SELF-REGULATION, EMOTION EXPRESSION & CLASSROOM ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ongoing debate regarding the interplay of attention, behavior and emotions in selfregulation, with little consensus on the definition of the construct itself (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Raver et al., 2009). However, for the purposes of the current investigation, I will define self-regulation as the internally-directed capacity to regulate attention, affect and behavior with the goal of responding effectively to both environmental and internal cues and social demands (Blair & Razza, 2007; Calkins & Fox, 2002; Calkins & Howse, 2004; Raver et al., 2009). This definition stems from previous work on early emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al., 1998; McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Rimm- Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000; Tobin & Graziano, 2000), but also more generally applies to the construct of self-regulation (Baumeister, Leith, Muraven, & Bratslavsky, 1998). Although there has been some common ground found regarding the impact of selfregulation on classroom and academic outcomes, there remains significant debate over how the facets of self-regulation are best conceptualized (Zelazo, Qu, & Kesek, 2010). Up to this point, much of the self-regulation literature has often emphasized three distinct facets of self-regulation: effortful control, executive control and compliance (Baumeister et al., 1998; Calkins & Marcovitch, 2010). However, recent concern has been expressed regarding the accuracy of these theoretical conceptions, because these conceptualizations neither sufficiently nor clearly address the discrete cognitive and affective functions of self-regulation. To assist in this discussion, the disparate literatures for the study of regulation and executive control have begun to unite, acknowledging the interdependence between 7
these self-regulatory functions (Calkins & Marcovitch, 2010). As a result, some investigators have suggested that a child’s regulatory ability may be more simply conceptualized as cognitive control, or “executive control” (Blair & Razza, 2007; Carlson, 2005; Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, & Zelazo, 2005; Zelazo & Müller, 2002), while also giving attention to the role emotion plays in executive control. The current investigation will heed this suggestion, and attempt to take into account the role that both cognition and emotion play in the processes of self-regulation via differentiation of cognitive control into “cool” and “hot” executive control. When considering the existing research, it seems likely that both cool and hot executive control involve the same basic cognitive processes – namely, attention and inhibitory prepotent responses – and most situations necessitating self-regulation require a combination of hot and cool executive control. The distinction between the two is a matter of degree, where the nature of executive control varies from being mostly cognitive in nature, gradually including motivational and affective responses (Manes et al., 2002). Although hot and cool executive control are related, the unique aspects of each differentially predict emotional, behavioral, and temperamental characteristics in children, suggesting a distinction is useful (Hongwanishkul et al., 2005; Zelazo et al., 2010). Cool executive control. Cool executive control includes the processes “required for the conscious control of thought and action” (Happaney, Zelazo, & Stuss, 2004, p. 1). Hence, the cool regulatory processes of executive control are thought to involve monitoring and inhibiting behavior, planning, and problem solving (Carlson, 2005; 8
Page 1 and 2: SELF-REGULATION IN PRESCHOOL CHILDR
Page 3 and 4: This work is licensed under a Creat
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements I would like to ac
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table Page 1 Summary
Page 9 and 10: List of Abbreviations AP ATL AVE CM
Page 11 and 12: child’s on-task involvement, gend
Page 13 and 14: Shields, 2004) and exhibit more pos
Page 15 and 16: support and caregiving may serve as
Page 17: care - which will be used as a prox
Page 21 and 22: Kaufmann et al., 2000). In fact, re
Page 23 and 24: “activated”. The current framew
Page 25 and 26: eginning of preschool or child care
Page 27 and 28: such as family problems, lower pare
Page 29 and 30: Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 20
Page 31 and 32: significantly behind their peers in
Page 33 and 34: environments, which may be further
Page 35 and 36: to suggest that there is noted soci
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 3: Statement of Problem Ove
Page 39 and 40: potential gender and socioeconomic
Page 41 and 42: Chapter 4: Research Questions Resea
Page 43 and 44: children’s demonstration of learn
Page 45 and 46: Kochanska and colleagues (2000) sug
Page 47 and 48: in poverty are more likely than the
Page 49 and 50: Miller et al., 2004). I am confiden
Page 51 and 52: the difference between the slow and
Page 53 and 54: when other kids are absent, seeks c
Page 55 and 56: The measure yields three reliable l
Page 57 and 58: analysis, and principal components
Page 59 and 60: Vinzi, et al., 2010). Without satis
Page 61 and 62: ehaviors. However, cool executive c
Page 63 and 64: diminished, where on-task involveme
Page 65 and 66: that although self-regulation is im
Page 67 and 68: from the current model. Although th
Page 69 and 70:
In addition to the moderation of ge
Page 71 and 72:
child no longer being affiliated wi
Page 73 and 74:
produced a model linking self-regul
Page 75 and 76:
demonstrate difficulty with self-re
Page 77 and 78:
academic success, but to demand tha
Page 79 and 80:
Table 2 Outer Model and Final R 2 s
Page 81 and 82:
Table 3 Inner Model LV Correlations
Page 83 and 84:
Table 5 Significance of Moderating
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 2: Final partial least squar
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 3b: Moderated Model - Female
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 4b: Moderated Model - Head S
Page 91 and 92:
Once the child is in position: “R
Page 93 and 94:
4) 2 taps 8) 2 taps 12) 1 tap 16) 1
Page 95 and 96:
“Okay, now let’s build a really
Page 97 and 98:
If the child asks if s/he is sortin
Page 99 and 100:
If child offers you a turn: “Than
Page 101 and 102:
If child waits for the timer, “Ni
Page 103 and 104:
** ** TIMER/COUNTDOWN: Set the time
Page 105 and 106:
If child waits the full length of t
Page 107 and 108:
2= Certainly Applies adjust7 Is eas
Page 109 and 110:
adjust23 Accepts teacher’s author
Page 111 and 112:
1= Applies Sometimes 2= Certainly A
Page 113 and 114:
Appendix 3: Preschool Learning Beha
Page 115 and 116:
Attitude Towards Learning Attention
Page 117 and 118:
N/A Invents silly ways of doing thi
Page 119 and 120:
References Adelman, H.S., & Taylor,
Page 121 and 122:
Bronson, M.B., Tivnan, T., & Seppan
Page 123 and 124:
Denham, S.A., Blair, K.A., & DeMuld
Page 125 and 126:
Fabes, R.A., Martin, C.L. Hanish, L
Page 127 and 128:
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut
Page 129 and 130:
Lin, H., Lawrence, F.R., & Gorrell,
Page 131 and 132:
Normandeau, S., & Guay, F. (1998).
Page 133 and 134:
Rothbart, M.K., Ahadi, S.A., & Hers
Page 135 and 136:
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading compr
Page 137:
Curriculum Vitae Todd M. Wyatt grad
show all

SELF-REGULATION, EMOTION EXPRESSION & CLASSROOM ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?