491
Review of Educational Research
Spring 2009, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 491–525
DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325693
© 2009 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and
Emotional Competence in Relation to
Student and Classroom Outcomes
Patricia A. Jennings
The Garrison Institute
Pennsylvania State University
Mark T. Greenberg
Pennsylvania State University
The authors propose a model of the prosocial classroom that highlights the
importance of teachers’ social and emotional competence (SEC) and wellbeing
in the development and maintenance of supportive teacher–student
relationships, effective classroom management, and successful social and
emotional learning program implementation. This model proposes that these
factors contribute to creating a classroom climate that is more conducive to
learning and that promotes positive developmental outcomes among students.
Furthermore, this article reviews current research suggesting a relationship
between SEC and teacher burnout and reviews intervention efforts to support
teachers’ SEC through stress reduction and mindfulness programs. Finally,
the authors propose a research agenda to address the potential efficacy of
intervention strategies designed to promote teacher SEC and improved learning
outcomes for students.
KEYWORDS: classroom management, school/teacher effectiveness, social
progresses/development, stress/coping, teacher characteristics, teacher context.
Over the past decade, multiple surveys indicate that educators, parents, and the
public recognize the need for a broad educational agenda to not only improve academic
performance but also to enhance students’ social–emotional competence,
character, health, and civic engagement (Metlife, 2002; Public Agenda, 1994,
1997, 2002; Rose & Gallup, 2000). In addition to promoting students’ academic
achievement, this agenda focuses on helping students interact in socially skilled
and respectful ways; practice positive, safe, and healthy behaviors; contribute ethically
and responsibly to their peer group, family, school, and community; and possess
basic competencies, work habits, and values as a foundation for meaningful
employment and engaged citizenship (Elias et al., 1997; Jackson & Davis, 2000;
Learning First Alliance, 2001; Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson, 2002).
This set of goals for American education is a tall order, and it is clear that a student’s
formal learning context is largely shaped by the student’s teacher (Eccles &
Jennings & Greenberg
492
Roeser, 1999). Socially and emotionally competent teachers set the tone of the
classroom by developing supportive and encouraging relationships with their students,
designing lessons that build on student strengths and abilities, establishing
and implementing behavioral guidelines in ways that promote intrinsic motivation,
coaching students through conflict situations, encouraging cooperation among students,
and acting as a role model for respectful and appropriate communication and
exhibitions of prosocial behavior.
These teacher behaviors are associated with optimal social and emotional classroom
climate and desired student outcomes. An optimal classroom climate is characterized
by low levels of conflict and disruptive behavior, smooth transitions from
one type of activity to another, appropriate expressions of emotion, respectful communication
and problem solving, strong interest and focus on task, and supportiveness
and responsiveness to individual differences and students’ needs (La Paro
& Pianta, 2003).
When teachers lack the resources to effectively manage the social and emotional
challenges within the particular context of their school and classroom, children show
lower levels of on-task behavior and performance (Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering,
2003). In addition, the classroom climate deteriorates, triggering in the teacher what
we refer to as a “burnout cascade.” The deteriorating climate is marked by increases
in troublesome student behaviors, and teachers become emotionally exhausted as
they try to manage them. Under these conditions, teachers may resort to reactive and
excessively punitive responses that do not teach self-regulation and may contribute
to a self-sustaining cycle of classroom disruption (Osher et al., 2007).
Emotionally exhausted teachers are at risk of becoming cynical and callous and
may eventually feel they have little to offer or gain from continuing, and so drop
out of the teaching workforce. Others may stay—although unhappily—coping by
maintaining a rigid classroom climate enforced by hostile and sometimes harsh
measures bitterly working at a suboptimal level of performance until retirement.
In either case, burnout takes a serious toll on teachers, students, schools, districts,
and communities. Burned-out teachers and the learning environments they create
can have harmful effects on students, especially those who are at risk of mental
health problems.
The purpose of this article is to propose and present support for the prosocial
classroom mediational model that establishes teacher social and emotional competence
(SEC) and well-being as an organizational framework that can be examined
in relation to student and classroom outcomes. We present a graphical model
and describe the variables and their relationships. We propose a model to explain
how deficits in teacher SEC and well-being may provoke a “burnout cascade” that
may have devastating effects on classroom relationships, management, and climate.
We hypothesize that the quality of teacher–student relationships, student and
classroom management, and effective social and emotional learning (SEL) program
implementation all mediate classroom and student outcomes. We review a
broad body of research from the educational, sociological, and psychological literature
to support our proposed model. Finally, we review interventions that may
support teacher SEC and well-being and propose an agenda for future research in
this nascent area.
This review is not intended to be a comprehensive meta-analysis; we review
select studies to provide evidence of relationships among our variables of interest
The Prosocial Classroom
493
(teacher SEC and well-being, teacher–student relationships, classroom management,
social and emotional learning program implementation, and classroom climate).
We recognize that these variables are not discrete and interact in important
ways that we address throughout this article. Furthermore, we highlight how each
element of the model may be influenced by multiple contextual factors.
Although the research we review does not cover all grade levels within each
area of interest, we believe that teacher SEC is important to positive outcomes at
all grade levels, but possibly to varying degrees. At different grade levels, teacher
SEC may be more salient in one area than in another. For example, teacher SEC
may be especially important to developing warm and supportive teacher–student
relationships and effective SEL program implementation in the self-contained
classrooms of pre-K through elementary school; teacher SEC may be equally
important to classroom management at all grade levels.
The Prosocial Classroom Model
Figure 1 illustrates a model in which teachers’ SEC and well-being influences
the prosocial classroom atmosphere and student outcomes. First, we view teacher
SEC as an important contributor to the development of supportive teacher–student
relationships. A teacher who recognizes an individual student’s emotions, understands
the cognitive appraisals that may be associated with these emotions, and
how these cognitions and emotions motivate the student’s behavior can effectively
respond to the student’s individual needs. For example, if a teacher understands
that a student’s challenging behavior and difficulty with self-regulation results
from problems faced at home, he or she may show greater concern and empathy
and be better able to help the student learn to self-regulate rather than resorting to
punitive or coercive tactics.
Second, teachers higher in SEC are likely to demonstrate more effective classroom
management; they are likely to be more proactive, skillfully using their emotional
expressions and verbal support to promote enthusiasm and enjoyment of
learning and to guide and manage student behaviors. Their SEC also supports more
effective classroom management by understanding the dynamics of classroom conflict
situations. For example, students with self-regulation problems often become
classroom scapegoats and may be intentionally provoked by their peers in ways
that can be very subtle. Because of their more obvious aggressive response to this
subtle yet effective provocation, teachers often reinforce these students’ scapegoat
status by punishing them without noticing and addressing the behavior of the
provocateur. A more socially and emotionally aware teacher may notice this
dynamic and handle this situation in a way that responds to both behaviors more
effectively.
Third, we propose that teachers with higher SEC will implement social and
emotional curriculum more effectively because they are outstanding role models
of desired social and emotional behavior. Their social and emotional understanding
supports their ability to apply extensive process-based activities in everyday
situations as they naturally occur in the classroom. In addition, we conceptualize
a transactional relationship between these three aspects of the model and the outcome
of a healthy classroom climate. In turn, a healthy classroom climate directly contributes
to students’ social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Improvements in
classroom climate may reinforce a teacher’s enjoyment of teaching, efficacy, and
494
commitment to the profession, thereby creating a positive feedback loop that may
prevent teacher burnout.
Finally, we recognize that various contextual factors, inside and outside the
school building, may influence teachers’ SEC. These factors include coteacher
support, principal and district leadership, school climate and norms, school district
values and in-service opportunities, community culture, and local and federal education
policy and demands. A teacher’s overall well-being and efficacy as well as
factors such as friendships, marital relations, and degrees of life stress in a teacher’s
personal life might also affect the performance of social and emotional abilities in
the classroom.
Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence
Viewed as an outcome of SEL, SEC is a broad construct. We use the broadly
accepted definition of social and emotional competence developed by the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2008). This definition
involves five major emotional, cognitive, and behavioral competencies: selfawareness,
social awareness, responsible decision making, self-management, and
relationship management (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004).
Although we value the related narrower construct of emotional intelligence (EI;
involving perception of emotions, use of emotions to facilitate thinking, understanding
of emotions, and management of emotions; Brackett & Katulak, 2006;
Salovey & Mayer, 1990) in presenting our model, we chose to use the broader SEL
construct that includes competencies most strongly related to adaptation and performance.
Using the SEL definition also more directly connects teacher competencies
with those they are entrusted to teach to their students. (For a comprehensive
FIGURE 1. The prosocial classroom: A model of teacher social and emotional competence
and classroom and student outcomes.
The Prosocial Classroom
495
explanation of the similarities and differences between these two constructs, see Zins,
Payton, Weissberg, & Unte O’Brien, 2007). Later, we review research and programming
that has addressed EI in relation to teacher stress and job performance. EI
is associated with a wide range of critical outcomes among adults and may be useful
for understanding individual differences in teacher SEC. For example, higher scores
of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (J. D. Mayer, Salovey,
& Caruso, 2002) are associated with higher quality interpersonal relationships
(Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005; Lopes et al., 2004), academic performance and
social competence (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Gil-Olarte
Marquez, Palomera, & Brackett, 2006; Lopes et al., 2006), and important workplace
outcomes such as stress tolerance and peer and/or supervisor ratings of interpersonal
facilitation (Lopes et al., 2006). Lower scores are associated with drug use, alcohol
consumption, and deviant behavior (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004).
Characteristics of socially and emotionally competent teachers. Socially and
emotionally competent teachers have high self-awareness. They recognize their
emotions, emotional patterns, and tendencies and know how to generate and use
emotions such as joy and enthusiasm to motivate learning in themselves and others.
They have a realistic understanding of their capabilities and recognize their emotional
strengths and weaknesses.
Socially and emotionally competent teachers also have high social awareness.
They know how their emotional expressions affect their interactions with others.
Such teachers also recognize and understand the emotions of others. They are able
to build strong and supportive relationships through mutual understanding and
cooperation and can effectively negotiate solutions to conflict situations. Socially
and emotionally competent teachers are culturally sensitive, understand that others
may have different perspectives than they do, and take this into account in relationships
with students, parents, and colleagues.
