Search

Aim Investigate the effect of various intensities of physical activity (PA) on subsequent positive and negative emotions of fourth- to sixth-grade students. Background PA can positively affect children’s mood and emotions and this has previously been suggested as one of the mechanisms by which PA promotes mental health, including cognitive function and well-being (the psychosocial hypothesis, Lubans et al., 2016). In particular, moderate (MPA) and vigorous (VPA) activity have been found to positively affect emotions in children and adolescents (e.g. Bourke et al., 2021; Dunton et al., 2014), with positive emotions more strongly affected by acute PA than negative ones (Bourke et al., 2021). Method Seventy-seven children in fourth to sixth grade from four primary schools in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom) took part in six physical education (PE) lessons. PE lessons varied in their targeted intensity (low, medium, and high) and complexity (each intensity once at low and once at high complexity). During the classroom lesson before and after each physical education lesson, participants reported their emotional state three times via an app on tablets, by rating eight emotions on a 5-point Likert scale. Results Both positive and negative emotions during PE predicted emotions in the classroom after PE. Greater PE lesson enjoyment led to increased positive emotions during PE, and more positive emotions were reported in the classroom after PE when lessons were higher in MPA. VPA led to decreased positive emotions during PE. On the other hand, negative emotions at the end of PE or in the classroom after PE were not affected by moderate (MPA) or vigorous (VPA) PA during PE, or the participants’ enjoyment of the PE lesson. Light PA did not have any significant effect on negative or positive emotions during or after PE. PA intensity did not affect PE lesson enjoyment. Conclusion Negative emotions were not affected by any PA intensity. Positive emotions responded differently depending on PA intensity. Independent of intensity, PE lesson enjoyment strongly improved positive emotions. References Bourke, M., Hilland, T. A., & Craike, M. (2021). A systematic review of the within-person association between physical activity and affect in children’s and adolescents’ daily lives. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, Article 101825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101825 Dunton, G. F., Huh, J., Leventhal, A. M., Riggs, N., Hedeker, D., Spruijt-Metz, D., & Pentz, M. A. (2014). Momentary assessment of affect, physical feeling states, and physical activity in children. Health Psychology, 33(3), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032640 Lubans, D., Richards, J., Hillman, C., Faulkner, G., Beauchamp, M., Nilsson, M., Kelly, P., Smith, J., Raine, L., & Biddle, S. (2016). Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: A systematic review of mechanisms. Pediatrics, 138(3), 1642–1656. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1642

Background: Promoting physical activity (PA) in children is associated with a wide range of desired outcomes. With children increasingly not meeting recommended levels of activity, the school setting offers many opportunities to improve this. Increasing children’s on-task behaviour is of particular importance to teachers, and while it has previously been suggested that PA can improve classroom behaviour, a consensus on the dose-response relationship of PA content, and its interaction with children’s individual differences, is yet to be reached. This study aimed to investigate this relationship more closely and assess the differences between objective and subjective measures of PA intensity.Method: Data was collected from 76 primary school-aged children (M age = 9.3 years, SD = 0.7 years; 46 females). The PE lesson intervention followed a 3 (intensity: low, medium, high) by 2 (complexity: low, high) within-person design. Children’s task-behaviour was observed pre- and post-the intervention PE lesson during “business as usual” classroom lesson. PA was measured objectively with wrist-worn accelerometer devices for 24 h before the intervention, and subjectively rated on a five-point Likert scale after each intervention lesson.Results: The results indicated a difference in subjective and objective measures of PA intensity on children’s on-task behaviour. Objective measures positively predicted task-behaviour at moderate to high intensities, whereas subjective ratings were beneficial only at sub-maximal intensity. Findings suggested that boys’ on-task behaviour improved at higher intensities, whereas girls were also responsive to lower intensity lessons. Less active children showed more improvement in on-task behaviour after a range of lessons, whereas more active children only benefited from the highest intensity lessons. Finally, children exhibiting the highest levels of off-task behaviour improved their on-task behaviour after all intervention lessons.Conclusion: The findings suggest that higher intensities of PA have a generally positive effect on children’s subsequent behaviour, although certain individual characteristics make children more responsive to lower PA intensities. Furthermore, passive off-task behaviours were less prevalent after lower-intensity PA. Thus, individual differences, as well as the target behaviour, are important factors to take into account when designing optimal PE lessons for improving classroom behaviour.

