AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS’ SELF-

REGULATORY WELL-BEING AND SUPPORT OF CHILDREN’S SELF-

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT

by

KELLYE RUTH WOOD

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

2025

Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan

Doctoral Advisory Committee:

Tomoko Wakabayashi, Ed.D., Chair

Ambika Bhargava, Ph.D.
S. Rebecca Leigh, Ph.D.
Sherri Oden, Ph.D.
© Copyright by Kellye Ruth Wood, 2025
All rights reserved

ii
To my mother, Millie Price and aunt, Fran Boyden

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to my committee for their guidance, encouragement, and sheer

expertise about human development and how to contribute to knowledge as a scholar and

writer. Dr. Sherri Oden, thank you for inviting me to attend your doctoral student

seminar, even before I had reached that point in my studies, so that I could see the

possibilities of this journey. I greatly appreciate that you stayed on my committee as a

professor emeritus to see me through to the end of my doctoral experience. Dr. Ambika

Bhargava, thank you for sharing your deep knowledge of early childhood curriculum and

theory, so that I learned the lineage and legacy of the giants in our field. Thank you, Dr.

S. Rebecca Leigh, I learned so much from you in my literacy, culture, and language

cognate about scholarly writing yet also striving for a poetry of words. Dr. Tomoko

Wakabayashi, thank you for being my advisor and your generosity of spirit and time, as

well as profound knowledge about child development and research methods. You gave

me space to grow yet also intricately scaffolded my learning and development as a

scholar. Thank you, as well, to Dr. Julia Smith, whose guidance was integral to my data

analysis plan. To all of you, your kindness was the beating heart of every interaction, yet

you also had the most astute way of asking questions that cut to the heart of matters and

challenged my thinking. I have always believed that knowledge plus kindness equals

wisdom, and you are the epitome of that as teachers, scholars, and people who make the

world a better place. You have made me a better scholar and, hopefully, person, too.

iv
 I dedicated this dissertation to my mother, Millie Price, and aunt, Fran Boyden,

because as teachers of elementary and secondary children, respectively, they changed

thousands of lives for the better, including mine. They were my first models of kindness,

knowledge, and wisdom who still walk alongside me today. They also had a bubbling

sense of fun with a twinkle in their eye that drew people to them. After they retired, they

missed teaching, because being teachers was who they were. I remember my mother, who

had many student teachers over the years, wistfully sharing that she had so much

knowledge to give about how to teach but no one to give it to anymore. Not true, mom.

You continue to teach me and so many others to this day. I am still your student teacher.

You are my lifelong mentor teacher and the reason why I feel most at home in classrooms

brimming with children, laughter, learning, and, yes, noise and even seeming chaos at

times, underneath which there is so much love and care, by design.

Last but certainly not least, thank you to my husband, Brian Wood, and other

family and friends for your love and support, as I finally achieved this dream which

sometimes felt like a marathon of sprints. Thank you for running with me. You are too

numerous to name, but please know that I am deeply grateful for each one of you and

look forward to now having more time to show you that appreciation. Finally, to my

granddaughter, Emerson Millie, who is three years old and sings melodies of giggles, you

are the best of us and so beloved. Together, as your grown-ups, we promise to make the

world a kinder, better place for you and all children.

Kellye Ruth Wood

v
 ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS’ SELF-

REGULATORY WELL-BEING AND SUPPORT OF CHILDREN’S SELF-
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT

by

Kellye Ruth Wood

Adviser: Tomoko Wakabayashi, Ed.D.

A path analysis of 92 preservice early childhood (EC) teachers’ psychosocial

characteristics and how these related to their emotion self-regulation and self-reported

practices for children’s self-regulatory development had significant positive results. EC

teachers’ intrapersonal mindfulness, strongly, and their compassion for self and

others, moderately, predicted their emotion self-regulation, which, in turn, moderately

predicted their developmentally adaptive support of children’s self-regulation. EC

teachers’ emotional self-regulatory well-being also strongly predicted their psychological

and self-determinative well-being, and the latter strongly mediated their support of

children’s self-regulation. EC teachers’ self-compassion strongly correlated with their

intrapersonal mindfulness, particularly between the respective components of self-

kindness and mindful-nonreactivity. Self-compassion also strongly to moderately

predicted psychological and self-determinative well-being, respectively.

Other significant results were that EC teachers who had more secure attachment

also had more psychological well-being, self-determinative well-being, and self-

vi
compassion, especially. They also had more compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, emotional self-regulatory well-being, and supportive practices for children’s

self-regulatory growth. Moreover, EC teachers’ self compassion, strongly, and

compassion for others, moderately, positively predicted the secure dimension of their

attachment style, and negatively predicted their fearful and preoccupied dimensions.

Given that compassion for self and others may be more actionable and, hence, malleable

than attachment style, supporting the former not only as personal but pedagogical skills

may benefit attachment, as well as emotion self-regulation and support for child self-

regulation.

The most consistent finding was the positive relationship of self-compassion to

intrapersonal mindfulness and other psychosocial characteristics. Intentional kindness

and empathy towards oneself and others mattered for self-regulatory well-being and

support of children’s self-regulatory development. Policy implications included a)

developing educative systems at all levels that support the whole person and self-

regulatory well-being of adults and children, b) deepening whole teacher pedagogy in

preservice teacher education and inservice professional learning through relational

processes to synergize knowledge, belief, and practice systems, and c) normalizing self-

care as integral to the helping professions, not only to prevent compassion fatigue but

flourish as individuals and caregivers.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

ABSTRACT vi

LIST OF TABLES xix

LIST OF FIGURES xxii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxiii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1

Wider Context 6

Definitions 12

Theoretical Framework 14

Problem Statement 16

Significance of the Current Study 17

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 21

Definition of Self-Regulation 22

Construct of Self-Regulation 23

Metaphor for Self-Regulation 24

Centrality of Self-Regulation in Human Development 27

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Placing Self-regulation in Child Development

Theory and Principles 28

Centrality of Self-Regulation for Self-Determination 36

The Pivotal Role of Self-Regulation in

Self-Determination 39

Support for Children’s Self-Regulation:

A Missed Opportunity 39

Centrality of Teacher Emotional Support for

Child Development of Self-Regulation 41

Teacher Emotion Socialization Practices Support

Child Self-Regulation 49

Teacher Discourse Practices Support Child

Emotion Socialization and Self-Regulation 53

Centrality of Teacher Empathy in Self-Regulatory

Support 56

Definition and Construct of Empathy 60

Connection of Self-Regulation to Empathic

Perspective-Taking 61

Centrality of Whole Teacher Pedagogy in Teacher

Education for Self-Regulatory Well-Being 66

“Preservice Students’ Dispositional Mindfulness

and Developmentally Supportive Practices
with Infants and Toddlers” 67

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

”How Are Preservice Early Childhood Professionals’

Mindfulness, Reflective Practice Beliefs, and
Individual Characteristics Associated with Their
Developmentally Supportive Responses to
Infants and Toddlers?” 70

“Attachment Predicts College Students’ Knowledge,

Attitudes, and Skills for Working with Infants,
Toddlers, and Families” 73

“The Effects of a Relationship-Focused Professional

Development Intervention on Infant and Toddler
Teachers’ Mindfulness-Based Strategies for Coping” 76

“Long-Term Impacts of the CARE Program on

Teachers’ Self-Reported Social and Emotional
Competence and Well-Being” 78

“Promising Findings that the Cultivating Healthy

Intentional Mindful Educators’ Program (CHIME)
Strengthens Early Childhood Teachers’ Emotional
Resources: An Iterative Study” 80

“The What, How, and Who, of Early Childhood

Professional Development (PD): Differential
Associations of PD and Self-Reported Beliefs
and Practices” 83

Cumulative Insights from the Preceding Studies 84

Two Studies about the Kindness Curriculum 84

Implications: Summary and Further Insights 90

Theory of Change: Empathy and Compassion Influence

Self-Regulation 93

Conclusion 99

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS 101

Setting 102

Participants 102

Recruitment 105

Descriptive Statistics for the Demographic Data 106

Researcher Role and Description 109

Data Sources 111

Measures 112

Data Collection Procedures 151

Research Design 152

Research Sub Question 152

Conceptual Models 154

Data Analysis Plan: Exploring Preservice Early Childhood

Teacher Characteristics and Their Developmental Support
For Child Self-Regulatory Well-Being 158

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ1 – Correlation of the

Initial Four Characteristics 159

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ2 – Path Analysis

Segment A – Relationship of the Four Initial
Characteristics to Self-Regulation 160

xi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ3 – Path Analysis

Segment B – Relationship of Self-Regulation
to Developmental Support 161

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ4 – Correlation of

Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being 163

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ5 – Path Analysis

Segment C – Relationship of Emotion Self-Regulation
to Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being 164

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ6 – Path Analysis

Segment D – Relationship of Psychological and
Self-Determinative Well-Being to
Developmental Support 165

Data Analysis Plan – RSQ7 – Path Analysis

Segment E – Relationship of All Characteristics
to Developmental Support 166

Data Analysis Plan – RSQ8 – Relationship of

Attachment Style to Other Characteristics 167

Conclusion 172

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS 174

Description of the Results for the 10 Measures 175

State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form (SSCS-L) 175

Compassion Scale (CS) 176

Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) 178

Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (MTS) 179

xii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire (ERSQ) 179

Diener Flourishing Scale – Psychological

Well-Being (PWB) 181

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction

Scale (BPNSS) 181

Multiple-Choice Responses – Developmental

Support 183

Narrative Responses – Developmental

Support 184

Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) 189

Group Portrait of Preservice Early Childhood

Teachers 190

Results for the Research Sub Questions of the

Data Analysis Plan 193

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ1 – Correlation

of the Initial Four Characteristics 193

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ2 – Path Analysis

Segment A – Relationship of the Four Initial
Characteristics to Self-Regulation 202

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ3 – Path Analysis

Segment B – Relationship of Self-Regulation to
Developmental Support 204

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ4 – Correlation of

Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being 206

xiii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ5 – Path Analysis

Segment C – Relationship of Emotion Self-Regulation
to Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being 207

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ6 – Path Analysis

Segment D – Relationship of Psychological and
Self-Determinative Well-Being to Developmental
Support 211

Data Analysis Plan results: RSQ7 – Path Analysis

Segment E – Relationship of All Characteristics to
Developmental Support 212

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ8 – Relationship

of Attachment Style to Other Characteristics 212

Relationship of Meditation to Other Characteristics

of Preservice Early Childhood Teachers 223

Relationship of Self-Efficacy to Other Characteristics

of Preservice Early Childhood Teachers 223

Conclusion 225

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION 226

The Portrait of Preservice Early Childhood Teachers

Develops 227

Research Sub Question 1 (RSQ1): Discussion of

Findings – First Four Characteristics Significantly
Correlated 229

Preservice Early Childhood Teachers Had More

Compassion for Others Than for Themselves 229

xiv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Characteristics of Compassion and Mindfulness

Correlated Most Strongly 230

Mindfulness Was Strong but Kindness Was

Stronger 233

RSQ2: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis

Segment A – Three of Four Characteristics
Significantly Predicted Emotional Self-Regulatory
Well-Being 235

RSQ3: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis

Segment B – Emotional Self-Regulatory
Well-Being Significantly Predicated
Developmental Support 236

RSQ4: Discussion of Findings – Psychological

and Self-Determinative Well-Being
Significantly Strongly Correlated 239

RSQ5: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis

Segment C – Emotional Self-Regulatory
Well-Being Significantly Predicted
Psychological and Self-Determinative
Well-Being 240

RSQ6: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis

Segment D – Psychological and Self-Determinative
Well-Being Significantly Predicted Developmental
Support 241

RSQ7: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis

Segment E – No Relationship with Developmental
Support When All Predictors Were Tested
Simultaneously 243

xv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

RSQ8: Discussion of Findings – Insights from Two

Ways of Analyzing How Attachment Related to Other
Characteristics of Preservice EC Teachers 244

A Predominantly Secure Attachment Style

Significantly Predicted More Self-Compassion
and Interpersonal Mindfulness 245

Mixed Results for Relationship of

Predominant Attachment Style and Self-
Compassion to Emotional Self-Regulatory
Well-Being 246

Dimensions of Attachment: Lessons from a

Strengths-Based Approach 247

Self-Efficacy: Discussion of Findings – Self-Efficacy

Significantly Predicted Emotional Self-Regulatory
Well-Being 249

Developmental Support Significantly Predicted

Self-Efficacy 250

Meditation: Discussion of Findings – Meditation Was

an Undeveloped and Under-Developed Skill 251

Mindful Observation – A Critical Personal and

Pedagogical Skill 252

Observation-Based Reflective Functioning – A

Critical Pedagogical Skill 254

Implications for Preservice Early Childhood

Teacher Education 255

An Application: Thriving as an Early Childhood

Teacher 257

xvi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Limitations and Implications 260

Conclusion 262

APPENDICES 290

A. Approval Letter from the Oakland University (OU)

Institutional Review Board (IRB) 291

B. Email to Course Instructors – Approved by OU IRB 293

C. Student Recruitment Letter for Instructors of the

Five Courses Not Taught by the Principal
Investigator – Approved by OU IRB 295

D. Written Announcement for the Two Courses

Taught by the Principal Investigator – Approved
by OU IRB 296

E. Information Sheet – Approved by OU IRB 297

F. Attachment Style Questionnaire 299

G. State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form 302

H. Compassion Scale 304

I. Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire 305

J. Mindfulness in Teaching Scale 308

K. Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire 309

L. Diener Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being 311

M. Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale 313

xvii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

N. Protocols for the Qualitative Analysis and

Quantitative Scoring of Vignette Narrative Responses 315

REFERENCES 265

FOOTNOTES 289

xviii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Participants 106

Table 3.2 College Class Standing and Prior Child Development/

Early Childhood Courses of Participants 107

Table 3.3 College Majors of Participants 109

Table 3.4 Qualtrics Survey Measures with Estimated Time per

Participant and Alignment to Research Sub Questions 111

Table 3.5 Design of the Narrative Response and Multiple-Choice

Sections of the Survey 131

Table 3.6 Adaptation of CUPID Survey Multiple-Choice Item

into Preschool Survey Multiple-Choice Item 133

Table 3.7 Adaptation of CUPID Survey Multiple-Choice Item into

Preschool Survey Narrative Response Item 134

Table 3.8 Adaptation of CUPID Survey Post-Vignette Item into

Preschool Survey Post-Vignette Item to Measure
Self-Efficacy 135

Table 3.9 Excerpts from Scoring Protocol for Developmental

Support 139

Table 3.10 Example of an Anchor Score for a Vignette Response 141

Table 3.11 Example from Interrater Reliability Worksheet 142

Table 3.12 Example from Analyses of Scoring Discrepancies 142

Table 3.13 Meditation Frequencies of Participants 149

Table 3.14 Descriptive Statistics for Responses to “How confident

are you that this would be an effective response?” 150

xix
 LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table 3.15 Data Analysis Plan: Exploring Preservice EC

Teacher Characteristics and Developmental
Support for Child Self-Regulatory Well-Being 169

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for State Self-Compassion

Scale Long Form Scores 176

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for Compassion Scale

Scores 177

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Five-Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire Scores 179

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for Emotion Regulation

Skills Questionnaire Scores 180

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for Basic Psychological

Need Satisfaction Scale Scores and Component
Correlations 183

Table 4.6 Preservice EC Teacher Narrative Responses to

Vignettes: Examples 185

Table 4.7 Vignette Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

of Indicators for Narrative Responses 188

Table 4.8 Vignette Responses: Comparison of Mean Level

and Range of Score Levels within One Standard
Deviation 189

Table 4.9 Attachment Styles of Preservice EC Teachers 190

Table 4.10 Summary of Data Descriptions for 10 Measures 192

Table 4.11 Correlations between the Four Initial Characteristics 195

xx
 LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table 4.12 Correlations between the 16 Components of the

Four Initial Characteristics 197

Table 4.13 Strongest Correlations for Components between

Two Measures 202

Table 4.14 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-Being and the Four
Initial Predictors 204

Table 4.15 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Psychological Well-Being and Five Predictors 209

Table 4.16 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Self-Determinative Well-Being and Five Predictors 211

Table 4.17 Means, Standard Deviations, and Significant One-Way

Analysis of Variance Results for Characteristics by
Attachment Style 214

Table 4.18 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Self-Regulatory Well-Being and Five Predictors 216

Table 4.19 Positive Relationships between Preservice EC Teacher

Mean Security and Other Psychosocial Characteristics:
Simple Linear Regressions Results 217

Table 4.20 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Mean Secure Attachment and the Three Predictors 219

Table 4.21 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Mean Fearful Attachment and the Three Predictors 220

Table 4.22 Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher

Mean Preoccupied Attachment and the Three Predictors 221

xxi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Organization of Literature Review and Main Findings 22

Figure 2.2 Self- and Co-Regulation Opportunities across the

Play Continuum 31

Figure 2.3 Empathy and Compassion Mediate Perspective-Taking

and Successful Self-Regulation 96

Figure 2.4 Theoretical Model of Relationships between Teacher

Empathy/Compassion, Self-Regulation, and
Support for Child Self-Regulation 97

Figure 2.5 Comprehensive Theoretical Model for Self-Regulatory

Support and Equitable Self-Determination within
Facilitating or Non-Facilitating Ecological Systems 98

Figure 3.1 Conceptual Model: Main Psychosocial Influences on

Teacher Self-Regulation and Developmental Support
of Child Self-Regulation 156

Figure 3.2 Comprehensive Conceptual Model: All Psychosocial

Influences on Teacher Self-Regulation and Developmental
Support of Child Self-Regulation 157

Figure 4.1 Empirical Model: Associated Characteristics and

Relationships with Preservice EC Teacher
Self-Regulatory Well-Being and Developmental Support
of Child Self-Regulation 222

Figure 5.1 Thriving as an Early Childhood Professional: Preliminary

Conceptualization of Two One-Credit Teacher Education
Courses 259

xxii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASQ Attachment Style Questionnaire

BPNSS Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale

CARE Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education

CS Compassion Scale

CHIME Cultivating Healthy Intentional Mindful Educators

CUPID Collaborative for Understanding the Pedagogy of Infant/Toddler

Development

EC Early Childhood

ECP Early Childhood Professional

ERSQ Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire

FFMQ Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

HMB Hearts and Minds on Babies

IRB Institutional Review Board

MTS Mindfulness in Teaching Scale

OU Oakland University

PBS Positive Behavior Support

PMS Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale

PWB Psychological Well-Being

RSQ Research Sub Question

SCT Social Cognitive Theory

xxiii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-Continued

SDT Self-Determination Theory

SDWB Self-Determinative Well-Being

SRWB Self-Regulatory Well-Being

SSCS-L State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form

xxiv
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

“People who develop their competencies, self-regulatory skills, and enabling self-beliefs

can create and pursue a wide array of options that expand their freedom and action”

(Bandura, 2023, p. 12).

“…the ability or inability to direct one’s attention is an essential determinant of the

success or failure of any practical operation” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 35).

Nurturing self-regulatory well-being is both pragmatic in the short run and life

changing overall. Deliberately strengthening these skills for children and adults is not

only practical but vital for optimal learning and success across one’s life. Relatedly, my

professional experiences as an educator showed me the inextricable ties between teacher

and child self-regulatory well-being and, more broadly, teacher-child relationships as the

medium for learning.

As an early childhood teacher, elementary principal, and early childhood program

director, I observed children’s need for developmentally appropriate support to grow in

self-regulation. I also observed that educators cared deeply about children but, in turn,

needed to learn more about the developmental nature of self-regulation and how to

scaffold this growth in what is an ongoing process across childhood. Specifically,

teachers needed proactive support to deepen their professional knowledge, beliefs, and

practices for enhanced pedagogical decision-making, child by child, interaction by

1
interaction. This moment-by-moment professional judgment and agency are the core of

teaching without which schooling is rendered hollow. Consistently though, the systemic

pressure on teachers and administrators from state and federal mandates was to compel

children’s quick behavioral compliance to maximize acquisition and performance of

academic skills on high-stakes tests.

To this end, in some places where I worked, we implemented positive behavior

support (PBS) programs to maintain order for maximum academic time on task. PBS

programs arose from applied behavioral analysis (Foxx et al., 2006) and are in more than

26,000 schools (Sugai & Horner, 2020; Horner & Sugai, 2015) in the United States.

Through the PBS program, we prioritized children being externally or adult-regulated,

not internally or increasingly self-regulated. As such, behavioral regulation was more

about spurring children’s immediate obedience and relatively unthinking adherence to

adult directives. This temporal efficiency came at the cost of children building intrinsic

motivation as self-regulated learners and developing their understanding about why one

way of acting may be more effective than another in a given situation.

From a practical standpoint, we missed opportunities to help children know what

to do the next time they were in a similar situation, and an adult may not be there to direct

them. Indeed, children needed adults to explicitly give the reason for a desired or

effective behavior to help them comprehend, remember, and eventually, more

independently transfer and apply that behavior in similar situations. For example, adults

could simply tell a preschooler, “You’re running. I’m concerned you’ll fall. Walk.” This

2
message would put a brake on the action and, in time, help children remember on their

own to walk for the reason that they could get hurt otherwise. Developmentally, young

children cannot yet construct or internalize these self-regulatory steps, so we needed to

deliberately make these connections with them. Too often, though, we were cast more in

the role of taskmasters to prepare students for high-stakes tests, e.g., by practicing

discrete skills, without enough time to help them co-regulate with our support and, in

time, increase their ability to self-regulate their actions.

Moreover, the logistics of tracking and rewarding or punishing children’s

behavior, e.g., by updating behavior charts posted in classrooms, giving prizes, or taking

away privileges, were often time consuming and a distraction from teaching and learning.

In these ways, we short-circuited children’s essential development of self-regulation.

Ironically, taking the time to teach children how to self-regulate would likely have

increased not only their development and learning but performance on high-stakes tests.

Guiding self-regulatory behavior or teaching academics is not a binary choice. These

endeavors are complementary and can occur simultaneously.

What was most troubling for me as an early childhood educator was when

children reacted negatively to the positive behavior supports. Preschool and early

elementary students were sometimes visibly upset or cried when names other than theirs

were called over the public address system to go down to the office for positive behavior

prizes. I winced when children sadly asked why they could not choose a toy from the

prize box. My attempts to reassure them that their turn would come did not work.

3
Children seemed to view the awarding of prizes as arbitrary and not getting one could

evoke distress akin to being told, “You’re not my friend,” “You can’t play,” or “You

can’t come to my birthday party.” Their visceral reactions made sense, as young children

do not yet have the cognitive or emotional development in place until about age eight to

not take losing personally (Kostelnik et al., 2019).

This public sorting into winners and losers, also inadvertently pitted children

against one another to the detriment of a prosocial learning community, characterized by

cooperation, kindness, and helpfulness, not competition. As such, winning was likely

experienced by winners as their lucky day. Conversely, losing was likely experienced by

losers as embarrassment, shame, resentment, or not being liked. Certainly, children’s

relationships with one another and their teachers were not positively impacted, nor their

learning. This default to expedient behaviorist techniques de-emphasized children, and

still de-emphasizes children today across the United States (Sugai & Horner, 2020).

Now, as a professor of teacher education, I support college students who are

preparing to become early childhood teachers. Most of these students grew up in the

United States, and as children they could have experienced much of what I previously

described. If so, their self-regulatory well-being was probably not optimally supported,

not to mention the impact of growing up as participants in active shooter drills. I mention

these latter, because their dysregulating effects could be more harmful than many adults

realize. For example, initially, teachers and I, as their principal, could keep these drills

relatively low key and explain them in ways young children understood and were not

4
frightened by. During a drill they turned out the lights and got cozy with their teacher in a

corner of the classroom while she softly read or sang to them, while I came and jiggled

their classroom door handle to make sure everyone was safely inside. We hoped for our

youngest students that these drills were more like their games on the playground when

they would run away and hide from “bad guys.”

Over the years, though, the drills became increasingly participatory and, in that

sense, scary as children were schooled on barricading doors and throwing things if a bad

person came into their classroom. Now, as I look into the eyes of my college students, I

wonder how they were affected not only by these early experiences but disruptions in

their middle or high school years during the pandemic. Anecdotally, I feel like these

young adults are generally more stressed and less certain of the trustworthiness of others

than many of us were at their age. The research literature suggests that this may be the

case. For example, the proportion of college students in a sociology course at one

midwestern university who had a secure attachment style decreased by 24% between

1997-2019 from 38% to 29% (Sprecher, 2022). The import of this phenomenon is that

insecure attachment comes from negative perceptions of self, others, or both. To feel less

secure psychologically and physically makes it harder to self-regulate, learn, and enjoy

life. We must do better for children and young adults in nurturing their self-regulatory

development and well-being.

5
Wider Context

Why should early education leaders support the self-regulatory well-being of both

children and their teachers? When children struggle emotionally, socially, or behaviorally

to self-regulate, their development and learning diminish, as well as their belief in

themselves and motivation as capable individuals with agency who can act in effective

ways. This erosion in personhood has long-term consequences, darkening children’s

horizons. Also, from a practical perspective, young children as they navigate their daily

lives often need adult guidance to self-regulate, i.e., to modulate their emotions with

thought to choose and enact appropriate responses in evolving circumstances (Flook et

al., 2015). This complex process is challenging for many adults, let alone children. For

example, a toddler unable to express a strong desire in words, may have a tantrum – or an

excited preschooler may run joyfully but unsafely around the room – absent adult help to

recognize their emotions, pause to think, and respond not react.

As such, healthy self-regulation manifests as sufficient self-control and

determines the success of any human endeavor. In this sense, self-regulation is self-

determinative not only in the short-term but across one’s life (Bandura, 2023). Indeed, if

children do not get the self-regulatory coaching that they need from adults, children’s

self-regulatory difficulties may persist into adulthood, hurting their learning,

relationships, and success, whether at school, home, work, or elsewhere. However, adults

may have their own unmet self-regulatory needs that compromise their ability to give

positive self-regulatory care to themselves and children.

6
 This may be especially true for early childhood teachers who report being more

stressed than teachers of older children (Nwoko et al., 2023), perhaps because they work

in places with fewer resources, and younger children are more dependent on adults.

These realities suggest that supporting the self-regulatory well-being of both adults and

children with empathy, compassion, and person-first processes is crucial for them to

flourish and fully reach their potential. This premise is evident in the current study’s

exploration of what impacts preservice early childhood teachers’ self-regulatory well-

being and, in turn, their support of children’s development of self-regulation.

Indeed, self-regulation is so fundamental to learning and life that all people

should have equitable opportunities to develop it. Self-regulatory ability in childhood,

measured as incremental self-control, predicts adulthoods that are safer, healthier, and

wealthier (Moffitt et al., 2011) and, thus, is an equity issue for children, especially those

at-risk for social and academic difficulties. Children grow in self-regulation when they

have authentic opportunities to make, carry out, and learn from their choices, which

requires skilled guidance from adults in what is a long-term developmental process.

Yet, many children, particularly those from socioeconomically and racially or ethnically

marginalized groups, do not have this bodily decision-making autonomy or personal

agency. Indeed, children of color are more likely to encounter narrowed, scripted,

decontextualized curricula in high-poverty under-resourced schools that face high

external accountability (Brezicha et al., 2024; Golann, 2015).

Inequitable power distributions in education often create detrimental

7
 contexts for children and teachers (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 6). Often, this

educational milieu promulgates ineffective and rigid responses from

school leaders and teachers demoralizing those who work and learn there,

evidenced by high teacher turnover rate (Hopper et al., 2021; Ingersoll &

Strong, 2011) and the persistent opportunity gap in high-poverty schools

(Welner & Carter, 2013). (Brezicha et al., 2024, p. 1460)

Importantly, teachers also need self-regulatory and self-determinative agency.

Teachers with agency have appropriate latitude to make professional judgments about

how to best serve and instruct the children in their care, as well as partner with families.

Instead, many teachers contend with bureaucratic or authoritarian education systems that

compromise their professionalism and developmentally appropriate support for children.

Their “self-regulation typically takes place in a confined space that is limited by external

constraints” (Pekrun, 2021, p. 316). This lack of professional agency wears teachers

down, hurts their self-efficacy, and contributes to burnout and turnover (Clement, 2016;

Farewell et al., 2023; Peck et al., 2015). In the worst cases, as one teacher said, “This

school is killing my soul…” (Brezicha et al., 2024, p. 1474).

Teachers at public schools in the U.S. who chose to move to another school after

school year 2020-2021, cited the following as their most important reasons. Thirty-one

percent cited school factors and 11% cited assignment or classroom factors, meaning

42% indicated school level reasons as their main reason for moving. This high percentage

suggests school culture and climate markedly influenced their decisions, (perhaps

8
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic). In comparison, only nine percent cited salary

and benefits and 27% cited personal life factors (National Center for Education Statistics,

2024). These statistics point to the need to develop education systems where all

participants can thrive.

Teachers also may not have had preservice education or inservice professional

learning that features evidence-based practices from the developmental sciences for

children’s, let alone their own, self-regulatory well-being. This latter omission partly

compelled the current study, in short because teaching is a demanding profession

(Jennings, 2015). The emotionally, cognitively, behaviorally, and often physically intense

work of teaching regularly dips into one’s reserves (Agyapong et al., 2022; Farewell et

al., 2023), especially for early childhood teachers (Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023; Nwoko et

al., 2023).

Furthermore, self-regulation does not fully develop until a person’s early to mid-

twenties (American College of Pediatricians, 2022), which indicates that young

preservice teachers and novice inservice teachers may particularly need self-regulatory

support for their emotional well-being and resilience. Even thereafter, self-regulation is

not static and individuals, including seasoned teachers, may benefit from support for their

self-regulatory well-being. Indeed, teachers are more at risk for negative stress and

burnout than those who do not work in the helping professions (Agyapong, 2022) and

may be open to such opportunities. Focusing on self-regulation is consistent with person-

9
first pedagogy and should be intentionally addressed in preservice teacher education and

inservice professional learning.

In addition to ensuring all children equitable opportunities to develop self-

regulation as their right to self-determination, there are practical reasons to prioritize

children’s self-regulatory well-being. According to Cui and Natzke (2021), most young

children today are in child care or preschool. Indeed, 59% of children birth through age 5

were in nonparental care at least once a week in 2019, including 42% of children younger

than 1 year of age, 55% of toddlers one to two years old, and 74% of children ages 3

through 5 with 83% of these preschoolers in center-based care. By the year before

children were age-eligible for kindergarten, four fifths or more of children were in

preschool (Montroy et al., 2014). Based on these data, children probably need to self-

regulate better or at least more often than in previous generations out of sheer necessity.

Thus, as educators, we should be intentional about supporting children’s development of

self-regulation.

Furthermore, preschool has become more like K-12 compensatory education,

translating to pressure on young children to self-regulate in ways that older children do.

Relatedly, most U.S. states have adopted the Common Core Standards (National

Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of State School Officers,

2010), requiring young children to engage earlier with more abstract academic content,

work well with peers, problem solve, and persevere. Yet, I observed that many children

did not have genuine opportunities to playfully collaborate or investigate their compelling

10
interests and questions as active, self-regulated and -determined learners. It seemed to me

that, ironically, our traditional classroom management and instructional methods in the

United States from the 19th and 20th centuries were at odds with children self-actualizing

through developmentally appropriate experiences as 21st century thinkers.

These realities of children’s lives also revealed the ecological importance

(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, Dahl, &

Callanan, 2018) of supporting children’s optimal development of self-regulation as a

protective factor, particularly as the family income of 50% of young children in

nonparental early care and education settings is below the poverty threshold (Cui &

Natzke, 2021). Moreover, that we provide this explicit, embedded but intentional, self-

regulatory support is more important now than ever as children who were infants and

toddlers during the Covid-19 pandemic enter preschool and kindergarten with more self-

regulatory concerns (Miller & Mervosh, 2024; The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2024).

Educators in leadership positions can do much to support children by deeply supporting

teachers. Put another way, and more directly, teachers whom I have known in my

decades of being in the profession do not need fixing. What does need improvement,

however, are our educational systems, including those for preservice teacher education

and inservice professional learning. These better systems would be characterized by the

self-regulatory well-being and self-actualization of intrinsically-motivated self-

determined learners, whether adults or children.

11
Definitions

In this section, I briefly describe the context for key terms used in the current

study and then list their working definitions. This information also relates to the current

study’s theoretical framework, discussed in the next section. More formal definitions

with detailed descriptions are given later in this paper with citations.

When environments and relationships provide children with abundant rich

experiences their self-efficacy and motivation to plan for and achieve their aims are

strengthened. manifesting as purposeful action and personal agency that is self-

determinative. Theorists and empirical researchers refer to such processes as self-efficacy,

self-agency, self-regulation, or self-determination as children seek well-being (S. Oden,

personal communication, November 15, 2024). Indeed, from infancy into adulthood,

opportunities across environments with parents, family members, caregivers, teachers,

and other educators contribute to children’s developing self-regulation which acts to

enhance or diminish and determine their learning. In turn, self-regulation can be

conceptualized as self-determination (J. Smith, personal communication, January 16,

2019).

• Agency, Self-Agency, or Personal Agency: Capability or capacity to act upon

one’s environment and interact with others in ways that influence and are

effective and satisfying for the circumstance

• Attachment: the bond or trusting relationship between two people built by positive

interactions over time

12
• Compassion: Enacted empathy, being compelled to alleviate someone’s suffering

or help in some way; and the integration of the emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral components of compassion

• Empathy: Understanding what someone else is experiencing and feeling a version

of someone else’s emotion, i.e., being able to imagine what they are feeling; and

the integration of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components of

empathy

• Motivation: Internal impetus to act, e.g., to initiate, discover, problem solve,

persist, etc.

• Self-Determination: Individual choice and freedom to act, the result of self-

regulation and agency; and the fruition of autonomy, relatedness, and competence

• Self-Determinative Agency: Individual choice, freedom, and capability or

competence to act

• Self-Determinative Well-Being: Healthy or optimal self-determination; and the

integration of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components of self-

determination

• Self-Efficacy: Belief in one’s capabilities, effectiveness, and agency

• Self-Empathy: Giving oneself the empathy and acceptance one would give to a

friend

• Self-Compassion: Giving oneself the compassion and help one would give to a

friend

13
 • Self-Regulation: One’s ability to recognize their own and others’ emotion in a

circumstance and modulate one’s emotion with thought to decide how to respond,

then enact that choice, and continue the self-regulatory cycle in the evolving

situation

➢ Co-Regulation: The support or guidance a more knowledgeable other,

e.g., a parent, teacher, or peer, gives to another person to help them

self-regulate

• Self-Regulatory Well-Being: Healthy or optimal self-regulation that is

situationally successful; and the integration of the emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral components of self-regulation

Theoretical Framework

In this section, I describe the theory that I assessed most comprehensively

explains the multi-faceted self-regulatory process in the context of self-determination,

i.e., Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 2023). In later chapters, I build from this

foundation to describe how other theories relate to self-regulation and present my theory

of change, theoretical models, conceptual models, and empirical models for the current

study.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective on Human Nature

(2023) serves as the definitive explanation of SCT and all its aspects, especially personal

agency, the through-line across his theoretical, empirical, and applied work. “Agency

describes broad capability; to be an agent is to be able to influence intentionally one’s

14
functioning and life circumstances” (Bandura, 2023, p. 2). In other words, personal or

self-agency is related to self-determinism. But what determines one’s agency? In a word,

self-efficacy, as the motivating force, which is “central among the psychological

constructs Bandura posited as influencing behavior, and reflects beliefs in one’s ability to

master particular challenges… thereby establishing a sense of control over their life

course… as authors of their own experience” (Bandura, 2023, p. xxiii). But what

determines self-efficacy and personal agency? In a word, self-regulation, because

individuals “are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating agents who

contribute causally to their life circumstances and personal growth” (Bandura, 2023, p.

6). Thus, we arrive at the focus of the current study, self-regulation.

Bandura described self-regulation within and across the three core mechanisms of

agency, i.e., forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflection. Each of these three

interactive “agentic aspects of psychosocial functioning” (Bandura, 2023, p. 6) contains

self-regulatory processes which are italicized in the next sentences of this section. First,

through forethought, individuals in an immediate circumstance decide what to do next

which includes recognizing salient aspects of the situation and planning to accomplish a

desired goal. Over time, acting with forethought can be expected to foster a more

meaningful self-determined life.

Second, through self-reactiveness, individuals regulate their behavioral

responses. They govern themselves according to what they believe they should do, not

only for the current circumstance but to meet their personal standards for appropriate and

15
moral conduct. Their analysis manifests as motivation to regulate their behavior to

achieve the desired goal. Indeed, moving from analysis to action is inherently self-

regulative.

Third, through self-reflection, individuals evaluate their behavior in the short- and

long-run, resulting in beliefs about their self-efficacy, which, as mentioned before, is

chief among the influences on personal agency. Indeed, self-efficacious beliefs are

inherently self-regulative, as these determine motivation and how one chooses to act,

what they aspire to, and what to achieve in the moment and across time. I explain in later

parts of this paper how I applied more insights from Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura,

1997, 2016, 2023).

Problem Statement

In this section, I first describe the problem that the current study addresses and

then summarize the problem in one sentence. The self-regulatory well-being of young

children and early childhood teachers is not systemically supported or prioritized in many

early care and education settings. Children and teachers should get what they need to

enhance and strengthen their self-regulation, because these skills determine learning and

success. When we overemphasize controlling children from the “outside in,” we miss

opportunities to scaffold their self-regulatory learning from the “inside out.” Indeed, we

miss chances to build their self-regulatory and psychological well-being and not just

academic but intellectual achievement.

16
 When we under-emphasize or do not emphasize teachers’ self-regulatory well-

being, we miss opportunities to support their resilience, effectiveness, satisfaction, and

longevity as educators. Indeed, we miss chances to give them the care and compassion

we ask them to give to the children and families whom they serve. Instead, we often ask

teachers to practice self-care in education systems that make self-care difficult or nearly

impossible. When we do not systemically provide equitable opportunities for the self-

regulatory well-being of all children and teachers, their right to self-determinism is

diminished. In one sentence:

• The problem is twofold: one, that education systems do not provide support for

children and adults to develop self-regulatory well-being, even though self-

regulation determines lifelong learning and success; and two, that teachers need

support to learn about children’s development of self-regulation and strategies to

scaffold that growth.

Significance of the Current Study

This research seeks to understand what psychosocial characteristics of preservice

early childhood teachers are related to their healthy self-regulation, and, in turn, how that

well-being relates to their support of children’s development of self-regulation. The

current study matters, because self-regulation largely determines human development and

learning (IOM & NRC, 2012; NRC, 2015; NRC & IOM, 2000). When people’s cognitive

and emotional self-regulatory skills are functioning adequately, they experience better

outcomes in the short run and greater self-actualization over the course of their lives.

17
Indeed, healthy self-regulation is so essential for flourishing in learning and life, that

adults should intentionally support children’s opportunities to grow in that capacity. This

guidance and teaching by adults would likely not only optimize children’s learning and

satisfaction – even joy – as capable people but, collectively, ultimately advance progress

and self-determinative equity for humankind (Freire, 1970, 1993, 2000; NAEYC, 2019).

However, in an extensive literature review, I found no empirical research, other than the

current study, which conceptualized self-regulation as self-determination for children and

adults.

Overall, the vast majority of studies about self-regulatory development were

solely about children’s self-regulation. Of the few studies that linked adult self-regulation

to that of the children with whom they interact, most were in the parenting literature, e.g.,

about parents’ discipline styles or parents as emotion socializers of their children. There

has been only a modest increase in studies in the last 10-15 years about teachers of young

children also being emotion socializers and the importance of supporting teachers’

emotion self-regulation. More broadly, though, there were many studies about

mindfulness-based interventions for children and teachers, though most of this research

was not at the early childhood level. Indeed, only in the last five to ten years were there

somewhat more studies about early childhood teachers’ psychosocial characteristics and

how these related to their overall developmental support of children, as detailed in the

next chapter’s literature review. However, I found no other study that tested a path

analysis with hypothesized influences on preservice early childhood teachers’ self-

18
regulation and their support of children’s development of self-regulation, as in the current

study.

The present research is also significant as the second in a trio of studies. It builds

on a preliminary small qualitative study I did about how preschool teacher beliefs about

self-regulatory development influenced their support of children’s self-regulatory

development (Wood, 2020). In that study, a theme that emerged was that teachers who

conveyed empathy for children’s self-regulatory difficulties, also reported more

compassionate and developmentally-appropriate practices.

Now, in the current study, I delve into how teacher empathy and compassion for

oneself and others are quantitatively associated with their mindfulness and attachment

style, and relate to their self-regulation and support for children’s self-regulation. To that

purpose, the overarching research question is

• In what ways, do preservice early childhood teacher self-compassion, compassion

for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and attachment

style predict their self-regulatory well-being and developmental support of child

self-regulation for the self-determinative well-being of both teacher and child?

Thereafter, I will use insights from the results to create a module or course for preservice

early childhood teachers and do an intervention study, i.e., the third study. These

connected studies are meant to iteratively address gaps in the research literature. Most of

all, though, I hope to enhance preservice teacher education, so that these novices will be

19
better prepared as inservice teachers for some of the challenging situations and emotions

they will experience.

20
 CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

To review the extant literature, I accessed peer-reviewed primary research mainly

through Oakland University on Library Onesearch but also Google Scholar. I searched

these online sources using keywords that included: self-regulation, self-regulatory

learning, self-determination, emotion regulation, emotion socialization, empathy,

compassion, mindfulness, child development, early childhood curriculum, teacher

education, teacher professional development, teacher emotional consistency, teacher

burnout, and teacher well-being. I read and organized more than 150 peer-reviewed

research articles and primary sources, first by broad topic then results, to illuminate

trends across findings. From these trends, I extracted main findings as overarching

themes which became subheadings within the literature review, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Through this methodical process I “drilled down” to essential insights that, thereafter,

informed my development of a theory of change, theoretical model, and conceptual

model.

21
Figure 2.1

Organization of Literature Review and Main Findings

Note. Through a deliberate approach in the literature review, I gained insight about

essential components of self-regulatory development and well-being for adults (teachers)

and children, as well as how to support preservice teachers in their teacher education

coursework.

Definition of Self-Regulation

Across many studies, I identified a consistent definition and construct of self-

regulation. These definitions were largely about individuals mindfully modulating their

emotions and thoughts in a given situation to plan what to do next, carry out that plan,

reflect on the impact in the moment, and then adaptively respond again (Lawson et al.,

2019; Rashedi & Schonert-Reichle, 2019; Rosenbalm & Murray, 2017).1 (The

superscript refers to endnotes with additional citations). In a meta-analysis of 75 peer-

reviewed studies about the relationship of self-regulatory inhibitory control and academic

abilities in preschool and kindergarten, the authors described self-regulation as “internal

22
and transactional processes that individuals use to guide their goal-directed behavior over

time and in varying contexts” (Karoly, 1993; as cited in Allan et al., 2014, p. 2368). The

word “transactional” reflected the ecological aspect of self-regulation in which one’s

emotions, thoughts, and actions are shaped by and shape the unfolding situation

(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). An individual may experience

self-regulation as the ability, attempt, or failure to contextually adapt one’s feelings and

thinking to decide what to do then take that action with ongoing monitoring and

adjustments, whether it is to get along with others, learn academic content, perform a

task, or all of these at the same time (Flook et al., 2015).

Construct of Self-Regulation

The neuroscientific construct of self-regulating involved executive functioning in

the prefrontal cortex which relied on three higher order processes of working memory,

inhibitory control, and mental agility (Murray et al., 2015; Rosenbalm & Murray, 2017;

Solomon et al., 2018).2 These essential functions were the ability to 1) hold information

in working memory so that it can be acted upon, 2) inhibit distraction and maintain focus,

yet also 3) shift attention and thinking as needed to salient emerging details, clues, and

cues. Young students with inhibitory control were described as tuning out distractions to

tune into learning, shifting gears to redirect attention and transition more smoothly from

one classroom activity to another, and cognitively holding, sifting, and synthesizing

information to accomplish learning tasks (Weiland et al., 2014). Overall, self-regulation

was described as recursive, elaborative, and contextually embedded in daily lived

23
experience, functioning crucially as the brain’s “air traffic control system” (Center on the

Developing Child at Harvard University, p. 1, 2011). I likened these complexities of self-

regulating for young children to them being an orchestra conductor who simultaneously

needs to play all of the instruments.

Metaphor for Self-Regulation

The word “modulate” appeared frequently in descriptions of self-regulation.

Synonyms for modulate included harmonize and attune. I imagined that successful self-

regulation happens when one is attuned to the environment and able to harmonize

emotions, feelings, motivation, and thoughts for adaptive, even proactive, decision-

making and action. Further, I reasoned that a person needs to continually and

contextually attune and orchestrate self-regulation, acting as one’s own symphony

conductor through melodious rounds of explicit and implicit plan-do-review. Indeed, “in

self-regulation, the learner is in charge” (Winner, 2018, p.4; as cited in Lawson et al.,

2019, p. 224) and “children are the experts of their experiences” (Rashedi & Schonert-

Reichl, 2019, p. 732). If the timing or tone of the rounds devolves, the conductor

experiences disharmony, akin to a cacophony of noise or isolating silence because of

playing stops. The conductor, then, either adapts and is able to make music again or

freezes, flees rather than flocks, or fights.

Thus, self-regulation involves not just intra-play but interplay, melding “top-down

influences,” i.e., cognition with “bottom-up influences,” i.e., emotions and motivation

(Blair & Raver, 2014, p. 2) to affect the evolving situation. This intricate self-regulatory

24
process is exquisitely sensitive to emotion as a motivational hot or cool force (Montroy et

al., 2016) that either enhances or hampers cognition and behavioral self-regulation, i.e.,

the integration of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. If self-regulating is

like conducting an orchestra but the conductor has to play all of the instruments in

concert while monitoring the audience, then is it any wonder that making music is

challenging, even for adults. Children need explicit, developmentally responsive, co-

regulatory support from adults to compose and conduct these orchestral movements in a

symphony of enhanced self-regulation and self-determination. Furthermore, when

teachers as orchestra co-conductors with children provide this scaffolding, children’s

zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) is optimally activated. Yet, to do so,

teachers need administrators to give them the time, support, and appropriate autonomy to

exercise professional agency and make their own self-determinative self-regulatory

decisions, synergizing the art and science of this teaching.

Researchers emphasized that the “integration of cognitive and emotional

processes is the essential work of self-regulation” (Murray et al., 2015, p. 6). Therein,

cognitive self-regulation and behavioral self-regulation were differentiated (Allan et al.,

2014; Fuhs et al., 2013; Montroy et al., 2014). While these intertwined mechanisms of

self-regulation both required executive function, behavioral self-regulation carried more

of an emotional charge, ranging from strong positive to negative feelings that must be

absorbed, integrated, or handled in some way by the individual. Montroy et al. (2016)

further differentiated between the affective cool and hot executive functioning of

25
cognitive and behavioral self-regulation respectively, recognizing, though, that “no task

is entirely free of an emotional context” (p. 1745).

Likewise, neuroscientist Mary Immordino-Yang, who has advocated for

interdisciplinary studies with human development and education researchers (Immordino-

Yang & Gotlieb, 2017), emphasized that “emotions steer our thinking; it’s the rudder that

directs our mind…” (Sparks, S.D., 2016, para. 2). Moreover, “it is literally

neurobiologically impossible to build memories, engage complex thoughts, or make

meaningful decisions without emotion (Immordino-Yang, 2015; as cited in Tracey &

Morrow, 2017, p. 148). “Extensive research makes clear that the brain networks

supporting emotion, learning, and memory are intricately and fundamentally intertwined”

(Panksepp & Biven, 2012; as cited by AERA, n.d., p. 1).

Indeed, young children often experience feelings that may temporarily reduce

their access to higher levels of cognition, appropriate behavioral choices, and successful

self-regulation. Though children grow substantially in self-regulation in the early

childhood years, they still often need help to co-modulate emotion, thought, and behavior

in what is a long-term developmental process to construct and internalize self-regulatory

strategies. Indeed, self-regulation is not fully developed until one’s early to mid-twenties

(American College of Pediatricians, 2022), suggesting a need for intentional support into

adulthood and “boosters” for self-regulatory well-being across one’s lifespan.

26
Centrality of Self-Regulation in Human Development

A preponderance of research since the year 2000 found that self-regulation

determines learning and, by extension, human progress, and survival (IOM & NRC,

2012; NRC, 2015; NRC & IOM, 2000).3 “The need to delay gratification, control

impulses, and modulate emotional expression is the earliest and most ubiquitous demand

that societies place on their children, and success at many life tasks depends critically on

children’s mastery of such self-control” (Moffitt et al., 2011, p. 2693). Moffitt et al.

(2011) used the term “self-control” to encompass self-regulatory processes. In this

seminal study that followed a birth cohort of 1,000 individuals for 32 years, the

researchers found that children at every level on a self-control gradient benefited in life

outcomes for health, income, and lawful behavior from more self-control. Even among

children with above average levels of self-control, those with progressively higher levels

reaped greater outcomes in life, suggesting that all children benefit from intentional

support of their developing self-regulatory abilities.

