In the Zone: Emotion Regulation in the Classroom

Rachel Lynn Scherz

REST AREA GO SLOW STOP

Inspiration

Los Pen Elementary School 3rd Grade Class - “Temple Owls” 2nd Step & Zones of Regulation

Response to Intervention Model

(National Center on RTI, 2013)

Saint Joseph’s University study: whole class regulation lessons

with Zones of Regulation

Prevent -Teach - Reinforce (Dunlap, Iovanonne, Wilson, Kincaid & Strain, 2010)

Literature

Classroom environments can enhance emotion regulation strategy development (Fried, 2011)

Negative emotion reduces: memoryelaborate processing categorizationresources for attention (Koole, 2009).

Students who regulate emotions are more successful at:

learning tasks (Ganz, 2008)

exerting control over behavior (Melnick and Hinshaw, 2000)

fulfilling academic demandsInterventions targeting emotional regulation:

positive, enduring effects on children’s social-emotional well-being & academic success (Schmitt, McClelland, Tominey, & Acock, 2015) .

Research QuestionWhat is the impact of

providingemotion regulation

interventions to third grade students

in a K-5 school ?

To positively impact the emotion regulation ability of Tier 1, 2, and 3

students

To explore the effectiveness of Zones of Regulation techniques

as a classroom based intervention

Action Research Project Purpose

Los Penasquitos 3rd Grade Students

Iowa Class

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

53

Texas Class

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

N=27

20

Temple Class

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

5

418

53

19

N=28 N=27

Collaborative Action Research

AR is participative, educators are integral members of research process

Project DesignTeam Meetings

Email Voting

"Collaboratively designed and implemented action research - a concept known as collaborative action research  (or CAR) as opposed to "individual action research"- is an

ideal mechanism for engaging teachers, administrators, and support personnel in systemic, self-initiated school improvement” (Mertler, 2013)

CAR Team:

Graduate Student ResearcherSchool Counselor

Iowa TeacherTemple TeacherTexas Teacher

Project Overview2 Cycle, Mixed Methods,

Collaborative Action Research StudyCycle 1

Tier 1 Support: Universal

Cycle 2

Tier 2/3 Support: Targeted/Intensive

Three 3rd Grade Classrooms:

Iowa, Temple, Texas

Plan

Reflect Act

Observe

Cycle 1

Revised Plan

Reflect Act

Observe

Cycle 2

Cycle 1Two Part Intervention:

2. Implementation

of classroom “Regulation

Stations”

1. Guidancelessons on emotion

regulation using

adaptation of “Zones of

Regulation” curriculum

Intervention Part 1: Guidance Lessons

Zones of Regulation

Lesson 1:

Name that Feeling!

Lesson 2:

Name that Zone! +

Tools

Lesson 3:

Tools + Regulation

Stations

Curriculum designed to foster self regulation & emotional control

Guidance Lessons

Part 2: Regulation Stations

REST AREA GO SLOW STOP

SadSickTired

SillyFrustrated

Upset

AngryOut of Control

Elated

OKCalm

Focused/Ready to Learn

Blue Zone Tool:

Peppermint Oil

Yellow Zone Tools:

6 Sides of BreathingSqueezy Ball

Red Zone Tools:

Lazy 8 Breath Glitter Bottle

Regulation Stations

Data Collection

Cycle 1: QUAN + QUAL

77 Participants

3rd Grade Self-SurveysTeacher Evaluations

Station Sign-In SheetsClassroom DebriefingTeam Communication

Mixed Methods Study

Cycle 2: QUAN

10 Participants

Teacher RatingsStudent Self Ratings

Regulation Station Results70 students took POST survey

37 students reported using the station33 students did not use

Iowa: 10 of 24 respondents used station9 - Helpful 1 - Not helpful

Texas: 17 of 22 respondents used station14 - Helpful2 - Not helpful

Temple: 9 of 26 respondents used station9 - Helpful

Did station help you calm down

strong emotions so you could return

to learning?

HelpfulNot Help-fulNo an-swer

33

3

Cycle 1 Results: 3rd Grade Self-Survey

• Pre and Post Differences Statistically Insignificant

• Pattern of Decrease of Negative Emotion

• Class Differences Statistically & Practically Significant

Cycle 1 Themes

CALM SS A VS. I

“Students who were in a bad place, and not ready for learning, used station to really calm themselves

down. It was a thing of beauty to observe.”