In a replication and extension of an earlier study, we relied on person-centered analyses to identify teacher (Level 1) and school (Level 2) profiles based on teachers' experiences of job demands (barriers to professional development, disruptive student behavior), job resources (teacher collaboration, input in decision-making), and personal resources (self-efficacy). We examined data from 5,439 teachers working in 364 schools in Australia and 2,216 teachers working in 149 schools in England. Latent profile analysis revealed six teacher profiles: Low-Demand-Flourisher (11%), Mixed-Demand-Flourisher (17%), Job-Resourced-Average (11%), Balanced-Average (14%), Mixed-Resourced-Struggler (11%), and Low-Resourced-Struggler (36%). Two school profiles were identified: an Unsupportive school profile (43%) and a Supportive school profile (57%). Several significant relations between these profiles and teacher/school characteristics and work-related outcomes were also identified at both levels. Although our results generally replicated prior findings, some differences were also observed, possibly as a results of recent changes in policies regarding in teacher support and accountability. Next, we extended prior work using a subsample of the Australian teachers for whom we had matching student data. This second set of results revealed that schools with a greater proportion of low-SES students were more likely to present an Unsupportive school profile. Moreover, the Supportive school profile was associated with higher levels of student-reported instructional support and school-average achievement in reading, mathematics, and science.

In order to expand previous intraindividual studies of student engagement we investigated students' observed engagement (i.e., on- and off-task behaviour), instructional activities (i.e., teacher-led whole class, individual work, pair-work, student-teacher interaction, assessment, and ”other”), and self-reported learning experiences (cognitive engagement, difficulty, competence, emotional engagement, positive and negative emotions), within lessons during one calendar week. Eighteen fourth and fifth grade target students (Mage=10.1, SD=0.44) were observed every 30 sec during two to four lessons each day for five school days (engagement and instructional activities), on average 66.05 times per lesson (SD=19.16, Range=15-80, nobs=14,994) between 9-18 lessons during a week. Simultaneously, students provided 1-3 electronic questionnaire self-reports per lesson (Mself_report=35.1, SD=12.6, Range=19-52, nself_report=631). We regressed observed engagement (0 = off-task, 1 = on-task) on self-reported learning experiences using 3-level (time-points nested in lessons, nested in students) Bayesian logistic regression models in brms. Observed engagement diminished during lessons, and was predicted by higher cognitive engagement, and instructional activities. As compared to teacher-led instruction, engagement was higher during individual tasks, teacher-supported tasks, and assessments. Overall self-reported and observed engagement within lessons converged, supporting their use in intraindividual research.

Teachers’ healthy and effective functioning at work is impacted by the demands they face and the resources they can access. In this study, person-centered analysis was adopted to identify distinct teacher profiles of demands and resources. We investigated teachers’ experiences of two job demands (barriers to professional development and disruptive student behavior), two job resources (teacher collaboration and input in decision-making), and one personal resource (self-efficacy for teaching). Using data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013, the study involved 6,411 teachers from 369 schools in Australia and 2,400 teachers from 154 schools in England. In phase one, latent profile analysis revealed five teacher profiles that were similar across the two countries: the Low-Demand-Flourisher (12%), Mixed-Demand-Flourisher (17%), Job-Resourced-Average (34%), Balanced-Average (15%), and Struggler (21%). The profiles were differently associated with two background characteristics (teacher gender and teaching experience) and two work-related well-being outcomes (job satisfaction and occupational commitment). In phase two, we extended our analysis to the school-level to identify school profiles based on the relative prevalence of the five teacher profiles within a school. Indeed, a yield of large scale datasets such as TALIS is that there are sufficient units at the school-level to enable institutional insights, beyond insights garnered at the individual teacher-level. Two school profiles that were similar in both countries were revealed: the Unsupportive school profile (58%) and the Supportive school profile (42%). The Supportive school profile was associated with higher school-average teacher job satisfaction and occupational commitment than the Unsupportive school profile. Taken together, the findings yield knowledge about salient teacher and school profiles, and provide guidance for possible interventions at the teacher- and school level.