Moreover, the most dramatic growth in self-regulation and its benefits occurred

for children with the lowest baselines for self-control. This finding revealed that, for

vulnerable learners especially, access to developmental support for self-regulatory growth

is nothing less than a matter of equity. Self-control was also identified as much more

changeable than IQ or socioeconomic status, and, hence, amenable to intervention (Blair

& Raver, 2014; Moffitt et al., 2011). Cumulatively, these outcomes showed self-

27
regulation as a protective factor and causal mechanism, leveraging human development

and learning.

More broadly, stakeholders, e.g., researchers, economists, politicians, parents, and

teachers, have increasingly conceptualized the long-term impact of high-quality early

childhood education with benefits that go beyond academic to life performance

(Schweinhart, 2013). Therein, self-regulatory skills likely act as a force multiplier for

positive outcomes across one’s lifespan. Consistent with self-regulation as profound for

self-determination, self-regulatory development as a complex process lasting into

adulthood was no surprise. Indeed, children need explicit but contextualized support over

many years and teachers need explicit contextualized support through teacher education

and coaching to scaffold this growth, particularly if progress seems silent.

Placing Self-Regulation in Child Development Theory and Principles

Vygotsky and Piaget. Intentional embedded self-regulatory support helped

learners engage and make the most of opportunities for Vygotskian socio-cultural

language exchanges of thinking and ideas with one another that develop the intellect

(Berk & Winsler, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). This self-regulatory scaffolding (Bruner, 1996)

optimized intellectual assimilation and accommodation as a Piagetian adaptive learner

(Mooney, 2000; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969, 2000; Thomas, 2005).4 Moreover, self-

regulatory abilities helped learners as thinkers and doers fully engage in playful, mindful,

empathic interactions (Vygotsky, 1978), reaching individual and collective states of flow,

characterized by a balance of skill and challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;

28
Csikszentmihalyi, 1979; as cited in Sutton-Smith, 1979) for innovating solutions to

situational dilemmas.

Indeed, children were highly motivated to self-regulate affectively, cognitively,

and behaviorally when actively engaged in playful learning (Blair & Raver 2014;

Bodrova et al., 2013; Vygotsky, 1978). They put their whole selves into these

experiences. Consider what happens, for example, when children are immersed in the

pretend play that heightens self-regulation, abstract thinking, and language (Vygotsky,

1978): If the child’s role is to be the mother, then mother strives to act parental and use

her most mature language, even if it would be fun to wail loudly with the babies. If

children are acting out a favorite story, they work together with zeal to place themselves

in the imaginary action of the plot and play their roles. Such drama involves recall,

sequencing, and improvisation as players enact the literary events (Roskos et al., 2010).

When partners play a counting game, they focus on taking turns and doing the math to

keep the game going. These examples suggest that play and high-quality instruction have

much in common, Furthermore, playfully inspired attempts to self-regulate are not just

child’s play but critical for brain development and strengthening integrated attentional,

affective, reasoning, and motor functions (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard

University, 2011). This self-regulatory dance in which one’s self-regulatory steps shape

and are shaped by the evolving circumstance is highly ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 2005;

Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), affecting not only current but future learning.

29
 Relatedly, Vygotsky (1978) conceptualized that engaging in make-believe play,

i.e., conjuring what is not present, was a profound cognitive accomplishment, as did

Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969, 2000), and supported self-regulation by separating

thought from action and quelling impulsive emotional reactions in favor of chosen

responses. These functions corresponded with what we now know from neuroscience

about the self-regulatory executive function that largely predetermines learning, i.e., the

interplay of inhibitory control, working memory, and mental agility. Pedagogy reflecting

the powerful developmental synergy of play and self-regulation could include project-

based learning and literacy experiences in which children imagined themselves in or took

other perspectives from fictional or nonfictional settings of books.

Given the complementary relationship of play and self-regulation for learning, as

well as high-quality instruction, I reasoned that The Play Continuum in Figure 2,

mapping exploration or pre-play to play (Hutt, 1971) and further play elaboration, also

mapped opportunities for self-regulatory support. In this conceptualization, the playful

learning circumstance acts as children’s contextual zone of proximal development

(Vygotsky, 1978) for practicing self-regulation. Children immersed in flow

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 1979; as cited in Sutton-Smith, 1979) within

this zone, actively co-construct integrated affect, thought, and actions. In contrast, less

successful self-regulation may look like what happens when the play frame (Bateson,

1971; Garvey, 1990) breaks down with disengagement, maladaptive withdrawal, or even

a meltdown. Regardless, the teacher’s role is to embed in children’s respective zone of

30
proximal development, and scaffold thinking, affective approaches to active learning,

interactions, and actions, as children self- and co-regulate (Housman et al., 2018) with

their teacher and peers. Moreover, as will be further emphasized later in this paper, the

ability to empathize is an act of imagination, critical for social-emotional competence and

self-regulation.

Figure 2.2

Self- and Co-Regulation Opportunities across the Play Continuum

Note. Playful learning, e.g., project-based learning, supports the development of the

mindful, empathic self-regulation and executive function that largely determine human

progress.

31
 Bandura. As shared in chapter one, I assessed that Social Cognitive Theory most

comprehensively explained the process of self-regulation in cognition and how self-

regulation relates to self-determinism. In this next section, I discuss SCT from the child’s

perspective and compare and contrast SCT with other theories.

Both Bandura and Vygotsky were interested in how culture is transmitted among

individuals through exchanges that are inherently social. However, while Vygotsky saw

language and playful dialectical exchanges as the main cultural or environmental tool for

sculpting the intellect, self-regulation, and behavior, Bandura saw observation of others

and imitation as the primary means to shaping thought and action: Children learn through

social interaction, imitation, and observation, intrinsically motivated through personal

agency and self-efficacy (Bandura, 2018; Crain, 2011; Thomas, 2005) which requires

self-regulation. In fact, Bandura said, “Human agency operates principally through

cognitive and other self-regulatory processes” (2023, p. 2). Of note, both Social

Cognitive Theory and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; as cited in Ryan

& Deci, 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017) explicitly linked self-agency and

-efficacy with -motivation, emphasizing their causal influences on learning. Interestingly,

both Social Cognitive Theory and behaviorism conceptualized consequences as a means

for behavior modification.

However, Bandura’s insight about the cognitive role that observation plays in

learning sharply diverged from behaviorism’s reliance on operant conditioning. Instead,

Bandura emphasized the paramount role of personal agency in learning and considered

32
behaviorism, anti-personal-agency (Bandura, 2023). Bandura asserted that the child

observes what someone is doing or has done and also the consequence of that action.

Rather than a reward or punishment unrelated to the situation as in behaviorism, the child

receives relevant information, in context, about what happened. For example, was the

action well received by others or not? Did it achieve the intended end? This practical

feedback is inherently self-regulatory and either immediately informs the child’s next

action or is stored for later use. If stored, it may be easier to code for memory and future

retrieval, because the information was texturized and connected to meaning.

Indeed, children can learn from and apply observation, regardless of whether they

immediately imitate or perform what they have learned. Children can learn and be

influenced by negative as well as positive observations and examples. They can learn

what to do and what not to do. However, behavior that is culturally acceptable and

observed in their milieu probably directly influences their thinking and actions. What

people model or do and what children observe them doing is more powerful than

language. Actions trump words. Bandura’s theory supports the idea that adult self-

regulatory modeling affects child self-regulatory functioning and self-determinism. It

complements and connects with Vygotsky’s emphasis on social-cultural influences

(1978), Piaget’s insights about adaptive learning with the cognitive interplay of

assimilation and accommodation (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969, 2000), and an ecological

(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) integrative perspective

(Bandura, 2018; Crain, 2011; Thomas, 2005).

33
 Bronfenbrenner. Of note, Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that “human learning

presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the

intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88) which Bronfenbrenner alluded to as the

centrality of “linked lives” in human development (Elder, 1998, p. 5). Lives are linked,

with all affecting and affected by all else, through four levels of systems in

Bronfenbrenner’s model, i.e., the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and

macrosystem. Importantly, the model has evolved from this emphasis on environmental

influences to include wider processes affecting human development within and across

environments, as its name change from ecological to bioecological signals

(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Human beings develop through four interactive dimensions (within and across the

four environmental dimensions), according to the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner,

2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). These dimensions are influences of process,

person, context, and time. A child’s development occurs primarily through an interactive

process, particularly proximal processes of microgenetic adaptation and learning. The

person dimension of biopsychological characteristics encompasses how a person’s

dispositions; resources in “ability, experience, knowledge, and skill;” and “demand

characteristics [that] invite or discourage reactions from the social environment” (p. 796)

affect the emerging situation and the person’s development.

Next, the context dimension considers “immediate and remote” (p. 795)

environmental influences on what is happening and the impact on personal development.

34
The time dimension recognizes the developmental influences of microtime within

“ongoing episodes of proximal process;” mesotime “across broader time periods, e.g.,

days and weeks;” and macrotime “within and across generations” (p. 796). This focus on

time meshes with Vygotsky’s “useful framework for thinking about the integrated,

dynamic nature of individual, cultural, and species development (Rogoff, 2003, p. 65),”

comprised of four interwoven levels of development. These are the microgenetic level of

development or “moment-to-moment learning;” ontogenetic development, within the

“time frame of the individual lifespan;” phylogenetic development, “slowly changing

species history;” and cultural-historical development, “across decades and centuries,

leaving a legacy in symbolic and material technologies” and tools (Rogoff, 2003, p. 65;

Rogoff, 2018). Relatedly, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological process-person-context-time

model is infused with Elder’s life course development principles (Elder, 1998;

Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), regarding influences of

historical time and place, timing in individual lives, and linked lives within and across

generations. Moreover, these four dimensions of the model are conceptualized as not only

“products” of change but “producers” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,

2006, p. 822) of change across time, the epitome of the ecological principle.

Bronfenbrenner’s intricate bioecological model reflects the broad ecological

influences of time, space, and energy. The four environmental dimensions of

microsystem-mesosystem-exosystem-macrosystem with the four dimensions of process-

person-context-time constitute a matrix that can be envisioned not as a linear 2-

35
dimensional model but 3-dimensional array. These forces connote interaction among

influences on human development, including that of self-regulation and self-determinism.

Bronfenbrenner’s model, though relatively young compared to other theories of human

development, also provides an analytical framework for systems thinking. This emphasis

supports the idea that working across systems to compel change is important, especially

at the macrosystem level in governmental and educational policy, particularly as we

consider the difficult circumstances under which many teachers work.

Also of note, Bandura (1997), Bronfenbrenner (2005), and Deci and Ryan (1985;

as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017) focused on self-

efficacy and self-agency respectively which relate to self-regulation. Bandura (2023)

particularly emphasized self-efficacy as the driving force (i.e., motivation) in human

agency and self-regulation. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner conceptualized the importance of

self-agency in the self-actualized determination of one’s life course. All emphasized the

importance of these self-influences which supports the idea that self-regulation is

essential for optimal development and learning.

Centrality of Self-Regulation for Self-Determination

Arising from humanistic and positive psychology, Self-Determination Theory

(SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan &

Deci, 2017) explicitly linked self-efficacy and -agency to self-motivation and emphasized

the latter driver as essential for optimal human development. SDT posited that there are

three basic psychological needs that all human beings have for autonomy (choices and

36
control), relatedness (being cared about, caring for others, and belonging), and

competence (self-efficacy) that determine the level of self-motivation. SDT pointedly

differentiated between intrinsic motivation as self-endorsed behavior and controlled

motivation as behavior expected or demanded by others. Relatedly, the focus in SDT was

on the quality not quantity of motivation with more learning, higher performance, and

greater satisfaction for the individual resulting from self-motivated rather than other-

motivated behavior. Yet, controlled motivation could convert to self-motivation if one

had a chance to learn about and value the reasons for the required behavior. This

transformative experience should include authentic opportunities to contribute to

decisions and shape outcomes.

These empirical findings have implications for systems thinking and the

importance of developing collaborative workplaces and schools that support employee

and student autonomy, relatedness, and competence. For example, imagine if all

educational systems substantively and consistently treated teachers as individuals worthy

of care and respect whose professional judgment, decisions, and contributions were

essential for optimally educating students. Then, just as self-regulation determines not

only the progress of individuals but, collectively, humankind, this related self-

determination could be expected to result in optimal outcomes for the individual as well

as others. Indeed, educational systems that supported self-determinative autonomy,

relatedness, and competence achieved increased engagement, performance, and well-

being, physically and psychologically, for both teachers and their students (Deci & Ryan,

37
2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). From a systems’ perspective, nurturing self-determinism is

not only right for individuals but also the positive impact of the organization and greater

good of the community and, more broadly, society.

Moreover, SDT researchers, through findings from hundreds of studies, curated

five broad strategies for the healthy development of any system (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

These intentional ways of being for the positive culture and climate of the workplace

sought to actionize a central idea: The crux of self-determination is that individuals have

agency – reasonable autonomy – in their life choices from those that are mundane to

those that are more consequential, and this inclusivity results in more self-motivation and

skill development. A major reason for this outcome is that individuals’ contributions are

valued both by themselves and others in the system. In early childhood, self-

determination may look like choices in what to wear, eat, play, and investigate as curious

learners, particularly at school, for engaging experiences that incorporate children’s

interests, strengths, and needs. In adulthood, self-determination may look like choices in

where to live, who to love, and the what and how of work and leisure pursuits. The

system in its human – humane – processes

1) includes the perspectives of participants,

2) collaboratively develops choices,

3) promotes chances to explore possibilities and innovate,

4) gives opportunities to set one’s own goals and exercise initiative, and

5) promotes dialogue about the rationale behind potential courses of action.

38
Ryan and Deci (2017) summarized these five strategies as autonomy support and

emphasized that the question for any system should not be how to increase motivation but

how to optimize the conditions that would allow intrinsic motivation and self-

determinism to flourish.

The Pivotal Role of Self-Regulation in Self-Determination

Self-determinism is the result when motivation is internalized and manifests as

self-regulatory action. As such, self-regulatory well-being can be understood as the

highest form of internalized or intrinsic motivation arising from exercising autonomy, an

inborn need of human beings (Deci & Ryan, 2000), along with relatedness and

competence, for self-determinative well-being. “Autonomy, as a human characteristic, is

an extension of this deeply evolved tendency in animate life, describing as it does the

propensities toward self-regulation of action…” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 253). Just as the

descriptors “evolved tendency in animate life” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 253) and inborn

need apply to autonomy and self-determinism, they should apply to self-regulation, the

operational linchpin. Moreover, another way of describing an “evolved tendency in

animate life” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 253) and intrinsic need is as a species’ behavior.

Indeed, self-regulation seems a species’ behavior critical for adaptive learning and self-

determination. Self-regulation is self-determination.

Support for Children’s Self-Regulation: A Missed Opportunity

Though early childhood is a critical period of rapid development in self-regulation

and executive function (Flook et al., 2015; Montroy et al., 2016; Weiland et al., 2014)5

39
and a teachable capacity (Blair & Raver, 2014; Poehlman-Tynan et al., 2016; Rashedi &

Schonert-Reichle, 2019)6, self-regulation is seldom taught (Flook et al., 2015; Lawson et

al., 2019; Rosenbalm & Murray, 2017) despite being a robust indicator of lifelong

benefits. For young children, self-regulation is hard work, so not teaching it is not fair,

particularly from an equity perspective for vulnerable learners from historically

marginalized groups (NAEYC, 2019). “It is strange that we expect students to learn yet

seldom teach them to learn” (Norman, 1980; as cited in Lawson et al., 2019, p. 225).

Though early childhood teachers prioritize self-regulation as a key indicator of

kindergarten readiness, early childhood pedagogy, as manifested in prekindergarten

through third grade classroom practices, may not intentionally support self-regulatory

development. This omission is likely because education systems do not value and

educators do not know how to teach self-regulation in a gradual release-of-responsibility

dynamic from children co-regulating with teacher scaffolding to children increasingly

self-regulating. In turn, this disconnect reveals an opportunity to improve preservice

teacher education programs and inservice professional learning. Of note, self-regulation

may be sufficiently complex as both a developmental maturational skill and teachable

learned skill, that appreciably moving the needle takes longer than one or two years of

preschool (Skibbe et al., 2011), which further suggests the need for ongoing support of

not only children’s efforts but teachers’ practices.

This implication aligns with findings (Montroy et al., 2016) that while self-

regulation accelerated markedly for most preschool-age children, individual development

40
differed with early, intermediate, and late trajectories indicating differentiated needs for

support. Of concern, approximately 20% of children were late developers, and they did

not have the same level of self-regulation until first or second grade that early developers

benefited from in preschool. This inequity signals missed opportunities for not only

children’s self-regulatory development but their learning across domains and content

areas as all are enhanced by self-regulation. Inequity for children also suggests inequity

for teachers in the support they received in preservice teacher education and inservice

professional learning. Systemic support for teachers is crucial, so that they can explicitly

support children’s self-regulatory development with embedded individualized practices to

optimize timely growth in this fundamental capacity that affects all other learning.

Centrality of Teacher Emotional Support for Child Development of Self-Regulation

The long-term work of deliberately supporting children’s self-regulation requires

teachers to self-regulate with mindfulness, empathy, and compassion, so that they can

respond to children in emotionally-supportive ways that encourage their self-regulatory

attempts. In an early but large study about preschool classroom predictors of diverse

children’s cognitive self-regulatory skills, Fuhs et al. (2013) found that higher levels of

teacher emotional support – specifically, more approval than disapproval and positive

tone – were related to greater executive function gains. Of note, this was a correlational

study of 803 preschoolers with 71% economically disadvantaged, 61% children of color,

and 30% English language learners. Though not tested, teachers’ emotional support of

children may have also correlated positively with children’s emotional self-regulatory

41
skills, because teacher emotions affect student emotions. Furthermore, emotional, i.e.,

affective, and cognitive self-regulation are intertwined, often manifesting in visible

behavior, with emotions carrying a greater charge that can override cognition. The

responsive relationships of emotionally supportive teachers with their preschoolers were

likely a protective factor for these vulnerable learners’ equitable opportunities and

optimal self-regulatory development.

Fuhs et al.’s (2013) nonexperimental results were consistent with experimental

study findings from Raver et al. (2011) that an emotionally supportive classroom climate

for self-regulatory development increased preschoolers’ preacademic skills. This large

study was about the efficacy of the Chicago School Readiness Program (CSRP) in Head

Start classrooms. Effect sizes were large for behavioral regulation, medium for cognitive

regulation, and medium-to-small for language and preacademic literacy and math skills

(Murray et al., 2016b, in Appendix C, p. 10). Through the CSRP, teachers also

experienced both emotional and pedagogical support for establishing socio-emotionally

supportive classrooms through, respectively, stress reduction workshops and mental

health consultation with classroom coaching. Evidence from subsequent studies further

indicated the efficacy of teacher mindfulness-based stress reduction (Blair & Raver,

2014; Solomon et al., 2018) and reflective consultation or embedded coaching (Gardner-

Neblett et al., 2021; Kraft et al., 2018). These insights also supported an overarching

premise of this paper that strengthened teacher self-regulation strengthens student self-

regulation.

42
 Similar to Fuhs et al. (2013) and Raver et al. (2011), Curby et al. (2013) in a mixed

method correlational study found that the consistency of preschool teacher emotional

support positively related to children’s academic achievement in preschool and,

longitudinally, with social competence and problem behaviors in kindergarten. The

researchers built upon research about attachment theory (Bartholomew & Horowitz,

1991; Bowlby, 1988; Crain, 2011; Thomas, 2005) and likened the teacher-child

relationship, especially when children are young, e.g., in preschool, to a parent-child

relationship wherein children who are securely attached are able to expend more energy

on learning, and thus, achieve more. Of note, measuring how teacher emotional support

varied from one part of the school day to the next better predicted academic achievement

and social competence than using an average for the day. This advance in the

measurement method reflected the ecological microgenetic (Brofenbrenner, 2005;

Rogoff, 2003) effects of interactions within and across the daily schedule, as well as

meshed with the moment-by-moment necessity to self-regulate.

While Curby et al. (2013) did not focus explicitly on self-regulation, their finding

that preschool teacher emotional support was associated with kindergarten student social

competence and problem behaviors intersected with Montroy et al. (2014). These latter

researchers explicitly identified social competence and problem behaviors as mediators of

the relationship between self-regulation and academic achievement. In an application of

transitive law, I connected evidence across studies to further link teacher emotional

support with children’s self-regulation. Namely, both Curby et al. (2013) and Zinsser et

43
al. (2014) in mixed method studies found that a) teacher emotional support was

associated with children’s b) increased social competence and c) decreased problem

behaviors. Montroy et al. (2014) through a structural equation modeling design found that

children’s b) increased social competence and c) decreased problem behaviors positively

mediated d) children’s self-regulation. Therefore, a) teacher emotional support is

positively related to d) children’s self-regulation (Denham et al., 2017). This insight

affected my evolving theory of change described later in this paper wherein teacher

empathy and compassion for self and others positively mediate their emotional and self-

regulatory support for children.

Another intriguing aspect of the teacher-child relationship and teacher

developmental responsiveness is how the temperaments of both parties interact. In a

seminal article, Goldsmith et al. (1987; as cited in Shiner et al., 2012) integrated four

theories of temperament into one construct explained as “basic dispositions inherent in

the person that underlie and modulate the expression of activity, reactivity, emotionality,

and sociability.” Major elements of temperament are present early in life, and those

elements are probably strongly influenced by biological factors. As development

proceeds, the expression of temperament increasingly becomes more influenced by

experience and context. (p. 524; as cited in Shiner et al., 2012, pp. 436-7). This

description influenced how researchers, as well as practitioners in early care and

education, viewed and supported young children’s temperament for the next several

44
decades, i.e., as innate but malleable over time through nurturing environments and

experiences.

Notably, the authors of one of the four theories of temperament, Chess and

Thomas, delineated nine temperament traits in 1984 that, to this day, teachers find helpful

in understanding young children’s temperaments and supporting children’s interactions

with people, objects, and settings. The nine traits, each measured on a continuum, were

activity level (highly to less), rhythmicity (regular in biological functioning or habits to

irregular or more spontaneous), adaptability (highly to less), approachability (highly to

less), physical sensitivity or threshold of responsiveness (highly to less), intensity of

reaction (intense to mild or relaxed), distractibility (easily to less distracted, i.e., more

focused), mood (positive to serious or negative), and persistence (highly to less or long to

short attention span). Some traits tended to occur with other traits and, based on this

observation, Chess and Thomas described three broad types of temperament or

personality as “easy, difficult, and slow to warm” (Shiner et al., 2012, p. 438). For

example, a child with an easy temperament may be more adaptable and happily excited

by change, approachable and eager to participate, and generally in a positive mood.

Conversely, a child with a slow-to-warm temperament may find change disconcerting or

even distressing, need to observe quite a while before interacting, and often be in a

serious or even wary mood. Children with a difficult temperament may be on the less

optimal end of the continuum for some or most of the nine traits and frequently be in a

negative mood.

45
 More recently, researchers and practitioners referred to two of the three types of

temperament as “easy-going” and “slow-to-warm” but the aforementioned “difficult”

type as “high maintenance,” or “resistant to control.” Alternatively, they referred to all

three types differently as respectively “resilient, undercontrolled, or overcontrolled”

(Shiner et al., 2012, p. 438). Their terminology was meant to avoid negative labels of

children and recognize potential differences in the goodness of fit between adults and

children. For example, an adult who is “slow to warm” may perceive an “easy” child as

too eager or uncomfortably different or even “difficult.” However, an adult who thrives

on novelty and stimuli, may not perceive a temperamentally challenged child as

“difficult” but intriguing or even fun. The point was that goodness of fit is not solely

about adults modifying settings and scaffolding interactions to meet children’s

temperament-based needs but also about adults becoming aware of and modulating their

own temperament (Shiner et al., 2012; Vallotton et al., 2021). This insight not only kept

the onus on adults to meet children’s needs and provide them with equitable opportunities

but linked adult self-regulation to child self-regulation.

When adults strengthened their self-regulatory skills for better goodness of fit

between their and children’s temperaments, they could better support children’s self-

regulatory skills. They aimed to leverage children’s effective self-regulatory and

temperament traits and mediate those approaches to learning that were less effective for

children’s enhanced development and well-being. An example of a tool was the Infant

Toddler Temperament Tool (IT3) which helped teachers by analyzing their and

46
children’s individual temperaments then giving suggestions for teacher practices and

activities to enhance goodness of fit (Georgetown University Center for Child and

Human Development, n.d.).

Researchers found that self-regulatory skills were actionable and could temper

temperament (Shiner et al., 2012). For example, Adult 1 learned and used the self-

regulatory strategy of meditation to lessen anxiety and Adult 2 applied the self-regulatory

strategy of using a checklist to stay on track with daily tasks. The adults in these

examples may then have been more likely to extend emotional support to others,

including children. Temperament researchers underlined that many environments that

children experience, e.g., school, sports teams, places of worship, etc., cannot be fully

customized to their temperaments, thus necessitating self-regulatory strategies (Shiner et

al., 2012). This insight suggested implications for parents and teachers, as well as

preservice teacher education programs and inservice professional learning to recognize

and support the temperamental fit between children and environments, as well as children

and adults.

In the development of temperament, nature and nurture are intertwined and

interactive. While one’s temperament traits and personality type are genetically based and

fairly stable across one’s lifespan, one can learn and use self-regulatory strategies to

modulate temperament, as needed, to choose effective responses and actions. Indeed,

“temperament individuality is descriptive not just of response tendencies but self-

regulation” (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000, p. 106), especially

47
for traits like distractibility and persistence or attention. From a practical perspective,

self-regulation manifests for young children as success or struggle with following rules

and meeting behavioral expectations that is made easier or harder by their temperament.

However, self-regulatory skills can be strengthened, and adults can support children in

developing these strategies. Temperament and self-regulation are interrelated, and self-

regulation is integral to temperament to varying degrees, depending on the temperament

trait yet also the environment or circumstance. These connections led to the insight that

the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of temperament are supported by the

affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of self-regulation.

Relatedly, early childhood teachers likely need a dual theory of mind about both

the children and them. To develop theory of mind about children, a unifying question for

teachers who worked with babies and toddlers was, “What about the baby?” (Fraiber et

al., 2003; as cited in Vallotton et al., 2021). What might the baby be feeling, thinking, or

needing? Taking the perspective of the child first required observing what the child was

doing. Observing the child in turn required self-observation and self-regulation to be fully

present, objective, and resist jumping to interpretation. The observer’s approach was

grounded in open curiosity and sincere wondering about how the child was experiencing

the world in those moments.

Only after having made objective observations should the observer move to being

an analyst, interpreting what the child’s behavior is communicating and mentalizing

underlying temperament, feelings, wants, and needs. As a professor in a teacher

48
education program, I have found observation to be a challenging skill for many of my

students. They seem to struggle with giving themselves space to purely observe without

interpretation, perhaps because they believe they must immediately know exactly how to

support a child. They may not realize that deliberate observation would deepen their

affective and cognitive empathy and understanding of the child for follow-up support

even more attuned to the child. They may not realize that the skill of making objective

observations safeguards against one’s implicit (or explicit) bias creeping into

instructional plans and interactions with the child. They may not realize that equitable

opportunities for children are built upon a strong foundation of objective observations. I

realized that my students need my support to develop dual theory of mind, first by

observing themselves with self-compassion and acceptance of their feelings, then self-

regulating as needed to be fully present to objectively observe children. I realized that

developing dual theory of mind ultimately supports a teacher’s developmental

responsiveness for children.

Teacher Emotion Socialization Practices Support Child Self-Regulation

Emotional competence for children entails being able to identify emotions (their

own and others’) and increasingly self-regulate as appropriate for their age and social

milieu or culture (Denham et al., 2017). While research about emotion socialization has

predominantly been about parent emotion socialization (Denham et al., 2017; Zinsser et

al., 2015), a developing area of research is early-childhood-teacher emotion socialization,

especially as young children spend more time in early care and education outside of the

49
home (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019; Denham et al., 2017; Ornaghi et al., 2020). Young

children are uniquely dependent on the “ever-present socializers” in their lives and when

this includes teachers their emotional competence and self-regulatory well-being affects

children’s emotional competence and self-regulatory well-being (Denham et al., 2017, p.

818).

Teacher emotion socialization practices that have been shown to positively affect

children’s emotional competence and self-regulatory well-being fall into three broad

categories. These were 1) modeling healthy emotion expression and regulation; 2)

contingently responding to children’s emotional cues by accepting their emotions and

allowing them to express emotions; and 3) belief in the importance of teaching children

about emotions, including coaching them through emotional situations (Eisenberg et al.,

1999; as cited in Denham et al., 2017). That teachers have an “emotion coaching” not

“emotion dismissing” style is critical (Ornaghi et al., 2020, p. 47).

Next, I examined several studies about early childhood teacher use of picture

books with children as an already existing means to engage children in identifying

emotions and processing their own and character emotions for empathic perspective-

taking, a self-regulatory skill. Indeed, shared book reading may be an underused

opportunity (Bergman Deitcher et al., 2020; Denham et al., 2020; LaForge et al., 2018)

for scaffolding emotion state talk, emotion understanding, emotion socialization, and, by

extension, self-regulatory social-emotional competence. Picture books as tangible objects

with photos or illustrations can help in making intangible emotions more visible and

50
understandable to children (Garner & Parker, 2018), contextualizing teacher emotion

socialization.

In a qualitative study of preservice teachers in a university course about early

childhood education, Garner and Parker (2018) found that shared book reading (SBR)

using texts with emotion content was positively related to teachers’ increased use of

emotion language during the semester. Indeed, SBR elicited more teacher-child

identification of emotions than during free play or other conversations throughout the day

(Drummond et al., 2014; as cited in Garner & Parker, 2018). Further, Alvarenga et al.

(2020) in a qualitative study of three cohorts of preschool and kindergarten classrooms

over three years found that the emotion content of texts correlated with teacher support of

emotion identification, suggesting the importance of thoughtful text selection. Yet,

teachers should also move beyond identifying emotions with children to discussing

feelings to develop children’s emotion perspective-taking and causal understandings, as

appropriate during daily experiences, including SBR (T. Wakabayashi, personal

communication, July 12, 2022).

To this end, LaForge et al. (2018) created six picture books with emotion content

for identifying emotions and causes thereof for use in a study with 18 Canadian

preschoolers who were divided equally into experimental and control groups. The

teachers of the former group did seven shared book readings with the children over an

average of three weeks. Two paired-samples t-tests at pre- and post-intervention found

significance at p = .01 for increased emotion comprehension of children in the

51
experimental group after the intervention. The control group showed no significant

differences between pre- and post-tests. This straightforward intervention was modest in

terms of time and cost, suggesting its utility.

This emphasis on teachers using regular parts of the school day rather than

supplemental curricula or stand-alone less-contextualized lessons to foster children’s

emotion knowledge was echoed by researchers Zinsser et al. (2018) in a transitional

journal article entitled, “Becoming a Social Emotional Teacher: The Heart of Good

Guidance.” The authors focused not only on children’s social emotional learning but

explicit though embedded social emotional teaching through enhanced regular daily

interactions. Similarly, Israeli children, whose teachers used the Ellis ABC model in

shared book reading to scaffold conversations about a) Activating events, b) related

Beliefs, and c) emotional Consequences, gained in their expression of emotion words and

connection of thoughts to emotions. They identified and described social-emotional

concerns, and contributed ideas for resolution (Bergman Deitcher et al., 2020).

Though the generalizability of these studies in this section was limited by their

small sample sizes and, in some cases, the possibility of cross-cultural differences, there

was an overarching implication from their findings – that contextualized processes, e.g.,

through shared book reading, are critical to make abstract emotions real for young

children in their emotion socialization. Moreover, the Ellis ABC protocol may have use

with adult learners in preservice teacher education (addressed later in this paper) to

52
support them socio-emotionally and strengthen their empathy and compassion for healthy

self-regulation for themselves and others.

Teacher Discourse Practices Support Child Emotion Socialization and Self-

Regulation

Probing how to support children’s self-regulatory development, Fuhs et al. (2013)

suggested that, based on their study observations and results, children who engaged more

often in dialectical exchanges (Vygotsky, 1978) made greater gains in self-regulation.

…teachers who asked more open-ended questions and included conversational

turns had students who made more gains in self-regulation across the school

year…Engaging in more inferential questions might facilitate more complex

thinking on the part of the children (Zucker, Justice, Piasta, & Kaderavek,

2010). Multiword, inferential responses require more planning and draw on

working memory as children engage in higher-level reasoning about recently

acquired information. (Fuhs et al., 2013, p. 356)

Findings within the last decade supported these findings from Fuhs et al. (2013). Romeo

et al. (2018) found that not the quantity of words children had heard but the number of

conversational exchanges they had with their parents mattered. First, preschool-age

children wore audio recorders during the day at home for several weeks to count

utterances between them and their parents. Then in a laboratory setting, short stories were

read aloud by researchers to the children while their brains were imaged using MRI

technology. Children who had previously had more conversational turns with parents

53
showed more activity in an area of the brain for language processing. Furthermore, the

quantity of conversational turns correlated directly with children’s subsequent scores on

standardized tests for vocabulary, grammar, and verbal reasoning.

These findings held even for children whose parents had low income and

education levels, which was encouraging because the latter is difficult to change but

increasing the number of conversational exchanges seems much more attainable. This

research was an example of two lines of research converging, i.e., the science of child

development and neuroscience, likely increasing the credibility of the results. The

findings also have implications for more teacher-child conversational turn taking. Similar

to the LaForge et al. (2018) study described previously, parent (and teacher) education

for more back-and-forth conversations with children may also be a relatively modest but

impactful intervention in terms of time and cost, suggesting its utility.

Romeo et al. (2018) built onto and nuanced findings, in particular, from the

seminal Hart and Risley (1995) study and later research by Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015). The

former study found that the most economically marginalized children arrived at

kindergarten having heard 33 million fewer spoken words than advantaged children, trip-

wiring their school success. The latter study found that not just the quantity but quality of

words matters, especially as contextualized through back-and-forth conversations. Then

Romeo et al. (2018) went a step farther, providing neurological evidence of the profound

impact of more conversational turns.

54
 These researchers also provided a form of proof through brain imaging of

Vygotsky’s grand theory of cognitive development that learning is maximized through

dialectical exchanges and socio-cultural interactions with more knowledgeable others.

Further progress from this epistemic lineage – in essence, a series of dialectical

exchanges and conversational volleys among researchers – may materialize as actionable

strategies. For example, the next step for early childhood educators, after knowing that

increased serve-and-return interactions benefit children, is knowing how to co-construct

conversations for self-regulated learning, e.g., “causal talk in the emotional experience”

(Housman et al., 2018, p. 8). Pedagogy developed at the Michigan State University Child

Development Laboratories (Kostelnik et al., 2019), explicitly connected preservice and

inservice teachers’ use of language to support children’s equitable opportunities to

develop self-regulation (McRoy, Gerde, & Linscott, 2022). Strategies included providing

behavioral reflections, affective reflections (especially), paraphrases, and open-ended

questions in interactions exemplified as empathic co-regulatory support, often through

co-constructed conversation, not only for children’s behavior but other learning.

The importance of implementing strategies like these ones with fidelity has

implications for preservice teacher education and inservice professional learning.

Applying insights from the human development research that has been discussed in this

section, we should support adult learners through authentic conversations beyond the

pedagogy to their beliefs about self-regulatory development, because beliefs drive

practices. We should also support their self-regulatory well-being as individuals in their

55
own right, as well as helping professionals who face unique demands in the cognitively,

emotionally, and often physically intense work of serving young children and their

families.

Centrality of Teacher Empathy in Self-Regulatory Support

Building from these research insights, teacher empathy and compassion for

themselves and others may enhance their self-regulatory modulation of emotion, thought,

and action, as well as emotion socialization practices, to respond effectively for all

involved. However, I have not yet found explicit research investigating preservice early

childhood teacher empathy and compassion as mediators of their a) own self-regulation

and b) developmental support for young children’s growth in empathy, compassion, and

self-regulation. This research gap became the focus of the present study. However, I did

find several studies specific to providing such support for children. Their findings yielded

clues for supporting the empathy, compassion, and self-regulatory well-being for adult

learners in preservice teacher education and inservice professional learning forums.

In a Canadian, small, mixed-method study, Reimer (2019) examined the efficacy

of using picture books to develop empathy for children of incarcerated parents. The

theoretical framework included Ethic of Care (Noddings, 1998; as cited in Reimer, 2019),

Reader Response (Rosenblatt, 1960; as cited in 2001 in Reimer, 2019), and Critical

Literacy (Freire, 1970; Luke, 2012; both as cited in Reimer, 2019) dimensions in

classrooms characterized by teacher and, ultimately, peer nurtured warmth and

compassion with opportunities for children to develop critical thinking. The theory of

56
change was twofold: 1) If teachers and children, in shared book reading, sensitively

discuss a child protagonist experiencing parental incarceration, then readers will develop

more understanding and empathy for children they know in this circumstance. 2) Then

children whose parents are incarcerated will feel more seen, understood, and less alone.

This brief intervention involved teachers reading and discussing a researcher-

authored book with children. Quantitative results showed no statistically significant gain

in children’s empathy, perhaps because the development thereof takes more time to be

numerically measured than the short duration of the intervention allowed. However,

qualitative analysis of children’s written reflections about the story yielded five themes:

1) children’s life experiences impact empathy, including opportunities to read about the

lived experiences of others; 2) children identified with sometimes having mixed

emotions, like the main character; 3) children’s perceptions shifted as fear turned to

warmth; 4) an Ethic of Care developed as the story elicited empathy; and 5) the role of

literary hooks enhance Critical Literacy.

Overall, children’s expression of their thinking through writing suggested more

awareness, understanding, and empathy for children whose parents were incarcerated

and, more broadly, that “reading comprehension is related to empathy development” (C.

Vallotton, personal communication, August 15, 2022). Readers who can imagine the

emotions of characters in a fictional or nonfictional setting likely have a greater

connection to that content, increasing their understanding of it. Additionally, I surmised

that the benefits of using the practice of reflective writing with children were similar to

57
adults having opportunities to reflect in a journal which has implications for preservice

teacher education and inservice professional learning. Moreover, Ethic of Care, Reader

Response, and Critical Literacy pedagogies support anti-bias education goals (Derman-

Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2020) for identity, diversity, justice, and advocacy, as well as

compassionate mindful self-regulation, likely advancing equity (NAEYC, 2019).

Similar to Reimer (2019), Su-Jeong et al. (2021) in a South Korean qualitative

study of five-year-old children in a child care setting, delved into shared book reading

processes around a specific and compelling societal problem – bullying. However, in

addition to teachers reading and discussing books about the topic with children, they

incorporated role-playing wherein children imagined and enacted how they would handle

such situations. Role-playing functioned as a realistic zone of proximal development

(Vygotsky, 1978; as cited in Su-Jeong et al., 2021) but with less intensity of emotion than

in an actual incidence, making cognition easier. Results were that especially through the

role-playing medium, children demonstrated empathic understanding, affective

connection, and collaboration in developing strategies for compassionate responses to

resolve bullying and alleviate suffering. Both studies applied Reader Response and

Transactional Theories (from Rosenblatt, 1983; as cited in Reimer, 2019 & Su-Jeong et

al., 2021), grounded in Dewey’s active learning-by-doing pedagogy (S. R. Leigh,

personal communication, November 4, 2021) and Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural

language exchanges to heighten cognition.

58
 Salay (2018), like Su-Jeong (2021) and Reimer (2019) also focused on teacher-

child critical discourse during shared book reading to increase children’s cognitive and

affective perspective-taking and empathy. Like Reimer (2019), Salay (2018) also used

writing to prompt student reflections. In this mixed-method dissertation study with first

graders and their teachers, the researcher, though in a position of power as the principal

that limited the generalizability of the study, sought to cultivate a “culture of kindness”

(Salay, 2018, p. 2) throughout the school. She believed in the innate goodness and

potential of children, i.e., that they can be “upstanders, take responsibility for their

actions, and make their schools better, kinder places” (Salay, 2018, p. 117).

The principal-researcher also sought to embed social emotional learning in

already existing instructional modes throughout the school day, both to address time

restraints and developmentally provide such support in the most meaningful way for

young children. Like Reimer (2019), the modest intervention did not show quantitative

gain in children’s empathy scores but, again, qualitative analysis of children’s writing

suggested they had grown in the skills of perspective-taking and empathy. Furthermore,

writing seemed to make their thinking more tangible and complex, as role-playing did in

the Su-Jeong et al. (2021) study. Moreover, the emphasis on co-constructing

conversations in all three studies (Reimer, 2019; Salay, 2018; Su-Jeong 2021) meshed

with evidence from neuroscience (Romeo et al., 2018) that these interactions light up the

language, motivational, and processing regions of the brain.

59
 Looking across the Reimer (2019), Salay (2018), and Su-Jeong et al. (2021)

findings, combining their instructional strategies could leverage the empathy and

compassion for oneself and others that are essential for healthy self-regulation. Also,

providing varied evidence-based strategies like these would be more likely to

differentiate and optimize the learning of individual learners, as well as cumulatively

meet the needs of all learners. Pedagogical combinations to unlock affective and

cognitive perspective-taking and learning could include the following for learners

whether adults or children: shared book reading, critical literacy discourse, verbal and

written reader responses or reflections, and discussion and role-playing for imagined and

real dilemmas. These activities would also function as self-regulatory preparation and

practice for modulating emotion with thought to decide and carry out plans that are

effective, i.e., empathic, and compassionate, for self and others in real situations with

ongoing reflection and adjustment. Those skills are ultimately the essence of self-

regulated learning and self-determination.

Definition and Construct of Empathy

Sympathy is knowing one should feel sorry for a situation that another person is

experiencing and is a precursor to empathy (Riess & Neporent, 2018). Empathy is

“human fellow-feeling” (Sieghart, 2017, p. 86), i.e., being able to imagine and feel what

another feels. Empathy is closely related to but different from compassion (Riess &

Neporent, 2018). Compassion is enacted or behavioral empathy wherein one is compelled

to alleviate another’s suffering or make that person’s situation better in some way. As

60
such, compassion is the highest form of empathy and represents the culmination of the

sympathy-empathy-compassion circle.

Empathy is not a trait but a skill that can be strengthened. It is a “human capacity”

that “requires specialized brains that allow us to perceive, process, and respond” (Riess &

Neporent, 2018, p. 10) which begins with observation, a critical skill for people in

general and teachers especially. Empathy, like self-regulation, has cognitive, affective,

and behavioral dimensions for “fine-tuned responding” socio-culturally (Rogoff, 2018, p.

6). As mentioned earlier, both empathy and self-regulation are conceptualized with

cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, suggesting their synergy. Moreover,

because empathy requires mindfulness, contextualizing self-regulatory development with

empathic mindfulness may be uniquely effective. This insight affected my

conceptualization of a theory of change later in this chapter.

Connection of Self-Regulation to Empathic Perspective-Taking

Logic suggests that empathy requires self-regulatory capacity and self-regulatory

capacity requires empathy. What is unknown is if empathy may act on self-regulation

more than self-regulation acts on empathy. What is known is that empathy, like self-

regulation, while not expendable for healthy human development, is expandable.

Indeed, in a randomized controlled trial of empathy training for medical residents,

Riess et al. (2012) found that those who had received training were rated as more

empathic by patients shortly after the training concluded. The effect size was modest at

.31 for the brief training of three modules of 60 minutes each over a period of one month

61
that taught the residents the following: a) the neuroscience of empathy as a hardwired

capacity rather than a soft skill (Riess, 2017), b) the physiology of emotions during

interactions, c) how to decode nonverbal facial expressions, and d) how to convey

empathy nonverbally and behaviorally, using self-regulatory practices of deep breathing

and mindfulness for empathic communication with patients and to experience empathy

satisfaction not fatigue as helping professionals.

The training emphasized nonverbal communication, as these signals

predominantly influence perceptions and are often overlooked (Riess & Kraft-Todd,

2014). To this end, videos of patient-resident interactions were used in combination with

their respective skin conductance readings taken during the interaction to help residents

identify and reflect upon shared-connecting versus discordant-distancing physiological

reactions. The residents were also taught and practiced the skills of the mnemonic

E.M.P.A.T.H.Y. for Eye contact, Muscles of facial expression, Posture, Affect, Tone of

voice, Hearing the whole person, and Your response (Riess & Kraft-Todd, 2014). Touch

was not included because of cultural variation.

Though most trainings focus on “what to say,” this professional learning

experience focused on “how to be” for responsive culturally competent care (Riess &

Kraft-Todd, 2014, p. 1108). Indeed, becoming more aware and skilled at taking the

perspective of others and authentically conveying concern about their well-being may

help counter bias towards people different than oneself (Riess, 2017). Moreover,

developing this orientation towards others may also enhance helping professionals’

62
compassion for themselves and self-regulatory well-being. A follow-up study of the

E.M.P.A.T.H.Y training one year afterward suggested that positive effects persisted,

though a “booster” workshop may be needed (Phillips et al., 2013, p. 331). I described

this study in detail, because the intervention was causal and may have applications for

nonmedical helping professionals, e.g., through teacher education that focuses more

intentionally on developing empathic nonverbal communication skills.

In a grounded theory qualitative-constructivist study of how preschool teachers

convey empathy, Peck et al. (2015) posited that teachers can strengthen their empathic

culturally responsive beliefs, practices, and relational strategies for children and parents.

The researchers were compelled by the changing demographics of the United States with

more racial diversity and income inequality. Meanwhile, most teachers are white and

middle class but increasingly need to relate to, partner with, and serve families from

marginalized groups. This study addressed the research gap about the influences of

empathy, particularly in early childhood education.

Teachers who expressed empathic beliefs and practices were alike in four ways

which suggested potential professional learning focuses. These similarities were a)

inclusive and accepting, b) relaxed and balanced, e.g., listeners more than talkers, c)

responsive to culture, e.g., joyful about inviting and having families share cultural

traditions, and d) builders of relational two-way communication. Empathy differentiated

the teachers who made comments critical of others and those who did not and instead

expressed empathic perceptions.

63
 These researchers, similar to Riess et al. (2012) with medical residents and

Asayesh et al. (2024) with nurses, found that empathy can be taught and strengthened for

adult learners who are helping professionals. Peck et al. (2015) and Asayesh et al. (2024)

also emphasized that empathy and compassion for oneself and others has been shown to

prevent burn-out and increase job satisfaction. In the Peck et al. (2015) and Riess et al.

(2012) studies, the researchers focused on improving preservice education programs as

the current study does, though Peck et al. (2015) also explicitly emphasized the need for

job-embedded professional learning for inservice teachers. Moreover, the positive belief

of Peck et al. (2015) about the importance of honoring and developing teacher beliefs

along with their knowledge and practices connoted relational professional learning.

Strategies thereof could include dialogue, embedded coaching (Kraft et al., 2018),

practicums as belief changers (Lippard et al., 2024), and nurturing mindfulness and

reflective practices for care of oneself and others through developmentally supportive

responses (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019; Gardner-Neblett et al., 2021; Virmani et al., 2020).

These findings were consistent with the results of my preliminary qualitative

study that investigated the relationship of preschool teacher beliefs, knowledge, and

practices in supporting children’s self-regulatory development. Through a grounded

theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Tie et al., 2019) approach, teacher empathic beliefs

correlated with teacher self-reported compassionate practices (Wood, 2020). This insight

came from iteratively coding (Anfara, 2002) 11 completed written surveys and transcripts

of individual and focus group interviews. Though the small number of participants gave

64
disproportionate weight to any one participant’s data, I was still able to detect broad

patterns. There were 168 initial codes from the survey responses, and from these I

identified two categories for 1) teacher expressed empathic beliefs and 2) teacher self-

reported compassionate practices.

For example, teachers’ empathic belief that children need to feel understood

connected with their self-reported compassionate practices of a) checking-in with how

children are feeling, b) seeking to understand children’s intense emotions, and c)

speaking kindly to children. Similarly, teachers’ empathic belief that children need

guidance was connected to their self-reported compassionate practice of giving children

help to solve problems. From these categories, I distilled an overarching theme for what

teacher readiness to provide children self-regulatory coaching looks and sounds like.

These findings were central to the core story that developed from the words and survey

responses of teachers about their self-regulatory beliefs, knowledge, and practices.

The main idea or theme from the core story was that when teachers expressed

empathic beliefs and compassionate practices, they were also expressing readiness to

provide self-regulatory coaching to children. Moreover, the root of teacher skill in

providing children with self-regulatory coaching seemed to be teacher skills of

observation, empathy, and compassion, and these were expandable skills not fixed traits.

These realizations, grounded in teachers’ responses, taught me that preservice teacher

education and inservice professional learning should intentionally nurture the empathy

and compassion for oneself and others that influence self-regulatory beliefs and practices.

65
These forums should provide teachers with information about the neuroscience and

lifelong importance of self-regulation. These forums should also give teachers

opportunities to role play, then implement plans to support children’s self-regulatory

development, in a relationship-based coaching dynamic for the child from the teacher, yet

also the teacher from an early childhood specialist.