Socially and emotionally competent teachers exhibit prosocial values and make
responsible decisions based on an assessment of factors including how their decisions
may affect themselves and others. They respect others and take responsibility
for their decisions and actions.
Socially and emotionally competent teachers know how to manage their emotions
and their behavior and also how to manage relationships with others. They
can manage their behavior even when emotionally aroused by challenging situations.
They can regulate their emotions in healthy ways that facilitate positive
classroom outcomes without compromising their health. They effectively set limits
firmly, yet respectfully. They also are comfortable with a level of ambiguity and
uncertainty that comes from letting students figure things out for themselves.
SEC is associated with well-being. When teachers experience mastery over these
social and emotional challenges, teaching becomes more enjoyable, and they feel
more efficacious (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). However, whereas the
above teacher characteristics would be considered ideal in any educational setting,
little attention has been paid to supporting teachers’ SEC. Given the lack of
explicit preservice or in-service training aimed at teachers’ personal development,
the current educational system appears to assume that teachers have the requisite
SEC to create a warm and nurturing learning environment, be emotionally responsive
to students, form supportive and collaborative relationships with sometimes
Jennings & Greenberg
496
difficult and demanding parents, professionally relate to administrators and colleagues,
effectively manage the growing demands imposed by standardized testing,
model exemplary emotion regulation, sensitively coach students through conflict
situations with peers, and effectively (yet respectfully) handle the challenging
behaviors of disruptive students. Thus, contextual changes including alterations in
the articulation of the broader society and school district goals for young people,
policies and foci for preservice and in-service training, new models of performance
assessment, and other factors might alter the valuing and support for teachers’ SEC.
Because SEC is context dependent, an individual may function in a high level in
one context but need training and/or experience to adapt to another. For example, an
individual who manages his or her social and emotional life well in a work domain
where he or she interacts with adults in predictable ways may not necessarily have
the competence to function well in a classroom full of energetic young children without
additional training or support. Also, a teacher who moves from a school with a
cohesive and high-quality school climate to one with weak leadership and lack of
trust between teachers may require new skills and supports. A teacher who moves to
a school composed primarily of adults and children from an unfamiliar culture may
need to adapt in new ways and receive additional training (Matsumoto, 2007).
Furthermore, the developmental needs of students may require changes in teacher
competencies. For example, a teacher who adeptly handles the social and emotional
needs of a first-grade class may require extra training if he or she transfers to a secondary
school classroom where a different approach may be required. Finally, other
context factors such as school climate and administrator support may moderate the
SEC a teacher may exhibit in a particular classroom setting.
Given the very high demands placed on teachers, it is surprising that they rarely
receive specific training to address the importance of social and emotional issues
in the classroom or how to develop the SEC to successfully handle them
(Hargreaves, 1998). Although a great deal of attention has spotlighted students’
development, there has been little focus on teachers’ own development despite
evidence that teachers make important contributions to desirable classroom and
student outcomes.
When teachers lack the SEC to handle classroom challenges, they experience
emotional stress. High levels of emotional stress can have an adverse effect on job
performance and may eventually lead to burnout. Among teachers, burnout threatens
teacher–student relationships, classroom management, and classroom climate.
In our review, we provide support for the first part of the model by relating what
is known about some components of teacher SEC (or lack thereof) to several of the
model’s mediators (teacher–student relationships, classroom management, etc.).
Next, this article reviews literature establishing links between the three mediating
components of our model (teacher–student relations, classroom management,
and SEL program implementation) and classroom climate and student outcomes.
Where not explicitly articulated in this research, we describe how the evidence may
suggest that teacher SEC plays a role.
Teacher SEC, Emotional Stress, and Burnout
Today’s teachers face ever-increasing demands. Growing numbers of children
are coming to school unprepared and many have serious behavior problems as early
as preschool (Gilliam, 2005). Evidence suggests that SEC is related to emotional
497
stress and burnout. In particular, the dimensions of self-awareness and selfmanagement
appear to influence a teacher’s ability to cope with the emotional
demands of teaching. Society’s expectation that teachers manage the emotional
lives of their students as well as teach subject matter may leave many teachers
exhausted and burned out (Hargreaves, 1998). Burnout results from a breakdown
in coping ability over time and is viewed as having three dimensions: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of a lack of personal accomplishment
(Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997).
With ever-greater emotional demands placed on teachers with little if any support,
it is not surprising that the rate of teacher burnout is increasing and that teachers
are leaving the profession at an increasing rate (Ingersoll, 2001; Metlife, 2004;
Provasnik & Dorfman, 2005). Emotional stress and poor emotion management
consistently rank as the primary reasons teachers become dissatisfied and leave
teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2001; Montgomery & Rupp, 2005). Indeed, compared
with many other professions, teachers report some of the highest levels of
occupational stress (International Labour Office, 1993). Consequently, there is
growing concern about the adverse effects teacher emotional stress and attrition
rates may have on educational quality (Travers, 2001) and on school budgets
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005).
Unlike many other professions, teachers are constantly exposed to emotionally
provocative situations and have limited options for self-regulation when a situation
provokes a strong emotional reaction. For example, when feeling highly
aroused, a teacher cannot simply excuse herself until she calms down. She must
stay in the classroom with the students. Indeed, coping with their own negative
emotional responses is a major stressor for teachers (Carson, Templin, & Weiss,
2006; Montgomery & Rupp, 2005; Sutton, 2004). Emotions may influence teachers’
cognitive functioning and motivation, and students’ misbehavior often elicits
distracting negative emotions that consequently can have a negative effect on
teaching (Emmer, 1994; Emmer & Stough, 2001; International Labour Office,
1993). Experiencing frequent negative emotions such as frustration, anger, guilt,
and sadness may reduce teachers’ intrinsic motivation and feelings of self-efficacy
and lead to burnout (Kavanaugh & Bower, 1985). In contrast, teachers who regularly
experience more positive emotions may be more resilient (Fredrickson, 2001;
Gu & Day, in press), intrinsically motivated, and better able to cope with the complex
demands of teaching (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).
According to the transactional model of stress and coping (Aldwin, 2007;
Epstein & Meier, 1989; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), individuals
react to challenging situations by engaging in a cognitive process of appraisal to
determine whether the event poses a challenge or a threat in relation to the individual’s
perceived competence to handle the situation. Next, an individual will
engage in cognitive and behavioral adaptation strategies to manage the event.
When they believe they have the competence to do so, teachers may use actionfocused
coping: taking direct action to eliminate the sources of stress. In situations
where teachers believe they can do little to modify the situation, they may engage
in emotion-focused coping and may use mental or physical palliative techniques
to lessen feelings of stress (Kyriacou, 2001). These palliative techniques can
involve constructive strategies such as positive reappraisal or unconstructive
strategies such as avoidance or denial. An individual’s appraisal and adaptive
Jennings & Greenberg
498
behavior is influenced by individual characteristics such as personality, demographics,
current health status, personal life stressors, and, we would argue, SEC.
Furthermore, teachers may use the support of fellow teachers, guidance staff, or
their administrative supervisor (e.g., principal) to help them cope.
The research on teacher stress and emotions has thus far been primarily exploratory:
Cross-sectional and correlational studies have examined the contextualorganizational
and personal factors associated with teachers’ emotions, stress, and
burnout (see Montgomery & Rupp, 2005, for a meta-analysis of studies on teacher
stress). Although the limitations of this research make it difficult to determine
causal relationships, findings suggest that teachers with inadequate SEC face
situations that provoke emotions they have difficulty managing, their classroom
management efforts lack effectiveness, the classroom climate is suboptimal, and
they may experience emotional exhaustion provoking a “burnout cascade.” They
may develop a callous, cynical attitude toward students, parents, and colleagues
(depersonalization) and eventually grow to feel they are ineffective teachers (lack
of personal accomplishment). Teachers who experience burnout are less likely to
demonstrate sympathy and caring to their students, have less tolerance for disruptive
behavior, and are less dedicated to their work (Farber & Miller, 1981).
Emotional regulation plays an important role in teacher burnout. Applying
affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), Carson et al. (2006) examined
the daily emotional experiences of 44 middle school teachers over a 2-week
period using Ecological Momentary Assessment procedures (Stone & Shiffman,
1994) and teachers’ daily journal entries to examine how ongoing emotional experiences
may contribute to burnout. Burnout was significantly associated with
reports of daily emotions, events, emotion regulation strategies as well as teacher
self-reported job performance, which suggests that teacher burnout (and reduced
teacher performance) results from cumulative daily experiences of negative affect
provoked by taxing work-related experiences. Furthermore, the stress associated
with attempts to manage emotional displays appeared to exacerbate this effect
(Carson & Templin, 2007).
Chan (2003) studied relationships among the three components of burnout and
hypothesized four components of EI (emotional appraisal, positive regulation,
empathic sensitivity, and positive utilization; Schutte et al., 1998) in a sample of
167 Hong Kong secondary school teachers. A structural equation model indicated
that Emotional Appraisal (related to the SEL dimension of self-awareness) and
Positive Regulation (related to the SEL dimension of self-management) were significant
predictors of emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, emotional exhaustion
was a significant predictor of depersonalization that predicted lack of personal
accomplishment, supporting our hypothesis that poor SEC may provoke a “burnout
cascade.” Poor teacher SEC may contribute to a less optimal classroom climate,
leading to teacher emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal
accomplishment in this order.
Evidence suggests that there is a relationship between teacher emotional
exhaustion and classroom climate. In a study involving 3,044 Canadian teachers
across three grade levels (1,203 elementary, 410 intermediate, and 1,431 secondary),
Byrne (1994) examined predictors of the three factors of burnout and
found that at every grade level classroom climate was a significant predictor of
emotional exhaustion and emotional exhaustion was a significant predictor of
The Prosocial Classroom
499
depersonalization. “These findings suggest that as the social climate of the classroom
deteriorates, teachers become emotionally exhausted and develop increasingly
negative attitudes toward their students and the teaching profession in
general” (p. 665).
If, as we propose in our model, teacher SEC contributes to healthy classroom
climate through the development of supportive teacher–student relationships,
effective classroom management, and quality SEL program implementation, perhaps
contextual changes that promote teacher SEC may prevent the deterioration
of classroom climate that leads to teacher burnout (see section “Teacher Effects on
Student and Classroom Outcomes” for examples of contextual supports).
