EMPOWERING TEACHERS WITH SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE IN PRESERVICE PROGRAMS by Megan Brandley A project submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, UT August 27, 2021 Approved ______________________________ Caitlin Byrne, Ph.D. ______________________________ Stephanie Speicher, Ph.D. ______________________________ Shernavaz Vakil, Ph.D.2 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... 4 Nature of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 5 What is Social-Emotional Learning? .......................................................................................... 6 SEL Programs ............................................................................................................................. 8 Benefits of SEL programs ......................................................................................................... 10 Teachers’ Social-Emotional Competence: An indicator of SEL program success ................... 12 Improving SEC through Professional Development ................................................................. 14 CARE Program ......................................................................................................................... 14 SMART-in-Education Program ................................................................................................ 15 Promoting Pre-Service Teachers’ SEC through SEL in Teacher Education Programs ............ 16 Preservice Programs Lack SEL Curriculum ............................................................................. 17 SEC and Emotional Intelligence Are Low Among Teacher-Candidates .................................. 18 Empowering Teacher-Candidates with SEC ............................................................................. 20 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Methods........................................................................................................................................ 25 Outline of Course Content......................................................................................................... 25 Curriculum Evaluation Procedures ........................................................................................... 27 Feedback & Implications .............................................................................................................. 28 Feedback................................................................................................................................... 28 Relevancy .............................................................................................................................. 28 Content.................................................................................................................................. 31 Course Structure .................................................................................................................... 32 Implications ............................................................................................................................... 34 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 36 References .................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 45 3 Abstract There is a missing piece in teacher education. Many preservice programs lack the formal, focused coursework necessary to provide adequate social-emotional learning for teacher candidates. Educators are entering the classroom without the social-emotional competencies required to sustain their mental health or promote prosocial skills within their students. The purpose of this project was to design a social-emotional learning (SEL) curriculum that could be used in preservice teacher education programs to bolster teacher candidates’ social-emotional competencies and prepare them to teach SEL in their classrooms. The curriculum is intended to introduce Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) core competencies to student educators. The curriculum blends in-person classes with online modules allowing for flexibility and additional support. The course was evaluated by two experts from Weber State University’s College of Education. Evaluators provided feedback on the course’s relevancy, content, and course structure. The implications of this project support the implementation of SEL curriculum into teacher education programs. 4 Acknowledgments I am immensely grateful to all who have been a part of this process and have stuck around through every question, mild-to-severe meltdown, and provided the support I needed. First, I would like to thank my Committee Chair, Dr. Byrne. She provided genuinely helpful feedback, which guided me in a way that has supported my growth as a teacher, curriculum writer, and person. During a Zoom call, my children were running around and crawling on me, and Dr. Byrne shared with me that her mom had gone back to school while she was young. She mentioned that it was a great example to her to see her mother pursuing education and that I was doing the same for my children. It meant a lot to me to hear that, and I have clung to it throughout this process as I’ve tried to balance motherhood and my Master’s. Second, thank you to my committee members, Dr. Speicher and Dr. Vakil, for their time, kindness, and enthusiasm for my project. Third, I am so grateful for my supportive parents, siblings, and friends. Thank you for the extra babysitting shifts while I was in class, the texts to see if I was still alive, the random Venmos to get take-out when there was no time to cook, and your endless support and belief in me. Finally, thank you to my little circle of people who I love more than anything. My amazing children, Ian, Emery, and Reese, you have helped me find a joy that goes beyond anything in this world. Thank you for being there for me, even if you didn’t know you were. And to the heart of my little circle, Phill. Thank you for listening to me, holding me, loving me, and always doing the dishes. Your patience and support are everything, and I am so grateful that I get to experience every adventure with you. But also, thank heavens, this one is over. 5 Nature of the Problem Educating children goes beyond academic success and core curriculum. It is the educators’ responsibility to take a holistic approach to educate a child (Elbertson et al., 2010; Greenberg et al., 2017; Payton et al., 2008; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Life skills, such as critical thinking, empathy, decision making, and communication, are not always written directly into the curriculum. Yet, educators are expected to cultivate students’ social abilities and academic growth in tandem. Promoting social-emotional learning (SEL) in schools is essential in teaching students how to perform and engage positively in educational and social spheres now and throughout their lives (Durlak & Mahoney, 2019). Students who engage in SEL programs are more likely to achieve academically and see improvement in their overall mental health (Domitrovich et al., 2017). SEL programs implemented by school staff and other stakeholders can increase students’ sense of belonging at school, particularly in late adolescence, when many teens self-report a lack of belonging and connectedness (O’Neel & Fuligini, 2013). Teachers are vital implementors of SEL programs but are not always prepared to support student SEL or teach prosocial skills (Schonert-Reich et al., 2015; Tom, 2012). Despite the well-documented merits of SEL programs, many programs fail due to a lack of training, buy-in, and social-emotional competence (SEC) among teachers (Tom, 2012). Recently, professional development programs have aimed to bridge the gap between teachers’ SEC and SEL program efficacy (Jennings et al., 2013; Meiklejohn et al., 2012). As key implementors of SEL programs, teachers must be proficient in SEL and increase their emotional intelligence through professional development throughout their careers (Markowitz et al., 2018). However, teachers are not entering the classroom with enough training to navigate the complex 6 social-emotional situations that emerge in the classroom (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Preservice teaching programs rarely address teacher candidates’ social-emotional competence (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Teachers should be taught how to manage their emotions and model social competencies to their students before entering the field. Literature Review This literature review begins with a discussion of social-emotional learning and the areas of prosocial skills that make up social-emotional competency. Social-emotional learning is research-based and has positive implications for students who participate in SEL programs. The literature further indicates that educators are vital implementors of SEL programs but are not always prepared to implement SEL into their classrooms effectively. Within this literature review, studies show that educators are not receiving adequate training in social-emotional competencies in their preservice programs. Professional development programs have tried to bridge this gap in social-emotional learning deficits among teachers. However, additional literature indicates the value of SEL for educators within preservice teaching programs, allowing teacher candidates a low-risk environment to practice and gain proficiency in these competencies. What is Social-Emotional Learning? SEL is the process of obtaining the necessary skills and mindset to interact and adjust in different situations successfully (Payton et al., 2008). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) was created in 1994 to support the growth of students’ prosocial skills in schools. Today, CASEL’s mission remains unchanged, “to help make evidence-based social and emotional learning an integral part of education from preschool 7 through high school” (CASEL, 2021, About section, para. 2). SEL can promote students’ social skills and help them navigate the social-emotional aspects of life more productively. CASEL identified five essential SEL skills that translate into social-emotional competence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making (Jennings et al., 2013). To fully understand social-emotional learning, it is necessary to comprehend the core competencies outlined by CASEL (2020). Self-Awareness Self-awareness is the ability to understand one’s emotions, values, thoughts, and biases and identify how bias and emotions contribute to one’s behavior and perceptions of others. A self-aware person is likely to demonstrate an ability to learn from experiences. To be self-aware, one must actively engage in reflection, introspection and cultivate a growth mindset. Self-Management Self-management does not only relate to one’s ability to organize and utilize time well. It is also associated with one’s ability to manage emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Those who excel at self-management are typically goal-oriented, take the initiative, and show restraint when necessary. Social-Awareness Social awareness is the capability to understand different perspectives, empathize with others, and appropriately associate with people from diverse cultural, socioeconomic, and academic backgrounds. One of the critical components of social awareness is one’s ability to show compassion for others. Relationship Skills 8 The ability to create and maintain supportive relationships with others throughout life goes beyond forming relationships. Relationship skills also include communicating effectively, demonstrating cultural competence, and advocating for others. Responsible Decision-Making A critical life skill is learning to make productive choices about behavior, diverse social situations and consider potential long-term consequences of one’s decisions. To be a responsible decision-maker, one must utilize critical thinking, reasoning, and informed judgments. Those who make choices responsibly know that decisions have lasting impacts on themselves and society. There are many ways students can learn social skills, from first-hand playground interactions to watching adults converse at the store. By learning these skills, students are more likely to make friends, regulate their emotions, and act less impulsively (Payton et al., 2008). Social skills are taught through modeling behaviors, experiences, and direct instruction (Committee for Children, 2019). SEL programs have become widely adopted in schools over the past few decades; not only do the programs improve students’ social competencies, but academic growth is often a byproduct of SEL interventions (Elbertson et al., 2010). SEL Programs Today, students increasingly engage in high-risk behaviors and are required to navigate complicated social paradigms. Students are facing a more socially dynamic and diverse world than ever before (Elbertson, 2010). In the years between elementary and high school, 40-60% of students disengage from learning, do not feel that their teachers care about them, and begin to struggle academically (Greenberg et al., 2017; Payton et al., 2008). Nearly 30% of high school students engage in high-risk behaviors that can directly impact their ability to succeed 9 (Elbertson, 2010; Payton et al., 2008). Students with social and emotional skill deficits are more likely to engage in destructive behavior in school and the future (Merrell et al., 2008). Many students come to school without a basic understanding of social skills or practical knowledge about classroom behavior. When students lack prosocial skills, they are more likely to act out in class, interrupt other students’ learning, and teachers may struggle to support the student on a social-emotional level (Merrell et al., 2008). Thus, teachers feel pressed to help their students develop social-emotional skills (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). The push for SEL programs in schools has only increased in the last decade (Greenberg et al., 2017). Students must be taught how to regulate their emotions, make responsible decisions, collaborate with others, evaluate how to handle setbacks, and obtain life skills alongside their academic growth (Greenberg et al., 2017). SEL can have long-term benefits for future student success (Durlak & Mahoney, 2019). Students who have learned social-emotional skills are more prepared for higher education, more likely to have positive relationships, and be more responsible citizens (Domitrovich et al., 2017). There are a variety of perspectives about supporting social-emotional growth in schools. Solutions often include implementing SEL programs with a structured curriculum and tiered behavioral interventions (Domitrovich et al., 2017). Other programs are universal, and the interventions include the entire student body (Payton et al., 2008). SEL programs can create positive and inclusive cultures within schools that can impact students’ sense of belonging and the overall social-emotional health of a student body (Loukas, 2007). CASEL has extensively studied the impacts of SEL programs on student outcomes. Their analysis includes over 300 studies involving 324,303 participants (Payton et al., 2008). Three of CASEL’s most extensive studies are structured to measure different SEL implementation types, 10 “Universal, Selective/Indicated, and After-School” (Payton et al., 2008). Universal interventions are implemented school-wide to all students. Selective or Indicated interventions follow a tiered approach to support students who need more SEL support than their peers. After-School programs focus on students’ SEL through extracurricular activities. All SEL programs aim to cultivate positive school cultures by implementing core social-emotional competencies into curricula, goals, rules, and interventions school-wide (Greenberg et al., 2017). The most effective SEL program extends its breadth from school to home and community, giving students opportunities to practice their skills in low-risk environments (Elbertson et al., 2010). Benefits of SEL programs Through a myriad of studies, SEL has been linked to positive long-term benefits for students and educators (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Durlak & Mahoney, 2019; Elbertson et al., 2010; Greenberg et al., 2017; & Merrel et al., 2008). Successful social-emotional learning translates to positive behavior outcomes in the classroom (Durlak & Mahoney, 2019). Effective SEL can reduce negative behavior and can serve as preventative classroom management. According to CASEL, studies of implemented SEL programs indicated an increase in positive student outcomes compared to other interventions’ achievement rates. There was a 27% increase in academic achievement, 24% more students reported lower stress levels, 57% gained prosocial skills, and schools reported 22% fewer conduct problems (Durlak & Mahoney, 2019). Greenberg, Domitrovich, Weissberg, and Durlak (2017), stated, “Research has shown that evidence-based SEL programs effectively implemented, can lead to measurable and potentially long-lasting improvements in various domains of children’s lives” (p. 27). Schools that implement SEL programs typically see increased academic performance and fewer behavior referrals (Merrell et al., 2008). In a longitudinal study involving 2,937 children, students were 11 divided into intervention and control groups based on which school they attended (Bierman et al., 2010). Students who attended intervention schools were a part of a three-year implementation of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum — beginning with 1st-grade students in intervention schools. The PATHS program incorporated universal interventions and specialized services for students who were at risk for destructive behaviors. The specialized services included parent meetings and support classes, tutoring, and home visits. Universal interventions targeted all students (including those receiving specialized services). Teachers were trained on the curriculum and utilized the same terms and expectations students received in their additional services (Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum, 