My major insight from this prior study was that concurrently developing teacher

belief and knowledge systems can be expected to foster congruence in teacher beliefs and

knowledge for strengthened developmentally-responsive practices. An analogy was just

as curriculum, instruction, and assessment systems should overlap into concentric circles

for coherence (Fullan & Quinn, 2016) and deep learning (Fullan et al., 2018), so should

knowledge, belief, and practice systems. Indeed, preservice teacher education or inservice

teacher professional learning forums should be thoughtfully designed, so that their

curriculum, instruction, and assessment fully support participants’ linked development of

beliefs, knowledge, and practices.

Centrality of Whole Teacher Pedagogy in Teacher Education for Self-Regulatory

Well-Being

In this final section of the literature review, I examined several studies that closely

aligned with the current study’s focus on supporting EC teachers’ psychosocial

characteristics, as well as their pedagogical skills. These other studies were either about

preservice EC teacher education or inservice EC teacher professional learning. However,

both were instructive for what was important to support for these adult learners in their

66
development as early childhood educators. As these studies markedly influenced the

current research, they were introduced with their titles as subheadings and then described

in detail.

“Preservice Students’ Dispositional Mindfulness and Developmentally Supportive

Practices with Infants and Toddlers” (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019, p. 759)

Brophy-Herb at al. (2019) conducted a study with 618 participants who were

preservice early childhood professionals (ECPs) from college courses in child

development or early education from nine universities in the United States. The students

took an online Qualtrics survey at the start and end of the semester or term. The

researchers tested for relationships between ECPs’ dispositional mindfulness and their

reflective practice beliefs, intentional kindness (interpersonal mindfulness), child

development knowledge, and developmentally supportive practices. Mindfulness and

dispositional mindfulness while similar were differentiated. The former was broadly

defined as

the awareness that arises from paying attention on purpose and without

judgment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003) and is taught through mindfulness

meditation training, such as found in the well-studied Mindfulness-Based

Stress Reduction Program (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 2005). (Brophy-Herb et

al., 2019, p. 760)

In comparison, the latter, i.e., dispositional mindfulness, was described as an attitudinal

intention to be present in the moment. I realized that someone with that intention or

67
attitude would likely be willing and, in that sense, ready to develop and strengthen these

skills, given the motivational power of belief (Bandura, 2023) and emotion to drive

behavior (Immordino-Yang et al., 2017, 2018).

Related to this orientation, two main aspects of mindfulness were investigated

because of their influence on teacher practices. These elements were a) self-regulation of

attention for greater awareness of situations, including the feelings and thoughts of

oneself and others, and b) open-ended acceptance thereof, characterized by curiosity

(Bishop et al., 2004; as cited in Brophy-Herb et al., 2019). The first element, in particular,

connoted that self-regulation and observation are integral to mindfulness, an insight that

contributed to my research methodology.

The measures used on the Qualtrics survey, as cited by Brophy-Herb et al. (2019),

were as follows: Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto et al., 2008) for

dispositional mindfulness; the Observe, Listen, Wonder, and Respond scale (Tomlin et

al., 2009) for reflective practice beliefs; five items from an adaptation of the Mindfulness

in Parent Scale (Duncan, 2007; Duncan et al., 2009) for intentional kindness interactions;

the Knowledge of Infant/Toddler Development Inventory (MacPhee, 1981); and 12

vignettes that the researchers had developed and validated (Vallotton et al., 2016) to

assess developmentally supportive responses. Of note, some of these vignettes were later

adapted for use in the current study (to measure preservice EC teachers’ developmental

support for children’s self-regulation). To analyze data, in addition to descriptive

statistics, two-level linear mixed models were used. Four models were tested for

68
associations between dispositional mindfulness and, respectively, reflective practice

beliefs, intentional kindness (mindfulness towards others), child development knowledge,

and developmentally supportive practices.

Results were that dispositional mindfulness varied directly with reflective practice

beliefs, intentional kindness (mindfulness towards others), child development knowledge,

and developmentally responsive practices, as self-reported by ECPs. Effect sizes were

small to somewhat strong, ranging from.10 to .42, similar to those from the few other

studies about mindfulness in early childhood education. Of note, the strongest correlation

of .42 was for the association of “mindful practices in kind interactions” with “beliefs

about the value of reflective practices” (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019, p. 761).

The authors knew of no studies that included infant and toddler ECPs prior to

their study. However, one study with early childhood teachers of preschool children

(Jennings, 2015) found the following positive relationships: a) mindful observation with

the self-regulatory skill of perspective-taking, b) mindful awareness with sensitive or

more authoritative guidance and discipline, and c) teacher self-reported mindfulness with

their emotional support of children. Overall, the results from Brophy-Herb et al. (2019)

coincided with findings from early childhood and K-12 studies that mindfulness related

to high quality teacher-child interactions. Limitations were that observational data were

not gathered to confirm the self-reported practices and a convenience sample was used.

The researchers recommended further consideration of mindfulness training for

preservice and inservice ECPs. They encouraged future research about how intentional

69
mindfulness relates to intentional kindness and developmentally supportive responses. A

related suggestion was to examine empathy and compassion for oneself and others as

approaches to ECP learning that may contribute to mindful beliefs and practices for

developmentally supportive responses. Probing the impact of empathy and compassion as

the medium for intentional kindness was reflected in the theory of change and design of

the present study.

“How Are Preservice Early Childhood Professionals’ Mindfulness, Reflective Practice

Beliefs, and Individual Characteristics Associated with Their Developmentally

Supportive Responses to Infants and Toddlers?” (Virmani et al., 2020, p. 1052)

Virmani et al. (2020), used the same data and many of the same measures, again

in two-level linear mixed models for correlational analyses, building on findings from

Brophy-Herb et al. (2019). Virmani et al. (2020) conceptualized preservice early

childhood professional (ECP) mindfulness and reflective practice beliefs as key

indicators of their social-emotional competence (which has implications for self-

regulatory well-being). Their reasons were that a) mindfulness which increases

situational awareness and b) belief in reflective practices c) suggest readiness for

deepened understanding of the emotions and perspectives of self and others for d)

developmentally supportive responses to children. As such, they focused on social-

emotional competence, because other research linked this proficiency as key for high

quality teaching, citing Hamre and Pianta (2004) and Jennings (2015). They also cited

Ersay (2015) that preschool teachers’ self-reported awareness of their own emotions

70
positively related to their responses to children’s emotions, i.e., self-awareness enhanced

developmentally supportive responses. The researchers, Virmani et al. (2020), also

sought to narrow the research gap about how preservice ECP social-emotional

competence mediates interactions with children, parents, and families.

Of interest, an individual characteristic that the researchers examined, in addition

to age, stressful life events, and depression, was ECP attachment style. They used the

Attachment Style Questionnaire, citing Hofstra and Van Oudenhovon (2004), to test for

associations with mindfulness, reflective practice beliefs, and developmentally supportive

responses. The authors explained that results of prior studies suggested that attachment

style relates to social-emotional competence with more secure attachment indicating

greater competence (Waters & Sroufe 1983; Vallotton et al., 2016; both as cited in

Virmani et al., 2020).

Results from Virmani et al. (2020) were that, as hypothesized, stronger reflective

practice beliefs were positively related to developmentally supportive responses. This

association with a small effect size of .15 held at .12 when ECP depression, stressful life

events, and attachment style were added into the model. Somewhat surprisingly, these

latter three covariates were not associated with developmentally supportive responses.

Also, counter to their hypothesis, mindfulness was not associated with developmentally

supportive responses, unlike Brophy-Herb et al. (2019) found. In both studies, the

Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PMS) (Cardaciotto et al., 2008; as cited in Brophy-Herb

et al., 2019 & Virmani et al., 2020) was used to measure two facets of mindfulness: 1)

71
awareness or regulation of attention and 2) acceptance or nonjudgmental curiosity about

the present situation, including one’s own and others’ thoughts, feelings, and perspectives

(Bishop et al., 2004, Bergami et al., 2013; both as cited in Brophy-Herb et al., 2019). The

researchers, Virmani et al. (2020), wondered if other facets of mindfulness and

corresponding PMS items, e.g., attention to making observations, may significantly relate

to developmentally supportive responses.

I connected this possibility with other research findings that mindful observation

was associated with the self-regulatory and social-competency skills of perspective-

taking (Jennings, 2015; and as cited in Brophy-Herb et al., 2019). That possibility also

connected with my anecdotal experiences as a professor in teacher education that most of

my students had difficulty making objective observations of children, as mentioned

earlier. In fact, they struggled so much that I sought to focus more in my teaching and

research on the development of this crucial skill for reflective practices and sensitive

support of children.

Indeed, Virmani et al. (2020) considered mindfulness, reflective practice beliefs,

and attachment style as holistic whole-teacher processes related to developmentally

supportive responses. However, ECP attachment style did not relate to developmentally

supportive responses in this study but related to mindfulness and reflective practice

beliefs which were related to developmentally supportive responses. Perhaps, attachment

style, if a more distal influence, mediated but was not detectable when taking more

proximal influences, e.g., mindfulness and reflective practice beliefs, into account.

72
However, Vallotton et al. (2016) had found that ECPs’ secure attachment style positively

related to their developmentally supportive responses.

“Attachment Predicts College Students’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills for Working

with Infants, Toddlers, and Families” (Vallotton et al., 2016, p. 275)

Vallotton et al. (2016) examined how preservice early childhood professionals’

(ECPs) attitudes, i.e., their beliefs and values, child development knowledge, and

developmentally-responsive interaction skills with children were related to their

attachment styles. There were 207 college students from child development or early

education courses in four universities in the United States who participated through an

online Qualtrics survey that took them about 45 minutes. Data were analyzed

descriptively and through correlational and regression analyses with the following main

results.

This group of ECPs had a wide range of college majors and anticipated careers

but those with more secure attachment were more likely to want to work with young

children and were also more interested in working with children with special needs.

These attitudes aligned with attachment theory in that individuals with secure attachment

have more positive views of others and openness towards them. Similarly, more secure

attachment was associated with more knowledge about child development.

Students with fearful or dismissive attachment styles were less likely to want to

work with young children, perhaps believing that their dependence on adults was

demanding rather than developmental. They were also more authoritarian in their

73
approach to discipline. These attitudes aligned with attachment theory; individuals with

fearful or dismissive attachment have more negative views of others, often because of

“early adverse experiences in the family” and what was originally an adaptive “aversion

to strong feelings” (Bartholomew, 1990; as cited in Vallotton et al., 2016, pp. 291-2).

Students with a fearful attachment style were consistently most different from

those with a secure attachment style in attitudes, knowledge, and interaction skills

regarding child development. This pattern aligned with attachment theory wherein the

two styles are opposite, i.e., an individual with secure attachment has a positive view of

oneself and others and an individual with fearful attachment has a negative view of

oneself and others. Again, in seeking not to judge but understand and respond with

compassion:

According to George and Solomon (2008), adults have a biological

drive to care for and protect children, called the caregiving system,

which is activated by child distress. Adults with fearful attachment

styles may experience anxiety and helplessness in response to

children’s distress, which dysregulates their caregiving system and

results in harsher discipline strategies. (Vallotton et al., 2016, p. 293)

Vallotton et al. (2016) suggested a mediation model with attachment-related

attitudes influencing child development beliefs, knowledge, and interaction skills. In

other words, attitudinal beliefs which carry more of an emotional charge drive behavior

(Immordino-Yang, 2017, 2018; NRC, 2015; NRC & IOM, 2000), e.g., whether or not

74
one chooses to learn about child development or how to interact with young children.

Also, because attachment style has been shown to be more difficult to change, Vallotton

et al. (2016) suggested that focusing on beliefs, e.g., about reflective practices, may be a

more effective way to improve ECP interaction skills with children. Then, in such a

scenario, as the individual’s reflective functioning improved, and they had more positive

experiences interacting with others, that success would nurture a more positive view of

oneself and others and, hence, more secure attachment.

The somewhat mixed results about secure attachment being directly associated

with developmentally responsive interactions (Vallotton et al., 2016; Virmani et al.,

2020), as well as the fact that there have been few studies about EC teachers’ attachment

styles (Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023, Vallotton et al., 2016) piqued my curiosity about the

role attachment might play for preservice EC teachers in the present study. What also

resonated was that “… a positive attachment relationship… being part of a protective

community, and having healthy self-regulation skills contribute to positive adaptations”

(Sciaraffa et al., 2018; as cited in Virmani et al., 2020, p. 1057). This quote connected

individuals’ secure attachment to their greater self-regulation and more adaptive

responses, certainly benefiting themselves, yet also others, e.g., when as teachers they

more sensitively support children. More broadly, these psychosocial characteristics for

positive self-determination implied the importance of relationships in how we teach ECPs

and what to nurture in them and, in turn, how they should teach and treat children,

families, and one another.

75
“The Effects of a Relationship‑Focused Professional Development Intervention on

Infant and Toddler Teachers’ Mindfulness‑Based Strategies for Coping” (Brophy-

Herb et al., 2024, p. 243)

In a very recent study, Brophy-Herb et al. (2024) through multilevel regression

analyses examined the impact of the Hearts and Minds on Babies (HMB) professional

learning program on EC teachers’ stress and exhaustion, and coping skills. This relational

intervention nurtured teachers’ mindfulness and reflective practices for their well-being

and developmental responsiveness to children. Randomly selected participants included

41 infant and toddler teachers from Early Head Start and Head Start settings in the

treatment group whose trajectories on these psychosocial skills were compared to those

of 40 teachers in a control group from the same settings.

The treatment group’s professional learning totaled 20 hours across 13 weeks in

group forums and coaching sessions. The latter included two classroom observations with

coaching and an individual coaching session. The ten workshops for teachers featured

content about children’s social emotional learning, sensitive caregiving to children and

themselves through intentional mindfulness, kindness, self-compassion, and related

strategies for teacher and child well-being.

Teachers learned how to use HMB concepts with children and how to

share these concepts with parents. Concepts focused on recognizing and

responding to children’s attachment needs, understanding the meaning

behind behaviors, self-awareness and self-regulation of emotion and

76
 attention, co-regulation of emotions, and the ways in which trauma can

impact perceptions. During each of the training sessions, teachers learned

about and practiced a variety of mindfulness-based strategies for coping

including intentional breathing, container imagery meditation, progressive

relaxation, and five senses exercises. (Brophy-Herb et al., 2024, p. 247)

A unique feature of the study’s methods was “ecological momentary assessment”

(Brophy-Herb et al., 2024, pp. 243 & 248) through the use of smartphones by teachers,

twice a week for 40 weeks, through which they shared their perceived stress, exhaustion,

coping strategies, and the effectiveness of the latter. Teachers made these self-reports

before, during, and after the Hearts and Minds on Babies trainings ended.

The three main results of the study, while not as hypothesized, yielded insights

about what may be required to sustain improvement in EC teacher stress, exhaustion, and

coping skills. The first result was that the infant and toddlers’ teachers’ perceived stress

and exhaustion were relatively stable over time and did not differ significantly for

teachers in the treatment and control groups. The second result was that, though teachers

who experienced the intervention initially reported increased use of mindfulness

strategies, these practices were not maintained across the 40 weeks data were collected.

Ultimately, there was no significant difference from teachers in the control group.

Similarly, the third result was that, while more teachers in the treatment group initially

rated mindfulness as their most helpful coping strategy, this perception decreased over

time, and there was no significant difference from teachers in the control group. Also,

77
given the modest numbers of participants, i.e., 41 in the treatment group and 40 in the

control group, there may not have been enough statistical power for overall trends in the

data to signal strongly enough to detect at significance.

Another insight from the results was that improving depleted well-being that

manifests as higher stress and exhaustion levels in EC teachers, may take longer than the

duration of the Hearts and Minds on Babies program. This possibility suggested that one

or more of the following strategies may be necessary for sustained increases in teachers’

mindfulness-based practices to improve their stress and exhaustion levels. Provide a) the

same or more hours of support spread over a longer period of time, b) additional support

as a follow-up to the program, perhaps especially through relational coaching or c) both a

and b. Given the unique intensity of teaching the youngest children and vulnerability to

stress for these teachers (Berlin et al; as cited in Brophy-Herb et al., 2024; Hatton-

Bowers, 2023), more time intensive professional learning may be required, beyond the 20

hours of this iteration of the HMB program.

“Long-Term Impacts of the CARE Program on Teachers' Self-Reported Social and

Emotional Competence and Well-Being” (Jennings et al., 2019, p. 186)

Another mindfulness-based intervention (MBI), i.e., the Cultivating Awareness

and Resilience in Education (CARE) program, provided 30 hours of professional learning

to elementary school teachers. Jennings et al. (2019) did a longitudinal follow-up for the

randomized control trial of the CARE program with, at onset, 224 diverse K-5 teachers in

36 public schools in New York City with diverse students of whom 75% or more were

78
economically disadvantaged. Teachers had participated in the CARE intervention in five

6-hour sessions in the late fall to early winter of a school year. These teachers also had

three individual coaching phone calls during the program to help them develop self-care

practices, apply what they were learning to challenging situations in their classrooms, and

sustain their mindfulness-based practices.

Significant longitudinal results, primarily from three-level hierarchical linear

modeling, were that CARE teachers increased in emotion regulation and two components

of mindfulness compared to control group teachers, even 9.5 months after the program

ended. The two components of mindfulness were observing and nonjudging acceptance

of thoughts and emotions, two critical skills for teachers as previously discussed. The .26

effect size for emotion regulation was modest but suggested the utility of the intervention,

given that it was a universal not targeted intervention (Greenberg & Abenavoli, 2017; as

cited in Jennings et al., 2019). That said, within this universal professional learning

program, teachers who at baseline had more psychological distress showed the most

growth in emotion regulation.

The CARE program has been extensively studied (Doyle et al., 2018; Jennings,

2016; Jennings et al., 2017; all as cited in Jennings et al., 2019). Earlier studies with more

information about the CARE curriculum may be of further interest after the current study,

e.g., when planning an intervention for preservice EC teachers. However, the CARE

program was designed for elementary teachers, meaning some of them were not EC

teachers and none of them taught infants, toddlers, or preschoolers. Anecdotally but

79
importantly, my experiences, working in K-12 and birth to kindergarten education, were

that elementary teachers, even in high-poverty under-resourced systems, often had more

resources available to them than teachers in infant through preschool programs. Also, as

previously mentioned, because young children are, by definition, more dependent on

adults, their teachers may experience more intense working conditions. Thus, perhaps the

CARE studies were not highly generalizable to teachers of infants, toddlers, and

preschoolers. Overall, though, the unique feature of the CARE research was the

longitudinal follow-up into the following school year and the findings that the positive

outcomes largely persisted. Jennings et al. (2019) also emphasized the need for more

longitudinal studies of teacher MBIs, not only about outcomes for teachers but their

students.

“Promising Findings that the Cultivating Healthy Intentional Mindful Educators’

Program (CHIME) Strengthens Early Childhood Teachers’ Emotional Resources: An

Iterative Study” (Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023, p. 1291)

Recent research by Hatton-Bowers et al. (2023) closely aligned with the aims of

the current study, i.e., to investigate the effects of not only mindfulness but, particularly,

self-compassion on EC teacher emotion self-regulation. In two pilot studies of the

Cultivating Healthy Intentional Mindful Educators’ (CHIME) program, with

cumulatively 99 teachers, Hatton-Bowers et al. (2023), through mixed methods and an

iterative approach, finetuned CHIME’s design. For example, teachers in the first study

felt it was difficult to remember content when they met biweekly, perhaps indicative of

80
the high intensity of their daily activities meeting the needs of young children. In

response, the CHIME schedule was changed in the second study, and teachers met

weekly for approximately eight weeks but still in small relational groups of 7-12 with

their facilitators for the same 12 hours in total. Also, as suggested by teachers, more

activities for mindfulness and emotion regulation were added that they could do with

their young students. When teachers commented that they would like to practice their

reflective listening skills with more than one colleague, that pedagogy was changed so

that they practiced with several partners during the course of the program. Another

improvement, resulting from teacher feedback, was that the handouts for each session

were put in a notebook, so that these resources were organized and at their fingertips. As

someone who has planned professional learning for many years, these tweaks and bigger

changes seemed apt examples of tailoring the program to what teachers want and need, so

that they feel their scarce resource of time was well spent. Further, providing practical

support seems a concrete way to demonstrate respect and care for teaching colleagues,

helping to build the autonomy (ownership) and relational trust (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan

& Deci, 2017) that motivate deep engagement in one’s professional learning (PL).

The PL experience was guided by a facilitator with a master’s degree in early

childhood development who received three days of training in advance and ongoing

support for fidelity of implementation, including strategies for authentically building

relationships. The design and content of the PL included the following.

Each CHIME session focuses on specific mindfulness techniques, such as

81
 mindful breathing, mindful body movements, mindful listening and

bringing attention to current states and surroundings to support optimal

responsiveness, emotion regulation, and compassion… Following each

weekly CHIME session, participants complete “putting into practice”

activities with the children in their care, providing opportunity for

classroom practice and reflection… Practices and strategies are taught in a

small group format with other EC teachers. As such, CHIME fosters a

peer learning community. (Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023, p. 1293)

The results of the CHIME pilot studies were encouraging. Through a qualitative

inductive coding process by the researchers, themes emerged from teacher responses

about benefits from the PL, e.g., “improved communication,” “permission to express

feelings,” “learning helpful ways to manage stress and emotions,” and “useful resources

and tools” (Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023, p. 1296). Moreover, 73% of teachers reported

that they meditated at post-intervention, a significant increase, and 20% reported that they

were doing yoga which, while not a significant increase, was notable because the PL had

not included instruction about yoga. As such, that teachers playfully elaborated on their

experience to try yoga suggested an empowering sense of autonomy (choice and

ownership), relatedness (trust and camaraderie), and growing competence (self-efficacy)

(Bandura, 2023; Deci & Ryan, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Teachers were also eager to

apply what they were learning about mindfulness and emotion regulation in their

classrooms. This latter outcome was similar to other findings (Denham et al., 2019),

82
suggesting the synergy of focusing on applications for both teachers and their students.

Significant quantitative results were that teachers had more mindfulness, lower levels of

burnout (from less emotion exhaustion), and increased emotion regulation. This latter

characteristic correlated with many components of the other measured characteristics,

suggesting the profound influence of enhanced self-regulation. Overall, the outcomes of

the CHIME studies signaled that teachers were open to and embraced this type of PL,

benefited from it, and that the CHIME program should be further finetuned and studied.

“The What, How, and Who, of Early Childhood Professional Development (PD):

Differential Associations of PD and Self-Reported Beliefs and Practices” (Gardner-

Neblett et al., 2021, p. 53)

Gardner-Neblett et al. (2021) used data from the National Survey of Early Care

and Education, Workforce Survey (NSECE, Project Team, 2011; as cited in Gardner-

Neblett et al., 2021) for 4,0123 teachers to investigate how different types of professional

learning predicted infant/toddler versus preschool teacher self-reported beliefs and

practices. They examined these pathways through structural equation modeling. Results

were that coaching of infant/toddler and preschool teachers predicted more progressive

beliefs about educating young children. Two other forms of professional learning were

found to be effective. Infant/toddler teachers who visited one another’s classrooms had

more planned activities, and preschool teachers who had college coursework had more

progressive beliefs. Just attending professional or staff meetings or trainings without

83
coaching were not effective. These last two formats connoted passive experiences while

the formats that were effective were more interactive and relationship-based.

Cumulative Insights from the Preceding Studies

Overall, the message from these seven studies (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019; Brophy-

Herb et al., 2024; Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023; Jennings et al., 2019; Garner-Neblett et al.,

2021; Vallotton et al. 2016; Virmani et al., 2020) was about the need to grow beyond the

traditional emphasis in EC teacher education on knowledge acquisition and embed

substantive person-first processes. Indeed, a whole teacher approach would incorporate

teacher belief systems, i.e., their developing attitudes and values about their own and

children’s learning and well-being, in tandem with their human-development knowledge

and pedagogical practice systems. Given that there have been few studies at the early

childhood level about whole teacher processes – with this research just beginning to

increase in the last five to 10 years – the contributions of these seven studies seemed even

more consequential.

Two Studies about the Kindness Curriculum

Finally, I considered two studies about a curriculum for preschool children that

had implications for teacher professional learning, partly because of the component of a

mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) for teachers. However, I also examined this

research, because the curriculum emphasized kindness, which I suspected strongly

influences not only teachers’ mindful compassion and emotion self-regulation but their

developmental support of children’s self-regulation. Indeed, these two small but

84
randomized control studies (Flook et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016) had

promising results for the effectiveness of the mindfulness-based Kindness Curriculum for

not only preschool children but, potentially, teacher self-regulatory well-being, too. This

possible synergy from concurrently supporting and linking teacher and child social

emotional learning aligned with findings from other studies (Denham et al., 2019;

Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023).

Children from Kindness Curriculum classrooms made larger gains in self-

regulation, executive function, and social competence than children in control

classrooms. Effect sizes were more often small or medium than large. However, even

small increments of more self-control have been found to compound benefits into

adulthood (Moffitt et al., 2011). Additionally, while Kindness Curriculum children at all

levels of self-regulation made gains, children with the lowest baselines made the greatest

gains. This latter outcome was consistent with findings from studies about the Tools of

the Mind early childhood curriculum that emphasized self-regulatory support (Blair &

Raver, 2014; Solomon et al., 2018). Therein, children with the greatest self-regulatory

needs benefited the most, and this result was also similar to children with the lowest self-

control in the groundbreaking Moffitt et al. (2011) study.

These results, while not surprising, suggested that adult learners with less self-

regulatory well-being may also show the most improvement, e.g., in the future

intervention I will do with preservice EC teachers after the current study. Indeed,

Jennings et al. (2019) found similar results for K-5 teachers who participated in the

85
Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) program. Those with lower

emotion regulation and more psychological distress at the beginning of the CARE

intervention showed the most improvement at the end.

The positive impact of the Kindness Curriculum was also intriguing, because the

dosage for teachers and children was modest with about 10 hours of preschool classroom

instruction. The program was implemented over 12 weeks via two 20-30 minute lessons

weekly done in an existing part of the daily schedule, e.g., large group time. From a

practical standpoint, the cost in time and materials for this free supplemental curriculum

from the University of Wisconsin-Madison would probably not be prohibitive for most

preschool programs.

The eight themes of the Kindness Curriculum yielded clues about what content

and instructional strategies were most effective for teaching children about self-

regulation, and may also suggest applications that could be calibrated for adult learners.

The themes were Mindful Bodies and Planting Seeds of Kindness, I Feel Emotions on the

Inside, How I Feel on the Inside Shows on the Outside, Taking Care of Strong Emotions

on the Inside and Outside, Calming and Working Out Problems, Gratitude, All People

Depend Upon Each Other and the Earth, and Caring for Our World. Providing more clues

for how to effectively teach self-regulation and, again, perhaps suggest adaptations for

adults, the lessons were interactive, featuring role-plays and re-enactments with props,

songs and music with movement, teacher-child and peer conversations, and movement-

based yoga, as opposed to seated yoga or meditation. Through these lively interactive

86
experiences, there was likely a sense of playfulness, a quality that, too often, is missing in

forums not only for children but adult learners.

Indeed, Poehlmann-Tynan et al. (2016) speculated that a main lever for the large

effect size from the Kindness Curriculum on children’s attentional focus was

contemplative yet playful movement-based yoga. For example, children pretended, with a

sense of fun but also purpose, to lull a stuffed animal to sleep on their stomachs with deep

belly breathing. The researchers also noticed that lessons with less movement, e.g.,

reading a book while remaining seated, were not as engaging as when teachers interwove

movement. Not surprisingly, difficulty paying attention, participating, and self-regulating

were highest when lesson content was more abstract, suggesting the need to make

concepts even more concrete and pre-plan meaningful movement to aid children’s

comprehension. A connection to adult learning may be that teachers want concrete

applications of theory and research to pedagogical practices to enhance their instruction

and interactions with children. Indeed, learners of all ages likely appreciate and value

authentic activities that reflect their real lives.

Despite the popularity of supplemental “school-based mindfulness programs”

(Rashedi & Schonert-Reichl, 2019, p. 726), e.g., the Kindness Curriculum and other

programs with similar yoga or meditative components, there have been few other

evaluative studies for early childhood settings. However, the results of the preschool

Kindness Curriculum were consistent with benefits of contemplative practices for older

children and adults. Effective implementation of the Kindness Curriculum also included

87
chances for “willful embodiment” wherein children could use their bodies as “learning

agents” to construct conceptual understandings (Rashedi & Schonert-Reichl, 2019, p.

730). In an example from a different program, the teacher invited children doing yoga to

consider why a child playing the bird pose (i.e., balancing on one foot)

feels scared to fly away from its nest. The teacher invites children to think

about the resources that the child playing the bird pose has, such as its

strong wings. The child takes the bird’s wings, which in this case are the

child’s arms, and gives a self-hug. A teacher asks children to give

themselves a hug to teach them how to use their body to access an inner

sense of safety. (Rashedi 7 Schonert-Reichl, 2019 p. 730)

I also perceived this example as being about a “shared mind empathic experience”

(Riess, 2018, p. 5) and the elaborative nature of play. The children in their portrayals

exercised affective, cognitive, and behavioral self-regulation, and all six developmental

domains were integrated through their activity, i.e., social, emotional, cognitive,

language, physical, and even aesthetic in dramatizing the scared bird. Such experiences

are the epitome of holistic whole-child development and may have something to teach us

about holistic whole-person development for adult learners, as well. This idea resonated

with me because of the wider ethic in our field to follow the lead of the child. I was also

drawn to the connection with intentional kindness (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019) both for

children and teachers, believing that deliberately practicing taking the perspective of

others and acting kindly is how we become more empathetic and kind. In other words, we

88
need not wait to feel a strong impulse of compassion but can cognitively then emotionally

act our way into it.

Prior to the implementation of the Kindness Curriculum, preschool teachers

participated in a modified 26-hour Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction course that had

originally been adapted for elementary school educators. The intent of this mindfulness-

based intervention (MBI) was primarily to help teachers reduce stress and burnout, as

well as become more aware and present in their interactions with children for enhanced

learning. By extension, teachers whose classrooms later participated in the Kindness

Curriculum may have been better prepared to connect that content across the school day

for their students. Relatedly, the small random-control study about an early attempt to

support teacher well-being through an MBI that has been cited nearly 400 times (Flook et

al., 2013) found positive results for treatment group teachers, who at baseline had not

differed from control group teachers. These benefits included reduced stress and cortisol

levels, higher CLASS scores for emotional support, and more self-compassion. Of note,

self-compassion was a focus in the present study, as a potential predictor of teacher self-

regulatory well-being and their support for children’s self-regulatory development.

I closely reviewed the preschool Kindness Curriculum and the MBI for teachers

(Flook et al., 2013; Flook et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016) for potential

applications for preservice EC teachers, in particular. For example, how might an MBI be

similar or different for these novices and reflect their professional, individual, and

cultural contexts? More broadly: What if a design principle for preservice EC teacher

89
education was that these foundational curricula are epitomized by a culture and climate of

intentional kindness (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019), because that relational essence is central

to optimal human development for learners of any age? What if elements of play were

incorporated, e.g., opportunities to explore, choose, imagine, collaborate, and innovate,

because play actively engages learners of any age, encourages them to apply their highest

levels of skills (Vygotsky, 1978) and is integral to adaptive learning (Piaget & Inhelder,

1969, 2000)? How might this look, sound, and feel different from traditional teacher

education and professional learning? These questions animated the present study, and I

ultimately attempted to answer them in the last chapter of this paper.

Implications: Summary and Further Insights

Supporting children’s self-regulation and self-determination requires not only

time but empathy and compassion to effectively scaffold what is a long-term

developmental process. Inherent in teacher support of child self-regulation is adult self-

regulation, necessitating empathy and compassion for not only the child but oneself.

Since many people who go into the helping professions, e.g., teaching and nursing, are

relatively high in empathy, they may so viscerally feel another’s pain that, ironically, they

experience secondary trauma and are less able to help or will eventually burnout (Riess &

Neporent, 2018). Given these occupational hazards, empowering the self-regulatory

agency of early childhood professionals (ECPs) should include empathy and compassion

for oneself as individuals who matter and, also, so that they can extend the same support

to children. Yet, finding this balance for optimal care of oneself and others can be

90
difficult, even for seasoned professionals. Thus, preservice ECPs may especially benefit

from help to develop dual self-regulatory support for children and themselves, as a

protective factor for their long-term empathy satisfaction and to avoid empathy fatigue.

This strikes me as a critical time in the United States, in particular, to focus on

empathy. Konrath et al. (2011) found that college students in America over a 30-year

period from 1979-2009 had declining rates of empathic concern and perspective-taking

beyond oneself, key precursors for acting with compassion. Worrisomely, the most rapid

decline in empathy has been since 2000, indicating increasingly self-focused perspectives

and at least some fraying of the social fabric.

There may be a connection between empathy and attachment style. A meta-

analysis, also by Konrath et al. (2014), about the attachment styles of college students in

the United States found that those with secure attachment had dropped 15% between

1988-2011 from 48% to 41 percent. Moreover, those with dismissive attachment – a

positive view of oneself but negative view of others – had increased relative to the other

two insecure attachment styles, preoccupied or fearful. Likewise, the findings in a study

of college students in a sociology course in one U.S. midwestern university between

1997-2019 showed a 24% decline in secure attachment from 38% to 29% with, again, the

greatest percentage increase in the dismissive style (Sprecher, 2022).

Moreover, Akanbi (2024) found that undergraduate students’ adjustment to

college, including the need to be more self-regulated, was predicted by their attachment

styles. Students with secure attachment showed the highest academic, institutional,

91
personal-emotional, and, in particular, social adjustment. An implication was that “secure

attachment should be incorporated, supported, and sustained by the support services

department in universities for improvement of adjustment to college life” (Akanbi, 2024,

p. 50). However, attachment style has been shown to be fairly immutable which was why

Vallotton et al. (2016) suggested that developing beliefs that positively mediate

attachment may be more tangible and effective. Also, from an ecological perspective,

there is likely some ebb and flow in attachment, depending on one’s ongoing

experiences. If so, there may be actionable opportunities to nurture more secure

attachment or relative improvement through timely, practical, relational support. Perhaps

as Moffit et al. (2011) found for self-regulatory control, even a small gradient increase in

trust of oneself and others would yield compounded benefits across time. Further,

Asayesh et al. (2024) found that nurses with more self-compassion were more likely to

have a secure attachment style, so perhaps developing this belief in the worth of oneself

is a tangible way to nurture secure attachment. This finding was a clue that both self-

empathy and empathy for others are important for self-regulatory well-being and

attachment security.

The reasons for declining empathy and attachment are complex and likely

interwoven. However, one factor may be the increase in the use of cell phones, other

similar devices, and the internet (Konrath et al., 2014). Even when those interactions

are through what was not meant to be an oxymoron – social media – there seems a

qualitative difference in two-dimensional interactions via screens versus three-

92
 dimensional in-person interactions. If so, this influence that was meant to connect

people may be separating them through opportunistic algorithms that curate online

feeds with often provoking content meant to keep people online. In turn, people may

feel more isolated or lonely as those around them are less available because they are

also online, which then may negatively affect mental health and well-being.

Perhaps the worst symptom of this apparent fraying of empathy and secure

attachment is that adults collectively tolerate mass shootings of America’s school

children, unlike in any other developed nation (Silva, 2002). When enough adults do

not empathize enough to reasonably self-regulate to work together and put children

first, adults fail children from an ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner &

Morris, 2006) and moral perspective. Regarding the underlying belief and value

systems for adults individually and collectively, Bandura (2016) may have guidance for

us in Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves, e.g.,

how a dearth of empathy can lead to dehumanization. While untangling all the reasons

for diminished empathy and attachment are beyond the scope of this paper, seeking to

strengthen these skills and other influences for adults and children in early education

led to the theory of change for the current study.

Theory of Change: Empathy and Compassion Influence Self-Regulation

Within a context of self-regulation as self-determination, my reflections on the

parallel cognitive-affective-behavioral dimensions of empathy and self-regulation led to

the realization that empathy may be a uniquely effective means for developing self-

93
regulation. This emphasis on empathy would include a focus on compassion, as the latter

is the enaction of the former, and both are skills that can be developed and measured.

Intentional or mindful empathy and compassion, I hypothesized, exceptionally

contextualize and mediate successful self-regulation. They help one observe and interpret

– modulate emotions with thought – for sound perspectives about what is happening and

how to respond, as shown in the theoretical model in Figure 2.3.

Specifically, early childhood teacher empathy and compassion for oneself and

others positively influence their perspectives, self-regulation, and developmentally

supportive responses for children’s self-regulatory growth. Throughout the process of a

teacher self-regulating and supporting a child’s self-regulation, the teacher’s ongoing

observational skills and resulting perspectives, both affectively and cognitively, are key

to providing the most sensitive scaffolding for the child. Then in accordance with the

ecological principle (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) that all

affects and is affected by all else, self-determination was next added to the theoretical

model, as shown in Figure 2.4. Self-regulatory well-being was hypothesized as the

primary means to actualizing self-determinative well-being.

Lastly, systemic influences were added for a comprehensive theoretical model, as

shown in Figure 2.5. Facilitative (helpful) or non-facilitative (counterproductive)

conditions include governmental and local educational policies, processes, materials and

other resources, as well as the culture, climate, and leadership of the center or school

(Vallotton et al., 2021). Cumulatively, these systemic conditions for teaching and

94
learning profoundly affect the educational environment and self-regulatory well-being of

all inhabitants, whether children or adults. Of note, Denham et al. (2017) found that early

childhood teachers’ “greater feelings of job resources and job control significantly related

to positive emotional expressiveness, contingent reactions, and attitudes towards teaching

children about emotions” (p. 296). Their greater emotional self-regulatory well-being

likely enhanced their support of children’s emotional self-regulatory development. Also,

while the systemic influences in the model are ecologically bidirectional, the institutional

and larger, more powerful systems likely affect individuals and their self-determinative

well-being more than individuals can affect these systems, at least for some duration.

95
Figure 2.3

Empathy and Compassion Mediate Perspective-Taking and Successful Self-Regulation

Note. Enacted or behavioral empathy arises from cognitive and affective empathy

elevated through empathic concern, i.e., compassion, (Riess & Neporent, 2018) to

motivate responding with helpful actions. Focusing on empathy and compassion for self

and others may be an ultra-contextualized uniquely synergistic means for supporting self-

regulatory growth and, ultimately, self-determination.

96
 Figure 2.4

Theoretical Model of Relationships between Teacher Empathy/Compassion, Self-Regulation, and Support for Child Self-

Regulation
97

Note. Teacher empathy and compassion for self and others influence teacher self-regulation and these factors influence teacher
support of child development of self-regulation and self-determinative well-being for both teacher and child.
 Figure 2.5

Comprehensive Theoretical Model for Self-Regulatory Support and Equitable Self-Determination within Facilitating or Non-

Facilitating Ecological Systems

98
Conclusion

People-centered holistic systems of care and education for teachers and children

are a fundamental pre-condition for their optimal self-regulatory well-being and robust

self-determination as lifelong learners. Without that foundation reasonably in place,

efforts to support teacher and child self-regulatory well-being will likely not endure,

because the burden will have been put on individuals to overcome less than healthy

systems. Thus, the rationale for my theoretical model is contingent on successful efforts

to build these strong systems and foundations, as depicted in Figure 2.5.

Through this literature review, I organized more than 150 research articles and

primary sources, first by broad topic then results, to help illuminate trends across

findings. Then, from these trends, I extracted main findings as overarching themes which

became subheadings within the literature review. As depicted earlier in Figure 2.1, these

were as follows.

• Definition and Construct of Self-Regulation

• Centrality of Self-Regulation in Human Development

• Centrality of Self-Regulation for Self-Determination

• Centrality of Teacher Emotional Support for Child Self-Regulation

• Teacher Emotion Socialization Practices Support Child Self-Regulation

99
 • Teacher Discourse Practices Support Child Emotion Socialization and Self-

Regulation

• Centrality of Teacher Empathy in Self-Regulatory Support

• Centrality of Whole Teacher Pedagogy in Teacher Education for Self-Regulatory

Well-Being

Through a methodical process, I distilled insights about essential components for self-

regulatory development and well-being for adults and children, and how to support early

childhood teachers in preservice teacher education and inservice professional learning.

These insights informed my development of a theory of change to conclude this

chapter that teacher empathy and compassion influence teacher self-regulation

which, in turn, influences teacher support of child self-regulation. These

hypothesized relationships became integral to the conceptual models with eight

research questions that were developed in the next chapter to answer this

overarching research question.

• In what ways, do preservice early childhood teacher self-compassion, compassion

for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and attachment

style predict their self-regulatory well-being and developmental support of child

self-regulation for the self-determinative well-being of both teacher and child?

100
 CHAPTER THREE

Methods

My study’s conceptual design and methods arose from a two-pronged premise.

These postulates were that 1) supporting children’s development of self-regulation is

central to their human right of self-determination across their lifespan and 2) prioritizing

the self-regulatory well-being of both children and adults is key to unlocking self-

determinative equity for all human beings. Through the present mixed method study, I

built onto my previous qualitative research (Wood, 2020). That study investigated how

early childhood teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and beliefs about the development of

child self-regulation impacted their self-reported classroom practices. Two main findings

were that

1) teachers’ beliefs influenced their practices more than pedagogical knowledge had,

consistent with other research (Vallotton et al., 2016; Virmani et al., 2020), and

2) teachers whose beliefs and practices aligned with knowledge about child

development demonstrated readiness to coach and be coached about children’s

self-regulatory development.

Yet, I wanted to know much more about what might mediate teacher beliefs, so that those

influences could be intentionally supported in teacher education. I also believed that

whole teacher person-first development was important for teachers’ personal and

professional well-being. These motivations led to my conceptualization of influences on

101
preservice early childhood (EC) teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practices for the current

study and its overarching research question: In what ways do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and attachment style predict their self-regulatory well-being and

developmental support of child self-regulation for the self-determinative well-being of

both teacher and child? To help answer that question, eight research sub questions were

developed and reported later in this chapter.

Setting

The setting was a large midwestern university in the United States, located a few

hours away by vehicle from a major metropolitan area, with students in seven child

development and early childhood education courses taught by six instructors, including

me. I chose this location for the study because I am an assistant professor there with

access to hundreds of preservice teachers in these courses. I also have relationships with

most of the other instructors and believed that this professional connection would

increase their dissemination of information to students about the option to participate in

the study.

Participants

Participants were traditional college students in child development and early

childhood education courses. Most were preparing to become early childhood teachers

for children birth through age eight. A small number of these preservice early childhood

professionals may have planned to work in other roles, e.g., as speech and language

102
pathologists, early care and education administrators, hospital child life specialists, or

pediatric nurses.

The participants were a subset of the 300 college students enrolled in the

following seven child development and early childhood education courses during the

semester of the study.

1) Introduction to child development

2) Developmentally supportive interactions with young children in group settings,

3) Infant/toddler development, curricula, and lesson planning

4) Preschool child development, curricula, and lesson planning

5) Assessment of children birth through age eight

6) Inclusion of children with special needs

7) Part-time practicums or full-time student teaching in early childhood classrooms

at the university and in the wider community

All these courses required observations of young children. Additionally, all but one of the

first six listed courses were combined with a practicum or student teaching course.

Approximately 146 (49%) of the 300 students participated in the study by taking a

survey. However, how many of the five instructors chose to provide information about

the study to their students was unknown, other than for the two courses I taught with 108

students. Ultimately, 92 or 63% of the 146 participants’ data were used in the study. Of

the initial 146 participants, 15 or 10.3% did not finish the survey (with most of them only

answering the first questions) and 17 (11.6%) finished the survey but had missing

103
responses across measures. The data for these 32 participants (21.9%) were removed,

leaving 114 potential participants. The reasons that more than one in five participants did

not fully respond to the survey were unknown. These may have been related to the

procedures of not collecting identifying information nor requiring that students finish the

survey or give proof that they had done so to receive extra credit points, e.g., by

submitting a photo of the post-survey thank-you message. These procedures were to

ensure the fully voluntary participation of students who held less positional power than

their professors. Perhaps, too, for participants that finished the survey but had missing

responses, survey fatigue was a factor.

Of the remaining 114 participants, 10 (8.8%) did not give consent the two times

they were asked at the beginning and end of the survey, and 12 (10.5%) gave consent pre-

survey but not post-survey. The data for these 22 participants (19.3%) were removed for

lack of consent, leaving the 92 final participants. The reasons that 12 of the 92

participants had changed their consent from yes to no were unknown. Perhaps

participants who had previously taken surveys were confused by the unusual procedure of

being asked twice for consent, experienced survey fatigue which contributed to cursorily

answering the post-survey consent question, or purposely changed their minds. Regarding

this latter possibility, some participants may have felt that, cumulatively, the questions

were too personal. Conversely, three students who did not give consent pre-survey gave

consent post-survey. Again, their reasons were unknown, but may have been related to

confusion, survey fatigue, or a genuine desire to participate in the study after all.

104
 However, the possibility also exists that by being asked twice, some students felt

pressured to change their no to a yes, the opposite of the reason that the IRB had required

double consent which was to guarantee that there was no coercion. Interestingly, a cross-

university collaboration of early childhood faculty also reported differences in how their

IRBs viewed the science of teaching and learning (SoTL) and their related research

proposals. Some of the IRBs contextualized the Collaborative for Understanding the

Pedagogy of Infant/Toddler Development (CUPID) research as common evaluation of

educational programs and, thus, categorized these studies as exempt or did not require

elaborate review processes. Yet, other IRBs were concerned that SoTL research takes

advantage of students and required full reviews (Vallotton et al., 2019). As a principal

investigator for the current study, I decided that the most ethical procedure for all

participants was to go by their final consent as a definitive signal of a participant’s

ultimate decision.

Recruitment

Participation was invited through the instructors of the child development or early

childhood courses who opted to disseminate to their students the written information I

had provided as approved by the Oakland University Institutional Review Board (IRB)

(Appendix A). Those materials were an initial email to instructors asking that they

consider disseminating information (Appendix B) via a student recruitment letter

(Appendix C) and information sheet about the study (Appendix D). For the two courses

that I taught, before disseminating the information sheet, I provided students with a

105
written announcement (Appendix E) posted on the online course site and read aloud by

me from a slide in that class session’s PowerPoint slide deck.

Descriptive Statistics for the Demographic Data

The gender and race/ethnicity of participants was similar to students from prior

semesters. Ninety (98%) of the 92 participants reported their gender as female. While a

few participants reported two races/ethnicities, 78 (85%) identified as white, 9 (9%)

identified as Hispanic or Latino, 6 (7%) identified as Black, 3 (3%) identified as Asian,

and 1 (1%) student identified as American Indian, as shown in Table 3.1. There was

minimal diversity in the study sample.

Table 3.1

Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Participants

Variable n %
Gender
Female 90 97.8
Male 2 2.2
Nonbinary 0 0
Prefer not to answer 0 0
Other 0 0
Total 92 100
Race/Ethnicity
White 78 84.8
Hispanic or Latino 9 8.7
Black or African American 6 6.5
Asian, Pacific Islander 3 3.3
American Indian, Alaskan Native 1 1.1
Arab 1 1.1
Other 0 0
Total 98* NA

Note. *Six participants indicated two races/ethnicities.

106
 In class standing, the majority of participants, i.e., 48 (52%) were sophomores.

Twenty-three (25%) were juniors, and 12 (13%) were seniors. Thus, 35 (38%) were

upper level students, i.e., juniors or seniors. Seven (8%) were first-year students.

Regarding prior child development or early childhood education coursework, 42

(46%) of participants had taken three or more courses, and 21 (23%) had two courses.

Thus, 63 (69%) of the students had taken two or more courses that are part of the required

sequence for early childhood teachers. Twenty-six (28%) of participants had taken only

one, likely introductory, course. Only three (3%) of the students reported no prior child

development or early childhood education coursework. Table 3.2 summarizes these data.

Table 3.2

College Class Standing and Prior Child Development/Early Childhood

Courses of Participants

Variable n %
Current Class Standing
First-year student 7 7.6
Sophomore 48 52.2
Junior 23 25
Senior 12 13
Graduate student 1 1.1
Other* 1 1.1
Total 92 100
Prior CD/ECE Courses
0 courses 3 3.3
1 course 26 28.3
2 courses 21 22.8
3 or more courses 42 45.7
Total 92 100

Note. *Participant was a transfer student and unsure of class standing.

107
 The 92 students who participated in the study indicated the following college

majors, as shown in Table 3.3: elementary education was chosen by 70 students (76%)

who were most likely pursuing the preschool to third grade and/or a special education

endorsement for teacher certification, child development 20 (22%), special education 17

(19%), education six (7%), psychology two (2%), other three (3%), human development

and family studies 1 (1%), or social work 0 (0%). The three students who chose the

descriptor “other” wrote that their majors were communication sciences and disorders,

kinesiology, and the birth to kindergarten endorsement for teacher certification. These

percentages added to more than 100, because the 92 participants chose a total of 117

descriptors of their majors. Since at least 113 (97%) of the descriptors applied to students

in early childhood teacher required courses, most likely nearly all of them were

preservice early childhood EC teachers.

108
Table 3.3

College Majors of Participants

Variable n %
College Majors
Elementary education 70 76
Child development 20 22
Special education 17 19
Education 6 7
Psychology 2 2
Other* 3 3
Social work 0 0
HDFS 1 1
Total descriptors** 117
Total participants 92

Note. *Other majors reported by participants were communication sciences and disorders,

kinesiology, and birth to kindergarten. ** Some of the 92 students chose more than one

descriptor.

