| Literature DB >> 33086643 |
Jacqueline Francis1, Tan-Chyuan Chin1, Dianne Vella-Brodrick1.
Abstract
Wellbeing literacy (WL) may be the missing ingredient required to optimally enhance or enable positive psychology intervention (PPI) effectiveness. This study involved Victorian government funded primary schools, including two rural, two regional, and two city schools; participants included 20 classroom teachers and 131 grade five and six primary school students. A brief online PPI was implemented by teachers for 10-15 min, three times per week, for six weeks. This paper examines quantitative data collected pre and post the six week intervention, and qualitative data gathered in week one of the intervention regarding intervention effectiveness. The aim is to examine if a brief online PPI effectively builds intentional emotional vocabulary use, and to discuss how on-line PPIs can be used in public health to improve young people's WL. Considering evaluations of process effectiveness and outcome measures related to student emotional vocabulary use, results tentatively suggest that online PPIs can positively impact emotional vocabulary capability and intentionality. Multimodal communication was exercised during the PPI, suggesting that the brief online PPI format may provide a valuable tool to promote student WL.Entities:
Keywords: communication; effectiveness; emotional-literacy; implementation science; positive education; positive psychology; student-emotional-literacy; wellbeing; wellbeing-literacy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33086643 PMCID: PMC7589636 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Participants.
| School | Number of Classes | Number of Teachers | Number of Students | Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 39 | Country Victoria |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 18 | Country Victoria |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 19 | Regional |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 22 | Regional |
| 5 | 3 | 3 | 15 | City |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 18 | City |
Note: Number of students listed is the number of students with signed consent who completed both pre and post emotional literacy survey data. Two additional teachers initially provided signed consent; however, these two teachers shared their classes and were not allocated to run the PPI during their teaching days. Data for these two teachers was therefore not collected.
Training time of teachers self-reporting using the training component.
| Time Spent Training | Number of Teachers | Percentage of Teachers |
|---|---|---|
| <10 min | 2 | 15% |
| 10–20 min | 6 | 46% |
| 20–30 min | 4 | 31% |
| 30+ min | 1 | 8% |
Note: percentages based on teachers (n = 13) self-reporting using the training component.
Teacher rating of overall positive psychology intervention (PPI) experience.
| Experience Rating | Number of Teachers | Percentage of Teachers |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 6.25% |
| 1 | 0 | 0% |
| 2 | 0 | 0% |
| 3 | 0 | 0% |
| 4 | 0 | 0% |
| 5 | 1 | 6.25% |
| 6 | 4 | 25% |
| 7 | 5 | 31.25% |
| 8 | 2 | 12.5% |
| 9 | 1 | 2.25% |
| 10 | 2 | 12.5% |
Note: percentages based on teachers (n = 16) self-reporting. Scores range from 0 = no experience at all, to 10 = fantastic experience.
Figure 1Emotions vocabulary and metaphor brainstorm.
Figure 2Student pleasant high energy emotion vocabulary pre- (left) and post- (right) results.
Figure 3Student unpleasant high energy emotion vocabulary pre- (left) and post- (right) results.
Pre- and post-measurement percentages for pleasant and unpleasant high-energy vocabulary scores.
| Pleasant or Unpleasant High-Energy Words | Pre- and Post-Measurement Percentages | 10/10 Correct | Zero Correct | Errors Present |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pleasant high-energy words | Pre-measurement percentages | 14.8% | 15.3% | 28% |
| Post-measurement percentages | 11.7% | 2.7% | 17.7% | |
| Unpleasant high-energy words | Pre-measurement percentages | 13.2% | 18% | 27% |
| Post-measurement percentages | 14.3% | 7.5% | 8.8% |
Note: Post-measure n = 147 (78% response rate compared to pre-measurement data).
T-test comparing correct and incorrect pleasant and unpleasant emotion vocabulary pre- and post-scores.
| Pleasant | Paired Data | Mean | Standard Deviation | t | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Eta Square Effect Size (ES) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pleasant | Correct pleasant | 0.252 | 3.572 | 0.807 | 0.421 | 0.03 small ES |
| Incorrect pleasant | 0.328 | 1.769 | 2.124 | 0.036 * | ||
| Total pleasant | 0.580 | 3.863 | 1.719 | 0.088 | ||
| Intentionality pleasant | −0.076 | 4.106 | −0.21 | 832 | ||
| Unpleasant | Correct unpleasant | 0.092 | 3.640 | 0.288 | 0.774 | 0.09 moderate ES |
| Incorrect unpleasant | 0.443 | 1.382 | 3.667 | 0.000 *** | ||
| Total unpleasant | 0.534 | 3.736 | 1.637 | 0.104 | ||
| Intentionality unpleasant | −0.351 | 4.046 | −0.993 | 0.322 |
Note: Paired data indicated significant results for incorrect pleasant vocabulary use and incorrect unpleasant vocabulary, both reduced over time. A greater effect size was evident for change in incorrect unpleasant vocabulary use compared to incorrect pleasant vocabulary use. *** = p < 0.001, * = p < 0.05, p > 0.05 = non sig. n = 131.