<%BANNER%>

Effects of Family, Schools, and Community Contexts on Children's Self-Regulation, Competence in Mathematics and Reading,...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043657/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Family, Schools, and Community Contexts on Children's Self-Regulation, Competence in Mathematics and Reading, and Social And Emotional Adjustment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Useche, Ana C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: achievement -- children -- cognitive -- community -- elementary -- emotional -- parenting -- practices -- regulation -- school -- self-regulation
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Experiences in the first years of schooling set the trajectory for students' educational success or failure. In particular, children's ability to regulate their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions will at least partially determine whether they succeed in school. Despite the critically important role of self-regulation in children's social adjustment and academic success, little is known about the influence of the context in which children develop their capacity to self-regulate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the context has a differential influence on emotional and cognitive regulation. In this dissertation I used ecological theory to develop a model to investigate whether family, school, and community contexts have the potential to influence children's emotional and cognitive regulation. I also examined whether these regulation components affect children's academic competence in mathematics and reading and social and emotional adjustment. I used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) dataset to examine the direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status, neighborhood quality, parental warmth, physical discipline, school community, and children's participation in sports on self-regulation. I examined the simultaneous effects of emotional and cognitive regulation on children's academic and socioemotional outcomes, and whether the school context (i.e., teachers' collaborative discussions) mediates the association between self-regulation and children's academic achievement and adjustment. The theoretical model was tested with a sample of 17,060 children in kindergarten and a sample of 12,652 children in third grade drawn from the ECLS-K dataset. Partial support for the model was found as family, school, and community contexts predicted emotion regulation but not cognitive regulation. In addition, emotion regulation predicted cognitive regulation, which in turn predicted reading and mathematics achievement. Furthermore, emotion regulation mediated the effects of family and school contexts on cognitive regulation. Although the size of the effects in the model was small, these effects are consistent with findings in the research literature. The size of the effects in the model was small due to weaknesses in the reliability and validity of the measures and strong relationships between control variables and all other variables in the model. This study offers a framework for future research to advance the understanding of the role of contextual influences on self-regulation development and of the relationships between children's self-regulation and competence and adjustment
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ana C Useche.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Ashton, Patricia T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043657:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043657/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Family, Schools, and Community Contexts on Children's Self-Regulation, Competence in Mathematics and Reading, and Social And Emotional Adjustment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Useche, Ana C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: achievement -- children -- cognitive -- community -- elementary -- emotional -- parenting -- practices -- regulation -- school -- self-regulation
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Experiences in the first years of schooling set the trajectory for students' educational success or failure. In particular, children's ability to regulate their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions will at least partially determine whether they succeed in school. Despite the critically important role of self-regulation in children's social adjustment and academic success, little is known about the influence of the context in which children develop their capacity to self-regulate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the context has a differential influence on emotional and cognitive regulation. In this dissertation I used ecological theory to develop a model to investigate whether family, school, and community contexts have the potential to influence children's emotional and cognitive regulation. I also examined whether these regulation components affect children's academic competence in mathematics and reading and social and emotional adjustment. I used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) dataset to examine the direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status, neighborhood quality, parental warmth, physical discipline, school community, and children's participation in sports on self-regulation. I examined the simultaneous effects of emotional and cognitive regulation on children's academic and socioemotional outcomes, and whether the school context (i.e., teachers' collaborative discussions) mediates the association between self-regulation and children's academic achievement and adjustment. The theoretical model was tested with a sample of 17,060 children in kindergarten and a sample of 12,652 children in third grade drawn from the ECLS-K dataset. Partial support for the model was found as family, school, and community contexts predicted emotion regulation but not cognitive regulation. In addition, emotion regulation predicted cognitive regulation, which in turn predicted reading and mathematics achievement. Furthermore, emotion regulation mediated the effects of family and school contexts on cognitive regulation. Although the size of the effects in the model was small, these effects are consistent with findings in the research literature. The size of the effects in the model was small due to weaknesses in the reliability and validity of the measures and strong relationships between control variables and all other variables in the model. This study offers a framework for future research to advance the understanding of the role of contextual influences on self-regulation development and of the relationships between children's self-regulation and competence and adjustment
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ana C Useche.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Ashton, Patricia T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043657:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SELF REGULATION, COMPETENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND READING, AND SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT By ANA CAROLINA USECHE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Ana Carolina Useche

PAGE 3

3 To my p arents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to have had the support of family, friends, colleagues, and professors throughout my graduate school. Here I would like to express my appreciation for their efforts and care. I thank my advisor Dr. Patricia Ashton for guiding me throu ghout the whole process and supporting me in the development of my own research questions. I also want to thank Dr. James Algina for being a great teacher and for his patience. I also thank Dr. David Miller for his kind disposition and for working with me when I needed it. I thank Dr. Julia Graber and Dr. Tracy Linderholm for their helpful suggestions. Many thanks to Elaine Green and Kristi Cordell McNulty for answering my thousands of questions about everything. I thank my parents. My father was the first person in his family to earn a college degree. Through that achievement he changed the future of his family and mine. As a teenager, he had the foresight to know that he needed to move out of his town to attend a school that would allow him to be accepted into a major public university in Colombia. He remembers being a boy, still wearing short trousers, and going by himself to the capital city of Colombia to talk to the school representatives. He earned his acceptance into that school and later into the un iversity because he was a bright, hard working student. My mother was the first woman in her university to earn a degree as a gynecologist and one of the first women in Colombia to earn a degree as a medical doctor. She is not only accomplished in her prof ession, but she never missed a meeting at my school, and she is a very vivacious woman. She persuaded my school dean to let me go to Germany as an exchange student. The short time I spent there gave me a new way of seeing things and was one of the best edu cational experiences I had in my life. Pili, Rob, Sofi, and Benny deserve a special acknowledgement. They opened their home to me during graduate school, and through that experience we grew as a family. I have so much fun with my niece Sofi and my nephew Benny, they brighten me up every time I see them. I also

PAGE 5

5 would like to thank my siblings: Ximena for being my first example of a critical thinker; Nicolas, Monica, Cata, and Ana for taking care of the family now and thus allowing me to pursue my personal a nd educational goals; Fernando for teaching me that in life there is always possibility; and Kico for being my mathematics mentor in school (I am sure that he was a key factor in my future understanding of statistics). I am afraid of not doing justice to a ll my friends and other family members by just quickly mentioning them, so I will thank them all for their encouragement during these years. Roberto, my partner and best friend, left his job in Brazil and moved to Florida to support me during the PhD. He c omforted me in moments of stress, doubt, and fatigue and shared with me the satisfactions of the process. He makes me thrive with his generosity and love. Together, we discovered the beautiful springs, the alligators, and the charms of Florida. We transfor med ourselves and I would not have missed these years for the world. This research was supported by a grant from the America n Educational research Association which receives funds for its AERA Grants Program from the Na tional Science Foundation under Grant #DRL 0941014. Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS p age ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 Theoretical Background of the Study ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 Individual Differences in Self Regulation ................................ ................................ ....... 15 Contexts of Development ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Socioeconomic status (SES), parenting, and self regulation ................................ ... 17 Neighborhood risk, school community, and self regulation ................................ .... 19 Child participation in extracurricular activities ................................ ........................ 20 Self Regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 22 Developmental neuroscience ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Executive function research ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 Social psychology ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 Rationale for Investigating the Direct Effect of Emotional Regulation on Cognitive Regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 25 Effects of the Context on Self Regulation ................................ ................................ ....... 28 Differential Influence of the Context on Emotional and Cognitive Regulation .............. 29 Cognitive Self Regulation and Child Outcomes ................................ .......................... 31 The Proposed Model and Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ...... 32 Theoretical Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Practical Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 35 2 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 The Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 38 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 Child Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 38 Emotional regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ 38 Cognitiv e regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 Externalizing problem behaviors ................................ ................................ .............. 3 9 Internalizing problem behaviors ................................ ................................ ............... 40 Reading competence ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Mathematic al competence ................................ ................................ ........................ 40

PAGE 7

7 Participation in sports ................................ ................................ ............................... 42 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 42 Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 42 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 42 Parent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 42 Parental warmth ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 42 Physical discipline ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 43 Socioeconomic status (SES) ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 Te acher Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 43 ................................ ............... 43 ................................ ................................ ......... 44 School Variable: School Neighborhood Risk ................................ ................................ .. 44 Data Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 44 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Kindergarten ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 Confir matory Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ......................... 50 Fit of the Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 51 Direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables .............................. 51 Effects of family, school, and community variables on emotion and cognitive regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53 Effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables ................................ ................................ ................................ 54 Third Grade ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 Descriptive Stat istics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ......................... 59 Fit of the Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 60 Direct effec ts of exogenous variables on endogenous variables .............................. 60 Effects of family, school, and community variables on emotion and cognitive regulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 62 Effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 83 Effects of Contextual Variables on Emotion and Cognitive Regulation ................................ 84 Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation in the Relationship Between Con textual Variables and Cognitive Regulation ................................ ................................ ................... 86 Mediating Role of Parental and School Variables in the Relationship Between SES and Neighborhood Risk and Emotional and Cognitive Regulation ................................ ........... 89 Mediating Role of Cognitive Regulation in the Relationship Between Emo tional Regulation and Achievement and Adjustment ................................ ................................ .... 90 een Cognitive Regulation and Academic Achievement ................................ ............................ 93 Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status ................................ ............................... 96

PAGE 8

8 Limitations of the Study and Future Research ................................ ................................ ....... 96 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 98 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 116

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Demographic characteristics of the kindergarten sample ................................ .................. 67 3 2 Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for kindergarten assessments ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 3 3 Intercorrelations between variables in kindergarten ................................ .......................... 68 3 4 Intercorrelations between sex, age, and ethnicity and all other variables in kindergarten ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 69 3 5 Confirmatory factor analysis for kindergarten assessments ................................ .............. 70 3 6 Direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables in kindergarten .............. 71 3 7 Direct effects of exogenous variables on regulation variables in kindergarten ................. 72 3 8 Total, direct, and indirect effects of SES, participation in sports, and school neighborhood risk on regulation variables in kindergarten ................................ ............... 72 3 9 Total, direct, and indirect effects of endogenous variables on endogenous variables in kindergarten ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 73 3 10 Demographic characteristics of the third grade sample ................................ ..................... 75 3 11 Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for third grade ............ 75 3 12 Intercorrelations between variables in third grade ................................ ............................. 76 3 13 Intercorrelations between sex, age, and ethnicity and all other variables in third grade ... 77 3 14 Confirmatory factor analysis for third grade assessments ................................ ................. 78 3 15 Direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables in third grade ................. 79 3 16 Direct effects of exogenous variables on regulation variables in third grade .................... 80 3 17 Total, direct, and indirect effects of SES, participation in sports, and school neighborhood risk on regulation variables in third grade ................................ .................. 80 3 18 Total, direct, and indirect effects of endogenous variables on endogenous variables in third grade ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 81

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 37 3 1 Results of path analysis for kindergarten sample ................................ .............................. 74 3 2 Results of path analysis for third grade sample. ................................ ................................ 82

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Unive rsity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SELF REGULATION, COMPETENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND READING, AND SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT By Ana Carolina Useche December 2011 Chair: Patricia Ashton Major: Educational Psychology y to regulate their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions will at least partially determine whether they succeed in school. Despite the critically important role of self known about the influence of the context in which children develop their capacity to self regulate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the context has a differential influence on emotional and cognitive regulation In this dissertation I use d ecological theory to develop a model to investigate whether family, school, and community contexts have the potential to influence d whether these regulation c competence in mathematics and reading and social and emotional adjustment. I use d the E arly C hildhood L ongitudinal S tudy K indergarten Class of 1998 1999 (ECLS K) dataset to examine the direct and indirect effects of socioeconomic status, neighborhood qua lity participation in sports on self regulation. I examined the simultaneous effects of emotional and er the

PAGE 12

12 ) mediates the association between self tested with a sample of 17,060 children in kindergarten and a s ample of 12,652 children in third grade drawn from the ECLS K dataset. Partial support for the model was found as family, school, and community contexts predicted emotion regulation but not cognitive regulation. In addition, emotion regulation predicted co gnitive regulation, which in turn predicted reading and mathematics achievement. Furthermore, emotion regulation mediated the effects of family and school contexts on cognitive regulation. Alth ough the size of the effects in the model was small, these effe cts are consistent with findings in the research literature. The size of the effects in the model was small due to weaknesses in the reliability and validity of the measures and strong relationships between control variables and all other variables in the model. This study offers a framework for future research to advance the understanding of the role of contextual influences on self regulation and competence and adjustment.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem outcomes in school, even above academic outcomes (Wentzel, 2006). Disruptive behaviors continue to be a great concern for school principals (Robers, Zhang, & Truman, 2010 ). Furthermore, most kindergarten teachers believe behavioral regulation is more important than Lin, Lawrence, & Gorrell, 2003; Rimm Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000) In sum, the normative challenge children face in elementary school is to develop self regulatory skills and gain positive perceptions of their autonomy and competence (Grolnick, Kurowski, & Gurlan, 1999). However, many children start school without the e motional, cognitive, and behavioral regulation skills that their teachers expect them to have (McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Rimm Kaufman et al., 2000). Because of the importance of self regulation for child adjustment and academic success, it is important to study how different social contexts can foster or hinder the development of emotional and cognitive regulation. This study examined concurrently the effects regulation and the extent to which sel f regulation Development of self socia l, and emotional development (Ayduk, Rodriguez, Mischel, Shoda, & Wright, 2007; Eisenberg, Hofer, & Vaughan, 2007; Eisenberg, Michalik, et al., 2007; Moffitt et al., 2011). A longitudinal study by Shoda, Mischel, and Peake (1990) suggested the importance o f self regulation for long term development. They found that ability to delay gratification at age 4

PAGE 14

14 predicted higher levels of attention, concentration, and tolerance to frustration in adolescence. In addition, those children who were able to delay gratif ication had higher SAT scores, were more interpersonally competent, and were less likely to use drugs. The study of Shoda et al. (1990) suggests a critically important role for self regulation in he ethnic and socioeconomic context, parental practices, the school environment, and extracurricular environment together influence the development of self remains unclear. I nquiry into this relati onship experiences in different contexts (Calkins, 2007; Calkins & Hill, 2007; Colman, Hardy, Albert, Raffaelli, & Crockett, 2006; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Kopp, 1982; Lengua, Honorado, & Bush, 2007). For example, research has shown that lack of regulation is more strongly associated with negative adjustment when children experience negative or harsh parenting (for a review, see Rothbart & Bates, 2006). contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Some of these contexts are distal to the child (such as socioeconomic context and neighborhood r isk) and others are proximal (for example, the school and the family). According to this theoretical framework, proximal contexts have a more direct influence on the child and therefore will be more significant for the development of the child. To examine the effects of important contexts for effect of environmental contexts with a focus on proximal contexts (i.e., parental warmth and participation in sports ) on self

PAGE 15

15 control their attention, persist, and regulate their learning). I also investigated whether the ability to regulate emotions continues to b e associated with student achievement after controlling for cognitive regulation. That is, previous research has particularly linked attentional control and planning skills involved in cognitive regulation with academic achievement (Brock, Rimm Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; Duncan et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the capacity to regulate emotions is expected to facilitate cognitive regulation. Due to the consistent associations between self regulation and child competence and adjus tment found in the research literature it is important to examine classroom processes that might mediate these associations. Brocki and Bolin (2004) showed that self regulation continues to improve particularly in early childhood (6 8 years of age), middle childhood (9 12 years of age), and during early adolescence. Furthermore, in early and middle childhood the school and studies have provided evidence for the con tribution of teacher and classroom characteristics to student outcomes (for a review, see Brophy & Good, 1986). More recently, researchers have examined the role of classroom characteristics on student self regulation (e.g., Rimm Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nat hanson, & Brock, 2009). Consistent with that research, I examined whether mediate the association between self regulation and child competence and adjustment in elementary school. Theoretical Background of the Study Individual Differences in Self Regulation Children exhibit wide individual differences in their capacity to regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981; Rothbart & Jones, 1998). That is, children vary in their capacity to modulate their reactivity. Reactivity refers to differences in responsiveness to change in the external and internal environment. Individual differences in self

PAGE 16

16 nt contexts (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Although the development of self regulation depends on biological maturation, contextual influences play a major role in this development (Calkins, 2007; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001; Kopp, 1982). For example, children who experience extreme adversity such as maltreatment or severe neglect, show difficulties in emotional and cognitive regulation, decreased capacity to focus attention, delayed language and cognitive development, and poor scho ol performance (Ford, 2005; Veltman & Browne, 2001). In contrast, children who experience warm, supportive caregiving and low levels of physically punitive discipline have greater capacity to self regulate (Calkins & Hill, 2007; Colman et al., 2006; Eisenb erg, Zhou, et al., 2005; Thompson, 2006; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010). Furthermore, when children have to face psychosocial risks associated with poverty such as maternal depression, low levels of social support, stressful life events, and exposure to violence, they are more likely to show self regulatory deficits (Lengua et al., 2007; Li Grining, 2007). Contexts of Development According to Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998), children develop in multiple contexts such as the family, the school, and the community. These contexts are, in turn, affected by larger contexts in which they are embedded such as the culture and socioeconomic context. Differences in family and school contexts have been related to individual differences in regulatory capabili ties. In turn, socioeconomic status of the family or neighborhood poverty regulation through their effect on more proximal variables such as the family and school. In light of these interactive relationships, to fully understand the development of self regulation, it is important to study how the context can support or threaten that development. Further, it is important to understand