Researcher Role and Description

In addition to being the researcher, I was the instructor for two of the seven

courses with 108 of the approximately 300 potential participants. As such, I had

positional power over students, and this imbalance could make them feel pressured to

participate in the study. To counter this possibility, I emphasized verbally and in writing

(Appendices 1b-d) that participating was wholly optional.

My dual role of participant and researcher had advantages and disadvantages.

Two advantages were that I had convenient access to potential participants and

knowledge of the university’s teacher education curricula which will be helpful in later

applying insights from the study results to plan curricular improvements. Conversely, a
109
chief disadvantage was that my involvement as a course instructor may have

compromised my objectivity when interpreting survey responses and the results of the

study. I considered my positionality as a white cisgender female who has been an early

childhood teacher, principal, and director in rural, suburban, and urban settings for

decades. As the same race and gender as the vast majority of potential participants, I may

have related more to their backgrounds or assumed I understood them more than I

actually did. For the small number of students of color, I may have assumed their homes

were in urban not rural areas, because of residing mostly in rural areas where there was

little or no diversity. I may have thought I could relate to participants from urban areas,

because of working in an urban area for several years.

However, as a privileged white person with an upper middle-class income, I

cannot fully realize the barriers to equitable participation that exist for students whose

families have low incomes or are from historically marginalized groups. I may not have

understood cultural differences related to parenting, discipline, and guidance of young

children for participants with backgrounds and experiences other than mine. As someone

who has worked in the early childhood field for a long time, I have strong positions about

what constitutes developmentally-appropriate practices, which may have caused me to

score participants’ narrative responses to preschool scenarios subjectively or more

negatively. All of these potential biases may have reduced my objectivity and skewed my

interpretations. These possibilities, along with my dual role of researcher-participant,

meant that I needed to plan and follow deliberate protocols for scoring responses and

110
interpreting study results. It was important to intentionally seek to act with full

transparency for trustworthiness as a researcher and the credibility of study findings.

Data Sources

There were 11 measures used in the study. These measures were summarized in

Table 3.4, including their alignment with research sub questions and estimated time for

participants to complete each measure. After Table 3.4, the measures and their

psychometric properties were described.

Table 3.4

Qualtrics Survey Measures with Estimated Time per Participant and Alignment to

Research Sub Questions

Survey Items and Measures Description Time Research

(in the order that they appear Sub
in the Qualtrics survey) Question

Summary and Link to Information Preliminary information for participants .33

Sheet before taking survey min.
Initial Consent Authorization from participants to use .13
their data for the study min.
Confirmation of Age 18 or Older To ensure that participants are adults .13
min.
Demographic Data Gender, race/ethnicity, number of prior 1.5 All
early childhood courses, college major, min.
Meditation Data class standing (year of college); Meditate
yes/no; if yes, #times in last week and # of
minutes each time
Developmentally Supportive 4 scenarios with narrative responses* and 12.53 3, 6, 7, 8
Responses for Child Self-Regulatory 4 Likert scale items** for perceived min.
Well-Being: Part I effectiveness
Developmentally Supportive 4 scenarios with multiple-choice 1.86 3, 6, 7, 8
Responses for Child Self-Regulatory responses*** and 4 Likert scales for min.
Well-Being: Part II perceived effectiveness
Emotion Regulation Skills Awareness, sensations, clarity, 3.59 2, 3, 5, 7,
Questionnaire understanding, accepting, tolerance, min. 8
readiness to confront, self-support, and
(Used for self-regulatory well-being) modification (9 components);
Likert scale, 27 items

111
Table 3.4 - Continued

Survey Items and Measures Description Time Research

(in the order that they appear Sub
in the Qualtrics survey) Question

Attachment Style Questionnaire Baseline security; 2.93 All

Likert scale, 22 items min.
State Self-Compassion Scale Long Self-Compassion: Kindness, common 2.39 1, 2, 7, 8
Form humanity, and mindfulness (3 positively min.
related components);
Self-Coldness: Self-judgment, isolation,
and over-identification (3 negatively
related components);
Likert scale, 18 items
Compassion (for others) Scale Kindness, common humanity, and 2.13 1, 2, 7, 8
mindfulness (3 positively related); min.
Indifference (1 negatively related);
Likert scale, 16 items
Mindfulness in Teaching Scale Subscale for interpersonal mindfulness; .67 1, 2, 7, 8
Likert scale, 5 items min.
Five-Facet Mindfulness Observing, describing, acting with 5.19 1, 2, 7, 8
Questionnaire awareness, nonjudging of inner min.
experience, and nonreactivity to inner
experience (5 intrapersonal components);
Likert scale, 39 items
Basic Psychological Need Competence, autonomy, and relatedness 2.79 4, 5, 6, 7,
Satisfaction Scale (3 components); min. 8
Likert scale, 21 items
(Used for self-determinative well-
being)
Diener Flourishing Scale – Likert scale, 8 items 1.06 4, 5, 6, 7,
Psychological Well-Being min. 8
Final Consent Authorization from participants to use .13
their data for the study min.
Total Estimated Time per Participant 34.97
min.
*4 narrative responses @ 3 min. = 12 min.; **164 Likert items @ 8 seconds = 22 minutes; ***4
multiple-choice items @ 20 seconds = 1.33 minutes

Measures

Self-Compassion and Self-Coldness. The State Self-Compassion Scale Long

Form (SSCS-L) (Neff et al., 2021) was used to measure self-compassion as a construct

with six components and, in my theoretical model, as an affective component of empathy

112
(shown prior in Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The three SSCS-L components positively associated

with self-compassion were self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. The three

components inversely associated with self-compassion were self-judgment, isolation, and

over-identification, collectively referred to as self-coldness (Neff et al., 2021). Of note,

self-kindness and self-judgement were opposites, as were common humanity and

isolation, and mindfulness and over-identification (Neff, 2013; as cited in Pommier et al.,

2019). There were three items for each of the six components, 18 in total (shown in

Appendix G), for which respondents chose from a Likert scale of 1 for not at all true for

me to 5 for very true for me. Examples of items were

• I’m giving myself the caring and tenderness I need (self-kindness),

• I’m being pretty tough on myself (self-judgment, reverse scored),

• I see my difficulties as part of life that everyone goes through (common

humanity),

• I feel separate and cut off from the rest of the world (isolation, reverse scored),

• I’m keeping my emotions in balanced perspective (mindfulness), and

• I’m obsessing and fixating on everything that’s wrong (over-identification,

reverse scored).

Each component or subscale score was an average of its three items, and the

overall self-compassion score was an average of all the scores. Scores reflected general

levels of self-compassion with no explicit cutoff determining high and low or enough and

not enough compassion. However, one may use a rough rule of thumb that scores below

113
2.49 suggest low compassion; above 2.5 but below 3.5, moderate compassion; and 3.6 to

5, high compassion. Alternatively, one may use median scores as a demarcation of low

and high compassion (Pommier et al., 2019) or contrast subgroup scores, e.g., how self-

compassion may differ for participants with secure versus insecure attachment. I used the

former method of Likert scale thresholds, because many of the present study’s measures

use 5-point Likert scales, and the ranges for low, moderate, and high scores more readily

allow comparisons and tests for correlation and predictive relationships.

The SSCS-L has sound validity and reliability. Through bifactor exploratory

structural equation modeling, the validity of measuring self-compassion as a multifactor

construct was confirmed, supporting the conceptualization that “a compassionate

mindstate is the system-level balance of the six self-compassion components” (Phillips,

2019; as cited in Neff et al., 2021, p. 124). Cronbach’s alpha for the total self-compassion

score was high at .94 and supported the conceptualization that while the components

were closely related, they were distinct and not redundant or identical which would have

indicated there should be fewer than six factors. Cronbach’s alphas for the individual

factors or components showed adequate to high reliability from .73 for overidentification

to between .80 and .85 for the other components except for self-kindness at .90. (Neff et

al., 2021).

Compassion. The Compassion Scale (CS) (Pommier et al., 2019) was used to

measure compassion for others as a construct with four components and, in my

theoretical model, as an affective component of empathy (shown prior in Figure 2.3 and

114
4). The three components of the Compassion Scale positively associated with compassion

for others were kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. The component inversely

associated with compassion for others (and reverse scored) was indifference. There were

four items for each of the four components or a total of 16 items (shown in Appendix H)

for which respondents chose from a Likert scale of 1 for almost never to 5 for almost

always. Examples of items were

• If I see someone going through a difficult time, I try to be caring toward that

person (kindness),

• I realize everyone feels down sometimes, it is part of being human (common

humanity),

• I pay careful attention when other people talk to me about their troubles

(mindfulness), and

• I am unconcerned with other people’s problems (indifference, reverse scored).

Each component was scored as an average from its four items, and the overall

compassion score was an average of all the scores. Much like interpreting scores for the

self-compassion measure that was previously described, there was no absolute cutoff of

enough or not enough compassion for others. Rather, one may interpret Compassion

Scale scores using the rough rule of thumb that below 2.49 suggests low compassion;

above 2.5 but below 3.5, moderate compassion; and 3.6 to 5, high compassion.

Alternatively, one may use median scores as a demarcation of low and high compassion

(Pommier et al., 2019) or contrast subgroup scores, e.g., how compassion for others may

115
differ for respondents with secure versus insecure attachment. Again, I used the former

method of Likert thresholds for comparisons across measures in analyzing variables for

correlation and predictive relationships.

The Compassion Scale has sound validity and acceptable-to-strong reliability.

Primarily through bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling and, secondarily,

confirmatory factor analysis, the validity of measuring compassion as an interactive

system with an overarching factor and multiple subfactors was confirmed. Regarding

reliability, Cronbach’s alpha for the total compassion score was .87 and the subfactors

varied from .77 and .73 for kindness and common humanity to .67 and .69 for

indifference and mindfulness, respectively. The latter two alphas were below the standard

cutoffs for reliability of .70 and .80, but this exception is acceptable when a factor has

few items like the Compassion Scale (Hair et al., 2014; as cited in Pommier et al., 2019).

Reassuringly, given that the focus of my study was college students in education courses,

two of the five studies that established the validity and reliability of the CS had large

samples of college students from psychology and education courses (Pommier et al.,

2019).

Also, the Compassion Scale and prior described State Self-Compassion Scale

Long Form share lineage in researchers and methods with the original Self-Compassion

Scale that has been widely used (Neff, 2003; as cited in Pommier et al., 2019). Of note,

the validity and reliability of the Self-Compassion Scale has been replicated with 20

samples that were international (Neff et al., 2019; as cited in Pommier et al., 2019). The

116
resulting advances in conceptualizations, development of scales, and psychometrics were

helpful in my research study, especially as I sought to measure empathy and its theorized

components or precipitating conditions, e.g., self-compassion and compassion for others.

Mindfulness. The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al.,

2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008) was used to measure mindfulness as an overarching

construct with five components or factors, i.e., observing, describing, acting with

awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. Each

component had eight items except for nonreactivity to inner experience with seven items

for a total of 39 items (shown in Appendix I). All items in acting with awareness and

nonjudging of inner experience were reverse scored and three of the eight items in

describing. Respondents chose from a Likert scale of 1 for never or very rarely true to 5

for very often or always true. Examples of items were

• When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving

(observing),

• I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings (describing),

• When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracting (acting with

awareness, reverse scored),

• I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions (nonjudging of

inner experience, reverse scored), and

• I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them (nonreactivity

to inner experience).

117
 Each factor was scored as an average of its item scores. It would not have been a

balanced representation to average these sub scores for an overall mindfulness average,

because one factor had one less item than the other factors. Instead, an overall average

was computed by dividing the total score by the total number of items. However, in

analyzing the results of the FFMQ, more emphasis should be placed on the factors rather

than an overall average, because while the factors correlated moderately to highly with

one another, they were also unique (Baer et al., 2008). The FFMQ, like the CS and

SSCS-L, used a 5-point Likert scale, so again I initially interpreted the scores in the

context of the general thresholds for low, moderate, and high scores.

Primarily through exploratory factor analysis of five different mindfulness

instruments with varying constructs, whose factors and data were combined, Baer et al.

(2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008) established the construct validity of the FFMQ and

reliability with Cronbach’s alphas from .75 to .91 for the subfactors. In a subsequent

study with different participants, Baer et al. (2008) found almost identical alpha

coefficients from .72 to .92. Reliability was again confirmed in several studies of the

FFMQ (Jennings et al., 2019) with alphas coefficients from .73 to .93. The FFMQ is a

valid and reliable measure that has been frequently used by researchers (Frank et al.,

2016).

Mindfulness in Teaching Scale. A subscale from the Mindfulness in Teaching

Scale (MTS) (Frank et al., 2016) was used to augment the Five-Facet Mindfulness

Questionnaire (Baer et al., 2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008) as a sixth component of

118
mindfulness. This MTS subscale is specific to teacher interpersonal mindfulness with

students, as in a Jennings et al. (2019) study. Adding this subscale of five items served as

a bridge from individual or intra- mindfulness as assessed in the FFMQ (Baer et al.,

2008) to the relational or inter-mindfulness essential for responsive teaching. Cronbach’s

alphas for the individual items of this subscale were acceptable to good at .66 to .75

(Jennings et al., 2019) and, in the original MTS validation study, the alpha coefficient

was .71 for the entire subscale (Frank et al., 2016). Respondents chose from a Likert

scale from 1 for never true to 5 for always true for five items (shown in Appendix J), e.g.,

Even when it makes me uncomfortable, I allow my students to express their feelings

(Frank et al., 2016). However, instead of the word students, I substituted the word

children, e.g., …I allow the children in my class… because that is consistent with

language early childhood educators use and, hence, should be more understandable to

survey respondents.

In the original validation study, the MTS showed good validity and reliability in

its two-factor structure of intrapersonal mindfulness (nine items) and interpersonal

mindfulness (five items and the subscale used in my study) (Frank et al., 2016). Analyses

included exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis with Cronbach’s

alphas at .87 for the intrapersonal factor and, as previously shared, .71 for the

interpersonal factor, as well as test-retest reliability that showed medium to large

correlations between six month timepoints. The MTS samples in the validation study

119
were elementary teachers, including early childhood teachers from kindergarten through

third grade.

Self-Regulation. The Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire (ERSQ) (Berking

et al., 2008; as cited in Grant et al., 2018) was used to measure emotion self-regulation as

a construct with nine components. These components were awareness, sensations,

clarity, understanding, accepting, tolerance, readiness to confront, self-support, and

modification. There were three items for each of the nine components for a total of 27

items (shown in Appendix K). Respondents chose from a Likert scale from 1 for not at

all to 5 for almost always as experienced by them in the last week. Examples of items

were

• I paid attention to my feelings (awareness),

• I had a clear physical perception of my feelings (sensations),

• I could have labelled my feelings (clarity),

• I understand my emotional reactions (understanding),

• I was able to accept my negative feelings (accepting),

• I could endure my negative feelings (tolerance),

• I did what I wanted to do, even if I had to face negative feelings on the way

(readiness to confront),

• I tried to reassure myself during distressing situations (self-support), and

• I was able to influence my negative feelings (modification).

120
 Each component was scored as an average of item scores, and the overall emotion

regulation score was an average of all the item scores. I chose this measure of emotion

regulation rather than a more general measure of regulation because emotion affects self-

regulation more than cognition does (Montroy et al., 2016; Immordino-Yang et al.,

2018). This nuance also aligned with a premise of my study that teachers’ emotional

regulatory consistency is important for their own and children’s well-being (Fuhs et al.,

2013; Raver et al. 2011; Curby et al., 2013; Jennings, 2015; Jennings et al., 2019), as well

as for their support of children’s long-term and sometimes uneven self-regulatory

development.

The original ERSQ was in German and showed validity via exploratory and

confirmatory factor analyses as a multi-factor construct. Reliability was described as

adequate to good with Cronbach’s alphas from .68 to .81 for subscale factors (Berking et

al., 2008, Berking & Znoj; as cited in Berking et al., 2010) and .90 for the total score

(Berking et al., 2008, Berking & Znoj; as cited in Berking et al., 2010) (Grant et al.,

2018) as an overarching construct. While the standard cutoff for reliability is .70, lower

levels may be acceptable when factors have only a few items like the ERSQ does and, as

previously mentioned, like the Compassion Scale does (Hair et al., 2014; as cited in

Pommier et al., 2019). The ERSQ was also positively related to measures of

psychological well-being (Berking et al., 2008, Berking and Znoj; as cited in Berking et

al., 2010). That finding supported one of my hypotheses that self-regulatory well-being

predicts psychological well-being. Moreover, self-regulatory well-being supports social-

121
emotional competence (Jennings et al., 2019) which was defined as reflective practice

beliefs and mindfulness (Virmani et al., 2020), further connecting to my path analysis.

For the validated English version of the ERSQ, Cronbach’s alphas for subscales

were good to excellent at .73 to .88 and .96 overall. This latter high reliability was

consistent with expected relationships among the nine components. However, each

component was distinct enough that the nine-factor model was a better fit than a three-

factor model (Grant et al., 2018).

Psychological Well-Being and Self-Determinative Well-Being. I chose to

measure these two constructs, because they are understood to be directly related (Diener

et al., 2010), and I suspected that self-determinative well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000) may

shape psychological well-being. My reasoning was that an individual’s degree of

psychological well-being depends upon how well the individual’s innate self-

determinative needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence are met. Indeed,

psychological health and life satisfaction arise from self-determinative well-being (Deci

& Ryan, 2000).

To help in analyzing how other variables and constructs in the study were

associated with overall psychological well-being, I used the Diener Flourishing Scale –

Psychological Well-Being (American College Health Association, 2019) (PWB). For the

measure’s eight items (shown in Appendix L), respondents chose on a Likert scale from 1

for strongly disagree to 7 for strongly agree. The items were averaged to indicate

psychological well-being. Examples of items were I lead a purposeful and meaningful

122
life and I am optimistic about my future. I used the PWB measure for two reasons. First,

these data allowed comparisons to other characteristics of preservice teachers in the study

that may be associated with or predict psychological well-being, e.g., empathy and

compassion for self and others, emotion self-regulation, mindfulness, attachment style,

self-efficacy, and meditation experience. Second, the word flourishing in the title of this

measure connoted a connection with positive or humanistic psychology and ultimately

self-determinism, a focal point of the study.

The Diener Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) as a measure of psychological

well-being was originally validated and found reliable on a fairly large sample (n = 689)

of college students which aligns with the college student population for my study. The

Flourishing Scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .87) as well as

reliability across time in test-retest (.71), and its one-factor structure was confirmed. Of

special note, the Flourishing Scale was also highly compatible and showed external

convergent validity (r = .62, p < .001) with the self-determinative well-being measure for

my study, i.e., the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (Deci & Ryan, 2000;

Gagne, 2003).

Moreover, the Flourishing Scale showed good external reliability cross-culturally

in psychometric testing using two Portuguese samples, again finding that its internal

consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .83) and one-factor construct were evident (Silva &

Caetano, 2011; as cited in Hone et al., 2013). In another cross-cultural comparison using

an exceedingly large New Zealand sample that was nationally representative (n = 10,009)

123
Hone et al. (2013) similarly found that the one-factor construct was valid through

exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. They also found that the Flourishing Scale,

which was one of several measures in their survey of well-being, had excellent internal

consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .91) and was valid and reliable to use with many age

groups and populations.

As a second measure, I used the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale

(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003) (BPNSS) to measure autonomy, relatedness, and

competence, the three components of self-determination. The BPNSS measure originated

from Self-Determination Theory as developed primarily by Deci and Ryan (1985; as

cited in Ryan & Deci, 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), and for that reason

I used it as a measure of self-determinative well-being in the present study. For the 21

items (shown in Appendix M), respondents chose on a Likert scale from 1 for not at all

true to 7 for very true. Examples of items were I feel like I am free to decide for myself

how to live my life (autonomy), I get along with people I come into contact with

(relatedness), and People I know tell me I am good at what I do (competence). Subscale

items were averaged for the three components.

The scale reliability of the BPNSS (Gagne, 2003) was acceptable to strong.

Cronbach’s alphas for the components were .69 for autonomy, .86 for relatedness, and

.71 for competence. Also, since the correlations among the three components were

strong, ranging from .61 to .66, the components were averaged for an overall signal about

general need satisfaction. The internal consistency of this latter index was .89 (Gagne,

124
2003). Also, like the Diener Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) measure of

psychological well-being, the BPNSS was originally used and tested with college

students (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003) which aligns with the college student

population for my study.

However, unlike the Diener Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), I could not

find additional confirmatory research about the psychometric properties of the BPNSS.

Notably, Johnston and Finney (2010) emphasized that although the BPNSS was used in

many studies, the measure itself had not been rigorously evaluated. They thought that

researchers may have confused or conflated the psychometrics of an earlier measure of

basic psychological needs satisfaction specific to people’s workplaces from which the

BPNSS was adapted to gauge general satisfaction with one’s life. Johnston and Finney

(2010) further evaluated the BPNSS with these results: a) through Confirmatory Factor

Analysis, the three components of autonomy, relatedness, and competence were

supported, b) from model-fit analyses, a version of the BPNSS with 16 of the original 21

items was stronger, and c) there was evidence of external validity. However, they

cautioned that more research with replicated results, especially for the 16-item version,

was needed. They also recommended caution in drawing inferences from BPNSS results

in the interim. Overall, I assessed that the BPNSS had less psychometric validation..

Of note, the data for the current study were for 16 not 21 items, similar to

Johnston and Finney’s (2010) abbreviated scale but not using all the same items as they

had and different from my plan, due to missing data. To check the internal consistency of

125
the current study’s 16-item scale, Cronbach’s alpha tests were done. The cohesiveness of

the relatedness component’s sub scale items was Cronbach’s alpha = .72, and that of the

competence component’s sub scale items was Cronbach’s alpha = .63. To increase the

autonomy component’s sub scale items from Cronbach’s alpha = .55 to .60, one item

(#11) was removed. The reliability of the total 15-item scale was Cronbach’s alpha = .83

when rounded, the same as for when there were 16 items, but I used the 15-item scale to

increase the autonomy component from Cronbach’s alpha = .55 to .60

These reliability coefficients of the current study were adequate to acceptable

based on thresholds from other studies cited in this paper (Diener et al., 2010; Frank et

al., 2016; Hair et al., 2014; as cited in Pommier et al., 2019; Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven,

2003; Jennings et al., 2019; Neff et al., 2021). However, they were lower than the

reliability coefficients in Gagne’s (2003) study of the BPNSS. Those measures of internal

consistency ranged from acceptable to very good, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha = .69 for the

autonomy sub scale, Cronbach’s alpha = .71 for the competence sub scale, Cronbach’s

alpha =.86 for the relatedness sub scale, and Cronbach’s alpha = .89 for the entire scale.

The current study’s BPNSS correlations for the three components ranged from

somewhat strong to strong (r = .46 for autonomy and competence., .51 for relatedness

and competence, and .72 for autonomy and competence, p < .001). While these

relationships also supported overall reliability and validity, I interpreted the BPNSS

results with caution for the following two reasons. One, the current scale’s Cronbach’s

alphas ranged from adequate to acceptable which was lower than the acceptable to very

126
good range from the original BPNSS study (Gagne, 2003). Two, there have been fewer

psychometric studies of the original BPNSS (Johnston & Finney, 2010). For those

reasons, I relied more on the psychological well-being (PWB) measure as a general

indication of self-determinative well-being. Reassuringly, the two measures, the PWB

and BPNSS, were highly correlated in the current study (r = .80, p < .001).

Developmental Responsiveness for Child Self-Regulatory Well-Being. To my

knowledge, there is not a self-report measure for preservice early childhood teachers that

probes how they would support the self-regulatory needs of preschool-age children and

has been found valid and reliable beyond one setting. However, there is such a measure

about infant and toddler development, as part of an expanding collaboration by early

childhood faculty across more than nine universities in the United States, i.e., the

Collaborative for Understanding the Pedagogy of Infant/Toddler Development (CUPID).

That survey measure for preservice early childhood professionals in university courses

assessed not only their child development knowledge and beliefs through Likert and true-

false items but self-reported practices for 12 vignettes (Vallotton et al., 2016). For the

vignettes, the developers

used a multiple-choice format in which one response was more

developmentally supportive whereas alternatives reflected low

warmth/sensitivity, over/undercontrol by the teacher, or inappropriately

high or low developmental expectations. Stems and response options were

piloted among a group of 15 infant/toddler and early education scholars

127
 and modified until at least 70% of these expert respondents chose the

option designed as developmentally supportive. On average 82% of

student respondents chose the developmentally supportive option (range =

70%-92%) for the vignettes in their final versions. Students’ total

interaction skill scores were calculated as the percentage of

developmentally supportive responses selected (M = 57.7%, SD = 17.7%)

(Vallotton et al., 2016, p. 284).

After obtaining a copy of the survey from one of the developers (C. Vallotton, personal

communication, December 2, 2023), I adapted six of the infant/toddler vignettes to be

about preschool children having self-regulatory difficulties.

Qualitative Analysis of Survey Items. To analyze the vignettes from Vallotton et

al. (2016) about children who needed self-regulatory behavioral guidance, I first

qualitatively coded and categorized these by the component of self-regulation that a child

struggled with the most, in my estimation. The three self-regulatory components or

themes were affective, cognitive, and behavioral which were consistent with prior

Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. Indeed, individuals, to self-regulate, must modulate emotion

with thought in a circumstance, then respond behaviorally in a way that is effective for

themselves and others. In this process, affective and cognitive self-regulation interact and

manifest as behavioral self-regulation, and the cycle continues as the circumstance

evolves. Within this dynamic, the child’s self-regulatory need for support may be mainly

affective or cognitive. For example, the child in the vignette who cried when their parent

128
left was likely struggling the most with affective self-regulation. Whereas the child who

hurried across the classroom and bumped into another child’s block tower, knocking it

down, likely most needed cognitive self-regulatory support to realize that this upset the

other child and to walk carefully around block structures. After categorizing vignettes by

the main self-regulatory need, I chose three vignettes to adapt about children who most

needed affective self-regulatory support and three for which they most needed cognitive

self-regulatory support.

Next, I designated three of these vignettes to use in multiple-choice items and the

other three vignettes for narrative response items. My reason for multiple-choice items

was that Vallotton et al. (2016) had used that format to assess developmental

responsiveness (in part) and established the validity and reliability of the items and

scoring. Moreover, these vignettes and multiple-choice items were used in subsequent

studies, further confirming their validity and reliability (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019;

Virmani et al., 2020). My two reasons for having narrative response items were to probe

developmental responsiveness and remove the element of chance inherent in multiple-

choice questions, perhaps as evidenced by 82% of respondents answering these correctly

in the Vallotton et al. (2016) study. For an overall score, I combined and averaged the

scores from the two item types (the method will be detailed in the next section) for a

more robust measure of preservice teacher developmentally responsive skills.

Two of the three vignettes I chose for narrative response items were mainly about

children’s affective self-regulatory struggles, because these difficulties are generally the

129
most challenging for teachers to support. The other vignette featured a cognitive self-

regulatory need. Additionally, participants generated their own narrative vignette about a

time a child experienced self-regulatory difficulty and how they handled it.

For the four multiple-choice items, two of them were vignettes about cognitive

self-regulation and one was about affective self-regulation. In the fourth item,

participants chose the teacher interaction style they believed was generally most effective

for supporting child self-regulation. These styles mirrored authoritarian, authoritative,

and permissive parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971), as the role of early childhood teachers

has been found to be similar to that of parents, and many studies have adapted parenting

measures for use with early childhood teachers (Gardner et al., 2021). This similar adult-

child dynamic for parents and teachers made sense, because young children are uniquely

dependent on their relationships, interactions with, and guidance from the grown-ups in

their lives. After this last multiple-choice item, participants were invited to narratively

explain their answer.

After each narrative response or multiple-choice item, participants expressed how

confident they were, as a measure of self-efficacy, that their strategy for supporting the

child’s self-regulation was effective. To do so, they chose from 1 for Not at all to 5 for

Completely confident on a Likert scale. Table 3.5 provided a summary of the survey

design for the narrative and multiple-choice sections. The first column had the name of

the vignette. The next three columns denoted if the vignette primarily addressed an

affective or cognitive self-regulatory need and that these needs manifested in behavior.

130
The last column specified for the respective vignette if it was assessed in a narrative or

multiple-choice item.

Table 3.5

Design of the Narrative Response and Multiple-Choice Sections of the Survey

Main Component of Self-Regulation (SR)

in Need of Support in the Vignette
Affective Cognitive Behavioral Item Format
Self- Self- Self- (type of
Survey Item: Regulation Regulation Regulation response)
Part I:
Child throws a toy X Narrative

Child knocks down another X Narrative

child’s block tower
Child cries when parent X Narrative
leaves All manifest
Participant’s scenario and in children’s Narrative
how they handled it behavioral
Part II: actions
Child runs and trips into X Multiple
other child Choice
Children fight over toys X Multiple
Choice
Child stands on a chair X Multiple
Choice
Participant’s approach to Authoritarian, authoritative, Multiple
child self-regulation or permissive style Choice
Comment re approach to Why participant believes Narrative
child self-regulation their approach is effective
Note. After each item, ask How confident are you that this would be an effective response? to
be answered on a Likert scale from 1 for Not at all confident to 5 for Completely confident.

Qualitative Adaptation of Vignettes. I adapted the six chosen vignettes from

Vallotton et al. (2016) for scenarios about preschool children rather than infants or

toddlers. These scenes were modestly revised to reflect common situations that occur in

preschool classrooms. Moreover, while seeking to maximize the clarity of each tweaked

vignette, I also reduced their length, when possible, if the meaning would not be

131
impeded. Given that my total survey was estimated to take about 35 minutes to do, I was

deliberate about using an economy of words. Vignette word counts were reduced by at

least 10 percent to help prevent participant fatigue. Children in the vignettes were

referred to by initials not first names to avoid the potential for implicit bias from

participant perceptions of the race, ethnicity, or gender of the children.

The wording of the adapted vignettes was reviewed by several advanced Ph.D.

students, with at least three years of experience in the early childhood field, at

approximately four different times in doctoral seminars across two semesters for

readability, validity, and reliability. An example of my resulting finalized adaptation of a

CUPID multiple-choice item was shown in Table 3.6. As some of my survey items

elicited narrative not multiple-choice responses, Table 3.7 provided an example of that

adaptation. Also, as mentioned previously, participants were asked after each vignette

question how confident they were of their response. The 5-point Likert scale of the

CUPID scale was retained for this item, but the wording was slightly adapted (S. Oden,

personal communication, September 17, 2024), as shown in Table 3.8, for an economy of

words and clarity as a gauge for self-efficacy.

132
Table 3.6

Adaptation of CUPID Survey Multiple-Choice Item into Preschool Survey Multiple-

Choice Item

CUPID Item Adaptation of CUPID Item

Vignettes feature children in Vignettes feature children in preschool
infant and toddler classrooms. classrooms who are four years old.
Maria Runs and Falls on the Playground Active Child Trips into Another Child

Maria who just turned 2 years old, is very JN is a very active child.
active. During outdoor play today, you are On the playground, you are helping
helping three other children take turns on the 4 other children take turns on tricycles.
tricycles. Meanwhile, Maria is running around JN is running in circles, often crossing
in circles in the middle of the tricycle path. the tricycle track. JN trips into a child
Suddenly, Maria trips on the sidewalk and falls riding a tricycle and JN falls down.
onto Gabe, who was riding a tricycle. After a JN starts to cry.
moment, Maria starts to scream. [39 words]
[61 words]
Which response would you most likely choose?
Which of the following responses would you
most likely choose in this situation? 1. You kneel down next to JN. You look but do
not see a cut or scrape. You wait a moment until
1. You kneel down next to Maria as you look to JN calms a bit, then say, "JN, are you hurt? You
see if she has a cut or scrape. Not seeing were running fast and fell down hard. That might
anything, you wait a moment until she calms a have hurt. When we run in a busy place like this,
bit, then say, “Maria, are you hurt? You were someone can get hurt." [56 words]
running really fast, and fell down hard. It
looked like that might have hurt. When we run 2. You kneel down to see if JN is injured. You
in a busy place like this, someone can get make sure that JN is ok, help JN stand up, then
hurt.” [66 words] say, “JN, you were running and not looking
where you were going. You could have hurt your
2. You kneel down to see if Maria is injured. friend. You need to be careful and watch where
After making sure that she is ok, you help her you’re going.” [49 words]
stand up, then say, “Maria, you were running
and weren’t looking where you were going. 3. You help JN up and hold JN, saying, “You’re
You could have hurt your friend, Gabe. You o.k., you’ll be fine. If you want to run around,
need to be careful and watch where you’re you can play in the grassy area.” Then you say to
going.” [51 words] the other child, “JN will be o.k. in a minute. You
can keep riding now.”
3. You quickly pick Maria up and hold her, [45 words]
saying, “You’re ok, you’ll be fine. If you want
to run around, you can play in the grassy area.” [205 total words; 32 or 14% fewer words]
Then you say to Gabe, “Maria will be ok in a
minute. You can keep riding now.” [Note re rationale for main component of self-
[44 words] regulatory need: JN does not understand to run
where there are fewer people. JN needs this
[237 total words] information and guidance from the teacher to
cognitively-behaviorally self-regulate.]
133
Table 3.7

Adaptation of CUPID Survey Multiple-Choice Item into Preschool Survey Narrative

Response Item

CUPID Item Adaptation of CUPID Item

Vignettes feature children in Vignettes feature children in preschool
infant and toddler classrooms. classrooms who are four years old.

Thomas Throws a Toy Child Throws a Toy

Thomas, 9 months, has begun throwing toys KC is trying to make a wooden

rather forcefully, and sometimes the toys hit puzzle piece fit into the frame by
other people. When asked by another child or pushing it harder and harder.
an adult to give them the toy he is holding, he Suddenly, KC throws the piece with force,
often throws the toy at the person’s face with a just missing another child’s head.
big smile on his face. The caregivers discuss KC folds her arms across her chest,
the situation and decide they need to change frowns, and scrunches her eyebrows.
this behavior somehow so that others do not get [43 words; 26 or 38% fewer words]
hurt.
[69 words] Describe in detail what you might
do or say first, next, etc. and why:
Which of the following responses would you
most likely choose in this situation? [Note re rationale for main component of self-
regulatory need: Heightened emotions drive KC’s
1. When Thomas wants to play with the small actions. KC especially needs teacher support to
“throwable” toys, you allow him only to play self-regulate affectively-behaviorally.]
with soft toys so that he doesn’t hurt the other
children.

2. You take some time with him each morning

and each afternoon, when Thomas is most
relaxed and playful, to sit and model how to
give someone a toy gently. You encourage
Thomas whenever he passes a toy in a “gentle”
way.

3. You watch Thomas carefully, and each time

he throws a toy, say “No, no, Thomas,
throwing toys hurts other people.” Then take
him to a quiet corner for a brief timeout.

134
Table 3.8

Adaptation of CUPID Survey Post-Vignette Item into Preschool Survey Post-Vignette

Item to Measure Self-Efficacy

CUPID Item Adaptation of CUPID Item

How effectively do you think you would How confident are you that this would be an
respond in this situation? effective response?

1 = I would not respond effectively to this 1 = Not at all confident

situation 2 = Slightly confident
2 3 = Somewhat confident
3 = I am not sure whether I would respond 4 = Fairly confident
effectively to this situation 5 = Completely confident
4
5 = I would respond effectively to this situation [ 33 words; 13 or 28% fewer words]

[46 words]

Qualitative Analysis of Vignette Narrative Responses. Building on the empirical

literature about self-regulatory development and my theory of change from chapter two, I

designed a process for qualitatively analyzing preservice EC teachers’ narratives about

supporting children’s self-regulatory needs. The following excerpts were from the first

part of the resource I developed for this analysis, as shown in Appendix N.

• The framework for evaluating teacher narrative responses to scenarios where

children experience self-regulatory difficulties is teacher empathy and
developmental support for children to self-regulate.

• To empathize, a teacher must both cognitively understand and emotionally be able

to imagine how children feel. When teacher empathy motivates their positive
actions to help children self-regulate, this enacted empathy indicates compassion
at a high level.

• Building children’s self-regulatory capacity and skills is a long-term

developmental process that requires not only teachers’ developmentally
appropriate responses but, explicitly, their developmentally supportive responses.
135
 Teachers’ developmentally supportive responses boost children’s self-regulatory
growth, as teachers deliberately co-regulate with children in the moment – the
short term – so that children can increasingly self-regulate in the long term.

• To self-regulate, children must

1. become situationally aware of their emotions and actions,

2. modulate emotion with thought, and
3. choose a response or next action that is effective for them and, if
applicable, others.

This 3-part process can be challenging for children, especially when they have
“big feelings,” whether these emotions carry a positive or negative charge for
them. Children often need support from teachers to navigate the three
overlapping parts or steps in the self-regulatory process.

• Corresponding to these three self-regulatory steps, teachers need to be able to

1. empathize to positively help children become aware of their emotions and

actions,
2. assist children to cognitively connect their emotions with antecedents, and
3. help children to generate an effective response or next action.

These are the three indicators of the quality of teacher support for which each
teacher response to a scenario will be evaluated… [additional explanation].

Indicator 1 Empathize with Child

Indicator 2 Connect Emotion and Antecedent for Child

Indicator 3 Generate Response with Child

Indicator 1: Empathize with Child

Ideally, the teacher began the interaction by demonstrating recognition of the

child’s physical or emotional cues about how the child feels and acceptance of the child’s
emotion. For example, the teacher observed that “Your arms are folded and you’re
frowning,” “Your tears tell me you’re sad” or “You’re upset.” In this way, the teacher
connected with the child as an initial support by demonstrating cognitive and emotional
understanding of the child’s perspective, even if in subsequent support the teacher will
need to guide the child to a more effective way to respond to their emotions.
136
 • This Indicator coincides with the start of the self-regulatory process and challenge
for children of becoming more situationally aware of their emotions and actions…
[additional explanation].
Indicator 2: Connect Emotion and Antecedent for Child

Ideally, the teacher positively scaffolded the child in regulating their emotions,
i.e., by helping the child not only become more aware of and identify feelings but
explicitly linking these to their cause or precipitating factor. For example, the teacher not
only named the child’s feeling, e.g., “You’re mad,” “You’re sad,” or “You’re upset” but
connected it to the reason, e.g., feeling angry because the puzzle piece did not fit, upset
because a classmate ran into your block tower and it fell over, or sad because it is hard to
say goodbye when a parent leaves.
Note:
• This Indicator coincides with the need for children to modulate their emotions
with thought in the self-regulatory process… [additional explanation].

Indicator 3: Generate Response with Child

Ideally, the teacher problem solves with the child to generate and choose an
emotionally satisfying and situationally effective next step or action for the child and, if
applicable, others. Examples of effective solutions are:

• KC turns the puzzle piece this way and that way to fit it into the frame or asks a
classmate or teacher for help rather than throwing the piece… [additional
explanation].

• MH makes a card to give their parent later upon return or MH holds their family
photo or keeps it with them while playing… [additional explanation].

• This Indicator coincides with an optimal outcome and desired result of the self-
regulatory process, i.e., a next step or response that is positive and meaningful to
the child, and if applicable, others… [additional explanation].

Scoring the Vignette Narrative Responses. In the second part of the resource, as

shown in Appendix N, I linked the qualitative analysis of responses to a scoring protocol.

Then, in addition to insights from analyzing the data qualitatively, I could also

quantitatively test it for associations and relationships with other quantitative data. To

137
check the validity and reliability of the vignette items and evaluation of them, child

development and education experts from two settings, i.e., my doctoral seminar and a

university child development laboratory, used the entire resource, resulting in my

additional finetuning of it. The detailed final resource as shown in Appendix N, provided

a rationale and method for analyzing then scoring each response on the three indicators of

teacher self-regulatory support. Table 3.9 provided excerpts from this rationale and the

scoring instructions for one of the vignettes.

138
Table 3.9

Excerpts from Scoring Protocol for Developmental Support

Background Information How to Score Sample Vignette

for Raters

To self-regulate, children must Vignette: During playtime, EM hurries to a center across the
room. EM cuts through the block area and bumps into LR's tower,
1. become situationally aware of knocking it down. LR yells, “No!” and thrusts a fist out at EM
their emotions and actions, who has not stopped moving. LR cries loudly as EM begins to
play elsewhere.
2. modulate emotion with thought,
and Indicator 1: Empathize with Child

3. choose a response or next action Ideally, the teacher began the interaction by demonstrating
that is effective for them and, if recognition of the child’s physical or emotional cues about how
applicable, others. the child feels and acceptance of the child’s emotion.

This 3-part process can be The teacher should respond first to LR who was upset and started
challenging for children, especially crying. If instead the teacher interacted first with EM, score this
when they have “big feelings,” empathy indicator as a 1.
whether these emotions carry a
positive or negative charge for However, if the teacher then responded to LR by recognizing or
them. Children often need support naming LR’s emotion, score this indicator as a 2 for an attempt at
from teachers to navigate the three empathizing.
overlapping parts or steps in the
self-regulatory process. The teacher must focus first on LR’s emotion to score a 3 or
higher, based on your assessment of how well the teacher did this
Corresponding to these three self- based on the evidence.
regulatory steps, teachers need to
be able to Indicator 2: Connect Emotion and Antecedent for Child

1. empathize to positively help If the teacher did not respond first to LR who was most in distress
children become aware of their but then interacts with LR and not only names but connects LR’s
emotions and actions, emotion with the antecedent, score this indicator as a 2 or 3,
depending on your assessment of how well the teacher did this
2. assist children to cognitively based on the evidence.
connect their emotions with
antecedents, and If the teacher responded first to LR and not only names but
connects LR’s emotion with the antecedent, score this indicator as
3. help children to generate an a 4 or 5, depending on your assessment of how well the teacher
effective response or next action. did this based on the evidence.

139
Table 3.9 - Continued

Background Information How to Score Sample Vignette

for Raters

These are the three indicators of Indicator 3: Generate Response with Child
the quality of teacher support for
which each teacher’s response to a If the teacher directed or told the child what to do without any
scenario will be scored: discussion with the child to generate a solution, and it was likely
not an emotionally satisfying and situationally effective “solution”
Indictor 1: Empathize with Child for the child and others (if applicable), score this indicator as a 1.

Indicator 2: Connect Emotion and If the teacher directed or told the child what to do without any
Antecedent for Child discussion with the child, but that idea or choice of ideas was
likely an emotionally satisfying and situationally effective solution
Indicator 3: Generate Response for the child, and others (if applicable), score this indicator as a 2
with Child or 3, depending on your assessment of how well the teacher did
this based on the evidence
Raters will score each response on
the three indicators of the teacher’s If the teacher engaged the child in discussion to generate a
developmentally supportive solution that was likely emotionally satisfying and situationally
responses for child self-regulation. effective for the child and others (if applicable), score this
indicator as a 4.
Each indicator will be scored on a
Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 If the teacher engaged the child in discussion to generate at least
for “very weak or no evidence” two potential solutions, i.e., choices, that were likely emotionally
to 5 for “very strong evidence.” satisfying and situationally effective for the child and others (if
applicable), score this indicator as a 5.

In addition to the background information and scoring directions, the protocol

also provided at least one anchor score for each vignette from the narrative responses of

preservice EC teachers. This feature of the protocol was critical for testing interrater

reliability and the validity of the item. An example of an anchor score for one of the

vignettes was provided in Table 3.10.

140
 Table 3.10

Example of an Anchor Score for a Vignette Response

Scenario Low Quality Medium Quality High Quality

(e.g., a 1 or 2 on average) (e.g., a 3 on average) (e.g., a 4 or 5 on average)
New Child Response: Response: Response:
Cries: I would do what other "You're upset that your "MH, you are upset because
teachers have taught me: to parents left. I know that can your parents have left. I
New child MH ignore the child and not be hard, but they will be back wonder if you would like to
started preschool coddle them too much. Just later today. Would you like come with me to build a
3 weeks ago. say “mom will be back soon” to look at photos of you and tower together, or work on
Many mornings, and redirect attention. your parents?" some artwork to make for
after MH's your parents when they
parent leaves, Scores: Scores: come back to pick you up
MH cries a long after school."
time and does Indicator 1 Indicator 1
not want to join Empathize with Child: Empathize with Child: Scores:
into class score of 1 5
activities. Today, Indicator 1
as MH's parent Indicator 2 Indicator 2 Empathize with Child:
walks out the Connect Emotion with Connect Emotion with 5
door, MH again Antecedent for Child: Antecedent for Child:
begins to cry. score of 1 3 Indicator 2
Connect Emotion with
Indicator 3 Indicator 3 Antecedent for Child:
Generate Solution with Generate Solution with 5
Child: Child:
score of 1 2 Indicator 3
Generate Solution with
Child:
3

For a final checkpoint on the validity and reliability of the narrative response

scoring plan, I first randomly selected every 18th response until there were five responses

for each of the four vignettes, representing 20 of the 92 participants (22%). Then the

child development and education experts that were previously described scored these

responses, following the directions from the scoring protocol and, for which, I had

provided a brief training to most of the raters. After each rater scored five responses and

entered their scores on the interrater reliability worksheet, I revealed a hidden column

141
with my scores so that we could discuss the extent to which our scores aligned. An

excerpt from this worksheet was shown below in Table 3.11. While many of our scores

matched or did so when rounded, some varied more widely. I explained to the group that

I would further analyze the discrepancies, as shown in Table 3.12, more as a check on my

own thinking than theirs. Indeed, I identified a few instances where my scoring was based

on an earlier version of the protocol and corrected those scores.

Table 3.11

Example from Interrater Reliability Worksheet

Rater scores: Preservice EC Teacher Response

Indicator 1 4 “You’re frustrated and threw a puzzle piece. I’m
Indicator 2 3 wondering if you can tell me why you are upset
Indicator 3 3 and how can I help you?” Seeing a child upset is
Average 3.33 going to be common in the classroom, I think
Rater initials tw it’s important to talk about why the child is
KW rating average 3.33 feeling this way rather than scolding them.
Difference in scores 0

Table 3.12

Example from Analyses of Scoring Discrepancies

Analyzing Scoring Discrepancy

Preservice EC Teacher's Response:
"I see that you are upset. Being away from people you love is hard, especially when
starting a new school. Let's take some time to calm our mind and body and try joining
the class." I would maybe also ask if they wanted a hug, in order to help comfort them.
AA scores for Indicators 1, 2, & 3: 5, 4, 5 = 4.66
KW scores for Indicators 1, 2, & 3: 5, 5, 2 = 4.00
Comments:
For Indicator 3, I should have scored this a 4, because the teacher gave two ideas and
asked if the child wanted to do the second one, so rating should be between 4 and 5 –
go with the lower one.
KW updated scores: 5, 5, 4 = 14/3 = 4.66

142
 The final results of the reliability checking, wherein my scores were compared

with other raters’ scores on randomly chosen responses that represented 18.5% of the

preservice EC teachers and 24% of all their responses, were as follows. Of 22 scores, 10

or 45.5% were exact matches with mine. Five or 23.9% of the scores matched when

rounded (e.g., 2.67 and 3.33 round to 3.0), and four or 18.2% were no more than 1 point

different (20% on the Likert rating scale from one to five). Thus, 19 of the 22 scores or

86.4% aligned in these ways, and that percentage was above the standard for acceptable

reliability of 80% (McHugh, 2012). For the three scores that differed by more than a

point from mine, I decided to use my score as the person most familiar with the scoring

protocol and who was responsible for scoring the responses. After the reliability

checking, I scored all of the narrative responses.

Computing Final Scores for the Multiple-Choice Responses to the Vignettes. I

recoded the answers for the multiple-choice questions. A correct response was scored as a

“1” and an incorrect response as a zero. That score divided by the total number of

multiple-choice items yielded the mean or percentage of correct responses.

Computing Final Scores for the Narrative Responses to the Vignettes. I

conceptualized three qualitative indications of developmental responsiveness to score for

each response. These indicators were that the teacher 1) empathizes with the child’s

perspective, 2) helps connect the child’s emotion to its antecedent for the child, and 3)

generates a response with the child. The three steps aligned to the affective, cognitive,

and behavioral components of the self-regulatory process, i.e., what any individual (e.g.,

143
the child in a vignette) needs to do to self-regulate satisfactorily. I tested the correlation

of these indicators via IBM SPSS (Version 30), using participant sub scores. The results

were used to determine how appropriate averaging the three sub scores was as a signal of

developmental responsiveness or if a holistic rubric should be used for the overall score.

The final Likert score for a response was converted to a percentage. For example, an

overall score of three on the 5-point Likert scale was a score of 60 percent.

Computing the Mean of Narrative Response and Multiple-Choice Scores. By

averaging all the vignette scores for a participant, an overall percentage score of

developmental responsiveness was obtained. However, the scores for narrative and

multiple-choice responses were weighted differently. The narrative response scores were

more heavily weighted than the multiple-choice scores, because participants had a one in

three chance of answering a multiple-choice question correctly, just by guessing. After

comparing the unweighted averages for narrative scores and multiple choice scores, the

narrative response scores were weighted twice as heavily to reflect their relative level of

difficulty. I then combined and averaged all the vignette scores into one score for a

concentrated signal of developmental responsiveness to use in multiple regression

analyses as the dependent variable at the end of the path analysis, as shown in Figures 3.1

and 3.2.

