinal change in adolescents' mindfulness and compassion. 2020. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 44(1): 41-50.

  BACKGROUND

• Harris AR, Jennings PA, Katz DA, Abenavoli RM, Greenberg MT. Promoting stress management and wellbeing in educators: Feasibility and efficacy of a school-based yoga and mindfulness intervention. 2015. Mindfulness. 7(1): 143-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0451-2.

  BACKGROUND

• Jennings PA, Brown JL, Frank JL, Doyle S, Oh Y, Davis R, Rasheed D, DeWeese A, DeMauro AA, Cham H, Greenberg MT.Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on teachers' social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. 2017. Journal of Educational Psychology. 109(7): 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000187

  BACKGROUND

• Kemeny ME, Foltz C, Cavanagh JF, Cullen M, Giese-Davis J, Jennings P, Rosenberg EL, Gillath O, Shaver PR, Wallace BA, Ekman P. Contemplative/emotion training reduces negative emotional behavior and promotes prosocial responses. Emotion. 2012 Apr;12(2):338-50. doi: 10.1037/a0026118. Epub 2011 Dec 12.

  PMID: 22148989 BACKGROUND

• Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;62(6):593-602. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593.

  PMID: 15939837 BACKGROUND

• Lever N, Mathis E, Mayworm A. School Mental Health Is Not Just for Students: Why Teacher and School Staff Wellness Matters. Rep Emot Behav Disord Youth. 2017 Winter;17(1):6-12. No abstract available.

  PMID: 30705611 BACKGROUND

• Lomas T, Medina JC, Ivtzan I, Rupprecht S, Eiroa-Orosa FJ. The impact of mindfulness on the wellbeing and performance of educators: A systematic review of the empirical literature. 2017. Teaching and Teacher Education. 61: 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sop2.16

  BACKGROUND

• Merikangas KR, Nakamura EF, Kessler RC. Epidemiology of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2009;11(1):7-20. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.1/krmerikangas.

  PMID: 19432384 BACKGROUND

• Roeser RW, Galla BM, Baelen RN. Evidence on the impacts of school-based mindfulness programs on student outcomes in P-12 educational settings [Issue Brief]. 2020. Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center. https://www.prevention.psu.edu/uploads/files/RWJF-Mindfulness-Brief-Dec2020.pdf

  BACKGROUND

• Schonert-Reichl KA. Social and emotional learning and teachers. 2017. Future of Children. 27: 137-155.

  BACKGROUND

• Schonert-Reichl KA, Lawlor MS. The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre-and early adolescent's well-being and social and emotional competence. 2010. Mindfulness. 1 (1): 137-151.

  BACKGROUND

• Schonert-Reichl KA, Oberle E, Lawlor MS, Abbott D, Thomson K, Oberlander TF, Diamond A. Enhancing cognitive and social-emotional development through a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Psychol. 2015 Jan;51(1):52-66. doi: 10.1037/a0038454.

  PMID: 25546595 BACKGROUND

• Theokas C, Lerner RM. Observed ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods: Conceptualization, measurement, and relations with positive and negative developmental outcomes. 2006. Applied Developmental Science. 10: 61-74.

  BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Altruism; Anxiety Disorders; Social Skills; Stress, Psychological; Burnout, Professional

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Social Behavior; Behavior; Mental Disorders; Behavioral Symptoms; Occupational Stress; Occupational Diseases; Burnout, Psychological

Study Officials

• Kimberly A Schonert-Reichl, PhD

  University of Illinois at Chicago

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 2, 2024
• First Posted: January 12, 2024
• Study Start: January 30, 2024
• Primary Completion: April 15, 2025
• Study Completion: June 15, 2025
• Last Updated: August 23, 2024

Record last verified: 2024-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: IPD and any additional supporting information will become available starting 6 months after publication and will be available for 5 years afterwards.
• Access Criteria: Requests for IPD can be made in writing to the Study Principal Investigator, for all types of analyses and via all mechanisms. Release of IPD is contingent upon receipt of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval documentation or other determination.

Locations

US (1)