Students' mathematics self-efficacy (MSE) is strongly associated with learning behaviours and performance, and students' future career choices. In our scoping review, we screened what "substantive foci" (conceptualization, directionality and role of MSE, change in MSE, and situational specificity of MSE) have been posed and which "methodological approaches" (participants, analytical methods, data sources, and congruence of measures) have been used in recent (2018-2022) studies of MSE. Studies of MSE were clearly in the mathematics domain with 21 of 49 included studies exploring specific mathematics areas. The key focus was on strength of MSE. International databases (i.e., PISA) have enabled broad generalization, while in-depth qualitative studies enable minute situation-specificity. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies using hierarchically nested designs (i.e., students in classrooms) enable us to draw conclusions at both individual, classroom, and school levels. The current state-of-the-art indicates methodological advancement is rapid and we are likely to see further methodological-substantive synergies in the field of MSE in future studies. We see the potential and need for future mixed-methods studies that continue the focus on MSE as a multidimensional and dynamic concept. Careful consideration of the theoretical background of the construct of MSE continues to be important to bring the field forward.

This Campbell systematic review examines the evidence on the effectiveness of the Tools of the Mind curriculum in promoting children?s self‐regulation and academic skills, in order to inform its implementation in schools. The participants included students of all ages, gender, ethnicity, special education status, language‐learning status, and socio‐economic status. The review summarizes findings from 14 records across six studies conducted in the USA. The Tools curriculum significantly improved children?s math skills relative to comparison curricula, but the effect size was small. There are also shortcomings in the quality of evidence. Although the average effect sizes for self‐regulation and literacy favored tools compared to other approaches, the effect was not statistically significant. The evidence from the small number of included studies is mostly consistent with the evidence observed for other similar programs, but again the evidence is weak. The results for the outcome measures were not statistically significant. Plain language summary The Tools of the Mind curriculum improves self‐regulation and academic skills in early childhood The Tools of the Mind early childhood curriculum appear to improve children's self‐regulation and academic skills. The assessment of the tools curriculum is hampered by a lack of rigorous evidence and more research is necessary to corroborate this finding. What did the review study? Tools of the Mind (Tools) is an early childhood education curriculum, which involves structured make‐believe play scenarios and a series of other curricular activities. Tools aims to promote and improve children's self‐regulation and academic skills by having a dual focus on self‐regulation and other social‐emotional skills in educational contexts. This review examines the evidence on the effectiveness of Tools in promoting children's self‐regulation and academic skills, in order to inform its implementation in schools. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the evidence on the effectiveness of the Tools of the Mind curriculum in promoting children's self‐regulation and academic skills, in order to inform its implementation in schools. The participants included students of all ages, gender, ethnicity, special education status, language‐learning status, and socio‐economic status. The review summarizes findings from 14 records across six studies conducted in the USA. What studies are included? Included studies had to have used randomized controlled trials or quasi‐experimental studies and reported on one or more quantitative effect sizes regarding tools’ effectiveness in self‐regulatory or academic domains. A total of 14 records across six studies were included in the review. The participants included students of all ages, gender, ethnicity, special education status, language learning status, and socio‐economic status. The studies included measured at least one of four primary outcomes and did not measure any secondary outcome. Studies that compared Tools with a business‐as‐usual or another intervention were included in the review. All included studies were conducted in the USA. What are the main results of the review? The Tools curriculum significantly improved children's math skills relative to comparison curricula, but the effect size was small. There are also shortcomings in the quality of evidence. Although the average effect sizes for self‐regulation and literacy favored tools compared to other approaches, the effect was not statistically significant. The evidence from the small number of included studies is mostly consistent with the evidence observed for other similar programs, but again the evidence is weak. The results for the outcome measures were not statistically significant. What do the findings of this review mean? Generally, the Tools curriculum seems to improve children's self‐regulation and academic skills. However, given the small number of included studies, as well as other methodological shortcomings, such as the high risk of bias in some of the included studies, this conclusion should be read with caution. While there is doubt as to the validity of the findings, tools’ educational approach seems to be consistent with many child developmental theories and as such, should not be ruled out. There is a need to conduct more high quality research, especially about studies focused on demonstrating tools’ effectiveness in promoting children's self‐regulation skills. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2016. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in October 2017. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND Tools of the Mind (Tools) is an early childhood education curriculum that aims to simultaneously promote children's self‐regulation and academic skills. Given the increasing focus on self‐regulation and other social‐emotional skills in educational contexts, Tools has become increasingly implemented in classrooms around the United States, Canada, and Chile. Despite its growing popularity, Tools’ evidence base remains mixed. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of the Tools program in promoting children's self‐regulation and academic skills. SEARCH METHODS The systematic search was conducted from October 21 through December 3, 2016. The search yielded 176 titles and abstracts, 25 of them deemed potentially relevant. After full‐text screening, 14 reports from six studies were eligible for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA In order to be included, a study must have had one or more quantitative effect sizes regarding Tools’ effectiveness in the self‐regulatory or academic domains. Moreover, the study must have employed statistical mechanisms to control for potential confounds. Studies that compared Tools with a business‐as‐usual or another intervention were eligible for inclusion, whereas studies that did not pertain to the Tools curriculum were excluded. The reports, whether published or unpublished, could come from any national context, language, student population, or time period as long as the conditions outlined above were met. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All included studies classified as randomized controlled trials, though, again, quasi‐experimental studies had been eligible for inclusion. Each included study yielded effect sizes in the form of standardized mean differences. The outcomes of interest included assessor‐reported self‐regulation skills (e.g., teachers or parents rating children's self‐regulation), task‐based self‐regulation skills (e.g., children performing a self‐regulation task on a computer and receiving a score), literacy skills, and math skills. All effect sizes were interpreted as Tools’ effect relative to other business‐as‐usual programs or other interventions. RESULTS The evidence indicated statistically significant benefits for Tools children on the math pooled effect size. The other pooled effect sizes for self‐regulation and literacy favored Tools but did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS The results indicate positive yet small effects for the Tools program. Three of the four pooled effect sizes did not reach statistical significance, but all four pooled effect sizes favored Tools. The small number of included studies reduced power, which could explain the lack of statistical significance across three of the four outcome measures. By contrast, it is also possible that Tools either does not substantially influence children's self‐regulation or that the influence is too small to be detected with the current evidence base. Background