Attachment Style. The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Polek, 2008; Hofstra

& Van Oudenhoven, 2003) (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003; as cited in

Mosterman & Hofstra, 2015) was used to measure attachment as a construct with four

144
styles, i.e., secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissive (Bartholomew & Horowitz,

1991). There were 22 items (shown in Appendix F) among secure attachment (eight

items), fearful (four items), preoccupied (six items), and dismissive (four items).

Respondents chose from a Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree.

Examples of items were

• I feel at ease in emotional relationships (secure),

• I would like to be open to others but I feel that I can’t trust people (fearful),

• I often wonder whether people like me (preoccupied), and

• It is important to me to be independent (dismissive).

I chose the ASQ because it is a measure of general rather than romantic

attachment with the former more relevant in my study of individuals in their professional

roles as preservice teachers. Of note, while an earlier version of the ASQ had 24 items

(Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven, 2003) (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003; as

cited in Mosterman & Hofstra, 2015), Polek (2008) validated the 22-item scale in a

dissertation study supervised by Van Oudenhoven, an author of the ASQ. This more

recent version of the ASQ was used in studies closely aligned with my research focus,

i.e., Vallotton et al. (2016) and Virmani et al. (2020), as summarized in the preceding

literature review. What also resonated for the present study was attachment emphasized

as not only a lifelong phenomenon “existing from the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby,

1969/1982, 1973, 1980; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999, p. 336; as cited in Polek, 2018, p. 16)

145
but “behavioral regulatory system” (Polek, 2008, p. 50) which also describes the self-

regulatory process.

The development of the ASQ (Polek, 2008; Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven, 2003)

(Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003; as cited in Mosterman & Hofstra, 2015)

was rooted in Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969) and Bartholomew and Horowitz’

profiles of secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissive attachment (1991) (1994; as cited

in Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven, 2003) (shown in Appendix F). These attachment styles

were conceptualized as a dual construct of two dimensions, i.e., one’s perception of self

and one’s perception of others. As such, the combinations for the four styles in the ASQ

were: 1) secure attachment with a positive perception of oneself (self-image) and positive

perception of others (other-image); 2) fearful attachment with a negative self-image and

negative other-image; 3) preoccupied attachment with a negative self-image and positive

other-image; and 4) dismissive attachment with a positive self-image and negative other-

image. Correspondingly, the secure and fearful attachment styles were seen as opposites,

as were the preoccupied and dismissive attachment styles. However, in subsequent

research, only the secure and fearful attachment styles were consistently polar opposite

(Polek, 2008). Despite that nuance, the dimensions of self-image and other-image

mirrored a phenomenon explored in my study, i.e., how empathy, consisting of warm

compassion or coldness for self and others (Watson-Singleton, 2021), relates to self-

regulatory well-being. Moreover, the ASQ was positively associated with measures of

psychological well-being (Mosterman & Hofstra, 2015), another focus of my study.

146
 The ASQ is a well validated and often used instrument (Mosterman & Hofstra,

2015). In developing the ASQ, the four-factor structure of attachment was validated

through exploratory factor analysis and comparisons with other measures of attachment

and constructs associated with attachment, e.g., personality traits and, as mentioned prior,

psychological well-being. More than half of the samples psychometrically analyzed were

college students in social science courses, primarily psychology (1,960 of 3,533 total

respondents) with a mean age of 20.55 years, and most of these respondents, female. As

such, I reviewed Cronbach’s alphas for this subgroup that was like the sample for my

study, i.e., young adults in the social sciences (early childhood education) with a large

majority of females. These reliability coefficients for the four attachment styles were

sound at .77 secure, .81 fearful, .81 preoccupied, and .60 dismissive (Hofstra & Van

Oudenhoven, 2003). Widening the psychometric lens to the foundational study of five

international samples (Dutch, Polish, Russian, Moroccan, Hungarian) that established the

validity and reliability of the 22-item ASQ, Polek (2008) reported sound reliability

coefficients overall. This evidence ranged from .68 to .78 for the secure attachment style;

.64 to .79 for fearful attachment; .62 to .81 for preoccupied attachment; and .41 to .65 for

dismissive attachment. Within these ranges, the Dutch sample had the highest internal

consistency for three of the four attachment styles, except the dismissive style (.58).

Moreover, the Dutch sample, as the only one from a Western country, aligned most

closely with the sample for the present study.

147
 Meditation Data. The reason for collecting meditation experience was that

research found that being a meditator was positively related to mindful observation (Baer

et al., 2008), and making objective observations is a critical skill for teachers. Sixteen

(17%) of the 92 participants reported that they meditate. Of those who meditate, 12

(75%) reported meditating between one and three times in the last seven days. However,

3 (19%) of meditators reported that they had not meditated in the last week. Only 1 (6%)

of the students had meditated each of the last seven days. The majority of meditators, 7

(54%), reported that they meditated for 1-5 minutes each time, and 4 (31%) meditated 6-

10 minutes at a time. No one reported meditating 11-15 minutes and only 2 (15%)

meditated for 16-30 minutes at a time. The majority of students, 76 (83%) did not

meditate, as shown in Table 3.13.

148
Table 3.13

Meditation Frequencies of Participants

Variable n % %
Do you meditate?
Yes 16 17.4 17.4
No 76 82.6 100.0
Total 92
If yes, how many times did you meditate in the last seven days?
None in last seven days 3 18.8 18.8
Once in last seven days 6 37.5 56.3
Two or three of last seven days 6 37.5 93.8
Every day of last seven days 1 6.3 100.0
Total 16 100.0
About how long did you meditate each time?
1-5 minutes 7 53.8 53.8
6-10 minutes* 4 30.8 84.6
16-30 minutes 2 15.4 100.0
Total 13 100.0
Missing 3

Note. *There were no responses to the interval of 11-15 minutes.

Self-Efficacy Data. The reason for collecting self-efficacy data was that research

found that confident self-efficacy relates to one’s agency, motivation, competence, and

self-regulatory behavior (Bandura, 2023), as well as self-determination (Bandura, 2023;

Ryan & Deci, 2017). The average across all vignettes was high at nearly a 4.00 in self-

confidence on the 5-point Likert scale (M = 3.98, SD = .55) as shown in Table 3.14.

However, the size of the standard deviation meant that some of the 68% of preservice EC

teachers’ scores in this approximately normal distribution (median = 4.02) were moderate

not high. This pattern of two levels of skill, i.e., high and moderate, within one standard

deviation of a high mean was the case for six of the eight vignettes. Only in one vignette,

149
i.e., Child Stands on a Chair, were the scores uniformly high. That was the scenario with

a guidance sequence that closely matched content emphasized in many preservice EC

teachers’ child development or early childhood education courses. The only vignette that

the average score was not high was the New Child Cries scenario wherein scores within

one standard deviation of the mean were uniformly moderate. Preservice EC teachers

were also on average more highly confident of their responses to the simpler multiple-

choice than narrative-response questions. As scores were not uniformly high in most of

the vignettes, preservice EC teacher self-efficacy, though overall, high on average, was

not robust. Later, preservice EC teacher self-efficacy was juxtaposed with other variables

in the context of answering specific research sub questions.

Table 3.14

Descriptive Statistics for Responses to "How confident are you that this would be an

effective response?"

n Minimum Maximum Mean SD

All Responses 90 2.01 4.90 3.98 0.55
Narrative Response Vignettes 90 1.95 4.77 3.71 0.60
Child throws a toy 90 2.00 5.00 3.94 0.68
Child knocks down other child's block tower 89 1.50 5.00 3.61 0.74
New child cries 89 1.00 5.00 3.44 0.90
Your choice of a scenario 63 1.40 5.00 3.87 0.91
Multiple-Choice Response Vignettes 89 2.03 5.00 4.25 0.60
Active child trips into other child 89 1.90 5.00 4.11 0.76
Children want to play with the cars 89 1.40 5.00 4.20 0.73
Child stands on a chair 88 2.00 5.00 4.44 0.72
When children's behavior needs to change 81 2.20 5.00 4.25 0.74

Note. The histogram of these data showed a ~normal distribution (median = 4.02).

150
Data Collection Procedures

I collected data through the online Qualtrics survey that participants could

complete in one time period or leave and return to later, if they desired. The survey was

open for eight weeks. So that students had time to acclimate to the new semester, data

collection did not begin until approximately the eighth week of the 15-week semester.

For the two courses for which I was the instructor with 108 students, the survey was one

of the ungraded in-class exercises that were offered each lecture session to develop

students’ knowledge, dispositions, and skills as reflective practitioners. In my courses, a

small number of points was automatically assigned after each session for class

participation, as long as students were not obviously using their devices for unrelated

activities. The instructors of the other five courses with approximately 192 students may

or may not have provided their students with information about the survey or offered

bonus points if students did the survey. The estimated times to complete the sections of

the survey (Table 3.4) were based on the response times of approximately six volunteers

whose employment or graduate work was in early childhood, except for one person who

worked in another helping profession. To help ensure no coercion, I purposefully had no

way of knowing which of the five other instructors participated, which students gave or

did not give consent for their responses to be used in the study, or who finished or did not

finish the survey. Also, as previously mentioned, another feature of the survey to ensure

voluntary participation in the study was to ask students for their consent before and after

taking the survey.

151
Research Design

My non-experimental study employed parallel mixed methods (Greene et al.,

1989). Eight measures elicited quantitative data, and three measures generated both

qualitative and quantitative data for 11 measures overall. The study was designed as an

exploration of a path analysis and, as such, cast a somewhat wider net to catch relative

influences on self-regulatory development. The study’s design was organized around an

overarching research question and eight research sub questions that were developed. The

conceptualized pathway featured five segments aligned with five research sub questions.

The other three research sub questions were not part of the path analysis but provided

additional context and results that deepened insights about variables on the pathway. The

design of the study was cross-sectional to closely examine present phenomena and

identify key influences for future longitudinal and intervention research.

Research Sub Questions

There was an overarching research question and eight research sub questions in

the current study. The overarching research question was, In what ways, do preservice

early childhood (EC) teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and attachment style predict their self-regulatory

well-being and developmental support of child self-regulation for the self-determinative

well-being of both teacher and child? The following eight research sub questions (RSQs)

were designed to guide data analyses and ultimately answer the overarching research

question.

152
1. Are preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness associated?

2. Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness predict their self-regulatory well-

being?

3. Does preservice EC teacher self-regulatory well-being predict their developmental

support of child self-regulatory well-being?

4. Are preservice EC teacher psychological well-being and self-determinative well-

being associated?

5. Does preservice EC teacher self-regulatory well-being predict their psychological

and self-determinative well-being?

6. Do preservice EC teacher psychological and self-determinative well-being predict

their developmental support of child self-regulatory well-being?

7. Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, self-regulatory well-being, psychological

well-being, and self-determinative well-being predict their developmental support

of child self-regulatory well-being?

8. How does preservice EC teacher attachment style relate to self-compassion,

compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, self-

regulatory well-being, psychological well-being, self-determinative well-being,

and developmental support of child self-regulatory well-being?

153
Conceptual Models

I built a conceptual framework that included a path analysis, as shown in Figure

3.1, wherein preservice EC teachers’ psychosocial characteristics ultimately predicted

their developmental support for children’s self-regulatory well-being. These

characteristics contextualized the study’s whole teacher person-first approach. Indeed, I

first hypothesized that four precipitating characteristics of preservice EC teachers were

related (research sub question 1, RSQ1), i.e., their self-compassion, compassion for

others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness.

Then, for the first part of the path analysis – segment A – I reasoned that these

characteristics of preservice EC teachers predicted their emotional self-regulatory well-

being (RSQ2). In turn, for Segment B of the path analysis, I expected that their emotion

self-regulation predicted their developmental support of children’s self-regulatory well-

being (RSQ3). Before testing the next segment of the pathway, I posited that

psychological well-being and self-determinative well-being were related (RSQ4). Next,

for Segment C of the path analysis, I conceptualized that preservice EC teachers’

emotional self-regulatory well-being predicted their psychological and self-determinative

well-being (RSQ5).

Thereafter, for Segment D of the path analysis, I postulated that preservice EC

teachers’ psychological and self-determinative well-being predicted their developmental

support of children’s self-regulatory well-being (RSQ6). Finally, for the last part of the

path analysis, i.e., Segment E, I hypothesized that each of the preceding characteristics of

154
preservice EC teachers predicted their developmental support of children’s self-

regulatory well-beings, after taking all the other characteristics into account (RSQ7). I

also believed that preservice EC teachers’ attachment styles related to their psychosocial

characteristics and developmental support for children’s self-regulation (RSQ8).

The comprehensive conceptual model – showing all associations and predictive

relationships – was depicted in Figure 3.2 with stronger predictive influences denoted by

thicker lines. The pathway within the conceptual model was iteratively evaluated in

layered segments (A-E) and, collectively, the findings for the research sub questions

(RSQs 1-8) answered the overarching research question. I believed that the study results

would largely support the two conceptual models from Figures 3.1 and 3.2, and, hence,

act to convert them to a similar empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1 in the next

chapter.

155
 Figure 3.1

Conceptual Model: Main Psychosocial Influences on Teacher Self-Regulation and Developmental Support of Child Self-

Regulation
156
 Figure 3.2

Comprehensive Conceptual Model: All Psychosocial Influences on Teacher Self-Regulation and Developmental Support of Child

Self-Regulation
157
Data Analysis Plan: Exploring Preservice Early Childhood Teacher Characteristics

and Their Developmental Support for Child Self-Regulatory Well-Being

The pathways of the conceptual models, as shown in the red, blue, and purple

arrows of Figures 3.1 and 3.2, informed the research sub questions and were central to the

qualitative and quantitative methods used in the study. The qualitative methods involved

both the design of vignettes about children having self-regulatory difficulty and analysis

of narrative responses from preservice EC teachers about what they would do in those

circumstances. Thereafter, the qualitative results from evaluating the narrative responses

were assigned quantitative scores, using a detailed protocol for reliability. The study’s

quantitative analyses, using IBM SPSS Version 30, included data description, correlation,

one-way analysis of variance, simple linear regression, and multiple linear regression

with these latter two layered to progressively test the pathways. The resulting evidence

either confirmed or changed the hypothesized relationships and, ultimately, was used to

convert the conceptual models from Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to an empirical model in Figure

4.1 in the next chapter.

The Data Analysis Plan for exploring preservice EC teacher characteristics and

their developmental support for child self-regulation had eight major steps, one for each

research sub question (RSQ). For RSQ1 and RSQ4, the Data Analysis Plan specified

correlation analyses to provide more information about the psychosocial characteristics of

preservice EC teachers that were studied in the path analysis. The conceptualized

158
pathway had five segments (A-E) that were tested in steps for RSQs 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

Like RSQs 1 and 4, RSQ8 was not part of the path analysis but provided additional

insight about potential influences on the characteristics of preservice EC teachers. These

eight steps for the research sub questions were explained in detail below and summarized

thereafter in Table 3.15. The first column of the table provided the step, research sub

question, and, when applicable, the segment of the pathway tested. The second column

listed the type of analysis to answer the respective research sub question. The color

coding in the table aligned with the conceptual models in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 and the

empirical model in Figure 4.1 in the next chapter.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ1 – Correlation of the Initial Four Characteristics

Research sub question 1 (RSQ1) asked, Are preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal

mindfulness associated? To investigate these relationships, I first conducted a correlation

analysis of the four variables measured respectively by the SSCS-L (Neff et al., 2021),

CS (Pommier et al., 2019), FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008), and

MTS sub scale (Frank et al., 2016). Second, I conducted a correlation analysis of the four

variables 16 components, i.e., the SSCS-L with six components, CS with four

components, FFMQ with five components, and MTS with one component.

The correlation analysis provided an estimate of the relationship between two

variables, testing whether on average a unit change in one variable is consistently related

to a change in the other variable. This determination was made by comparing the

159
covariance shared between the two variables in the analysis, as measured by the cross-

product of the sum of the distance of each data point to its mean, to the combined sample

variances of each variable in the analysis. As such, the correlation could theoretically

range from negative one (a perfect inverse relationship) to positive one (a perfect

relationship). The test of significance tested the likelihood of observing the given

correlation when the actual relationship is zero.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ2 – Path Analysis Segment A – Relationship of the Four

Initial Characteristics to Self-Regulation

Research sub question 2 (RSQ2) asked, Do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal

mindfulness predict their self-regulatory well-being? To investigate these relationships, I

conducted a multiple linear regression test. The data for the independent predictor

variables were respectively from the SSCS-L (Neff et al., 2021), CS (Pommier et al.,

2019), FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008), an MTS sub scale (Frank et

al., 2016),.The data for the dependent outcome variable was from the ERSQ (Berking et

al., 2008; as cited in Grant et al., 2018).

The multiple linear regression analysis built on the correlational association

between the dependent and independent variables. The test used calculus to solve the

least-squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance

between all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association

(R) and its related amount of variance explained by the four predictors in the model (R2)

160
and 2) the estimated linear relationship between preservice EC teacher self-regulatory

well-being and each predictor after taking the other predictors into account.

Multiple regression analysis supplied each estimate with an associated

significance, to determine the extent to which the observed estimate could have occurred

by chance. By comparing the standardized coefficients among the four regression

analyses, I determined the relative percent change in relationship, using 10% or more to

argue for mediation. For this analysis, I used the standard alpha level of .05 to determine

significance.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ3 – Path Analysis Segment B – Relationship of Self-

Regulation to Developmental Support

Research sub question 3 (RSQ3) asked, Does preservice EC teacher self-

regulatory well-being predict their developmental support of child self-regulatory well-

being? To address this research sub question, I conducted a simple linear regression. The

data for the independent variable were from the ERSQ (Berking et al., 2008; as cited in

Grant et al., 2018). The data for the dependent variable were from the narrative and

multiple-choice responses to vignettes about children having self-regulatory difficulty

and how the preservice EC teacher would address these challenges.

The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis built on the correlational

association between two continuous variables. The test used calculus to solve the least-

squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance between

all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association (R) and

161
its related amount of variance explained by the predictor (R2) and 2) the amount of

estimated linear relationship between predictor and outcome. Regression analysis also

supplied each estimate with an associated significance, to determine the extent to which

the observed estimate could have occurred by chance. For this analysis, I used the

standard alpha level of .05 to determine significance.

Since preservice EC teacher self-regulatory well-being (SRWB) predicted their

developmental support of child self-regulatory well-being, I next conducted a multiple

linear regression test to answer the following question. Do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being predict their developmental support of child

self-regulatory well-being? That inquiry, with the latter as the dependent variable and the

former as the independent variables, aligned with Step 3b on the Data Analysis Plan, as

shown in Table 3.15.

The multiple linear regression analysis built on the correlational association

between the dependent and independent variables. The test used calculus to solve the

least-squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance

between all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association

(R) and its related amount of variance explained by the five predictors in the model (R2)

and 2) the estimated linear relationship between preservice EC teacher developmental

support of child self-regulatory well-being and each predictor after taking the other

predictors into account.

162
 Multiple regression analysis supplied each estimate with an associated

significance, to determine the extent to which the observed estimate could have occurred

by chance. By comparing the standardized coefficients among the five regression

analyses, I was able to determine the percent change in relationship, using 10% or more

to argue for mediation. For this analysis, I used the standard alpha level of .05 to

determine significance.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ4 – Correlation of Psychological and Self-Determinative

Well-Being

Research sub question 4 (RSQ4) asked, Are preservice EC teacher

psychological well-being (PWB) and self-determinative well-being (SDWB) associated?

To investigate their relationship, I conducted a correlation analysis. The data were

respectively from the Diener Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being (PWB)

(Diener et al., 2010) and Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNSS) (Deci &

Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003) results.

The correlation analysis provided an estimate of the relationship between two

variables, testing whether on average a unit change in one variable is consistently related

to a change in the other variable. This determination was made by comparing the

covariance shared between the two variables in the analysis, as measured by the cross-

product of the sum of the distance of each data point to its mean, to the combined sample

variances of each variable in the analysis. As such, the correlation could range,

theoretically, from negative one (a perfect inverse relationship) to positive one (a perfect

163
relationship). The test of significance tested the likelihood of observing the given

correlation when the actual relationship is zero.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ5 – Path Analysis Segment C – Relationship of Emotion Self-

Regulation to Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being

Research sub question 5 (RSQ5) asked, Does preservice EC teacher self-

regulatory well-being predict their psychological and self-determinative well-being? To

address this question, I first conducted two simple linear regressions. The data for the

independent variable were from the ERSQ (Berking et al., 2008; as cited in Grant et al.,

2018) and the data for the dependent variables were respectively from the Diener

Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being (PWB) (Diener et al., 2010) and Basic

Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNSS) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003).

The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis built on the correlational

association between two continuous variables. The test used calculus to solve the least-

squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance between

all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association (R) and

its related amount of variance explained by the predictor (R2) and 2) the amount of

estimated linear relationship between predictor and outcome. Regression analysis also

supplied each estimate with an associated significance, to determine the extent to which

the observed estimate could have occurred by chance. For this analysis, I used the

standard alpha level of .05 to determine significance.

164
 Since preservice EC teacher self-regulatory well-being (SRWB) predicted their

psychological well-being (PWB), I next conducted a multiple linear regression test to

answer the following question. Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion

for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and self-regulatory

well-being predict their psychological well-being? That inquiry, with the latter as the

dependent variable and the former as the independent variables, aligned with Step 5a.2 on

the Data Analysis Plan, as shown in Table 3.15.

Since preservice EC teacher self-regulatory well-being (SRWB) predicted their

self-determinative well-being (SDWB), I next conducted a multiple linear regression test

to answer the following question. Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion

for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and self-regulatory

well-being predict their self-determinative well-being? That inquiry, with the latter as the

dependent variable and the former as the independent variables, aligned with Step 5b.2

on the Data Analysis Plan, as shown in Table 3.15.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ6 – Path Analysis Segment D – Relationship of Psychological

and Self-Determinative Well-Being to Developmental Support

Research sub question 6 (RSQ6) asked, Do preservice EC teacher

psychological and self-determinative well-being predict their developmental support of

child self-regulatory well-being? To address this research sub question, I conducted a

multiple regression with data for the independent variables from, respectively, the Diener

Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being (PWB) (Diener et al., 2010) and Basic

165
Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNSS) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003).

Data for the dependent variable were from the narrative and multiple-choice responses to

the vignettes about children having self-regulatory difficulty.

The multiple linear regression analysis built on the correlational association

between the dependent and independent variables. The test used calculus to solve the

least-squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance

between all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association

(R) and its related amount of variance explained by the two predictors in the model (R2)

and 2) the estimated linear relationship between EC teacher developmental support of

child self-regulatory well-being and each independent variable after taking the other

independent variable into account.

Multiple regression analysis supplied each estimate with an associated

significance, to determine the extent to which the observed estimate could have occurred

by chance. By comparing the standardized coefficients among the five regression

analyses, I was able to determine the percent change in relationship, using 10% or more

to argue for mediation. For this analysis, I used the standard alpha level of .05 to

determine significance.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ7 – Path Analysis Segment E – Relationship of All

Characteristics to Developmental Support

Research sub question 7 (RSQ7) asked, Do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

166
mindfulness, self-regulatory well-being, psychological well-being, and self-determinative

well-being predict their developmental support of child self-regulatory well-being? To

address this research sub question, I conducted a multiple regression using the data from

the measures named in prior research sub questions.

The multiple linear regression analysis built on the correlational association

between the dependent and independent variables. The test used calculus to solve the

least-squares-distance estimation to find the best fitting line minimizing the distance

between all observed points. As such, this analysis provided 1) the strength of association

(R) and its related amount of variance explained by the seven predictors in the model (R2)

and 2) the estimated linear relationship between EC teacher developmental support of

child self-regulatory well-being and each independent variable after taking the other

independent variables into account.

Multiple regression analysis supplied each estimate with an associated

significance, to determine the extent to which the observed estimate could have occurred

by chance. By comparing the standardized coefficients among the five regression

analyses, I was able to determine the percent change in relationship, using 10% or more

to argue for mediation. For this analysis, I used the standard alpha level of .05 to

determine significance.

Data Analysis Plan: RSQ8 – Relationship of Attachment Style to Other Characteristics

Research sub question 8 (RSQ8) asked, Does preservice EC teacher attachment

style predict their self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness,

167
interpersonal mindfulness, self-regulatory well-being, psychological well-being, self-

determinative well-being, and developmental support of child self-regulatory well-being?

To address this research sub question, I conducted one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) and multiple linear regression tests. Attachment style data were from the ASQ

(Polek, 2008; Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven, 2003) (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker,

2003; as cited in Mosterman & Hofstra, 2015). For clinical applications, an individual’s

attachment style may be primarily qualitatively analyzed, but for research purposes I

initially identified a predominant style from the highest of the means for each style to use

as an independent variable in statistical analyses.

First, I repeated prior multiple linear regression tests but with attachment style

added as an independent variable. To conduct these tests, I converted the categorical

attachment style variable to a dichotomous variable for compatibility with the other

variables which were continuous. To do so, I recoded the categorical variable for

attachment style into three dichotomous variables for dismissive, preoccupied, and fearful

attachment that in the multiple linear regressions were compared to the referent variable

of secure attachment.

The multiple linear regression tests indicated a dilution of the signal from some of

the other independent variables to low or no significance, as may happen with more

predictors, collinearity, or that attachment style was a confounding variable. Therefore, I

next conducted a series of one-way ANOVA tests with attachment style as the

168
independent variable to further investigate its relationships to other characteristics of

preservice EC teachers.

The one-way ANOVA analyses compared the size of differences observed among

means between groups (the mean square distance between groups) with the difference of

each observation from its group mean observed within each group (the mean square

distance within groups). As such, this analysis determined whether at least one group

differs significantly from any of the others. If the F-test identified significant differences

overall, I further examined the individual contrasts between groups in a post-hoc

comparison, using the Fisher Least Square Distance (LSD) test.

Table 3.15

Data Analysis Plan: Exploring Preservice EC Teacher Characteristics and

Developmental Support for Child Self-Regulatory Well-Being

Steps and Paths to Test Data Analyses

Aligned to Research Sub Questions (RSQ 1-8) Quantitative and
and Path Analysis Segments (A-E) Qualitative

Font colors correspond to Includes descriptive statistics

Figures 3.1 and 3.2. for the 11 measures
Step 1. Are preservice EC teacher self- Correlation – information for
compassion, compassion for others, the next step of the path
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal analysis
mindfulness associated? RSQ1
Step 2. Do preservice EC teacher self- Multiple linear regression test
compassion, compassion for others, 1
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal
mindfulness predict their self-regulatory well-
being? RSQ2 & Path Analysis A

169
Table 3.15 – Continued

Steps and Paths to Test Data Analyses

Aligned to Research Sub Questions (RSQ 1-8) Quantitative and
and Path Analysis Segments (A-E) Qualitative

Font colors correspond to Includes descriptive statistics

Figures 3.1 and 3.2. for the 11 measures
Step 3. Does preservice EC teacher self- Simple linear regression test 1
regulatory well-being predict their
developmental support of child self-regulatory Narrative response coding
well-being? RSQ3 & Path Analysis B
Step 3a. Do preservice EC teacher self- If teacher self-regulation is not
compassion, compassion for others, related to developmental
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal support:
mindfulness predict their developmental
support of child self-regulatory well-being? Multiple linear regression test
RSQ3 & Path Analysis B 2A
Step 3b. Do preservice EC teacher self- If teacher self-regulation is
compassion, compassion for others, related to developmental
intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal support:
mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being Multiple linear regression test
predict their developmental support of child 2B
self-regulatory well-being? RSQ3 & Path
Analysis B Narrative response coding
Step 4. Are preservice EC teacher Correlation – information for
psychological well-being and self- the next step of the path
determinative well-being associated? RSQ4 analysis
Step 5a. Does preservice EC teacher self- Simple linear regression test 2
regulatory well-being predict their
psychological well-being? RSQ5a & Path
Analysis C
Step 5b. Does preservice EC teacher self- Simple linear regression test 3
regulatory well-being predict their self-
determinative well-being? RSQ5b & Path
Analysis C
Step 5a.1. Do preservice EC teacher self- If simple linear regression test
compassion, compassion for others, 2 is not significant:
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal
mindfulness predict their psychological well- Multiple linear regression test
being? RSQ5a.1 & Path Analysis C 3A

170
Table 3.15 – Continued

Steps and Paths to Test Data Analyses

Aligned to Research Sub Questions (RSQ 1-8) Quantitative and
and Path Analysis Segments (A-E) Qualitative

Font colors correspond to Includes descriptive statistics

Figures 3.1 and 3.2. for the 11 measures
Step 5a.2. Do preservice EC teacher self- If simple linear regression test
compassion, compassion for others, 2 is significant:
intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal
mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being Multiple linear regression test
predict their psychological well-being? 3B
RSQ5a.2 & Path Analysis C
Step 5b.1. Do preservice EC teacher self- If simple linear regression test
compassion, compassion for others, 3 is not significant:
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal
mindfulness predict their self-determinative Multiple linear regression test
well-being? RSQ5b.1 & Path Analysis C 4A
Step 5b.2. Do preservice EC teacher self- If simple linear regression test
compassion, compassion for others, 3 is significant:
intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal
mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being Multiple linear regression test
predict their self-determinative well-being? 4B
RSQ5b.2 & Path Analysis C
Step 6. Do preservice EC teacher Multiple linear regression test
psychological well-being and self- 5
determinative well-being predict their
developmental support of child self-regulatory Narrative response coding
well-being? RSQ6 & Path Analysis D

171
Table 3.15 – Continued

Steps and Paths to Test Data Analyses

Aligned to Research Sub Questions (RSQ 1-8) Quantitative and
and Path Analysis Segments (A-E) Qualitative

Font colors correspond to Includes descriptive statistics

Figures 3.1 and 3.2. for the 11 measures
Step 7. Do all the variables – preservice EC Multiple linear regression test
teacher self-compassion, compassion for 6
others, intrapersonal mindfulness,
interpersonal mindfulness, self-regulatory Narrative response coding
well-being, psychological well-being, and
self-determinative well-being – predict their
developmental support of child self-regulatory
well-being? RSQ7 & Path Analysis E
Step 8. Does preservice EC teacher Multiple linear regression tests
attachment style predict their self-compassion, with attachment style added
compassion for others, intrapersonal
mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, self- One-way ANOVAs
regulatory well-being, psychological well-
being, self-determinative well-being, and
developmental support of child self-regulatory
well-being? RSQ8

Conclusion

In this chapter, I explained the study’s methods that were designed to explore the

overarching research question: In what ways, do preservice EC teacher self-compassion,

compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and

attachment style predict their self-regulatory well-being and developmental support of

child self-regulation for the self-determinative well-being of both teacher and child?

Eight research sub questions, a path analysis, and plan for analyzing the data were

developed to explore these psychosocial characteristics of preservice EC teachers and

their support of children’s development of self-regulation. After earning Oakland

172
University Institutional Review Board approval of the study, I conducted this research

following the methods delineated in this chapter.

173
 CHAPTER FOUR

Results

In this chapter, I explored preservice EC teachers’ self-reported compassion and

mindfulness, as well as their self-regulatory, psychological, and self-determinative well-

being, and developmentally appropriate support for children’s self-regulatory well-being.

I began by describing the results for the measures listed in Table 3.15. Then I reported the

results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses for the overarching research question,

eight research sub questions, and, within those, the path analysis as shown by the

conceptual models’ red, blue, and purple arrows in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. I followed the

order of the Data Analysis Plan for this research, as summarized in Table 3.15, and

progressively converted the conceptual models to an empirical model, as shown in Figure

4.1 at the end of this chapter. Lastly, I explored how preservice EC teachers’ attachment

style, self-efficacy, and meditation related to their other characteristics. These efforts

were meant to answer the following overarching research question and, in the future, use

insights from this research to deepen person-first pedagogy for whole-teacher preservice

education.

• In what ways do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion for others,

intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and attachment style

predict their self-regulatory well-being and developmental support of child self-

regulation for the self-determinative well-being of both teacher and child?

174
Description of the Results for the 10 Measures

The descriptive statistics for the demographic questions on the survey were

reported in chapter three. The description of the results for the meditation and self-

efficacy questions were also reported in chapter three. Thus, what follows below were the

descriptive statistics for the remaining 10 measures on the survey.

State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form (SSCS-L)

The SSCS-L (Neff et al., 2021) measured preservice EC teachers’ compassion for

themselves on a 5-point Likert scale from low to high self-empathy. On average, their

overall self-compassion was moderate (M = 3.33, SD = .75), applying the general

thresholds of 3.6 for high, 2.5-3.5 for moderate, and 2.49 or less for low, as shown in

Table 4.1. Preservice EC teachers had more self-compassion in the warm components (M

= 3.42, SD = .75) of kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness than in the cold

components (M = 3.25, SD = .90) of self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification.

Correspondingly, for each pair of opposite warm-cold components, they had more warm

than cold self-compassion. These opposites were kindness (M = 3.43, SD = .95) versus

self-judgment (M = 3.10, SD = .99), common humanity (M = 3.56, SD = .91) versus

isolation (M = 3.45, SD = 1.10), and mindfulness (M = 3.29, SD = .79) versus over-

identification (M = 3.21, SD = .97). All components were at a moderate level in self-

compassion on average, except for common humanity where the rounded mean

score of 3.6 (SD = .91) was at the threshold for high self-compassion. Be that as it

may, for these normally distributed scores, the large standard deviations (SDs) meant that

175
the range of scores for 68% of preservice EC teachers within one SD for total self-

compassion, warm compassion, and its components began at the low end of moderate.

Moreover, the range of scores for cold self-compassion and its components began at a

low level of self-compassion. Thus, self-compassion, though moderate on average,

was not robust for this group of preservice EC teachers, i.e., with all scores at a

moderate level or higher.

Table 4.1

Descriptive Statistics for State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form Scores

Variable n Minimum Maximum M SD

Total Self-Compassion 83 1.96 4.90 3.33 0.75
Components
Warm Self-Compassion 85 1.39 5.00 3.42 0.75
Kindness 85 1.00 5.00 3.43 0.95
Common humanity 85 1.37 5.00 3.56 0.91
Mindfulness 85 1.47 5.00 3.29 0.79
Cold Self-Compassion 85 1.43 4.83 3.25 0.90
Self-Judgment 85 1.00 4.80 3.10 0.99
Isolation 83 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.10
Over-Identification 85 1.53 5.00 3.21 0.97

Note. Preservice EC teachers chose from 1 for “not at all true for me” to 5 for “very true

for me.” Cold self-compassion components were reverse scored. The histogram of scores

showed a normal distribution and that the median (3.30) aligned with the mean (3.33).

Compassion Scale (CS)

The CS (Pommier et al., 2019) measured preservice EC teachers’ compassion for

others on a 5-point Likert scale from low to high empathy. On average, their overall

compassion for others was very high (M = 4.27, SD = .38), as shown in Table 4.2. For

176
the three components that are positively or warmly related to compassion for others, i.e.,

kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness, preservice EC teachers consistently

scored high on average. For the fourth component, i.e., indifference, which is negatively

or coldly related to compassion for others, they showed relatively low indifference and

high compassion, on average. Preservice EC teachers scored highest in the

component of kindness (M = 4.51, SD = .44) and second highest in the component of

mindfulness (M = 4.32, SD = .43). Also, the smaller spread of scores (SD = .38) around

the high mean (4.27) in this normal distribution, signaled that the 68% of preservice EC

teachers within one standard deviation of the mean, all scored high. Expanding to two

standard deviations from the mean, at least 84% of preservice EC teachers scored high in

compassion for others. Thus, compassion for others was robustly high for this group

of preservice EC teachers.

Table 4.2

Descriptive Statistics for Compassion Scale Scores

Variable n Minimum Maximum M SD

Total Compassion 85 3.42 4.97 4.27 0.38
Components
Kindness 85 3.28 5.00 4.51 0.44
Common humanity 85 1.85 5.00 4.07 0.60
Mindfulness 85 3.34 5.00 4.32 0.43
Indifference 85 2.13 5.00 4.17 0.67

Note. Preservice EC teachers chose from 1 for “almost never” to 5 for “almost always.”

Indifference items were reverse scored. The histogram of scores showed a normal

distribution and that the median (4.27) aligned with the mean (4.27).

177
Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

The FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006; as cited in Baer et al., 2008) measured preservice

EC teachers’ intrapersonal mindfulness on a 5-point Likert scale from low to high. On

average, their overall mindfulness was moderate (M = 3.14, SD = .45). Preservice EC

teachers also scored moderate in each of the five components of mindfulness, reported

from highest to lowest means in Table 4.3 for observing (M = 3.43, SD = .81),

describing (M = 3.28, SD = .77), nonjudging of inner experience (M = 3.03, SD = .89),

acting with awareness (M = 3.0, SD = .81), and nonreactivity (M = 2.97, SD = .57).

Within the normal distribution of scores, the larger standard deviations for some of the

components (i.e., nonjudging, acting with awareness, and nonreactivity) meant that their

scores were not uniformly moderate and some were low for the 34% of preservice EC

teachers within one standard deviation below the mean. Thus, mindfulness though

moderate on average was not robust for this group of preservice EC teachers.

178
Table 4.3

Descriptive Statistics for Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Scores

n Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Total Mindfulness 80 1.74 4.26 3.14 0.45
Components
Observing 82 1.49 4.93 3.43 0.81
Describing 82 1.11 5.00 3.28 0.77
Nonreactivity 82 1.14 4.74 2.97 0.57
Nonjudging 80 1.00 4.98 3.03 0.89
Acting with awareness 82 1.45 5.00 3.00 0.81

Note. Preservice EC teachers chose from 1 for "never or very rarely true" to 5 for "very

often or always true." The components of nonjudging of inner experience and acting with

awareness, and three items in the describing component were reverse scored. The

histogram of scores showed a normal distribution and that the median (3.11) aligned with

the mean (3.14).

Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (MTS)

The MTS (Frank et al., 2016) sub scale with five items measured preservice EC

teachers’ intrapersonal mindfulness on a 5-point Likert scale from low to high. The 84

preservice EC teachers’ scores ranged from 3.48 (close to the 3.6 threshold for high) to

5.0 (extremely high). On average, they showed a robust high level of interpersonal

mindfulness (M = 4.45, SD = .46). Scores were somewhat skewed to the high end of the

scale with a median score of 4.58.

Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire (ERSQ)

The ERSQ (Berking et al., 2008; as cited in Grant et al., 2018) measured

preservice EC teachers’ emotional self-regulatory well-being on a 5-point Likert scale

179
from low to high. On average, their overall emotion regulation was high (M = 3.83,

SD = .57). Given this spread of scores (SD = .57) around the mean (3.83) in this normal

distribution, the 68% of preservice EC teachers within one standard deviation of the mean

scored between a moderate (3.26) to high (4.4) level of emotion regulation on the 5-point

scale. This pattern of high to moderate scores in the spread of scores also held for the

nine components of emotion regulation, as shown in Table 4.4 from the highest to lowest

means, i.e., from understanding (M = 4.01, SD = .71) to acceptance (M = 3.58 SD =

75). As the scores were not uniformly high, emotional self-regulatory well-being,

though high on average, was not robust for this group of preservice EC teachers.

Table 4.4

Descriptive Statistics for Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire Scores

n Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Total Emotion Regulation 84 1.20 4.87 3.83 0.57
Components
Understanding 87 1.00 5.00 4.01 0.71
Clarity 87 1.00 5.00 3.97 0.73
Self-support 86 1.50 5.00 3.94 0.70
Awareness 87 1.00 5.00 3.92 0.67
Sensations 87 1.67 5.00 3.82 0.67
Tolerance 86 1.17 5.00 3.76 0.74
Ready to confront 86 1.33 5.00 3.74 0.74
Modification 87 1.00 5.00 3.68 0.71
Acceptance 87 91.00 5.00 3.58 0.75

Note: Preservice EC teachers chose from 1 for “Not at all” to 5 for “Almost always” as

experienced by them in the last week. The histogram of scores showed a normal

distribution and that the median (3.85) aligned with the mean (3.83).

180
Diener Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being (PWB)

The PWB scale (Diener et al., 2010 measured eight items on a 7-point Likert

scale from low to high. The 83 preservice EC teachers’ scores ranged from 3.10 to 7.0

with a mean of 5.9 and standard deviation of .86. Just as the general threshold for high is

72% or 3.6 on a 5-point scale, the threshold for high on a 7-point scale is 72% or 5.0.

Thus, on average, preservice EC teachers scored high in psychological well-being.

Given the spread of scores (SD = .86) around the mean (5.9) of this normal distribution

(median = 5.9), the 68% of preservice EC teachers who scored within one standard

deviation of the mean, had scores from the threshold for high (5.9 - .86 = 5.04) to very

high (5.9 + .86 = 6.76) in psychological well-being. Indeed, the finding of high

psychological well-being was robust for this group of preservice EC teachers. Also,

because the original PWB measure correlated strongly (r = .62, p < .001) (Diener et al.,

2010) to the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (as mentioned in chapter three),

the PWB results also suggested self-determinative well-being.

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNSS)

The BPNSS (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne, 2003) measured preservice EC

teachers’ self-determinative well-being on a 7-point Likert scale from low to high. On

average, for the three components of self-determination, they had moderate

autonomy (M = 5.0, SD = .92), high relatedness (M = 5.66, SD = .86), and high

competence (M = 5.00, SD = .97). To decide if averaging the components for an overall

181
score was appropriate, I used the same method as Gagne (2003) and tested their

correlation.

The result of this correlation test was that all components strongly correlated at

significance, as shown in Table 4.5, which supported averaging all the item scores,

revealing high self-determinative well-being overall (M = 5.2, SD = .76). However, for

the 68% of preservice EC teachers scoring within one standard deviation of the mean in

this normal distribution, their individual scores ranged from moderate to high.

Specifically, some of the 34% of preservice EC teachers within one standard deviation

who were below the mean scored at a moderate not high level. Thus, self-determinative

well-being, though high on average, was not robust for this group of preservice EC

teachers. Also, because of the aforementioned strong correlation (r = .62, p < .001) of

the original PWB measure with the BPNSS (Diener et al., 2010), the BPNSS results also

suggested psychological well-being.

182
Table 4.5

Descriptive Statistics for Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale Scores and

Component Correlations

Variable n M SD 1 2 3
Total BPNN 84 5.2 .76
Components
1. Autonomy 84 5.00 0.92 - .46** .71**
2. Relatedness 84 5.66 0.86 .46** - .51*
3. Competence 84 5.00 0.97 .71** .51* -

Note. These results are based on the 15-item scale. The histogram of scores showed a

normal distribution and that the median (5.28) aligned with the mean (5.2).

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Multiple-Choice Responses – Developmental Support

Preservice EC teachers scored extremely high in developmental support or

responsiveness for children’s self-regulatory well-being, as measured by the four

multiple-choice items. Fifty-six preservice EC teachers or 64% answered all four items

correctly, 28 (32%) answered correctly three out of four times, and 4 (5%) answered

correctly two out of four times. No one answered only one item correctly. Correct

responses out of approximately 88 responses per item were 63 or 71% of the responses

for item 1, 86 (97%) for item 2, 85 (97%) for item 3, and 84 (95%) for item 4. Hence,

90% of preservice EC teachers chose the correct response on average (SD = .145).

These results were similar to but somewhat higher than the CUPID results for the larger

set of 12 vignettes (from which four vignettes were adapted for the current study)

183
wherein 82% of the college students chose the correct response on average (Vallotton et

al., 2016).

One contributing factor to the low percentage of accuracy for the first response

may have been that initially preservice EC teachers were not sure how to analyze the

vignettes. A second contributing factor may have been related to most of these students

having two or three prior courses in child development or early childhood education in

which they were taught a very specific sequence for what to say to redirect behavior.

However, the correct answer for multiple-choice item 1 was a more nuanced version of

this sequence that they, as preservice and novice teachers, may not have realized, even

though it was the authoritative option. Instead, those who answered incorrectly chose the

authoritarian option, except for one preservice EC teacher who chose the permissive

option. This second potential contributing factor may have had more impact, since the

third multiple-choice item, for which the correct answer was a more obvious example of

the verbal sequence for redirecting behavior, was chosen by 97% of preservice EC

teachers.

Narrative Responses – Developmental Support

There were up to 92 written responses for each of the four vignettes. Examples of

preservice EC teachers’ narrative responses were provided in Table 4.6. These responses

were first qualitatively analyzed then scored per the detailed protocol (Appendix N), as

explained in chapter three.

184
Table 4.6

Preservice EC Teacher Narrative Responses to Vignettes: Examples

Vignettes Narrative Responses

Child Throws a Toy: I would say "I can see that you are getting frustrated,
when you threw that toy you almost hit another child.
KC is trying to make a wooden puzzle piece When you throw toys, I'm worried that someone could
fit into the frame by pushing it harder and get hurt. If you need help with your puzzle, you can
harder. Suddenly, KC throws the piece with ask for help. Next time you are feeling frustrated, stop
force, just missing another child’s head. KC and take a deep breath." Then keep an eye on KC and
folds her arms across her chest, frowns, and make sure she isn't getting mad.
scrunches her eyebrows.
Child Knocks Down Another Child's Block I would call over and talk to EM while also ensuring
Tower: that LR is okay. I would talk to EM about running in
the class and how it isn't right to run in the classroom.
During playtime, EM hurries to a center
across the room. EM cuts through the block
area and bumps into LR's tower, knocking it
down. LR yells, “No!” and thrusts a fist out at
EM who has not stopped moving. LR cries
loudly as EM begins to play elsewhere.
New Child Cries: I would get on MH's level and have an open body
language. I would say, "I have noticed that when you're
New child MH started preschool 3 weeks ago. parents leave you seem to be very sad and cry." I
Many mornings, after MH's parent leaves, would then listen to their response, if any and possibly
MH cries a long time and does not want to ask why they cry when their parents leave. I would
join into class activities. Today, as MH's then invite the child over to a calming activity or
parent walks out the door, MH again begins to something I would assume they would enjoy.
cry.

Vignette Generated by Preservice EC Teacher At my job a child got very upset that they couldn't read
a book another student was reading and started crying.
I approached the child and asked what was wrong and
he expressed how he wanted to read the book the other
child was reading. I told him that he could read it after
him and that we are going outside very soon anyways
so when we get back inside he will be able to read it. I
also explained that I understand how it is upsetting that
he couldn't read the book at the time but that it will be
okay and he will be able to read it eventually. He was
still upset but after time he calmed down and ended up
being able to read the book later that afternoon.

To determine if averaging the item sub scores for the three indicators for each

response was the most appropriate scoring method or if the vignette responses should be

185
holistically scored, I tested the correlation of each vignette’s three indicators. These

results, as summarized in Table 4.7, were: For Vignette 1, Indicator 1 (Empathy) was

significantly strongly related to Indicator 2 (Connect Emotion to Antecedent) and

significantly moderately related to Indicator 3 (Generate Response with Child). Indicators

2 and 3 were significantly related to Indicator 1 but not to each other. For Vignettes 2, 3,

and 4, all indicators were significantly related. Indicator 1 was significantly strongly

related to Indicator 2 and moderately related to Indicator 3 in Vignettes 2 and 3; and

significantly strongly related to both Indicators 2 and 3 in Vignette 4. Indicators 2 and 3

were significantly strongly related in Vignette 2; and moderately related in Vignettes 3

and 4. Thus, across the four vignettes, the indicators were significantly related either

moderately or strongly, except in the one case (Vignette 1 between Indicators 2 and 3).

Given the dominant pattern of correlation not just at the p < .05 level but p < .01

level, I determined that averaging the sub scores for the three indicators in each

response for a final score was the most appropriate scoring protocol.

The vignette descriptive statistics, as shown in Table 4.7, revealed that there were

approximately one third fewer preservice EC teachers’ responses for Vignette 4, perhaps

because of preservice EC teacher uncertainty or fatigue when invited to share their own

vignette. Across the four vignettes, preservice EC teachers on average scored highest on

Indicator 1 and lowest on Indicator 3, as expected, given the progression in difficulty

from Indicator 1 to Indicator 3 skills. Therein, empathy for the child’s perspective

(Indicator 1) would make it more likely that one could connect the child’s emotion to its

186
antecedent (Indicator 2), and, in time, with much practice, become skilled at generating

responses with the child (Indicator 3).

The extremely large standard deviations, as reported in Table 4.7, meant that the

means were not very representative of individuals’ scores and skill levels, as shown in

Table 4.8, for the four vignettes with three indicators each and 12 indicators overall.

Seven of these 12 indicators with scores that were on average either low, moderate, or

high for the respective indicator, in actuality had scores that ranged from low to high

within one standard deviation of the mean. Another three of the 12 indicators that were

on average at a low level of skill, ranged in preservice EC teacher scores from low to

moderate levels of skill. The remaining two of the 12 indicators had means low enough

that even with large standard deviations, preservice EC teacher skill level scores were

uniformly low. The distribution of scores was slightly skewed with more scores grouped

just below the mean of 2.56 on the scale with a median score of 2.43. Overall, these

results indicated the widely different developmental levels of preservice EC teachers in

acquiring and effectively implementing the complex skills of supporting children’s self-

regulation. This phenomenon of preservice teachers’ skills largely being under

construction with developmental timing variations was not surprising.