2018). The study results were based on teacher and peer ratings of aggressive and distracting behavior in the classroom (Bierman et al., 2010). Over the three years of universal interventions, there was a decrease in aggressive behavior. Universal interventions, particularly in high-poverty schools, had a moderate effect on the student body. Despite the incremental changes in behavior and prosocial skills, there was an increase in positive behaviors and fewer undesired behaviors amongst students in this study. These results suggest that SEL programs, implemented well, can improve student behavior school-wide. The use of universal and selectively tiered interventions resulted in fewer aggressive behavioral instances within the schools. SEL programs cultivate positive learning environments which support academic success. Programs implemented with fidelity result in academic achievement trends within a school. On average, students who were a part of an SEL program increased their overall grades by 11 percent (Durlak et al., 2011). Schools also reported increased standardized test scores among SEL programs’ outcomes (CASEL, 2008). Jones and Kahn (2018) noted, “Research in human development establishes that social, emotional, and cognitive development are deeply 12 intertwined and together are integral to academic learning and success” (p. 16). Overall, SEL programs support student-teacher relationships, increase school connectedness, cultivate prosocial competencies, and establish learning environments conducive to academic success (Panayiotou et al., 2019). For these benefits to be realized, teachers must be adequately prepared to implement SEL programs. Teachers’ Social-Emotional Competence: An indicator of SEL program success An educator’s understanding of SEL and pedagogical abilities can influence the school’s social and emotional climate (Domitrovich et al., 2017). SEL programs cannot be effective if teachers are not trained and supported throughout the implementation process. Educators should be familiarized with the SEL curriculum and be prepared to utilize social and emotional learning within their content (Domitrovich et al., 2017). A teacher who can competently teach SEL and demonstrate prosocial skills will likely have a positive classroom environment and strong student-teacher relationships (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Teachers who have effective classroom management and responsive teaching can increase student SEL and academic performance through their pedagogy (Schonert-Reichl, 2017; O’Neel & Fuligini, 2013). Schonert-Reichl (2017) explained, “Teachers’ social-emotional competence and wellbeing strongly influence the learning context and the infusion of SEL into classrooms and schools” (p. 139). A teacher’s social-emotional competence can directly impact their ability to manage behavior, teach social-emotional competencies, and effectively implement SEL programs. Educators who feel they are not adequately trained in social-emotional education may find it challenging to maintain and model SEL in the classroom (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Teachers who cannot regulate their emotions are unlikely to instill such competencies in their students. Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) Prosocial Classroom Model outlines the 13 interconnectedness of teacher SEC and classroom environments, student-teacher relationships, and successful SEL school-wide programs. The Prosocial Classroom Model indicates that students’ SEL outcomes correlate to teacher competency and the implementation of SEL programs. In a Yale University study, the SEL program RULER sought to put the Prosocial Model to work by increasing teachers’ social-emotional competency to identify the impact of teacher SEC on SEL programs and overall student SEL (Rivers et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). The study included 812 sixth graders and teachers from 28 schools. Teachers were placed into three groups determined by the teachers’ level of training, the number of SEL lessons taught, and the quality of their teaching practices. Low-quality implementers were teachers who expressed resistance to the program, lacked buy-in, and were less likely to adapt to how they taught the SEL curriculum (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Moderate-quality implementers were undecided about the influence SEL could have on their students. High-quality implementers were teachers who were motivated to implement the SEL program with fidelity. The results indicated that high-quality implementors who utilized their training increased their social-emotional competence and were more likely to see a rise in students’ SEL than low-and-moderate-quality implementors (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Rivers et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). For SEL programs to be impactful, teachers need first to build a foundation of social-emotional competencies. Once teachers increase their SEC, they must put their competencies and prosocial skills into practice. When teachers are equipped with SEL tools, they successfully manage their students and promote a positive classroom climate (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). 14 Improving SEC through Professional Development In recent years, programs focused on increasing teachers’ SEC and overall emotional intelligence have indicated that professional development for educators can increase SEL school-wide. For example, the professional development programs Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) and Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART-in-Education) share similar goals to improve teachers’ social-emotional competencies. Both programs emphasize the way teachers process emotions about students and aim to increase empathy, emotional self-regulation, and mindfulness (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). CARE Program CARE is an intensive professional development program meant to improve teachers’ mindfulness and resilience. The program’s objectives are to instruct teachers to be cognizant of their emotions, reduce stress through mindfulness activities, and teach skills that would cultivate compassion and communication to understand better their students’ needs (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). The initial test of the program included fifty-three teachers of varying experience levels from urban and suburban schools in two different districts. Teachers selected for the professional development group were introduced to the program in a two-day training, followed by coaching over the phone two weeks before their second training session. Teachers repeated the coaching process and attended the third session two weeks later. The final session took place a month after the third session. Using the CARE curriculum, the professional development focused on skills tied back to a teacher’s classroom, students, and content (Jennings et al., 2013). Teachers learned how to successfully approach classroom management, create positive relationships with students, and mindfully reflect on their practices (Jennings et al., 2013). 15 Educators who received the training showed improved social-emotional competence, reduced stress levels, and positive emotions throughout the school year (Jennings et al., 2013). Ninety-six percent of teachers reported that CARE improved their self-awareness, and they felt better prepared to manage their classroom effectively (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Ultimately, teachers trained and supported in their social-emotional competence had the highest probability of impacting their students’ SEL. Following the study, 76% of teachers noted improved student behavior and academic success (Jennings et al., 2013). These findings indicate a correlation between a teacher’s SEC and their students’ SEL, which benefits both student and teacher by cultivating a more productive learning environment for all. SMART-in-Education Program Similar to the CARE program, the SMART-in-Education program has three primary focuses: concentration, attention, and mindfulness; awareness and understanding of emotions; and empathy and compassion training (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Initial responses to the program indicated that teachers who participated in the SMART program reported improved student-teacher relationships, higher overall job satisfaction, and less stress (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). SMART began with sixty-five teachers. Participants were divided into a control group and an intervention training group. Teachers involved with SMART engaged in an eight-week (11 sessions) training course. In addition, they practiced mindfulness and reflection in a daily journal (Roeser et al., 2013). Teachers who attended the professional development reported significantly lower rates of stress than the control group members. In a three-month follow-up of the program, teachers who participated in the SMART-in-Education training and completed their homework with fidelity reported greater mindfulness and self-compassion, which impacted their interactions with students and co-workers (Roeser et al., 2013). 