“I had a few students who wanted to cry for 30-45

minutes & then they missed out on so much learning. Some would miss out on entire day.

They would sit under their desks and not move. Now they

are only missing about 5 minutes.

We are all loving the station!”

“I think it works fine, except for that Terribal Thursday, which was simplay

awful.”

Cycle 1 Teacher Evaluation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Level of Usefulness of Lessons + Station

Level of Disruptiveness of Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Temple Texas Iowa

Modifications

Additional Station Training

Morning Consults

with Substitut

es

Changed Sign-in Sheets

Individual Accommodatio

ns

Cycle 2 : Criteria for Participation

1. Self-Referral

2.Frequent station sign-ins

3. Teacher report of struggle

to manage feelings in the classroom4. Extreme responses to survey questions

5. Answer of "No" to Q#136. Disconnect self-survey ratings & behavior

7. Low emotional self-control score POST survey

Cycle 2 Intervention

10 Students 4 Weeks

1 Emotion Regulation Session per week

Cycle 2 Data Collection

Teacher Rating:

On a scale of 1-100, Rate student’s ability to manage strong feelings in the classroom

Student Self Rating:

On a scale of 1-10, Rate your ability to move out of the blue, yellow, or red zone and return to the green zone

PRE and POST

Cycle 2 ResultsStudent Student Self

Rating PRE

Student Self Rating

POSTA 6 8B 4 7

C 1 7D 5 9

E 4 8

F 1 10

G 4 9.5H 3 8I 4 9.5J 2 8

Student

Teacher

RatingPRE

Teacher

Rating POST

A 65 80B 24 50C 30 70D 80 100E 80 100F 20 75G 90 95H 30 60I 60 85J 40 50

Cycle 2 Analysis

Student Scores – Improvement Not Reliable?

PRE (M = 3.40, SD = 1.05)POST (M = 8.40, SD = 1.05)

Statistical significance p < .0005

T test result may not be trusted as relation betweenpre- and post-ratings were not significant, r = .03.

Teacher Scores – Statistically Significant Improvement

PRE Cycle 2 Intervention (M = 53.75, SD = 27.22) POST Cycle 2 intervention (M = 79.38, SD = 18.79)

Difference between the pre- and post-ratings by teachers were statistically and practically significant, t(7) = 4.49, p = .003,

with a very large effect size, Ƞ2 = .91.

A t-test for a dependent sample was performed for pre-ratings and post-ratings on emotion regulation for ten students

Legitimacy Multiple Sources:

Teachers + Students

Variety of Data:Written Responses

+ Observation Notes

Internal ConsistencyFace Validity

Lie Scale

QUANQUAL

Limitations

Assessment

Validity & Reliability

Student Researcher & Clinical Conflict

Research with Children:

“Overwhelming consensus children are suggestible to a degree

that must be regarded as significant”

(Cornell Law Review)

Threats to Internal Validity –

1. Experimenter Bias

2. Instrumentality

Self-Report Response

Bias

Impact & Significance

Implementation of Classroom Regulation Stations & Zones Program in the 1st, 2nd , 4th grades

Implementation of Regulation Stations at ESS + Staff Training

Adoption of new language and form of communication

2 Students created home stations

Presentation at Poway School District elementary counselor’sprofessional development meeting

Integration into IEP’s

Increase in Self-Referrals

Draft References

Ceci, S, Friedman, R., (2000) The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications, Vol 86 Issue 1 Cornell Law Review 33

Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D. , Strain, P., Wilson, K. (2010). Prevent Teach Reinforce. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Volume 12 Number 1 January 2010 9-22 Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 10.1177/1098300708330880

Fried, L. (2011). Teaching Teachers about Emotion Regulation in the Classroom. Australian Journal Of Teacher Education, 36(3), 117-127.

Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. 23 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 4-41). Psychology Press.

Lipsett, A. (2011). Supporting Emotional Regulation in Elementary School: Brain-Based Strategies and Classroom Interventions to Promote Self-Regulation. LEARNing Landscapes Vol. 5, No. 1 157