Although research has demonstrated that emotionally challenging situations
such as maintaining discipline and teaching students who lack motivation are frequently
experienced stressors for teachers (Hargreaves, 2000; Kyriacou, 2001;
Sutton & Wheatley, 2003), there is a paucity of research directed toward how
teachers’ ability to regulate intense emotions in response to these stressors may
contribute to or prevent burnout (Carson & Templin, 2007; Sutton, 2004). In addition,
little research has focused on how teachers’ SEC supports their ability to cope
with these stressors and regulate the accompanying emotions to promote supportive
relationships with their students and prevent and manage disruptive student
behaviors (Chan, 2006).
Although there is evidence that a teacher’s warmth and sensitivity contribute to
healthy teacher–student relationships and classroom climate (Pianta, La Paro, Payne,
Cox, & Bradley, 2002), little research has explored how a teacher’s SEC may be associated
with greater positive affect and student and/or classroom outcomes. More
research is needed to establish the relationships between specific dimensions of
teacher SEC and the mediating variables of our model (teacher–student relationships,
classroom management, and SEL program implementation); there is growing evidence
to suggest their relationship and to support the links between these mediators
and student and classroom outcomes. Next, we review this evidence.
Teacher Effects on Student and Classroom Outcomes
There is growing recognition that teachers make a crucial contribution to the
social and emotional development of their students (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre
& Pianta, 2001, 2006; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman,
2003) that has lasting effects on their lives well into adulthood (Pederson, Fatcher,
& Eaton, 1978). Teachers influence their students not only by how and what they
teach but also by how they relate, teach and model social and emotional constructs,
and manage the classroom. This influence is affected by numerous contextual factors
(e.g., school climate, principal, and parent support). In their report of a classic
natural experiment on school effects, Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and
Smith (1979) concluded that “teaching performance is a function of school environment
as well as of personal qualities” (p. 39).
In this section, we theoretically link the core dimensions of teacher SEC to the
primary mediators of our model: healthy teacher–student relationships, effective
SEL program implementation, and effective classroom management. Where available,
we review research supporting these links and the links between the mediators
and the classroom and student outcomes. Throughout, we address contextual
issues that may affect teacher SEC and the other dimensions of our model.
Jennings & Greenberg
500
Healthy teacher–student relationships. Between ages 4 and 12, children are developing
the skills vital to SEC and this development can be supported by a child’s positive
relationshipwithadults(Denham,1998;Dodge,1986).Thereisagrowing body of evidence
that supportive teacher–student relationships play an important role in healthy
school and classroom climate, students’ connection to school, and desired student outcomes,
both academic and social–emotional (Abbott et al., 1998; Darling-Hammond,
Ancess, & Ort, 2002; Gambone, Klem, & Connell, 2002; McNeely, Nonnemaker, &
Blum, 2002; Osher et al., 2007). Furthermore, supportive student–teacher relationships
provide the keystone to effective classroom management. Indeed, in a metaanalysis
of more than 100 studies, Marzano et al. (2003) found that teachers who had
high-quality relationships with their students had 31% fewer behavior problems over
the course of a school year than teachers who did not.
Students’ perceptions of teacher support have a direct effect on their interest and
motivation (Wentzel, 1998), and teachers’ expectations of student achievement
(which has an affective component) influence the way they behave toward their
students and thus can affect students’ motivation, self-perceptions, and academic
performance (Jussim & Harber, 2005). However, teacher support in the form of
care for students’ well-being and comfort may be necessary but insufficient to promote
mastery goal orientation: Care and concern for students’ learning may also
be required (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).
Teachers are role models who continuously induce and respond to the emotional
reactions of their students. Pianta et al. (2003) applied components of attachment theory
(Ainsworth, Belehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1982) in understanding
teacher–student relationships and the teacher’s function as an important role model.
According to attachment theory, relationships with supportive caregivers, characterized
by trust, responsiveness, and involvement, promote social and emotional development
through the development of healthy internalized working models. Children
with supportive internal working models feel a sense of security that allows them to
explore novel situations (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Therefore, when teachers
are warm and supportive, they provide students with a sense of connectedness
with the school environment and the sense of security to explore new ideas and take
risks—both fundamental to learning (Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder,
1997; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Watson, 2003).
However, it is not always easy to be warm and supportive, especially when
provocative student behaviors thwart the teacher’s efficacy to perform his or her
primary instructional role and/or the school culture promotes punitive control measures
over more authoritative approaches (G. R. Mayer, 2001). Although the quality
of student–teacher relationship depends, in part, on how teachers express and
process negative emotions (George & Solomon, 1996), as we reviewed above, for
many teachers, regulating negative emotions in the classroom can be challenging
and is a commonly reported stressor (Carson & Templin, 2007; Sutton, 2004).
Although they regularly face situations that provoke anger, contempt, disgust, sadness,
and frustration, to develop and maintain healthy relationships with their students
teachers must find appropriate ways to express (or inhibit) their feelings in a
classroom setting (Hargreaves, 2000). Although teachers recognize the importance
of regulating their emotions and think they are keeping their feelings hidden from
students, often they are less successful than they imagine (Carson & Templin,
2007; Sutton, 2004; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).
The Prosocial Classroom
501
Emotionally challenging events that teachers typically face often involve interactions
with students who are not emotionally well regulated, including those
caught in anger, anxiety, and sadness. These students, at highest risk of developing
behavioral disorders and emotion regulation difficulties, are the very students
in greatest need of a supportive relationship with their teacher (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 1999). A teacher’s support and sensitive reactions
to their challenging behaviors may have lasting positive effects on the students’
social and emotional development, especially in the early grades (Lynch &
Cicchetti, 1992).
Teacher reports of stress and emotional negativity are associated with student
misbehaviors (Yoon, 2002), and as one might expect, teachers express negative
emotions in response to student behaviors on a routine basis (Carson & Templin,
2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta et al., 2003; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). This
stress is magnified when teachers have more than one or two disruptive students
in a classroom: Even teachers who would normally cope quite effectively under
less stressful circumstances may become coercive and harsh (Conduct Problems
Prevention Research Group, 1992).
Teachers who are overwhelmed by negative emotion express a lack of enthusiasm
for cultivating positive relationships with their students and report becoming
less involved, less tolerant, and less caring (Blase, 1986). Furthermore, teachers’
negative affect may have long-term effects on students. Indeed, Hamre and Pianta
(2001) found that kindergarten teachers’ reports of negative affect in relation to a
student were meaningful predictors of student social and academic outcomes
through at least fourth grade.
Inadequate relations with a teacher may lead to dislike and fear of school and
over time may lead to feelings of alienation and disengagement. When students
feel alienated from school they are at greater risk of developing antisocial behaviors,
delinquency, and academic failure (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In
contrast, supportive relationships with teachers can promote feelings of safety and
connectedness among students, providing the social support necessary to thrive
socially, emotionally, and academically.
Although this is true for students at all grade levels, it is particularly important
for younger students as a young child’s experience with his or her teacher
can affect future relationships with teachers and peers. The link between
teacher–student relationship quality and student outcomes has been examined in
several studies. Next, we review studies demonstrating the effect of teachers’
support on student outcomes at early elementary, later elementary, middle
school, and high school.
Relationship management is a core dimension of SEC that plays an important role
in teachers’ ability to develop and maintain caring and supportive relationships with
their students. Birch and Ladd (1998) studied 199 Midwestern kindergarten children
(predominantly Euro American and lower and middle class) and their teachers (N =
17) longitudinally. The study used an innovative methodology that included both
teacher (the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale [Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995]
and Child Behavior Scale [Ladd & Profilet, 1996]) and peer sociometric reports of
aggressive behavior. They demonstrated that the kindergarten teachers’ perceptions
of the quality of their relationships with students significantly affected the students’
behavior and teacher relationship in first grade. More specifically, after controlling
Jennings & Greenberg
502
for gender, students whose kindergarten teacher reported having an antagonistic,
disharmonious relationship with them were less likely to exhibit prosocial behavior
in first grade. The authors conclude that “children who are involved in conflictual
relationships with teachers may be less motivated to display prosocial behavior and
may feel that the behavioral options available to them are constrained by the aversive
nature of these relationships” (Birch & Ladd, 1998, p. 943).
In another innovative study, Hughes, Cavell, and Willson (2001) examined how
peer perceptions of students’ teacher–student relationships affect peer sociometric
nominations and ratings among an ethnically diverse sample of 993 third- and
fourth-grade students (497 boys and 496 girls). Once again, both peer sociometric
and teacher reports of behavior were assessed independently. Moderate to strong
significant correlations were found between peer reports of teacher conflict and
peer reports of both student relational and overt aggression (r = .53 and r = .77,
respectively; p < .01), which suggested that the same students nominated as aggressive
are also nominated by their peers as having conflictual relationships with
teachers. Peer reports of teacher support and teacher conflict were moderately
correlated (r = .59), which suggested that they make independent contributions to
outcome variables. Although girls were rated higher on teacher support and boys
were rated higher on teacher conflict, gender was not found to moderate the relationships
among teacher support, teacher conflict, or peer ratings.
A series of multiple regression analyses indicated that both teacher conflict and
teacher support contributed uniquely to peer ratings of cooperative, overt aggression;
relational aggression; and “liked least” status. Furthermore, even after accounting for
peer ratings of aggression, ratings of teacher support uniquely accounted for 10% of
the variance. Thus, if students perceived that a student had a supportive relationship
with the teacher, they were more likely to rate the student as likable.
Further analysis of a selected subgroup of aggressive students showed that
teacher support uniquely predicted peer preference within the aggressive students.
This suggests that peer perception of teacher support had a buffering effect on
peers’ social preference of aggressive students and that students take cues from
their teacher in determining whether a peer is likable or not. This finding has implications
for intervention strategies for improving the social status of rejected and
aggressive students. Interventions that directly target the teacher–student relationship
by promoting SEC may enable teachers to offer support to students despite
their troubling behavior and may make a difference in student social status among
peers contributing to their feeling of connectedness with the school community.