187
Table 4.7

Vignette Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Indicators for Narrative Responses

Variable n M SD 1 2 3
All Vignettes 90 2.57 0.69
Vignette 1 90 2.51 0.97
1. Empathize with child 3.60 1.73 - .41** .22*
2. Connect emotion to antecedent for child 2.00 1.37 .41** - 0.03
3. Generate response with child 1.94 0.90 .22* 0.03 -
Vignette 2 89 2.22 1.01
1. Empathize with child 2.39 1.44 - .75** .39**
2. Connect emotion to antecedent for child 2.26 1.28 .75** - .41**
3. Generate response with child 2.01 0.87 .39** .41** -
Vignette 3 89 2.99 1.01
1. Empathize with child 3.66 1.43 - .72** .26*
2. Connect emotion to antecedent for child 2.71 1.44 .72** - .25*
3. Generate response with child 2.60 0.90 .26* .25* -
Vignette 4 62 2.59 1.24
1. Empathize with child 3.11 1.78 - .71** .41**
2. Connect emotion to antecedent for child 2.58 1.73 .71** - .27*
3. Generate response with child 2.06 0.96 .41** .27* -

Note: The histogram of scores showed a slightly skewed distribution with more scores on

the low end of the scale (median = 2.43).

*p < .05, **p < .01.

188
Table 4.8

Vignette Responses: Comparison of Mean Level and Range of Score Levels within One

Standard Deviation

Mean Level Range of Score Levels w/in 1 SD

All Vignettes
Moderate 1.88 to 3.26 Low to moderate
Vignette 1
Overall 1.55 to 3.48 Low to moderate
Indicators
1. High 1.87 to 5.33 Low to high
2. Low 0.63 to 3.37 Low to moderate
3. Low 1.04 to 2.84 Low
Vignette 2
Overall 1.21 to 3.23 Low to moderate
Indicators
1. Low 0.95 to 3.84 Low to high
2. Low 0.97 to 3.54 Low to moderate
3. Low 1.14 to 2.88 Low
Vignette 3
Overall 1.98 to 4.00 Low to high
Indicators
1. High 2.23 to 5.09 Low to high
2. Moderate 1.27 to 4.15 Low to high
3. Moderate 1.69 to 3.50 Low to high
Vignette 4
Overall 1.35 to 3.82 Low to high
Indicators
1. Moderate 1.34 to 4.89 Low to high
2. Moderate 0.85 to 4.31 Low to high
3. Low 1.11 to 3.02 Low to moderate

Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ)

Overall, 29 (34%) of preservice EC teachers had a secure attachment style

and 56 (66%) had an insecure attachment style. For the three types of insecure

attachment, the largest group was the 25 (29%) of preservice EC teachers with a
189
preoccupied attachment style. Twenty-two (26%) had a dismissing attachment style, and

9 (11%) had a fearful attachment style, as shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9

Attachment Styles of Preservice EC Teachers

Variable n % %
Secure 29 34.1 34.1
Insecure 65.9
Preoccupied 25 29.4 63.5
Dismissing 22 25.9 89.4
Fearful 9 10.6 100.0
Total 85 100.0
Missing 7
Total 92

Group Portrait of Preservice Early Childhood Teachers

From all the preceding descriptions of the data, a portrait of the preservice EC

teachers began to emerge. Most of these vibrant individuals were sophomores or juniors.

They were not at the beginning or end of their college years but in the middle of them.

Most had two or three early childhood courses prior to the semester of the current study

with coursework beyond an introductory level. Nearly all of them were female and there

was little racial or ethnic diversity.

On average, this group of preservice EC teachers was at a moderate level in self-

compassion and intrapersonal mindfulness. They were at somewhat high levels in

emotional self-regulatory well-being and self-determinative well-being and very high

levels in mindfulness for children in their classrooms, compassion for others, and

psychological well-being, as shown in Table 4.10.

190
 Regarding their developmental support of children’s self-regulation, on average

they scored low on their narrative responses but very high on their multiple-choice

responses for which there was likely a ceiling effect. On average, they were somewhat

highly confident (n = 90, M = 3.98, SD = .55 for the 5-point Likert scale) that they had

responded to children’s self-regulatory needs in effective ways. A large majority (83%)

did not meditate.

The descriptive statistics for the 10 measures, as summarized and shown in Table

4.10, were listed in the same order as preservice EC teachers responded to them on the

Qualtrics survey, after answering the demographic and meditation questions. Of the 92

preservice EC teachers, two (2%) had missing data and, thus, did not complete the first

measure and 9 (10%) did not complete the last measure in the survey. Across all 10

measures, attrition ranged from 2% for the vignette narrative responses to 13% for the

longest quantitative measure, the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire.

191
Table 4.10

Summary of Data Descriptions for 10 Measures

Variable n M SD
Vignette Narrative Responses 90 2.57 0.69
Vignette Multiple-Choice Responses 88 .90* .145
Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire 84 3.83 0.57
Attachment Style Questionnaire – Secure Style 85 NA NA
ASQ – Secure Style 29 .34** NA
ASQ – Insecure Style 56 .66** NA
State Self-Compassion Survey Long Form 83 3.33 0.75
Compassion (for others) Scale 85 4.27 0.38
Mindfulness in Teaching Sub Scale 84 4.45 0.46
Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire 80 3.14 0.45
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale 84 5.20*** 0.76
Psychological Well-Being 83 5.90*** .86

Note. *Percent correct, equating to 4.5 on a 5-point scale; **Percentage with secure or

insecure attachment style; ***Averages on a 7-point scale, equating to 3.71 for BPNNS

and 4.21 for PWB on a 5-point scale for direct comparisons with most of the other

measures.

These results provided a basic picture of this group of preservice EC teachers that

was interpreted and discussed in chapter five. For now, one should frame this portrait as a

broad description of the preservice EC teachers who metaphorically walked along the

pathway that was analyzed in the current study, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Indeed,

two categories of results were reported in that context in the next section. One category

was correlation results which were not part of the path analysis but helpful in

understanding the relationships of characteristics therein. The other category was the path

analysis results, specifically for the five segments of the pathway.

192
Results for the Research Sub Questions of the Data Analysis Plan

As a brief reminder, the Data Analysis Plan (Table 3.15) included eight steps, one

for each research sub question, and in five of those steps, tests for the path analysis

segments (A-E). In this next section, I reported the results for each research sub question.

This evidence either confirmed or changed the hypothesized relationships and, ultimately,

was used to convert the conceptual models, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, to an

empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ1 – Correlation of the Initial Four Characteristics

The first research sub question asked (RSQ1), Are preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal

mindfulness associated? To investigate these relationships, I first conducted a correlation

analysis of these four characteristics of the preservice EC teachers. Then I did another

correlation analysis of the components of these characteristics.

Correlations between the Four Characteristics. There were significant positive

relationships among all four of the initial variables that were located at the start of the

conceptualized pathway. The correlation matrix in Table 4.11 showed that the strongest

positive relationship was between self-compassion and intrapersonal mindfulness (r

= .64, p < .01). This relationship indicated that those preservice teachers who had more

self-compassion also had more intrapersonal mindfulness about themselves. The

results also showed a somewhat strong relationship between compassion for others and

interpersonal mindfulness (r = .40, p < .01). Preservice teachers who had more

193
compassion for others also had more interpersonal mindfulness about children in their

classrooms. Also, there were two pairs of moderately correlated variables. These positive

relationships were between self-compassion and compassion for others (r = .31, p < .01)

and between compassion for others and intrapersonal mindfulness (r = .31, p < .01). The

remaining two pairs of variables were somewhat moderately correlated. One of these

positive relationships was between intrapersonal mindfulness and interpersonal

mindfulness (r = .26, p < .05). The other relationship was between self-compassion and

interpersonal mindfulness (r = .24, p < .05). All variables were significantly positively

related with none weakly related but either somewhat moderately, moderately, somewhat

strongly, or strongly correlated. Using these correlation results for the four initial

characteristics, I converted the beginning of the conceptual model, as shown in Figures

3.1 and 3.2, to an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the significant

Pearson correlation coefficients.

194
Table 4.11

Correlations between the Four Initial Characteristics

Self- Compassion Mindfulness Mindfulness

Compassion (others) (intra) (inter)
Pearson Correlation 1 .31** .64** .24*
Self-Compassion Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.000 0.028
N 83 79 82
Pearson Correlation 1 .31** .40**
Compassion
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.000
(for others)
N 80 84
Pearson Correlation 1 .26*
Mindfulness
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.020
(intrapersonal)
N 79
Pearson Correlation 1
Mindfulness
Sig. (2-tailed)
(interpersonal)
N

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Correlations between Components of the Four Characteristics. There were

many significant positive relationships across the 16 components of self-compassion,

compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness, as

shown in the correlation matrix in Table 4.12. For each characteristic, I identified the

strongest relationship between two components therein. Then, for every component of the

four characteristics, I identified the strongest relationship with a component from another

characteristic.

Strongest correlation of components within each characteristic. The strongest

relationship within the SSCS-L measure of self-compassion was for the components

of kindness and mindfulness towards oneself (r = .76, p < .01). This relationship

indicated that those preservice teachers who had more kindness towards themselves, also
195
had more mindfulness about themselves. The strongest component relationship within

the CS measure of compassion for others was between kindness and mindfulness

towards others (r = .62, p < .01). This relationship indicated that preservice teachers

with more kindness towards others, also had more mindfulness about others, e.g.,

children in their classrooms. Within the FFMQ measure of intrapersonal mindfulness,

the strongest component relationship was for nonjudging of inner experience and

acting with awareness (r = .49, p < .01). This relationship indicated that preservice

teachers who were more mindful without harsh self-judgment also acted with more

awareness. The MTS subscale was one component, so there were no relationships

between components to report. Overall, the strongest relationship for two components

within a characteristic was in the SSCS-L measure of self-compassion for self-kindness

and intrapersonal mindfulness (r = .76, p < .01).

196
 Table 4.12

Correlations between the 16 Components of the Four Initial Characteristics

Components 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 4
1. SSCS
1a. Kindness - .54** .76** .64** .54** .62** .31** .32** .45** .56** .45** .42** .33**
1b. Common humanity - .51** .34** .39** .32** .46** .28* .32** .42** .32** .23*
1c. Mindfulness - .43** .31** .56** .34** .27* .27* .45** .33** .26* .26*
1d. Self-Judgement - .66** .75** .22* .41** .31** .52** .37**
1e. Isolation - .61** .23* .37** .24* .47** .40**
.27* .33** .27* .44** .34**
197

1f. Over-Identification -
2. CS
2a. Kindness - .32** .62** .38** .33**
2b. Common humanity - .24* .27* .32**
2c. Mindfulness - .32** .22* .51**
2d. Indifference - .22* .26* .26*
3. FFMQ
3a. Observing - .30** .33** -.34**
3b. Describing - .34** .34**
3c. Nonreactivity - .25*
3d. Nonjudging - .49**
3e. Acting with awareness -
4. MTS Sub Scale -

Note. Strong correlations (r = > .40) were in bold font. Significant correlations were reported. * p < .05, **p < .001.
Strongest correlations of components across characteristics. Another way to gain

insight about component interactivity was to identify each component’s strongest

relationship with a component of another characteristic, as shown in Table 4.13. First, I

identified which one component within a characteristic correlated most strongly with a

component from another characteristic. For the SSCS-L measure of self-compassion,

that was the self-kindness component with the FFMQ nonreactivity component (r =

.56, p < .001). This relationship indicated that those preservice teachers with more self-

kindness were more accepting of and non-reactive about their inner experiences, i.e.,

thoughts and feelings. Of note, this correlation was the strongest between two

components of two measures.

For the FFMQ measure of intrapersonal mindfulness, the component that most

strongly correlated with a component from another measure was, as reported above,

FFMQ nonreactivity with SSCS-L self-kindness (r = .56, p < .001). The next most

strongly correlated FFMQ components with components from other measures were

FFMQ-nonjudging with SSCS-self-judgment (r = .52, p < .001) and FFMQ-

nonjudging with SSCS-isolation (r = .47, p < .001). These relationships indicated that

those preservice teachers who accepted their thoughts and feelings without negatively

ruminating on them or harshly criticizing themselves felt less alone.

For the CS measure of compassion for others, its component that most

strongly correlated outside of that measure was CS-mindfulness with MTS

198
mindfulness in teaching (r = .51, p < .001). That relationship indicated that those

preservice teachers with more interpersonal mindfulness were more mindful towards

children in their classrooms. While this linkage provided nuanced evidence, because both

measures were broadly about the same construct of interpersonal mindfulness, I also

identified the next most strongly correlated CS component with a component from

another measure. That second strongest correlation was CS-mindfulness with SSCS-

kindness (r = .32, p < .001), albeit of moderate strength. This relationship indicated

that those preservice teachers with more mindfulness towards others also were kinder

towards themselves.

Next, I identified the components that were most frequently the strongest

correlation for components of other measures, as summarized from Table 4.13.

Accordingly, three of the strongest component correlations between measures were

with the FFMQ-nonjudging component. Another three were with the FFMQ-

nonreactivity component and another three were with the SSCS-kindness component.

The three components from other measures that correlated most strongly

with the FFMQ-nonjudging component were SSCS-over-identification (r = .44, p <

.001), SSCS-isolation (r = .47, p < .001), and SSCS-self-judgment (r = .52, p < .001).

These relationships indicated that preservice teachers who were more mindful without

harshly judging their inner dialogue also had more self-compassion with less over-

identification (magnified negative thoughts and feelings), isolation, and self-judgment.

Given that both the FFMQ-nonjudging and SSCS-self-judgment components measured a

199
similar construct about accepting oneself, I also identified that SSCS-self-judgment

correlated second most strongly with FFMQ-describing (r = .41, p < .001). This

relationship indicated that preservice teachers who had more self-compassion without

negative self-judgment also had more belief that they could describe their thoughts and

feelings.

The three components from other measures that correlated strongly with the

FFMQ-nonreactivity component were SSCS-kindness, SSCS-mindfulness , and SSCS-

common humanity. Like the SSCS-kindness component (reported prior r = .56, p < .001),

the SSCS-mindfulness component correlated most strongly with the FFMQ-

nonreactivity component (r = .45, p < .001). This relationship indicated that preservice

teachers who had more mindfulness without negatively reacting to their own thoughts

and feelings also had more balanced perspectives of situations, even painful ones.

Though the SSCS-common-humanity component correlated most strongly with the CS-

common-humanity component (r = .46, p < .001), because both assessed the same

construct, I also identified the next strongest correlation for SSCS-common-humanity.

That second strongest relationship for SSCS-common-humanity was with the FFMQ-

nonreactivity component (r = .42, p < .001). This relationship indicated that preservice

teachers with more belief that others experience the same thoughts, feelings, and

difficulties as they do were also more mindful without negatively reacting to their own

thoughts and feelings.

200
 The three components from other measures that corelated most strongly with

the SSCS-kindness component were FFMQ-nonreactivity (reported prior r = .56, p

< .001), FFMQ-describing (r = .45, p < .001) and FFMQ-acting with awareness (r =

.42, p < .001). These relationships indicated that preservice teachers with more self-

kindness were also more mindfully able to describe their thoughts and feelings, and act

with situational and self-awareness.

201
Table 4.13

Strongest Correlations for Components between Two Measures

Measure Strongest Correlations with

Components Measure Component r
1. SSCS
1a. Kindness FFMQ 3c Nonreactivity .56
1b. Common humanity CS 2b & Common humanity & .46
FFMQ 3c Nonreactivity .42
1c. Mindfulness FFMQ 3c Nonreactivity .45
1d. Self-judgment FFMQ 3d & .52
FFMQ 3b Nonjudging & Describing .41
1e. Isolation FFMQ 3d Nonjudging .47
1f. Over-identification FFMQ 3d Nonjudging .44
2. CS
2a. Kindness MTS 4 Interpersonal mindfulness .33
2b. Common humanity SSCS 1b Common humanity & .46
& SSCS 1c Mindfulness .34
2c. Mindfulness MTS 4 Interpersonal mindfulness .51
2d. Indifference FFMQ 3b & Describing & .26
FFMQ 3e Acting w/awareness .26
3. FFMQ
3a. Observing CS 2d Indifference .22
3b. Describing SSCS 1a Self-kindness .45
3c. Nonreactivity SSCS 1a Self-kindness .56
3d. Nonjudging SSCS 1d & Self-judgment & .52
SSCS 1e Isolation .47
3e. Acting w/awareness SSCS 1a Self-kindness .42
4. MTS sub scale CS 2c Mindfulness .51

Note. All correlations p < .001.

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ2 – Path Analysis Segment A – Relationship of the

Four Initial Characteristics to Self-Regulation

The second research sub question asked, Do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal

mindfulness predict their self-regulatory well-being? The results of the multiple linear
202
regression analysis were that altogether, these four independent variables

significantly accounted for 51.6% of the variance in preservice teacher emotional

self-regulatory well-being (F(4, 75) = 18.91, p < .001). Table 4.14 showed the results of

the multiple regression analysis with the standardized coefficients in the first column, the

t-value associated with the unique effect of each measure after taking the others into

account in the second column, and the significance associated with that t-value in the

third column. Intrapersonal mindfulness showed the strongest relationship with

emotional self-regulatory well-being, a positive relationship, after taking self-

compassion, compassion for others, and interpersonal mindfulness in account. Both self-

compassion and compassion for others were moderately positively related to emotional

self-regulatory well-being. Interpersonal mindfulness was not significantly related to

emotional self-regulatory well-being for this group of preservice EC teachers. Using

these results, I converted this part of the conceptual model’s pathway as shown in Figures

3.1 and 3.2 to an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the significant

standardized coefficients.

• For SRWB = Self-regulatory well-being, SC = Self-compassion, CO =

Compassion for Others, and IntraM = Intrapersonal mindfulness, the significant

regression equation was SRWB = -.361 + .181 (SC) + .316 (CO) + .536 (IntraM).

203
Table 4.14

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-

Being and the Four Initial Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice EC

Preservice EC Teacher
Teacher Emotional Self- T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Regulatory Well-Being

Self-compassion 0.23 2.14 0.036

Compassion (for others) 0.21 2.19 0.032
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) 0.41 3.80 0.000
Mindfulness (interpersonal) 0.10 1.10 0.293
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ3 – Path Analysis Segment B – Relationship of Self-

Regulation to Developmental Support

The third research sub question asked, Does preservice EC teacher self-

regulatory well-being predict their developmental support of child self-regulatory well-

being? The simple linear regression results were mixed, depending on how the latter was

measured. There was not a significant relationship between preservice EC teacher

emotion self-regulation and developmental support of child self-regulation when the

combined score for narrative and multiple-choice responses was used (F(1, 80) = 2.9, p =

.09). There was also not a significant relationship when only the multiple-choice scores

were used (F(1, 82) = .23, p = .64).

However, there was a significant relationship (F(1, 81) = 5.0, p = .03) with

self-regulatory well-being positively predicting 6% of the variance in developmental

support of child self-regulatory well-being when the narrative response scores were

204
used. On average, for each one-point increase in preservice teachers' emotion self-

regulation, their developmental support of children's self-regulation increased somewhat

moderately by .24 of a point on the 5-point Likert scale for both measures. Using this

result, I converted this part of the conceptual model’s pathway as shown in Figures 3.1

and 3.2 to an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the significant

standardized coefficient.

• For DevSupNR = Developmental support for child self-regulation narrative

responses and SRWB = Self-regulatory well-being the significant regression

equation was DevSupNR = 1.485 + (.287) SRWB.

Since preservice EC teacher self-regulation was significantly related to their

developmental support of children’s self-regulation, the next test was a multiple linear

regression to address the following question. Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion,

compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and self-

regulatory well-being predict their developmental support of child self-regulatory well-

being? Whether scores for the narrative and multiple choice responses were combined or

tested separately, the results were that there was not a significant relationship for any of

the five predictors, after taking the others into account for this group of preservice EC

teachers. The insignificant results for these dependent variables were for the narrative

responses combined with the multiple-choice responses (F(5, 73) = 1.57, p = .18),

multiple choices responses (F(5, 74) = .57, p = .73), and narrative responses (F(5, 74) =

1.97, p = .09).

205
Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ4 – Correlation of Psychological and Self-

Determinative Well-Being

The fourth research sub question asked, Are preservice EC teacher psychological

well-being and self-determinative well-being associated? The result of the correlation

analysis was that there was a significant and very strong positive relationship

between psychological well-being and self-determinative well-being (r = .80, p <

.001). This relationship indicated that those preservice teachers who had more

psychological well-being also had more self-determinative well-being. The results also

showed a significant strong positive relationship between psychological well-being and

the components of self-determinative well-being, i.e., autonomy (r = .71, p < .001),

relatedness (r = .62, p < .001), and competence (r = .68, p < .001). All variables were

significantly positively related with none weakly or moderately related but either strongly

or very strongly correlated. Using these results, I converted this part of the conceptual

model as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1,

reporting the significant Pearson correlation coefficients.

206
Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ5 – Path Analysis Segment C – Relationship of

Emotion Self-Regulation to Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being

The fifth research sub question asked, Does preservice EC teacher self-regulatory

well-being predict their psychological and self-determinative well-being? The results of

these two simple linear regressions were as follows. There was a significant

relationship (F(1, 80) = 41, p < .001) with self-regulatory well-being positively

predicting 34% of the variance in psychological well-being. On average, for each one

standard deviation increase in self-regulatory well-being there was a .58 standard

deviation increase in psychological well-being, a large effect size. Using these results, I

converted this part of the conceptual model’s pathway as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to

an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the significant standardized

coefficients.

• For PWB = Psychological well-being and SRWB = Self-regulatory well-being,

the significant regression equation was PWB = 2.67 + .844 (SRWB).

There was also a significant positive relationship (F(1, 81) = 32, p < .001)

with self-regulatory well-being accounting for 29% of the variance in self-

determinative well-being. On average, each one standard deviation increase in self-

regulatory well-being predicted a .53 standard deviation increase in self-determinative

well-being, a large effect size. Using these results, I converted this part of the conceptual

model’s pathway as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to an empirical model, as shown in

Figure 4.1, reporting the significant standardized coefficients.

207
 • For SDWB = Self-determinative well-being and SRWB = Self-regulatory well-

being, the significant regression equation was SDWB = 2.51 + .712 (SRWB).

Since preservice EC teacher self-regulation predicted their psychological well-

being, the next test was a multiple linear regression (Step 5a.2 in the Data Analysis Plan,

as shown in Table 3.15) to address the following question. Do preservice EC teacher self-

compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being predict their psychological well-being? The

significant positive results (F(5, 75) = 16.63, p < .001) were that altogether, these five

independent variables accounted for 51% of the variance in preservice teacher

psychological well-being. Table 4.15 showed the results of the multiple regression

analysis with the standardized coefficients in the first column, the t-value associated with

the unique effect of each measure after taking the others into account in the second

column, and the significance associated with that t-value in the third column.

Self-compassion showed the strongest relationship with psychological well-

being, a positive relationship, after taking compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being into account. Self-

regulatory well-being was moderately positively related to psychological well-being.

Compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness were

not significantly related to psychological well-being for this group of preservice EC

teachers. Using these results, I converted this part of the conceptual model’s pathway as

208
shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the

significant standardized coefficients.

• For PWB = Psychological well-being, SC = Self-compassion, and SRWB = Self-

regulatory well-being, the significant regression equation was PWB = 2.003 +

.495 (SC) + .477 (SRWB).

Table 4.15

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Psychological Well-Being and Five

Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice

Preservice Teacher
Teacher Psychological Well- T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Being

Self-compassion .45 4.20 0.000

Compassion (for others) -.00 -.90 0.37
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) -.02 -.16 0.876
Mindfulness (interpersonal) .17 1.90 0.067
Self-regulatory well-being .35 2.97 0.004
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Since preservice EC teacher self-regulation predicted their self-determinative

well-being, the next test was a multiple linear regression (Step 5b.2 in the Data Analysis

Plan, as shown in Table 3.15) to address the following question. Do preservice EC

teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-being predict their self-determinative well-being?

The results were that altogether, these five characteristics significantly accounted

for 47% of the variance in preservice teacher self-determinative well-being (F(5, 75)

= 12.17, p < .001). Table 4.16 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis with
209
the standardized coefficients in the first column, the t-value associated with the unique

effect of each measure after taking the others into account in the second column, and the

significance associated with that t-value in the third column.

Self-compassion showed the only significant relationship with self-

determinative well-being, a strong positive relationship, after taking compassion for

others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, and self-regulatory well-

being into account. None of these other four variables were significantly related to self-

determinative well-being for this group of preservice EC teachers. Using these results, I

converted this part of the conceptual model’s pathway as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 to

an empirical model, as shown in Figure 4.1, reporting the significant standardized

coefficients.

• For SDWB = Self-determinative well-being and SC = Self-compassion, the

significant regression equation was SDWB = .990 + .393 (SC).

210
Table 4.16

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Self-Determinative Well-Being and

Five Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice EC

Preservice EC Teacher
Teacher Self-Determinative T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Well-Being

Self-compassion .38 3.26 0.002

Compassion (for others) .04 .42 0.678
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) .20 1.64 0.106
Mindfulness (interpersonal) .12 1.20 0.233
Self-regulatory well-being .12 .94 0.352
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ6 – Path Analysis Segment D – Relationship of

Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being to Developmental Support

The sixth research sub question asked, Do preservice EC teacher psychological

well-being (PWB) and self-determinative well-being (SDWB) predict their developmental

support of child self-regulatory well-being? The multiple linear regression results were

mixed, depending on which set of scores was used for the dependent variable. There was

not a significant relationship when the combined narrative and multiple-choice scores

(F(2, 80) = 2.8, p = .07) or only the narrative response scores were used (F(2, 81) = 1.0, p

= .37). There was a significant result when only the multiple-choice scores were

used. Altogether, psychological well-being and self-determinative well-being

accounted for 11% of the variance in developmental support for child self-

regulatory well-being (F(2, 81) = 4.73, p < .001). SDWB showed a strong positive

relationship (r = .54, p < .001 ) with developmental support, after taking PWB into

211
account. PWB showed a strong negative relationship (r = -.46, p < .05) with

developmental support, after taking SDWB into account.

• For DevSupMCR = Developmental support for child self-regulation multiple-

choice responses, SDWB = Self-determinative well-being, and PWB =

Psychological well-being, the regression equation was DevSupMCR = .816 +

.107 (SDWB) - .078 (PWB).

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ7 – Path Analysis Segment E – Relationship of All

Characteristics to Developmental Support

The seventh and culminating research sub question for the path analysis asked,

Do preservice EC teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, interpersonal mindfulness, self-regulatory well-being, psychological well-

being, and self-determinative well-being predict their developmental support of child

self-regulatory well-being? The results of the multiple regression were that there was not

a significant relationship between the predictors and developmental support. This was the

outcome for any of the three measures of developmental support, i.e., narrative responses

(F(7, 74) = 1.39, p = .225), multiple-choice responses (F(7, 74) = 1.70, p = .12), or the

combined narrative and multiple choice responses (F(7. 73) = 1.41, p = .22).

Data Analysis Plan Results: RSQ8 – Relationship of Attachment Style to Other

Characteristics

Correlation of Attachment and the Four Initial Variables of the Pathway.

The results of the one-way ANOVA were as follows. There was a significant positive

212
relationship between a secure attachment style and self-compassion (F(3,81) = 13.51, p <

.001) with a moderate effect size (η2 = .34), as shown in Table 4.17. Preservice early

childhood teachers with a secure attachment style scored significantly higher in self-

compassion (M = 3.7, SD = .67) than those with a preoccupied (M = 2.9, SD = .60) or

fearful (M = 2.5, SD = .48) attachment style. There was not a significant difference in

self-compassion between preservice EC teachers with secure (M = 3.7, SD = .67) and

dismissive attachment (M = 3.5, SD = .57).

There was also a significant positive relationship between a secure attachment

style and intrapersonal mindfulness (F(3,78) = 8.32, p < .001) with a moderate effect size

(η2 = .25). Preservice EC teachers with a secure attachment style scored significantly

higher in intrapersonal mindfulness (M = 3.34, SD = .39) than those with a

preoccupied (M = 2.9, SD = .36) or fearful (M = 2.77, SD = .43) attachment style.

There was not a significant difference in intrapersonal mindfulness between those with

secure (M = 3.34, SD = .39) and dismissive attachment (M = 3.25, SD = .39). Thus,

neither those with secure or dismissive attachment were significantly different in self-

compassion or intrapersonal mindfulness. Also, EC preservice teachers did not differ

significantly in compassion for others or interpersonal mindfulness based on attachment

style for this group of preservice EC teachers.

There was also a significant positive relationship between a dismissive attachment

style and intrapersonal mindfulness (F(3,78) = 8.32, p < .001) with a moderate effect size

(η2 = .25). Preservice EC teachers with a dismissive attachment style scored

213
significantly higher in intrapersonal mindfulness (M = 3.25, SD = .39) than those

with a preoccupied (M = 2.9, SD = .36) or fearful (M = 2.77, SD = .43) attachment

style. As previously reported, there was not a significant difference in intrapersonal

mindfulness between those with dismissive (M = 3.25, SD = .39) and secure (M = 3.34,

SD = .39) attachment.

Table 4.17

Means, Standard Deviations, and Significant One-Way Analysis of Variance Results for

Characteristics by Attachment Style

Attachment Style
Compared to
Characteristic Type M SD F p η2
Other Types
Self-compassion Secure 3.70 .67 (3, 81) = 13.51 .001 .34
Preoccupied 2.90 .60 .001
Fearful 2.50 .48 .001
Dismissive 3.50 .57 .345
Intra Mindfulness Secure 3.34 .39 (3,78) = 8.32 .001 .25
Preoccupied 2.91 .36 .001
Fearful 2.77 .44 .001
Dismissive 3.25 .39 .425
Intra Mindfulness Dismissive 3.25 .39 (3,78) = 8.32 .001 .25
Secure 3.34 .39 .425
Preoccupied 2.90 .36 .007
Fearful 2.77 .43 .003

Multiple Linear Regression with Attachment Style and the Four Initial

Variables. When attachment style was added as a potential predictor, the five variables

accounted for 57.9% of the variance in preservice teacher emotional self-regulatory well-

being (F(7, 75) = 13.35, p < .001). Table 4.18 shows the results of the multiple regression

analysis with the standardized coefficients in the first column, the t-value associated with

214
the unique effect of each measure after taking the others into account in the second

column, and the significance associated with that t-value in the third column.

Intrapersonal mindfulness was most related to emotional self-regulatory

well-being, a positive moderate relationship, after taking self-compassion, compassion

for others, interpersonal mindfulness, and attachment style in account. Compassion for

others was also positively related to emotional self-regulatory well-being, though less

moderately than intrapersonal mindfulness. Only a fearful attachment style differed

significantly from the secure attachment style in relationship to self-regulatory well-being

and was moderately negatively related. Self-compassion, interpersonal mindfulness,

dismissive attachment, and preoccupied attached were not significantly related to self-

regulatory well-being for this group of preservice EC teachers. Of note, when attachment

style was added as the fifth predictor, unlike the RSQ2 results of the first multiple linear

regression with four predictors, self-compassion was no longer related to self-regulatory

well-being, though compassion for others still was.

• For SRWB = Self-regulatory well-being , IntraM = Intrapersonal mindfulness,

and FA = Fearful attachment, the regression equation was SRWB = .036 + .493

(IntraM) - .585 (FA).

215
Table 4.18

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-

Being and Five Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice

Preservice Teacher
Teacher Emotional Self- T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Regulatory Well-Being

Self-compassion 0.12 1.09 0.280

Compassion (for others) 0.24 2.60 0.012
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) 0.37 3.54 0.000
Mindfulness (interpersonal) 0.08 0.87 0.389
Fearful attachment style -0.29 -2.90 0.005
1
Standardized coefficient reported

An Asset-Based Approach. After reviewing these RSQ8 results, I decided to

explore relationships between preservice EC teachers’ mean levels of secure attachment,

and their other psychosocial characteristics, regardless of their predominant attachment

style. This added method was meant to safeguard against inadvertently using a deficit-

based approach towards the 66% of preservice EC teachers in the current study who had

an insecure attachment style. Instead, an asset-based approach recognized the strengths

and potential of all human beings to develop and thrive. Their psychosocial

characteristics were not fixed traits but dispositions and skills to nurture and further

develop. I also believed that this principle for teacher education would keep the onus on

education systems to support whole teacher person-first processes.

First, I conducted simple linear regressions that had significant results for positive

relationships between mean attachment security and all other characteristics, except

interpersonal mindfulness. On average, preservice EC teachers with more secure

216
attachment had more self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness,

self-regulatory, psychological, and self-determinative well-being, and skilled support of

children’s self-regulatory development. All of these relationships with secure attachment

were strong, except for the latter, i.e., developmental responsiveness for children’s self-

regulatory growth, which was moderate. The strongest relationships were with self-

determinative well-being, psychological well-being, and self-compassion, as shown in

Table 4.19.

Table 4.19

Positive Relationships between Preservice EC Teacher Mean Security and Other

Psychosocial Characteristics: Simple Linear Regressions Results

Dependent Variables F df R Relationship with

Square Secure Attachment1
Self-compassion** 25.12 (1, 78) .24 .49
Compassion (for others)** 15.73 (1, 79) .17 .41
Mindfulness (intrapersonal)** 18.01 (1, 75) .19 .44
Self-regulatory well-being** 22.33 (1, 77) .23 .47
Psychological well-being** 48.22 (1, 77) .39 .62
Self-determinative well-being** 59.84 (1, 78) .43 .66
Developmental responsiveness* 4.08 (1, 78) .05 .22

Note. 1Standardized coefficient reported.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

An Actionable Approach. Conversely, I asked how self-compassion, compassion

for others, and intrapersonal mindfulness (but not interpersonal mindfulness as it was not

significant in the prior simple linear regression) may predict mean levels of secure

attachment. My rationale was that the former characteristics are likely more amenable to

change than attachment and, hence, more actionable to develop in teacher education.
217
Following this logic, more self-compassion, compassion for others, and intrapersonal

mindfulness can be expected to enhance the attachment security of preservice EC

teachers. In particular, individuals whose predominant attachment style was insecure

could develop more secure attachment or even, in time, a predominantly secure

attachment style.

The results of the multiple linear regression analysis were that altogether, self-

compassion, compassion for others, and mindfulness significantly accounted for 32.5%

of the variance in secure attachment (F(3, 72) = 11.56, p < .001). Table 4.20 showed the

results of the multiple regression analysis with the standardized coefficients in the first

column, the t-value associated with the unique effect of each measure after taking the

others into account in the second column, and the significance associated with that t-

value in the third column. Self-compassion showed the strongest relationship with

secure attachment, a positive moderate relationship, after taking compassion for others

and mindfulness into account. Compassion for others was also moderately related to

secure attachment. Preservice EC teachers who, on average, had more self-compassion or

compassion for others also had more secure attachment. Mindfulness was not

significantly related to secure attachment for this group of preservice EC teachers.

• For SecAttach = Secure attachment, SC = Self-compassion, CO = Compassion for

Others, and IntraM = Intrapersonal mindfulness, the significant regression

equation was SecAttach = -.048 + .291(SC) + .463(CO).

218
Table 4.20

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Mean Secure Attachment and the

Three Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice EC

Preservice EC Teacher
Teacher Mean Secure T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Attachment

Self-compassion 0.31 2.50 0.02

Compassion (for others) 0.26 2.50 0.02
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) 0.17 1.35 0.18
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Next, I hypothesized that the relationship of the three characteristics to fearful

attachment would mirror the results for secure attachment but negatively, because these

two dimensions are opposites with, respectively, negative and positive views of oneself

and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Baumrind, 1971). The results of the

multiple linear regression analysis were that altogether, self-compassion, compassion for

others, and mindfulness accounted for 29% of the variance in fearful attachment (F(3, 73)

= 9.83, p < .001). Table 4.21 showed the results of the multiple regression analysis with

the standardized coefficients in the first column, the t-value associated with the unique

effect of each measure after taking the others into account in the second column, and the

significance associated with that t-value in the third column. Self-compassion showed

the strongest relationship with fearful attachment, a negative moderate relationship,

after taking compassion for others and mindfulness into account. Preservice EC teachers

who on average had more self-compassion also had less fearful attachment. Neither

219
compassion for others nor mindfulness were significantly related to fearful attachment for

this group of preservice EC teachers.

• For FearAttach = Fearful attachment, SC = Self-compassion, CO = Compassion

for Others, and IntraM = Intrapersonal mindfulness, the significant regression

equation was FearAttach = 7.20 + -.48(SC).

Table 4.21

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Mean Fearful Attachment and the

Three Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice EC

Preservice EC Teacher
Teacher Mean Fearful T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Attachment

Self-compassion -0.35 -2.77 0.007

Compassion (for others) -0.14 -1.34 0.19
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) -0.17 -1.31 0.20
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Then, I tested the relationship of the three characteristics to preoccupied

attachment. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis were that altogether,

self-compassion, compassion for others, and mindfulness accounted for 37% of the

variance in preoccupied attachment (F(3, 73) = 14.27, p < .001). Table 4.22 showed the

results of the multiple regression analysis with the standardized coefficients in the first

column, the t-value associated with the unique effect of each measure after taking the

others into account in the second column, and the significance associated with that t-

value in the third column. Self-compassion showed the strongest relationship with

preoccupied attachment, a negative strong relationship, after taking compassion for

220
others and mindfulness into account. Compassion for others was negatively moderately

related to preoccupied attachment. Preservice EC teachers who on average had more self-

compassion or compassion for others also had less preoccupied attachment. Mindfulness

were not significantly related to preoccupied attachment for this group of preservice EC

teachers.

• For PreoccAttach = Preoccupied attachment, SC = Self-compassion, CO =

Compassion for Others, and IntraM = Intrapersonal mindfulness, the significant

regression equation was PreoccAttach = 3.23 + -58(SC) + .80(CO).

Table 4.22

Unique Relationship between Preservice EC Teacher Mean Preoccupied Attachment and

the Three Predictors

Relationship1 with Preservice EC

Preservice EC Teacher
Teacher Mean Preoccupied T-Value Significance
Characteristic
Attachment

Self-compassion -0.47 -3.92 0.001

Compassion (for others) 0.34 3.47 0.001
Mindfulness (intrapersonal) -0.21 -1.73 0.09
1
Standardized coefficient reported

Finally, I tested the relationship of the three characteristics to dismissive

attachment. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis were that there was not

a significant relationship (F(3, 73) = .58, p < .63) for this group of preservice early

childhood teachers.

221
 Figure 4.1

Empirical Model: Associated Characteristics and Relationships with Preservice EC Teacher Self-Regulatory Well-Being and Developmental Supportof

Child Self-Regulation
222

Note. Significant results were reported, *p < .05, **p < .001. Pearson coefficients were reported for correlations of self-compassion, compassion for others,
intrapersonal mindfulness, and interpersonal mindfulness; and self-determinative well-being and psychological well-being. These correlations were not
analyses of pathway segments but deepened insights regarding the latter and their standardized coefficients.
Relationship of Meditation to Other Characteristics of Preservice Early Childhood

Teachers

The small number of meditators, 16 of 92 preservice EC teachers (17%), scored

higher than nonmeditators in every characteristic explored in the current study and also in

their developmental support of children’s self-regulation. However, only one of these

results was significant, i.e., on the MTS sub scale for interpersonal mindfulness as

teachers towards children in classrooms. Meditators scored very high (M = 4.69, SD =

.33) compared to nonmeditators, who scored high but not as high (M = 4.40, SD = .47),

on its 5-point Likert scale. The one-way ANOVA found a significant relationship (F(1,

82) = 4.91, p < .03) with a small effect size (η2 = .05) for the variance in mindfulness in

teaching accounted for by being a meditator.

Relationship of Self-Efficacy to Other Characteristics of Preservice Early Childhood

Teachers

The relationships of preservice EC teachers’ self-efficacy to their emotion self-

regulation, self-determinative well-being, and developmental support of children’s self-

regulation were explored. I conducted a series of simple linear regressions to determine if

self-efficacy predicted self-regulation and self-determination and if developmental

support was related to self-efficacy. The results were reported in the same order, as

follows.

Preservice EC teachers’ self-efficacy accounted for 5.6% of the variance in

their emotional self-regulatory well-being (F(1, 83) = 4.83, p = .03). This significant

223
positive relationship was moderate (r = .24). On average, for each one-point increase in

preservice teachers' self-efficacy, their emotion self-regulation increased by .24 of a

point on the 5-point Likert scale for both measures.

• For SRWB = Self-regulatory well-being and SelfEff = Self-efficacy the

significant regression equation was SRWB = 2.82 + .258 (SelfEff).

Preservice EC teachers’ self-efficacy accounted for 8.5% of the variance in

their self-determinative well-being (F(1, 83) = 7.65, p = .007). This significant positive

relationship was moderate (r = .29). On average, for each one-point increase in

preservice teachers' self-efficacy on its 5-point Likert scale, their self-determination

increased by .29 of a point on its 7-point Likert scale or .21 of a point on an equivalent 5-

point Likert scale.

• For SDWB = Self-determinative well-being and SelfEff = Self-efficacy the

significant regression equation was SDWB = 3.571 + .417 (SelfEff).

Preservice EC teachers’ developmental support of child self-regulation accounted

for 12.3% of the variance in their self-efficacy (F(1, 85) = 11.75, p < .001). This

significant positive relationship was moderate (r = .35). On average, for each one-point

increase in preservice teachers' developmental support, their self-efficacy increased by

.35 of a point on the 5-point Likert scale for both measures.

• For SelfEff = Self-efficacy and DevSupAR = Developmental support all

responses, the significant regression equation was SelfEff = 2.818 + 1.827

(DevSupAR).

224
Conclusion

In this chapter, I explored preservice EC teachers’ self-reported compassion and

mindfulness, as well as their self-regulatory, psychological, and self-determinative well-

being, and developmental support for children’s self-regulatory well-being. I described

the results for each of the measures. Then I reported the results of the quantitative and

qualitative analyses for the overarching research question, research sub questions, and

path analysis. I also converted the conceptual models to an empirical model, as shown in

Figure 4.1. Lastly, I explored how preservice EC teachers’ attachment style, self-efficacy,

and meditation related to their other characteristics and developmental support of

children’s self-regulation. This deep exploration and comprehensive reporting served as

preparation for discussion of the results and implications in the next chapter.

225
 CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion

The impetus for this research was to address a twofold problem: one, that

education systems do not provide support for children and adults to develop self-

regulatory well-being; and two, that teachers need support to learn about children’s

development of self-regulation and strategies to scaffold that growth. The purpose of the

study, as most broadly stated on the information sheet for potential participants, was to

learn more about preservice early childhood professionals’ beliefs, knowledge, and

practices to further develop courses that reflect their needs. More specifically, the study

aimed to explore how preservice early childhood teachers’ characteristics of compassion

and mindfulness related to their self-regulatory well-being and adaptive responses for

children’s self-regulatory development. Further compelling this research, I found

relatively few studies in an extensive literature review that centered on whole teacher

development through person-first processes, particularly at the early childhood level for

preservice teachers. Thus, the current study was designed to contribute empirical

knowledge in a needed area.

In this chapter, I began by returning to the narrative group portrait of preservice

early childhood teachers that first emerged in chapter four from the initial descriptions of

the data. Then, I added to this portrait by discussing the results for each of the research

sub questions in the Data Analysis Plan from Table 3.15 and, cumulatively, for the

226
overarching research question which was: In what ways, do preservice early childhood

teacher self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and attachment style predict their self-regulatory well-being and

developmental support of child self-regulation for the self-determinative well-being of

both teacher and child? Next, I discussed the influences of self-efficacy and meditation

covariates. Thereafter, I discussed a preliminary plan for an application – Thriving as an

Early Childhood Professional – based on interweaving insights from findings of the

current study and research from chapter two’s literature review. Then, I discussed

limitations of the current study and implications for future research to continue learning

about the whole teacher needs of preservice EC teachers for the continual improvement

of teacher education. Lastly, I summarized the major insights from the current study and

concluded with a metaphor about this experience with preservice EC teachers and

appreciation for what their voices in the data expressed.

The Portrait of Preservice Early Childhood Teachers Develops

If one likened the initial group portrait of preservice EC teachers from chapter

four to art, their images were silhouettes, providing a beginning impression of these

vibrant individuals. As a reminder, most of the preservice EC teachers were female and

white (Table 3.1), sophomores or juniors, and had two or three prior EC courses (Table

3.2), indicating that their EC knowledge was generally beyond an introductory level. The

vast majority did not meditate (Table 3.13). On average, their self-efficacy as teachers,

227
based on their confidence about their responses to the vignettes about children having

self-regulatory difficulty, was somewhat high (Table 3.14).

On average, this group of preservice EC teachers scored moderate to high on the

following measures of their characteristics with one exception. They were at a moderate

level in self-compassion (Table 4.1) and intrapersonal mindfulness (Table 4.3). They

were at somewhat high levels in emotional self-regulatory well-being (Table 4.4) and

self-determinative well-being (Table 4.5). They were at very high levels for interpersonal

mindfulness as teachers towards children in classrooms, compassion for others (Table

4.2), and psychological well-being. They had more compassion for others than they did

for themselves. Regarding their developmental support of children’s self-regulation, they

scored very high on their multiple-choice responses, which was likely a ceiling effect, but

low on their narrative responses (Table 4.7). Thirty-four percent of preservice EC

teachers had a secure attachment style and 66% were insecurely attached (Table 4.9).

These descriptions from Tables 4.1 through 4.9 were summarized in Table 4.10.

Next, I discussed the findings for each research sub question from the Data

Analysis Plan (Table 3.15). These explanations and insights added to the group portrait of

the preservice EC teachers. Their silhouettes began to fill-in and change from tracings to

more detailed renderings.

228
Research Sub Question 1 (RSQ1): Discussion of Findings – First Four

Characteristics Significantly Correlated

There were two main findings. One was that preservice EC teachers had more

compassion for others than they did for themselves. The other was that kindness was

strongly related within and across measures. These findings were explained below.

Preservice EC Teachers Had More Compassion for Others Than for Themselves

In comparison to self-compassion, which was moderate and not robust (i.e., some

of the scores within one standard deviation of the mean were low), preservice EC

teachers showed extremely high, robust compassion for others. Indeed, they had on

average 28% more compassion for others (M = 4.27, SD = .38) than themselves (M =

3.33, SD = .75). The few other studies about early childhood teacher self-compassion and

compassion for others have had similar findings (Lopez et al., 2018; Neff & Pommier,

2013; both as cited in O’Hara-Gregan, 2024). These results should be understood in the

context of self-compassion as “showing compassion towards oneself rather than hurting

oneself in difficult times” (Neff, 2003a, b; as cited in Saks, 2004, p. 1166). Hurting

oneself likely manifests as less self-care. Examples could be to chronically not get

enough sleep or, conversely, sleep much longer than usual; be perpetually busy or,

conversely, procrastinate; not relax or engage in pleasurable pursuits, i.e., not let oneself

play; eat poorly; not move or exercise; not spend time with family or friends; or self-

medicate with addictive substances. Alternatively, more self-compassion would probably

manifest as taking better and gentler care of oneself and finding a healthy balance in

229
helping oneself and others (Germer & Neff, 2019). Given that self-regulation does not

fully develop until one’s early to mid-twenties (American College of Pediatricians,

2022), calibrating that balance as circumstances change may be a challenge for many

young adults and preservice EC teachers.

What was unknown was if the preservice EC teachers were taking care of

themselves less than they had previously or just, generally, had less self-compassion,

perhaps because, as helping professionals, they held themselves to unrealistically high

standards. Another possibility was that when they responded to the survey, they were

more comfortable expressing compassion for others than for themselves (O’Hara-Gregan,

2024), perhaps believing that helping professionals should be selfless. However, any of

these explanations would indicate that more self-compassion would likely benefit them

and, also, others. Indeed, more self-compassion predicted more compassion and

helpfulness towards others (Asayesh et al.,2024; Watson-Singleton, 2021), and, in the

current study, the two characteristics were moderately correlated (r = .31, p < .001).

Strengthening the mindful self-compassion (Germer & Neff, 2019) of preservice EC

teachers in their teacher education programs should be a priority.

Characteristics of Compassion and Mindfulness Correlated Most Strongly

As expected, preservice EC teachers’ self-compassion and intrapersonal

mindfulness correlated most strongly (r = .64, p < .01), and the second strongest

correlation was between their compassion for others and interpersonal mindfulness (r =

.40, p < .01), as shown in Table 4.11 and Figure 4.1. These results were logically

230
connected, because mindfulness helps one be more aware of and responsive to one’s own

and others’ needs. Moreover, mindful compassion within a person serves as the

foundation for mindful compassion towards others. Going to a deeper level of analysis by

correlating not just the four characteristics but their 16 components, as shown in Table

4.12, yielded the following further insights.