16 The CARE and SMART-in-Education programs aim to reduce teacher burnout and increase SEC by providing teachers with the correct cognitive tools to promote core social competencies. Additionally, both programs proved to support student SEL by increasing teacher SEC. The programs use varied approaches to increase educators’ prosocial behaviors to improve classroom environments and student-teacher interactions. Program implementors used surveys to gather data on teachers’ self-awareness, control of emotions, and ability to identify and process feelings. Teachers indicated they could better manage their stress resulting in more conscientious classroom communication (Meiklejohn et al., 2012). Furthermore, responses from participants demonstrated that mindfulness interventions could result in more socially and emotionally competent teachers. Promoting Pre-Service Teachers’ SEC through SEL in Teacher Education Programs While the CARE and SMART programs had the desired effect of increasing teacher SEC and reducing stress levels, the programs occur after a teacher is already in the classroom. Social-emotional learning would be more beneficial if taught to teacher candidates before entering the field. Schonert-Reichl (2017) noted, “stress and poor emotion management are the primary reasons that teachers become dissatisfied and leave their positions. Another contributing factor is student behavior. Problems with student discipline, classroom management, and student mental health emerge at the beginning of teachers’ careers – first-year teachers tend to feel unprepared to manage their classrooms effectively, and they can’t recognize common mental health problems in their students, such as anxiety” (pp. 141-142). In a study by Onchwari (2010), 66% of educators surveyed indicated they felt a lack of confidence in supporting their students’ emotional needs because they had not received adequate training. Ultimately, teachers are not entering the classroom with the necessary skills to teach 17 their students holistically. Thus, social and emotional learning takes a backseat in the classroom (Waajid et al., 2013). The assumption that teachers enter the classroom with the necessary social-emotional competencies may be why teacher SEC training is not a more integral part of preservice or school-wide SEL programs (Tom, 2012). Educators are being asked to implement curriculum and model behaviors to their students in which they are not proficient, and professional development in these areas often comes too late. Preservice Programs Lack SEL Curriculum Before entering the teaching profession, teacher candidates typically attend university-based education programs or alternative licensure routes. About 200,000 educators graduate from preservice teaching programs in the United States each year (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). However, there is limited research regarding how comprehensive SEL is taught in preservice programs across the country (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). CASEL emphasized the need for self-awareness and self-management as core competencies for educators, yet these two SEL components are given little attention in preservice programs (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). There is a lack of continuity among education programs regarding the teaching of SEL. There are also discrepancies in the requirement of SEL competencies by state. In 2017, Schonert-Reichl and her team undertook a comprehensive survey of teaching standards in all fifty states. They analyzed how consistently social-emotional competencies and SEL are taught in preservice education programs across the country. Of the five social-emotional competencies listed by CASEL, only nine states require demonstrated proficiency in a teacher’s self-awareness (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). Two states require effectiveness in self-management. Self-awareness and self-management are skills that would allow teachers to regulate their emotions and be mindful of their biases. Yet, they are given little to no attention in preservice teaching 18 programs. Many states require preservice teachers to demonstrate other core competencies such as social awareness, responsible decision-making, and relationship skills. However, when it comes to the “self,” teachers are left untrained and ill-prepared to support students in the areas of self-awareness and management. Further compromising teachers’ SEL is the fact that there is an apparent lack of emphasis on educators’ social-emotional competencies in preservice teaching programs. Preservice programs across the country vary in the breadth and depth of SEL coursework (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). The Social and Emotional Learning in Teacher Education Research Project found that, of their sample of preservice education programs, 76.3% of instructors were interested in implementing SEL into their education programs. (Cressey et al., 2017). However, less than half of the programs reported their programs aligning or implementing SEL for teacher candidates. Most educational institutions emphasize social awareness within their required coursework (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). Social awareness is included in most education programs and is interwoven within a variety of courses. Namely, classroom management courses; diversity courses; family, school, community studies; and teacher ethics training have a high percentage of SEL built into the curriculum (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). However, social-awareness education alone does not prepare future educators to promote prosocial pedagogy. SEC and Emotional Intelligence Are Low Among Teacher-Candidates CASEL continues to emphasize the importance of SEL, “Our work is critical at a time when educators, parents, students, and employers increasingly recognize the value of SEL. Together, we are united in our call for schools to educate the whole child, equipping students for success in school and life” (CASEL, 2021, About section, para. 3). Over 95% of educators believe that SEL can be taught and has significant long-term benefits (Greenberg et al., 2017). 19 However, in preparing teachers to enter the classroom, a facet of their education has been neglected. Educators, like their students, are not pre-programmed with social-emotional competencies. Therefore, SEL must be explicitly taught, practiced, and guided as future educators prepare to be successful SEL supporters within their classrooms (Waajid et al., 2013). In a study focusing on preservice teacher emotional intelligence, Corcoran and Tormey (2012) found that student-teachers “have levels of emotional intelligence below the norm for the wider population” (p. 11). Participants in this study were surveyed with several evaluation tools to measure their overall emotional intelligence or SEC. There were four different categories used to calculate the overall social-emotional competency of the teacher candidates: a) perception, appraisal, and expression of emotion; b) using emotion to facilitate thinking; c) understanding and analyzing emotional information; d) regulation of emotion (Corcoran & Tormey, 2013, p. 3). The components of the Emotional Intelligence Framework (EI) are similar to CASEL’s core competencies. Both can indicate if a teacher successfully implements SEL within their classroom (CASEL 2020; Corcoran & Tormey, 2013). As mentioned earlier in this paper, teachers’ SEC or EI are factors in student academic and emotional growth. A teacher’s SEC is also an indicator of their ability to maintain their stress, regulate their emotions, and successfully manage their classroom (Jennings et al., 2013). Corcoran and Tormey (2013) conclude, “Given the comparatively low levels of emotional intelligence found among student teachers, it is worth considering including a focus on such emotional competence within preservice teacher education programs” (p. 11). Social-emotional competencies can be taught and can improve through application. Future educators would be better prepared to enter the classroom if they were taught about SEL and given opportunities to strengthen their social-emotional intelligence. 