In a study of students’ school connectedness, Murray and Greenberg (2000) performed
a cluster analysis on data collected from 170 fifth- and sixth-grade students
(55.9% female, 38.8% students of color, 33.2% mild to moderate disabilities).
Students self-reported on their relationships with their school, classmates, and teachers
using People in My Life (Cook, Greenberg, & Kusche, 1995). The authors classified
25% of students as Dysfunctional because they scored low on the Affiliation
with Teacher and School Bond factors (but above average on Dissatisfaction with
Teacher and School Dangerousness), 28% as Functional/Average because they had
moderate to average scores on all the factors, 38% as Positively Involved because
they had high scores on Affiliation with Teacher and School Bond, and 9% as School
Anxious because they had high scores on the School Dangerous factor (and average
scores on the other three factors).
The Prosocial Classroom
503
Using a multivariate analysis of variance, the authors examined differences
between the four clusters on a variety of social and emotional adjustment variables,
including measures independently completed by teachers. Students classified
as Dysfunctional had poorer self-reported social and school competence,
more delinquency, conduct problems, anxiety, and depression when compared
with the students identified as Positively Involved. Teacher reports indicated that
students classified as Dysfunctional had poorer frustration tolerance, lower task
orientation, and more externalizing behaviors than those classified as Positively
Involved. Students classified as School Anxious also had poorer self-reported
social and school competence and more emotional problems than the Positively
Involved group.
These findings indicate that students’ relationships with their teachers as well
as their feelings of connection with school are related to social and school competence
and mental health. Although further research is required to determine why
these students do not feel connected to their teacher and school, a teacher high in
SEC may be more able to influence a student’s feeling of connectedness and is an
important factor to consider in future work.
Similar findings have resulted from studies of adolescents. In a study of 353
(93% European American) middle school students, Goodenow (1993) found that
belonging and teacher support were related to motivation (Pintrich & DeGroot,
1990) and that both belonging and motivation influenced classroom achievement.
Teacher support explained over a third of students’ assessment of the interest,
importance, and value of the academic work in the class. These findings lend further
support to the importance of teacher SEC and suggest that students’ impressions
of teacher support influence their motivation and classroom performance.
In a study conducted as part of the Add Health longitudinal study of adolescents
in Grades 7 through 12, 12,118 students (a random stratified subsample of 90,118
students from the main sample) were interviewed about their risky behavior, health
status, family dynamics, peer networks, and connectedness to teachers and school
(Resnick et al., 1997). Regression analyses indicated that teacher and school connectedness
was a significant contributor to adolescent emotional health, lower levels
of violence, and less use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. These findings
suggest that, even among adolescents, school and teacher connectedness is a protective
factor.
These and the earlier findings point to the need for research to better understand
what individual teacher characteristics and contextual factors contribute to their
ability to offer social support and academic encouragement, especially to students
who exhibit challenging behavior. We suggest that the SEC dimensions of social
awareness, self-management, and relationship management may play an important
role. These findings also highlight the need for policies and interventions that can
better prepare teachers to develop supportive relationships with all students and
promote students’ feelings of connectedness to school. Next, we review research
that links SEL program implementation to classroom and student outcomes and
address the role teachers’ social and emotional skills plays in how they implement
this programming.
Effective SEL program implementation. During the past few decades, numerous
evidence-based intervention programs have been designed to promote SEL and
Jennings & Greenberg
504
prevent behavior problems among students (see Durlak & Wells, 1997, for a metaanalysis,
and Bear, Webster-Stratton, Furlong, & Ree, 2000, and Greenberg et al.,
2003, for reviews and critiques of these programs). A recently conducted metaanalysis
of SEL programs documented significant benefits to students, including
improved academic achievement on standardized tests (Weissberg, Durlak, Taylor,
Dymnicki, & Unte O’Brien, 2008).
To review, SEL is the process of acquiring the skills to recognize and manage
emotions, develop care and concern for others, make responsible decisions, establish
positive relationships, and handle challenging situations effectively. Inspired
by Daniel Goleman’s (1995) book Emotional Intelligence, the field of SEL was
developed in response to child development research findings emphasizing the
importance of enhancing social and emotional competencies both to promote
healthy functioning and prevent the development of mental illness (Greenberg
et al., 2003).
A multitude of primary prevention programs provide curricula to facilitate SEL
in classroom environments (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning, 2003). These curricula provide lessons and support for teaching emotional
literacy, self-control, social competence, positive peer relations, and interpersonal
problem solving (Zins et al., 2004). However, these programs are
primarily focused on teaching students these skills and do not provide explicit
instruction to promote social and emotional literacy among teachers.
For example, the Caring School Community (CSC, formerly the Child
Development Project; Solomon, Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988)
includes role-playing activities for emotion and social-perspective taking to promote
empathy and social cohesiveness. The PATHS (Promoting Alternative
THinking Strategies) curriculum also includes techniques for facilitating controlled
emotion expression such as teaching students how to calm down before
engaging in problem solving (Kusche & Greenberg, 1994).
Both CSC and PATHS offer methods for improving classroom climate and
teachers’ responsivity to students’ psychosocial and emotional needs. They both
involve extensive process-based activities that teachers apply to everyday situations
as they naturally arise in the classroom and thus emphasize the importance
of teacher modeling. Although these activities require a great deal of SEC on the
part of the teacher, these programs do not provide direct instruction for teachers in
this regard. Most SEL programs assume that the teacher is prepared to act as an
effective emotional coach and role model.
Whereas numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of SEL programs for
students (Greenberg et al., 2003; Zins et al., 2004), their successful implementation
may depend on the teacher’s SEC to create an environment that is conducive to SEL,
for example, provide a positive role model and facilitate interpersonal problem solving
and conflict resolution. Recent findings indicate that diverse factors such as
teachers’ own teaching efficacy, the support of an effective principal, and the quality
of the relationship with those providing ongoing coaching in an SEL program can
all affect the quality of implementation (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000; Ransford,
2007; Ransford, Greenberg, Small, & Domitrovich, 2006).
There is substantial evidence suggesting that the quality of teacher implementation
of SEL programs studied at the elementary level affects student outcomes
and that teacher implementation quality depends on the dimensions of SEC, in
The Prosocial Classroom
505
particular self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship management (Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Domitrovich
& Greenberg, 2000; Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000). CSC
researchers examined teacher practices associated with students’ sense of the classroom
as a community (Solomon, Battistich, Kim, & Watson, 1997) and developed
an index of program implementation quality based on seven scales derived from
classroom observations and four self-report teacher attitude scales most of which
focused on factors associated with SEC (Battistich, Schaps, Watson, Solomon, &
Lewis, 2000). Thus, teachers’ SEC was associated with implementation quality
that predicted students’ personal, social, and ethical attitudes, values, and motives
(Solomon et al., 2000) as well as reductions in students’ drug use and other problem
behaviors (Battistich et al., 2000).
In a study of more than 150 elementary school classrooms, the quality of teacher
implementation of the PATHS Curriculum was related to improvements in classroom
climate. Teachers who were rated higher on understanding the program concepts,
in generalizing the program skills throughout the day through coaching and
modeling, and managing their classroom effectively showed reductions in classroom
aggression (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Indeed,
these implementation effects remained after covarying for dosage such that the
number of PATHS lessons provided was not as important as the quality of those
lessons. Thus, teachers’ understanding and willingness to integrate SEL concepts
and skills into their interactions with their students require SEC and may be critically
important for classroom improvements.
Furthermore, students were more engaged in SEL intervention when the teachers
provided lessons in an engaging manner and generalized the core concepts interactively
throughout the day (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999).
The teacher’s ability to actively apply SEL skills during actual peer conflicts or when
students are frustrated, angry, sad, or overexcited requires flexibility, openness, and
awareness of the emotional needs of students. Appropriate planning that includes
teacher involvement and high-quality training is critical to ensuring quality implementation.
When teachers are already feeling overburdened, the haphazard introduction
of another curriculum initiative may not provide the necessary support to
help teachers realize how important their affect and engagement is to quality implementation
and developing students’ competence (Kress & Elias, 2006).
It has been suggested that the “psychological-mindedness” (here related to the
dimensions of self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, and relationship
management) of the teacher may play an important role in the teacher’s ability to
implement an SEL program effectively (Kusche, Riggs, & Greenberg, 1999). A
teacher who is aware of his or her emotional responses and can recognize and
empathize with a student’s emotional responses may be better prepared to implement
an SEL program explicitly through lessons and generalizing the curriculum
through activities mentioned above and also as an exemplary role model. In a study
of teachers using the PATHS Curriculum, Buss and Hughes (2007) found that
teachers’ awareness of their own emotions (the self-awareness dimension of SEC)
was predictive of curriculum implementation quality.
Classroom and schoolwide climate may also affect SEL program implementation
(Elias et al., 1997). However, there has been little research to examine this
question (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Positive interpersonal relations among
Jennings & Greenberg
506
school staff may have a robust effect on the quality of implementation as well
(Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg, 2005). Thus, the social and emotional competencies
of the adults in the school environment may play a pivotal role in the quality
of implementation.
Teachers are rarely given sufficient preparation and ongoing support to develop
the necessary skills and attitudes to successfully implement SEL programming
(Elias, 2003). The guidance provided to educators to implement SEL programming
is typically limited to explanation of the important constructs and information
about how to teach them to students (Zins, Travis, & Freppon, 1997). Given that
SEL programming is scaling up in response to state mandates (now in Illinois and
New York), addressing teacher SEC becomes imperative to promote successful
program implementation on a large scale, as well as to reduce teacher burnout, rising
health care costs, and so on.
Next, we examine evidence that links effective classroom management to classroom
and student outcomes and explores how teachers’ SEC may contribute to
their ability to effectively manage their class.
Effective classroom management skills. In response to educational research and the
resulting change in the views of the nature of students’ learning, there has been a
move toward a more authoritative and proactive approach to classroom management.