PAGE 17

17 whether self ent and socioemotional adjustment (Miech, Essex, & Goldsmith, 2001). Socioeconomic status (SES), parenting, and self regulation adjustment and academic competence (Evans, Gonne lla, Marcynyszyn, Gentile, & Salpekar, 2005; Leventhal & Brooks Gunn, 2003; McLoyd, 1998). Chronic strains associated with poverty, including community violence, substandard housing, and early childhood separation have been associated with lower self regu lation in children (Evans & English, 2002). Research inconsistent mann several studies indicate that these parenting behaviors originate from the negative life events and difficult life conditions that adults living in poverty face (McLoyd, 1990). Simi larly, Belsky, Bell, Bradley, Stallard, and Stewart Brown (2007) found that the effect of socioeconomic stresses on health in childhood begins with early parenting, with low SES related to poor parenting. Of the parenting behaviors Belsky et al. examined, maternal warmth Deckard (2004) found that the association between self regulation and cognitive performance was stronger in children from high socioeconomic backgrounds with grea ter maternal warmth. On the basis of this evidence, in this study I expected socioeconomic status to influence self regulation through its effect on parental practices. Parental warmth is expressed in affectionate behaviors, the demonstration of positive a ffect, and admiration toward the child. It involves manifestations of fondness and enjoyment of

PAGE 18

18 Martin, 1983). Parental warmth and support are associated with rel atively low levels of and school achievement (Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000; Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). Eisenberg, Zhou, et al. (2005) found self regulation to mediate the association between parental warmth and low levels of externalizing problems. Eisenberg et al. indicated four ways in which warm parenting can affect self regulation: (a) when parents are warm, children are less likely to be overaroused and therefore are more capable of self regulation, (b) when parents are attention, (c) warm parents will model for children positive ways in how to regulate emotions and str ess, (d) warm parenting is associated with a secure attachment that enhances self regulation. Another important element of parenting, parent demandingness (also referred to as behavioral control) refers to efforts the parents make to socialize the child by demanding that the and by supervising and disciplining the child (Baumrind, 1991). Positive discipline, that is, providing reasons for rules, setting limits, reasoning with children, maki ng children aware of the consequences of their actions on others, and using techniques such as time out and withdrawing privileges have been associated with lower levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior, better regulation, and higher levels of s ocial skills and prosocial behavior in children (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kaminski, Valle, Filene, & Boyle, 2008; LeCuyer & Houck, 2006; Lengua et al., 2007). In contrast, harsh discipline, that is, spanking, threatening, yelling, or screaming in response t o misbehavior has been associated with externalizing behaviors and impaired child self regulation (Gershoff, 2002; Miner & Clarke Stewart, 2008; Olson, Lopez Duran, Lunkenheimer, Chang, &

PAGE 19

19 Sameroff, 2011). Most important, parental warmth and low levels of p hysically punitive discipline have been associated with higher levels of self regulation (Colman et al., 2006). Thus, in this study I expected (a) parental warmth to be related to higher levels of self regulation and (b) physical discipline or spanking to relate to lower levels of self regulation. Neighborhood risk, school community, and self regulation Two other contexts that might influence development of self regulation are school neighborhood and school community. Several studies have found a link betw een neighborhood characteristics such as crime and poverty and poor academic achievement and behavioral neighborhoods experience more stressful life events and show hi gher levels of aggression (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994). More over student misbehavior and schools where students feel unsafe have been associated with high rates of teacher turnover (Smith & Smith, 2006), which has negative consequences for child develop ment (Shakrani, 2008). Furthermore, schools that retain their teachers are schools where teachers perceive high levels of school community (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Cohen & Geier, 2010). According to Battistich, Solomon, Watson, and Schaps (1997), in a positive school with the group, and have common norms, goals community has been associated with positive academic attitudes, better academic outcomes, and student social and emotional well being (Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995; Cohen & Geier, 2010). Most im portant, several studies have shown positive school communities to be related to better self regulation in children and adolescents (for a review, see Juvonen, 2006). Furthermore, s tudies have shown that intervention efforts to improve children

PAGE 20

20 socioemot ional skills are most effective in positive school communities because these school communities enable and sustain child socioemotional development (Greenberg et al., 2003). That is, school communities where teachers feel respected and supported have a more cohesive work environment that allow s to effectively address the inst r uc t ional and socioemotional needs of all students (Center for Social and Character D evelopment [CSCD], 2010) Thus, p ositive school communities might be key in ameliorating the ef fects of negative neighborhoods by eir self regulation (Battistich et al., 1997; Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000; Weissberg & To examine this possibil perceptions of school community to be related to better child regulation. In turn, I expect ed tha t a positive school community would regulation. Child participation in extracurricular activities Child involvement in extracurricular activities might be a strong predictor of self regulatory abilities. Extracurricular activities may offer high levels of enjoyment, challenge, and concentration thereby offering an optimal context for the development of self regulatory skills in contrast to classroom activities characterized by high levels of concentration and challenge but low enjoyment, and unstructured activities, characterized by high levels of enjoy ment but low levels of concentration and challenge (Larson, 2000; Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005). Involvement in extra curricular activities, particularly organized activities, has been related to higher academic achievement (e.g., Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; for a review, see Feldman & Matjasko, 2005), higher educational aspirations (Larson & Verma, 1999), prosocial behavior (Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006), and fewer problem behaviors in adolescence (Gerstenblith et al., 2005). Although few research stu dies have explored the association between participation in

PAGE 21

21 achievement and socioemotional wellbeing, available research has related participation in extracurricular activities in kindergarten and first grade to hi gher mathematics and reading achievement and to higher levels of social competence ( for a review, see Mahoney, Larson, Eccles, & Lord, 2005). Holland and Andre (1987) sugges ted that participation in extra curricular activities might lead to the development of organizational skills, planning, self discipline and motivation. Also, Shernoff and Vandell (2007) reported that students experienced higher levels of concentration, concentrated effort, intrinsic motivation, and enjoym ent when participating in extra cu rricular activities than when doing homework. Thus, participation in extra curricula activities might help children learn how to focus their attention to concentrate on a task and how to persist on it. Furthermore, through interacting with peers and teache rs children become more aware of socially approved ways to display negative emotion (Shipman, Zeman, Nesin, & Fitzgerald, 2003). Thus, it might be that because participation in extracurricular activities presents many situations in which children interact with peer and coaches, children who participate in these activities become more aware of their displays of emotions and in consequence more capable of regulating their emotions. Thus i nvolvement in extracurricular activities might be an important contex t that needs to be examined for the development of self regulatory skills in childre n. Moreover, it is important to understand whether involvement in extra curricular activities has an effect on self regulatory skills beyond SES. T hat is, if involvement in extra curricular activities is an important predictor of self regulatory skills after controlling for SES it might be a valuable aspect to consider in the education of low income students. In this study, I assessed specifically ports such as basketball, soccer, baseball, or gymnastics and not

PAGE 22

22 child participation in other extracurricular activities such as dance lessons, organized clubs or recreational programs, art classes, or performing arts Self Regulation Vohs and Baumeister (2004) described self regulation in terms of people regulating their thoughts, emotions, attention, impulses or appetites, and task performances. Likewise, Boekaerts, Pintrich, and Zeidner (2000) in their review of research on self regu lation conclu ed that there is some consensus among researchers that self regulation involves cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral components that provide people with the capacity to adjust their actions and goals to achieve desired results in light of changing environmental conditions. Assuming a developmental perspective, Calkins and Fox (2002) conceptualized self regulation as adaptive control that can be observed at the level of physiological, attentional, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and interpersonal or social processes. Although most researchers agree that self regulation is a dynamic process with multiple aspects such as emotional, attentional, behavioral, and cognitive regulation that emerges and develops over the course of infancy regulation tend to separate self regulation into an emotional and a cognitive component (Calkins & Bell, 2010; Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008; Eisenberg, Sadovsky, et al., 2005; Gross, 200 7). For example, researchers of developmental neuroscience (Bush et al., 2000), executive function (Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007), and social psychology (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004) have proposed theoretical models that distinguish between two separate yet closely interrelated components of self regulation: an emotional and a cognitive component. responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially the ir p 27 28). Other researchers have

PAGE 23

23 defined emotion regulation in similar ways (Eisenberg, 2002). From these definitions what seems to be common elements are (a) the capacity to regulate arousal appropriately to reach goals and (b) the ability to control the behavioral expression of emotions in socially adaptive ways (Bronson, 2000). In contrast, cognitive self regulation includes overlapping constructs such as executive function, planning, inhib control of attention or action, task persistence, and cognitive flexibility (Blair, 2006). Developmental neuroscience Developmental neuroscientists have identified specific brain areas implic ated in the processing and regulation of emotion, cognition, attention, and behavior (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004). The regions of the prefrontal cortex that have been implicated in self regulatory processes are the anterior ci ngulate cortex (ACC) and the lateral prefrontal cortex (Rueda et al., 2004). The ACC particularly has been linked to specific functions related to self regulation (see review by Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). One subdivision of the ACC has been linked to cogniti ve and attentional processes and has interconnections with the prefrontal cortex. Another subdivision has been linked to emotional regulation and is related to the limbic, autonomic, visceromotor, and endocrine systems (Bush et al., 2000). Further, the two regions have reciprocal relations (Bush et al., 2000; Davis, Bruce, & Gunnar, 2002). Specifically, the affective subdivision is activated with emotionally relevant tasks and its activity decreases during cognitive information processing tasks. Likewise, t he cognitive subdivision is activated with cognitively relevant tasks and is deactivated during intense emotional states (Bush et al., 2000). Executive function research Researchers of executive function (EF) aim to understand the conscious control of thou ght and action. They study cognitive processes such as attention shifting, working memory, and

PAGE 24

24 inhibitory control that are utilized in planning, problem solving, and goal directed activity (Miyake et al., 2000). Recent work on emotion cognition interaction s suggests that emotions influence specific cognitive processes related to executive function (Bechara, 2004; Gray, Braver, & Raichle, 2002; Gray, 2004; Shackman et al., 2006). Furthermore, researchers and theorists have suggested that a more accurate unde rstanding of executive function requires a distinction between hot or affectively sensitive and cool or affectively neutral aspects of executive function (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Miller & Cohen, 2001; Zelazo & Muller, 2002). According to Zelazo and Cunni ngham (2007), cool EF is more likely to be elicited by relatively abstract, decontextualized tasks, whereas both hot and cool EF are more likely to be elicited by affectively significant problems. In sum, emotion regulation involves both hot and cool EF an d the type of task determines whether hot or cool EF, or both type of processes are elicited. In the view of Zelazo and Cunningham, emotion regulation cannot be separated from cognitive regulation. Social psychology Mischel and Ayduk (2011) proposed a mod el to explain individual differences and basic processes such as self regulation, self control, and delay of gratification behavior over time. They called the model the Cognitive Affective Processing System CAPS and proposed that the CAPS has tw o closely i nteracting systems a cognitive cool system and an emotional hot in the dynamics of self regulation in general and of delay of gratification in particular and unde or inability to sustain effortful control in pursuit of delayed In addition, Mischel and Ayduk explained slow, and contemplati ve. Attuned to the informational, cognitive, and spatial aspects of stimuli and generates rational, reflective, and strategic behavior In

PAGE 25

25 nal processing: simple and fast. (p.85) The ho t system produces reflexive approach or avoidance reactions when activated by stimuli and prevails in early childhood. Rationale for Investigating the Direct Effect of Emotional Regulation on Cognitive Regulation The relationships between cognitive regulat ion and academic achievement and between emotional regulation and socioemotional adjustment are well established findings in research. For example, good cognitive regulation skills have been associated with growth in reading, writing, and math in preschool ers and kindergarteners (Blair & Razza, 2007; McClelland et al., 2007). In elementary school, cognitive regulation skills have been related to achievement in language, arts, math, and science (St. Clair Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). In contrast, good capac ity to regulate emotions has been associated with less negative emotionality, more waiting time in delay of gratification tasks, higher compliance, empathy, prosocial behavior, social competence, and better adjustment (for reviews, see Eisenberg, Hofer, et al., 2007; Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004). However, the relationship of emotional regulation with academic achievement is less clear. For example, emotion regulation was not related to academic achievement when examined concurrently with cog nitive regulation skills in kindergarten children (Brock et al., 2009). Further, Duncan et al. (2007) in an analysis of six nationally representative longitudinal datasets zing control at ages 5 and 6 predicted children's later achievement. Nevertheless, other studies have found a relationship between emotion regulation and aca demic achievement. Empirical studies have showed that emotion regulation in kindergarten

PAGE 26

26 predicts attention, which in turn, predicts first grade achievement (Trentacosta & Izard, 2007). Also, Graziano, Reavis, Keane, and Calkins (2007) found emotion regula tion to be positively associated with teacher reports of children's academic success and productivity in the classroom and standardized early literacy and math achievement scores. Furthermore, emotion regulation in toddlerhood has been found to predict beh avioral regulation, which in turn, predicted academic achievement in kindergarten (Howse, Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003). Researchers and theorists support the perspective that in childhood the regulation of emotional reactivity facilitate s cognitive regulation, which in turn facilitates academic achievement. Calkins and Dedmon (2000) suggested that the ability to regulate emotional reactivity allows children to engage in challenging tasks that provide opportunities for using and practicing executive function skills. E motional experience can either facilitate or disrupt processes involved in cognitive self regulation, such as sustaining attention, holding information in mind when solving a problem, and inhibiting impulsive responding when fo rmulating and executing a response (Bell & Wolfe, 2004; Blair, 2002; Derryberry & Reed, 1996; Greenberg, 2006; Wolfe & Bell, 2007) Furthermore, in an intervention aimed to develop emotion regulation skills in kindergarten and elementary school children, t he researchers reported improvements in Although most current models of self regulation emphasize the reciprocal balancing between the emotional and cognitive regulation systems, in infanc y and childhood, the systems that underlie cognitive regulation skills during those periods are still immature. For example, executive attention has a modest development during the three first years of life and continues to develop in early and middle chil dhood (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2011). Research on the development of executive function suggests that it emerges at the end of infancy, shows marked

PAGE 27

27 changes during the preschool years, and continues to develop at least through adolescence (Zelazo et al. 2008). The growth of cognitive regulation skills seems to depend on maturation and on specific contextual influences such as the training of attentional and inhibitory control (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccoma nno, & Posner, 2005). In contrast, developmental studies indicate that there is considerable maturation of parasympathetic regulation in the early years (Propper & Moore, 2006). Parasympathetic control over cardiac functioning has been related to the development of emotional regulation. Furthermore, quality of care experienced early in life contributes to individual differences in physiological regulation. Early ex periences with caregivers and the quality of early experiences shape child capacity to regulate stress and in the long term set child levels of stress reactivity (Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Gunnar & Donzella, 2002). For example, children growing up in adversity during their early years are more sensitive to contextual demands, are more likely to show an exaggerated arousal under challenge, and are less capable of regulating their reactivity. In this study I assumed that caregiving experiences and the quality of the school cognitive regulation. Although, experimental research is necessary to validate the effect of emotion regulation on cognitive regulation, this causal r elationship is worth investigating in this academic achievement. Furthermore, multicomponent intervention programs aimed to improve the academic achievement of child ren who live in disadvantaged and poor contexts are based on the assumption that improving the quality of care giving and the quality of school and classroom

PAGE 28

28 ov erall competence in school (e.g., Webster Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). An important assumption of these intervention programs is that in early childhood emotional development portant precursor to other ways of thinking and must be integrated with cognitive and linguistic abilities, which are Effects of the Context on Self Regulation In their CAPS model Mi schel and Ayduk (2004) assume d that the level of stress determines t he balance of the hot and cool system s of self regulation. At high levels of stress the functioning of the cool system can be reduced and may even shut off, whereas at low to moderate levels of stress the activation of the cool system can be enhanced. Empirical research has found that chronically high or low levels of cortisol and problems with the up or down regulation of cortisol in response to stress are associated with difficulties in cognitive and behavioral self regulation (Blair, Granger, & Razza, 2005). According to Mischel and Ayduk, stress level depends on both the stress induced by the appraisal of the specific situation and the chronic stress level characteristic of the person. Consequently, children who experience stress early in their lives due to their experiences in disadvantaged socioeconomic contexts or who have to face psychosocial risks may be adversely affected in their capacity to re gulate their behavior. In addition, research that examined the relationship between dopamine levels and executive function has shown that moderate levels of dopamine in the ACC may enhance executive attention and selection of task sets (Ashby, Valentin, & Turken, 2002; Desimone, 1995). Positive stimuli by facilitating a positive mood and increasing dopamine levels may facilitate executive function (Zelazo et al., 2010). Furthermore, positive emotions have been associated with enhanced self control, attenti onal and inhibitory control, and flexible cognitive

PAGE 29

29 processing ( Baumeister, Zell, & Tice, 2007 ; Derakshan & Eysenck, 2010; Kanske & Kotz, 2011; Martin & Kerns, 2011). Thus, children who experience positive home and school environments may be positively aff ected in their capacity to regulate their attention and cognition. Differential Influence of the Context on Emotional and Cognitive Regulation Metcalfe and Misch el (1999) proposed that the hot and cool systems of self regulation are specialized in processi ng two different types of representations. The hot system is specialized for quick emotional processing and responds to appetitive and fear producing unconditional or conditioned stimuli. In contrast, the cool system is specialized for complex, spatiotempo ral, and episodic representation and thought, and it is more likely to be activated by informative cognitive stimuli. Similarly, Miller and Cohen (2001) based on neuropsychological studies of monkeys suggested that the hot system is more likely to be respo nsive to social and appetitive stimuli, to produce automatic reactions because it has to inhibit strong competing alternatives to bias the organism to perform specific task relevant processes. In contrast, more cognitive stimuli (e.g., shapes, locations) a re cold because the competition between stimuli is less strong and therefore they are less likely to produce reactions with big differences in strength. According to Zelazo et al. (2010) emotionally and motivationally significant contexts inf luence the d evelopment of hot executive functioning or the emotional dimension of self regulation because those contexts involve meaningful, self relevant rewards or punishers. In contrast, cool executive functioning or cognitive regulation is more likely to be elicit ed in relatively affectively neutral contexts and tasks. Consequently, researchers have tried to improve cognitive regulation in a rather decontextualized way through the training of attention, use of cognitive strategies, influencing metacognitive process es, and other skills central to executive functioning such as problem solving (Kistner et al., 2010; Klingberg et al., 2005; Rueda,