Whether intended by education policy (e.g., via school entrance examinations) or unintended (e.g., via social stratification), selection effects in education (who goes where, gets what, and how much) shape educational opportunities -- influencing the life chances of individuals and groups, and the structure of societies. However, within the quantitative approach to educational research, current statistical methods can struggle to simultaneously evaluate both the presence and impacts of these effects. In turn, this methodological limitation impedes efforts to facilitate equality of educational opportunity. This paper responds with a critical overview of types of selection effects in education, their consequences for educational opportunity, and the statistical methods used for their identification. Two empirical illustrations show how a new statistical method ("airbag moderation") can enable better detection and evaluation of selection effects in education and help direct future research into selection effects in education with a focus on opportunities for equality of educational opportunity.

In order to advance models of educational processes (intraindividual, intensive longitudinal), we propose a model in which we specify state and trait constructs, and an intraindividual variability construct. In our ecological momentary assessment study, we investigated how trait-level and intraindividual variability of students’ learning experiences (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, task difficulty, effort exertion, help-seeking and competence evaluations) converged with teacher-reported student task-focus. 285 primary school students’ (Years 5 and 6) completed the Learning Experience Questionnaire using handheld computers, on average 13.6 learning episodes during one week (SD = 4.6; Range = 5-29; nepisodes = 3,433), and these were linked with teacher-reports. We defined mean squared successive differences (MSSD) for each indicator. We specified uni- and multivariate models of state, trait and intraindividual variability constructs of students’ learning experiences using multilevel structural equation models (MSEM). Teacher reported task-focus converged with trait constructs (from |r| = .22 to .42), and with intrapersonal variability constructs (from r = -.12 to r = -.36), higher task-focus being associated with less variability. Intraindividual variability formed a higher-order construct, and teachers’ negative wording bias was also associated with variability. Overall, our study provides support for intraindividual variability as a construct in its own right, which has the potential to provide novel insight into students’ learning processes.

Age and school-type differences (primary school and three types of secondary school) in self-related beliefs about ability, effort, and difficulty were investigated in a study of 1723 Berlin youth. Consistent with selective ability-stratified schooling, multi-group structural equation models revealed: (1) mean-level belief differences reflecting assimilation effects among secondary school students, (2) belief variances were mostly narrower among secondary school students reflecting restricted social comparison opportunities, and (3) school type moderated relationships between beliefs. Primary school students thought ability was fixed, that effort paid off, and they used normative task difficulty for gauging how effortful they were. Haupt-/Realschule and Gesamtschule students thought they were less effortful and put in less effort. Haupt-/Realschule student achievement was unrelated to their agency belief in ability and personal difficulty, reflecting a pattern of educational goal disengagement. Gymnasium school students seemed to maximize the use of their ability through effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]