This approach encourages prosocial and cooperative behaviors through establishing
warm and supportive relationships and communities, assertive limit-setting
and guidance, and preventative strategies rather than controlling negative behaviors
through coercive measures such as punishment (Angell, 1991; Bredekamp &
Copple, 1997; Brophy, 2006; DeVries & Zan, 1994; Ginott, 1993; Glasser, 1988,
1998a; Kohn, 1996; Levin & Nolan, 2006; Marzano et al., 2003; Noddings, 2005;
Osher et al., 2007; Watson, 2003; Watson & Battistich, 2006). In addition, there is
evidence that these approaches promote students’ commitment to school, academic
engagement, and achievement among elementary schools (Solomon et al., 2000),
middle schools (Goodenow, 1993), and high schools (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988).
This new perspective stresses the importance of self-regulation among both
teachers and students for the creation of an environment where students behave out
of a sense of shared responsibility for a healthy learning environment rather than
to avoid punishment or earn rewards (Weinstein, 1999; Woolfolk Hoy &
Weinstein, 2006). New models that integrate positive behavioral support and SEL
are beginning to demonstrate effectiveness in reducing problem behaviors among
elementary, middle, and high school students (Osher et al., 2007).
Although this new perspective has no shortage of rich theoretical frameworks,
it lacks empirical support. Descriptive presentations of potential are offered with
little prescriptive direction. Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein (2006) suggest, “We
need systematic inquiry into how teachers establish and maintain positive, caring
relationships with students, foster autonomy and self-regulation, and build community”
(p. 211).
Given the newness of this orientation to classroom management and the shortage
of empirical findings, it is not surprising that little research has directly
addressed teacher SEC and classroom management. However, some important findings
from earlier classroom management research, the SEL intervention literature,
and the psychological literature on emotion suggest that teachers’ SEC supports
The Prosocial Classroom
507
their classroom management efforts and may in fact be an essential component linking
this new orientation toward classroom management, healthy classroom climate,
and positive student outcomes.
The 1970s saw the first federally funded, large-scale research to identify the
teacher behaviors most related to desired student outcomes. As a result of this
research, the emphasis in classroom management shifted “from a paradigm that
emphasizes the creation and application of rules to regulate student behavior to one
that also attends to students’ needs for nurturing relationships and opportunities for
self-regulation” (Weinstein, 1999, p. 151).
Weinstein (1999) further articulates this paradigm shift as involving four major
changes in approach all requiring various dimensions of teacher SEC. Weinstein’s
first change is “from management as a ‘bag of tricks’ that can be acquired in a twohour
‘in-service’ to management as a body of knowledge and a set of practices that
require thoughtful decision making and reflection” (p. 152). This change implies
the need for SEC dimensions of self-awareness, awareness of others, and the ability
to make responsible decisions.
The second change is “from managerial practices designed to obtain compliance to
practices that foster students’ capacity for self-regulation” (Weinstein, 1999, p. 152).
This change also implies the need for SEC dimensions of self- and other-awareness as
well as the ability to self-regulate and to help others self-regulate through guidance and
example. Helping students self-regulate (rather than imposing rules) requires a high
degree of awareness, sensitivity, and thoughtful decision making to observe, understand,
and respond respectfully and effectively to individual student behaviors.
The third shift “from a purely cognitive perspective that emphasizes the importance
of developing and teaching rules to a combined cognitive-affective perspective
that also recognizes the need to establish caring, trusting relationships between
students and teachers and among students” (Weinstein, 1999, p. 152) is yet another
example that necessitates teacher SEC. Teachers high in SEC know how to build
strong and supportive relationships through mutual understanding and cooperation
and can effectively negotiate solutions to conflict situations.
Finally, the fourth change, “from management strategies that support a view of
classrooms as places for routinized, teacher-directed work to management strategies
that are consistent with a view of classrooms as places for active, student-centered
learning” (Weinstein, 1999, p. 152), also necessitates teacher SEC. Teachers high
in SEC know their boundaries and can assertively set limits firmly yet respectfully,
but they also are comfortable with a level of ambiguity and chaos that comes from
letting students figure things out for themselves.
Thus, it can be argued that this major paradigm shift has necessitated a greater
degree of teacher SEC than was essential for classroom management in the past. This
shift was presaged by the work of Kounin (1977), who was curious as to why some
teachers were able to maintain a high degree of on-task behavior when compared
with others. He discovered a construct he identified as “withitness” associated with
the teachers’ high degree of awareness of individual and group social and emotional
dynamics and the ability to influence and regulate these dynamics (i.e., SEC).
In his study of 80 first- and second-grade classes each containing at least one
emotionally disturbed child he found that teachers identified as “withit” were able
to notice subtle changes in students’ emotions and behavior and respond proactively
by letting students know they were aware, by matter-of-factly reminding
Jennings & Greenberg
508
them of the task at hand and offering a running commentary to monitor the class’s
progress (Kounin, 1970). This finding suggests that the SEC dimensions of social
awareness, self-management, and relationship management may help teachers
maintain attentive monitoring and responsiveness, which prevents disruptive
behavior and supports student on-task behavior.
Indeed, in a meta-analysis of more than 100 studies of classroom management,
“mental set” was found to have the largest effect (d = −1.3) on reductions in disruptive
behavior (Marzano et al., 2003). The construct of mental set is similar to
Langer’s (1997) construct of “mindfulness” involving “a heightened sense of situational
awareness and a conscious control over one’s thoughts and behavior relative
to that situation” (Marzano et al., 2003, p. 65). In contrast, “mindlessness” is
a state of “automatic pilot” where one operates with little conscious awareness.
Mental set also includes emotional objectivity (related to the SEC dimension of
self-management). Teachers who remain cool under pressure addressing disciplinary
issues in a “matter-of-fact” way without taking behaviors personally are most
effective classroom managers.
When teachers foster a sense of community in their classrooms, students exhibit
a more prosocial orientation (cooperative, helpful, concern for others), resulting in
fewer disruptive behaviors (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997). The
ongoing research to study the effectiveness of the CSC provides longitudinal evidence.
CSC is an intervention program designed to enhance prosocial development
through providing students opportunities to collaborate with and help others,
reflect on the experiences and needs of others to promote empathy and perspective
taking, reflect on their own and others’ behavior as it relates to fundamental prosocial
values, develop and practice social competencies, and learn to participate in
joint decision making with regard to classroom rules and guidelines. The program
is based on the assumption that students have a basic need to belong to and contribute
to a community—“a cohesive, caring group with a shared purpose” (p. 138)—and
when this need is satisfied, students become bonded with the school community,
and they are inclined to behave in accordance with the school’s values reducing
the need for the external control of adults.
Battistich et al. (1997) examined the effects of the CSC program in a longitudinal
study of 24 diverse elementary schools in six school districts across the United
States (total of 550–600 classrooms). Two schools from each district were assigned
to the experimental condition, whereas the other two were chosen as matching comparison
schools. Treatment and comparison schools were assessed at baseline prior
to the program introduction in the fall of 1992 and annually over a 3-year period.
Assessments included 90-min classroom observations conducted four times each
school year. Questionnaires were administered annually to teachers and students to
assess their impressions of school climate and sense of community.
Results showed that the training and use of CSC practices led to an increase in
teacher warmth and supportiveness, emphasis on prosocial values, encouragement
of cooperation, elicitation of student thinking and expression of ideas, and extrinsic
control among CSC teachers compared with those of the comparison teachers.
Among CSC classrooms, an increase in these practices resulted in improvements in
students’ self-reported academic engagement, sense of influence, and positive interpersonal
behavior and that these student behaviors promoted students’ sense of
community, which was associated with school liking, enjoyment of class, learning
The Prosocial Classroom
509
motivation, concern for others, conflict resolution skills, democratic values, sense
of efficacy, and altruistic behavior. Many of these relationships remained significant
when controlling for school poverty level (Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson,
& Schaps, 1995). Indeed, the data suggest that such teacher practices may create a
classroom atmosphere that is protective despite the negative effects of poverty on
academic performance.
A follow-up study examining a subsample of 1,246 (700 CSC and 546 comparison)
middle school students found continuing positive effects, especially
among those from the elementary schools identified as having a high level of
implementation quality as assessed by classroom observation and teachers’ selfreported
attitudes toward students (Battistich et al., 1997; Solomon et al., 2000).
These data establish that building a sense of community in schools reduces student
problem behaviors. Although community building may reduce the need for explicit
teacher-directed behavior management interventions, we argue that it requires a
high degree of SEC on the part of the teacher (Solomon et al., 1997).
Supporting the paradigm shift in classroom management was the development
of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000),
which proposes that the pursuit of extrinsic goals, such as rewards and honors, is
associated with poorer mental health than the pursuit of intrinsic goals, such as
relationships and community.
In a series of studies focused on learning, Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens,
Sheldon, and Deci (2004) tested the hypothesis that intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) goals
and autonomy-supportive (vs. controlling) learning climate would advance students’
learning, performance, and persistence. Whereas all three studies confirmed
their hypothesis, we focus on the last because it involved high school students (as
opposed to adult learners).
The third study tested the hypothesis with a group of 224 Belgian 10th- and 11thgrade
students in an educational setting. The students were taught Tai-bo exercises
during physical education class and were randomly assigned to one of four conditions
across two dimensions: motivation and learning climate. The motivation
dimension involved assignment to either the intrinsic goal condition (prompting
that Tai-bo would improve their health) or the extrinsic goal condition (prompting
that Tai-bo would improve their physical attractiveness). The motivation dimensions
were crossed with two learning climate dimensions that involved assignment
to either the autonomy-supportive assignment or the controlling context assignment.
These were prompted by the wording of directions that were either very
directive (e.g., “you should,” “you have to,” “you must”) versus more autonomoussupportive
directions (e.g., “you can,” “you might,” “if you choose”).
Students who were assigned to the intrinsic goal rather than the extrinsic goal
condition and the autonomy-supportive rather than controlling condition were
found to be more autonomously motivated, demonstrated better performance, and
were more persistent. Examining interaction effects, the authors found a positive
interaction for intrinsic goal and autonomy-supportive learning climate for
autonomous motivation and for test performance but not persistence.
This study from the psychological literature supports the classroom management
paradigm shift described above, suggesting the importance of promoting
intrinsic goals and autonomous learning climates. Furthermore, effective teachers
encourage engaged student learning by generating enthusiasm and passion for the
Jennings & Greenberg
510
curriculum (Fried, 1995). We hypothesize that these important dimensions of a
learning environment require greater teacher SEC to promote than do the promotion
of extrinsic goals and controlling learning climates. Rather than simply creating
rules and either offering punishments or rewards for compliance or
noncompliance, teachers must establish relationships that promote each student’s
discovery of the intrinsic reward for learning and create responsive environments
that allow autonomy and cooperative learning.
We have examined how teachers who lack SEC may experience emotional
stress and burnout and the negative effects this has on teacher–student relationships
and classroom management. We also reviewed findings that demonstrate the complex
interactions among the various facets of our model that make a contribution
to a prosocial classroom climate. We also examined how dimensions of teacher
SEC are related to SEL program implementation quality and classroom management.
The findings reviewed above provide compelling evidence for the need for
intervention strategies to help teachers develop SEC to avoid teacher burnout and
to enhance effectiveness. Next, we discuss several possible intervention strategies
to promote teacher SEC.
Promoting Teacher SEC and Well-Being
Decades of research have generated a knowledge base that can be used to promote
teachers’ social and emotional awareness and to aid in the development of
these competencies (Eisenberg, 2003; Ekman, 2004a). However, until recently,
neither teacher preservice nor in-service programs have used this rich source of
material to help promote these social–emotional processes in teachers.
Emotional Intelligence Training
There are several training programs in the developmental stages that may facilitate
the development of SEC among teachers. Although most SEL programs do
not address teacher SEC in their teacher training, the Emotionally Intelligent
Classroom (Brackett & Katulak, 2006) program is an exception. The Emotionally
Intelligent Teacher training (Brackett & Caruso, 2006) was designed to promote
teachers’ emotion-related skills and emotional awareness and application of these
skills and awareness in the school environment as support for the SEL program
for students. The training covers three major areas: recognizing and labeling
emotions, understanding emotion, and expressing and regulating emotion in
response to situations commonly encountered by teachers in classroom situations.
For example, during the section covering understanding emotion, the training
introduces teachers to information about how emotions can affect learning; for
instance, positive emotions such as joy and excitement can foster creativity,
whereas anxiety can impair memory and the ability to perform certain tasks.
Although research has documented significant changes in student outcomes
resulting from the overall program, no data have been published that links teacher
SEC to classroom and student outcomes.
Mindfulness-Based Interventions
Another approach to reducing stress and promoting well-being, emotional
awareness/regulation,andprosocialbehavioristhroughpracticingmindfulnessorcontemplative
practices (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Carmody & Baer, 2008;
The Prosocial Classroom
511
Eisenberg, 2002; Kabat-Zinn et al., 1992; Lutz, Brefczynski-Lewis, Johnstone, &
Davidson2008a;Lutz,Slagter,Dunne,&Davidson,2008b;Ortner,Sachne,&Zelazo,
2007). Research indicates that contemplation and mindfulness practices increase
awarenessofone’sinternalexperienceandpromotereflection,self-regulation,andcaring
for others. Ekman (2004a) and the 14th Dalai Lama (Dalai Lama & Ekman, 2008)
have proposed that during meditation, the focus on automatic biological events such as
the breath may promote the ability to be more aware of automatic emotional reactiv-
ity,promotingtheabilitytohavegreatercontroloverone’sresponses.Thisability,they
argue, promotes psychological balance and compassion.
Research is beginning to support this premise. For example, regular contemplative
practice enhances mental health and increases the ability to regulate distress
(Ramel, Goldin, Carmona, & McQuaid, 2004; Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner,
1998). Individuals who can manage their distress when exposed to a person who
is suffering are more likely to show empathy and compassion and do something to
reduce suffering (Eisenberg et al., 1989). Contemplative practice may facilitate
emotional self-awareness (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and contribute to engagement or
“psychological presence,” defined as “feeling open to oneself and others, connected
to work and others, complete rather than fragmented, and within rather than
without the boundaries of a given role” (Kahn, 1992, p. 322). Thus, mindfulness
practices may promote cognitive and emotional regulation by supporting the ability
to reflect on one’s internal and external experience from a broader perspective
that provides a wider variety of interpretations of and responses to stressful situations
(Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007). As a result, mindfulness-based interventions
may be ideally suited to support the development of a mental set that is associated
with effective classroom management. Mindfulness training may help teachers
reduce stress. A study of 21 secondary school student teachers found that mindfulness
training reduced stress symptoms (Winzelberg & Luskin, 1999). Half the
teachers participated in four 45-minute sessions where they learned a mindfulness
practice involving focused attention and other mindfulness strategies that could be
used throughout the day to reduce stress. Compared to the control group, intervention
group teachers reported significant reductions in emotional, behavioral,
and gastronomic stress symptoms as measured by the Teacher Stress Inventory
(TSI; Pettigrew & Wolf, 1982).
A promising strategy combines emotion awareness training and mindfulness
practices. Kemeny et al. (2008) report findings on the Cultivating Emotional
Balance training, an innovative combination that uses Ekman’s Emotion Awareness
Training system for teaching emotion awareness (Ekman, 2004b; Ekman & Friesen,
1978) and secularized mindfulness training. This hybrid training model consisted
of an 8-week, 42-hr training program designed to reduce “destructive enactment of
the emotions” and enhance empathy and compassion. It was tested on a sample of
82 female teachers (pre-K–12) using a randomized, controlled trial design. Results
at both posttest and 5-month follow-up indicated that the training significantly
reduced self-reported depression and rumination and increased emotional selfawareness.
In addition, in an experimental task, intervention teachers showed
an increase in compassionate responding to suffering when compared with the
comparison teachers.
Pilot data from this same trial on a subsample of classrooms suggests that the
changes in teacher SEC may translate into improved classroom climate (Jennings,
Jennings & Greenberg
512
2007). Observers blind to the experimental condition rated the classrooms of a subsample
of 21 teachers (13 experimental group, 8 control group) using two standardized
observational measures of classroom climate (La Paro & Pianta, 2003;
Solomon et al., 1988). As predicted, the intervention group classrooms scored
higher on most dimensions of classroom climate when compared with those of the
waitlist control group, which suggests that the psychological changes observed in
the intervention teachers translated into improved classroom climate.
Enhancing Commitment to Teaching
Other promising programs worth noting focus on the development of the “inner
lives” of teachers. These programs focus on supporting the personal development
of teachers and other educational professionals. Courage to Teach, developed by
Parker Palmer (1998), involves participation in 3-day quarterly retreats for a year
intended to help teachers develop more trusting and caring relationships with colleagues
and students and to explore the connection between attending to the inner
life of educators and the renewal of public education (Center for Courage &
Renewal, n.d.). The Inner Resilience Program (formerly Project Renewal; Lantieri,
Nambiar, & Chavez-Reilly, 2006) was developed to help New York City “ground
zero” teachers cope with the trauma of 9/11. It aims to provide teachers with
skills, tools, and strategies to strengthen resiliency in the face of grief and trauma
and to model these skills for their students. The training includes residential and
day-long retreats, after-school workshops and institutes, technical assistance and
training, individual stress-reduction sessions, and yoga classes. Although only
anecdotal evidence supports either of these models, with support from the Fetzer
Institute, both of these teacher renewal models are currently undergoing randomized
trials to examine efficacy.
Training in Student Social and Emotional Development
Teachers rarely receive and are not required to take courses on social and emotional
development in childhood as part of their teacher training. However, we
hypothesize that teachers need this knowledge to better understand the developmental
process of SEC and the needs of students at different ages, to develop effective
and caring classroom management, and to better understand the relations
between emotion, cognition, and behavior. For example, young children often have
difficulty regulating their emotional responses. A young student with emotion regulation
difficulties may exhibit challenging classroom behavior. Rather than reprimanding
a student for such behavior, a well-informed teacher might find ways to
help the student self-regulate. To do this, the teacher must understand how emotion
regulation develops and how to support its development.
To our knowledge, there are no preservice or in-service training programs that
focus on improving teachers’ knowledge and skills regarding students’ social and
emotional development that have been carefully evaluated to examine their effects
on teacher and classroom functioning. However, a recent study examining the
effect of Montessori schooling found that urban minority students randomly
assigned by lottery to a Montessori public school demonstrated significantly superior
social, emotional, and cognitive development when compared with students
randomly assigned by lottery to regular public school programs. These results suggest
The Prosocial Classroom
513
that the Montessori curriculum and teacher training may be one effective model
for supporting teachers’ understanding of social and emotional development and
their ability to apply this knowledge to helping students self-regulate (Lillard &
Else-Quest, 2005).
As reviewed above, many types of training and support have sound theoretical
models for improving teacher SEC and student outcomes. These range from
changes in preservice training focused on social and emotional development and
classroom management to in-service models of stress reduction, mindfulness,
explicit teaching of emotional awareness, and the deeper development of teachers’
inner lives. Indeed, some have argued that psychology, particularly an understanding
of social and emotional developmental issues, should have a more prominent
role in standardized teacher training curriculum (Poulou, 2005).
Agenda for Future Research
Research has demonstrated evidence of relationships among various components
of our proposed prosocial classroom model. Supportive teacher–student relationships
and effective classroom management are related to healthy classroom
climate. Healthy classroom climate is associated with positive social, emotional,
and academic student outcomes (La Paro & Pianta, 2003; NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network, 2002, 2003; Pianta, 1999, 2003; Pianta et al., 2002, 2003). In
addition, there is evidence that teacher characteristics and principal and contextual
support play a critical role in SEL program implementation quality and student
outcomes (Battistich et al., 2000; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group,
1999; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000; Kam, Greenberg,
& Walls, 2003; Solomon et al., 1997, 2000).
Although these results support hypothesized relationships proposed in our model,
there are several areas that need further research that might employ multiple methods
including the use of case studies, longitudinal, observational studies, and more
extensive randomized controlled trials. It should be noted that many of the constructs
delineated in our model have well-validated measures that can be used to test the
model. These include measures of teacher stress, teacher burnout, the quality of
student–teacher relationships, classroom management, classroom atmosphere, the
quality of implementation of SEL programs, and student cognitive and social–
emotional outcomes. The dimensions of SEC may pose a significant measurement
challenge. Teacher self-report is susceptible to social desirability biases, and as
mentioned earlier, these dimensions may be highly context dependent. Therefore,
observational measures may need to be developed to determine a teacher’s level of
SEC within the context of their classroom environment.
Research Questions
Several research questions need to be addressed to assess the value of the proposed
model. The first can be addressed with descriptive/longitudinal studies and
case studies to examine relationships not already established in the literature. The
second will require the development of interventions using randomized, controlled
trials to evaluate their efficacy.
Longitudinal studies. Most of the studies reported herein have used cross-sectional
data to examine the relationship between teacher stress and burnout and teacher
Jennings & Greenberg
514
functioning (teacher–student relations, classroom management) or how teacher
functioning is related to classroom atmosphere or student outcomes. There has
been a paucity of longitudinal studies, and those that have been reported have only
examined parts of the prosocial classroom model.
A question that has received little attention is whether there is a relationship
between teacher SEC and teacher functioning (teacher–student relationships, classroom
management, SEL program implementation). A variety of dimensions of
teacher SEC might be studied including measures of teachers’ emotional awareness
and emotional knowledge (J. D. Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal,
2005), emotion recognition, measurement of aspects of personality (sociability,
social insight, empathy, prosocial responding), as well as both self-report and physiological
measures of stress and stress response.
A second step is to demonstrate that these factors are related to observational
measures and student reports of classroom climate. Furthermore, through the use
of longitudinal multivariate models (structural and growth curve models), both the
direct and indirect pathways between teacher SEC, teacher functioning, classroom
atmosphere, and student outcomes can be tested. These analyses will need to control
for demographic variables, years of teaching, level of function of the student
population, and so on and contextual factors such as grade level, type of school or
educational setting, cultural background of students and teachers, and so on. It also
would be of interest to examine health care utilization, health care costs, and attrition
given they are important outcomes for teachers as well as educational policies
and financing.
Testing interventions. Although tests of structural models can illuminate relationships
among variables, only through the manipulation of aspects of the model can
true causal relationships be established. Therefore, the second line of research we
propose involves randomized controlled trials to address a series of questions:
(a) Can interventions be developed to improve SEC? (b) Do these interventions
result in reduced teacher stress and burnout and increased well-being? (c) Do these
interventions result in improvements in teacher–student relationships, classroom
management, SEL program implementation quality, classroom climate? (d) Do
these interventions improve student academic outcomes and well-being?
Randomized controlled studies pose numerous challenges in educational
settings, including sampling variability, number and choice of units of analysis,
treatment-related attrition, and heterogeneity of implementation quality (Campbell
& Stanley, 1966). A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article;
however, they must be fully considered during the planning phase of the research.
Randomized controlled studies of training interventions involve several steps.
First, a theoretically sound intervention is developed and piloted with teachers
within a school context to determine whether the training is feasible and acceptable
and to collect preliminary qualitative and evaluative data to test the measurement
protocol. Teacher participants are recruited, assessed, and then participate in
the training. After the training, they are assessed again. Analyses are conducted
comparing data collected from the two time periods to determine change. If
the variables of interest show improvement, measurement integrity and training
effectiveness are suggested, although these data do not confirm causality. Often, a
The Prosocial Classroom
515
number of pilot studies are necessary to refine the training, recruitment, and retention
of participants and the measurement protocol.
The final step involves the full randomized controlled trial. Participants are
recruited, assessed, and randomly assigned to various conditions, usually at the
classroom or school level. Often, early stage trials involve two conditions: an
experimental condition and a control or waitlist condition. Findings compare the
effects of receiving the training with no training. The final stage of the process may
involve an active control condition. Rather than providing no intervention to half
of the participants, they instead receive alternative training to test the effects of
attention or to test what might be the active component of the target intervention.
We hypothesize that effective teacher SEC training when combined with highquality
SEL curriculum in the classroom will show a synergistic effect. Thus,
future studies might compare four conditions: SEC training alone, SEL curriculum
training alone, SEC + SEL training, and no training. An effective intervention must
focus on ways to promote teacher SEC.
Conclusion
We have proposed a model of the prosocial classroom that highlights the importance
of teachers’ SEC and well-being in developing and maintaining supportive
teacher–student relationships, effectively managing their classrooms, and implementing
SEL programs effectively.
Teacher SEC also has implications for school reform. Social trust within a
school community is a key resource for improving schools (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988;
Bryk & Schneider, 2003). Many school reformers argue—and research supports
this view—that students learn better when they are happy, respected, and feel cared
for (Noddings, 2005), feel bonded to school, trust the people at school have their best
interests at heart (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), and have high levels of self-efficacy
(Dweck, 2006; Glasser, 1998b). Although these social and emotional factors have
been identified as being associated with positive academic outcomes, little research
has examined how teachers’ SEC may promote these factors and subsequent
student outcomes.
Research has demonstrated that many teachers deal with highly stressful
emotional situations in ways that compromise their ability to develop and sustain
healthy relationships with their students, effectively manage their classrooms,
and support student learning. We propose that attention be directed to a
research agenda that explores the links in this model. Finally, we propose the
testing of a variety of possible interventions that may have the potential to promote
teacher SEC.
It will be important to explore whether these interventions can result in
improvements in SEC and whether these improvements result in positive classroom
and student outcomes. The lives of teachers and their concerns with personal
and professional improvement have long been put on the “back burner” of educational
policy and research. If we are to improve the conditions of schooling, support
the caring and commitment of teachers, and improve the academic and
social–emotional growth of students, these critical research, policy, and practice
questions demand greater attention.
Jennings & Greenberg
516
References
Abbott, R. D., O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., & Catalano,
R. F. (1998). Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to
school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 542–552.
Ainsworth, M. D., Belehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Aldwin, C. M. (2007). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation
and to the states. Washington, DC: Author.
Angell, A. V. (1991). Democratic climates in elementary classrooms: A review of theory
and research. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 241–266.
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the
Child Development Project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 75–99.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as
communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives,
and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627–658.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities.
Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Bear, G., Webster-Stratton, C., Furlong, M., & Ree, S. (2000). Preventing aggression and
violence. In G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Preventing school problems—Promoting
school success: Strategies and programs that work (Vol. 18, pp. 140–157). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacherchild
relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934–946.
Blase, J. J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences
for performance. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 13–40.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brackett, M. A., & Caruso, D. R. (2006). The emotionally intelligent teacher. Ann
Arbor, MI: Quest Education.
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the classroom:
Skill-based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.),
Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 1–27). New York:
Psychology Press.
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its
relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1387–1402.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating
emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance
measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 780–795.
Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship
quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197–212.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
The Prosocial Classroom
517
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–113). New York:
Guilford Press.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson
& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice,
and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and
its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 822–848.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations
and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237.
Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical foundations,
contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers. Madison:
National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. H. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. H. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 60, 40–45.
Buss, M. T., & Hughes, J. N. (2007). Teachers’ attitudes toward emotions predict
implementation of and satisfaction with a social-emotional curriculum. Paper presented
at the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of
causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 645–673.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Carmody, J., & Baer, R. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels
of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulnessbased
stress reduction program. Journal of Behavior Medicine, 2, 23–33.
Carson, R. L., & Templin, T. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and teacher burnout: Who
says that the management of emotional expression doesn’t matter? Paper presented
at the American Education Research Association Annual Convention, Chicago.
Carson, R. L., Templin, T. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2006). Exploring the episodic nature of
teachers’ emotions and its relationship to teacher burnout. Paper presented at the
American Education Research Association Annual Convention, San Francisco.
Center for Courage & Renewal. (n.d.). Courage to teach. Retrieved September 30, 2007,
from http://www.couragerenewal.org/?q=programs/professions/education/CTT
Chan, D. W. (2003). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese
secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 1781–1795.
Chan, D. W. (2006). Emotional intelligence and components of burnout among
secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
1042–1054.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound:
An education leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL)
programs. Chicago: Author.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2008, April). What is
SEL: Skills & competencies. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.casel.org/
basics/skills.php
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992). A developmental and clinical
model for the prevention of conduct disorders. Development and Psychopathology,
4, 509–527.
Jennings & Greenberg
518
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the FAST
Track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.
Cook, E. T., Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1995). People in my life: Attachment
relationships in middle childhood. Paper presented to the Society for Research in
Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Dalai Lama, & Ekman, P. (2008). Emotional awareness: Overcoming the obstacles to
psychological balance and compassion. New York: Henry Holt.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary
prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology
Review, 18, 23–45.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational
Leadership, 58, 12–17.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school:
Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Project. American Educational Research
Journal, 39, 639–673.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Denham, S. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: Guilford
Press.
DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist
atmosphere in early education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in
children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on children’s social behavior
and behavioral development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology
(Vol. 18, pp. 77–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Domitrovich, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current
findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children.
Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 11, 193–221.
Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). Improving young children’s
social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the Preschool
PATHS Curriculum. State College, PA: Prevention Research Center, Penn State
University.
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for
children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 115–153.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. (1999). School and community influences on human development.
In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An
advanced textbook (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization.
In R. J. Davidson & A. Harrington (Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western
scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Eisenberg, N. (2003). Prosocial behavior, empathy, and sympathy. In M. H. Bornstein,
L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development
across the life course (pp. 253–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The Prosocial Classroom
519
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M., et al.
(1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 55–66.
Ekman, P. (2004a). Emotions revealed (2nd ed.). New York: Times Books.
Ekman, P. (2004b). Interactive/self-administered training: METT/SETT. Berkeley,
CA: Paul Ekman Group.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist’s Press.
Elias, M. J. (2003). Academic and social-emotional learning. Brussels, Belgium:
International Academy of Education.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Greenberg, M. S., Frey, K. S., Haynes, N. M.,
et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Emmer, E. T. (1994). Teacher emotions and classroom management. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational
psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 103–112.
Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with
specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332–350.
Farber, B. A., & Miller, J. (1981). Teacher burnout: A psycho-educational perspective.
Teachers College Record, 83, 235–243.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218–226.
Fried, R. L. (1995). The passionate teacher. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gambone, M. A., Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2002). Finding out what matters for
youth: Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development.
Philadelphia, PA: Youth Development Strategies and Institute for Research and
Reform in Education.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational models of relationships: Links
between caregiving and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 198–216.