PAGE 30

30 Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005; Zelazo, Mller, Frye, & Marcovitch, 2003). I hypothesized that the family and school climate are more likely to influence emotional regulation because those contexts will be more likely to be emotionally and motivationally regulati cognitive performance. Kopp (1989) believed that what she called planful emotion regulation is more likely to emerge in situations that are novel and not too distressful, in situations where there are strong social sanctions for wrongful behavior and caregivers are not available for helpful reminders, or in situations where pe rsonal efficacy is threatened (but not to the point of major discomfort and behavioral disorganization). My reasoning is that highly familiar situations evoke responses that are almost automatic and do not demand planfulness, and situations that markedly o verload the child inhibit ability t o think in an organized fashion (p. 345) T he classroom seems to be the ideal context for the emergence and development of planful emotion regulation The classroom provides experiences that are novel and challenging, and if the teacher is attuned to challenge to give them a sense of competence. According to Vygotsk y (1978), self higher order psychological functions such as self monitoring, language, private speech, and impulse control. These processes are the result of scaffolding as the gradual internalization o f the caregiver child interactions where the caregiver carefully adjusts the level of support to fit the when the child is engaged in a difficult task, the adult might be highly involved. As the child

PAGE 31

31 increases. when attempting diff icult tasks, increased effort, and advanced cognitive skills including executive processing skills (Conner & Cross, 2003; Landry, Miller Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 2002; Mulvaney, McCartney, Bub, & Marshall, 2006; Neitzel & Stright, 2003; Saltaris et al., 200 speech, also known as self directed speech (Berk & Spuhl, 1995). In turn, private speech has been linked to better attentional, cognitive, and behavioral regulation i n children (Berk & Spuhl, 1995; Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Winsler, Manfra, & Diaz, 2007). them with the appropriate scaffolding experiences that maintain their attention and enhance their cognitive capabilities and when to devise work that will challenge them to apply self regulation? Teachers need to reflect constantly on classroom practices to assess the extent that those practices align with educational goals and they must continuously make pedagogical choices based on those eeds. Teacher Collaborative Discussions as Mediator of the Relationship between Cognitive Self Regulation and Child Outcomes A body of research has provided evidence for the contribution of teacher and classroom characteristics to student outcomes (for a review, see Brophy & Good, 1986). More recently, researchers have examined the role of classroom characteristics on student self regulation. Rimm

PAGE 32

32 r behavioral and cognitive self control. For example, providing clear instructions and spending more time orienting students to classroom procedures enhances their self regulatory abilities (Cameron, Connor, & Morrison, 2005). According to Brophy (2006) go od classroom management involves adapting effectively to emerging developments. Furthermore, Larrivee (2006) argued that the most promising path to developing effective classroom management strategies is to involve teachers in pedagogical reflection. Pedag ogical reflection involves reflecting on educational goals, on the theories underlying approaches, and the connections between theoretical principles and practices. In this study I hypothesized that teachers who engage in discussions with other teachers ab out lesson planning, curriculum development, and individual children will be more likely to plan, reflect, and adapt their practice to become better classroom managers. Thus, I consider ed it particularly important to examine whether n discussio ns with other teachers mediates the association The Proposed Model and Purpose of the Study In summary, the purpose of this study was to test an integrative ecological model that clarifies the effect of self regulation, as measured by emotional and cognitive regulation, on student achievement and well being by examining the effects of family, school, and community contexts on both types of regulation and by concurrently academic and socioemotional outcomes. This study had five specific aims: (a) to test the effect of family, school, and community variables on emotional and cognitive regulation; (b) to study whether emotional regul ation mediated the effect of parental and school variables on cognitive regulation; (c) to examine whether the effect of SES and school neighborhood risk on emotional and cognitive regulation was mediated by parental and school community variables; (d) to analyze whether cognitive regulation mediated the effect of emotional regulation on academic

PAGE 33

33 collaborative discussions in mediating relationship between cognitive regulation and academic achie vement. This study examined these relations in kindergarten and in third grade. All relationships were expected to be similar in kindergarten and third grade. In the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1, ellipses indicate latent variables and the rectangl es indicate observed variables. The specific research hypotheses were the following: Hypothesis 1. Parental warmth, physical discipline, and school community predict emotional regulation but not cognitive regulation. Hypothesis 2. Parental warmth has a po sitive effect on emotion regulation. Hypothesis 3. Physical discipline has a negative effect on emotion regulation. Hypothesis 4. S chool community has a positive effect on emotion regulation. Hypothesis 5. Participation in sports has a positive effect on emotion and cognitive regulation. Hypothesis 6. Emotion regulation is expected to predict cognitive regulation. Hypothesis 7. Emotion regulation mediates the effect of the parental warmth, physical discipline, and school community on cognitive regulation. Hypothesis 8. SES directly predicts parental warmth and physical discipline. Hypothesis 9. Parental warmth and physical discipline mediate the effect of SES on emotion regulation. Hypothesis 10. School n community. Hypothesis 11 neighborhood risk on emotion regulation. Hypothesis 12 C ognitive regulation mediates the effect o f emotion regulation on achievement. Hypothesis 13 Emotion regulation directly predicts teacher discussions

PAGE 34

34 Hypothesis 14 Cognitive regulation directly predicts teacher discussions Hypothesis 15 Teacher collaborative discussion s directly predict reading and mathematics achievement and externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Hypothesis 16 collaborative discussion s med iate the effect of cognitive regulation on reading and mathematics achie vement. Theoretical Significance This study was designed to contribute to the field by developing and testing an integrative ecological model to advance our theoretical and empirical basis for designing and recommending parent and school practices to incr regulation and academ ic and socioemotional competence. Furthermore, the model sheds light on the effect of self regulation, as measured by emotional and cognitive regulation, on student achievement and socioemotional adjustment by examining the effects of family, school, and c ommunity academic and socioemotional outcomes. Last, to clarify how teachers might influence the regulation and achieveme nt and wellbe ing, the model as a possible mediator of that relationship. This study is particularly important because it is one of the few studies using the ECLS K dataset to examine the role of modifiable motiv ational variables as they are affected by multiple environmental contexts and in turn how they contribute to mathematics as well as reading achievement in the critically important early school years.

PAGE 35

35 Practical Significance Despite the efforts of educators researchers, and policy makers the achievement gap still persists (Vanneman, Hamilton, Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009) Because children from low socioeconomic status backgrounds and children from ethnic minority families are more likely to have lower achievement scores, it is important to understand how different social contexts influence child achievement and adjustment. To achieve this goal, I used an ecological perspective to provide information about the relative importance of socioeconomic status, neighborhood quality, parental practices, participation in sports and school community environment on child achievement and adjustment. It is likely that intervention programs that combine influences from each one of these social contexts are more effect ive than programs that focus on only one context or on the child alone. Early childhood development programs have been designed to try to bridge the achievement gap, and for educators and researchers it is important to improve the quality of these program s (Zhai, Brooks Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2011) This study by showing self regulation as a possible mechanism that mediates the influence of different contexts on academic achievement and child adjustment has the potential to provide insight to improve the pract ices used in early childhood education programs. For example, intervention programs that promoted emotional and cognitive regulation skills have been shown to be effective in enhancing academic achievement and student wellbeing (Diamond et al. 2007; Durla k, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Klingberg et al., 2005; Rothbart, 2007; Rueda et al., 2005; Yi Yuan & Posner, 2009) Furthermore, some have proposed that early education programs focus more narrowly on (Ludwig & Phillips, 2007; Waldfogel, 2006) In contrast, this study highlights the interrelatedness of emotional and cognitive processes on child development.

PAGE 36

36 Results of this study suggest that cognitive based interventions alone might not be as effective as development of competence and wellbeing.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 1 1 Conceptual M odel. Direct effects from all exogenous variables (first grade variables) to all outcome variables (third grade variables) are included in the model but to simplify its representation they are not included in the figure Age, gender, and ethnicity were also included in t he analyses but are not in F igure 1 1

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 2 METHOD The Study Design I obta ined the data for this study from two waves of The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 1998 1999 (ECLS K) ( Tourangeau, Nord, L, Sorongon, & Najarian, 2009) The ECLS K data, collected by the Department of Education's National Cen ter f or Educational Statistics using a multistage probability sample design consists of information on a nationally representative cohort of children who entered kindergarten in the fall of 1998 and who are being followed longitudinally. The primary sampling u nits (PSU) were geographic areas made up of counties or groups of counties. Schools were then sampled within PSUs. Chi ldren were drawn randomly from approximately 1,000 public and private schools with a full or part day kindergarten program, with an avera ge of at least 20 children per school in the study. In sum, a national probability sample of 21,260 children in about 800 public and 200 private schools was assessed at entry to kindergarten in fall 1998. To date data have been collected at the beginning and end of kindergarten and first grade and the end of third, fifth and seventh grade. Children who participated in kindergarten, first and third grade data collection and for whom parents, teachers, and school administrators reported on the variables we re included in the study (about 17,060 children in kindergarten and 12,652 children in third grade). Measures Child Variables Emotional regulation Emotional regulation was assessed in kindergarten and thir d grade students ratings of their self control and interpersonal social abilities. The self control scale includes four

PAGE 39

39 temper, accepting peer ideas for group activities, and responding approp riately to pressure from peers Responses ranged from 1 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). The split half reliabilities ranged from 79 to .80 for the kindergarten and third grade assessment of self control The interpersonal skills scale includes five items abou maintaining friendships, getting along with people who are different, comforting or helping other children, expressing feelings, ideas and opinions in positive ways, and showing sensitivity to Responses r anged from 1 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). The split half reliability for the kindergarten and third grade interpersonal skills was .89 for both assessments. Cognitive regulation C ognitive regulation was assessed in kindergarten and third grade wi ratings on six independence, flexibility, and organization. In the third nce in the scale. The items are rated on a scale of 1 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). The split half reliabilities ranged from 89 to .91 for the kindergarten and third grade assessments of cognitive regulation Externalizing problem behaviors E xternalizing problem behaviors were assesse d in kindergarten, first and third gra de with items: the frequency with which a child argues, fights, gets angry, acts impulsively and disturbs ongoing activities. To increase the variance on this s cale, an item was added in third grade asking about the frequency with which a child talks during quiet study time. Responses ranged from 1 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ) The split half reliabilities ranged from .86 to .9 0 for the kindergarten, first grade, an d third grade assessments of externalizing problem behaviors

PAGE 40

40 Internalizing problem behaviors Internalizing problem behaviors were assessed in kindergarten, first and third grade with es teem, and sadness they observed in the child. This scale has four items and responses ranged from 1 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). The split half reliabilities ranged from .7 6 to .8 0 for the kindergarten, first grade, and th ird grade assessments of internalizing problem behaviors. Reading competence Assessments of reading competence were collected via one on one testing sessions at all assessment points, using an item response theory (IRT) approach. In kinder garten and first grade the language and li teracy (reading) assessment includes questions designed to measure basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming sounds, word recognition), vocabulary (receptive vocabulary), and comprehension (listening comprehe nsion, words in context). In third grade the reading assessment includes questions designed to measure phonemic awareness, single word decoding, vocabulary (reading), and passage comprehension. The passage reading section examined sentence, paragraph, and story comprehension and comprised a variety of literary genres including poetry, letters, informational text, and narrative text The NCES (2004) researchers calculated the reliability of the overall ability estimate, theta for the IRT based scores. This reliability is based on the variance of repeated estimates of theta The theta reliabilities ranged from .93 to .96 for the kindergarten, first grade, and third grade assessments of reading. Mathematical competence Assessments of mathematical competence were collected via one on one testing sessions at all assessment points, using an item response theory (IRT) approach. In kinder garten and first

PAGE 41

41 and third grade the assessment of m athematical competence includes questions designed to measure skills in conceptual and procedural knowledge and problem solving. Approximately one half of the measure consists of questions on number sense, properties, and operations. The other half includes measurement, geometry and spatial sense, data analysis, statistics, pr obability; patterns, algebra, and functions. Several items include manipulatives for children to use in solving the problems The mathematical assessment in kindergarten and first grade includes different pr oficiency levels than the third grade mathematic al assessment. The kindergarten/first grade assessment includes the following proficiency levels: (a ) identifying some one digit numerals, recognizing geometric shapes, a nd one to one counting up to 10 objects; (b ) reading all one digit numerals, coun ting beyond 10 recognizing a sequence of patterns, and using nonstandard units of length to compare the size of objects; (c) reading 2 digit numerals, recognizing the next number in a sequence, identifying the ordinal position of an object, and solving a simpl e word problem; (d ) solving simple addition and subtraction problems; and (e ) solving simple multiplication and division problems and recognizing more complex number patterns. The third grade assessment includes the following proficiency levels: (a ) solvin g simple addit ion and subtraction problems, (b ) solving simple multiplication and division problems and recognizing more complex number patterns, (c ) demonstrating understanding of place value in in tegers to hundreds place, and (d ) using knowledge of measu rement and rate to solve word problems The NCES (2004 ) researchers calculated the reliability of the overall ability estimate, theta for the IRT based scores. This reliability is based on the variance of repeated estimates of the ta The theta reliabilities ranged from .92 to .95 for the mathematical assessments in kindergarten, first grade, and third grade.

PAGE 42

42 Participation in sports Participation in sports was assessed in kindergarten and first grade responses ion in athletic activities, such as basketball, soccer, baseball, or gymnastics. Parents responded 0 ( no ) or 1 ( yes ) Gender Child gender was coded as 0 ( male ) and 1 ( female ). Ethnicity Child ethnicity was dummy coded using Cau casian children as the comparison group. Dummy variables were created for Asian African American and Hispanic children, and other children from mixed race, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander children were coded as others Age and first grade was treated as a continuous variable A ge in kindergarten ranged between 54 and 79 months ( M = 68.65, SD = 4.31). I n first grade age ranged between 72 and 96 months ( M = 86.97 SD = 4.33 ). Parent Variables Parental warmth Parental warmth was assessed in kindergarten by the expression of affect toward the child with parent responses to the following items : ost of the time I feel that child likes me and affection by hugging, kissing and praising (child)." In third grade parental warmth was assessed with parent responses to the following items : hild and I often have warm, close time and

PAGE 43

43 huggin g, kissing and praising (child)." Responses range from 1 ( not at all true ) to 4 ( completely true ) for each item. Physical discipline Phy sical discipline was an indicator of parental use of physical punishment measured by 1 ( child is never spanked ), 0 ( did not spank child last week ), 1 30 ( frequency of spanking in the past week ) in kindergarten, 1 25 ( frequency of spanking in the past week ) in third grade. Socioeconomic status (SES) Socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed in kindergarten and first grade with a standardized composite score that integrated father/m Teacher Variables ssed with taff members in this school grade, new items were added to the measure of school community climate and three new items were chosen based on the results of he level of child misbehavior (for example, noise, horseplay, or fig hting in the halls or cafeteria) in this school Negative items were recoded so that high scores reflect higher levels of perceived school communi strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

PAGE 44

44 Teacher ers to discuss lesson planning, participation in meetings with other teachers to discuss curriculum development, and meeting 1 ( never ), 2 ( once a month or less ), 3 ( two or three times a month ), 4 ( once or twice a week ), 5 ( three or four times a week ), 6 ( daily ) for each item. School Variable : School Neighborhood R isk School neighborhood risk was ass essed with school administrator s ratings on three items: problem with selling or using drugs, problem with gangs and crime in the area Responses ranged from 1 (no problem ) 2 (somewhat of a problem), 3 ( big problem ) for each item. Data Analyses Muthn and Satorra (1995) discussed two possible approache s to analyze structural equation m odels (SEM) with complex sample designs: aggregate and disaggregate. Stapleton (2006) suggest ed that the aggregate approach or design based modeling is the appro priate approach to use if the researcher is interested in mak ing global statements about the relationships in theoretical models. In contrast, the disaggregate approach should be used if the researcher is interested in addressing within group and between group relations separately. In this study I used the aggregate approach to analyze the data because I was interested in making global statement s about the relationships in my theoretical model (for a full discussion of the method see Muthn and Satorra, 1995; Stapleton, 2 006). The procedure devel oped by Muthn and Satorra (1995) has been implemented in t he Mplus software (Muthn & Muthn, 2010 p. 233 ) The Mplus software estimate s the model taking into account the complex sample design by computing the standard errors and chi square

PAGE 45

45 test of model fit taking into account stratification, non independence of observations due to cluster sampling, and unequal probability of selection. I used the weight variables created by ECLS K researchers to adjust for differential selection probabilities, different ial coverage of subpopulations, and differential nonresponse I used the weight variable BYCOMW0 for the kindergarten analyses and th e variable C45PW0 for the third grade analyses. The ECLS K data set has PSU and strata variables. The PSUs are numbered uni quely within strata but not across strata (so strata 1 has a PSU 1, strata 2 has a PSU 1, strata 3 has a PSU 1, etc.). For input to Mplus each cluster variable has to have a unique ID. So I created a new PSU variable in which every PSU is given a unique ID by using the following formula: newpsu = psu + 100*strata. For the kindergarten sample I used the PSU variable BYCOMPSU and strata variable BYCOMSTR to create the compos ite. For the third grade sample I used the PSU variable C45PPSU and strata variable C45PSTR to create the composite In all the analyses ( descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analyses, and structural equation modeling ) the complex sample was taken into account. Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and correlations were calculated for all measures. C onfirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess whether the items in the measures of parental warmth, school community, teacher and school neighborhood risk fit the kindergarten and third grade data Structural equation modeling was conducted to analyze the relationships in the theoretical model. oemotional variables because those scores had better reliability than the parent reports. For example, the reliability for the interpersonal skills scale in first grade was .89 for teachers and .69 for parents. In addition, I did not use child self report measures for socioemotional variables because these were collected only

PAGE 46

46 in third grade and not in kindergarten. The items of the measures of parental warmth, physical discipline, and school neighborhood risk included I do not know or refused as response op tions. The do not know and refused responses were treated as missing values. The method used to deal with missing data was full information analysis. Full information analysis is implemented in the Mplus software. Mplus uses all available data to estimate the model using full information maximum likelihood. When compared to listwise deletion this method has two advantages: estimates can be less biased and hypothesis testing can be more powerful Cases with missing data in the weight variable were eliminated, as there is no theory to deal with this.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The main goal of this study was to test an integrative ecological model to examine the effects of family, school, and community contexts on emotional and cognitive regulation and to addi mediated the association between both types of regulation and child outcomes. I studied these re lationships in two grades: kindergarten and third grade. This chapter includes information regarding the demographic characteristics of the samples, descriptive statisti cs for all of the measures, the results of factor analyses of the latent variables i n e ach of the conceptual models, and the results of structural equation modeling analyses. Kindergarten Descriptive Statistics The sampl e for these analyses included 17,060 children, their parents, teachers, and school administrators. The children were 49% fe males and 51% males. The majority of the students were Caucasian (57 %) and on average they were 6 years old in kindergarten. Demographic 1. Means and standard deviations for all v ariables except latent variables and age are reported in Table 3 2, and c orrelations are presented in Table s 3 3 and 3 4 Means and standard deviation for l atent variables are affected by the method used to set the scale fo r t he latent variables; therefore their means and standard deviations do not have meaningful estimates. Thus, means and standard deviations for latent variables are not reported in Table 3 2. Achievement variables were significantly correlated ranging from .65 to .83 Emotion regulation had a significant high positive correlation with cognitive regulation ( r = .75 ),

PAGE 48

48 significant high negative correlations with externalizing problems in kindergarten in the fall and spring ( r = .61 and r = .76 respective ly), significant negative moderate correlations with internalizing behavior in kindergarten in the fall and spring ( r = .27 and r = .39 respectively), and significant moderate positive correlations with reading and mathematics achievement in both rounds ( correlations ranged from r = .21 to r = .26 ). Cognitive regulation had significant moderate positive correlations with all the achievement scores ( correlations ranged from r = .36 to r = .44 ) and significant moderate to high negative correlations with th e social adjustment scores ( correlations ranged from r = .30 to r = .53). Participation in sports had significant small to moderate positive correlations with achievement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .20 to r = .29 ) and significant small correlations with adjustment and emotion and cognitive regulation variables ( correlations ranged from r = .10 to r = .13 ). Adjustment variables, externalizing and internalizing behaviors, in both rounds of data collection had significant small to moderate negative correlations with achievement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .20 to r = .12) and significant positive moderate to high correlations with each other ( correlations ranged from r = .19 to r = .73). Parental warmth had significant small correlations with externalizing behaviors, emotion and cognitive regulation, and participation in sports ( correlations ranged from r = .06 to .08 ). P hysical discipline had significant small correlations with all variables included in the model (correlatio ns ranged from r = .11 to .11 ) except for and age. was not significantly correlated with any of the variables included in the model except for internalizing behaviors in kindergarten in spring ( r = .04) and school community ( r = .18 ). School community had significant small positive correlations with achie vement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .08 and .11), significant small negative

PAGE 49

49 correlations with adjustment variables ( correlations ranged from r = .06 and .08), significant positive small correlations with emotion and cognitive regulation ( r = .15 and .11 respectively), significant small positive correlations with participation in sports and physical discipline ( r = .10 and .05 respectively), and had no significant association with parental warmth School n eighborhood risk had significant small negative correlations with achievement scores, school community, emotion and cognitive regulation, and participation in sports ( correlations ranged from r = .22 to .11 ) and significant small positive associations with adjustment variables and physical d iscipline (correlations ranged from r = .04 to .07 ). SES was significantly correlated with achievement variables, emotion and cognitive regulation, participation in sports and school community (correlations ranged from r = .16 to .43 ) Also SES had significant negative correlation s with adjustment variables, physical discipline, and neighborhood risk ( correlations ranged from r = .31 to .09 ). Girls were more likely to have higher reading, and emotion and cognitive regulation scores and less likely to have higher externalizing and internalizing problems scores than boys. Also, girls were less likely to participate in sports and parents were less likely to report using physical discipline with them than with boys. Older children were more likely than younger children to have higher achievement, cognitive and emotion regulation scores, and to participate in sports Asian children were more likely than other children to h ave higher SES, higher achievement, higher cognitive and emotion regulation scores, and to be in positive school communities Also, Asians were less likely than other children to show externalizing and internalizing behaviors, participate in sports and th eir parent s were less likely to report higher levels of parental warmth and use of physical discipline African American children were less likely than other children to have higher SES, higher achievement, higher cognitive and emotion regulation scores, t o participate in

PAGE 50

50 sports and to be in positive sc hool communities. Also, African American children were more likely than other children to attend schools in risky neighborhoods and to show externalizing and internalizing behaviors and their parents were m ore likely to report higher levels of parental warmth and use of physical discipline. Hispanic children were less likely than other children to show externalizing behaviors, to have higher SES, higher achievement, higher cognitive and emotion regulation sc ores, to participate in sports and to be in positive school communities. Also, Hispanic children were more likely than other children to attend schools in risky ne i ghborhoods. Children from other ethnicities (mixed race, American Indian, Alaska Nati ve, Na tive Hawaiian, and other P acific Islander children) were less likely to show higher scores in mathematics, emotion and cognitive regulation, and to participate in sports Confirmatory Factor Analysis warmth, school community, and neighborhood risk fit the data from this sample, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed with th e Mplus software. The chi square test of model fit for the measurement model was significant 2 (67) = 174.70 p < .001 indicating that the model did not fit the data. However, this result was likely due to high power resulting from the large sample size. The goodness of fit indices, which are often considered to be better indices of model fit because they examine how closely the model fits the data (rather than if it fits exactly), indicated that the mo del fit the data well overall: t he comparative fit in dex (CFI) = .99, th e Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = .98 and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .01. Item descriptions, along with factor loadings, are prese nted in Table 3 5 All factor loadings w

PAGE 51

51 Fit of the Model Structural equa tion modeling of complex survey data was the approach used to estimate the conceptual model (Muth n & Satorra, 1995; Stapleton, 2006) On the basis of the results of the factor analysis, I included emotion regulation, parental warmth, school community, tea cher and neighborhood risk as latent variables and all the other variables as observed variables in the model. Exogenous variables were allowed to correlate with each other. The chi square test of model fit was signific ant, 2 (254 ) = 11 49.09 p < .001 indicating that the model did not fit the data. However, the goodness of fit indices indicated that the model fit the data well overall, as the comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = .97 and the root mean square error of appro ximation (RMSEA) = .01 Tables 3 6, 3 7, 3 8, and 3 9 present the total, direct, and indirect effects specified in the model. Direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables Standardized d irect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous va riables are presented in T able 3 6 The exogenous variables were reading and mathematics achievement assessed in the fall, externalizing and internalizing behaviors assessed in the fall, school neighborhood risk, SES, gender, ethnicity, and age. The endogenous variables were parental warmth ( P W), physical discipline (PD), school community (SC) r eading ( Rk2 ) and mathematics (Mk2) achievement assessed in the spring, externalizing (Extk2) and internalizing (Intk2) behavi ors assessed in the spring. Reading achievement in kindergarten in fall had significant positive effects on achieve ment in kindergarten in spring (.70 for reading and .09 for mathematics). Mathematics achievement in kindergarten in fall had significant po sitive effects on kindergarten achievement in spring (.67 for mathematics and .14 for reading). Externalizing behaviors in kindergarten in fall had significant positive effects on externalizing behaviors in spring in kindergarten (.41) and

PAGE 52

52 on physical disc iplin e in kindergarten in spring (.07 ), and negati ve effects on parental warmth ( .03), school community ( .03 ), and internalizing behaviors ( 0 9 ). Internalizing behaviors in kindergarten in fall had a positive effect on internalizing behavior s in kindergarten in spring (.48 ) and had negative effects on externalizing behaviors in kindergarten in spring ( .05). Participation in sports had significant effects on parental warmth, school community, and internalizing behavior s in kindergarten in spring ( .03, .03 and .03 respectively). School n eighborhood risk had a significant negative effect on school community ( .08 ). SES had significant positive effects on mathematics achievement in kindergarten in spring (.04) and school community (.0 9), and signifi cant negative effects on physical d iscipline ( .10). Gender had significant positive effects on parental warmth (.06), reading (.02), and internalizing behaviors (.03). Also, gender had significant negative effects on physical discipline ( .04), mathematic s scores in spring ( .03), and externalizing behaviors in spring ( .03). Age had a significant negative effect on reading achieve ment in kindergarten in spring ( .04) and on physical discipline ( .02) and had significant positive effects on mathematics ac hievement in kindergarten in spring (.01 ) and on internalizing behaviors in kindergarten in spring (.03). Asian children compared with Caucasians were more likely to have higher reading scores in kindergarten and less likely to show externalizing and inte rnalizing behaviors, and their parents were less likely to report being affectionate with them. African American children were less likely than Caucasian children to have higher reading and mathematics scores in kindergarten to show externalizing behavior s, and attend schools with positive school communities. Parents of African American children were more likely than parents of Caucasian children to report affectionate behaviors towards their children and more likely to use physical discipline with them. H ispanic children were more likely than Caucasians to have higher reading

PAGE 53

53 scores in kindergarten and more likely to have lower scores in mathematics and on internalizing behaviors. Children from other ethnicities were less likely than Caucasians to have hi gher scores on mathematics. Effects of family, school, and community variables on emotion and cognitive regulation Table 3 7 shows direct standardized effects of exogenous variables on emotion and cognitive regulation. The exogenous variables were readi ng and mathematics achievement assessed in the fall, externalizing and internalizing behaviors assessed in the fall, school neighborhood risk, SES, gender, ethnicity, and age. achievement, reading in kindergarten in sprin g had positive significant effects on emotion and c ognitive regulation (.03 and .06 respectively). Likewise, mathematics achievement in kindergarten in spring had positive significant effects on emoti on and cognitive regulation (.08 and .22 respectively). E xternalizing behaviors in kindergarten in spring had significant effects on emotio n and cognitive regulation ( .55 an d .05 respectively). Internalizing behaviors in kindergarten in spring had negative significant effects on emotio n and cognitive regulatio n ( .10 and .08 respectively). ignificant effects on emotion and cognitive regulation (.08 and .09 respectively). Age had significant positive effects on emotion regulation and cognitive regulatio n (.02 and .03 respectively). Asian ethnicity had a significant positive effect on cognitive regulation (.02). African American ethnicity had significant effects on emotion and cognitive regulation ( .06 and .02 respectively). Hispanic ethnicity had a sign ificant positive effect on cognitive regulation (.03). Other ethnicity had a significant effect on cognitive regulation (.01). Table 3 8 shows the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of exogenous variables on emotion and cognitive regulation. SES had significant total effects on emotion regulation

PAGE 54

54 (.03) and no significant total, direct, or indirect effects on cognitive regulation. The effect of SES on emotion regulat ion was indirect from SES to physical discipline to emotion regulation (.003 p < .01) and from SES to school community to emotion regulation (.01, p < .01). Thus, the effect of SES on emotion regulation was primarily mediated by the effect of SES on physical discipline and school community variables. Participation in sports had si gnificant total effects on emotion and c ognitive regulation (.02 and .03 respectively ). The effect of participation in sports on cognitive regulation was indirect from participation in extracurricular activities to emotion regulat ion to cognitive regulatio n (.01 p < .05). Thus, the effect of participation in sports on cognitive regulation was primarily mediated by emotion regulation. School neighborhood risk did not have significant t otal, direct or indirect effects on emotion or cognitive regulation. Effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables Table 3 9 shows the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables. Contextual var iables were parental warmth, physical discipline, school community, and Outcome variables were emotion (ER) and cognitive regulation (CR), discussions (RP) reading (R3) and mathematics (M3 ) achievement assessed in third grade, and externalizing (Ext3) and internalizing (Int3) behaviors assessed in third grade. Of the parental and school variables, parental warmth, physical discipline, and school community had significant direct effects on emotion regulatio n as specified in the model (.05, .03, .08 respectively), but had no significant direct effects on cognitive regulation. The total effects of parental warmth on cognitive regulation were not significant, although the indirect effect f rom parental warmth to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation was significant (.03 ). The total effect of physical discipline on cognitive regulation was significant ( .03), the direct

PAGE 55

55 effect was not significant, and the indirect effect from physical di scipline to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation was significant ( .02 ). Thus, the effect of physical discipline on cognitive regulation was entirely mediated by emotion regulation. School community had a significant total effect on cognitive regulat ion of .04. Two paths were specified from school community to cognitive regulation: (a) a direct effect ( .02 p >.05) and (b) an indirect effect from school community to emotion regulat ion to cognitive regulation (.06 p < .01). Thus, the effect of school community on cognitive regulation was entirely mediated by emotion regulation. Emotion regulation had a significant high positive effect on cognitive regulation and on (.69 and .08 respectively, both p s < .01). Emotion regulation had significant total effects on reading and mathematics achiev ement (.04 and .05 respectively, both p < .01). The direct effects from emotion regulation to achievement variables were significant ( .03 for reading and .04 for mathematics both p s < .01 ). Three indirect paths were specified from emotion regulation to achievement variables: (a) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to achievement variable (b) from emotion regulation to collaborative discussions to achievement variable (c) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to to achievement variable. The indirect effects from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to achievement variables were significant (.07 f or reading, .09 for mathematics, both p s < .01). Thus, the effects of emotion regulation on achievement variables were primarily mediated by cognitive regulation. Emotion regulation had significant total effects on externalizing and internalizing behav ior ( .52 and .31 respectively, both p s < .01). The direct effects from emotion regulation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors were signific ant ( .57 and .20 respectively, both p s < .01). Three indirect paths were specified from emotion regulation to adjustment variables: (a)

PAGE 56

56 from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to adjustment variable s (b) from emotion regulation to to adjustment variab le s (c) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to to adjustment variable s The indirect effects from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to adjustment variables were significant (.05 for extern alizing, .11 for internalizing, both p s < .01). Thus, the effect of emotion regulation on externalizing behavior was primarily due to the direct effect of emotion regulation on externalizing behaviors. In contrast, the effect of emotion regulation on internalizing behaviors was partially mediated by cognitive regulation. The effects of cognitive regulation on the third grade outcomes of reading and mathematics achievement, and externalizing and internalizing behaviors were direct and significant (.10, .13, .07, and .16 respectively, all p s < .01). The indirect effects from cognitive regulation to to academic achievement variables were not s ignificant. The indirect effect from cognitive regulation to sions to internalizing behavior s was significant ( .003 p < .05 ). Thus, the effect of cognitive regulation on child achievement and adjustment was primarily direct. had significant direct effects on internalizing behavi ors (.03 p < .01 ). Third Grade Descriptive Statistics The samp le for these analyses included 12,652 students, their parents, teachers, and school administrators. T he students were 48 % females and 52 % males. The majority of the students were Caucasian (57 %) and on average they were 7 years old in first grade. Demographic sented in Table 3 10 Means and nd age are report ed in Table 3 11 and correlations are presented in Table s 3 12 and 3 13 Means and standard

PAGE 57

57 deviation for latent variables are affected by the method used to set the scale for the latent variables; therefore their means and standard deviations do not have meaningful estimates. Thus, means and standard deviations for latent variables are not reported in Table 3 11. Correlations of r eading and mathematics scores for first and third grade ranged from .64 to .79 Emotion regulation had a significant high posit ive correlation with cognitive regulation ( r = .78 ), significant high negative correlations with externalizing problems in first and third grade ( r = .54 and r = .77 respectively), significant negative moderate correlations with internalizing behav ior in first and third grade ( r = .22 and r = .40 respectively), and significant moderate positive correlations with reading and mathematics achievement in both rounds ( correlations ranged from r = .23 to r = .30 ). Cognitive regulation had significant moderate positive correlations with all the achievement scores ( correlations ranged from r = .38 to r = .46 ) and significant moderate to high negative correlations with the social adjustment scores ( correlations ranged from r = .25 to r = .60 ). Participa tion in sports presented significant moderate positive correlations with achievement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .22 to r = .29 ), significant positive small correlations with emotion and cognitive regulation ( r = .10 and r = .12 respectively ), and significant small correlations with adjustment variables ( correlations ranged from r = .13 to r = .03 ). The a djustment variables, externalizing and internalizing behaviors, in both ro unds of data collection ha d significant small negative correlations with achievement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .24 to r = .18 ) and significant positive small to high correlations with each other ( correlations ranged from r = .17 to r = .56 ). Parental warmth had significant small correlations w ith reading achievement in third grade, externalizing and internalizing behaviors, emotion and cognitive regulation, and participation in

PAGE 58

58 sports (correlations ranged from r = .11 to .12). Physical discipline had significant small correlations with all var iables included in the model ( correlations ranged from r = .08 to .08 ) except for int ernalizing behaviors and participation in sports had small significant associations with mathematics scores in third grade and partic ipation in sports ( r = .05 and .05 respectively) School community had significant positive correlations with achievement variables ( correlations ranged from r = .15 to .18), significant small negative correlations with adjustment variables ( correlations ranged from r = .15 to .06 ), significant positive small correlations with emotion al and cognitive regulation ( r = .18 and .14 respectively), a signifi cant small positive correlation with participation in sports ( r = .14 ), and a significant negative as sociation with physical discipline ( r = .03) Neighborhood risk had significant small negative correlations with achievement scores, school community, emotion and cognitive regulation, participation in sports and parental warmth ( correlations ranged from r = .27 to .08 ) and significant small positive associations with adjustment variables ( correlations ranged from r = .06 to .08 ). SES presented mostly significant moderate positive correlations with achievement variables, emotion and cognitive regulation school community parental warmth, and participation in sports ( correlations ranged from r = .19 to .46 ) SES had a significant negative correlation s with adjustment variables, physical discipline, and neighborhood risk ( correlations ranged from r = .3 5 to .05 ). Girls were mor e likely to have higher reading and emotion and cognitive regulation scores and less likely to have higher mathematics scores, and externalizing and internalizing problems scores than boys. Also, girls were less likely to particip ate in sports and parents were less likely to report using physical discipline with them than with boys. Older children were more likely than younger child ren to have higher achievement scores and to

PAGE 59

59 participate in sports and less likely to show externali zing behaviors in first grade Asian children were more likely than other children to have higher SES, higher achievement, higher cognitive and emotion regulation scores, and to attend schools in safe neighborhoods Also, Asians were less likely than other children to show externaliz ing and internalizing behaviors and participate in sports African American children were less likely than other children to have higher SES, higher achievement, higher cognitive and emotion regulation scores, to participate in sports and to be in positive sc hool communities. Also, African American children were more likely than other children to attend schools in risky neighborhoods, and to show externalizing and internalizing behaviors and their parents were more likely to re port the use of physical discipline. Hispanic children were less likely than other children to show externalizing behaviors in first grade to have higher SES, higher achievement to participate in sports and to be in positive school communities. Also, Hi spanic children were more likely than other children to attend schools in risky neighborhoods and their parents were more likely to report higher levels of parental warmth Children from other ethnicities (mixed race, American Indian, Alaska Nati ve, Nativ e Hawaiian, and other P acific Islander children) were more likely to show higher externalizing behaviors in first grade and internalizing behaviors in first and third grade than other children Confirmatory Factor Analysis To assess whether the items chose n to represent parental warmth, school community, and neighborhood risk fit the data from this sample, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed with the Mplus software. The chi square test of model fit for the measu rement model was significant, 2 (67) = 155.30 p < .001 indicating that the model did not fit the data. The goodness of fit indices, which are often considered to be better indices of model fit because they examine how closely the model fits the data (ra ther than if it

PAGE 60

60 fits exactly), indicated that the model fit the data well overall, as the c omparative fit index (CFI) = .99 th e Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = .99 and the root mean square erro r of approximation (RMSEA) = .01 Item descriptions, along with st andardized factor loadings, are presented in Table 3 14 0. Fit of the Model Structural equation modeling of complex survey data was the approach used to estimate the conceptual model. O n the basis of r esults of the factor analysis, parental warmth, school c ommunity, t and school neighborhood r isk were included as latent variables, and all the other variables were included as observed variables in the model. Exogenous variables were allowed to correlate with each other. The chi square test of model fit was significant, 2 (2 5 4) = 858.78 p < .001 indicating that the model did not fit the data. However, the goodness of fit indices indicated that the model fit the data well overall, as the c o mparative fit index (CFI) = .98 th e Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = .97 and the root mean square error of approx imation (RMSEA) = .01 Tables 3 15, 3 16 3 17, and 3 18 present the total, direct, and indirect effects specified in the model. Direct effects of e xogenous variables on endogenous variables Standardized d irect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous varia bles are presented in Table 3 15 The exogenous variables were reading and mathematic s achievement assessed in first grade, externalizing and i nternaliz ing behaviors assessed in first grade, school neighborhood risk, SES, gender, ethnicity, and age. The endogenous variables were parental warmth ( P W), physical discipline (PD), school community (SC), reading and mathematic s achievement assessed in third grade, and externalizing and internaliz ing behaviors assessed in third grade. Reading achievement in first grade had significant positive effects on achievement in third grade (.47 for reading and .15 for mathematics) and eptions of school

PAGE 61

61 community (.08 ). Mathematics achievement in first grade had significant positive effects on third grade achievement (.57 for mathematics and .22 for reading) and had a significant negative effect on internaliz ing behavior s in third grade ( .08 ). Externalizing behaviors in first grade had significant negative effects on parental warm th ( .08) and internalizing behaviors ( .06 ), and a positive ef fect on physical discipline (.06) and externalizi ng behaviors in third grade (.2 2 ). Internalizing behaviors in first grade had a significant positive effect on internalizing behaviors in third grade (.18) and had a negative effect on externalizing behaviors in third grade ( .05). Participation in sports had significant effects on inte rnalizing behaviors ( .07 ) and on parental warmth (.06) School n eighborhood risk had significant negative ef fects on school community, reading and mathemat ics achievement in third grade and internalizing behaviors in third grade ( .10, .04, .03 and .05 respectively). achievement (.08 for mathematics and .11 for reading), parental warmth (.04), and school community (.10 ) and a significant negative effect on physical dis cipline ( .03). Gender had significant positive effect s on reading, internalizing behaviors in third grade and parental warmth (.03, .04 and .03 respectively) and had significant negative effects on mathematic scores and externalizin g behaviors in third grade ( .10 and .03 respectively). Age had a significant negative effect on mathemati cs scores in third grade ( .03) and on reading in third grade ( .03). Asian children compared with Caucasians were less likely to have highe r reading scores in third grad e and less likely to show externalizing and internalizing behaviors. African American children were less likely than Caucasian children to have higher reading and mathematics scores in third grade, to show internalizing behaviors, and attend schools with p ositive school communities. Also, African American children were more likely than Caucasian children to

PAGE 62

62 show externalizing behaviors. Parents of African American children were more likely than parents of Caucasian children to report affectionate behaviors towards their children and more likely to use physical discipline with t hem. Hispanic children were less likely than Caucasians to have higher reading scores in third grade and more likely to show internalizing behaviors. Parents of Hispanic children were more likely than parents of Caucasian children to report higher levels of parental warmth. Children from other ethnicities were less likely than Caucasians to attend schools with positive school communities. Effects of family, school, and community varia bles on emotion and cognitive regulation Table 3 16 shows direct standardized effects of exogenous variables on emotion and cognitive regulation. The exogenous variables were reading and mathematic s achievement assessed in first grade, externalizing and i nternaliz ing behaviors assessed in first grade, school neighborhood risk, SES, gender, ethnicity, and age. R eading in first grade had positive significant effects on emoti on and cognitive regulation (.06 and .12 respectively). Likewise, mathematics achieve ment had positive significant effects on emoti on and cognitive regulation (.06 and .15 respectively). E xternalizing behaviors in first grade had significant negative effects on emotion regulation ( .45). Internalizing behaviors in first grade had significa nt negative effects on cognitive regulation ( .04). Gender had significant positive effects on emotion and cognitive regulation (.14 and .08 respectively) Age had no significant effects on emotion or cognitive re gulation Asian ethnicity had a significant positive effect on cognitive regulation (.03). African American ethnicity had significant effects on emotion and cognitive regulation ( .06 and .03 respectively). Hispanic ethnicity had a significant positive effect on cognitive regulation (.02). Othe r ethnicity had no significant effects on emotional or cognitive regulation. Table 3 17 shows the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of SES, participation in sports and neighborhood risk on emotion and cognitive regulation. SES had significant total

PAGE 63

63 effects on emotion and cognitive regulation (.06 and .04 respectively). SES had a direct effect on emotion regulation (.05, p < .01). Other indirect effects were specifi ed from SES to physical discipline to emotion regulation and from SES to parental warmth to emotion regulation but neither effect was significant. Thus, the effect of SES on emotion regulation was primarily direct. SES had significant total effects on cog nitive regulation (.04). Four paths were specified from SES to cognitive regulation: (a) one direct effect from SES to cognitive regulation, (b) one indirect effect from SES to parental warmth to cognitive regulation, (c) one indirect effect from SES to ph ysical discipline to cognitive regulation, and (d) one indirect effect from SES to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation. Only the indirect effect from SES to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation was significant (.03, p < .01). Participation in sports had significant total effects on cognitive regulation (.04 ). The effect of participation i n sports on cognitive regu lation was partially indirect from participation in sports to emotion regulat ion to cognitive regulation (.03 p < .01 ). Thus, the e ffect of participation in sports on cognitive regulation was primarily indirect through its effect on emotion regulation School neighborhood risk did not have significant total or direct effects on cognitive regulation. The indirect effect form school nei ghborhood risk to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation was significant (.03, p < .05). In contrast, school neighborhood risk had a significant direct effect on emotion regulation (.04, p < .05) and an indirect effect from school neighborhood risk fro m school commu nity to emotion regulation ( .01 p < .05 ). However, the total effect was not significant. Effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables Table 3 18 shows the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of contextual variables and emotion and cognitive regulation on outcome variables. Contextual variables were parental warmth, physical discipline, school community, and

PAGE 64

64 Outcome variables were emotio n (ER) and cognitive regulation (CR), reading (R3) and mathematics (M3 ) achievement assessed in third grade, and externalizing (Ext3) and internalizing (In t3) behaviors assessed in third grade. Of the parental and school variables, parental warmth, physi cal discipline, and school community had significant direct effects on emotion regulatio n as specified in the model (.06, .04, .10 respectively) The total effect of parental warmth on cognitive regulation was significant (.03, p < .05) Two paths wer e specified from parental warmth to cognitive regulation: (a) a direct effect ( .01, p >.05) and (b) an indirect effect from parental warmth to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation ( .04 p < .05). Thus, the effect of parental warmth on cognitive regu lation was primarily indirect. The total effect of physical discipline on cognitive regulation was not significant. Two paths were specified from physical discipline to cognitive regulation: (a) a direct effect ( .01, p >.05) and (b) an indirect effect fro m physical discipline to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation ( .02, p < .05). Thus, the effect of physical discipline on cognitive regulation was indirect through its effect on emotion regulation. School community had a significant total effect on c ognitive regulation of .05. Two paths were specified from school community to cognitive regulation: (a) a direct effect ( .02, p < .01 ) and (b) an indirect effect from school community to emotion regulation to cognitive regulation (.07, p < .01). Thus, the effect of school community on cognitive regulation was primarily mediated by emotion regulation. Emotion regulation had a significant strong effect on cognitive regulatio n as specified in the model (.71 p < .01). Emotion regulation had significant total effects on reading and mathematics achiev ement (.08 and .08 respectively, both p < .01). The direct effect from emotion regulatio n to reading achievement was significant ( .04, p < .05) and the direct effect from

PAGE 65

65 emotion regulation to mathematics a chievement was significant ( .05 p < .01 ). Three indirect paths were specified from emotion regulation to achievement variables: (a) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to achievement (b) from emotion regulation to collaborative dis cussions to achievement (c) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to to achievement. Only the indirect effects from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to the achievement variables were significant (.12 for reading and .13 for mathematics, both p s < .01). Thus, the effects of emotion regulation on achievement variables were primarily mediated by cognitive regulation. Emotion regulation had significant total effects on externalizing and internalizing beh av ior ( .64 and .36 respectively, both p s < .01). The direct effects from emotion regulation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors were signific ant ( .64 and .22 respectively, both p s < .01). Three indirect paths were specified from emotio n regulation to adjustment variables: (a) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to adjustment variable s (b) from emotion regulation to to adjustment variable s (c) from emotion regulation to cognitive regulati on to to adjustment variable s Only the indirect effects from emotion regulation to cognitive regulation to internalizing behaviors was significant ( .14 p < .01). Thus, the effect of emotion regulation on externalizing behavior was primarily due to its direct effect. In contrast, the effect of emotion regulation on internalizing behaviors was partially mediated by cognitive regulation. The effects of cognitive regulation on reading and mathematics achievement and inter nalizing behaviors were direct and significant ( .18, .18 and 20 respectively, all p s < .01). The effect of cognitive regulation on externalizing behaviors was not significant. The indirect effects from cognitive regulation to cussions to outcome variables

PAGE 66

66 were not significant. The only significant direct effect for was on mathematics in third grade (.03; p < .05).

PAGE 67

67 Table 3 1. Demographic characteristic s of the kindergarten s ampl e Variable % N Gender Male 51 4 8 769 Female 48 6 8,291 Ethnicity Caucasian 57. 5 9 809 Hispanic 18.8 3,207 African American 16.1 2,747 Asian 2.8 478 Other ethnicities 4.8 819 Note. N = 17 060 Table 3 2. Means, standard d eviations and m inimum and maximum scores f or k indergarten assessments Variable M SD Minimum Maximum Child Variables Reading fall 34.86 9.83 21.01 138.51 Reading spring 45.87 13.54 22.35 156.85 Mathematics fall 25.59 8.94 10.51 115.65 Mathematics spring 35.83 11.90 11.62 113.80 Externalizing fall 1.64 .65 1 4 Externalizing spring 1.69 .66 1 4 Internalizing fall 1.55 .53 1 4 Internalizing spring 1.59 .53 1 4 Cognitive regulation 3.08 .69 1 4 Participation in sports .45 .50 0 1 Standardized SES .04 .79 4.75 2.75 Parental variable Physical discipline .25 1.23 1 30 Note. N = 17 0 6 0

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 3. Intercorrelations between v ariables in k indergarten Note. N = 17,0 6 0 Reading fall k inder = Rk1; Reading spring k inder = Rk2; Math fall k inder = Mk1; Math spring k inder = Mk2 ; Externalizing behavior fall kinder = Extk1; Externalizing behavior spring kinder = Extk2; Internalizing behavior fall k inder = Intk1; Internalizing behavior spring kinder = Intk2; Emotional r egulation = ER; Cognitive r egulation = CR; P articipation in sports = P S ; Parental w armth = P W; Physical d iscipline = PD; School community = SC; = CD ; School neighborhood r isk = NR. p < .05. ** p < 01

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 4 Intercorrelations between sex, age, and ethnicity and all ot her variables in k indergarten Sex Age Asian African American Hispanic Other ethnicities Reading kinder fall .06** .17** .07** .09** .18** .04 Reading kinder spring .08** .13** .08** .11** .14** .05 Math kinder fall .00 .25** .06** .16** .21** .05 Math kinder spring .01 .22** .05** .18** .19** .05* Externalizing behavior kinder fall .20** .01 .05** .11** .03* .03 Externalizing behavior kinder spring .21** .02 .06** .14** .03* .03 Internalizing behavior kinder fall .03** .02 .03** .01 .02 .02* Internalizing behavior kinder spring .04** .02 .04** .04** .01 .03* Emotional regulation .19** .05** .05** .15** .03* .04* Cognitive regulation .21** .12** .06** .13** .05** .03 Participation in sports .14** .07** .07** .17** .18** .03* Parental warmth .06** .01 .08** .05** .01 .00 Physical discipline .05** .02 .02* .10** .02 .01 School community .02 .01 .03* .10** .05* .04 .01 .01 .00 .02 .02 .04 School neighborhood risk .01 .00 .02 .22** .19** .11 SES .00 .00 .06** .19** .25** .03 Sex ---.07** .00 .00 .01 .01 Age .07** ---.04** .02 .07** .01 Note. N = 17,0 6 0 p < .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 70

70 Table 3 5 Confirmatory factor a nalysis for k indergarten assessments Factor and i tems Standardized factor l oading Standard e rror Emo tion r egulation Self c ontrol .8 6 .03 Interpersonal s kills .9 3 .03 Parental Warmth Most of the time I feel that child likes me and wants to be near me .51 .0 2 Even when I am in a bad mood I show child a lot of love 49 .0 2 I express affection by hugging, kissing, and praising .42 .0 2 School c ommunity Staff members in this school generally have school spirit .6 3 .0 3 I feel accepted and respecte d as a colleague by most staff members .6 6 .0 2 Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking new ideas .80 .02 Times meet to discuss lesson planning .7 4 .03 Times meet to discuss curriculum development 78 .0 3 Times meet to discuss individual children .5 1 .03 Neighborhood r isk Problem with substance abuse 77 .0 3 Problem with gangs .84 .03 Problems with crime in area .8 8 .0 2 Note. N = 17,060 *Reverse scored.

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 6 Direct effects of exogenous variables on endogenous v ariables in k indergarten Endogenous Variable s Exogenous Variable s P W PD SC Reading s pring Math s pring Externalizing spring Internalizing spring Reading f all ------.02 .70 ** .09** .00 .00 Math ematics f all ------.01 .14 ** .67 ** .01 .03** Externalizing f all .03 .07 ** .03 .01 .01 .41** .09 ** Internalizing f all .0 2 .00 .04 .0 0 .01 .05** .48 ** Participation in sports .03 .04 .03* .00 .01 .00 .03 ** School n eighborhood r isk ------.08 .00 .01 .0 0 .0 1 SES 03 .10** .09 ** .01 .04** .00 .02 Gender .0 6** .04** .0 1 .0 2** .03** .03** .03** Age .0 1 .02** .00 .04 ** .01* .00 .03** Asian .08 ** .01 .01 .02 ** .01 .02** .02** African American .06** .07** .06* .02* .05** .02* .02 Hispanic .01 .00 .0 1 .02* .03** .02 .02* Other ethnicities .01 .01 .0 3 .00 .02** .00 .00 Note. ---means the effect is not in the model. Parental w armth = P W; Physical d iscipline = PD; School c ommunity = SC. p .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 72

72 Table 3 7 Direct effects of exogenous variables on regulation v ariables in k indergarten Exogenous Variables Emotion regulation Cognitive regulation Reading fall .03* .06 ** Mathematics fall .08** .22** Externalizing fall .54** .05** Internalizing fall .10** .08 ** Gender .08** .09** Age .02* 0 3 ** Asian .01 .02 ** African American .06** .02 Hispanic .01 .03** Other ethnicities .01 .01* p < .05. ** p < 01. Table 3 8 Total, direct, and indirect effects of SES participation in sports and school neighborhood risk on regulation variables in k indergarten Exogenous Variables Effect Emotion regulation Cognitive regulation Participation in sports Total .02* .03 ** Direct .02* .01 Indirect via ER ---.01 SES Total .03* .01 Direct .01 .01 Indirect via PW .00 .00 Indirect via PD 00 3** .00 Indirect via SC .01 ** .00 Indirect via ER ---.01 School neighborhood risk Total .03 .00 Direct .02 .02 Indirect via SC .0 1 .00 Indirect via ER ---.02 Note. ---means the effect is not in the model. p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 73

73 Table 3 9 Total, direct, and indirect effects of endogenous variables on e ndogenous variables in k indergarten Variable Effect ER CR CD Rk2 Mk2 Extk2 Intk2 Parental warmth Total .05 ** .02 ---.00 .02 .03** .01 Direct .05 ** .0 2 ---.0 1 .02 .0 0 .0 0 Indirect via ER ---.03 ** ---.001* .002 .03 ** .01 ** Physical d iscipline Total .03 ** .03 ** ---.0 0 .01* .04** .00 Direct .03 ** .01 ---.00 .01 .02** .01 Indirect via ER ---.02 ** ---.001* .001* .02** .01** School c ommunity Total .08 ** .04* ---.0 2 .01 .02 .01 Direct .08 ** .0 2 ---.02* .01 .02 .01 Indirect via ER ---.06 ** ---------------collaborative discussions Total ---------.02 .0 0 .02 .03 ** Direct ---------.02 .0 0 .02 .03 ** Indirect ----------------------Emotion r egulation Total ---.69 ** .08** .04 ** .05 ** .52 ** .31 ** Direct ---.69 ** .08** .03 ** .04 ** .57 ** .20** Indirect via CR ----------.07** .09 ** .05 ** .11 ** Indirect via RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .00 Indirect via CR RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .00 Cognitive r egulation Total ------.08 ** .10** .13 ** .07 ** .16 ** Direct ------.08 ** .10** .13 ** .07 ** .16 ** Indirect via RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .003 Note. ---means the effect is not in the model Reading spring kinder = Rk2; Math spring k inder = Mk2 ; Externalizing behavior spring kinder = Extk2; Internalizing behavior spring k inder = Intk2; E motional r egulation = ER; Cognitive r egulation = CR; = CD p < .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 74

74 Figure 3 1. Results of path a nalysis for k indergarten sample Onl y significant paths are in F igure 3 1

PAGE 75

7 5 Table 3 10 Demographic characteristics of the third grade s ample Variable % N Gender Male 51 8 6 5 54 Female 48 2 6 0 98 Ethnicity Caucasian 57.1 7 224 Hispanic 21.5 2 720 African American 16.1 2,037 Asian 2.8 35 4 Other 2.4 304 Note. N = 12 652 Table 3 11 Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores for t hird g rade Variable M SD Minimum Maximum Child Variables Reading 1 st grade 77.01 23.82 25.11 184.05 Reading 3rd grade 125.76 28.17 51.46 200.75 Mathematics 1 st grade 61.01 18.19 13.44 132.49 Mathematics 3 rd grade 97.89 24.95 34.56 166.25 Externalizing 1 st grade 1.67 .66 1 4 Externalizing 3 rd grade 1.72 .62 1 4 Internalizing 1 st grade 1.61 .53 1 4 Internalizing 3 rd grade 1.65 .55 1 4 Cognitive regulation 3 rd grade 3.02 .69 1 4 Participation in sports .54 .50 0 1 Standardized SES .09 .79 2.96 2.88 Parental variable Physical discipline .01 .84 1 25 Note. N = 12 652

PAGE 76

76 Table 3 12 Intercorrelations between variable s in t hird g rade Note. N = 12,65 2 Reading 1st grade = R1; Reading 3rd grade = R3; Math 1st grade = M1; Math 3rd grade = M3 ; Externalizing b ehavior 1 st grade = Ext1; Externalizing b ehavior 3rd grade = Ext3; Internalizing b ehavior 1st grade = Int1; Internalizing b ehavi or 3rd grade = Int3; Emotional r egulation = ER; Cognitive r egulation = CR; Participation in sports = P S ; Parental w armth = PW; Physical d iscipline = PD; S chool c ommunity = SC; = CD ; School neighborhood r isk = NR. p < .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3 13 Intercorrelations between sex, age, and et hnicity and all other variables in t hird grade Sex Age Asian African American Hispanic Other e th nicities Reading 1 st grade .09** .11** .05** .12** .15** .04 Reading 3 rd grade .10** .07** .03** .20** .17** .06 Math 1 st grade .04** .18** .03 .19** .15** .05 Math 3 rd grade .08** .10** .05** .24** .14** .04 Externalizing behavior 1 st grade .22** 03* .05** .14** .03* .04* Externalizing behavior 3rd grade .23** .00 .08** .20** .03 .01 Internalizing behavior 1 st grade .04** .01 .05** .04** .00 .03* Internalizing behavior 3rd grade .05** .00 .06** .03 .02 .04* Emotional regulation .24** .00 .07** .17** .01 .02 Cognitive regulation .25** .02 .08** .15** .02 .02 Participation in sports .14** .04** .06** .15** .19** .02 Parental warmth .05** .03 .03 .00 .04* .03 Physical discipline .02 .02 .01 .10** .03 .00 School community .02 .01 .01 .18** .05* .05 discussions .00 .02 .02 .01 .06* .02 School neighborhood risk .03 .01 .03* .23** .24** .09 SES .01 .01 .05** .20** .26** .04 Sex ----.06** .00 .00 .00 .02* Age ---.05** .01 .06** .00 Note. N = 12,65 2 p < .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 78

78 Table 3 14 Confirmatory factor analysis for third g rade assessments Factor and i tems Standardized factor l oading Estimated standard e rror Emotion r egulation Self c ontrol .95 .03 Interpersonal s kills .8 5 .03 Parental Warmth Child and I often have warm, close time together 69 .02 Most of the time I feel that child likes me and wants to be near me 67 .02 I express affection by hugging, kissing, and praising 51 .02 School c ommunity Child misbehavior affects teaching* .54 .02 Physical conflict serious problem* .89 .01 Bullying serious problem* .8 4 .01 Times meet to discuss lesson planning .79 .02 Times meet to discuss curriculum development .69 .02 Times meet to discuss individual children .53 .02 School n eighborhood r isk Problems with substance abuse .81 .03 Problem with gangs .8 1 .03 Problems with crime in area .8 4 .02 Note. N = 12,612 *Reverse scored.

PAGE 79

79 Table 3 15 Direct effects of exogenous var iables on endogenous variables in t hird g rade Endogenous Variables Exogenous Variable s P W PD SC Reading 3rd grade Math 3rd g rade Externalizing 3rd g rade Internalizing 3rd g rade Reading 1 st grade ------. 08 ** .47 ** .15** .01 .01 Math ematics 1 st grade ------.00 .22** .57 ** .01 .08 ** Externalizing 1 st grade .08 ** .06 ** .01 .02 .01 .22 ** .06 ** Internalizing 1 st grade .03 .01 .01 .02 .02 .05** .18** Participation in sports 1 st grade .06** .01 .04 .02 .01 .02 .07 ** School N eighbor hood r isk ------.10* .04** .03* .02 .05* SES .04 .03* .10 ** .11** .08** .01 .00 Gender .03* .01 .01 .03 ** .10 ** .03* .04* Age .03 .02 .00 .03 ** .0 3 ** .00 .02 Asian .02 .02 .01 .03** .00 .02* .04** African American .04* .08** .13** .06** .07** .06** .08** Hispanic .06 ** .02 .01 .04** .01 .00 .06** Other ethnicities .02 .00 .05* .03 .01 .01 .01 Note. ---means the effect is not in the model Parental w armth = PW; Physical d iscipline = PD; School c ommunity = SC. p .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 80

80 Table 3 16 Direct effects of exogenous vari ables on regulation variables in t hird g rade Exogenous Variables Emotion regulation Cognitive regulation Reading 1 st grade .06 .12 ** Mathematics 1 st grade .06 ** .15 ** Externalizing 1 st grade .45** .02 Internalizing 1 st grade .01 .04** Gender .14** .08 ** Age .03 .01 Asian .0 4 .03** African American .06** .03* Hispanic .02 .0 2* Other ethnicities .01 .0 2 p < .05. ** p < 01. Table 3 17 Total, direct, and indirect effects of SES, participation in sports and school neighborhood risk on regulation variables in t hird grade Exogenous Variables Effect Emotion regulation Cognitive regulation Participation in sports Total .04 ** .04** 1 st grade Direct .04** .00 Indirect via ER ---.03** SES Total .06** .04** Direct .05** .00 Indirect via Warm .00 .00 Indirect via PD .00 .00 Indirect via ER ---.03** School Total .03 .02 neighborhood risk Direct .04* .01 Indirect via SC .01* .00 Indirect via ER ---.03* Note. ---means the effect is not in the model. p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 81

81 Table 3 18 Total, direct, and indirect effects of end ogenous variables on endogenous variables in t hird g rade Variable Effect ER CR CD R3 M3 Ext3 Int3 Parental w armth Total .06 .03* ---.03** .01 .05 ** .04* Direct .06 .01 ---.03** .01 .01 .02 Indirect via ER ---.04 ---.00 2* .00 .04 .01 Physical d iscipline Total .04** .02 ---.01 .00 .02 .01 Direct .04** .01 ---.01 .00 .01 .02 Indirect via ER ---.02 ---.00 .00 .02* .01 School c ommunity Total .10 ** .05** ---.00 .02 .02 .05* Direct .10 ** .02 ** ---.00 .02 .02 .05 Indirect via ER ---.07** ---------------collaborative di s cussions Total ---------.01 .03* .01 .02 Direct ---------.01 .03* .01 .02 Indirect ----------------------Emotion r egulation Total ---.71 ** .00 .08 ** .08** .64 ** .36 ** Direct ---.71 ** .00 .04* .05 .64 ** .22 ** Indirect via CR ----------.12** .13 ** .00 .14 ** Indirect via RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .00 Indirect via CR RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .00 Cognitive r egulation Total ------.01 .18** .18 ** .00 .20 ** Direct ------.01 .18** .18 ** .00 .20 ** Indirect via RP ---------.00 .00 .00 .00 Note. ---means the effect is not in the model ; Reading third g rade = R3; Math third g rade = M3; Externalizin g behavior third g rade = Ext3 ; Internalizing b ehavior third g rade = Int3 ; Emotional r egulation = ER; Cognitive r egulation = CR; = CD p < .05. ** p < 01.

PAGE 82

82 Figure 3 2. Results of path analysis for t hird g rade sample Only significant paths are in F igure 3 2

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The main goal of this study was to test an integrative ecological model that clarifies the effect of self regulation, as measured by emotional and cognitive regulation, on student achievem ent and well being by examining the effects of family, school, and community contexts and socioemotional outcomes. This model was tested in two grades (kinder garten and third grade). In this chapter, I summarize the results of the analyses of the model organizing them regulation, achievement, and adjustment. Because the results for kindergarten and third grade are similar, I discuss the results for both grades and note inconsistencies in the results for the two grades. In this chapter, I also identify weaknesses in the study, discuss directions for future research, and suggest implications for theory and practice. The analyses of the kindergarten and third grade data indicate that the model fits the data well. However, not all the hypothesized paths in the model were significant. In the followin g I discuss the results of the analyses according to the five aims of the study: (a) to test the effect of family, school, and community variables on emotional and cognitive regulation; (b) to assess whether emotional regulation mediated the effect of pare ntal and school variables on cognitive regulation; (c) to examine whether parental and school variables mediated the effects of SES and neighborhood risk on emotional and cognitive regulation; (d) to determine whether cognitive regulation mediated the effe ct of emotional regulatio n on achievement and adjustment and (e) to assess whether mediated the relationship between cognitive regulation and academic achievement.

PAGE 84

84 Most of the relationships among the variables in the mod els in kindergarten and third grade are small but significant. They were small due to the strong relationships between the exogenous variables (i.e, prior achievement, SES, and school neighborhood risk) and the endogenous variables. For example, g iven that demographic variables and prior levels of achievement were already strongly associated with future achievement, an additional contribution to achievement from either emotion regulation or cognitive regulation would be more difficult to find Weaknesses in the reliability and validity of the measures may also have limited the strength of the relationships. Despite these concerns, I present these relationships here to indicate that they are consistent with findi ngs in the research literature to help researchers identify relationships in need of further research with more sensitive instruments. Effects of Contextual Variables on Emotion and Cognitive Regulation The hypothesis that parental warmth and physical disc ipline predict emotion regulation but not cognitive regulation was supported by the findings. In addition the hypotheses that parental warmth has a positive effect on emotion regulation and physical discipline has a negative effect on emotion regulation w ere supported by the findings. Parental warmth has a significant positive direct effect on emotion regulation in both kindergarten and third grade but has no significant direct effects on cognitive regulation in either grade. Similarly, in kindergarten and thir d grade, physical discipline has a significant negative direct effe ct on emotion regulation and has no direct effect on cognitive regulation. Alt hough the size of the effects is small, they are consistent with a substantial body of research showing th at parental warmth and low physical discipline are related to better emotional regulation (Chen et al., 2000; Colman et al., 2006; Dodge et al., 2006; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kaminski et al., 2008; Miner & Clarke Stewart, 2008).

PAGE 85

85 In addition, the finding t hat parental practices affect emotional but not cognitive regulation lends some support to the assumption that self regulation is based on two separable systems: one is emotional and the other is cognitive Likewise, participation in sports school neighbo rhood ri sk, and socioeconomic status have effects on emotion regulation but not on cognitive regulation. These findings are consistent with theorists and researchers assumption s that the emotional system of self regulation is more likely to be responsive to social emotionally, and motivationally significant contexts, whereas the cognitive system is more likely to be responsive to informative, cognitive stimuli and to situations where affective experience does not compete with or interfere with the cognit ive demands of a particular situation (Bush et al., 2000; Kopp, 1989; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Rothbart & Rueda, 2005; Zelazo et al., 2010). For example, Kopp (1989) believed that cognitive regulation is less likely to emerge in familiar situations that e voke almost automatic responses and do not demand planfulness and in stressful situations that hind ability to think in an organized fashion. Participation in sports The hypothesis that participation in sports has a positive direct effect on emotion regulation was supported by the findings. However, the hypothesis that participation in sports has a positive direct effect on cognitive regulation was not supported by the findings. In kindergarten and third grade, participation in sport s has a significant positive direct effect on emotion regulation (.02 and .04 respectively) and a significant total effect on cognitive regulation (.03 and .04 respectively). The effect of participation in sports on cognitive regulation is primarily mediat ed by emotion regulation (.01 and .03 respectively). These findings are not sufficiently high to warrant speculation about their significance. However, these findings are consistent with research that has shown that involvement in extracurricular activitie s is related to

PAGE 86

86 positive development in elementary school students (Zarrett et al., 2009) and the positive indirect extracurricular activities might be related to the development of organizational skills, planning, self discipline, and motivation (Holland & Andre, 1987). Mediating Role of E motion Regulation in the Relationship Between Context ual Variables and Cognitive Regulation The hypothesis that school comm unity has a positive effect on emotion regulation was supported by the findings. As hypothesized school community did not predict cognitive regulation in kindergarten and in third grade school community has a small, direct effect on cognitive regulation ( .02). However, this effect is not sufficiently high to warrant speculation about its significance. In addition, the hypothesis that emotion regulation mediates the effect of school community on cognitive regulation was supported by the findings. In b oth gr ades, school community has significant total effect s on emotion and cognitive regulation. In kindergarten, the effect of school comm unity on cognitive regulation i s totally mediated by emotion regulation. In third grade the effect of school comm unity on cognitive regulation i s primarily mediated by emotion regulation. These findings are consistent with research that has found that positive school communities support regulation (Juvonen, 2006) In addition, i ntervention pr ograms stress the importance of building caring school communities for teachers In third grade t he measure used to assess school community provided information about the level of child misbehavi or, physical attacks, fights, and bullying Perhaps when children are less threatened by bullying and physical fights and feel supported by their teachers in positive school contexts they hav e more emotional resources available to invest

PAGE 87

87 in emotional regulation that supports their cognitive regulation. In contrast, in poor school communities with high levels of bullying or student misbehavior, and less teacher availability students might feel less supported and might imitate the misbehavior of their peers and show less well regulated behaviors. Research has shown that children are less able to maintain their self regulation in the presence of peers than when they are alone (McCabe, Cunnington, & Brooks Gunn, 2004). McCabe et al. (2004) suggested several explanations for this finding, including the possibility that children may adopt dysregulated behaviors from peers who model less optimal behaviors. The hypothesis that emotion regulation media tes the effect of physical discipline on cognitive regulation was partially supported by the findings. I n kind ergarten physical discipline has a significant negative effect on emotion regulation and a significant negative total effect on cognitive regulati on. The effect of physical disci pline on cognitive regulation i s primarily mediated by emotion regulation in kindergarten In thir d grade, physical discipline has a significant indirect effect on cognitive regulation through it s effect on emotion regulation. These negative expressivity may cause overarousal in their children, which can undermine their regulation and learning in a specif ic context (Hoffman, 2000). Furthermore, Eisenberg, Zhou, et al. (2005) suggested that when children are overaroused, they are more likely to have difficulties controlling their attention and developing self regulation. Empirical research has established a link between corporal punishment and child negative emotionality (for a meta analysis, see Gershoff, 2002). In turn, negative emotionality has been linked to low attentiona l and cognitive control in childhood (Gaertner, Spinrad, & Eisenberg, 2008; Gerar di Caulton, 2000; Gonzlez, Fuentes, Carranza, & Estvez, 2001; Sguin, Boulerice, Harden, Tremblay, & Pihl, 1999 ).

PAGE 88

88 Research on the physiology of stress offers a possible mechanism to explain the relations among corporal punishment, child overarousal, and cognitive regulation. Corporal punishment has been associated with elevated stress physiology in infancy, as indicated by the levels of the stress hormone cortisol (Bugental, Martorell, & Barraza, 2003). Bugental et al. (2003) suggested that when children are exposed repeatedly to stressful situations, they might develop maladaptive stress responses that hinder their capacity to habituate to new events or to regulate their own emotional reactions. Furthermore, when children are overaroused or have difficult ies regulating their emotions they will be less likely to control their attention, plan their actions, and persist in a task because their emotional responses interfere with reflectiv e and strategic behavior. As a consequence, these cognitive regulation sk 2002). In addition, empirical research has shown an association between high levels of cortisol and difficulties in cognitive regulation ( Blair et al., 2005; Blair, 2010 ). This research is also consistent wit h the view of Mischel and Ayduk (2004) that at high levels of stress the cognitive system of self regulation shuts off. The hypothesis that emotion regulation mediates the effect of parental warmth on cognitive regulation was partially supported by the fin dings. In third grade parental warmth has a significant positive effect on emotion regulation and a significant positive total effect on cognitive regulation. The effect of parental warmth on cognitive regulation is primarily mediated by emotion regulation in third grade. In k indergarten, parental warmth has a significant indirect effect on cognitive regulation through its effect on emotion regulation. This finding is consistent with research that suggest s that with warm parenting, children will be less lik ely to be over aroused and therefore more capable of controlling their attention, plan their actions, and persist i n a task. Also, this finding is consistent with research that has found that positive stimuli

PAGE 89

89 by facilitating a positive mood and increasing d opamine levels may facilitate executive function (Zelazo et al., 2010). In sum, that emotion regulation mediates the influence of family and school contexts on cognitive regulation is important because it suggests that the ability to regulate emotional reactivity allows children to engage in tasks that will allow them to practice and develop their cognitive regulati on skills (Calkins & Dedmon, 2000; Fox & Calkins, 2003; Kopp, 1989). Mediating Role of Parental and School Variables in the Relationship Between SES and Neighborhood Risk and Emotional and Cognitive Regulation The hypothesis that SES directly predicts pa rental warmth and physical discipline was partially supported. In kindergarten, SES predicted physical discipline but not parental warmth. In third grade SES predicted physical discipline and parental warmth. The hypothesis that parental warmth and physic al discipline mediate the effect of SES on emotion regulation was partially supported in kindergarten. In kindergarten, SES has significant total effects on emotion regulation and no significant effects on cognitiv e regulation. Physical discipline and scho ol com munity mediates the effect of SES on emotion regulation. These results are consistent with theory and research that suggests that contexts such as SES influence self regulation in infancy and early childhood through their effects on contexts that are more proximal to the child such as the family and the school community (Battistich et al., 1995; Belsky, et al., 2007; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; McLoyd, 1998; Petrill & Deater Deckard, 2004). That hypothesis that parental warmth and physical discipline mediate the effect of SES on emotion regulation was not supported in third grade. In third grade, the effect of SES on emotion r egulation i s primarily direct. In addition, SES has a significant t otal effect on cognitive regulation, although emotion regulation primarily mediates the effect of SES on cognitive regulation. In additi on, school neighborhood risk has a significant direct effect on emotion

PAGE 90

90 regulation. These finding s are consistent with r esearch that shows that SES and sociocultural contexts influence the regulation of emotions in school aged children (for a review, see Raver, 2004). Also these findings beg the question as to why SES and school neighborhood risk are directly related to emo tion regulation in third grade, whereas in kindergarten parental and school contexts mediate the effect of SES on emotion regulation. Although previous studies have provided little evidence of a relation between SES and socioemotional well being for young children, the relation emerges in early childhood and becomes consistent in middle childhood (for a review, see Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Perhaps older children have a better understanding of their socioeconomic context and therefore are more likely to be a ffected by it. For example, by the age of 7 children have an understanding of power and pr ivilege and inferior status and poverty (Aboud & Doyle, 1996). The hypothesis that t school neighbor ho od risk on emotion regulation was not supported by the findings. In kindergart en, school neighborhood risk has no significant direct or indirect effects on emotion or cognitive regulation. In third grade, school neighborhood risk has a significant direct on emotion regulation and an indirect effect on emotion regulation via school community. Mediating Role of Cognitive Regulation in the Relationship Between Emotional Regulation and Achievement and Adjustment For bot h grades, emotion regulation has a signif icant positive effect on cognitive regulation as specified in the model. Although most likely emotion and cognitive regulation are intricately linked and influence each other in a continuous, dynamic manner, most researchers support the view that in early childhood emotion regulation precedes cognitive regulation (Blair, 2002; Calkins & Marcovitch, 2010; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Posner & Rothbart, 2000). For example, Blair (2002) stated that in young children brain areas associated with emotion and

PAGE 91

91 emotio n regulation develop before the brain areas associated with cognitive regulation. Furthermore, Posner and Rothbart (2000) suggested that across development emotional reactivity and its regulation influence the development of highe r o rder cognitive capaciti es. The hypothesis that cognitive regulation mediates the effect of emotion regulation on achievement was supported. In kindergarten and third grade, e motion regula tion has significant total effects on reading and mathematics achievement, and cognitive re gulation mediates the effects of emotion regulation on achievement. These findings suggest that emotion regulation has an effect on academic achievement, but this effect occurs because of the influence of the regulations of emotions on cognitive regulation This effect is consistent with research in which emotion regulation has been related to the acquisition of cognitive regulation skills such as attention, working memory, inhibitory control, and planning in early childhood (Bell & Wolfe, 2004; Greenberg, 2006; Wolfe & Bell, 2007). In turn, cognitive regulation skills have been related to better academic achievement in early childhood (Blair & Razza, 2007). In both grades, cognitive regulation has significant positive effects on reading and mathematics achi evement. These findings are consistent with research that has found that enhancing cognitive regulation improves academic achievement (for a review, see Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010). Although the size of the effects of the relationship between cog nitive regula tion and academic achievement i s small ranging between .10 and .18; these effects ar e similar to the effects of childcare on cognitive development (effects range from .10 to .15) (Barnett, 2008). Thus, although the sizes of the effects are small, the size is comparable to the effects of standard education in early childhood. Most likely, a study with more sensitive measures and an experimental design would show larger effect sizes for the relationships between cognitive regulation and academic achievement.

PAGE 92

92 As expected, emotion regulation has a strong negative association with externalizing behaviors. These results are consistent with previous research (for a review, see Eisenberg et al., 2011). H owever, cognitive regulation has a weak association with externalizing behaviors. This result contradicts research showing that low attentional control and cognitive regulation skills are related to externalizing behaviors (Bierman, Torres, Domitrovich, Welsh, & Gest, 2009; Eisenberg et al., 2001). However, further research has found that negative emotionality moderates the association between attentional control and externalizing behaviors. That is, lack of attentional control is a better p redictor of externalizing behaviors if children also have also problems regulating their negative emotions (for a review, see Eisenberg et al., 2011). For example, Olson et al. (2011) found cognitive control to predict externalizing behavior only in childr en with high levels of aggression but not in children with low levels of aggression. In this study, I examined the association between cognitive regulation, which included attentional control, and externalizing behaviors and controlled for emotion regulati on. Thus, it might be that because I controlled for the influence of emotion regulation, the association between cognitive regulatio n and externalizing behaviors i s not significant. Results of this study show that the effect of emotion regulation on inter nalizing behaviors was partially mediated by cognitive regulation. This finding is consistent with previous research that has associated internalizing behaviors with emotion and cognitive regulation difficulties (for a review, see Stegge & Terwogt, 2007). For example, internalizing behaviors have been associated with higher levels of negative affect and lower attentional control (Derryberry & Reed, 2002; Eisenberg, Sadovsky, et al., 2005; Eisenberg et al., 2001, 2009). Furthermore, children with high levels of internalizing behaviors have lower cognitive ability over time (Bub, McCartney, & Willett, 2007). This study contributes to current research by emphasizing the role

PAGE 93

93 of cognitive regulation on internalizing problems. For example, previous research has found that children with high levels of internalizing behaviors are less likely to engage in active problem solving and have lower levels of perceived self efficacy in social situations (Stegge & Terwogt, 2007). It would be interesting to study whether the se children extend those difficulties to academic tasks, partly explaining the association between internalizing behaviors and lower cognitive ability. Thus, research ers should investigate further the association between cognitive regulation and internaliz ing behaviors. In sum, these findings suggest that to increase understanding of externalizing and internalizing problems the regulation of negative emotionality is an important aspect to address. Developing better behavioral regulation (i.e., resisting temptation, inhibiting impulses) might be a key target for intervention for children who exhibit externalizing behaviors (Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, & Domitro vich, 2008), whereas for children who exhibit internalizing behaviors developing cognitive regulation skills such as attentional control and flexibly switching between mindsets might play a key role in improving those difficulties. For example, children wi th internalizing behaviors are high in behavioral inhibition and have poor attentional control (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Murray & Kochanska, 2002). Mediating Role of iscussions in the Relationship B etween Cognitive Regulation and A cademic Achievement The hypotheses that emotional and cognitive regulation directly predic t collaborative discussions w ere supported only in the model with the kindergarten data. In kindergarten, a negative eff ect on discussions This result is consistent with school readiness research that has found that for kindergarten teachers the skills of sustaining attention, following dire ctions, or taking turns are considered especially important abilities to cultivate in their students (Blair, 2002; Lin et al.,

PAGE 94

94 2003; Rimm Kaufman et al., 2000). That is, the results of this study suggest that kindergarten teachers have more meetings with other teachers to discuss educational issues when they do no t observe cognitive regulation in kindergarteners. In contrast, higher levels of emotion regulation predicted higher levels of teacher in kindergarten This finding would suggest that emotion regulation promotes teachers Research has found that c hildren with better emotion regulation skills had a slightly more positive relationship with their teachers ( Graziano et al., 2007 ). It might be that teachers are more motivated to discuss with other te achers about the situation of a particular child when they have a good relationship with that child. However, more research is needed to determine whether this is a spurious relationship due to some other demands for meetings occurring in first grade. In c ontrast, in third grade there are no relationship s between c ognitive and emotional regulation and The hypothesis that directly predict reading and mathematics achievement and externalizing and internalizing behaviors was not supported. In kindergarten has significant positive associations with internalizing behaviors in kindergarten, suppor ting the view that, in kindergarten, teachers meet more frequently with other teachers if children show difficulty adapting to the school context. However, their effects are so small (.03) that their practical significance is questionable. In third grade t has a significant positive effect on mathematics achievement suggesting that the more teachers meet with other teachers to discuss lesson planning, curriculum development, and meeting with other teachers or specialists to discuss individual children the better the mathematics achievem ent. However, the effect size i s too small (.03) to speculate about its significance.

PAGE 95

95 In this study I expected to find that buffer the association between l ow cognitive regulation and student achievement. However, in both grades the indirect effects from cognitive regulation to to achievement variables is not significant. Teacher practices that enhance student s cognitive r egulation consist of high levels of student engagement based on good classroom and time understanding, explaining the reasoning of rules and expectations, en couraging students to self monitor their behavior, and encouraging and supporting success (for a review, see McCaslin et al., 2006). In this study I measured how often teachers were meeting other teachers to discuss about lesson planning, curriculum, and t he performance of individual children. However, I did not assess specific teacher practices that enhance self regulation such as the ones mentioned above. So, future research ers would benefit f rom specifically assessing the e xtent that teachers are involve d in enhancing engagement and support their students learning and how these practices affect their cognitive regulation. different practices and make pedagogi cal decisions. For example, some teachers might be considering the value of developing emotional and cognitive regulation for children academic and socioemotional compe tence. Further, teachers might not reflect on the connection between theoretical principles and practices that help guide their pedagogical decisions and practices Thus, research ers and their beliefs affect their practices aimed at improving student self regulation.

PAGE 96

96 Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status A few gender, age, eth nicity, and SES differences are evident in the results of this study. In both grade s girls had hi gher emotion a nd cognitive regulation scores than boys. In kindergarten older children were more likely to have higher emotion and cognitive regulation than younger children whereas in third grade there were no significant differences between older and yo unger children on emotion or cognitive regulation. In third grade, h igh er SES was related to higher emotion regulation These results are consistent with previous research in which girls and older children have better self regulation (Eisenberg et al., 200 4; Else Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006; Evans & English, 2002; Rueda et al., 2004). In both grades, children from Asian background s were more likely to have higher cognitive regulation scores than Caucasians In both grades, African American ch ildren were more likely to have higher cognitive regulation scores and less likely to show higher levels of emotion regulation than Caucasians. In both grades, Hispanic children were more likely to have higher cognitive regulation scores than Caucasians C hildren f r o m other ethnic backgrounds were more likely to show higher levels of cognitive regulation than Caucasians in kinde rgarten. R esearch about ethnic differences in cognitive regulation is limited; therefore it would be difficult to interpret these findings (e.g., Blair et al. 2011 ; Proctor & Zhang, 2008) Also, the effect sizes of these effects are too small to yield meaningful conclusions. Limitations of the Study and Future Research The design o f this study limits any conclusion I can make regarding the direction of causality between emotional and cognitive regulation variables. For example, emotion regulation can precede or be sub sequent to cognitive regulation, but m ost likely, emotion and cogn itive regulation influence one another in ways that are not unidirectional or linear (Blair & Ursache,

PAGE 97

97 2011). Future research with longitudinal and experimental designs would be useful in improving our understanding of the causal relationships among the va riables included in this study. Several limitations in the measures might have affected the strength of associations among externalizing and internalizing problems. Ass essment of these behaviors is difficult because raters might interpret them differently, and many of their aspects are difficult to detect (Merrell, generally neg ative or positive attitudes toward specific children. Follow up studies using multiple measurement methods and multiple respondents (e.g., teachers, parents, peers) are needed to evaluate the nature of the relationships explored in this study. For example, tasks such as the Stroop task that involve conflict between a predominant and a subdominant response might be better measures of cognitive regulation. In addition, naturalistic observations can be assessed for interrater reliability and ecological validit y. Another limitation in the measure of emotion regulation is that it includes items of self control and interpersonal skills. Although the two measures are highly correlated, I was not able to conduct a factor analysis to determine if the items load on m ore than one factor because the measures are copyright protected, and agreements with the test publishers restrict their distribution. Also, the measure of emotion regulation included an item about the ability to control temper that might account at least in part for the strong relationship between emotion regulation and externalizing behaviors. In addition, emotion regulation is more likely to be a multidimensional construct that involves not only the modulation of emotional arousal, but also awareness, un derstanding, and acceptance of emotions, and the ability to act in desire ways regardless of emotional state (Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Neumann, van Lier, Gratz, & Koot, 2010).

PAGE 98

98 However, in this study emotion regulation was not assessed as a multidimensional co nstruct. Likewise, cognitive regulation is a multidimensional construct that involves attentional control, inhibitory control, and working memory. In this study, I did not assess cognitive regulation as a multidimensional construct either. With regard to p articipation in organized sports the measure required a yes or no response to the question. Other participation dimensions such as the breadth (number of activities), the intensity (quantity of time spent participating), and the duration of participation ( cross year continuity), were not differentiated. Future research should assess these dimensions to clarify the association between participation in extracurricular activities and self regulation. For the parental measures, parents reported on their warmth and their use of physical discipline with their children. It is possible that parents were reluctant to report that they spanked their children or showed less warmth to them. Thus, future research would benefit from third party observers of parental behav iors. Conclusions Few studies have been conducted to investigate emotional and cognitive regulation Doing so provides a more complete picture of early child development, improving our understanding of child development has to be understood in contex t. Using ecological theory as a conceptual framework, I examined the direct and indirect effects of distal (i.e., socioeconomic status, school neighborhood quality) and proximal contexts (i.e., parental warmt and their effects on academic achievement and socioemotional well being The results of this study lend some support to the theoretical model. For example, r esults of this study suggest that social contexts play

PAGE 99

99 regulation abilities. Furthermore, the findings partially supported that emotion regulation media tes the influence of family and school contexts on cognitive reg ulation, which in turn predicts academic achievement In addition, cognitive regulation mediated the effects of emotion regulation on academic achievement. However, most of the effects in the kindergarten and third grade models are significant but small. The effect s are small demographic characteristics and prior achievement and adjustment are strongly associated with their future achievement and adjustment, making strong contributions from other variables unlikely More valid estimates of the effects of the variables examined in these models are likely to be obtained with l ongitudinal studies that include more sensitive measures of the variables and include the reci procal effects of emotional and cognitive regulation on each ot her and on academic achievement across several years Results of this study suggest the importance of self regulation as a basis f or understanding the relations between the social context and adjustment at school. Further research is needed to determine whether interventions designed to increase emotional and cognitive self regulation improve educational outcomes, but this study s uggests it is important to e xamine focus and persist in a task. It is likely that some combination of socio emotional competence, family and school environments, and participation in extracurricula r should promote emotional, attentional, and cognitive regulation abilities.

PAGE 100

100 LIST OF REFERENCES Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. B. (1996). Parental and peer International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 371 383. Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave. Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools. Research report of the Co nsortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/CCSR_Teacher_Mobility.pdf Ashby, F. G., Valentin, V. V., & Turken, A. U. (2002). The effects of positive affect and arousal on working memory and executive attention: Neurobiology and computational models. In S. Moore & M. Oaksford (Eds.), Emotional cognition: From brain to behaviour (pp. 245 287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Attar, B. K., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. H. (1994). Neighborhood disadvantage, stressful life events and adjustments in urban elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23 (4), 391 400. Ayduk, O., Rodriguez, M. L., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Wright, J. (2007). Verbal intelli gence and self Journal of Research in Personality, 41 (2) 374 388. Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, ce: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 627 658. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32 (3), 137 151. Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., & Tice, D. M. (2007). How emotions facilitate and impair self regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 408 426). New York: Guilford Press. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J ournal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56 95. Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55 (1), 30 40. Bell, M. A., & Wolfe, C. D. (2004). Emotion and cogniti on: An intricately bound developmental process. Child Development, 75 (2), 366 370.

PAGE 101

101 Belsky, J., Bell, B., Bradley, R. H., Stallard, N., & Stewart Brown, S. L. (2007). Socioeconomic risk, parenting during the preschool years and child health age 6 years. Eur opean Journal of Public Health, 17 (5), 508 513. Berk, L. E., & Spuhl, S. T. (1995). Maternal interaction, private speech, and task performance in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10 (2), 145 169. Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20 (3), 821 843. Bierman, K. L., Torres, M. M., Domitro vich, C. E., Welsh, J. A., & Gest, S. D. (2009). Behavioral and cognitive readiness for school: Cross domain associations for children attending Head Start. Social Development, 18 (2), 305 323. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness. Integrating cognition and e motion in a neurobiological American Psychologist, 57 (2), 111 127. Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A developmental neuroscience perspective on fluid co gnition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29 (02), 109 125 Blair, C. (2010). Stress and the development of self regulation in context. Child Development Perspectives, 4 (3), 181 188. Blair, C., Granger, D., & Razza, R. P. (2005). Cortisol reactivity is positively related to executive function in preschool children attending Head Start. Child Development, 76 (3), 554 567. Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills F LP Investigators. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development Advance online publication. Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive functio n, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78 (2), 647 663. Blair, C., & Ursache, A. (2011). A bidirectional model of executive functions and self regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 300 320). New York: The Guilford Press. Boekaerts, M., Zeidner, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Self regulation: An introductory overview. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation (pp. 1 9). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. De velopment and Psychopathology, 17, 271 301.

PAGE 102

102 Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 371 399 Brock, L. L., Rimm Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). The contri butions of related behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (3), 337 349. Brocki, K. C., & Bohlin, G. (2004). Executive functions in c hildren aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26 (2), 571 593. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 993 1028). New York: Wiley. Bronson, M. (2000). Self regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture New York: Guilford Press. Brophy, J. E. (2006). History of research in classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17 47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research and teaching ( pp. 328 375). New York: Macmillan. Bub, K. L., McCartney, K., & Willett, J. B. (2007). Behavior problem trajectories and first grade cognitive ability and achievement skills: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 653 670 Bugental, D., Martorell, G., & Barraza, V. (2003). The hormonal costs of subtle forms of infant maltreatment. Hormones and Behavior, 43 (1), 237 244. Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cor tex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (6), 215 222. Calkins, S. D. (2007). The emergence of self regulation. Biological and behavioral mechanisms supporting toddler competencies. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddle r years: Transitions and transformations (pp. 261 284). New York: Guilford Press. Calkins, S. D., & Bell, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). Introduction: Putting the domains of development into perspective. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at th e intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 3 13) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Calkins, S. D., & Dedmon, S. A. (2000). Physiological and behavioral regulation in two year old children with aggressive/destructive behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2 103 118.

PAGE 103

103 Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation. Biological and environmental transactions in early development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation ( pp. 229 248). New York: Guilford Press. Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2010). Emotion regulation and executive functioning in early development: Integrated mechanisms of control supporting adaptive functioning. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Chil d development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 37 58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Effects of variation in teacher organization on classroom functioning. Jour nal of School Psychology, 43 (1), 61 85. Center for Social and Character Development (2011 ). Professional learning communities: Building a school culture that supports learning for all. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University. Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 14 (3), 401 419. Cohen, J., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School climate research summary: January 2010 New York. Retrieved from www.schoolclimate.org/climate/research.php Colman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. (2006). Early predictors of self regulation in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 15 (4), 421 437. Conner, D. B., & Cross, D. R. (2003). Longitudinal analysis of the presence, efficacy and stability of maternal scaffolding during informal problem solving interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21 (3), 315 334. Davis, E. P., Bruce, J., & Gunnar, M. (20 02). The anterior attention network: Associations with temperament and neuroendocrine activity in 6 year old children. Developmental Psychobiology, 40 (1), 43 56. Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Emotional states, a ttention, and working memory. Cognition & Emotion, 24 (2), 189 199. Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1996). Regulatory processes and the development of cognitive representations. Development and Psychopathology, 8 (1), 215 234. Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxiety related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111 (2), 225 236. Desimone, R. (1995). Is dopamine a missing link? Nature, 376 (6541), 549 550. Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318 (5855), 1387 1388.

PAGE 104

104 Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., & Loughlin, S. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self regulation, and self regulated learning. Ed ucational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 391 409. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personal ity development (6th ed., pp. 719 788). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43 (6), 1428 1446. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The analysis of school based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405 432 Eise nberg, N. (2002). Emotion related regulation and its relation to quality of social functioning. In W. W. Hartup & R. A. Weinberg (Eds.), Child psychology in retrospect and prospect (Vol. 32, pp. 133 172). Routledge. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., She pard, S. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie I. K. externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72 (4), 1112 1134. Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., & Vaugh an, J. (2007). Effortful control and its socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 287 306). New York: Guilford Press. Eisenberg, N., Michalik, N., Spinrad, T. L., Hofer, C., Kupfer, A., Valiente, C., Reis er, M. longitudinal study. Cognitive Development, 22 (4), 544 567. Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., Shepard, S. emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41 (1), 193 211. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A. & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259 282). New York: G uilford Press. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., & Spinrad, T. L. (2011). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, a nd applications (2nd ed., pp. 263 283). New York: Guilford Press.

PAGE 105

105 Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Liew, J., Zhou, Q., Losoya, S. H., Cumberland, emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 45 (4), 988 1008. Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T., Valiente, C., Fabes, R., & Liew, J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, childr wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76 (5), 1055 1071. Else Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta analysis. Psych ological Bulletin, 132 (1), 33 72. Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73 (4), 1238 1248. Evans, G. W., Gonnella, C., Marcyn yszyn, L. A., Gentile, L., & Salpekar, N. (2005). The role of Psychological Science, 16 (7), 560 565. Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2), 159 210. Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task difficulty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20 (1), 103 120. Ford, J. D. (2005). Treatment implications of altered affect regulation and information processing following child maltreatment. Psychiatric Annals, 35 (5), 410 419. Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (2003). The development of self control of emotion: Intrinsic and extrinsic influences. Motivation and Emotion, 27 (1), 7 26. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmenta l Psychology, 42 (4), 698 713. Gaertner, B. M., Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2008). Focused attention in toddlers. Infant and Child D evelopment, 17 (4), 339 363. Gerardi Caulton G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self regu lation in children 24 36 months of age. Developmental Science, 3 (4), 397 404. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4), 539 579.

PAGE 106

106 Gerstenblith, S. A., Soul, D. A., Gottfredson, D. C., Lu, S., Kellstrom, M. A., Womer, S. C., & Bryner, S. L. (2005). After school programs, antisocial behavior, and positive youth development: An exploration of the relationship between program i mplementation and changes in youth behavior. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school, and community programs (pp. 457 478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrie ved April 20, 2011, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary Gonzlez, C., Fuentes, L. J., Carranza, J. A., & Estvez, A. F. (2001). Temperament and attention in the self regulation of 7 year old children. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (6), 931 946. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26 (1), 41 54. Gray, J. R. (2004). Integrating of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (2), 46 48. Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (6), 411 5 4120. Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion Journal of School Psychology, 45 (1), 3 19. Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in children and you th: Preventive interventions and their interface with neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094 (1), 139 150. Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58 (6 7), 466 474. Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., & Gurlan, S. T. (1999). Family processes and the s self regulation. Educational Psychologist, 34 3 14. Gross, J. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation New York: Guilford Press. Grusec, J. E., & internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30 (1), 4 19. Gunnar, M. R., & Donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of the c ortisol levels in early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 199 220.

PAGE 107

107 Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Partici pation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57 (4), 437 466. Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2003). Regulatory contributo Early Education and Development, 14 101 119. Juvonen, J. (2006). Sense of belonging, social bonds, and school functioning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 655 674). Mahwah, NJ: American Psychological Association. Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36 (4), 567 589. Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Positive emotion speeds up conflict processing: ERP responses in an auditory Simon task. Biological Psychology, 87 (1), 122 127. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath van Ewijk, C., Buttner, G., & Kl ieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self regulated learning in classrooms: investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5 (2), 157 171. Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlstrm, K., Gillberg, C. G., et al. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44 (2), 177 186. Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72 (4), 1091 1111. Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personality, 71 (6), 1087 1112. Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18 (2), 199 214. Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A deve lopmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25 (3), 343 354. Landry, S. H., Miller Loncar, C. L., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2002). The role of early Developmental Neuropsychology, 21 (1), 15 41.

PAGE 108

108 L arrivee, B. (2006). The convergence of reflective practice and effective classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 983 1004). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Er lbaum Associates. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 170 183. Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized y outh activities. Developmental Psychology, 42 (5), 849 863. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 701 736. LeCuyer, E., & Hou ck, G. M. (2006). Maternal limit setting in toddlerhood: Socialization strategies for the development of self regulation. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27 (4), 344 370. Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as predictors of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28 (1), 40 55. Leventhal, T., & Brooks Gunn, J. (2003). Moving to opportunity: An experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9), 1576 1582. Li Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Dev elopmental Psychology, 43 (1), 208 221. readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (2), 225 237. Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start. Social Policy Report, 21 3 18. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent child interaction. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development. (4th ed., pp. 1 101). New York: Wiley. Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized activities as developmental contexts for children and adolescents. In J. L. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school, and community programs (pp. 3 22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, E. A., & Kerns, J. G. (2011). The influence of positive mood on different aspects of cognitive contr ol. Cognition & Emotion, 25 (2), 265 279.

PAGE 109

109 McCabe, L. A., Cunnington, M., & Brooks Gunn, J. (2004). The development of self regulation in young children. Individual characteristics and environmental contexts. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 340 356). New York: Guilford Press. McCaslin, M., Bozack, A. R., Napoleon, L., Thomas, A., Vasquez, V., Wayman, V., & Zhang, J. (2006). Self regulated learning and classroom managment: Theory, re search, and considerations for classroom practice. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 223 252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M ., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43 (4) 947 959. McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (3), 307 29. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psycho logical distress, parenting, and socio emotional development. Child Development, 61, 311 346. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 185 204. Merrell, K. W. (2003). Behavioral, social, and emo tional assessment of children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106 (1), 3 19. Miech, R., Essex, M. J., & Go ldsmith, H. H. (2001). Socioeconomic status and the adjustment to school: The role of self regulation during early childhood. Sociology of Education, 74 (2), 102 120. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24 (1), 167 202. Miner, J. L., & Clarke Stewart, K. A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behavior from age 2 to age 9: Relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting, and rater. Developmental Psychology, 44 (3), 771 786. Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Willpower in a cognitive affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 8 3 105). New York: Guilford Press.

PAGE 110

110 Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex lysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41 (1), 49 100. Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (7), 2693 2698. Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection o f emotion and cognition (pp. 203 224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mulvaney, M. K., McCartney, K., Bub, K. L., & Marshall, N. L. (2006). Determinants of dyadic scaffolding and cognitive outcomes in first graders. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6 (4), 297 320. Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30 (5), 503 514. Muthn, B., & Satorra, A. (1995). Compl ex sample data in structural equation modeling. In P. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1995 (pp. 267 316). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2010). Sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. NCES ( 2004). User's manual for the ECLS K third grade public use data files and electronic code book. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004001 Establishing a foundation of academic self regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17 (1), 147 159. Nettles, S. M., Caughy, M. O., & Toward an integrated model of neighborhood, parental, and child processes. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 3 32. Neumann, A., van Lier, P. A. C., Gratz, K. L., & Koot, H. M. (2010). Mult idimensional assessment of emotion regulation difficulties in adolescents using the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Assessment, 17 (1), 138 149. Olson, S. L., Lopez Duran, N., Lunkenheimer, E. S., Chang, H., & Sameroff, A. J. (2011). Individual di fferences in the development of early peer aggression: Integrating contributions of self regulation, theory of mind, and parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 23 (1), 253 266

PAGE 111

111 Petrill, S. A., & Deater Deckard, K. (2004). Task orientation, parental warmth and SES account for a significant proportion of the shared environmental variance in general cognitive ability in early childhood: Evidence from a twin study. Developmental Science, 7 (1), 25 32. Posner, M., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12 (3), 427 441. Proctor, A., & Zhang, J. (2008). Performance of three racial/ethnic groups on tw o tests of executive function: C linical implic ations for traumatic brain injury (TBI). NeuroRehabilitation, 23 (6), 529 536. Propper, C., & Moore, G. A. (2006). The influence of parenting on infant emotionality: A multi level psychobiological perspective. Developmental Review, 26 427 460. Rathunde, K. experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111 (3), 341 371. Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self regul ation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75 (2), 346 353. Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusch, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a social emotional prevention p rogram in elementary school students: effects of the PATHS Curriculum. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 7(1), 91 102. Rimm Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009). The behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45 (4), 958 972. Rimm lems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 147 166. Robers, S., Zhang, J., and Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 (NCES 2011 002/ NCJ 230812). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 207 212 Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 24 98). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

PAGE 112

112 Rothbart, M. K., & Derryb erry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37 86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rothbart, M., & Jones, L. (1998). Temperament, self regulation, and ed ucation. School Psychology Review, 27 (4), 479 491. Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167 188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rueda, R. M., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional control and self regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applicatio ns (pp. 283 300). New York: Guilford Press. Rueda, R. M., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Attentional control and self regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications ( 2nd ed., p p. 284 299). New York: Guilford Press. Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (41), 14931 14936. Saltaris, C., Serbin, L. A., Stack, D. M., Karp, J. A., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (2004). Nurturing cognitive competence in preschoolers: A longitudinal study of intergenerational continuity and risk. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28 (2), 105 115. Sguin, J. R., Boulerice, B., Harden, P. W., Tremblay, R. E., & Pihl, R. O. (1999). Executive f unctions and physical aggression after controlling for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, general memory, and IQ. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40 (8), 1197 1208. Serbin, L. A., & Karp, J. (2004) The intergenerational transfer of psychosocial risk: Mediators of vulnerability and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (1), 333 363. Shackman, A. J., Sarinopoulos, I., Maxwell, J. S., Pizzagalli, D. A., Lavric, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Anxie ty selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6 (1), 40 61. Shakrani, S. (2008). Teacher turnover: Costly crisis, solvable problem Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED502130) Shernoff, D. J., & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Engagement in after schoo l program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36 (7), 891 903.

PAGE 113

113 displaying anger and sadness: Wh at works with whom? Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 49, 100 122. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26 (6), 978 986. Smith, D. L., & Smith, B. J. (2006). Perceptions of violence: The view of teachers who left urban schools. High School Journal, 89 (3), 34 42. Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six district study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development project. School Psychology of Education, 4 (1), 3 51. Stapleton, L. M. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation m odeling with complex sample data. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary j ournal, 13 (1), 28 58. Stegge, H., & Terwogt, M. M. (2007). Awareness and regulation of emotion in typical and atypical development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emoti on regulation (pp. 269 286). New York: Guilford Press. St Clair Thompson, H. L. & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (4), 745 759. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2 3), 25 52. Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding, relation ships, conscience, self. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 26 98). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Tourangeau, K., Nord, C., L, T., Sorongon, A. G., & N ajarian, M. (2009). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998 99 (ECLS anual for th e ECLS K eighth grade and K 8 f ull s ample data files and electronic c odebooks (NCES 2009 004). National Center for Education Statis tics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. predictor of their academic competence in first grade. Emotion, 7 (1), 77 88. Van neman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement gaps: How black and white students perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2009 455). Washington, DC: National Center for Ed ucation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.

PAGE 114

114 Vazsonyi, A. T., & Huang, L. (2010). Where self control comes from: On the development of self control and its relationship to deviance over time. Developmental Psychology, 46 (1), 245 257. Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (2001). Three decades of child maltreatment research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2 (3), 215 239. Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self regulation: An introduction. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1 12). New York: Guilford Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (M. Cole, S. John Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. So uberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waldfogel, J. (2006). What children need. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webster Stratton, C., Reid, J. M., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readin ess: Evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programs in high risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (5), 471 488. based social and emotional learnin g programs for positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591 (1), 86 97. Wentzel, K. R. (2006). A social motivation perspective for classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 619 643). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. performance among preschool children with an d without behavior problems. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (2), 215 231 Wolfe, C. D., & Bell, M. A. (2007). The integration of cognition and emotion during infancy and early childhood: Regulatory processes associated with the development of workin g memory. Brain and Cognition, 65 (1), 3 13. Wood, D. (1980). The social foundations of language and thought. In D. Olson (Ed.), Teaching the young child: Some relationships between social interaction, language and thought (pp. 281 296). New York: Norton. W ood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17 (2), 89 100.

PAGE 115

115 Wyman, P. A., Cross, W., Hendricks Brown, C., Yu, Q., Tu, X., & Eberly, S. (2010). Interv ention to strengthen emotional self regulation in children with emerging mental health problems: Proximal impact on school behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 707 720. Yi Yuan, T., & Posner, M. I. (2009). Attention training and attention st ate training. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (5), 222 227. play: Variable and pattern centered approaches for examining effects of sports participation on yo uth development. Developmental Psychology, 45 (2), 368 382. Zelazo, P. D., Carlson, S. M., & Kesek, A. (2008). Development of executive function in childhood. In C. A. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.), Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp 553 574). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135 158). New York : Guilford Press. Zelazo, P. D., & Mu ller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of child cognitive development (pp. 445 469). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Zelazo, P. D., Mller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of exe cutive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 274, 68 (3). Zelazo, P. D., Qu, L., & Kesek, A. C. (2010). Hot executive function: Emotion and the development of cognitive control. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 97 111). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ ation. Zhai, F., Brooks readiness: A birth cohort study in 18 cities. Developmental Psychology, 47 (1), 134 152.

PAGE 116

116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ana Carolina Useche was born and raised in Bog ot Colombia. She majored in psychology as an undergraduate. After her graduation she worked as a research assistant on various projects that sought to improve the quality of education in Colombia. Later, she worked as a social worker in child welfare with African American, Asian, and Hispanic children from the New York area. S he received a Master of Science degree in developmental psychology from Utrecht University in the Netherlands in May 2006. She attended graduate school at the University of Florid a, where she received a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Educational Psychology with a minor in Research and Evaluation Methodology in December of 2011. She was awarded the American Educational Research Association Dissertation Grant Award in 2010. H er research interests include aggression, self regulation, the interaction between emotional and cognitive regulation, the effect of different social contexts on self regulation, and the relationship between self regulation and self concept.