Strongest Correlations of Components within the Four Characteristics. Not

surprisingly, the two most strongly correlated aspects of self-compassion, as well as

compassion for others, were kindness and mindfulness (r = .76 and r = .62, p < .001,

respectively). These r values were high enough to show that kindness and mindfulness,

though closely related, were distinct – not confounded – facets within the two

characteristics and should each be intentionally developed. Then, their synergy as mindful

kindness can be expected to enhance self-compassion and compassion for others. Within

intrapersonal mindfulness, the two most strongly correlated components were nonjudging

and acting with awareness (r = .49, p < .001), again, not surprising, because to not

criticize one’s inner emotions helps one to be more situationally aware.

Strongest Correlations of Components between the Four Characteristics.

Identifying the strongest component correlations across characteristics yielded

both expected and unexpected results. Three of the 16 components were most often the

strongest correlation for components from other characteristics. These three components

included two components from the intrapersonal mindfulness FFMQ measure

(FFMQ-nonjudging and FFMQ-nonreactivity) and one component from the self-

231
compassion SSCS-L measure (SSCS-kindness), as shown in Table 4.13. Further

considering these patterns in the results illuminated the following conceptual

connections.

First, the SSCS-self-isolation, over-identification, and self-judgment components

correlated most strongly with the FFMQ-nonjudging component (r = .47, r = .44, and r

= .41, p < .001), respectively. Their strong correlations were not surprising. What they

had in common was what not to do for mindful self-compassion, and were interrelated

because they all were about accepting and not ruminating on one’s emotions.

Second, SSCS-kindness and SSCS-mindfulness correlated most strongly with

FFMQ-nonreactivity (r = .56 and r = .45, p < .001) respectively, and SSCS-common-

humanity correlated second most strongly with FFMQ-nonreactivity (r = .42, p < .001).

Again, these strong correlations were not surprising. Accepting one’s thoughts and

feelings, e.g., by acknowledging but letting them pass through one’s mind, can be

expected to foster self-kindness and intrapersonal mindfulness, as well as a sense that all

people experience similar thoughts and feelings.

Third, the FFMQ-describing, FFMQ-nonreactivity, and FFMQ-acting-with-

awareness components most strongly correlated with the SSCS-kindness component (r =

.45, r = .56 as reported above, and r = 42, p < .001), respectively. These results seemed

logical, as well. If people can describe their emotions and acknowledge but not ruminate

on them, not only are they showing more kindness towards themselves but they can

respond more adaptively.

232
 Taken together, these three sets of findings were illuminating in two ways. One,

they both intuitively made sense and logically connected, hence their unsurprising nature.

However, they also served as very practical and actionable strategies for use in teacher

education to strengthen one’s mindful self-compassion and, ultimately, self-regulatory

well-being and support of children’s self-regulation.

Mindfulness Was Strong but Kindness Was Stronger

In analyzing connections between the four characteristics overall, and components

within and across them, I expected that mindfulness and self-compassion would be most

strongly and consistently related which was certainly the case. What was poignant,

though, was the somewhat stronger relationship of kindness components – whether

self-kindness or kindness towards others – than mindfulness components with other

components. The strongest component correlations involved kindness, i.e., within self-

compassion for kindness and mindfulness (r = .76, p < .001), within compassion for

others for kindness and mindfulness (r = .62, p < .001), and across characteristics for

SSCS-kindness and FFMQ-nonreactivity (r = .56, p < .001). As shown in Tables 4.12 and

4.13, nearly all of the other correlations ranged from the low end of moderate (e.g., r =

.22) to somewhat strong (e.g., r = .40 to .49). In considering why kindness was somewhat

more salient than mindfulness in these component relationships, I realized that while both

were skills that can be strengthened, kindness likely carried more of an emotional

charge. As emphasized in the literature review, emotions drive behavior as strong

motivators (Blair & Raver, 2014; Immordino-Yang et al., 2017, 2018; Montroy et al.,

233
2016). Also, while knowledge and beliefs have both cognitive and affective dimensions,

beliefs, which include attitudes and values, feature more emotionality, and, hence,

influence on behavior, e.g., pedagogical practices. Early childhood teacher education

should prioritize support for not only teacher knowledge but beliefs and how these

dispositions translate to adaptive practices for children’s optimal development.

Moreover, the other two components of FFMQ-nonjudging and FFMQ-

nonreactivity that, like SSCS-kindness, were most often the strongest correlation for

other components, also seemed closely related to SSCS-kindness. Not being judgmental

about or negatively reacting to one’s thoughts and feelings connotes self-acceptance, self-

care, and self-kindness. Furthermore, these results that indicated the benefits of

nonjudgmental, nonreactive practices for oneself and others were also clues that these

characteristics, along with self-kindness, should be particularly supported in preservice

EC teacher education.

To conclude the discussion of findings for RQ1, a main reason the design of the

current study included compassion was because Brophy-Herb et al. (2019) recommended

further research about the relationship of “intentional kindness” (p. 764), compassion,

and mindfulness. She also emphasized “dispositional mindfulness,” (pp. 759+) which

was differentiated from mindfulness as an attitudinal intention. The results of the current

study suggested that intentional kindness may similarly be referred to as dispositional

kindness for which beliefs, values, and skill can be strengthened, along with dispositional

mindfulness. Cumulatively, findings for RQ1 were the first indication that mindful

234
kindness and compassion may be “as important to life as the air we breathe” (Sak et al.,

2024, p. 1166). Indeed, preservice EC teacher self-kindness and intrapersonal

mindfulness were most closely related to their self-regulatory well-being, as will be

discussed next.

RSQ2: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis Segment A – Three of Four

Characteristics Significantly Predicted Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-Being

In this first test of the hypothesized pathway, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2,

three of the four characteristics of preservice EC teachers predicted their emotional

self-regulatory well-being (SRWB), as shown in Figure 4.1. As a reminder before

further discussion, the three significant predictive characteristics were self-compassion,

compassion for others, and intrapersonal mindfulness, accounting for 51.6% of the

variance in emotional SRWB (F(4, 75) = 18.91, p < .001). Specifically, intrapersonal

mindfulness was somewhat strongly predictive of emotional SRWB (r = .41) while self-

compassion (r = .23) and compassion for others (r = .21) were somewhat moderately

predictive of emotional SRWB, and all were at p < .001. Interpersonal mindfulness was

not significantly related.

Due to the strong correlation of intrapersonal mindfulness and self-compassion (r

= .64, p < .01), and strong relationships between some of their components, as described

in RQ1 findings, I had expected both characteristics to strongly predict emotional SRWB.

Counter to that expectation, while intrapersonal mindfulness was a strong predictor of

emotional SRWB, self-compassion was not a strong but moderate predictor. Perhaps

235
kindness was a necessary precondition but the complexity of ongoing emotion self-

regulation most directly required skilled mindfulness. Relatedly, while intrapersonal

mindfulness and self-compassion enhanced one another, the five mindfulness components

(observing, describing, nonreactivity, nonjudging, and acting with awareness)

synergistically and more strongly supported emotional SRWB. Moreover, as preservice

EC teacher emotional SRWB was strong on average and “healthy self-regulation skills

contribute to positive adaptations” (Sciaraffa et al., 2018; as cited in Virmani et al., 2020,

p. 1057), these RSQ2 findings suggested a predictive relationship with developmental

responsiveness.

RSQ3: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis Segment B – Emotional Self-

Regulatory Well-Being Significantly Predicted Developmental Support

For the next segment of the pathway, the outcome of the first test was that

preservice EC teacher emotional SRWB moderately predicated their developmental

support of child SRWB (r = .24, p < .05), as shown in Figure 4.1. Notably, the strength

of this relationship increased 121% when mediated by self-determinative well-being (r =

.53, p < .001). That strong relationship showed the importance of deliberately supporting

and interweaving the self-determinative universal needs of autonomy, relatedness, and

competence in teacher education.

The next analysis tested the relationship between preservice EC teacher

developmental support for child self-regulation and all of the preceding five predictors,

taking one another into account. These predictors were the teacher characteristics of self-

236
compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, interpersonal

mindfulness, and emotional SRWB. Unlike the first test, emotional SRWB was no

longer predictive of developmental support of child SRWB, nor were any of the other

characteristics though this latter outcome was not surprising as those were more distal

influences. Potential explanations for the changed outcome regarding emotional SRWB

predicting developmental responsiveness were

1) As predictors were added, the signal from emotional SRWB was diluted to

the point of no longer being significant. Similarly, the signals from the newly

developed measures of developmental responsiveness may not have been strong

enough for significant detection.

2) Collinearity between highly correlated independent variables, e.g.,

self-compassion and intrapersonal mindfulness (r = .64, p < .001) obscured their

influences. An additional analysis, i.e., the correlation of emotional SRWB with

the preceding four independent variables, provided clues about the possibility of

collinearity: Emotional SRWB strongly correlated with intrapersonal mindfulness

(r = 64, p < .001) and next with self-compassion (r = .57, p < .001), compassion

for others (r = .44, p < .001), and interpersonal mindfulness (r = .37, p < .001).

Yet, notably, all of these correlation coefficients were somewhat to markedly

below the general threshold of .70 for probable collinearity. Therefore, there may

have been other more likely explanations for why, in this second test, preservice

EC teacher emotional SRWB was no longer predictive of their developmental

237
 support for child SRWB.

3) More broadly, an unknown confounding variable influenced both at least one

independent variable and the dependent variable.

To further and qualitatively consider why the two tests had different outcomes for

emotional SRWB predicting developmental responsiveness, I imagined the perspective or

experience of preservice EC teachers as they took the survey. They needed to answer

both multiple-choice and narrative response measures of their developmental

responsiveness, with the former relatively easy and the latter more difficult to answer.

Indeed, the four multiple-choice questions were so easy as to produce a ceiling effect,

leaving the four narrative responses as likely the more valid but sparse measure of

developmental responsiveness and, as such, prone to distortion from outlier scores. An

intriguing alternative was that narratively responding required more self-regulatory

executive function i.e., mental agility, inhibitory control, and working memory (Murray

et al., 2015; Rosenbalm & Murray, 2017; Solomon et al., 2018)2 and the scores may have

measured those skills to some extent, instead of developmental responsiveness. If so,

preservice EC teachers’ cognitive self-regulation would have been a confounding

variable.

Overall, there was a significant result from the narrative response data that

preservice EC teacher emotional self-regulatory well-being (SRWB) predicted their

developmental responsiveness for child SRWB. However, I decided to interpret that

outcome with some caution because of the mixed result with significance found in the

238
first test but not the second test. I also planned for future research to continue developing

and testing the validity and reliability of the measure of developmental responsiveness. I

would have preferred to use an already established measure with replicated validity and

reliability but could not find one specific to preservice EC teacher developmental

responsiveness for preschool child self-regulation.

RSQ4: Discussion of Findings – Psychological and Self-Determinative Well-Being

Significantly Strongly Correlated

Before testing the next segment of the pathway, data from the measures of

psychological well-being (PWB) and self-determinative well-being (SDWB) were

correlated, as shown in Figure 4.1. Their significant correlation (r = .80, p < .001) was

33% higher than the correlation (r = .62, p < .001) that Diener et al. (2010) had found in

the original validation study of the PWB measure. The stronger correlation in the current

study provided more evidence that PWB and SDWB, at the very least, enhance one

another and supported the hypothesis that when the three universal needs within SDWB

are sufficiently met, PWB increases. However, because their correlation was above the

general threshold for collinearity of r = .70, interpreting the results of a subsequent

multiple linear regression was more difficult, as will be discussed for the next research

sub question.

PWB also correlated strongly with the three components of SDWB, especially

autonomy (r = .71, p < .001) and competence (r = .68, p < .001) which boded well for

preservice EC teachers’ confidence in their competence, i.e., self-efficacy. Somewhat

239
surprisingly, PWB did not correlate quite as strongly with the SDWB component of

relatedness (r = .62, p < .001), perhaps because missing data made the SDWB measure

somewhat less robust. Later in this chapter, in the context of discussing the results for

self-efficacy, the relationship of the self-efficacy characteristic with the SDWB

components of autonomy and competence and, more broadly, PWB were further

considered.

RSQ5: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis Segment C – Emotional Self-

Regulatory Well-Being Significantly Predicted Psychological and Self Determinative

Well-Being

The next segment of the pathway that was analyzed were the relationships

between preservice EC teacher emotional self-regulatory well-being (SRWB) and

psychological well-being (PWB), as well as self-determinative well-being (SDWB). As a

reminder before further discussion, emotional SRWB significantly strongly predicted

both PWB (r = .58) and SDWB (r = .51) at p < .001, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Since emotional SRWB predicted both PWB and SDWB, it and the other

characteristics (self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness, and

interpersonal mindfulness) were simultaneously tested as predictors for PWB and

SDWB, i.e., taking the others into account. The results were that only self-compassion

significantly and somewhat strongly predicted PWB (r = .45) and moderately predicted

SDWB (r = .38) with both at p < .001.

240
 Those outcomes were additional evidence that self-compassion consistently

made a uniquely positive difference for these teachers, in their emotional SRWB

prior and now their PWB and SDWB. This result of a positive relationship between

self-compassion and PWB was also consistent with other studies, i.e., Sak et al. (2024)

for preschool teachers, and, more broadly, Baer et al. (2012) and Neff and Germer (2013;

as cited in Saks et al., 2024). These earlier results encouraged researchers (e.g., Liu et al.,

2022; as cited in Saks et al., 2024) to recommend intentionally supporting EC teacher

self-compassion to strengthen not only their personal PWB but professional well-being.

The results of the current study further underscore the importance of authentically

nurturing self-compassion in teacher education.

RSQ6: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis Segment D – Psychological and Self-

Determinative Well-Being Signficantly Predicted Developmental Support

The next segment of the pathway that was analyzed was the relationship of

adaptive support for child self-regulation with the predictors of psychological well-being

(PWB) and self-determinative well-being (SDWB), taking one another into account. As a

reminder, there was not a significant result when the narrative response scores or

combined narrative response and multiple choice scores were used as measures of

developmental responsiveness. However, there was a significant result when the

multiple-choice scores were used. Altogether, psychological well-being and self-

determinative well-being accounted for 11% of the variance in developmental

support for child self-regulatory well-being (F(2, 81) = 4.73, p < .001). SDWB

241
showed a strong positive relationship (r = .54 , p < .001 ) with developmental

support, after taking PWB into account.

Counterintuitively, unlike SDWB, PWB showed a strong negative relationship (r

= -.46 , p < .05) with developmental support, after taking SDWB into account. Previous

research showed that the PWB and SDWB measures were strongly positively related

(Diener et al., 2010) and, as reported prior, their correlation in the current study was very

strong (r = .80, p < .001). However, that correlation was above the general threshold of r

= .70 for collinearity, suggesting that the results of the test were compromised or that the

parts of the PWB that did not overlap with SDWB were authentically negatively related

to developmental support.

As emphasized in the discussion about RSQ3 findings, SDWB as a mediator

amplified the strength of the relationship of self-regulatory well-being with

developmental responsiveness by 121 percent from moderate to strong. Those preservice

EC teachers who had more self-regulatory well-being had more self-determinative well-

being and markedly more developmental responsiveness for children’s self-regulatory

well-being. The insight from these outcomes was that teacher education curriculum,

instruction, and assessment systems should intentionally include not only support for self-

regulatory well-being but self-determinative well-being.

242
RSQ7: Discussion of Findings – Path Analysis Segment E – No Relationship with

Developmental Support When All Predictors Were Tested Simultaneously

There was not a significant relationship for each characteristic of preservice EC

teachers with their developmental responsiveness, after taking all the other

characteristics into account. As a reminder before further discussion, this result differed

from the significant and somewhat moderate relationship of emotional SRWB, when

regressed separately with developmental responsiveness (r = .24, p < .05). The outcome

of RSQ7 was also inconsistent with other studies that found significant positive

relationships between early childhood professionals’ developmental responsiveness and

their psychosocial characteristics Those characteristics included mindfulness and mindful

self-compassion (Brophy-Herb et al., 2019; Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023; Jennings, 2015;

Jennings et al., 2019; O’Hara-Gregan, 2024), reflective practice beliefs (Virmani et al.,

2020), and secure attachment (Vallotton et al., 2016). The bulk of empirical evidence was

that mindfulness, compassion for self and others, and secure attachment influenced

developmental responsiveness. However, this has also been a relatively new area of

research in the last 10 or 15 years wherein studies about whole teacher and whole child

learning and development have only started to accelerate in the last few years.

The insignificant results for RSQ7 may have had more to do with the large

number of independent variables in the final model, collinearity between variables, or

confounding variables obscuring relationships, as previously discussed. Also, the distal

influences of self-compassion, compassion for others, and intrapersonal mindfulness –

243
while they did not directly relate to development responsiveness – had directly related to

emotional SRWB which, in turn, directly related to developmental responsiveness. A

further reason that there were not significant results for the final research sub question

may have been that the measure of developmental responsiveness needed more

refinement for a stronger and more valid measure, as previously discussed.

Overall, there was evidence in the current study of predictive relationships

between preservice EC teachers’ psychosocial characteristics and the final outcome of

the pathway, i.e., developmental responsiveness for children’s self-regulation. Significant

relationships were found in the layered segments of the pathway. Cumulatively, their

outcomes suggested the relevance and importance of supporting these characteristics in

whole teacher person-first teacher education.

RSQ8: Discussion of Findings – Insights from Two Ways of Analyzing How

Attachment Related to Other Characteristics of Preservice EC Teachers

As a reminder, two measures of preservice EC teachers’ attachment were used to

test for relationships with their other psychosocial characteristics. One measure identified

a predominant attachment style for each preservice EC teacher from their highest mean

among the four components of the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) for the secure,

preoccupied, dismissive, or fearful dimensions. The other measure did not identify a

predominant attachment style but used the means for preservice EC teachers’ respective

dimensions of attachment, i.e., secure, preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful. These

measures were used in SPSS tests, revealing connected but nuanced findings about how

244
preservice EC teacher attachment related to their other psychosocial characteristics. The

discussion below first addressed the results related to a predominant attachment style and,

thereafter, the results related to the means for the four dimensions of attachment.

A Predominantly Secure Attachment Style Significantly Predicted More Self-

Compassion and Interpersonal Mindfulness

Preservice EC teachers with a secure attachment style scored significantly higher

than those with preoccupied or fearful attachment in self-compassion and intrapersonal

mindfulness. Counterintuitively, they did not differ in either self-compassion or

intrapersonal mindfulness from those with dismissive attachment. Perhaps that result was

logical though, because individuals with secure or dismissive attachment styles have a

positive self-image and, in that sense, a compassionate mindful relationship with

themselves. However, their positive self-regard likely manifested differently because of

their different perceptions of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Baumrind, 1971).

Those with secure attachment positively perceive others which likely manifested as being

more responsive to others, while those with dismissive attachment negatively perceive

others which likely manifested as being less responsive to others. Consequently, it

seemed plausible that self-compassion may manifest as relative selflessness or selfishness

– altruism or narcissism – depending on one’s perspective of others. Recall, too, the

importance of perspective-taking in the theoretical model of the influence of empathy and

compassion on self-regulation, as shown in Figures 3.2 through 3.4, and that attachment

acts as a “behavioral regulatory system” (Polek, 2008, p. 50). Given these connections,

245
exercising compassion for oneself and others in teacher education should be prioritized,

e.g., through analyzing case histories or video examples and role playing how to respond

to children’s needs. Moreover, supporting EC teachers’ reflective functioning skills

(Brophy-Herb et al., 2019, 2024; Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023; Virmani et al., 2020;

Vallotton et al., 2016) would also foster their affective and cognitive perspective-taking,

as well as provide a tangible way to nurture more secure attachment (Vallotton et al.,

2016).

Interestingly, preservice EC teachers did not differ significantly in compassion for

others and interpersonal mindfulness based on their predominant attachment style. I had

expected that those with a secure attachment style would have more compassion for

others and interpersonal mindfulness due to not only their positive and, hence, more

accepting self-image but positive and hence, more sensitive regard of others. At the very

least, I expected that those with dismissive and fearful attachment styles, both of which

have a negative view of others, would be significantly lower in compassion for others and

interpersonal mindfulness. Perhaps more participants in the study would have made such

differences, if they existed, detectable.

Mixed Results for the Relationship of Predominant Attachment Style and Self-

Compassion to Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-Being

For preservice EC teachers with a predominantly secure attachment style, their

self-compassion was initially significantly predictive of their emotional self-regulatory

well-being (SRWB). However, when compassion for others, intrapersonal mindfulness,

246
and interpersonal mindfulness were added to the regression model as potential

predictors, secure self-compassion was no longer significantly predictive of emotion self-

regulation. Three potential explanations for the changed outcome were 1) as predictors

were added, the signal from the secure self-compassion predictor was diluted to the point

of no longer being significant; 2) collinearity of independent variables; or 3) attachment

was a confounding variable, substantively influencing both self-compassion and self-

regulatory well-being.

Regarding the latter possibility, the one-way ANOVA results, reported in chapter

four, showed that some attachment styles correlated with some of the other initial four

characteristics but not to the level that suggested attachment was a confounding variable.

More likely, the collinearity of the first five characteristics on the pathway somewhat

masked their relationships with emotional SRWB. While that made interpreting the

multiple linear regression results more challenging, from an educational perspective their

overlap suggested that by supporting one characteristic in teacher education, other

characteristics would also be supported. Indeed, a consistent result from the current

study’s data analysis was that supporting preservice EC teacher self-compassion and

intrapersonal mindfulness may be uniquely effective for their own and, ultimately,

children’s self-regulatory well-being.

Dimensions of Attachment: Lessons from a Strength-Based Approach

Preservice EC teachers’ mean levels of attachment security were used to test for

relationships with their other characteristics, whether or not their predominant attachment

247
style was the secure type. As explained in the prior chapter, this added method was to

recognize and honor an asset- not deficit-based context for optimal human development

and learning. The profound, significant results from the first set of tests (simple linear

regressions) were that, on average, preservice EC teachers with more secure attachment

had more of all the following: self-compassion, compassion for others, intrapersonal

mindfulness, self-regulatory, psychological, and self-determinative well-being, and

support for children’s self-regulatory growth, as shown in Table 4.19. Indeed, only self-

determinative (r = .66) and psychological well-being (r = .62) were more strongly related

to secure attachment than self-compassion was (r = .49) at p < .001. Moreover, self-

compassion was the only characteristic of the first four on the pathway that significantly

correlated with self-determinative and psychological well-being (respectively, r = .38 and

r = .45, p < .001 ), as shown in Figure 4.1. The lesson from these results was that teacher

education programs should intentionally build not only mindful compassion but

relational trust and secure attachment among all participants through whole teacher

person-first processes.

Alternatively, preservice EC teachers’ self-compassion, compassion for others,

and intrapersonal mindfulness were tested altogether as predictors of their mean levels of

secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissive attachment beliefs from their Likert survey

responses. The most poignant, significant result (from multiple linear regression

analyses) was that self-compassion was the characteristic that most consistently and

strongly predicted preservice EC teachers’ mean secure, fearful, and preoccupied

248
attachment. This evidence was respectively r = .31, r = -.35, and r = -.47 at p =. 02 or

lower for moderate to strong relationships, as shown in Tables 4.20-22. Compassion for

others moderately predicted secure (r = .26, p = .02 ) and preoccupied (r = .34, p < .001)

but not fearful attachment. Intrapersonal mindfulness did not significantly predict secure,

fearful, or preoccupied attachment, though was at the trend level for the latter (r = -.21, p

= .09). None of the four characteristics significantly predicted dismissive attachment for

this group of preservice EC teachers.

These results affirmed that compassion and mindfulness skills are not only

personal but pedagogical tools for effective self-regulatory functioning, amenable to

change, and practical for enhancing situational or more enduring attachment security.

Mindful compassion skills can also be expected to deepen preservice EC professionals’

reflective functioning which Vallotton et al. (2016) positively linked to their attachment

security. Overall though, the most poignant result was that self-compassion was, again,

the main character in this unfolding story about how to engender self-regulatory,

psychological, and self-determinative well-being in teacher education for adults and

children.

Self-Efficacy: Discussion of Findings – Self-Efficacy Significantly Predicted

Emotional Self-Regulatory Well-Being

On average, preservice EC teachers were highly confident that their responses to

children’s self-regulatory needs in the vignettes were effective, indicating a healthy sense

of self-determinative autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Bandura (2023)

249
emphasized self-efficacy as the motivational force in human agency and self-

determination. Deci and Ryan (1985; as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2017) also focused on

self-efficacy as personal agency, linking efficacious self-agency to the innate need for

self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Indeed, behind individuals’

sense of their own efficacy are the enabling or disabling self-beliefs that fuel their

perceptions and motivation to act. As such, their modulation of thought and emotion to

decide, whether implicitly or explicitly, what to do next and carry out that intent is

inherently self-regulative (Bandura, 2023), as well as contextually adaptive or

maladaptive. Cumulatively, from these findings in the literature review, I expected that

the extent to which preservice EC teachers’ self-efficacy was determined by adaptive and

enabling self-beliefs would positively predict their emotional self-regulatory well-being.

Indeed, preservice EC teachers had, on average, moderate levels of emotional self-

regulatory well-being (SRWB) and self-efficacy with self-efficacy moderately predictive

of SRWB. This evidence of their relationship supported linking these two characteristics

in the teacher education curriculum as a synergistic opportunity to co-develop them.

Developmental Support Significantly Predicted Self-Efficacy

Furthermore, strengthening preservice EC teacher self-efficacy and emotional

self-regulatory well-being can be expected to not only benefit their personal but

professional agency. That expectation was supported by the significant finding in the

current study that preservice EC teachers’ developmental support of children’s self-

regulation was moderately positively predictive of their self-efficacy. As such, these

250
characteristics and skills should be an intentional focus in whole teacher person-first

education, implemented through practical strategies, e.g., experiential learning and

embedded coaching.

Meditation: Discussion of Findings – Meditation Was an Undeveloped and Under-

Developed Skill

An opportunity for growth was identified for preservice EC teachers regarding

meditation and, more broadly, self-care skills. As a reminder before further discussion,

the vast majority did not have an established meditation practice. Indeed, 83% did not

meditate at all. Of those who meditated, 19% had not meditated in the past week and 38%

had meditated only one time. Also, more than half of those who meditated did so for just

1-5 minutes at a time. These results suggested that preservice EC teachers do not believe

they have time in their schedules to meditate or see tangible benefits extending from their

personal to professional lives. If so, developing content in teacher education programs

about these benefits and practical strategies for establishing a consistent meditation

practice, would be important. Moreover, developing a context in teacher eduction that

normalizes “self-care as professionalization” (Driscoll et al., 2020, p. 453) and

meditation as one way to Stress Less, Accomplish More (Fletcher, 2019) within the time

one has, may especially resonate with college students.

The small number of preservice EC teachers in the current study who meditated

(16 of 92 or 17%) made meaningful analyses of differences based on meditation

challenging. For example, though meditators scored higher in every characteristic on the

251
pathway, those results were not statistically significant, except in one positive but small

relationship for interpersonal mindfulness as teachers towards children in classrooms. As

reported in more detail in the prior chapter, meditators scored very high (M = 4.69, SD =

.33) compared to nonmeditators, who scored high but not as high (M = 4.40, SD = .47)

on a 5-point Likert scale. Thus, I turned to other research and found nuanced results

about the relationship with mindful observation for meditators compared to

nonmeditators.

Mindful Observation – A Critical Personal and Pedagogical Skill

Baer et al. (2004, 2006; as cited in 2008) in developing the Five-Facet

Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) that was used in the current study, found that the

direction of relationships among factors was different for the observing factor.

Unexpectedly, those with more mindful observation showed more – not less – harsh self-

judgment and reactivity to their inner experiences, thoughts, and feelings. However,

when the data was split into meditators and nonmeditators, the pattern was reversed for

the meditator, presumably because their mindful observation was adaptive with a focus

on accepting one’s thoughts and feelings. Indeed, the direction of the relationship was the

same as for other components of mindfulness, i.e., more skill as an observer was related

to more skill describing emotions, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity.

Conversely, the nonmeditators still showed maladaptive observation with more skill as an

observer positively related to the negative outcome of more self-judgment and reactivity.

252
 This nuanced finding intersected with a finding in the current study that

preservice EC teachers with secure attachment styles and dismissive attachment styles

did not significantly differ in self-compassion. As discussed earlier in this paper, there

was no difference likely because individuals with either of those attachment styles have a

positive view of themselves. What differed, though, was how that self-regard manifested

in their treatment of others, based on their different views of others. Indeed, those with

secure attachment were likely more positive about and, hence, more responsive towards

others, and those with dismissive attachment were likely less positive about and, hence,

less responsive towards others. Similar to the meditators in the Baer et al. (2008) study,

the securely attached preservice EC teachers were likely more observant, and because of

their favorable view of others, responded adaptively. Following this same logic, those

who were dismissively attached were likely less observant, and because of their

unfavorable view of others, reacted maladaptively.

Thus, while more self-compassion at first seemed positive that depended on the

type, e.g., secure self-acceptance and open towards others or self-centered and closed

towards others. The difficulties many students in my teacher education courses had with

objectively observing children may have had more to do with their attachment styles than

I previously realized. If so, coaching students in their professional role as preservice

teachers on the concrete skill of mindfully observing children, may eventually help them

more adaptively observe and respond not only to children but themselves and others.

253
Observation-Based Reflective Functioning – A Critical Pedagogical Skill

The approach described in the prior paragraph dovetailed with studies that

suggested that focusing on tangible pedagogical skills, e.g., reflective functioning, may

be the most effective and nonthreatening way to help teachers develop more secure

attachment (Vallotton et al., 2016; Virmani et al., 2020). Of importance, reflective

functioning for teachers is grounded in ongoing observation of children, wonder and

curiosity about what children are experiencing, e.g., their thoughts and feelings, and

responses that are developmentally supportive (Vallotton et al., 2021). To function

reflectively also means that teachers observe their own actions, thoughts and feelings, and

respond adaptively (Vallotton et al., 2021), as they self-regulate through the school day.

Moreover, reflective functioning requires mindful observation which requires being fully

present, the very skills that meditation develops. Indeed, O’Hara-Gregan (2024) in

“Caring for the carers: The intersection of care and mindful self-compassion in early

childhood teaching,” quoted Pommier & Neff (2013) who said that the

regular practice of entering a meditative state focused on acceptance

of present experiences and interconnectedness is predictive of an enhanced

capacity to show understanding and kindness to both self and

others. (p.893)

Given these conceptual connections, meditation should be intentionally supported in

teacher education, as both a self-care and pedagogical skill for more reflective

functioning for oneself and children.

254
Implications for Preservice Early Childhood Teacher Education

Major implications from this study’s results were the importance of dispositional

mindfulness, self-compassion – especially its dispositional or intentional kindness

component – and compassion as enacted empathy for whole teacher development.

Pedagogy for these adult learners should actualize kindness for oneself linked with

practical strategies for mindful-nonreactivity and mindful-nonjudging, as these

components of mindfulness correlated most strongly with the self-compassion-kindness

component. Indeed, harsh reactivity and judgment of one”s inner thoughts and feelings

are anti-kindness and what Watson-Singleton et al. (2021) referred to as cold rather than

warm compassion. All of the warm characteristics – kindness, mindfulness, and common

humanity – should not be viewed as static traits but skills and protective factors that

should be nurtured and strengthened in teacher education. These characteristics empower

person-first approaches to learning and teaching for preservice EC teachers’ self-

regulatory well-being which relates to their psychological and self-determinative well-

being and developmental support for children’s self-regulation. Infusing teacher

education curriculum, instruction, and assessment systems with the science of human

development and adult learning will help infuse early childhood pedagogy with the

science of child development.

Moreover, preservice EC teachers’ mindful compassion for themselves and others

and, ultimately, their adaptive support for children’s self-regulatory development depend

upon their skills of observing and perspective-taking. This conceptualization, as shown in

255
Figure 2.5, aligned with findings from Jennings (2015) that EC teacher mindful

observation and perspective-taking positively related to their emotional support of

children. Of interest, in the current study, preservice EC teachers on the measure of

mindfulness scored highest on average for the component of observation, albeit at a

moderate level.

Yet, that result was promising as a solid foundation from which to accelerate

growth in these two critical observational skills for not only mindfulness, compassion,

and emotion self-regulation but, more broadly, for effectively teaching young children.

Indeed, the preservice teachers in my courses often struggled to objectively observe

children, compelling me to seek more effective ways to help them develop this bedrock

skill upon which all else in education depends. Curiously, though, the observation

component of the intrapersonal mindfulness measure used in the current study did not

significantly correlate with the components about mindfulness in the measures of self-

compassion and compassion for others, as shown in Table 4.12. Perhaps this incongruity

was because the observation component in the intrapersonal mindfulness measure was

about physically being present in one’s body, e.g., to feel the temperature of water in the

shower or the wind on one’s face. In contrast, the self-compassion and compassion for

others components of mindfulness were about psychologically being present, e.g., to feel

one’s own or others’ emotions. These latter are mostly what teachers should do relative to

observing young children, implying the need to measure mindful observation differently

(Virmani et al., 2020) for similar research in the future.

256
 In summary, there were at least three broad policy implications from the results of

the current study. These priorities should include the following initiatives. Develop

educative systems that support the whole person and self-regulatory well-being of adults

and children. Deepen whole teacher pedagogy for preservice teacher education and

inservice professional learning through relational person-first processes to synergize

knowledge, belief, and practice systems. Normalize self-care as integral to the helping

professions. These endeavors would serve not only as protective factors but catalysts for

teachers and children to flourish.

An Application: Thriving as an Early Childhood Teacher

Using insights from the current study, I developed a preliminary plan for two,

consecutive, one-credit courses about early childhood teacher well-being to occur over an

academic year for teacher education students. Each course would meet biweekly for

approximately two hours, seven or eight times during the 15-week semester for a total of

15 hours to earn one credit. Between class sessions, students would implement a well-

being strategy then reflect with colleagues about that strategy at the next class session. By

spreading the content for the two credits across two semesters, students would receive

support and coaching over a longer period of time, helping to sustain their mindfulness-

based strategies. Support over a longer period of time for that purpose aligned with a

recommendation of Brophy-Herb et al. (2024). I also envisioned that this temporal design

of the courses would benefit relationship-based experiential learning and camaraderie

among colleagues, as they learned to thrive as early childhood professionals. Broadly, the

257
content of the two courses would be built around the following topics and as shown in

Figure 5.1.

• What self-regulatory well-being is and is not

• Why self-regulatory well-being matters

• Neuroscience of self-regulatory well-being

• How self-compassion and empathy for oneself and others strengthen

compassionate action and self-regulatory well-being

• How pivotal empathy and observational perspective-taking nurture self-regulatory

well-being for oneself and others

• How to convey empathy nonverbally and verbally: practical strategies

• What co-regulatory pedagogical support of children looks, sounds, and feels like

in EC classrooms: Practical strategies

• How thriving as an early childhood preservice and inservice teacher looks,

sounds, and feels: practical strategies

• How to positively support adult and teacher self-regulatory well-being

• How to practice mindfulness based stress reduction

• How self-regulation supports self-determination and advances equity (NAEYC,

2019)

258
 Figure 5.1

Thriving as an Early Childhood Professional: Preliminary Conceptualization of Two One-Credit Teacher Education Courses
259
Limitations and Implications

There were approximately four limitations of this study from which implications

for future research were derived. The first limitation was the reliance on self-reported

teaching practices without observational data gathered to confirm and gain insight about

those practices. The exploratory nature and scope of the study did not allow for direct

observation. In future research, e.g., an intervention study of a teacher education course

developed from the results of the current study, there should be direct observation of

teacher practices or at least teacher interviews about practices for additional insight.

The second limitation was that a convenience sample was used without any

randominazation of participants. Moreover, there may have been unknown qualitative

differences between the preservice EC teachers who chose and did not choose to

participate in the survey that affected the study’s results and subsequent interpretations.

Using a convenience sample limited the generalizability of results beyond EC teacher

education programs in suburban midwestern universities. Optimally, in future research, a

larger number of participants would be recruited from which random treatment and

control groups could be established. While focusing on preservice EC teachers at one

university was most relevant for improving their specific teacher education program, it is

also important to acknowledge that most early childhood educators do not have four year

degrees. Future research should include early care and education teachers who have not

had post-secondary child development training or who have a child development

260
associate (CDA) certificate or two-year associate degree but not a four-year

undergraduate degree.

A third limitation was that the student population at the university in general, and

in the teacher education program in particular, was minimally diverse. This homogeneity

meant that cultural nuances were likely missed about how to support the increased

diversity of teachers, children, and families in the United States (NAEYC, 2019; NRC,

2015). Future studies should include diverse participants as much as possible for the

practical reason of developing whole teacher pedagogy and also for greater

generalizability of research results.

A fourth limitation was that the data were cross-sectional, providing a snapshot in

time but did not identify changes over time, e.g., to determine if growth in compassion,

mindfulness, well-being, and developmental practices were sustained. Future longitudinal

research will be essential to determine the efficacy of teacher education interventions.

Furthermore, as preservice teachers graduate, enter the workforce, and become more

experienced, their knowledge, beliefs, and practices can be expected to change. In future

research, studying and gaining insights about these changes and related needs of inservice

teachers will be important for continuing to develop person-first professional learning for

teacher well-being and their developmental support for child well-being.

In the context of limitations, except for qualitatively analyzing preservice EC

teachers’ narrative responses about children having self-regulatory difficulty, the current

study used quantitative measures. It should be noted too, that these qualitative analyses

261
were then converted to a quantitative form, using a rubric for scoring. Future research

should more deeply examine preservice EC teacher characteristics, e.g., self-compassion,

mindfulness, well-being, and developmental responsiveness, by using additional

qualitative methods. In terms of my series of three research studies, the first study was

purely qualitative and generated key topics to further examine, the second and current

study was mostly quantitative for that exploration, and the third study should be deeply

qualitative for nuanced insights.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to improve preservice EC teacher education and

address a twofold problem for education systems at all levels: one, that they largely do

not provide support for children and adults to develop self-regulatory well-being, even

though self-regulation determines lifelong learning and success; and two, that teachers

need support to learn about children’s development of self-regulation and strategies to

scaffold that growth.

To recap, what follows were insights from the significant positive results for each

of the five segments of the path analysis, as shown in the empirical model in Figure 4.1.

For segment A of the pathway, preservice EC teachers’ intrapersonal mindfulness, self-

compassion, and self-kindness had the strongest predictive relationships with their self-

regulatory well-being and, in that sense, mattered the most. Self-compassion was also the

only one of the first four characterisitics on the pathway to predict self-determinative and

psychological well-being, suggesting its unique importance. For segment B, preservice

262
EC teachers’ self-regulatory well-being moderately predicted their developmental support

of children’s self-regulatory well-being, linking teacher and child self-regulation. For

segment C, preservice EC teachers’ emotional self-regulatory well-being strongly related

to their self-determinative autonomy, relatedness, and competence, as well as their

psychological well-being, evidence of the linchin importance of self-regulation.

For segment D of the pathway, preservice EC teachers’ self-determinative well-

being strongly related to their increased developmental support for children’s self-

regulation. Their self-determination also mediated and amplified their self-regulatory

well-being for substantially more developmental support of children’s self-regulation. For

segment E of the pathway, testing so many characteristics at once as predictors of

developmental support was perhaps like having too many cooks in the kitchen, i.e., the

contributions of any one cook were likely obscured and the overall results were

compromised. To continue the analogy, a more tested recipe, i.e., a more established,

valid, and reliable measure of developmental responsiveness, may have helped the

ingredients be more detectable. Across the pathway segments, self-compassion and

intrapersonal mindfulness – as well as psychological and self-determinative well-being,

correlated so strongly that their overlap suggested that they can be syngeristically

developed in teacher education.

In reflecting on the most important lessons learned from the preservice EC

teachers who participated in the current study, I realized that their compassion acted as a

compass for kindness and mindfulness towards themselves and others. Indeed, the word

263
compassion includes the word compass. More broadly, mindful compassion and

especially self-compassion, may serve as a compass in all of our lives to keep us

grounded and free to thrive, as self-regulated learners who can determine our own life

course. This dynamic is different than finding oneself burning candles at both ends,

accidentally starting a fire, and then putting an oxygen mask on because of the smoke.

That is what one does when there is already an emergency, after somehow forgetting to

take gentle care to prevent risks to one’s well-being and flourish with gusto. To that end,

compassion and mindfulness are not fixed traits or random reactions but chosen

responses and skills that can be developed and strengthened. For preservice EC teachers,

their mindful-compassion compasses guided their metaphorical walk along the pathway,

enhancing self-regulatory, self-determinative, and psychological well-being on their

journey as individuals and preservice professionals. There were distinct routes to to this

well-being and the destination of enhanced developmental support for children’s self-

regulatory well-being. It was a privilege to walk alongside and learn from this group of

preservice early childhood teachers, and I am eager to apply insights from these results to

advance whole teacher person-first education.

264
References

Akanbi, S.T. (2024). Navigating the transition: Examining the collective and

interconnected influence of attachment styles on first-year undergraduates’

adjustment to college. Research Studies, 18(20), 34-54.

American Educational Research Association (AERA) (n.d.). Research fact sheet:

Emotions, learning and the brain. Retrieved October 31, 2024, from

https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/Annual_Meeting/2016%20Annual%20Meet

ing/2016%20Knowledge%20Forum/Immordino.pdf

Allan, N. P., Hume, L. E., Allan, D. M., Farrington, A. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014).

Relations between inhibitory control and the development of academic skills in

preschool and kindergarten: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50(10),

2368-2379.

Agyapong, B., Obuobi-Donkor, G., Burback, L., Wei, Y. (2022). Stress, burnout, anxiety

and depression among teachers: A scoping review. International Journal of

Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 10706-10748.

Alvarenga, P., Zucker, T. A., Tambyraja, S., & Justice, L. (2020). Contingency in

teacher child emotional state talk during shared book reading in early childhood

classrooms. Early Education and Development, 31(3), 1187-1205.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710706

265
American College Health Association. (2019). National College Health Assessment

(NCHA) III Codebook. Retrieved August 7, 2023 from

https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/ACHANCHA_III_Spring_2023_Codeboo

k_2_8_2023.pdf

American College of Pediatricians (2022). The teenage brain: Under construction.

Retrieved October 28, 2024, from https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-

teenage-brain-under-construction

Anfara, B. A., Brown, K. M., & Mongione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:

Making the research more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.

Asayesh, M. H., Rezapour-Mirsaleh, Y., Koohestani, F., Asadi, N. (2024). Mediating role

of self-compassion in relationship between attachment styles and empathy in

nurses. BioMed Central BMC Nursing, 23(545), 1-10.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., & Williams,

J. M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company.

Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with

themselves. Worth Publishers.

Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency. Pathways and reflections.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130-136.

266
Bandura, A. (2023). Social Cognitive Theory: An agentic perspective on human nature.

Wiley.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A

test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

61(2), 226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology

Monographs, 4, Part 1.

Bartik, T. J. (2014). From preschool to prosperity. W.E. Upjohn Institute for

Employment Research.

Bateson, G. (1971). “The message, This is play.” In R. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.).

Child’s Play. 26-269, Wiley.

Bergman Deitcher, D., Aram, D., Khalaily-Shahadi, M., Dwairy, M. (2021). Promoting

preschoolers’’ mental-emotional conceptualization and social understanding: A

shared book-reading study. Early Education and Development, 32(4), 501-515.

Berk L.E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early

childhood education. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Berking, M., Meier, C., & Wupperman, P. (2010). Enhancing emotion-regulation skills in

police officers: Results of a pilot controlled study. Behavior Therapy, 41(3), 329-

339.

267
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of

neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized

controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in

kindergarten. PLoS ONE 9(11):

e112393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112393

Bodrova, E., Germeroth, C., & Leong, D.J. (2013). Play and self-regulation: Lessons

from Vygotsky. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 111-123.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human

development. Basic Books.

Brezicha, K., Kavanagh, K., Martin, A., Fisher-Ari, T. R. (2024). “This school is killing

my soul:” Threat rigidity responses to high-stakes accountability. Policies Urban

Education, 59(5) 1455–1488. doi: 10.1177/00420859221081762

Brophy-Herb, H. E., Stacks, A.M., Frosch, C., Brincks, A.M., Cook, J.L., Vallotton, C.

D., Perkins, H. A., Kim, L. E., Carson, R., Muzik, M., Rosenblum, K., &

Jennings, P. A. (2024). The effects of a relationship-focused professional

development intervention on infant and toddler teachers’ mindfulness-based

strategies for coping. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52, 243-257.

doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01416-0

268
Brophy-Herb, H.E., Williamson, A.C., Cook, G.A., Torquati, J., Decker, K.B., Vu, J.,

Vallotton, C. D., Duncan L. G., & The Collaborative for Understanding the

Pedagogy of Infant/Toddler Development (CUPID) (2019). Preservice students’

dispositional mindfulness and developmentally supportive practices with infants

and toddlers. Mindfulness, 10(4), 759-768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-

1036-7

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological

perspectives on human development. Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of development. In W.

Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of Child Development: (6 ed.), Vol.1.

th

Theoretical models of human development (pp. 795-828). Wiley.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2011). Building the

brain’s “air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the

development of executive function: Working paper no. 11. Retrieved July, 2016,

from www.developingchild.harvard.edu

Clement, M. (2016). How will “generation me, me, me” work for others’ children? The

Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 30-34.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.

269
Crain, W. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). Prentice

Hall.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper

Collins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1979). The concept of flow. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and

learning (pp. 257- 274). Gardner Press.

Cui, J., & Natzke, L. (2021). Early childhood program participation: 2019 (NCES 2020

075REV). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 26,

2022, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020075REV

Curby, T. W., Brock, L. L., & Hamre, B. K. (2013). Teachers' emotional support

consistency predicts children's achievement gains and social skills. Early

Education and Development, 24(3), 292-309.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Denham, S.A., Bassett, H.H., & Miller, S.L. (2017). Early childhood teachers’

socialization of emotion: Contextual and individual contributors. Child Youth

Care Forum, 46, 805-824.

Denham, S., Ferrier, D., & Bassett, H. (2020). Preschool teachers' socialization of

emotion knowledge: Considering socioeconomic risk. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 69, 1-11.

270
Derman-Sparks, L., & Olsen Edwards, J. (2020). Anti-bias education for young children

and ourselves (2nd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young

Children.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New

well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative

feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. doi:10.1007/s11205-009

9493-y.

Driscoll, D. L., Leigh, S. R., & Zamin, N. F. (2020). Self-care as professionalization.

College Composition and Communication, 71(3), 453-480.

Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1),

1-12.

Farewell, C.V., Mauirro, E., VanWieren, C., Shreedar, P., Brogden, D., & Puma, J.E.

(2023). Investigation of key domains associated with worker well-being and

burnout and turnover in the early care and education workforce. International

Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 96, 891-901.

Fletcher, E. (2019). Stress Less, Accomplish More. Pan Macmillan.

Flook, L., Goldberg, S.B., Pinger, L., Bonus, K., & Davidson, R.J. (2013). Mindfulness

for teachers: A pilot study to assess effects on stress, burnout, and teaching

efficacy. Mind, Brain, and Education, (7)3, 182-196.

271
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial

behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-

based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44-51.

Frank, J. L., Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Validation of the Mindfulness

in Teaching Scale. Mindfulness, 7, 155-163. doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-

0461-0

Freire, P. (1970, 1993, 2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: With an introduction by

Donaldo Macedo. Bloomsbury.

Fuhs, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Nesbitt, K. T. (2013). Preschool classroom processes as

predictors of children's cognitive self-regulation skills development. School

Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 347-359.

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools,

districts, and systems. Corwin.

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change

the world. Corwin.

Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial

behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223.

Gardner-Neblett, N., Henk, J.K., Vallotton, C. D., Rucker, L. & Chazan-Cohen, R.

(2021). The what, how, and who, of early childhood professional development

(PD): Differential associations of PD and self-reported beliefs and practices.

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(1), 53-75.

272
Garner, P. W., & Parker, T. S. (2018). Young children’s picture-books as a forum for the

socialization of emotion. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16(3), 291–304.

Garvey, C. (1990). Play. Harvard University Press.

Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development. (n.d.) Infant toddler

temperament tool (IT3). Center for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation.

https://www.ecmhc.org/temperament/IT3.php?infant

Germer, C. & Neff, K. (2019). Teaching the mindful self-compassion program: A guide

for professionals. The Guilford Press.

Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development: An

introduction (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Golann J. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of

Education, 88(2), 103-119. doi: 10.1177/0038040714567866

Grant, M., Salsman, N. L., Berking, M. (2018). The assessment of successful emotion

regulation skills use: Development and validation of an English version of the

Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 13(10): e0205095.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205095

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework

for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Gunsberg, A. (2018, October 16). Scaffolding play formats. Lecture.

273
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of

young American children. Brookes.

Hatton-Bowers, H., Clark, C., Parra, G., Calvi, J., Yellow Bird, M., Avari, P., Foged, J.,

& Smith, J. (2023). Promising findings that the Cultivating Healthy Intentional

Mindful Educators’ program (CHIME) strengthens early childhood teachers’

emotional resources: An iterative study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51,

1291-1304.

Heckman, J. J. (2011). Pre-K debates: Current controversies and issues. In E. Zigler, W.

S. Gilliam, & S. Barnett (Eds.), Effective child development strategies. Paul H.

Brookes Publishing Company.