20 Empowering Teacher-Candidates with SEC There is a lack of research on the frequency, depth, practice, and efficacy of social-emotional competency education in Teaching Programs (Aspelin, 2019; Corcoran & Tormey, 2012; Palomera et al., 2017; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). In recent years studies have sought to identify how to teach SEC within preservice education programs. The methodology has been varied, but ultimately the goal appears to be the same: empower new educators with socio-emotional competencies. This will allow them to relate better to their students, contribute more successfully to school SEL programs, and create more positive learning environments (Aspelin, 2019; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Sugishita & Dresser, 2019; Waajid et al., 2013). A group of preservice teachers participated in a study that analyzed teacher-student relationships and interactions depicted in professionally made videos (Aspelin, 2019). The study hoped to increase the teacher candidates’ emotional awareness and improve their ability to recognize the skills needed to navigate diverse circumstances. At first, the student teachers watching the videos did not note the impact of emotions in any situation or demonstrate a deeper understanding of social competencies (Aspelin, 2019). After the video’s initial viewing, each participant was a part of an intervention that guided the teacher candidates through the recorded scenario with purposeful questioning. They were then taught about social-emotional competencies in greater depth. Finally, the teachers viewed the videos again (Aspelin, 2019). Aspelin (2019) described the responses following the intervention, “The preservice teachers’ analyses changed radically on the second occasion: i) they shifted focus from didactic and leadership aspects to the teacher-student relationships, and ii) they advanced from a rather sketchy to a more precise analysis of relationships” (p. 161). With the support of intervention, teacher candidates became more aware of the impact of emotions on teacher-student 21 relationships and interactions within the classroom (Aspelin, 2019). The study participants’ reflections showed that most teacher candidates improved their ability to recognize the part emotions played in each recorded interaction (Aspelin, 2019). At the end of the study, Aspelin noted, “One pertinent question we need to ask is why teachers’ socio-emotional competence plays such a subordinate role in teacher education” (p. 163)? In a San Jose State University study, twelve preservice teachers participated in semester-long SEL instruction supported with subsequent SEL field training (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). The coursework began with pedagogical best practices that most educators learn within their programs; positive classroom management, active engagement, student-centered classroom environments, and equitable instruction (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). Differentiation and scaffolding are often the sole foundation upon which a new teacher builds their understanding of SEL. However, the study participants received “language-based SEL instruction” and “field-based SEL training during the first fifteen-week semester of the study” (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019, p. 50). While in the field, the participants engaged in group discussions, received observation feedback, viewed videos of best practices, worked with peers, and modeled SEL teaching strategies for one another (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). The central premise of the Sugishita and Dresser study was to identify the impact of sending teachers into the field equipped with social-emotional competencies and techniques and apply them in a real-life classroom setting. Each participant submitted a reflection of their experiences of the course and their fieldwork. Ultimately, researchers hoped to observe an evolution in the participants’ teaching philosophies and potential improvements in their social-emotional competence (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). 22 Through lesson plan analysis, observation, feedback, and self-assessment, the study’s participants increased their use of differentiated and scaffolded pedagogy. In addition, student teachers indicated they felt better prepared to create positive classroom environments than before taking part in the study (Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). Sugishita and Dresser concluded, “The results of including SEL strategies in a field experience practicum course were promising … By offering SEL content instruction in both courses, simultaneously, and providing coaching during SEL classroom implementation, [preservice student teachers] have the opportunity to learn SEL strategies in more meaningful and enduring ways” (p.63). Providing teacher candidates adequate SEL training and providing a low-risk environment to build their emotional intelligence is a beneficial step in the teacher education process. There is a missing piece in teacher education. Many preservice programs do not support teacher candidates’ social-emotional learning. There is a notable connection between social-emotional learning for teachers and an educator’s ability to model SEL to their students. Together, the Aspelin (2019) and Sugishita & Dresser (2019) studies highlight the promise of including deliberate SEL instruction in preservice teaching programs. SEL and social-emotional competence education in preservice teaching programs is an essential trajectory towards eventually educating the whole child. To effectively educate the whole child, teacher education programs must first educate the whole teacher. Explicit SEL training in teacher education programs is a good place to start. 23 Purpose The purpose of this project was to design an SEL curriculum that could be used in preservice teacher education programs to bolster teacher candidates’ social-emotional competencies and prepare them to teach SEL in their classrooms. SEL has become interwoven in today’s school system; it is widely acknowledged as a means for student academic and behavioral growth (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Durlak & Mahoney, 2019; Elbertson et al., 2010 Greenberg et al., 2017; Merrel et al., 2008). Despite the benefits that SEL programs can have, these interventions are not always successfully implemented. From lack of buy-in to lack of training, educators play a pivotal role in SEL programs’ success or failure (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Many teachers report feelings of inadequacy when supporting SEL or modeling prosocial behaviors to their students (Tom, 2012). Professional Development Programs such as CARE and SMART-in-Education have aimed to improve student SEL through teachers’ ability to embody and embolden social-emotional competencies in the classroom (Jennings et al., 2013; Meiklejohn, 2012). The interventions of CARE and SMART were successful in exposing a gap in teacher education. Educators are vital implementors of SEL programs; however, many teachers have received little to no formal SEL for themselves (Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Preservice programs provide an opportunity for teacher candidates to improve their social-emotional competence before entering the classroom. The amount of SEL that occurs in Education programs is limited (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015). In recent studies of student-teachers engaging in social-emotional education, most participants increased their ability to detect emotion, build relationships, promote a safe learning environment, and establish proactive 24 management within their classroom (Aspelin, 2019; Corcoran & Tormey, 2012; Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). Educating children goes beyond the core curriculum and test scores; it is understood that education is meant to educate the whole child. SEL is an essential part of a holistic approach to education. SEL programs can significantly benefit all students throughout their lives. The success of an SEL program is primarily the responsibility of teachers. Teachers do not come preloaded with social-emotional competencies, but student success will follow when SEC is taught, practiced, and applied. 25 Methods For this project, I designed a series of five Canvas modules and seven in-person lessons based on CASEL’s five core competencies that could be used in preservice teaching programs. The course was designed to support teacher candidates’ social-emotional learning and competencies through pedagogical study, real-world application, coaching, and mindfulness practices. Each module includes various activities, including readings, reflections, case studies, discussions, and videos. Students participating in the course would typically view and analyze the supplementary materials online before attending in-person classes. In-person instruction would include interactive workshops to practice concepts and build a foundation of social-emotional competence. Outline of Course Content The following outlines the scope of the modules and in-person classes: Module 1: Social-Emotional Learning & Core Competencies Objectives: Teacher Candidates will • understand the purpose of SEL in education and be introduced to Social-Emotional Competencies through readings and lecture, • take a pre-assessment analyzing their proficiency levels in various social-emotional competencies. Students will also engage in small group discussions reflecting on the impact of SEC in the classroom, and • examine SEL program case studies and the influence of teachers’ SEC on the program’s success. Module 2: Self-Awareness & Self-Management Objectives: Teacher Candidates will 26 • familiarize themselves with mindfulness practices and how these strategies relate to self-awareness and emotion regulation, • fill out a trigger analysis worksheet, the Teacher Tolerance Scale (Yard & Thurman, 1979), and discuss how to better cope with triggering stimuli within the classroom, and • discuss preventative classroom management and construct controlled responses to a classroom management scenario. Module 3: Relationship Skills & Social-Awareness Objectives: Teacher Candidates will • participate in active listening activities to practice relationship skills such as empathy, inquiry, and modeling prosocial behaviors, • discuss ways to model core competencies to students and share their action plans in role-playing presentations, and • identify the importance of social awareness and its impact on positive classroom environments. Module 4: Application of SEL Pedagogy Objectives: Teacher Candidates will • implement and film a social-emotional learning strategy in their practicum, • view and reflect on peer videos of SEL strategy applications, and • discuss what they learned from their implantation experience or from observing a peer in an online forum. Module 5: Responsible Decision-Making & Self-Compassion Objectives: Teacher Candidates will 27 • understand the importance of responsible and ethical decision-making in the classroom through lecture and application, • discuss different scenarios and ethical dilemmas in groups that could arise while teaching. Groups will problem-solve how to handle each scenario best, • identify the benefits of self-compassion in teaching and analyze its impact on teacher wellbeing through lecture and discussion, • analyze “Phases of First-Year Teachers’ Attitude Toward Teaching” (Moir, 1999) and apply social-emotional competencies to identify ways to better cope with shifting attitudes throughout the school year, and • take a post-assessment and write a reflection of their social-emotional competence by comparing their pre-and post-assessments. Curriculum Evaluation Procedures This curriculum was evaluated by two faculty members from Weber State University’s College of Education. These evaluators were selected for their expertise in both the content of this course and online course design. Evaluators used a Google form to guide their evaluation of the course curriculum (see Appendix A). The Google form included Likert-scaled items and open-ended questions, with sections on relevancy, content, course structure, and general feedback. Evaluator feedback informed analysis of how the curriculum might be modified prior to implementation. 28 Feedback & Implications This curriculum aimed to improve social-emotional competence in future educators by providing a course to acquire prosocial skills. Social-emotional competencies will help new teachers to adjust to the socioemotional strains of teaching and support their students’ mental health through compassionate communication and modeling of social-emotional competencies. Teachers’ social-emotional learning has been grossly neglected (Aspelin, 2019; Corcoran & Tormey, 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017; Waajid et al., 2013). Studies have indicated that teachers with social-emotional competence are more likely to support positive student outcomes, be less stressed, and be more intentional and mindful in their practices (Aspelin, 2019; Jennings et al., 2013; Meiklejohn, 2012; Sugishita & Dresser, 2019). The course was written to benefit future educators through its relevancy, content, and course structure. The curriculum was reviewed by two experts at Weber State University who provided feedback via a Google form. The evaluator feedback and the implications of that feedback are discussed below. Feedback The evaluation form was divided into three categories: relevancy, content, and course structure. Each section contained three to five Likert scale questions and open-ended questions for more detailed feedback. The final portion of the survey was structured for general feedback from the evaluators. The survey items and feedback from the evaluators for each of the three aforementioned categories are outlined, considered, and discussed below, with general feedback integrated where appropriate. Relevancy Evaluators were asked to focus on the learning objectives, alignment to state teaching standards, real-world application, course placement in preservice teaching programs, and the 29 curriculum’s potential for supporting educators’ mental health. Evaluators were given several statements regarding the relevancy of the course and asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements. Evaluators used a Likert scale ranging from 1-5 to indicate their impressions of the course. A rating of one on the scale indicated strong disagreement, and a rating of five on the scale signified strong agreement with the statement presented. When asked to rate the clarity of the learning objectives throughout the course, one evaluator indicated that they agreed that the learning objectives were clear. Another expert evaluator concluded that the learning objectives could have been more explicit, suggesting that they moderately agreed, which they clarified in the additional feedback portion of the survey. This evaluator elaborated that the learning objectives “are lacking in the HOW, e.g., Teacher candidates will understand the purpose of SEL by... What will help them understand? How will understanding happen?” This feedback suggests the objectives are incomplete as they do not contain the mechanisms by which teacher candidates will meet the objectives. Both evaluators strongly agreed that the learning objectives aligned with state teaching standards. Neither evaluator offered additional explanation about the alignment to teaching standards. From my perspective, I was purposeful in aligning lessons and assignments to state teaching standards. I wanted students within this class to feel they were prepared to meet the teaching standards that they would eventually be evaluated on when they entered the teaching field. Within the course, each module overview indicated which state teaching standards aligned with the content found in the module and in-person lessons. When asked if the course had real-world applications, both evaluators marked that they strongly agreed with that statement. One evaluator mentioned that the topic of this course was an important one, “not only for teachers but their students too.” As I created this course, I wanted it 30 to have real-world significance for future teachers. It was important that teacher candidates put themselves in practical situations and reflect on building a positive space for themselves that would cultivate social-emotional competencies. The curriculum was designed to be included in preservice education programs. When asked if the course could easily be implemented into an education program, one evaluator indicated that they strongly agreed, and the other marked that they agreed. Neither evaluator offered additional feedback about their ratings. It is encouraging that both evaluators felt the course would fit into the scope of an education program because ease of implementation is an important factor in curricular decision-making. The intention for this curriculum’s particular design was structuring it for immediate use in preservice programs. In-person, teacher-led lesson plans and all necessary supplementary materials were written and accessible online for ease of implementation. Another goal I had when considering this curriculum was to create a course that would support teachers’ mental health. The final statement in the relevancy section asked evaluators to rate their agreement with the statement: “the course could support new teachers’ mental health.” Both evaluators selected that they strongly agreed with that statement. One evaluator remarked that SEL for educators is “a very important topic.” Two areas of the course focus specifically on teacher mental health, mindfulness practices, and self-compassion. Overall, the lessons and activities geared towards the topics of mental health for educators and the evaluators’ ratings indicate the curriculum’s relevancy in this area. The course homepage and contact information for access can be found in Appendix B. 31 Content In this survey portion, evaluators were directed to consider the content’s accuracy, rigor, and efficacy. Additionally, the evaluators were asked to discuss any topics not covered that could support preservice teachers better. Evaluator feedback in these areas is discussed below. When asked to evaluate the content accuracy, both evaluators strongly agreed. In the additional feedback for the content section, one evaluator noted that the course contained “many important and well-chosen resources.” This comment reflects the in-depth research I did in preparing this curriculum. I considered and studied various resources to obtain the most accurate and pertinent content for this course. Research-based readings and activities supported each module. The focus of this course was to empower future educators with social-emotional competence. Each module covered one or two of CASEL’s core competencies and allowed students to practice these skills in a low-risk environment. The evaluators rated the efficiency of the content regarding promoting teachers’ SEC. When asked to rate their agreement level with the statement: “The content effectively supports preservice teachers’ social-emotional competence,” both evaluators indicated they strongly agreed. In addition to the content’s accuracy and efficiency, evaluators were asked to rate the course’s rigor. Both evaluators reported they strongly agreed with the statement: “The content is appropriately rigorous.” Though the content was rated as accurate and appropriately rigorous, one evaluator expressed that each component of the course content could be developed into its own course because of the vastness of the topic. This feedback raises an important point, which I will address in the implications section of this paper. 32 Evaluators were also asked to indicate any glaring omissions in the content that needed addressing. One evaluator noted, “the content of this course is great.” They added, “additional resources on SEL programs designed for K-12 students” could be beneficial. Both evaluators identified potential complications with the depth and breadth of the course content. One evaluator recommended that this course serve as an introductory class about social-emotional core competencies with subsequent in-depth studies about the five competencies. They remarked, “I do not think [that] you did not cover anything important. The problem is we could develop each of these topics into a course.” Another evaluator posed questions about the vision for the class, “Is this for a part of a course, or are you envisioning a course?” This feedback is considered in the implications section of this paper. Course Structure The final section of the course evaluation was centered around course structure. Like previous sections, the evaluators were presented with several statements and asked to rate their level of agreement with each. The statements encompassed the instructional model, organization and flow of the course, diversity of learning experiences, and use of student-centered pedagogy. Evaluators were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement: “The time allocated for this course, one semester in conjunction with student teaching, is appropriate.” One evaluator agreed with the statement, and the other indicated they strongly agreed with the time allotted. Neither evaluator provided commentary about this course’s time allotment nor the implications of taking this class during student teaching. From my perspective, the juxtaposition of SEL with student teaching fieldwork would allow teacher candidates to apply and cultivate social-emotional competencies in a low-risk environment with adequate support. 33 The curriculum was written as a hybrid instructional model. The coursework includes both in-person lessons and online module components. The purpose of this instructional approach was to promote a balance between theory and practice for students. To that end, the expert evaluators were asked to rate their agreement with the statement: “There is an adequate balance between theory and practice within this course.” Both evaluators marked that they strongly agreed with the statement. While creating this course, I incorporated readings to build students’ theoretical knowledge about SEL concepts and reinforced that knowledge through practical application of SEL ideologies and methodologies. I believe this is reflected in the evaluators’ ratings. Additionally, evaluators rated the scope of learning experiences and activities. In response to the statement: “The course creates diverse learning experiences with its range of activities,” evaluators differed. One evaluator denoted that they strongly agreed with the statement. The other indicated they agreed with the statement. Neither evaluator spoke to this statement in more depth. While planning each module and assignment, I aimed to incorporate various resources and activities to support diverse learners and allow students to experience differentiated instruction. Within the online modules and in-person lessons, students participate in varied readings, group discussions, self-reflection, proactive management planning, and whole-group discussions as a means of creating diverse learning experiences. An essential component of this course was that it would incorporate student-centered pedagogy, thus providing teacher candidates with opportunities to obtain and utilize meaningful pedagogical strategies. The student was intended to be the heart of this course. Student teachers would be allowed to implement strategies that were personalized and given opportunities for 34 self-reflection. Both evaluators strongly agreed that this course integrated student-centered pedagogy. In the additional feedback portion about course structure, evaluators offered these suggestions for ease of navigation and accessibility. An evaluator indicated a “brief description of how students can proceed through the content using the next button” would support student’s navigation of the course. Additionally, the evaluator remarked that adjusting the Course Navigation Menu by moving the “Modules” section near the top of the menu would help students access their resources more effectively. Both evaluators noted the need for rubrics for each assignment allowing students to “know what the criteria are for each assignment,” I will address rubrics and the formatting feedback further in the implications section. Implications The objectives for creating this curriculum were to create a course with real-world relevancy, accurate and appropriately rigorous content, and a student-centered course structure. The summation of the evaluators’ responses indicated that the course attained these objectives. However, several changes will be made to the Canvas site based on reviewer feedback before using it with students. The changes and the rationale for those changes are discussed below. Notably, the area that received the lowest rating by evaluators was the clarity of the course learning objectives. Evaluators rated their level of agreement with the statement: “The learning objectives are clear,” as moderately agree and agree. Further, it was noted that the objectives insufficiently outline how students would achieve the learning objectives. Before this course is taught, I will revisit the learning objectives in the five online modules and seven in-person classes. The learning objectives will be restructured to be more actionable and specific. 35 By writing more detailed learning objectives, instructors of this course and students will have a clear picture of how the information will be attained, applied, and measured. Evaluator feedback about the depth and breadth of this course emphasizes the pervasive problem of preservice programs. Social-emotional learning for educators is not happening. Educators are sent into the classroom without the support SEL could provide. An evaluator noted that each topic covered within this class could be its own course. Regardless, these subjects must not go unaddressed because they are potentially too broad to fit into a single course. Certainly, this curriculum could be divided into targeted individual competency courses. However, full integration throughout a program is complex and takes time. There are limits on time and resources that could prevent the implementation of these in-depth social-emotional competency courses within education programs. This course serves as an entry point to quickly embed this training into a program so future educators can benefit immediately. Further, this course serves as a model on which programmatic change can be built. One evaluator questioned if this course was intended to stand alone or combined with another class within a program. The questions posed by the evaluator draw into question whether taking this course in conjunction with student teaching is the most practical or effective place for it in teacher education. Social-emotional learning for teachers could be implemented at any time in a preservice program. Ideally, it would benefit future educators to be introduced to social-emotional competencies throughout a program’s entirety. From my perspective, the curriculum offers an overview of social-emotional competencies and gives students opportunities to practice the skills throughout the course. The great potential of the course is that teacher candidates will be in a practicum or student teaching position at the time the course is taken, which will allow 36 for real-world application and guided self-reflection that could vastly support their transition into the classroom. The class does not span the length of a traditional semester. It is mapped for five instructional weeks, with the remaining portion of the semester wholly dedicated to student teaching. How and when this curriculum is utilized within an education program can be adapted to best support the scope and vision of individual preservice programs. Based on evaluator comments, the following changes will be made to the course structure before implementation. Rubrics and grading criteria will be made for every assignment. Students will access rubrics within the assignment pages on Canvas. Teachers of the course would be directed to review the rubric during in-person lessons and encourage students to reference them while they complete course assignments. Rubrics are meaningful tools that guide student learning outcomes. The inclusion of rubrics will be a beneficial addition to the course. Another change that will be made before implementing the course is to provide additional instructions about how to proceed through the content within the learning management system to improve course navigation and accessibility. Each module overview page will indicate the timeframe for content completion. Students will be directed to the course calendar on the homepage, which outlines the sequence of online coursework and in-person instruction. In addition to these changes, the module tab on the left menu will be moved up in the queue for ease of access. All changes regarding the structure of the online content will be to ensure accessibility and success for students. Summary This curriculum was designed to support future educators through SEL and practical application of social-emotional competencies. This course will introduce strategies to support 37 self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. Additionally, students will be given opportunities to practice mindfulness, self-compassion, and proactive management strategies in a safe, low-risk environment. The feedback obtained from the expert evaluators indicates that, with minor adjustments, this curriculum can be an effective way to promote SEL among pre-service teachers. With more targeted learning objectives, streamlined course navigation, and assignment rubrics, students will be better prepared to enter the classroom as socially competent teachers. 38 References Aspelin, J. (2019). Enhancing preservice teachers’ socio-emotional competence. International Journal of Emotional Education, 11(1), 153-168. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/42657 Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., & McMahon, R. J. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 156-168. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2020). SEL: What are the core competence areas, and where are they promoted? CASEL. https://casel.org/sel-framework/. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2021). About CASEL. https://casel.org/about-2/. Committee for Children. (2019). What is social-emotional learning? https://www.cfchildren.org/what-is-social-emotional-learning/schools/. Cressey, J., Bettencourt, J., Donahue-Keegan, D., Villegas-Reimers, E., & Wong, C. (2017). Social-emotional learning in teacher education: A needs assessment survey of teacher educators. Massachusetts Consortium for Social-Emotional Learning in Teacher Education SEL-Ted, Boston, MA. Corcoran, R. P., & Tormey, R. (2012). How emotionally intelligent are preservice teachers?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 750-759. 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-39 based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Elbertson, N. A., Brackett, M. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2010). School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programming: Current Perspectives. In Second International Handbook of Educational Change (Vol. 23, pp. 1017–1032). Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Weissberg, R., & Durlak, J. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27(1), 13-32. Humphrey, N., Barlow, A., & Lendrum, A. (2018). Quality matters: Implementation moderates student outcomes in the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 19(2), 197-208. Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. Jennings, P.A., Snowberg, K., Coccia, M., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Improving classroom learning environments by cultivating awareness and resilience in education (CARE): Results of two pilot studies. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46(1), 37-48. Jones, S. M., & Kahn, J. (2018). The Evidence Base for How Learning Happens: A Consensus on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. American Educator, 41(4), 16. Markowitz, N. L, Diaz, R., & Thowdis, W. (2018, April). Integrating SEL in Teacher Preparation: Looking at Teacher Graduates. Session presented at the 2018 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting; New York, NY. http://crtwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/AERA-2018-Paper-Final-incl-appendices-4_6_18.pdf. 40 Meiklejohn, J., Philips, C., Freedman, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., Frank, J., Burke, C., Pinger, L., Soloway, G., Isberg, R., Sibinga, E., Grossman, & L., Saltzman, A. (2012, March 14). Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness, 3(4), 291-307. Merrel, K. W., Juskelis, M. P., Tran, O. K., & Buchanan, R. (2008). Social and emotional learning in the classroom: Evaluation of strong kids and strong teens on students’ social-emotional knowledge and symptoms. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(2), 209-223. Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers, 21. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Oberle E., Schonert-Reichl K.A. (2017) Social and Emotional Learning: Recent Research and Practical Strategies for Promoting Children’s Social and Emotional Competence in Schools. In: Matson J. (eds) Handbook of Social Behavior and Skills in Children. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64592-6_11 Onchwari, J. (2010). Early childhood inservice and preservice teachers’ perceived levels of preparedness to handle stress in their students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 391–400. O’Neel, C. G., & Fuligni, A. (2013). A longitudinal study of school belonging and academic motivations across high school. Child Development. 84(2), 678-692. 41 Palomera, R., Briones, E., Gómez-Linares, A., & Vera, J. (2017). Filling the gap: Improving the social and emotional skills of pre-service teachers. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 22(2), 142-149. Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Technical Report. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving the social and emotional climate of classrooms: A clustered randomized controlled trial testing the RULER approach. Prevention Science, 14(1), 77-87. Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., & Harrison, J. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of educational psychology. 105(3), 787. Schonert-Reichl, K.A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of Children. 27(1), 137-155. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social and emotional learning. A report prepared for the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Hanson-Peterson, J. L., & Hymel, S. (2015). SEL and preservice teacher education. Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice, 406-421. essay, Guilford Press. 42 Tom, K. (2012). Measurement of teachers’ social-emotional competence: Development of the social-emotional competence teacher rating scale. Yard, G. J., & Thurman, R. L. (1979). Teacher tolerance: A major factor in deviancy identification. Publication No. 220, 182-194. 43 Appendix A Relevancy (1 – Strongly Disagree to 5 – Strongly Agree) - The learning objectives are clear. 1 2 3 4 5 - Learning objectives are aligned with state teaching standards. 1 2 3 4 5 - The course has real-world applications. 1 2 3 4 5 - The course could be easily implemented into an Education Program. 1 2 3 4 5 - The course could support new teachers’ mental health. 1 2 3 4 5 - What additional feedback (if any) do you have about the relevancy of this course? Content - The content presented in this course is accurate. 1 2 3 4 5 - The content effectively supports preservice teachers’ social-emotional competence. 1 2 3 4 5 - The content is appropriately rigorous. 1 2 3 4 5 - Are there topic areas that are not covered that would increase the efficacy of this course? - What additional feedback (if any) do you have about the content of this course? Course Structure - The time allocated for this course, one semester in conjunction with student teaching, is appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 - There is an adequate balance between theory and practice within the course. 1 2 3 4 5 - The course creates diverse learning experiences with its range of activities. 1 2 3 4 5 44 - The course incorporates student-centered pedagogy. 1 2 3 4 5 - What additional feedback (if any) do you have about the structure of this course? General Feedback - What additional feedback (if any) do you have about this course in general? 45 Appendix B To access the course please contact the author: megbrandley16@yahoo.com