Gil-Olarte Marquez, P., Palomera, M. R., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotional
intelligence to social competence, and academic achievement among high school
students. Psicothema, 18, 118–123.
Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state
prekindergarten programs. New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Ginott, H. G. (1993). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. New York:
Collier.
Glasser, W. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York: Harper.
Glasser, W. (1998a). The quality school teacher. New York: Harper.
Glasser, W. (1998b). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New
York: Harper Collins.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational
Researcher, 33, 3–13.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam-Dell.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:
Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43.
Jennings & Greenberg
520
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik,
H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through
coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58,
466–474.
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (in press). Teachers’ resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness.
Teaching and Teacher Education.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and trajectory of
school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.
Hamre,B.,&Pianta,R.C.(2006).Student-teacherrelationships.InG.Bear&K.M.Minke
(Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–72).
Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14, 835–854.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions
with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental
significance of the quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journal of
School Psychology, 39, 289–301.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
International Labour Office. (1993). Preventing stress at work: Conditions of work
digest. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
Jackson, A., & Davis, P. G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the
21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jennings, P. A. (2007). Cultivating emotional balance in the classroom. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, San Francisco.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality &
Social Psychology Review, 9, 131–155.
Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A. O., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L. G., Fletcher, K. E., Pbert, L.,
et al. (1992). Effectiveness of a meditation-based stress reduction program in the
treatment of anxiety disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 936–943.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human
Relations, 45, 321–349.
Kam, C., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation
quality in school-based Prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention
Science, 4, 55–63.
Kavanaugh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and
sadness on perceived capacities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507–525.
Kemeny, M., Foltz, C., Ekman, P., Jennings, P. A., Rosenberg, E., Gilliath, O., et al.
(2008). Contemplative/emotion training improves emotional life. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Kohn,A.(1996).Beyonddiscipline:Fromcompliancetocommunity.Alexandria,VA:ASCD.
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kounin, J. S. (1977). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Huntington,
NY: Kreiger.
Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2006). School based social and emotional learning programs.
In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child
psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 592–618). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
The Prosocial Classroom
521
Kusche, C. A., & Greenberg, M. S. (1994). The PATHS curriculum: Promoting alternative
thinking strategies. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs.
Kusche, C. A., Riggs, N., & Greenberg, M. T. (1999). PATHS: Using analytic knowledge
to teach emotional literacy. The American Psychoanalyst, 33, 1.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational
Review, 53, 27–35.
Ladd, G., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure
of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024.
Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. New York: Merloyd Lawrence.
Lantieri, L., Nambiar, M., & Chavez-Reilly, M. (2006). Building inner preparedness
in New York City Educators post–9/11. Excerpt from: Ever after: Teaching difficult
issues through difficult times. New York: Teachers College Press.
La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2003). CLASS: Classroom Assessment Scoring System.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.
American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Learning First Alliance. (2001). Every child learning: Safe and supportive schools.
Washington, DC: Author.
Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (2006). Principles of classroom management: A professional
decision-making model (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2005). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313,
1893–1894.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schultz, A., Selin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004).
Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 1018–1034.
Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., Grewal, D., Cadis, J., Gall, M., & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence
that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at
work. Psicothema, 18, 113–118.
Lutz, A., Brefczynski-Lewis, J., Johnstone, T., & Davidson, R. J. (2008a). Regulation
of the neural circuitry of emotion by compassion meditation: Effects of meditative
expertise. PLoS ONE, 3, e1897.
Lutz, A., Slagter, H., Dunne, J., & Davidson, R. (2008b). Attention regulation and monitoring
in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 163–169.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Maltreated children’s reports of relatedness to their
teachers. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s
lives: New directions for child development (pp. 81–108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that
works. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory. In
C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources
(pp. 191–218). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 75,
1285–1320.
Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: Its causes and prevention within our schools.
Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 414–429.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey &
D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Jennings & Greenberg
522
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting student connectedness
to school: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146.
Metlife. (2002). The Metlife survey of the American teacher 2002—Student life: School,
home, and community. New York: Author.
Metlife. (2004). The Metlife survey of the American teacher: Transitions and the role
of supportive relationships. New York: Author.
Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, H. K. (1997). Q-Sort assessment
of child-teacher attachment relationships and social competence in preschool. Early
Education and Development, 8, 27–39.
Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes
and effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 458–486.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and
bonds with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 423–445.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Child-care structure-processoutcome:
Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development.
Psychological Science, 13, 199–206.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Social functioning in first grade:
Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with current classroom
experiences. Child Development, 74, 1639–1662.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Ortner, C., Sachne, K., & Zelazo, P. (2007). Mindfulness meditation and reduced emotional
interference on a cognitive task. Motivation & Emotion, 31, 271–283.
Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2002). Safe, supportive, and successful schools, step
by step. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
Osher, D., Sprague, J., Weissberg, R. P., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S., Kendziora, K., et al.
(2007). A comprehensive approach to promoting social, emotional, and academic
growth in contemporary schools. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices
in school psychology (Vol. 5, 5th ed., pp. 1263–1278). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s
life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001).
Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.
Pederson, E., Fatcher, T. A., & Eaton, W. W. (1978). A new perspective on the effects
of first grade teachers on children’s subsequent adult status. Harvard Educational
Review, 48, 1–31.
Pettigrew, L., & Wolf, G. 1982. Validating measures of teacher stress. American
Educational Research Journal, 19, 373-396.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pianta, R. C. (2003). Commentary: Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up in
school contexts: Can school psychology make the shift? School Psychology Review,
32, 331–335.
The Prosocial Classroom
523
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and
children. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 199–234). New York: Wiley.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation
of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics
and child outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school:
Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295–312.
Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 33–40.
Poulou, M. (2005). Educational psychology within teacher education. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 555–574.
Provasnik, S., & Dorfman, S. (2005). Mobility in the teacher workforce: Findings from
The Condition of Education 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Public Agenda. (1994). First things first: What Americans expect from the public
schools. New York: Author.
Public Agenda. (1997). Getting by: What American teenagers really think about their
schools. New York: Author.
Public Agenda. (2002). A lot easier said than done: Parents talk about raising children
in today’s America. New York: Author.
Ramel, W., Goldin, P. R., Carmona, P. E., & McQuaid, J. R. (2004). The effects of
mindfulness meditation on cognitive processes and affect in patients with past
depression. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 28, 433–455.
Ransford, C. R. (2007). The role of school and teacher characteristics on teacher
burnout and implementation quality of social-emotional learning curriculum.
Unpublished dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Small, M., & Domitrovich, C. (2006). The
implications of teacher burnout and efficacy for the implementation of a socialemotional
curriculum. Paper presented to the Society for Prevention Research,
Washington, DC.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. M., Bahman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J.,
et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 278, 823–833.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2000). The 32nd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of
the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
International.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand
hours. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic
psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338.
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 281–285.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,
and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., & Goklen, C. J.,
et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.
Jennings & Greenberg
524
Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of mindfulness-based
stress reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 21, 581–599.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Kim, D., & Watson, M. S. (1997). Teacher practices associated
with students’ sense of the classroom as a community. Social Psychology of
Education, 1, 235–267.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district
study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the Child Development
Project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3–51.
Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988).
Enhancing children’s prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 25, 527–554.
Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in
behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199–202.
Sutton, R. E. (2004). Emotion regulation goals and strategies. Social Psychology of
Education, 7, 379–398.
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. E. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review
of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review,
15, 327–358.
Travers, C. J. (2001). Stress in teaching: Past, present, and future. In J. Dunham (Ed.),
Stress in the workplace: Past, present, and future (pp. 164–190). Philadelphia, PA:
Whurr.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). A guide to safe schools: Early warning timely
response. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the
Surgeon General. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute
of Mental Health.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. (2004).
Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic
goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Personality Processes and
Individual Differences, 87, 246–260.
Watson, M. (2003). Learning to trust. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (2006). Building and sustaining caring communities. In
C. S. Weinstein & C. M. Evertson (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 253–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Reflections on best practices and promising programs. In
H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management
paradigm (pp. 145–163). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. C. (1996). Affect events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18,
pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Dymnicki, A. B., Unte O’Brien, M.
(2008). Promoting social and emotional learning enhances school success:
Implications of a meta-analysis. Unpublished report.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role
of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209.
Winzelberg, A. J. & Luskin, F. M. (1999). The effect of a meditation training in stress
levels in secondary school teachers. Stress Medicine, 15, 69-77.
The Prosocial Classroom
525
Woolfolk Hoy, A. W., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on
classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 181–220).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships:
Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality, 30,
485–493.
Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying
emotion regulation. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(pp. 135–158). New York: Guilford Press.
Zins, J. E., Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., & Unte O’Brien, M. (2007). Social and emotional
learning for successful school performance. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, &
R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 376–395).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Zins, J. E., Travis, L. F., & Freppon, P. A. (1997). Linking research and educational
programming to promote social and emotional learning. In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter
(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators
(pp. 257–274). New York: Basic Books.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building academic
success on social and emotional learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Authors
PATRICIA A. JENNINGS, MEd, PhD, is the director of the Initiative on Contemplation
and Education at the Garrison Institute and research associate at Pennsylvania State
University Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development. Dr.
Jennings develops and tests interventions to promote teacher social and emotional competence
and the effect of these interventions on classroom climate and student social,
emotional, and academic outcomes. In addition to her intervention research, Dr. Jennings
has extensive research and teaching experience in the field of education. She founded and
directed an experimental school and served as Director of Intern Teachers at St. Mary’s
College Graduate School of Education in Moraga, California, where she taught education
courses, supervised student research, developed teacher training curriculum, and
supervised student teacher training.
MARK T. GREENBERG, PhD, holds The Bennett Endowed Chair in Prevention Research in
Pennsylvania State’s College of Health and Human Development. He is currently Director
of the Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development and the
Associate Director for the Pennsylvania State Consortium on Children, Youth and Families.
Since 1981, Dr. Greenberg has been examining the effectiveness of school-based curricula
(the PATHS Curriculum) to improve the social, emotional, and cognitive competence of elementary-aged
children. Since 1990, he has served as an investigator in Fast Track, a comprehensive
program that aims to prevent violence and delinquency in families. His research
has focused on the role of individual-, family-, and community-level factors in prevention.