Heckman, J. J., Malofeeva, L., Pinto, R., & Savelyev, P. (2013). Understanding the

mechanisms through which an influential early childhood program boosted adult

outcomes. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2052-2086.

Hirsh-Pasek K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman R., Owen, M.T, Golinkoff, R. M, Pace A.,

Yust, P. K., and Suma K. (2015). The contribution of early communication

quality to low-income children’s language success. Psychol Sci, 26, 1071-1083.

Hone, L., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Flourishing

Scale in a New Zealand sample. Social Indicators Research, 119(2), 1031-1045.

Housman, D.K., Denham, S.A., & Cabral, H. (2018). Building young children’s

emotional competence and self-regulation from birth: The begin to…ECSEL

approach. International Journal of Emotional Education, 10(2), 5-25.

274
Howard, S. J., Powell, T., Vasseleu, E., Johnstone, S., Melhuish, E. C. (2017). Enhancing

preschoolers' executive functions through embedding cognitive activities in

shared book reading. Educational Psychology Review, 7(29), 153-74.

Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of Applied Behavior

Analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in

Practice, 8(1), 80-85.

Hutt, C. (1971). Explorational play in children. In Play, exploration and territory in

mammals, Symposia of the zoological society of London, 18, 61-81.

Immordino-Yang, M.H., Darling-Hammond, L., & Krone, C. (2018). The brain basis for

integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions and

social relationships drive learning. The Aspen Institute: National Commission on

Social, Emotional, & Academic Development.

Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Gotlieb, R. (2017). Embodied brains, social minds, cultural

meaning: Integrating neuroscientific and educational research on social-affective

development. American Educational Research journal, (54)1S, 344S-367S.

Institute of Medicine (IOM), & National Research Council (NRC). 2012. From neurons

to neighborhoods: An update: Workshop summary. The National Academies

Press.

Jennings, P.A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self

compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging

students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732-743.

275
Jennings, P. A., Doyle, S., Yoonkyung, O., Rasheed, D., Frank, J. L., & Brown, J. L.

(2019). Log-term impacts of the CARE program on teachers’ self-reported social

and emotional competence and well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 76,

186-202.

Johnston, M.M., & Finney, S.J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating

previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic

Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35,

280-296.

Konrath, S. H., Chopik, W. J., Hsing, C. K., & O’Brien, E. (2014). Changes in adult

attachment styles in American college students over time: A meta-analysis.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 326-348.

Konrath, S., O’Brien, E., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in

American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 15(2), 180-198.

Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., Whiren, A. P., & Rupiper., M. L. (201)9. Guiding

children’s social development and learning: Theory and Skills (9th ed). Cengage

Learning.

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on

instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of

Educational Research, 88(4), 547-488.

276
Kramarski, B., & Heaysman, O. (2021). A conceptual framework and a professional

development model for supporting teachers’ “triple SRL-SRT processes” and

promoting students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 56(4), 298-

311.

Kramarski, B., & Kohen, Z. (2017). Promoting preservice teachers’ dual self-regulation

roles as learners and as teachers: Effects of generic vs. specific prompts.

Metacognition Learning, 12, 157-191.

LaForge, C., Perron, M., Roy-Charland, A., Roy, E. M., & Carignan, I. (2018).

Contributing to children's early comprehension of emotions: A picture book

approach. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(4), 301-327.

Lawson, M., Vosniadou, S., Van Deur, P., Wyra, M., & Jeffries, D. 2019. Teachers' and

students' belief systems about the self-regulation of learning. Educational

Psychology Review, 31(4), 223–251.

Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R.F., & Smith, J.B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of

schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-

208.

Lippard, C. N., Vallotton, C. D., Fusaro, M., Chazan- Cohen, R., Peterson, C. A., Kim,

L., & Cook, G. A. (2024). Practice matters: how practicum experiences change

student beliefs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 45(3), 371-395.

doi: 10.1080/10901027.2024.2351471

277
McHugh, M.L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The Kappa statistic. Biochem Med

(Zagreb), 22(3):276-82.

McRoy, K., Gerde, H.K., & Linscott, L. (2022). A three-step approach: Promoting

children’s self-regulation and language during conflict. Young Children, 77(3),

40-59.

Miller, C. C., & Mervosh, S. (2024, July 1). The youngest pandemic children are now in

school, and struggling. The New York Times, retrieved October 30, 2024, from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/01/upshot/pandemic-children-

school-performance.html

Moffitt, T.E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H. L.,

Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross, S., Sears, M. R., Thomson, W.M., &

Caspi, A. A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,

and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS),

108(7), 2693-2698.

Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., & Foster, T. D. (2014). Social skills and

problem behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-

regulation and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

29(3), 298-309.

Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J.

(2016). The development of self-regulation across early childhood.

Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1744-62.

278
Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori,

Erikson, Piaget & Vygotsky. Redleaf.

Mosterman, R. M., & Hofstra, J. (2015). Clinical validation of the restructured

Attachment Styles Questionnaire. ResearchGate. Retrieved August 7, 2023, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1199.3680

Murray, D. W., Rosanbalm, K., Christopoulos, C., & Hamoudi, A. (2015). Self

regulation and toxic stress report 1: Foundations for understanding self-regulation

from an applied perspective. OPRE Report # 2015-21, Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Murray, D. W., Rosanbalm, K., & Christopoulos, C. (2016). Self-regulation and toxic

stress: A comprehensive review of self-regulation interventions. OPRE Report

#2016-34, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Murray, D.W., Rosanbalm, K., & Christopoulos, Christina (2016b). Self-regulation and

toxic stress report 3: A comprehensive review of self-regulation interventions.

Appendix C. OPRE Report # 2016-34, Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2019). Advancing

equity in early childhood education: A position statement. NAEYC.

279
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Teacher Turnover: Stayers, Movers, and

Leavers. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences. Retrieved October 18, 2020,

from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/slc.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of State School

Officers. (2010). Common core state standards.

National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth

through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press.

https://doi.org/10.17226/19401

National Research Council (NRC), & Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2000). From neurons

to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee on

Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. J. P. Shonkoff & D. A.

Phillips (Eds.). Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academy Press.

Neff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Knox, M. C., Kuchar, A., & Davidson, O. (2021). The

development and validation of the State Self-Compassion Scale (long-and short

form). Mindfulness, 12(1), 121-140.

Nwoko, J.C., Emoto, T.I., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O., & Malau-Aduli, B.S. (2023). A

systematic review of the factors that influence teachers’ occupational wellbeing.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20, 6070-

7001.

280
O’Hara-Gregan, J. (2024). Caring for the carers: The intersection of care and mindful

self-compassion in early childhood teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal,

52, 891-900.

Ornaghi, V., Agliati, A., Pepe, A., & Gabola, P. (2020). Patterns of association between

early childhood teachers' emotion socialization styles, emotion beliefs and mind-

mindedness. Early Education and Development, 31(1), 47-65.

Polatlar, D.Y., & Ӧztabak, Ü. (2021). The analysis of the relation between preschool

teachers’ decision making and attachment styles. International Education Studies,

14(9), 1-14.

Peck, N. F., Maude, S. P., & Brotherson, M. J. (2015). Understanding preschool teachers'

perspectives on empathy: A qualitative inquiry. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 43, 169-179.

Pekrun, R. (2021). Teachers need more than knowledge: Why motivation, emotion, and

self-regulation are indispensable. Educational Psychologist, 56, (4), 312-322.

Phillips, M., Lorie, A., Kelley, J., Gray, S. & Riess, H. (2012). Long-term effects of

empathy training in surgery residents: A one year follow-up study. European

Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, 1(2), 326-332.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969, 2000). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.

281
Poehlmann-Tynan, J. V., Vigna, A. B., Weymouth, L. A., Gerstein, E. D., Burnson, C.,

Zabransky, M., Lee, P., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2016). A pilot study of mindful

practices with economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Children's empathic and

self-regulatory behaviors. Mindfulness, 1-13.

Polek, E. (2008). Attachment in cultural context: Differences in attachment between

Eastern and Western Europeans. [Thesis fully internal (DIV), University of

Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences]. s.n. downloaded

10/10/24 https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/10275309/thesis_digital.pdf

Rashedi, R. N., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2019). Yoga and willful embodiment: A new

direction for improving education. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 725-734.

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011).

CSRP's impact on low-income preschoolers' pre academic skills: Self-regulation

as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 92(3), 62-78.

Reimer, V. P. (2019). Hidden children: Using children's literature to develop

understanding and empathy toward children of incarcerated parents. Language

and Literacy: A Canadian Educational E-Journal, 21(1), 98-121.

Riess, H. (2017). The science of empathy. Journal of Patient Experience, 4(2), 74-77.

Riess, H., Kelley, J.M., Bailey, R.W., Dunn, E.J., & Phillips M. (2012). Empathy training

for resident physicians: A randomized controlled trial of a neuroscience-informed

curriculum. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1280-86.

282
Riess, H., & Kraft-Todd, G. (2014). E.M.P.A.T.H.Y.: A tool to enhance nonverbal

communication between clinicians and their patients. Academic Medicine, 89(8),

1108-12.

Riess, H., & Neporent, L. (2018). The empathy effect: 7 neuroscience-based keys for

transforming the way we live, love, work, and connect across differences. Sounds

True.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children’s

lived experience. Developmental Review, 50, 5-15.

Romeo, R. R., Segaran, J., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S.T., West, M. R., Mackey, A. P.,

Yendiki, A., Rowe, M. L., & Babrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Language exposure relates

to structural neural connectivity in childhood. The Journal of Neuroscience,

38(36), 7870-7877.

Rosenbalm, K. D., & Murray, D. W. (2017). Promoting self-regulation in early

childhood: A practice brief. OPRE Brief #2017-79. Office of Planning, Research,

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Roskos, K. Christie, J. Widman, S. Holding, A. (2010). Three decades in: Priming for

meta-analysis in play-literacy research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,

10(1), 55-96.

283
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs in

motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press

Sak., R., Skutil, M., Sahin-Sak, I. T., Pavel, Z., Nas, E., & Herynkova, M. (2024). Czech

and Turkish preschool teachers’ compassion and psychological well-being. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 52, 1165-1179.

Salay, D. (2018). Walk in their shoes: How picture books and critical literacy instruction

can foster empathy in first grade students. [Master’s thesis, Drexel University].

https://scholar.google.com

Schweinhart, L. J. (2013). Long-term follow-up of a preschool experiment. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 9, 389-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9190-

Shiner, R. L., Buss, K.A., McClowry, S.G., Putnam, S. P., Saudino, K.J., & Zentner, M.

(2012). What is temperament now? Assessing progress in temperament research

on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Goldsmith et al. (1987). Child Development

Perspectives, (6)4, 436-44.

Sieghart, W. (2017). The poetry pharmacy: Tried-and-true prescriptions for the heart,

mind and soul. Penguin Random House.

Silva, J. (2022). Global mass shootings: Comparing the United States against developed

and developing countries. International Journal of Comparative and Applied

Criminal Justice, 1-24.

284
Skibbe, L. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. (2011). Schooling effects

on preschoolers' self-regulation, early literacy, and language growth. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 42-49.

Solomon, T., Plamondon, A., Hara, A., Finch, H., Gaco, X, Chaban, P., Huggins, L.,

Ferguson, B., & Tannock, R. (2018). A cluster randomized-controlled trial of the

impact of the Tools of the Mind curriculum in Canadian preschoolers. Frontiers

in Psychology, 8, 1-18.

Sparks, S.D. (2016, April 26). Emotions help steer students’ learning, studies find.

EducationWeek. retrieved November 2, 2024, from

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/emotions-help-steer-students-learning-studies

Sprecher, S. (2022). Trends over time in emerging adults’ self-reports of attachment

styles. Emerging Adulthood, 10(5), 1173-1178.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral

interventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations.

Exceptional Children, 86(2), 120-136. doi: 10.1177/0014402919855331

Su-Jeong, W., So Jung, K., Kayoun, C., & Minhee, K. (2021). Development of children's

perspective-taking and empathy through bullying-themed books and role-playing.

Journal of Research Childhood Education, 36(1), 96-111.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2024). 2024 KIDS Count Data Book: State trends in

child well-being. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved October 28, 2024

from https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-2024kidscountdatabook-2024.pdf

285
Thomas, R.M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Wadsworth.

Tie, Y.C., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design

framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-8.

Tracey, D. H. & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to

theories and models. The Guilford Press.

Vallotton, C., Cook, G.A., Chazen-Cohen, R., Decker, K.B., Gardner-Neblett, N.,

Lippard, C., & Harewood, T. (2019). The Collaborative for Understanding the

Pedagogy of Infant/Toddler Development: A cross-university, interdisciplinary

effort to transform a field through SoTL. In J. Friberg, J. & K. McKinney (Eds.),

Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning beyond the individual

classroom (pp. 107-131). Indiana University Press.

Vallotton, C.D., Brophy-Herb, H.E., Roggman, L., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2021). Working

well with babies: Comprehensive competencies for educators of infants and

toddlers. Red Leaf.

Vallotton, C. D., Torquati, J., Ispa, J., Chazan-Cohen, R. Henk, J., Fusaro, M., Peterson,

C. A., Roggman, L.A., Stacks, A. M., Cook, G., & Brophy-Herb, H. (2016).

Attachment predicts college students’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills for working

with infants, toddlers, and families. Early Education and Development, 27(2),

275-302. https://doi10.1080/10409289.2016.1087778

286
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. L. M., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003). Ontwikkeling en

evaluatie van de Hechtingstijllijst (HSL) [Development and evaluation of the

Attachment Styles Questionnaire]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en

haar Grensgebieden, 58, 95-102.

Virmani, E. A., Hatton-Bowers, H., McPherran Lombardi, C., Decker, K. B., King, E. K.,

Plata Potter, S. I., Vallotton, C. D., & The Collaborative for Understanding the

Pedagogy of Infant/toddler Development (CUPID). (2020). How are preservice

early childhood professionals’ mindfulness, reflective practice beliefs, and

individual characteristics associated with their developmentally supportive

responses to infants and toddlers? Early Childhood and Development, 31(7),

1052-1070.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

Weiland, C., Barata, C. M., & Yoshikawa, H. (2014). The co-occurring development of

executive function skills and receptive vocabulary in preschool-aged children: A

look at the direction of the developmental pathways. Infant and Child Development,

23(1), 4-21.

Wood, K.R. (2020). Investigating the relationship of preschool teacher beliefs and

practices for supporting children’s development of self-regulation. [Unpublished

study, Oakland University, Human Development and Family Studies, doctoral

program].

287
Zinsser, K.M., Denham, S. A., & Curby, T. W. (2018). Becoming a social and emotional

teacher: The heart of good guidance. Young Children, 73(4), 77-83.

Zinsser, K. M., Denham, S. A., Curby, T. W., & Shewark, E. A. (2015). “Practice what

you preach”: Teachers’ perceptions of emotional competence and emotionally

supportive classroom practices. Early Education and Development, 26(7), 899-

919.

Zinsser, K. M., Shewark, E. A., Denham, S. A., & Curby, T. W. (2014). A mixed-method

examination of preschool teacher beliefs about social–emotional learning and

relations to observed emotional support. Infant and Child Development, 23, 471-

93.

288
Footnotes
1
Other sources with consistent definitions and/or descriptions of self-regulation were

Blair and Raver (2014), Flook et al. (2015), Fuhs et al. (2013), Montroy et al. (2014),

Murray et al. (2015), and Raver et al. (2011).

2
Other sources with consistent definitions and/or descriptions of executive function were

Blair and Raver (2014), Flook et al. (2015), Montroy et al. (2014) and Weiland et al.

(2014).
3
Other research that found that self-regulation determines learning and, by extension,

human progress and survival was Bartik (2014), Blair and Raver (2014), Heckman

(2011), Heckman (2013) and Moffitt et al. (2011).

4
Other sources that described the intellectual assimilation and accommodation of

Piagetian adaptive learners were Crain (2011) and Ginsburg and Opper (1988).
5
Other sources that identified early childhood as a critical period of rapid development in

self-regulation and executive function were Fuhs et al. (2013), Fuhs et al. (2014), IOM

and NRC (2012), and NRC and IOM (2000).

6
Other sources that identified early childhood as a teachable capacity were Flook et al.

(2015) and Raver et al. (2011).

289
Appendices

290
Appendix A: Approval Letter from the Oakland University (OU) Institutional Review

Board (IRB)

291
Appendix B: Oakland University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approved Materials,

292
Appendix B: Email to Course Instructors – Approved by OU IRB

Dear Colleagues,

Please consider inviting your students in HDFS 211, 320, 321, 322, 424, 449, and 473 to
take an online survey about their beliefs, knowledge, and practices as preservice early
childhood professionals.

This research is for my doctoral study. I hope to collect survey data in March from 300
students enrolled in HDFS child development or early childhood education courses. I will
use insights from the study results to develop the courses I teach and contribute to
program planning.

Attached is a student recruitment letter that you may decide to post on your D2L course
site and/or a slide during a class session. If you wish, I can also briefly attend lecture to
refer students to information about the study. Alternatively or additionally, you can
provide students with the link and QR code below to the first section of the survey that
has information about the study. Please do not email students as that would be against
FERPA rules unless a student emailed you first requesting information.

If taking the survey may be one of your extra credit options:

• Please note that no identifying information will be collected through the survey.
This procedure is to further ensure student privacy and uncoerced decision
making to consent or not consent for survey responses to be used in the study,
because some students are or will be in classes that I teach.

o To receive extra credit, perhaps students could submit two screenshots,

i.e., of information at the top of the survey and the last screen thanking
them for taking the survey, as indication that they took it. Alternatively,
they could write a brief reflection, e.g., about how taking the survey
supported their reflective practices.

o There should be other extra credit options and the amount of extra credit
for taking the survey (but not necessarily giving consent for responses to
be used in the study) should be proportional to the other opportunities for
extra credit.

If students can take the survey as an extra credit option, please emphasize that:

• Allowing your survey responses to be used in the research study is entirely

optional and voluntary. You can take the survey for extra credit and either
consent or not consent for your responses to be used in the research study. Either
293
 way, you will still earn the extra credit. Also, anyone taking the survey can skip
questions or stop taking it if they are not comfortable. The decision to consent or
not consent for your survey responses to be used in the research study is
completely your choice.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions, suggestions, or concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes, Kellye Wood

https://oakland.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7OtFQ4RM81ubpHw

294
Appendix C: Student Recruitment Letter for Instructors of the Five Courses Not Taught

by the Principal Investigator – Approved by OU IRB

Dear Preservice Early Childhood Professionals:

I am Kellye Wood working under the direction of Tomoko Wakabayashi, Associate

Professor, Human Development and Child Studies, Oakland University.

I am conducting a research study to learn more about the beliefs, knowledge, and
practices of preservice early childhood professionals who are students in child
development or early childhood education courses. I will use the research results to
further develop courses that reflect the needs and interests of students.

I am recruiting students who are in early childhood courses at Michigan State University
to fill out an online survey. The survey will take approximately 35 minutes.

Your participation in this research study is voluntary. Whether or not you consent for
your survey responses to be used in the research study will not affect your course grade.
Anyone taking the survey can skip questions or stop taking it if they are not comfortable.
The decision to consent or not consent for your survey responses to be used in the
research study is entirely your choice. Your decision will not affect your relationship with
the researcher or Michigan State University.

The research will take place at Michigan State University during a class session if
applicable and voluntary or at a time and place of your choice.

To learn more about this research study, please see the information sheet available here
or at the beginning of the survey via:

https://oakland.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7OtFQ4RM81ubpHw

If you have any questions about the research, please contact me, Kellye Wood,
[email protected], 231-233-3945; or the faculty advisor for this project, Tomoko
Wakabayashi, [email protected], 248-370-3078.

Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, Kellye Wood

295
Appendix D: Written Announcement for the Two Courses Taught by the Principal

Investigator – Approved by OU IRB

Note: The following written message will be posted on the online course site and/or a
slide in a class session’s PowerPoint slide deck.
Tonight's in-class exercise will earn the standard eight points.
You will have an opportunity to take an online survey about your beliefs, knowledge, and
practices as a preservice early childhood professional. Through this activity, you may
gain further insights about yourself as an individual preparing to be a teacher which may,
in turn, help you develop your teaching philosophy that is due near the end of the
semester.
You will not be asked to provide identifying information in the survey, i.e., your name or
other personal details that collectively could identify who you are. Your responses are
anonymous.
Separate from and not required by the in-class exercise: You will be asked if your
anonymous survey responses can be used in a research study about the beliefs,
knowledge, and practices of preservice early childhood professionals. This participation
in the research study is entirely optional and no one will know who gave or did not give
permission. If you decide not to participate in the research study, it will not
negatively affect your course grade. Also, like anyone who takes the survey, you can
skip questions or stop participating, if you become uncomfortable. The decision to
participate or not in the research study has no impact on your course grade and is
completely your choice.

To help in deciding whether or not to allow your survey responses to be used in the
research study, please read the detailed information sheet available here or at the top of
the survey via:

https://oakland.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7OtFQ4RM81ubpHw

296
Appendix E: Information Sheet – Approved by OU IRB

Information Sheet for Exempt Research

Preservice Early Childhood Professional:
Beliefs, Knowledge, and Practices

Introduction
You are being asked to be in a research study that is being done by Kellye Wood under the
direction of Tomoko Wakabayashi, Associate Professor, Human Development and Child Studies,
Oakland University, the faculty advisor for this project.

Your decision to participate in this research study is voluntary. If you decide not to participate in
the research study, it will not negatively affect your course grade. You can choose to stop your
participation at any time or skip any part of the research study if you are not comfortable. Your
decision will not affect your present or future relationship with Oakland University, the
researcher, or Michigan State University.

What is the purpose of this study?

The purpose of this research study is to learn more about preservice early childhood
professionals’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices. Research results will be used to further develop
courses that reflect the needs and interests of students who are preservice early childhood
professionals.

Who can participate in this study?

You are being asked to participate in this research study because you are a student in a child
development or early childhood education course.

What do I have to do?

You will be asked to fill out an online survey.

Where will this study take place?

This research study will take place at Michigan State University during a class session if
applicable and voluntary or at a time and place that you choose.

How long will I be in the study?

Doing the survey will take you about 35 minutes.

Are there any risks to me?

For this research study, the potential risks are minimal. No identifiable data that can directly be
linked to you are collected.

Are there any benefits to me?

The possible benefits to you for participating in this research study are that you will gain further
insights about your beliefs, knowledge, and practices as an early childhood professional. There
may be no direct benefits to you, however, the results of the research study may benefit others in
the future.

297
Will I receive anything for participating?
You will not receive anything for participating in this research study.
What if I want to stop participating in this study?
If you want to stop participating in this research study, close your browser before completing and
submitting the survey. If the survey is submitted, it will not be possible to withdraw your data
from the research study.

Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?

Kellye Wood, [email protected], 231-233-3945; or the faculty advisor for this project,
Tomoko Wakabayashi, [email protected], 248-370-3078

For questions regarding your rights as a participant in human subject research, you may
contact the Oakland University Institutional Review Board, 248-370-4898.

If you choose to participate in this research, the online survey is available at:+

https://oakland.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7OtFQ4RM81ubpHw

298
Appendix F: Attachment Style Questionnaire (Polek, 2008; Hofstra & Van Oudenhoven,

2003) (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003; as cited in Mosterman & Hofstra,

2015)

Each style is scored as an average of its items. There is not an overall score, because
attachment style scores are interpreted relative to one another.

1 = Strongly Disagree – 5 = Strongly Agree

1 (S) I feel at ease in emotional relationships.

2 (F) I would like to be open to others but I feel that I
can’t trust other people.
3 (S) I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other
people become close.
4 (F) I would like to have close relationships with other
people but I find it difficult to fully trust them.
5 (D) I prefer that others are independent of me and I am
independent of them.
6 (P) I often wonder whether people like me.
7 (S) I avoid close ties.
8 (P) I have the impression that usually I like others
better than they like me.
9 (S) I trust other people and I like it when other people
can rely on me.
10 I am often afraid that other people don’t like me.
(P)
11 It is important to me to be independent.
(D)
12 (S) I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships
with other people.
13 (S) I feel at ease in intimate relationships.
14 I like to be self-sufficient.
(D)
15 I don’t worry whether people like me or not.
(P)
16 (S) I think it is important that people can rely on each
other.

299
 17 I don’t worry about being alone: I don’t need other
(D) people that strongly.
18 (F) I am afraid that I will be deceived when I get too
close with others.
19 I usually find other people more interesting than
(P) myself.
20 (S) I trust that others will be there for me when I need
them.
21 (F) I am wary to get engaged in close relationships
because I am afraid to get hurt.
22 It is important to me to know if others like me.
(P)

Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991) Attachment Style Prototypes:

Secure It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to

others. I am comfortable depending on others and having
others depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or
having others not accept me.
Dismissing I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is
very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient,
and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on
me.
Preoccupied I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I
often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would
like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I
sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I
value them.
Fearful I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want
emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust
others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry
that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to
others.

300
Polek (2008, Appendix 1) used the same 22-item ASQ:

301
Appendix G: State Self-Compassion Scale Long Form (Neff et al., 2021)

HOW I FEEL TOWARDS MYSELF RIGHT NOW

Think about a situation you are experiencing right now that is painful or difficult. It could
be some challenge in your life, or perhaps you are feeling inadequate in some way. Please
indicate how well each statement applies to how you are feeling toward yourself right
now as you think about this situation, using the following scale:

Not at all Very

true for me true for me
1 2 3 4 5

1. I’m giving myself the caring and tenderness I need.

2. I’m obsessing and fixating on everything that’s wrong.
3. I see my difficulties as part of life that everyone goes through.
4. I’m being pretty tough on myself.
5. I’m keeping my emotions in balanced perspective.
6. I feel separate and cut off from the rest of the world.
7. I’m being kind to myself.
8. I’m getting carried away with my feelings.
9. I'm remembering that there are lots of others in the world feeling like I am.
10. I’m being a bit cold-hearted towards myself.
11. I’m taking a balanced view of this painful situation.
12. I feel like I’m struggling more than others right now.
13. I’m being supportive toward myself.
14. I’m blowing this painful incident out of proportion.
15. I’m remembering that difficult feelings are shared by most people.
16. I feel intolerant and impatient toward myself.
17. I’m keeping things in perspective.
18. I’m feeling all alone right now.

SCORING KEY
Kindness: 1, 7, 13
Self-judgment (reverse scored): 4, 10, 16
Common humanity: 3, 9, 15
Isolation (reverse scored): 6, 12, 18
Mindfulness: 5, 11, 17
Over-identification (reverse scored): 2, 8, 14

To reverse score items (1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1).

302
To compute a total state self-compassion score: Take the mean of each subscale, then
compute a total mean (the average of the six subscale means).

When examining subscale scores, higher scores on the self-judgment, isolation and over-
identification scale indicate less self-compassion before reverse coding, and more self-
compassion after reverse coding. You can choose to report subscale scores with or
without reverse coding, but these three negative subscales must be reverse coded before
calculating a total self-compassion score.

Note: This is a supplemental material for the cited article available online: https://self-
compassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SCS-State-information.pdf.

303
Appendix H: Compassion Scale (Pommier et al., 2019)

Please read each statement carefully before answering. Please answer according to what
really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be.
Indicate how often you behave in the stated manner, using the following scale:

Almost Almost
never always
1 2 3 4 5

1. I pay careful attention when other people talk to me about their troubles.
2. If I see someone going through a difficult time, I try to be caring toward that person.
3. I am unconcerned with other people’s problems.
4. I realize everyone feels down sometimes, it is part of being human.
5. I notice when people are upset, even if they don’t say anything.
6. I like to be there for others in times of difficulty.
7. I think little about the concerns of others.
8. I feel it’s important to recognize that all people have weaknesses and no one’s perfect.
9. I listen patiently when people tell me their problems.
10. My heart goes out to people who are unhappy.
11. I try to avoid people who are experiencing a lot of pain.
12. I feel that suffering is just a part of the common human experience.
13. When people tell me about their problems, I try to keep a balanced perspective on the
situation.
14. When others feel sadness, I try to comfort them.
15. I can’t really connect with other people when they’re suffering.
16. Despite my differences with others, I know that everyone feels pain just like me.

SCORING KEY
Kindness items: 2, 6, 10, 14
Common Humanity items: 4, 8, 12, 16
Mindfulness items: 1, 5, 9, 13
Indifference items (reverse scored): 3, 7, 11, 15 To reverse score items (1=5, 2=4, 3=3,
4=2, 5=1).

Subscale scores are computed by calculating the mean of the four subscale item
responses. To compute a total compassion score, reverse score the indifference items then
take a grand mean of all items. When examining subscale scores, higher scores on
indifference items indicate less compassion before reverse coding, and more compassion
after reverse coding. You can choose to report indifference scores with or without reverse
coding, but items must be reverse coded before calculating a total compassion score.

304
Appendix I: Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al., 2006; as cited in

Baer et al., 2008)

305
306
Note: Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/five-facet-mindfulness-

questionnaire-ffmq/

307
Appendix J: Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (Frank et al., 2016)

Note: In the study, I will use the subscale for interpersonal mindfulness, i.e., the last five

items below.

Since early childhood teachers more often refer to students as children, that wording

change will be made as applicable in the interpersonal subscale, as follows.

• Even when it makes me uncomfortable, I allow children in my class to

express their feelings.
• I listen carefully to the ideas of children in my class, even when I disagree
with them.
• I am aware of how my moods affect the way I treat children in my class.
• When I’m upset with children in my class, I notice how I am feeling
before I take action.
• When I am upset with my class, I calmly tell them how I am feeling.

308
Appendix K: Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire (Berking et al., 2008;

Grant et al., 2018)

For each of the following statements, choose from 1 for "Not at all" to 5 for "Almost
always" to best describe what has been true for you in the last week.

5-point Likert scale from “Not at all” to “Almost always;” 9 components; subscale
scores; overall score from averaging total items

In the last week… Component

1 I was able to consciously pay attention to my feelings. Awareness (AW)
2 I could consciously bring about positive feelings. Modification (MOD)
3 I understood my emotional reactions. Understanding (UN)
4 I could endure my negative feelings. Tolerance (TOL)
5 I was able to accept my negative feelings. Acceptance (AC)
6 I could have labelled my feelings. Clarity (CL)
7 I had a clear physical perception of my feelings. Sensations (SEN)
8 I did what I wanted to do, even if I had to face negative Ready to
feelings on the way. Confront (CN)
9 I tried to reassure myself during distressing situations. Self support (SS)
10 I was able to influence my negative feelings. Modification (MOD)
11 I knew what my feelings meant. Understanding (UN)
12 I could focus on my negative emotions if necessary. Awareness (AW)
13 I knew what emotions I was feeling in the moment. Clarity (CL)
14 I consciously noticed when my body reacted towards Sensations (SEN)
emotionally charged situations in a particular way.
15 I tried to cheer myself up in emotionally distressing situations. Self support (SS)
16 I did what I intended to do despite my negative feelings. Ready to
Confront (CN)
17 I was OK with my feelings, even if they were negative. Acceptance (AC)
18 I was certain that I would be able to tolerate even intense Tolerance (TOL)
negative feelings.
19 I was able to experience my feelings consciously. Awareness (AW)
20 I was aware of why I felt the way I felt. Understanding (UN)
21 I knew that I was able to influence my feelings. Modification (MOD)
22 I pursued goals that were important to me, even if I thought Confront (CN)
doing so would trigger or intensify negative feelings.
23 I was able to experience my negative feelings without Acceptance (AC)
immediately trying to fight them off.
24 My physical sensations were a good indication of how I was Sensations (SEN)
feeling.
309
 25 I was clear about what emotions I was experiencing. Clarity (CL)
26 I could tolerate my negative feelings. Tolerance (TOL)_
27 I supported myself in emotionally distressing situations. Self support SS

[Note from KRWood: Resilience was the label instead of Tolerance; and Self Support
was referred to as Compassionate Self Support in prior language.]

310
Appendix L: Diener Flourishing Scale – Psychological Well-Being (American College

Health Association, 2019)

311
**********

The Flourishing Scale

Below are eight statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1–7 scale
below, indicate your agreement with each item by indicating that response for each
statement.
7. Strongly agree
6. Agree
5. Slightly agree
4. Mixed or neither agree nor disagree
3. Slightly disagree
2. Disagree
1. Strongly disagree

• I lead a purposeful and meaningful life

• My social relationships are supportive and rewarding
• I am engaged and interested in my daily activities
• I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others
• I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me
• I am a good person and live a good life
• I am optimistic about my future
• People respect me

Scoring: Add the responses, varying from 1 to 7, for all eight items. The possible range
of scores is from 8 (lowest possible) to 56 (highest possible). A high score represents a
person with many psychological resources and strengths.

Permission for Using the Scales: Although copyrighted, the SPANE and Flourishing
Scale may be used as long as proper credit is given. Permission is not needed to employ the
scales and requests to use the scales will not be answered on an individual basis because
permission is granted here. This article should be used as the citation for the scales, and this
note provides evidence that permission to use the scales is granted. Copyright by Ed Diener
and Robert Biswas-Diener, January 2009.
Hone, L., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Flourishing
Scale in a New Zealand sample. Social Indicators Research, 119(2), 1031-1045.

312
Appendix M: Basic Psychological Need Satsifaction Scale (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne,

2003)

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale

Scale Description

Central to self-determination theory is the concept of basic psychological needs that are
assumed to the innate and universal. According to the theory, these needs--the needs for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness--must be ongoingly satisfied for people to
develop and function in healthy or optimal ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Many of the
propositions of SDT derive from the postulate of fundamental psychological needs, and
the concept has proven essential for making meaningful interpretations of a wide range of
empirically isolated phenomena.

This 21-item scale addresses need satisfaction in general in one’s life and was adapted
from a more broadly used measure of need satisfaction at work (Deci, Ryan, Gagné,
Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser,
Davey, & Ryan, 1992). The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale in General has
been used, for example, in Gagné (2003) and Thorgersen-Ntoumani, Ntoumanis,
Cumming, and Chatzisarantis, (2011).

Please use the following references when using this scale: (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné,
2003)

Feelings I Have

Please read each of the following items carefully, thinking about how it relates to your
life, and then indicate how true it is for you. Use the following scale to respond:

1. I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life.

2. I really like the people I interact with.
3. Often, I do not feel very competent.
4. I feel pressured in my life.
5. People I know tell me I am good at what I do.
6. I get along with people I come into contact with.
7. I pretty much keep to myself and don't have a lot of social contacts.
8. I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions.
313
9. I consider the people I regularly interact with to be my friends.
10. I have been able to learn interesting new skills recently.
11. In my daily life, I frequently have to do what I am told.
12. People in my life care about me.
13. Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do.
14. People I interact with on a daily basis tend to take my feelings into consideration.
15. In my life I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
16. There are not many people that I am close to.
17. I feel like I can pretty much be myself in my daily situations.
18. The people I interact with regularly do not seem to like me much.
19. I often do not feel very capable.
20. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my
daily life.
21. People are generally pretty friendly towards me. 8)88

Scoring information. Form three subscale scores, one for the degree to which the person
experiences satisfaction of each of the three needs. To do that, you must first reverse
score all items that are worded in a negative way (i.e., the items shown below with (R)
following the items number). To reverse score an item, simply subtract the item response
from 8. Thus, for example, a 2 would be converted to a 6. Once you have reverse scored
the items, simply average the items on the relevant subscale. They are:

Autonomy: 1, 4(R), 8, 11(R), 14, 17, 20(R)

Competence: 3(R), 5, 10, 13, 15(R), 19(R)

Relatedness: 2, 6, 7(R), 9, 12, 16(R), 18(R), 21

Note: Retrieved from https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/basic-psychological-need-

satisfaction-scales/

314
Appendix N. Protocols for the Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Scoring of Vignette

Narrative Responses

How to Evaluate the Quality of and Score Narrative Responses

Background Information:

• The framework for evaluating teacher narrative responses to scenarios where

children experience self-regulatory difficulties is teacher empathy and
developmental support for children to self-regulate.

• To empathize, a teacher must both cognitively understand and emotionally be able

to imagine how children feel. When teacher empathy motivates their positive
actions to help children self-regulate, this enacted empathy indicates compassion
at a high level.

• Building children’s self-regulatory capacity and skills is a long-term

developmental process that requires not only teachers’ developmentally
appropriate responses but, explicitly, their developmentally supportive responses.
Teachers’ developmentally supportive responses boost children’s self-regulatory
growth, as teachers deliberately co-regulate with children in the moment – the
short term – so that children can increasingly self-regulate in the long term.

• To self-regulate, children must

1. become situationally aware of their emotions and actions,

2. modulate emotion with thought, and
3. choose a response or next action that is effective for them and, if
applicable, others.

This 3-part process can be challenging for children, especially when they have
“big feelings,” whether these emotions carry a positive or negative charge for
them. Children often need support from teachers to navigate the three
overlapping parts or steps in the self-regulatory process.

• Corresponding to these three self-regulatory steps, teachers need to be able to

1. empathize to positively help children become aware of their emotions and

actions,
2. assist children to cognitively connect their emotions with antecedents, and
3. help children to generate an effective response or next action.
315
 These are the three indicators of the quality of teacher support for which each
teacher response to a scenario will be evaluated..

• Raters will score each response on the three indicators of the teacher’s
developmentally supportive responses for child self-regulation. Each indicator
will be scored on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 for “very weak or no evidence”
to 5 for “very strong evidence.” The three scores will be averaged for an overall
score for that teacher’s level of developmental supportiveness for the respective
scenario. The three indicators are:

Indicator 1 Empathize with Child

Indicator 2 Connect Emotion and Antecedent for Child

Indicator 3 Generate Response with Child

Directions for Scoring:

Indicator 1: Empathize with Child

Ideally, the teacher began the interaction by demonstrating recognition of the child’s
physical or emotional cues about how the child feels and acceptance of the child’s
emotion. For example, the teacher observed that “Your arms are folded and you’re
frowning,” “Your tears tell me you’re sad” or “You’re upset.” In this way, the teacher
connected with the child as an initial support by demonstrating cognitive and emotional
understanding of the child’s perspective, even if in subsequent support the teacher will
need to guide the child to a more effective way to respond to their emotions.

Notes:

• This Indicator coincides with the start of the self-regulatory process and challenge
for children of becoming more situationally aware of their emotions and actions.

• For the scenario where KC became frustrated because the puzzle piece would not
fit and threw it, but no one was hit or became upset:

o The teacher should first focus on KC’s emotion. If instead the teacher’s
first or only focus was that KC threw the puzzle piece (e.g., by saying,
“You threw the puzzle piece. I’m concerned it could have hit someone. Go
pick it up.”), the teacher did not begin with KC’s emotional perspective,
and this empathy indicator should be scored as a 1.

316
 ▪ However, if the teacher then recognized or named KC’s emotion
(e.g., by saying, “You’re frustrated”) score this indicator as a 2 for
an attempt at empathizing.

o The teacher must focus first on KC’s emotion to score a 3 or higher, based
on your assessment of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.

• For the scenario where EM ran by and accidentally knocked down LR’s block
tower then started playing elsewhere:

o The teacher should respond first to LR who was upset and started crying.
If instead the teacher interacted first with EM, score this empathy indicator
as a 1.
▪ However, if the teacher then responded to LR by recognizing or
naming LR’s emotion, score this indicator as a 2 for an attempt at
empathizing.

o The teacher must focus first on LR’s emotion to score a 3 or higher, based
on your assessment of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.

• For the scenario where the new child MH cries when their parent leaves:

o If the teacher did not focus on MH’s emotion, e.g., by naming it and
comforting MH, but only tried to distract, re-direct, or chastise MH, score
this indicator as a 1.

o If the teacher only asked MH if they wanted to be comforted or left on

their own (e.g., to “be alone,” “have space” or “go to the calm corner”) but
then did not recognize or name the emotion, comfort MH, or at least stay
nearby to provide nonverbal support, score this indicator as a 2 for an
attempt at empathizing.

o The teacher must focus first on MH’s emotion, e.g., by recognizing or

naming it and comforting MH, to score a 3 or higher, based on your
assessment of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.
Directions for Scoring:

Indicator 2: Connect Emotion and Antecedent for Child

Ideally, the teacher positively scaffolded the child in regulating their emotions, i.e., by
helping the child not only become more aware of and identify feelings but explicitly
linking these to their cause or precipitating factor. For example, the teacher not only
317
named the child’s feeling, e.g., “You’re mad,” “You’re sad,” or “You’re upset” but
connected it to the reason, e.g., feeling angry because the puzzle piece did not fit, upset
because a classmate ran into your block tower and it fell over, or sad because it is hard to
say goodbye when a parent leaves.
Note:
• This Indicator coincides with the need for children to modulate their emotions
with thought in the self-regulatory process.

• For the scenario where KC became frustrated because the puzzle piece would not
fit and threw it, but no one was hit or became upset:

o If the teacher focused first on the thrown puzzle piece but then not only
names but connects KC’s emotion with the antecedent, score this indicator
as a 2 or 3, depending on your assessment of how well the teacher did this
based on the evidence.

o If the teacher focused first on KC’s emotion and not only names but
connects it with the antecedent, score this indicator as a 4 or 5, depending
on your assessment of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.

• For the scenario where two children were involved, i.e., EM Knocks over a Block
Tower:

o If the teacher did not respond first to LR who was most in distress but then
interacts with LR and not only names but connects LR’s emotion with the
antecedent, score this indicator as a 2 or 3, depending on your assessment
of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.

o If the teacher responded first to LR and not only names but connects LR’s
emotion with the antecedent, score this indicator as a 4 or 5, depending on
your assessment of how well the teacher did this based on the evidence.

• For the scenario where the new child MH cried when their parent left:

o If the teacher names MH’s emotion and connects it to the antecedent but
also makes a minimizing or dismissive comment, e.g., “you’ll be fine,”
score this indicator as a 2 or 3, depending on your assessment of the
evidence.

o If the teacher names MH’s emotion and connects it to the antecedent,

score this as a 4 or 5, depending on your assessment of how well the
teacher did this based on the evidence.
318
Directions for Scoring:

Indicator 3: Generate Response with Child

Ideally, the teacher problem solves with the child to generate and choose an emotionally
satisfying and situationally effective next step or action for the child and, if applicable,
others. Examples of effective solutions are:

• KC turns the puzzle piece this way and that way to fit it into the frame or asks a
classmate or teacher for help rather than throwing the piece.

• LR tells EM who ran into/knocked down LR’s block tower that LR was upset by
that; EM offers to help LR rebuild the block tower; or EM plans to walk more
slowly around or further away from people’s block towers, perhaps even
practicing (e.g., by playfully pretending to navigate around an obstacle course).

• MH makes a card to give their parent later upon return or MH holds their family
photo or keeps it with them while playing.
Note:
• This Indicator coincides with an optimal outcome and desired result of the self-
regulatory process, i.e., a next step or response that is positive and meaningful to
the child, and if applicable, others.

• If the teacher directed or told the child what to do without any discussion with the
child to generate a solution, and it was likely not an emotionally satisfying and
situationally effective “solution” for the child and others (if applicable), score this
indicator as a 1.

• If the teacher directed or told the child what to do without any discussion with the
child, but that idea or choice of ideas was likely an emotionally satisfying and
situationally effective solution for the child, and others (if applicable), score this
indicator as a 2 or 3, depending on your assessment of how well the teacher did
this based on the evidence.

• If the teacher engaged the child in discussion to generate a solution that was likely
emotionally satisfying and situationally effective for the child and others (if
applicable), score this indicator as a 4.

• If the teacher engaged the child in discussion to generate at least two solutions,
i.e., choices, that were likely emotionally satisfying and situationally effective for
the child and others (if applicable), score this indicator as a 5.

319
 Anchor Responses for Scenarios:

Below are examples of low-, medium, and -high quality responses.

Scenario Low Quality Medium Quality High

(e.g., a 1 or 2) (e.g., a 3) Quality
(e.g., a 4 or 5)
Child Throws a "You threw that toy. I'm "It seems as though you are Walk over child, get down to
Toy: worried that it hurt someone, frustrated. Don't throw the their level. I notice that you
or that it will break. Pick it puzzle pieces, you could hit are feeling frustrated and
KC is trying to up and apologize." someone and hurt them. Let's threw the puzzle piece.
make a wooden try and fit your piece Throwing the puzzle piece is
puzzle piece fit Indicator 1 together.” unsafe and could hurt
into the frame by Empathize with Child: someone. We will find a
pushing it harder score of 1 Indicator 1 safer way to release your
and harder. Empathize with Child: frustration. After, I would
Suddenly, KC Indicator 2 5 have the child walk over and
throws the piece Connect Emotion with pick up the puzzle piece and
with force, just Antecedent for Child: Indicator 2 we would generate ideas
missing another score of 1 Connect Emotion with together that would help
child’s head. KC Antecedent for Child: them feel less frustrated like
folds her arms Indicator 3 1 taking a deep breath and
across her chest, Generate Solution with trying to finish the puzzle
frowns, and Child: Indicator 3 again.
scrunches her score of 1 Generate Solution with
eyebrows. Child: Indicator 1
Average of scores = 1 2 Empathize with Child:
5
Average = 2.66
Indicator 2
Connect Emotion with
Antecedent for Child:
2

Indicator 3
Generate Solution with
Child:
3

Average = 3.33

320
 Scenario Low Quality Medium Quality High
(e.g., a 1 or 2) (e.g., a 3) Quality
(e.g., a 4 or 5)
Child Knocks 1st Example: I would first go to EM and I would walk over to LR and
Down Another EM, you need to go back and say "You were running say I notice they are crying. I
Child's Block apologize for knocking their through the classroom, and would ask them what has
Tower: tower down. you knocked down LR's made them feel this way. I
tower. He is sad. You can hope they would tell me that
During playtime, Indicator 1 continue to play somewhere EM knocked over their
EM hurries to a Empathize with Child: else after you help pick it up. tower. I would walk over to
center across the score of 1 Then I will talk to LR and EM, bring them to the block
room. EM cuts say "I noticed you were very area. I would say, "LR is
through the Indicator 2 upset when EM knocked upset because you knocked
block area and Connect Emotion with your tower over, I do not down the tower they were
bumps into LR's Antecedent for Child: think that was her goal. building. Next time you walk
tower, knocking score of 1 When things like that happen through the block room, be
it down. LR its helpful to say, EM you more careful to the others
yells, “No!” and Indicator 3 knocked over my tower and around you to make sure you
thrusts a fist out Generate Solution with that made me feel upset. do not harm them or break
at EM who has Child: what they are building. Help
not stopped score of 1 Indicator 1 LR clean up the blocks or
moving. LR cries Empathize with Child: help LR rebuild their tower,
loudly as EM Average of scores = 1 score of 2 then you can go back to the
begins to play area you want to play in."
elsewhere. 2nd Example: Indicator 2
First, I would check on LR Connect Emotion with Indicator 1
and ensure that they did not Antecedent for Child: Empathize with Child:
get physically hurt. Then I score of 3 4
would have EM come back
to the block area to see that Indicator 3 Indicator 2
their running caused the Generate Solution with Connect Emotion with
blocks to fall and that hurt Child: Antecedent for Child:
their classmate's feelings. score of 3 4

Indicator 1 Average of scores = 2.66 Indicator 3

Empathize with Child: Generate Solution with
2 Child:
3
Indicator 2
Connect Emotion with Average = 3.66
Antecedent for Child:
2

Indicator 3
Generate Solution with
Child:
1
Average = 1.66

321
 Scenario Low Quality Medium Quality High
(e.g., a 1 or 2) (e.g., a 3) Quality
(e.g., a 4 or 5)
New Child 1st Example: "You're upset that your "MH, you are upset because
Cries: I would do what other parents left. I know that can your parents have left. I
teachers have taught me: to be hard, but they will be back wonder if you would like to
New child MH ignore the child and not later today. Would you like come with me to build a
started preschool coddle them too much. Just to look at photos of you and tower together, or work on
3 weeks ago. say “mom will be back soon” your parents?" some artwork to make for
Many mornings, and redirect attention. your parents when they come
after MH's Indicator 1 back to pick you up after
parent leaves, Indicator 1 Empathize with Child: school."
MH cries a long Empathize with Child: 5
time and does score of 1 Indicator 1
not want to join Indicator 2 Empathize with Child:
into class Indicator 2 Connect Emotion with 5
activities. Today, Connect Emotion with Antecedent for Child:
as MH's parent Antecedent for Child: 3 Indicator 2
walks out the score of 1 Connect Emotion with
door, MH again Indicator 3 Antecedent for Child:
begins to cry. Indicator 3 Generate Solution with 5
Generate Solution with Child:
Child: 2 Indicator 3
score of 1 Generate Solution with
Average = 3.33 Child:
Average of scores = 1 3

2nd Example: Average = 4.33

I would ask the child if they
are okay, and if they want me
to support them or if they
want to be left alone. I would
encourage to play with
something.

Indicator 1
Empathize with Child:
score of 2

Indicator 2
Connect Emotion with
Antecedent for Child:
score of 1

Indicator 3
Generate Solution with
Child:
score of 2

Average of scores = 1.66

322
 ProQuest Number: 31936284

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by
ProQuest LLC a part of Clarivate ( 2025 ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA