social emotional learning research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List

The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis

1 Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Jin Hyung Lim

2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information file.

Social-emotional learning (SEL) is an educational model for improving social-emotional competences of all students and a long-term education program connecting school, home, and community. Although there has been active research to establish evidence-based practice (EBP) of SEL programs worldwide, the quality of SEL intervention studies which is an integral part of evaluating EBP was rarely investigated. In addition, prior meta-analytic studies focused only on the effectiveness of SEL programs conducted in Western society. In this sense, in order to contribute to establishing EBP of SEL programs, the current research sought to analyze both quality and effectiveness of SEL intervention studies conducted in Korea where SEL has been investigated and applied in classroom since 2010. To conduct this study, we selected 22 peer-reviewed articles (about 23 SEL programs) and analyzed their quality by Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) indicators and calculated effect sizes using a meta-analysis. The results of the quality analysis revealed that SEL intervention studies had some limitations with a statistical analysis, use of measurement, a control group design, intervention fidelity, and external validity. The global effect size of SEL programs was 0.27, and the results from the effect size analyses by controlling variables showed that group compositions, the number of sessions, and session length were accountable for the variability of effect sizes. Based on these findings, we discussed the directions for future research and practice on the EBP of SEL programs that can be appreciated by researchers worldwide.

Introduction

Social-emotional learning (SEL) represents an educational model for improving social-emotional competences of all students and is known as a long-term education program connecting school, family, and community [ 1 ]. SEL aims to promote five core competencies including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making [ 2 ]. By improving those competencies, children and adolescents facilitate their prosocial behaviors, positive social relationships, and academic achievement, as well as reduce conduct problems and emotional distress [ 3 ]. Research also indicates that SEL programs are likely to have positive long-term outcomes both in academic success and mental health for individuals after leaving school [ 4 ]. In addition, due to an increasing emphasis on social and emotional competences being as important as academic success during childhood and adolescence, school-based SEL is now actively implemented through a variety of intensities, formats, cultures, and countries [ 5 ].

However, individual SEL programs do not always show the same astonishing improvement in students’ socioemotional competencies unless implemented effectively, with high-quality, evidence-based instructions [ 5 , 6 ]. In educational practice, since teachers are required to use instructions scientifically proven effective, it is necessary for researchers to constantly identify and implement evidence-based practice (EBP) [ 7 , 8 ]. In order to investigate EBP of a certain kind of educational program, it is first necessary to identify the considerable effectiveness of that program across various participants, formats, and educational settings [ 9 ]. In this sense, a meta-analysis, statistically synthesizing the results from a multitude of studies on SEL, is required to establish EBP of SEL programs.

There have been several meta-analytic studies to examine the overall effectiveness of SEL and investigate EBP. For example, Durlak et al. [ 10 ] synthesized effectiveness of 213 school-based universal SEL programs on students’ (K-12) social-emotional skills, attitudes, behaviors, and academic performances. During the meta-analysis, they inserted dichotomously coded characteristics of intervention (e.g., whether the intervention met Sequenced, Active, Focused, and Explicit [SAFE] criteria) and implementers (e.g., whether authors monitored the process of intervention) as moderators of SEL programs’ effects on student outcomes. It was found that SEL programs fulfilling SAFE criteria and showing no problems in implementation had larger effect sizes than those not [ 10 ]. Wigelsworth et al. [ 5 ] also analyzed the effectiveness of school-based universal SEL programs on students’ social-emotional competencies, self-attitudes, prosocial behaviors, conduct problems, emotional distress, and academic achievement. However, they used different moderators to establish EBP from those used in Durlak et al. [ 10 ]: (1) stage of evaluation (efficacy or effectiveness); (2) involvement from the program developer in the evaluation (led, involved, or independent); and (3) whether the program was implemented in its original country (home or away). Although the hypotheses were promising, the moderating effects were not consistent across different learning outcomes and further research was needed.

There were two additional meta-analyses which focused on the effects of SEL on social-emotional competences in early childhood. Blewitt et al. [ 11 ] examined 79 studies on universal curriculum-based SEL programs delivered to children aged 2–6 years, and showed their small- to moderate-sized effects on social-emotional competences, behavioral self-regulation, emotional and behavioral problems, and early academic performance. Those learning outcomes were moderated by intervention leader, type of assessment, informant, child age, and study quality [ 11 ]. Murano, Sawyer, and Lipnevich [ 12 ] also summarized the effects of 48 SEL programs on social-emotional skills and problem behaviors of preschool children, but they included targeted (selective) programs as well as universal ones. On average, targeted SEL programs had larger effect sizes than universal ones, and those effects were moderated by student-level, program-level, and methodological factors [ 12 ].

Furthermore, since SEL aims to have positive long-term effects in students’ lives, Taylor et al. [ 4 ] reviewed 82 school-based universal SEL instructions delivered to K-12 students and emphasized the follow-up effects of those programs both on social-emotional skills and academic achievement. It should be noted that positive outcomes were similar across different races, socio-economic statuses, and school locations [ 4 ]. Lastly, Corcoran et al. [ 13 ] explored the effects of a total of 40 PreK-12 school-based SEL interventions on students’ reading, math, and science achievement. Although the study found that SEL provided significant positive effect on students’ academic achievement, researchers were concerned that programs using more rigorous randomized methods might not fully support meaningful effects as once thought [ 13 ].

Despite continuing efforts to establish EBP for SEL interventions, there are some limitations that are not addressed by the prior meta-analytic studies that we have reviewed. First, former literature reviews on SEL programs did not fully examine scientific quality of each implementation. In order to investigate whether the specific intervention have some scientific evidence, it is imperative to evaluate the quality of the individual studies in terms of study design and method as well as identifying their effectiveness [ 8 , 14 ]. Although prior meta-analyses [ 5 , 10 – 13 ] considered methodology and study design as possible moderators for the effect sizes, they did not examine exactly what needs to be complemented in order to improve overall quality of intervention studies and suggest scientific evidence for SEL implementers. Secondly, in spite of Wigelsworth et al. [ 5 ] investigating the impact of cultural transferability on the effectiveness of SEL programs, it was still confined to English-speaking countries and continents such as North America, Australia, and Europe. Therefore, we do not know whether SEL interventions implemented in places other than America, Australia, and Europe have the same levels of effectiveness.

In Korea, the concept of SEL was introduced in the late 2000s and theoretical discussions for the necessity of SEL have been ongoing in the field of ethics education [ 15 , 16 ]. In addition, researchers in diverse subject education (e.g., Korean, math, social studies, and music education) have strived to develop curricula integrating the main contents of each subject and the core values of SEL [ 17 – 20 ]. Since 2010, intervention studies were also conducted to confirm the effectiveness of SEL programs delivered to K-12 students in diverse classroom settings. Reviewing those intervention studies, SEL programs in Korea were mostly implemented for elementary school students without disabilities. The programs used in those studies can be categorized into effect-proven programs by replicated studies [ 21 , 22 ] and programs developed by researchers themselves [ 23 , 24 ], as well as programs applied to subject education [ 25 , 26 ] and those implemented with extra-curricular activities [ 21 – 24 ]. Numerous participants from those programs showed positive effects in the improvement of academic attitudes as well as social-emotional competences.

As diverse SEL programs have been developed and implemented in Korea for the last 10 years, the current study aims to evaluate the EBP of SEL programs in Korea from two perspectives. First, in order to complement prior meta-analytic studies, this study examined the quality of collected literature using Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) indicators by Kratochwill & Stoiber [ 27 ]. EBI indicators were often used to review programs for children and adolescents in the field of school psychology evaluating the areas of statistical methods, measurement, group design, external validity, and intervention fidelity [ 28 ]. Furthermore, since EBI indicators are based on a scientist-practitioner model to narrow the gap between research and practice in education [ 29 ], quality analysis from these indicators would surely improve the possibility for EBP to be more actively applied in educational settings. However, it should be noted that these indicators suggest recommendations to follow when designing experimental studies, instead of an absolute standard to determine whether a certain study is unacceptable. Therefore, the aim of the quality analysis is not to reprimand intervention studies that did not fulfill EBI criteria, but to suggest some future directions for improving overall quality of SEL studies.

Secondly, a meta-analysis is also required to identify the most effective practice for SEL, explain variation of effect sizes by controlling variables as well as a global effect size. In order to optimize the applicability in real school settings, the current study used types of participants, instruction programs, and learning outcomes as controlling variables [ 30 ], and discussed how SELs need to be complemented based on the results. This meta-analytic study would benefit not only Korean educators but also SEL implementers worldwide. It is because SEL programs conducted in Korea are also based on contents and instructional strategies recommended by CASEL [ 2 ], which is identical to those implemented in North America, Australia, and Europe. By synthesizing former studies on SEL programs in Korea, it is expected to initiate discussions on worldwide SEL practices otherwise confined to Western educational settings. Therefore, the present study poses the following research questions.

RQ1: What is the quality of experimental studies on SEL implemented in Korea?
RQ2: What is the global effect size on SEL programs included in the meta-analysis?
RQ3: To what extent did participant-, program-related variables, and types of learning outcomes moderate the effectiveness of SEL?

Literature search

We selected intervention studies on SEL programs delivered to children and adolescents before adulthood and measuring their effectiveness quantitatively by following procedures ( Fig 1 ). First, relevant studies were identified through three Korean major research data repositories, which are the most frequently used database to conduct systematic review on Korean articles [ 8 ]: RISS (Research Information Sharing Service; https://www.riss.kr ), KISS (Korean studies Information Service System; https://kiss.kstudy.com ), and Nurimedia DBpia ( https://www.nurimedia.co.kr ). We set social-emotional as a term necessary to be included in the title, abstract, and keywords from each study, with combination of following nouns such as learning , education , and competence . While searching, we did not put a limit on the date of publication, whereas we only included peer-reviewed articles to guarantee the quality of selected literature. Through this process, the corresponding author collected literature initially 4,326 articles published by December 2020 after duplicates removed. Second, the corresponding author screened the initially collected materials at the level of titles, abstracts, and keywords. 4,250 articles with irrelevant topics were excluded, since they did not contain the phrases social-emotional learning , social-emotional education , or social-emotional competence in their titles, abstracts, or keywords.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0269996.g001.jpg

Third, the corresponding author and the third author independently reviewed screened articles (N = 76) at the level of full-text to decide whether they fulfill including criteria. There were four inclusion criteria: (1) The participants of studies should be children and adolescents (PreK-12). (2) The SEL programs used in each study should emphasize the development of social-emotional competences set by CASEL [ 2 ]. (3) The studies should implement SEL and measure its effects quantitatively. (4) The studies should properly report the statistics required to calculate the effect sizes. We also suggested exclusion criteria and the number of articles excluded by each criteria was as follows: (1) The study did not conduct an experiment on the effectiveness of SEL programs aimed to enhance students’ social-emotional competences (N = 48). (2) The study did not conduct quantitative analyses on effectiveness of intervention (N = 3). (3) The study did not report statistics required to calculate effect sizes (N = 1). (4) The intervention used in the study was targeting adults (N = 2). During this process, 20% of randomly chosen articles were used for extracting the inter-observer agreement (IOA) to evaluate whether it was screened following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and it reached full agreement between authors (100%). Based on these criteria, 22 studies were finally selected. Among them, Shin [ 31 ] presented effectiveness of two independent SEL programs in one research. We thus regarded Shin [ 31 ] as two independent studies for analyses.

Coding procedures

A coding system for quality analysis.

The current study implemented concrete indicators for the quality analysis based on EBI of Kratochwill & Stoiber [ 27 ]. Kratochwill & Stoiber [ 27 ] suggest a manual to review diverse prevention and intervention programs proven to be effective and utilize those programs for the next sessions. This manual has been applied to school-based suicide prevention programs [ 32 ], school dropout prevention programs [ 33 ], and family-school connection programs [ 34 ]. 18 questions were developed to investigate the quality of a statistic analysis, measurement, controlled group design, intervention fidelity, and external validity. We answered “1 (point)” or “0 (point)” to each question, “1 (point)” indicating the study has fully met each criteria whereas “0 (point)” has not. Then, we calculated the sum and proportion of studies coded “1 (point)” in each item.

For the reliability of the coding system, the second and third authors participated in the coding procedure. The second author initially completed all the items in the coding system, and specifically explained the coding method to the third author. Then, the third author reviewed the results that were firstly coded by the second author, checking for the items showed disagreements. The two coders went through the process of additional review and sufficient discussion regarding the inconsistent items, resulting in consensus at the end. Through these procedures, the reliability of coding for quality analysis was calculated as 99.6%.

A coding system for meta-analysis

A coding frame for the meta-analysis was developed as Table 1 . We specified controlling variables into participants-, program-related variables, and types of learning outcomes, referencing Kim & Lim [ 9 ] and Seo et al. [ 28 ]. Coding for the meta-analysis went through the same as that for the quality analysis, and the reliability of coding was turned out to be 98.8%.

Publication bias check

Prior to the effect size analyses of selected literature, we analyzed the publication bias, the tendency in which only studies with large effect sizes are reported and published. The sensitivity of publication bias was calculated by the trim-and-fill method. The publication bias was verified by checking whether there is no difference between funnel plot before and after the trill-and-fill conducted in funnel plot, and whether the adjusted symmetrical line did not show a statistically significant change. As a result of verifying the Egger’s test, slope of the bias was 0.23 (SE of bias = 0.62, Intercept = 0.19, t = 0.38, df = 29) and the p -value was 0.710. From this result, it was valid to conclude that there was no significant publication bias to synthesize the studies selected for the meta-analysis ( p > 0.05).

Effect size synthesis and a random effect model

To synthesize the effect size of selected literature, we used ‘ meta ’ and ‘ metafo r’ packages in the R studio program [ 35 ]. Specifically, Hedges’ g was calculated because this effect size is more appropriate when the sample size of each study is small [ 36 ]. We followed the Hedge’s g effect size calculation presented in Borenstein et al. [ 37 ]. The individual effect sizes along with 95% confidence intervals were calculated following the equations:

Note . n c = sample size of control group, n t = sample size of treatment group, S p = pooled standard deviation within treatment and control group, D t ¯ = mean difference of pre- and post- score of treatment group, D c ¯ = mean difference of pre- and post- score of control group

In each study included in the meta-analysis, there were more than one individual effect sizes because researchers usually verified the effectiveness of SEL intervention by using two or more learning outcomes. We aggregated effect sizes within each study and use all study-level effect sizes to calculate the global effect size as Cooper [ 35 ].

In the current study, a random effect size model was adopted since the heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was identified. Heterogeneity can be examined through a funnel plot (see Fig 2 ), a visual method to confirm heterogeneity across different studies. When the direction of the effect sizes is constant and the confidence intervals are mostly overlapping, researcher can state that the groups are homogeneous [ 37 ]. In this study, the degree of overlap of the confidence intervals of the effect sizes presented in the forest plot was identified, which corroborates heterogeneity. Additionally, the I -square homogeneity test was performed in order to statistically verify the heterogeneity of included studies [ 38 ]. The value of I -squared over 75% indicates a large heterogeneity [ 37 ]. For our results, the value of I -squared was turned out to be 85% ( tau- squared = 0.053, p < 0.01). Because of its large heterogeneity, we decided to adopt a random model to synthesize effect sizes.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0269996.g002.jpg

After the effect size synthesis, Q-tests were performed to confirm subgroup differences by diverse controlling variables. We additionally operated post-hoc effect size comparisons by using paired Q-tests for variables that showed significant subgroup differences in initial Q-tests to present which pairs of effect sizes were significantly different.

Study characteristics

Table 2 shows the descriptive characteristics of study included in analyses. We reported school level, group composition, the number of participants, name and type of each program, the number of sessions, session length, and learning outcomes of each study.

Note . Lev.: School level (K: Kindergarten, E: Elementary, M: Middle, H: High school), N: number of participants (T: Treatment group, C: Control group). Group (I: Inclusive setting, WD: Students without disability, D: Students with disability), Type (C: Curricular, Ex: Extra-curricular, E: Effect proven, D: Developed by researchers), Se.: Number of sessions. Len.: Session length in minutes.

Analysis of quality indicators

Table 3 shows the result of the first research question. To begin with, ‘Units of analysis’ confirms whether units of analysis were identical with an intervention level of each program. All included studies provided interventions in the group-level, and they also analyzed the effectiveness of the programs in the same level. ‘Family-wise error rate (FWER)’ indicates whether the study controlled the increased probability of Type 1 error when a multitude of statistic analyses were conducted. Only one among all selected studies controlled FWER by using the Bonferroni method, implying that 21 studies testing a multitude of hypothesis at once by using a limited number of assessment tools may inflate Type I errors. Furthermore, Lewis-Snyder et al. [ 34 ] suggested it is important to gather a sufficient size of sample in order to control Type II errors. Although there is no absolute standard to determine “a sufficient sample size,” Gall, Gall, and Borg [ 39 ] recommended that at least 15 individuals be included in each group of an experimental study to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program used. 20 out of 23 studies fulfilled this criterion by allotting over 15 of students for each group.

The results of a quality analysis on measurement use were as follows. According to the results of the ‘Reliability’ and ‘Validity’ items, 19 studies reported the reliability of each assessment tool, whereas only 4 studies reported the validity. ‘Multi-method’ refers to the use of more than one methods such as an interview, self-report, or observation in order to corroborate the effectiveness of programs, and 5 studies fulfilled this criterion. ‘Multi-rater’ indicates the participation of more than one raters in measurement, and 10 studies met this indicator. Reviewing the result of the ‘follow-up test’ item, in addition, only 4 studies conducted follow-up tests to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs 2–8 weeks after the intervention sessions were terminated.

Focusing on the ‘Random allocation’ item from the ‘Control group’ area, control groups were designed in 16 studies, while only one study allocated students to each group at random. The ‘Group homogeneity’ indicates that there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups before implementing the program, by operating t-tests or processing covariates of pre-scores. The result showed that 13 studies conducted a statistical processing to secure the group homogeneity. ‘Dropout rate’ reveals whether there were no significant differences in dropout rates between experimental and control groups, but none of the studies had participants suspending the intervention before being completed.

For the intervention fidelity, the ‘Supervision’ item asks whether the plans for the intervention were supervised by professional educators, and 10 studies fulfilled this criterion. The ‘Intervention process’ indicates whether the study reported the number of sessions and session length, and only one study missed this information. The ‘Manual’ for the intervention reveals what instructional tools were utilized as well as what activities were implemented in each session, and 19 studies reported the concrete manual for the intervention. The ‘Recording’ item identifies whether at least one sessions during the intervention were recorded to evaluate the intervention fidelity, and 5 studies fulfilled this criterion. The ‘Training’ item decides whether the study reported the training process for interventionists, and 6 studies reported this.

Lastly, the external validity is an indicator for the detailed description of research process in order to apply it into other research settings. Among 23 studies, 11 studies properly reported the selection process of participants, and 10 studies reported the demographic characteristics of participants to check the external validity.

A global effect size

The results of the meta-analysis to solve the second and third research questions were as follows. The forest plot from Fig 3 . shows the global effect size and the effect sizes of each article included in the analyses. The total effect size of random model was turned out to be g = 0.27 ( p < .001), which indicates a medium effect (0.2 < g < 0.8), and its 95% confidence interval was situated between 0.23 and 0.46.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0269996.g003.jpg

Effect sizes by controlling variables

Table 4 presents the effect sizes by controlling variables with Q-statistics to confirm subgroup differences, and Table 5 shows the results of post-hoc effect size comparisons for the variables that showed significant subgroup differences in initial Q-tests. By the school level of participants, there were no statistically meaningful subgroup differences ( Q = 1.50, df = 3, p = .692). By the composition of student groups, there were statistically meaningful subgroup differences ( Q = 6.87, df = 2, p = .032). To be specific, groups integrating students both with and without disabilities had the largest effect size ( g = .58), and groups of students with disabilities ( g = .47) were more effective than those without disabilities ( g = .32). From the results of post-hoc effect size comparison, there was a statistically meaningful difference only between groups of students without disabilities and groups of integrating students both with and without disabilities ( Q = 6.50, df = 1, p = .011). By the type of SEL programs, there were no statistically meaningful subgroup differences between curricular and extra-curricular ( Q = 2.98, df = 1, p = .084) as well as between effect proven and developed by researchers ( Q = 0.65, df = 1, p = .421). By the number of sessions, there were statistically meaningful subgroup differences in the effectiveness of SEL programs ( Q = 7.96, df = 2, p = .020). The results of post-hoc effect size comparison showed that programs under 10 sessions had significantly smaller effect sizes than those with 11–20 sessions ( Q = 5.06, df = 1, p = .024) and over 21 sessions ( Q = 7.39, df = 1, p = .007). By the session length, there were statistically meaningful subgroup differences within dependent variables ( Q = 13.59, df = 2, p < .001). From the results of paired Q-test, there was a statistically meaningful difference between programs under 40 minutes per session and those over 51 minutes per session ( Q = 11.46, df = 1, p < .001). Lastly, by the type of learning outcomes, there were no statistically meaningful subgroup differences ( Q = 10.10, df = 6, p = .121).

Note. K: the number of effect sizes, g : Hedges’ g , SE: Standard Error, CI-L: Confidence intervals lower limit, CI-U: Confidence intervals upper limit.

Quality of experimental studies on SEL

The main findings in regard to the quality analysis and directions for future research and practice were discussed below. First, the intervention studies on SEL should consider FWER to accurately indicate the effectiveness of the instructions used. Almost all studies included in the analysis (N = 21) tested a multitude of hypothesis at once by using a limited number of assessment tools, which may inflate Type I errors. Only Kim [ 40 ] controlled FWER by using the Bonferroni method, the most frequently used control method. FWER are dramatically increased as the number of statistic analyses increases [ 28 ]. Experimental studies on SEL tend to have more than one dependent variables since SEL often aims to improve diverse social-emotional and academic competences of students at once. Therefore, the study which demonstrates the effectiveness of a program on various educational outcomes with a limited number of assessment tools should conduct additional statistical procedures to control the inflated Type I error.

Second, for the quality analysis on measurement use, it was found that only 17% of studies reported the validity of assessment tools. Reliability and validity are two main indicators for deciding the interior criteria of assessment tools [ 28 ]. If a researcher utilized an assessment tool outside of its original purpose, readers would not be able to trust the measures taken by it. It is thus imperative to use assessment tools that guarantee high validity and report this information on the study.

About 79% of included literature did not use multiple methods other than a survey to measure learning outcomes of participants. As survey results are subject to changes from different raters, the results from other methods such as observation and interviews can support survey results. If observations or interviews were not available, measurement by multi-raters would be a recommended alternative. According to Blewitt et al. [ 11 ], there was a significant difference between effectiveness of SEL reported by parents and that by teachers. Based on the prior study, it is possible to insist that multi-raters should be incorporated in the measurement process in order to report unbiased results.

In addition, only 4 studies conducted follow-up tests which were taken after the intervention was terminated. SEL pursues a better preparation for careers and adulthood, as well as immediate improvement of social-emotional competences during school lives [ 41 ]. Follow-up tests are thus required to measure how SEL affects students in the long term. In Taylor et al. [ 4 ], for instance, it was proved that SELs for kindergarten through high school aged students had great positive effects on overall well-being in adulthood. Likewise, Korean or non-Western intervention studies should also aim to corroborate the long-term effects of SEL on participants in order to fully realize the purpose of SEL.

Third, about 70% of studies included control groups within the research design. The effectiveness of the program can be confused with natural maturation or a simple learning effect when the control group is missing [ 28 ]. Thus, it is important to divide participants into treatment and control groups to accurately assess the effectiveness of the program. However, randomly allotting the participants into a control group may lead to ethical problems, in that students included in the control group would not have any benefits even though they participated in the research. To solve this problem, we suggest that the control group be converted into a comparative group in which students are provided with an alternative intervention. In other words, the treatment group can be designed for measuring the effectiveness of a newly developed program, whereas the comparative group is provided with a program proven effective in prior studies. By using this method, researchers can not only establish a controlled experiment but also fulfill the educational needs of all participants.

Fourth, the quality analysis in intervention fidelity showed that under 30% of the included articles recorded sessions during interventions. Intervention fidelity is important to confirm whether the intervention was operated in accordance with its plan, and professionals need to visit the intervention sessions or watch the recordings of several sessions to accurately evaluate their fidelity. In particular, in countries where SEL programs have not been actively implemented and where the EBP of SEL is not well-established, the importance of evaluating intervention fidelity cannot be overemphasized during the implementation of SEL. Therefore, experimental studies should properly report what sources were provided for the professionals and whether a part of the intervention sessions were recorded to confirm the intervention fidelity.

Furthermore, only 6 studies reported how the interventionists were trained, even though the professionality of interventionists mainly decides the overall quality of the intervention. According to Farmer et al. [ 42 ], teachers should acquire strategies to improve students’ engagement, substitute problem behaviors with positive ones, and deal with social dynamics in classrooms so as to maximize the adjustment in social, emotional, and academic domains. To acquire and be proficient with those strategies, a long-term training is definitely needed. If teachers did not fully experience the training process, readers cannot guarantee the fidelity of interventions. We thus suggest that studies report the training process of interventionists to assure that they are qualified to implement SEL programs.

Fifth, the quality analysis on external validity showed that under 50% of the selected studies properly described the selection process and/or demographic characteristics of participants. External validity indicates the exhaustive description of research processes in order to apply identical programs to other settings, and the selection process as well as characteristics of participants are integral information to confirm it [ 43 ]. The external validity is necessarily required to decide the EBP which aims to apply the results of scientific studies into diverse educational settings. The following empirical studies on SEL thus should exhaustively describe the information of participants to secure higher external validity.

Effectiveness of SEL

The main findings regarding the meta-analysis and directions for future research and practice were discussed as follows. To begin with, the global effect size of included articles is 0.27, which is situated in a middle-sized effect but close to a small-sized effect ( g < 0.2). This figure is similar to a global effect size ( g = 0.30) calculated by Durlak et al. [ 10 ]. However, the global effect size Durlak et al. [ 10 ] calculated included the effects of SEL not only on social-emotional competencies and academic achievement but also on levels of self-esteem, emotional and behavioral disorders, and prosocial behaviors, which are not incorporated in the current study. In this sense, effect size analyses by diverse controlling variables, including learning outcomes, are highly required to avoid misinterpretation of results.

The results of effect sizes by participant-related variables showed that SEL had larger effects on students in the order of elementary schools, middle schools, kindergartens, and high schools, but they had no statistical differences. According to Murano, Sawyer, & Lipnevich [ 12 ], the effect sizes of SEL for kindergarten children were situated between g = 0.32~0.50, which is somewhat larger than those of the current study ( g = 0.28). Murano et al. [ 12 ] suggested that SELs for early children be planned with a connection to their home, as they spend much time there. However, the SEL programs for kindergarteners included in the current meta-analysis focused on the connection with content knowledge children acquired as opposed to on the connection with homes and parents. Therefore, the following studies on SEL programs for the early children should develop activities to connect the kindergarten and students’ families.

In addition, as the number of effect sizes in high school SEL programs was small (N = 6), their effects turned out to be statistically insignificant. High school education usually concentrates on academic development and entrance into higher education, not on students’ social-emotional development, which often leads to high school SEL being ignored [ 44 ]. However, adolescents, due to their developed cognitive abilities, are able to acquire and master social-emotional skills that are not expected of elementary students [ 45 ]. For instance, Durlak et al. [ 10 ] showed that SEL for adolescents reduced their behavioral problems, and improved social adjustment, school engagement, and academic achievement. Hence, the SEL targeting high school students should be more actively implemented in diverse educational settings.

By the group composition, effect sizes of inclusive groups were significantly larger than groups comprised only of students without disabilities. The SEL aims to educate students to solve problems in social settings with great responsibility by understanding other people as well as themselves. To achieve this goal, experiences with students from diverse backgrounds is recommended, which can explain the large effect size of students in inclusive groups. However, SEL including students with diverse needs should be planned with caution, considering the three following factors [ 46 ]: (1) Although students with learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and intellectual disabilities have different diagnoses, they may have common academic, social, and psychological needs. It is important not to be obsessed with labels of disabilities while planning SEL programs. (2) In contrast, students with the same type of disability may report diverse problems. Teachers thus implement instructions which fit with the special educational needs of each student. (3) There are lots of students who are not yet diagnosed with a disability, but nonetheless have difficulties in adjustment. Teachers need to identify students at risk for disabilities, and design SEL programs to support them. As these factors may be demanding to interventionists, it is important for them to improve professions on educational services for students with disabilities before implementing the intervention.

The results of effect sizes by program-related variables showed that types of programs did not significantly impact the effectiveness of each program. Specifically, comparing the effectiveness between programs incorporated into and those operated separately from general curriculum, the number of SELs operated within general curriculum was marginal compared to the others. However, it is now recommended that SELs integrated with subject education be more actively implemented in school settings for the following two reasons. First, SEL aims to help students in “overall adjustment,” including academic adjustment as well as socioemotional adjustment [ 2 ]. That is, SEL programs that integrate social-emotional skills with academic skills better meet with its original purpose. Second, SEL programs are usually implemented not for selective interventions but for general education targeting all students in school settings [ 5 , 11 , 46 ]. In order to improve efficiency of school curriculum operation, SEL programs should be operated in accordance with other subjects in general education. Therefore, future research should work more on developing effective SEL programs with diverse subjects as a part of general and inclusive education.

The effect sizes of SEL programs over 10 sessions were significantly larger than those comprised of less than 10 sessions. This suggests that students should participate in the SEL program for an extended period of time (i.e., at least 10 sessions) in order to maximize its effectiveness. Furthermore, SEL programs with lessons 40 minutes or less per session showed significantly larger effect sizes than those with lessons over 50 minutes. A Lesson of 40 minutes or less reflects the typical time duration of one lesson in elementary schools. As most participants included in this study were elementary school students, this result may reflect the majority of participants. If the highest proportion of participants were not comprised of elementary school students, the findings about session length might be different from the current result. Thus, we can tentatively conclude that the most effective instructions should be planned in the unit of time which students are most accustomed to and which allow them to keep concentrating on the tasks.

The results of effect sizes by learning outcomes showed that the effect of SEL programs on social awareness was the largest whereas that on relationship skills was the smallest, although the difference in effect sizes among learning outcomes was not statistically meaningful. Discussing a relatively low effect size in relationship skills ( g = 0.20), the abilities to communicate, cooperate with, and support others [ 2 ], it was similar with effect sizes of prosocial skills and behaviors calculated by other meta-analytic studies ( g = 0.13 [ 4 ], 0.24 [ 10 ], and 0.33 [ 5 ]). In all of those studies, the effect of SEL programs on relationship skills was smaller than the other social-emotional skills such as self-awareness, self-control, and social awareness. This might be mainly because skills to communicate and cooperate with others require students to understand the social dynamics among social groups, which can be difficult and complex to master within a short period of time [ 47 ]. However, it is also necessary to find a better practice to improve relationship skills in SEL programs. For instance, the ‘Caring School Community (CSC)’ program has been proven effective to enhance relationship skills, altruistic behaviors and prosocial behaviors by engaging in activities such as setting classroom rules, implementing collaborative instructions with higher grade students, and communicating with parents about students’ school lives [ 48 ]. In-service teachers can utilize some of these activities within their SEL programs to successfully manage classroom social dynamics and ultimately increase the relationship skills of students.

Lastly, the effect of SELs on academic achievement was turned out to be satisfactory (g = 0.32), while the number of its effect sizes was somewhat marginal (N = 11). The effect sizes on academic performance calculated in prior meta-analyses ( g = 0.18 [ 11 ], 0.33 [ 4 ], 0.27 [ 10 ], 0.19~0.25 [ 13 ], and 0.28 [ 5 ]) were also similar to the current study. However, the measures of academic achievement in prior studies [ 4 , 10 , 11 , 13 ] incorporate the actual academic performance in school curriculum such as math, reading, and science, whereas those measured in the current study were mostly on academic engagement and motivation. Although academic engagement and actual performances are highly correlated [ 3 ], it is still required to demonstrate that SEL directly contributes to improving actual academic performances through future studies.

Limitations

The limitations of the current study were as follows. To begin with, as the number of studies included in analyses was insignificant (23 SEL programs), the interpretation of the results needs a meticulous care. Second, while the current study revealed the effect sizes by various controlling variables to identify the EBP of SEL, we could not figure out certain instructional strategies that are effective to enhance social-emotional skills in SEL. The future research thus need to analyze the instructional methods or strategies that are often used in SEL programs, and reveal what strategies are the most effective. Third, although we categorized the types of learning outcomes based on the five important social-emotional competences that CASEL (2015) emphasized, this is neither an absolute nor the most appropriate way to classify learning outcomes of SEL programs. The effect sizes by the types of learning outcomes can be varied according to how they are categorized. Fourth, we did not consider correlations among effect sizes in the same study when analyzing them. Therefore, the future research should focus more on possible dependency among different controlling variables to fully manifest EBP of SEL programs.

Supporting information

S1 checklist, funding statement.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America

Dongil Kim,
Jin Hyung Lim,

Published: June 24, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996
Reader Comments

Citation: Kim D, Lim JH, An J (2022) The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996

Editor: Heng Luo, Central China Normal University, CHINA

Received: October 31, 2021; Accepted: June 1, 2022; Published: June 24, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information file.

Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

RQ1: What is the quality of experimental studies on SEL implemented in Korea?
RQ2: What is the global effect size on SEL programs included in the meta-analysis?
RQ3: To what extent did participant-, program-related variables, and types of learning outcomes moderate the effectiveness of SEL?

Literature search

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.g001

Coding procedures

A coding system for quality analysis..

A coding system for meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.t001

Publication bias check.

Effect size synthesis and a random effect model.

social emotional learning research paper

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.g002

Study characteristics

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.t002

Analysis of quality indicators

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.t003

A global effect size

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.g003

Effect sizes by controlling variables

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.t005

Quality of experimental studies on SEL

Effectiveness of SEL

Limitations

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.s001

S1 File. References included in a meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.s002

S2 File. A questionnaire for a quality analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269996.s003

1. Elias M. J., Zins J. E., Weissberg R. P., Frey K. S., Greenberg M. T., Haynes N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2015). SEL competencies. http://www.casel.org/social-and-emotional-learning/core-competencies/ .
View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
35. Cooper H. (2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (Vol. 2). Sage publications.
37. Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P., & Rothstein H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
39. Gall M. D., Gall J. P., & Borg W. (2003). Educational research (7th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
41. Weissberg R. P., Durlak J. A., Domitrovich C. E., & Gullota T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In Durlak J. A., Domitrovich C. E., Weissberg R. P., & Gullota T. P. (Eds.), Handbook for social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Guilford.
45. Pittman K. J. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth serving and community organizations. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
46. Wiley A. L., & Siperstein G. N. (2015). SEL for students with high-incidence disabilities. In Durlak J. A., Domitrovich C. E., Weissberg R. P., & Gullota T. P. (Eds.), Handbook for social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 213–228). New York, NY: Guilford.

Implementing Social-Emotional Learning in the Elementary Classroom

Published: 26 February 2022
Volume 51 , pages 641–650, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Kelsey L. Kaspar 1 &
Susan L. Massey ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8585-0607 2

18k Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Social-emotional learning has the power to change how educators deliver instruction across the country. For this article, social-emotional learning research and journal articles were reviewed for the purposes of identifying common themes among existing research. Multiple perspectives were considered in the review of literature and the findings were used to identify potential issues and create overall recommendations. The first author provides an example of an implementation case at her elementary school. The recommendations from this case are provided for school leaders to consider when implementing social-emotional learning in their elementary school buildings. A step-by-step action plan is laid out for school leaders to use as a guide for this process, based on the first author’s case, while taking possible issues into consideration.

The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review

Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes

Social support in schools and related outcomes for lgbtq youth: a scoping review.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Social-emotional learning has evolved within the field of education over the years and is recently gaining more attention as students adapt to a changing world and, thus, a new learning environment. This type of learning focuses on students developing life skills like empathy, emotional intelligence, and goal setting (CASEL, 2020 ). Supporters of social-emotional learning (SEL) argue that these skills are equally as important as academic content (Brennan, 2015 ; Durak et al., 2011 ; Shriver & Weissberg, 2020 ). Legislators support social-emotional learning as evidenced by the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This legislation allows schools to be evaluated on a non-academic outcome such as school climate and student engagement (National Conference of State Legislature, 2018 ). As the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the way teachers delivered instruction, a common sentiment among educators was to remind each other of the importance of “Maslow before Bloom” (Raschdorf et al., 2020 ). That is, students’ social-emotional needs should be met before expecting them to absorb and retain academic information. This belief has more early childhood educators calling for knowledge of social-emotional learning instruction and the best way of doing so. A large body of current research is allowing for education to head in this direction. The research provides support for the impact that SEL can have on schools across the country.

The purpose of this article is to examine potential practices for implementing social-emotional learning into the elementary classroom. Prior research will be reviewed for information surrounding the most effective way to implement SEL. After reviewing effective strategies, recommendations and their implications will be given to allow for a successful transition into the elementary setting. These recommendations are based on the implementation process at the first author’s school. Potential roadblocks, like time management, financial considerations, and stakeholder buy-in, will be taken into account as a plan for implementation. A step-by-step plan will be outlined for assisting school leaders in the process of adding social-emotional learning to the classroom. A successful plan will convince all parties involved of the necessity of social-emotional learning, including administrators, parents, teachers, students, and community members.

Current Approaches to SEL

Current literature offers insight into the impact of social-emotional learning on student academic performance. Research includes current social-emotional learning practices and how opposing views affect the implementation of SEL. This review will also discuss necessary components for successful implementation, such as the learning environment and SEL curriculum, based on prior research findings. The review will conclude with an overview of why further investigation is needed to determine the best plan for bringing SEL to the elementary classroom.

The Benefits of Social-Emotional Learning

The most popular argument for social-emotional learning is that SEL is as critical as academic instruction for students of all ages. When SEL is implemented correctly, there can be a dramatic increase in academic performance as a result. A meta-analysis of 213 studies found this to be true, concluding that social-emotional instruction has a significant impact on students’ academic scores (Durlak et al., 2011 ). However, it is important to note that SEL does not replace core instruction. Instead, when taught as a supplemental curriculum, social-emotional learning benefits children from all backgrounds and helps to enhance their overall experience at school (Shriver & Weissberg, 2020 ). When students’ social-emotional needs are prioritized, they are more likely to respond to learning within the school environment. This is especially true for students who have experienced trauma, or adverse childhood experiences, who tend to struggle with the typical needs of the school day (Parker & Hodgson, 2020 ).

Furthermore, when implemented effectively, SEL connects very well with standards-based teaching and grading. A component of standards-based grading requires students to reflect on their learning and learn from their failures and mistakes. Standards-based grading also encourages students to be aware of their learning goals and work towards them at their own pace. These practices are remarkably like lessons taught as part of social-emotional learning, where students learn the importance of growth mindset and goal setting (Brennan, 2015 ). The connection between standards-based grading and social-emotional learning could result in increased academic performance for students at the elementary level (Brennan, 2015 ).

Opposing Views of Social-Emotional Learning

While research supports the impact of SEL on academic performance, there are arguments against the implementation of SEL in U.S. public schools. Those who oppose social-emotional learning argue that SEL is manipulative and works to mold student personalities into a uniform expectation, taking away student individuality (Zhao, 2020 ). Likewise, legislation involving funding social-emotional learning is consistently turned away by some legislators who argue that more time should be spent on academic instruction than on teaching soft skills (Stringer, 2019 ). Opponents also worry that social-emotional learning may influence students’ future political views, rather than teaching them to develop their own opinions about political issues (Stringer, 2019 ).

Conversely, advocates of social-emotional learning work to convince opposers by arguing that SEL is needed for students to become successful, functional adults in society. Because social-emotional learning develops students’ ability to recognize their own emotions and empathize with others, advocates of SEL argue that students with these developed skills will be more successful later in life (Burroughs & Barkauskas, 2017 ). In fact, some even attest that social-emotional learning is needed for complete human development, particularly in the early years (Ahmed et al., 2020 ). If students are not receiving a typical social-emotional environment at home, schools can replicate the teaching of these skills with an appropriate SEL curriculum. Students who have experienced trauma or adverse childhood experiences (ACES) in their home life can have an equal chance at proper social-emotional development when SEL instruction is delivered at school (Parker & Hodgson, 2020 ). Not only could SEL enhance students’ overall health and development, social-emotional learning can also have a positive impact on school climate and atmosphere. SEL has been found to improve student engagement while at school and reduce high-risk behaviors (Meyers et al., 2015 ; Yang et al., 2018 ).

Current Social-Emotional Learning Practices in the United States

While there remain arguments on either side of the spectrum, schools across the United States are implementing SEL to determine the impact it can have on students. In the United States, legislation provides funding for schools to research and implement SEL, like the School Climate Transformation Grant. School districts were able to first apply for this grant in 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, 2014 ). From there, the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) offered more funding for schools wishing to add teacher leader positions in the field of SEL (CASEL, 2019 ). These changes allowed for schools in the United States to begin researching the impact SEL could have on their students and bring attention to meeting students’ social-emotional needs.

Available Resources

Social-emotional learning gains much of its support and new resources from civic organizations in the United States. For example, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) is a leader in helping schools to perfect their skills in SEL instruction. CASEL ( 2019 ) not only offers guides for implementation, but also reviews curricula to help school districts find a best fit. CASEL ( 2019 ) also provides extensive research touting the benefits of social-emotional learning. Similarly, the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development ( 2019 ) conducted research to provide school districts with recommendations to begin SEL implementation. Their research concluded that social-emotional learning requires the following factors: policy alignment, continuous reflection, local ownership, trained leaders, and cross-sector coalitions (National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, 2019 ). Finally, the National Education Association (NEA) supports teachers in their concern for student wellbeing (NEA Education Policy and Practice Department, n.d.). The NEA believes that social-emotional learning is an imperative component of a child’s education.

The support from these types of organizations makes the creation of SEL resources and curricula possible. There continues to be more curricula on the market for administrators to purchase. Dusenbury and Weissberg ( 2017 ) reviewed multiple SEL curricula, including Caring School Community, PATHS, Positive Action, Resolving Conflicts Creatively, Responsive Classroom, Second Step, Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program, and Steps to Review. These curricula focused on the five social-emotional competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making (CASEL, 2019 ). These curricula make it possible for the general education teacher to add SEL as a daily component in the classroom (Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017 ). Before deciding on which curriculum best fits a certain school, Ferreira et al. ( 2020 ) remind administrators of the importance of ensuring that the curriculum is developmentally appropriate for the intended age. Just as academics are scaffolded throughout the year, social-emotional skills should correspond to developmentally appropriate age ranges and expectations. In addition, while cost is an important factor to consider when deciding on a curriculum, administrators may recognize that the impact of social-emotional learning can create a financial return by improving student performance, school climate, and increasing standardized test scores (Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017 ). In this way, purchasing an SEL curriculum can be considered an important investment in a school’s success.

Necessary Components for Implementation

Once schools receive the support and resources to begin the implementation of SEL, administrators need to research best practices for implementing social-emotional learning. These examples have revealed necessary components for SEL instruction to be the most successful. To begin, teachers should be aware of their comfort level with teaching social-emotional learning. To be able to teach social skills, educators need to be socially competent themselves (Collie et al., 2012 ). If educators are not aware of their own social-emotional competencies, then the art of instructing these skills can become too stressful. In this way, schools should set their priority on supporting adults first before expecting them to teach SEL (Darling-Hammond, 2018 ). Mentally healthy teachers will be more impactful with their instruction than those who have other stressors to worry about. With that in mind, it is helpful for schools to focus on simply initiating SEL and then be willing to reflect, learn from mistakes, and listen to teachers’ thoughts and opinions about what was successful and what was challenging (Berman, 2018 ).

After teachers are prepared for teaching SEL, school leaders then may consider focusing on perfecting the learning environment. School is naturally a social place for students, and it makes sense to instruct these skills in this setting (Dominguez & LaGue, 2013 ). Three themes emerged from the literature that were described as necessary components for SEL to be most successful. These all impacted the learning environment: positive teacher-student relationships, diversity and acceptance, and student voice (Durlak et al., 2011 ; Elias, 2014 ; Farrel, 2019 ; Zalaznick, 2020 ). Students thrived in an environment where they felt supported and respected by their teachers and, therefore, were more open to SEL instruction (Elias, 2014 ). Likewise, SEL instruction that included conversations about diversity and acceptance created an ideal learning environment for all involved (Farrell, 2019 ). Students appreciated a classroom where they felt they had a voice in their learning and felt understood by their teachers (Zalaznick, 2020 ). When all factors were effectively put into place, students were more likely to improve in their academic performance.

After a proper learning environment is put into place, the instruction of SEL can begin. Prior research provides recommendations of important pieces to allow students to get the most out of the instruction. First, social-emotional learning was implemented throughout the day and taught regularly by classroom teachers (Bailey et al., 2019 ; Barnett, 2019 ). This took on multiple forms, including being integrated into another curriculum (e.g., literacy or math). On the other hand, some programs required separate times of the day devoted to SEL, such as morning and closing circle times (Berman, 2018 ; Stearns, 2016 ). These lessons focused on the direct, explicit instruction of social-emotional skills. Oftentimes, these skills were practiced through peer collaboration in both general academic work and direct SEL work (Capp et al., 2018 ). However, when instruction was given, it was most helpful to be in the form of an easy-to-follow curriculum, with step-by-step instructions for the teacher to follow. Likewise, SEL was most impactful when families and the general community were involved in the students’ learning (Greenberg et al., 2017 ; Haymovitz et al., 2018 ).

Roadblocks to Address

While an action plan is created, the following will be important roadblocks to consider: finding time for SEL instruction, locating money in the budget for resources and personnel, adequately preparing teachers for providing the instruction, gaining the support of stakeholders, and collecting data to reflect on its effectiveness. As the world changes, so do the students entering classrooms. Schools should recognize the need to educate the whole child, in lieu of focusing solely on academics (Durlak et al., 2011 ). The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 requires schools to be evaluated on conditions of learning, and social-emotional learning can positively affect school’s climate to improve these scores (Shriver & Weissberg, 2020 ).

First, the main concern that teachers have about social-emotional learning is finding the time to fit SEL instruction into their daily schedule (Collie et al., 2012 ). There are many demands on elementary teachers; namely, expectations for students to perform well on standardized tests. A typical elementary schedule is already full of literacy and math lessons, and the notion of adding in another component may be overwhelming for elementary educators (Collie et al., 2012 ). With that in mind, it will be important for an SEL curriculum to be easy to implement and fit seamlessly into the normal elementary routine. SEL can also be embedded into academic curriculum, through partner work, minilessons during literacy, and as part of the Common Core State Standards speaking and listening standards.

Next, some schools may have difficulty acquiring money to support the implementation of SEL. Funds will be needed for multiple components, including curriculum, personnel, and professional development (Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017 ). School leaders should be aware of grant opportunities and government-controlled funds that would aid in the purchasing of these components. Professional development is necessary to ensure that teachers are properly prepared for providing instruction in social-emotional learning (Collie et al., 2012 ).

Finally, school leaders should recognize the importance of gaining support from important stakeholders including parents, the local community, and the students themselves. Those who oppose social-emotional learning believe that SEL takes precious time away from academics (Zhao, 2020 ). To combat those fears, school leaders need to create a plan for collecting data to prove the success of their chosen SEL program. Stakeholders will benefit from being kept informed on all levels, so that they know what to expect for outcomes from social-emotional learning.

Social-emotional learning seems to be the latest trend in education, but it does not come without controversy. Many states are beginning to see the benefits of providing SEL instruction and will likely begin to require this type of instruction in schools. However, the problem remains in creating steps to follow for a smooth implementation, while addressing issues like time, money and resources, and stakeholder buy-in. These issues need to be considered for an SEL implementation plan to succeed.

Recommendations and an Example Case

Clearly, the process of implementing social-emotional learning into the elementary classroom does not come without its challenges. However, the recommendations from the current research offer valuable insight into the best approach for beginning the process. School leaders may consider simply choosing a starting point and working from there to get off and running (Berman, 2018 ). Before jumping into the implementation, it will be important to consider the previously mentioned sub issues that are likely to affect the success of a plan. From there, a step-by-step plan, based in the literature’s findings and the first author’s experiences, can smoothly guide the development of social-emotional learning throughout an elementary school’s classroom.

Action Plan

With the existing research and the first author’s actions at her school in mind, the following action plan is presented. This action plan includes multiple elements to ensure that the implementation of social-emotional learning goes as smoothly as possible. These components include creating a social-emotional learning leadership team, offering multiple opportunities for staff to receive professional development on the topic of SEL, creating a plan that includes frequent communication with all stakeholders, developing consistency among elementary classrooms within the school building, and offering tier two and tier three interventions for students needing targeted instruction in social-emotional skills. The first author implemented a similar action plan in her school and examples from this school are given for each step. Refer to Fig. 1 to see an example of an implementation timeline.

A Timeline for Implementing Social-Emotional Learning.

Social-Emotional Learning Leadership Team

The first step towards success when implementing social-emotional learning should include the creation of an SEL leadership team. This team should include a wide variety of staff members to include diverse perspectives. Some positions to consider are the instructional coach(es), the curriculum coordinator, a teacher new to the district, a teacher new to the profession, at least two veteran teachers, and the school guidance counselor. Monthly meetings of the SEL team are suggested to plan and fulfill actions towards adding social-emotional instruction to the elementary building. At the author’s school, these members were selected by the elementary principal to identify the weaknesses in the area of social-emotional instruction and then work towards a solution. Creating a shared vision is one of the first actions that the team will want to complete. This vision will include where they see SEL fitting into the school and the changes it will bring to the overall school environment. The shared vision should include a mission statement. An example of a mission statement is: “Under the implementation of a new social-emotional curriculum, our elementary school will offer an environment where the maximum amount of learning can take place, where students can feel safe, where teachers are appreciated, and all feel welcome.” The mission statement will be used, along with the shared vision, to introduce SEL to the elementary staff. The vision statement encompasses the beliefs of how the leadership team expects both students and educators to act underneath their new SEL plan. The following questions may be beneficial in generating discussion to create a shared vision:

What does an ideal school environment look like?

How do ideal students solve problems with one another?

How should teachers be supported in their profession?

How does social-emotional learning relate to our school mission statement?

How could social-emotional learning transform our school?

After developing a shared vision, the SEL leadership team will need to set SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely) goals for how to meet their vision. These goals should be broken up by priority, and the SEL team should make both short-term and long-term goals. These goals could include the development of schoolwide norms, or expectations, for students to follow no matter where they are in the school building. This consistency will be helpful in enhancing the school’s learning environment (Durlak et al., 2011 ). Also, the SEL team will want to develop a plan that ensures teacher morale stays positive (Darling-Hammond, 2018 ). For example, SEL leaders may work on celebrating staff accomplishments on a regular basis or rewarding teachers with small sentiments. Both factors will be very impactful in improving the climate of the school and the learning environment for students (Fig. 2 ).

SMART goal example

When making the SMART goals, the SEL team should have a plan for collecting data to show their growth towards goals. One possible assessment tool is the social, academic, emotional, behavioral risk screener (SAEBRS) assessment offered by Fastbridge. This assessment screens students from kindergarten through 12th grade and quickly identifies students who may need a targeted intervention related to social-emotional skills (Illuminate Education, 2021 ). The data from this assessment could be one of the main determinations in SEL goal achievement.

In addition to collecting student data from an assessment like SAEBRS, the SEL leadership team will also want to have additional data collection tools. First, the leadership team will want to collect data from teachers, including their thoughts on the school climate and levels of job satisfaction (Darling-Hammond, 2018 ). A survey, anonymous suggestions, or a similar idea could be created. Teachers should feel supported in their own job before they can competently teach social-emotional lessons (Collie et al., 2012 ). This survey could identify potential issues before they hinder the SEL team’s efforts. Similarly, students could complete a school climate survey. For example, the Iowa Department of Education in the United States requires all public schools to conduct a Conditions of Learning Survey, collecting data on students’ feelings about their school (Des Moines Public Schools, 2021 ). All these pieces of data will be crucial in determining a starting point for the SEL team, and later in determining the success of the team’s efforts.

Next, the SEL team will want to choose the tools for SEL instruction. There are many available curricula in the social-emotional domain, so the pros and cons of all curricula will need to be weighed. Factors to consider when choosing a curriculum should include ease of use, cost, resources included, and research-based materials (Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017 ). An appropriate curriculum will meet most of the school’s needs. It may be beneficial for the leadership team to choose one or two teachers to pilot a program and share their thoughts on the program before purchasing it for the entire elementary. The first author was chosen to pilot the Caring School Community curriculum from the Center for the Collaborative Classroom at her school. This program was used with her 27 fourth-grade students. Data was collected to determine its effectiveness, and the author presented her findings to her colleagues at the beginning of the 2021–2022 school year. In addition, the author trained her colleagues to use the curriculum in their own classrooms. It is helpful to have a curriculum chosen and sample materials made available as the shared vision is presented to all elementary staff members.

Professional Development

After choosing a curriculum, the next step in SEL implementation is preparing the educators for delivering social-emotional instruction. The SEL leadership team should organize professional development opportunities for elementary staff. The professional development opportunities should occur more often during the first year to best support educators in the transition to social-emotional learning. These first sessions should include opportunities for teachers to develop their own social-emotional competencies (Darling-Hammond, 2018 ). Administrators will want to emphasize the importance of teachers taking time for self-care or activities where they take the time to refresh and elevate their mental health (Collie et al., 2012 ). These types of activities include fitness, mindfulness practices, free-reading, or any other activities that teachers enjoy doing in their free time. In addition, teachers should be able to recognize and manage their own emotions to assist students in doing the same (Darling-Hammond, 2018 ). For example, at the author’s school, the administration brought in area education agency members to train staff on social-emotional learning practices. This included the viewing and discussion of the documentary Paper Tigers (Redford & Pritzker, 2015 ).

From there, teachers can begin to practice empathy by learning about trauma-informed instruction and adverse childhood experiences (ACES). An understanding of these topics is crucial in being able to deliver social-emotional lessons and create a classroom environment where all students feel safe and comfortable (Parker & Hodgson, 2020 ). The author’s colleagues participated in a book study of Help for Billy by Heather Forbes. When students experience trauma in their young lives, the development of their brains is affected (Forbes, 2012 ). Because of this, their ability to maintain relationships in the same way as traditional students is diminished. Behavior typically becomes a problem with these types of children, and it is helpful for educators to be professionally trained in a trauma-informed approach in order to best meet their needs. Social-emotional learning can reduce high-risk behaviors when implemented correctly (Parker & Hodgson, 2020 ). Consequently, professional development should offer the opportunity for educators to learn and understand the neuroscience behind trauma and ACES.

Once educators have the foundational knowledge necessary for teaching social-emotional learning, they can begin instruction. However, the learning does not stop there, and school leaders should consider utilizing their instructional coaches to continue to improve educator’s SEL practice. Like other coaching sessions focused on academics, an instructional coach can complete a coaching cycle with his or her co-workers, analyzing social-emotional lessons. To make the most out of the first year of schoolwide SEL implementation, administrators should consider requiring all teachers to complete a coaching cycle in social-emotional learning. This coaching cycle will involve the instructional coach reviewing a lesson with the teacher beforehand, observing the lesson, and reflecting with the teacher afterwards. The coaching cycle will give teachers a chance to ensure they are delivering instruction in the best way possible for students to gain as many social-emotional skills as possible. Likewise, the instructional coach can learn from his or her colleagues to build a “toolbox” of knowledge for all elementary staff to share as they plan their SEL instruction.

Communication with Stakeholders

Creating a vision of SEL and preparing educators for instruction will serve as the building blocks for success of implementation. From there, administrators and school leaders will want to consider the involvement of educational stakeholders. This will include parents, students, all school workers, school board representatives, and community members. Community members may include local business owners, student relatives, and all those who have a stake in the funding for the school. For SEL to be most effective, communication with stakeholders should happen regularly and consistently (Raschdorf et al., 2020 ). The SEL leadership team will want to share their SEL vision with all stakeholders and present it in a way that shows them the benefits of such instruction. At the author’s school, parents were given an overview of the new social-emotional curriculum at Back-to-School night and were also able to ask any questions or raise any concerns during this time. After the implementation of SEL program, parents continued to give feedback. One of the thoughts from a parent at the author’s school is shared in Fig. 3 .

A Parent’s perspective on SEL curriculum at RRMR elementary

In fact, when parents are involved in social-emotional instruction, the impact on student performance is that much greater (Haymovitz et al., 2018 ). In addition to including parents and school workers, SEL leaders will want to coordinate community partnerships (Greenberg et al., 2017 ). These partnerships can give students the opportunity to give back in their community, learn as an apprentice, or other various learning experiences.

After providing an overview to school stakeholders of SEL instruction, it will be helpful for the leadership team to gather data from them to gauge their feelings about the implementation process. This information will help SEL leaders pinpoint any specific areas of concern that could be addressed when communicating with stakeholders. Similarly, the SEL leadership team will want to share success stories as they begin lessons and collecting data from students. This could happen in multiple formats, including website updates or informational fliers sent to the school’s community partners. These celebrations will help the stakeholders to see the importance of teaching social-emotional skills to students in their community (Fig. 4 ).

Example learning target

Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom

The most critical part of SEL instruction will occur in the elementary classroom. There are numerous factors that should be considered to make the lessons the most effective. These elements include focusing on positive student–teacher relationships, developing consistency among all elementary classrooms, and ensuring classrooms are culturally responsive. All teachers should include SEL in their classrooms somehow, and this SEL instruction should occur daily (Bailey et al., 2019 ). From there, teachers will want to work on fostering positive relationships with their students. Research supports the importance of students feeling respected and cared for by their teachers (Raschdorf et al., 2020 ; Yang et al., 2018 ). When these relationships are in place, student behavior will improve, and students will be more likely to respond to SEL instruction. An easy way to begin to develop these relationships is to follow the “two-minute-a-day” strategy (McKibben, 2014 ). This strategy focuses on giving students targeted, positive attention every day. This focused attention allows for the student to see their teacher as an ally, rather than an enemy. This strategy can be particularly meaningful for students who typically have behavioral issues (McKibben, 2014 ). These relationships are the foundation for creating an ideal learning environment.

Next, once SEL instruction begins, it will be essential for there to be consistency among all elementary classrooms (Durlak et al., 2011 ). There should be schoolwide discipline policies and expectations in place that are followed by all staff members. Administrators may consider doing classroom walk-throughs to check for this consistency on a regular basis. The SEL leadership team may focus on using positive language in these expectations (Whisman & Hammer, 2014 ). For example, instead of writing “Don’t run in the hallways,” the language could be changed to “Walk in the hallways.” This language can also be used in the classrooms. Teachers should consider rewarding students for positive behaviors, rather than scolding those acting out. These factors will also contribute to an ideal learning environment.

As SEL is added to the elementary classroom, there are multiple components that will be helpful in ensuring that instruction is the most impactful. First, educators will want to create explicit learning targets, like academic learning goals. These learning targets can relate back to the five SEL competencies by CASEL ( 2020 ) or the SEL competencies required by the state’s department of education. In this way, SEL instruction can relate back to the process of standards-based instruction and grading, where students take ownership of their learning, using the learning targets as their guide. These learning goals can also be used to assist students in the process of self-assessment. Just like with their academics, students will want to recognize their growth in social-emotional skills, and self-assessment is a meaningful way to do so.

In addition, social-emotional learning can be integrated into other subject areas to add components of it throughout the school day. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is by including peer collaboration into all subjects. When students work together on a variety of tasks, there are many social-emotional skills coming into play (McKown et al., 2016 ). Students are required to use their communication skills, teamwork, and conversational skills to work best with their partner. Students should not be simply assigned to a partner project for the sake of practice. Instead, students should be provided with direct, explicit instruction in how partners should work together for that task. Afterwards, reflecting on the successes and challenges of their partner work will help students to identify their strengths in social-emotional skills (McKown et al., 2016 ).

A critical component of social-emotional learning is to include parents in the practice of social skills (Haymovitz et al., 2018 ). This component should be executed by all classroom teachers teaching social skills. Teachers will need to communicate with parents the learning goals of SEL, so that the skills can be reinforced at home when applicable. For example, when teaching students about the importance of agreeing and disagreeing respectfully, prompts can be sent home to use in the home setting as well. At the author’s school, students are given a home connection activity to complete every week with an adult at home. This activity relates to the current SEL learning target. When SEL skills are put into practice both at school and at home, students will be more positively impacted (Haymovitz et al., 2018 ).

Likewise, teachers will want to respond to students’ home environments by ensuring that classrooms are culturally responsive. Social-emotional learning offers an ideal opportunity for teachers to address diversity across the globe and appreciate cultural differences. Similarly, educators should be aware of cultural differences when celebrating holidays at school. Teachers should also ensure that students are exposed to diverse literature, where all students can “see” themselves in the books that they read. Literature gives students the chance to put themselves into others’ shoes, and, therefore, practice the skill of empathy while also practicing literacy skills. When all these components are put together in the classroom, social-emotional learning will be most effective.

Multi-Tiered System of Supports for SEL

Once students are given direct instruction in social-emotional skills, they should be provided with interventions when needed (Barnett, 2019 ; Green et al., 2019 ; Greenberg et al, 2017 ). These interventions should be provided on both a tier two and tier three level to meet all students where they are at with their social-emotional development. To put these interventions into place, all elementary students should be assessed with a universal screening assessment to identify students in need. This assessment will aid in identifying the specific areas of need for students to grow. Tier two instruction can occur in a small-group setting, where students work on social-emotional skills together. Likewise, tier three instruction will occur individually, where students can focus on their own growth where needed. This instruction could take on the form of a regular one-on-one conference with the student to help them with whatever skills they may need. The conferences will give students the opportunity to share any social woes they may have and work on problem-solving strategies for alleviating them. The universal screener can be given three times a year, and the data from this screener can serve as a reflection tool. Teachers will be able to identify growth among their students in social-emotional skills, and the school will be able to determine the success of its social-emotional skills as a whole.

School leaders who wish to implement social-emotional learning will benefit from these recommendations. It will be important for leaders to keep the concerns in mind, like issues with time and money, when beginning the step-by-step plan. However, by using findings from current research, these recommendations are practical and possible for beginning the process SEL implementation.

SEL implementation is not an easy path to take. There are likely going to be issues that arise during the process, including pushback from stakeholders, scheduling conflicts, and budget shortfalls. However, if those are directly addressed in a step-by-step action plan, the process may go much smoother. When school leaders begin to implement social-emotional learning, they will want to begin with creating an SEL leadership team. This team will be in charge of creating a shared school vision, training staff members, and guiding their co-workers through the implementation process. While there are many roadblocks to consider in this action plan, the benefits of following through with it are sure to outweigh any negatives. If SEL is implemented correctly, students and teachers are more likely to experience a high quality, less stressful learning environment. Communication between the school and its stakeholders may increase, developing important relationships. All educators involved in the implementation process will be given the opportunity to grow in their instructional practice, as they dive into professional development on social-emotional learning and trauma-informed teaching. Administrators will become more aware of the importance of teacher mental health and self-care, and students will feel the results in the classroom academically. As social-emotional learning grows in popularity, the research supports these notions. School leaders should seriously consider evaluating their current practice and determining a place for social-emotional learning in their buildings. The effects of doing so may be felt for many years, as students learn to become well-rounded, emotionally intelligent adults. An administrator at the school of the first author noted these effects: As a building administrator I have noticed a decrease in small behavior issues that come through my office simply because of the common language and the fact that students are able to resolve conflicts on their own. Teaching those strategies and skills over the course of a school year with daily lessons has been so valuable for everyone.

SEL can prepare students for living in a diverse world, by teaching them to interact with all types of humanity. Teacher burnout and anxiety can decrease when approached as part of the process, and stakeholders in the community will get the chance to be involved in student development. Additionally, students across the world can benefit from direct instruction in managing emotions and working with others. The history of humanity teaches us the importance of knowing these skills, and the future of the world depends on the next generation. By empowering this generation with necessary social-emotional skills, children can confidently face their futures. For these reasons, SEL belongs as a promising future in the field of education.

Ahmed, I., Hamzah, A. B., & Abdullah, M. N. L. (2020). Effect of social and emotional learning approach on students’ social-emotional competence. International Journal of Instruction, 13 (4), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13441a

Article Google Scholar

Bailey, R., Stickle, L., Brion-Meisels, G., & Jones, S. (2019). Re-imagining social-emotional learning: Findings from a strategy-based approach. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (5), 53–58.

Barnett, D. (2019). Social and emotional learning within a multi-tiered system of support. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, 12 (1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-02-2019-0035

Berman, S. (2018). What we’ve learned about implementing social-emotional learning. School Administrator, 75 , 32–36.

Google Scholar

Brennan, D.D. (2015) Creating a climate for achievement. Educational Leadership, 56–59

Burroughs, M. D., & Barkauskas, N. J. (2017). Educating the whole child: Social-emotional learning and ethics education. Ethics and Education, 12 (2), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1287388

CASEL. (2020). Our work. https://casel.org/our-work/

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2019). CASEL District Resources. https://drc.casel.org/

Capp, G., Benbenishty, R., Avi-Astor, R., & Pineda, D. (2018). Learning together: Implementation of a peer-tutoring intervention targeting academic and social-emotional needs. Children and Schools, 40 (3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdy009

Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, N. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). What makes social learning so important? School Administrator, 75 , 20–24.

Des Moines Public Schools. (2021). 2021 Conditions for learning survey items, Grades 3–5. https://data.dmschools.org/uploads/1/3/3/6/13361550/2021_3-5_survey_items.pdf

Dominguez, A., & LaGue, K. (2013). Beyond academic standards: Social and emotional learning in the classroom. National Teacher Education Journal, 6 (1), 17–21.

Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Dusenbury, L. & Weissberg, R. (2017, April). Social-emotional learning in elementary school: Preparation for success. Pennsylvania State University.

Elias, M. J. (2014). The future of character education and social-emotional learning: The need for whole school and community-linked approaches. Journal of Character Education, 10 (1), 37–42.

Farrell, B. (2019) Research roundup: Social and emotional learning. Young Adult Library Services, 10–11.

Ferreira, M., Martinone, B., & Talic, S. (2020). Promoting sustainable social emotional learning at school through relationship-centered learning environment, teaching methods and formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 22 (1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2020-0003

Forbes, H. T. (2012). Help for billy: A beyond consequences approach to helping children in the classroom . Beyond Consequences Institute.

Green, J., Passarelli, R., Smith-Millman, M. K., Wagers, K., Kalomiris, A. E., & Scott, M. N. (2019). A study of an adapted social-emotional learning: Small group curriculum in a school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 56 , 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22180

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27 (1), 13–32.

Haymovitz, E., Houseal-Allport, P., Lee, R. S., & Svistova, J. (2018). Exploring the perceived benefits and limitations of a school-based social-emotional learning program: A concept map evaluation. Children & Schools, 40 (1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdx029/4637616

Illuminate Education. (2021). Social, academic, emotional, behavioral risk screener. https://www.fastbridge.org/saebrs/

McKibben, S. (2014) The two-minute relationship builder. ASCD Education Update, 56 (7)

McKown, C., Russo-Ponsaran, N., Allen, A., Johnson, J., & Warren-Khot, H. (2016). Social-emotional factors and academic outcomes among elementary-aged children. Infant and Child Development, 25 , 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1926

Meyers, A. B., Tobin, R., Huber, B., Conway, D., & Shelvin, K. (2015). Interdisciplinary collaboration supporting social-emotional learning in rural school systems. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25 , 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929956

National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. (2019, January). From a nation at risk to a nation at hope. http://nationathope.org/report-from-the-nation/

National Conference of State Legislature. (2018). Social and emotional learning. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/social-emotional-learning.aspx

NEA Education Policy and Practice Department (n.d.). Backgrounder: The importance of social emotional learning for all students across all grades. https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Social%20and%20Emotional%20Learning%20Response_Bkgdr%20v3.pdf

Parker, R. & Hodgson, D. (2020). ‘One size does not fill all’: Engaging students who have experienced trauma. Issues in Educational Research, 30 (1), 245–259. http://www.iier.org/au/iier30/parker.pdf

Raschdorf, T., Nixon-May, B., & Searcy, A. (2020). Integrating social-emotional learning into our new normal teaching elementary general music. General Music Today, 00 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371320961372

Redford, J. & Pritzker, K. (Directors). (2015) Paper tigers. [Documentary]. KPJR Films

Shriver, T., & Weissberg, R. (2020). A response to constructive criticism of social and emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 101 (7), 52–57.

Stearns, C. (2016). Responsive classroom? A critique of a social-emotional learning program. Critical Studies in Education, 57 (3), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1076493

Stringer, K. (2019, July 9). SEL in the House: Democrats approve millions in landmark federal funding for social-emotional learning in bill that now faces test in Senate . The 74 Million. https://www.the74million.org/sel-in-the-house-democrats-approve-millions-in-landmark-federal-funding-for-social-emotional-learning-in-bill-that-now-faces-test-in-senate/

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, October 3). School Climate Transformation Grant - Local Educational Agency Grants. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/schoolclimatelea/index.html

Whisman, A. & Hammer, P.C. (2014). The association between school discipline and performance: A case for positive discipline approaches. West Virginia Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569903.pdf

Yang, C., Bear, G. G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47 (3), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0003.v47-1

Zalaznick, M. (2020) Essential SEL. District Administration, 20–22

Zhao, Y. (2020). Another education war? The coming debates over social and emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 101 (8), 43–48.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rudd-Rockford-Marble Rock Community School District, Rockford, IA, USA

Kelsey L. Kaspar

Upper Iowa University, Fayette, IA, USA

Susan L. Massey

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan L. Massey .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kaspar, K.L., Massey, S.L. Implementing Social-Emotional Learning in the Elementary Classroom. Early Childhood Educ J 51 , 641–650 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01324-3

Download citation

Accepted : 02 February 2022

Published : 26 February 2022

Issue Date : April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01324-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Social-emotional
Instruction
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, making space for social and emotional learning in science education.

1 Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States
2 Solpugid Productions LLC, DBA The Bug Chicks, Cincinnati, OH, United States
3 Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States

Social-emotional learning (SEL) is known to improve student outcomes but is rarely combined with STEM. In this paper we present an action research study to examine the impact of a STEM + SEL curriculum intervention to address a real-world school conflict. One hundred sixth–eighth graders and four teachers participated in an in-person facilitation of a SEL Arthropod curriculum, DIFFERENT. After the intervention, students completed open-ended couplet statements about arthropod behavior, tarantulas, and humans designed to measure sentiment change. Answers were manually coded using inductive coding on a scale of negative (1) to positive (5). Statement sentiments significantly shifted from negative to neutral and negative to positive for all three questions. Neutral to positive shifts were only significant for the couplet statements about arthropod behavior. This study reports the first confirmed instance of successful use of arthropods for SEL within a curriculum that integrates students’ social-emotional skills within a science classroom.

Introduction

In the Pacific Northwest, a suburban options-based middle school program (OBMP) focuses on environmental science through integration with other subjects. These students arrive very early in the day, and their school day ends earlier than normal. This program is housed inside a traditional middle school (TMS) whose hours begin and end later each day. In addition, the OBMP students leave the grounds once a week for environmental community service projects.

The TMS students see this as a fun weekly “field trip,” and due to the segregated nature of the student populations between the two schools, misunderstandings about the nature of the OBMP program led to increased tensions, bullying, and emotional strife.

We were invited by the OBMP to lead their students through a science and social-emotional learning (SEL) curriculum called DIFFERENT, where students challenge their perception of themselves, others, and the natural world by learning about arthropods.

Given the situation at the school, we had two key questions:

1. Do arthropods provide the spark of engagement necessary to successfully integrate STEM content and SEL?

2. Can entomology be used to build empathy not only for arthropods, but also people with differing experiences?

The intent of this study was to pilot a curriculum to address conflict and build social-emotional competencies in a science education context.

Social-emotional learning (SEL) is defined in many ways in the research literature, and includes subfields of character or civic education, social skills, life skills, “soft” skills, and 21st century skills ( Jones and Kahn, 2017 ). While SEL may be difficult to cleanly define, it is a useful concept that encapsulates a multifaceted assortment of non-academic knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to self-management, relationship building, and responsible decision making.

Teaching SEL is a proactive approach to dealing with classroom management issues. Rather than responding to students’ negative emotions or antisocial behaviors after they become problematic, educators help develop students’ SEL skills as life tools to thrive in school and beyond. SEL programs have been found to contribute to gains in social-emotional skills and attitudes about self, others, and school, improved grades and academic performance on standardized tests, and a reduction in negative student conduct behaviors such as school suspensions and drug use ( Durlak et al., 2011 ; Taylor et al., 2017 ). In addition, the return on investment is impressive, with high quality SEL programs yielding an estimated 11:1 return on dollars invested ( Belfield et al., 2015 ).

High-quality SEL programs include four recommended elements, known by the acronym SAFE: Sequenced, Active, Focused, and Explicit ( Durlak et al., 2010 ; Durlak et al., 2011 ). Programs result in consistently positive outcomes when they:

1. use a sequenced step-by-step training approach

2. emphasize active learning in which youth practice new skills

3. focus specific time and attention on personal and social skill training

4. clearly define their goals in explicit rather than general terms.

Implementation is also key to success and requires training and on-going support for facilitators ( CASEL, 2013 ; CASEL, 2015 ).

While SEL is clearly important in modern pedagogy, integration of SEL into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects may be viewed as incompatible. In this paper, we argue science and emotions are not irreconcilable, and should not be separated. In fact, we argue science and social-emotional learning are synergistic, and lead to greater understanding when combined.

Implementation of SEL into schools is often done as a separate class or section, rather than integrated into existing subject matter. While this does bring focus to SEL as an important topic, it does not support the reality that social emotional concepts are a part of every aspect of our lives ( Zins, 2004 ). As Brown (2021) put it, we are not teaching science , we are teaching people .

To ask students to leave their emotions and social connections at the door and engage only rational thinking in the science classroom is not a reasonable expectation, nor should it be encouraged. As science educators we need to address emotions because (like it or not), emotions influence learning outcomes in the science education classroom ( Pekrun and Stephens, 2012 ). Students are always experiencing emotions in STEM; discipline-specific emotions ( Goetz et al., 2006 ), topic emotions ( Broughton et al., 2013 ), or academic emotions related to classroom learning contexts ( Pekrun et al., 2002 ; Pekrun and Stephens, 2012 ). Whether it is test anxiety or sadness when studying species extinction, emotions are always in the room.

Emotion plays a key role in decision making ( Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007 ). Therefore, if we want to influence decision making, we must be willing to recognize and grapple with the role emotions play in our-and our students’-decision making processes. Ideally, we want school science to be relevant outside the walls of the classroom, and to support students in integrating scientific knowledge into their worldviews and identities ( National Research Council, 2012 ).

While there are many ways to teach SEL in the K-12 classroom ( CASEL, 2013 ; CASEL, 2015 ), embedding SEL within academic subjects can contribute to a systemic approach to teaching social-emotional skills. In addition, the integration of SEL with a required subject supports teachers and eases the burden of having to fit new content into an already packed academic schedule. Teachers can struggle to find the time and bandwidth to teach isolated SEL curriculum and it can feel less forced and inauthentic than when integrated into existing lessons.

Can you imagine bringing a tarantula or a large insect into a classroom and students NOT having an emotional response? Some K-12 educators see the value of using arthropods as model organisms in their science classrooms and acknowledge that student engagement increases due to students’ strong emotional response to these animals ( Ingram, 2019 ). The unexpected can activate a powerful range of emotions. Even if the emotion is “ick!,” these feelings create an entry point to discuss empathy, respect for differences, thoughtful inquiry, and to model how to ask questions that are curiosity-based rather than judgement-based.

Standards-based science education ensures that instruction must include particular content, but does not prescribe how this content must be taught ( National Research Council, 2012 ; NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). Many secondary science teachers report having the freedom to select instructional practices and curriculum materials that best suit their needs ( Banilower et al., 2018 ). This includes the freedom to select from a plethora of available model organisms to teach about key science ideas such as evolution, natural selection, adaptations, and survival strategies.

By blending SEL with science content, students have the opportunity to challenge how they see themselves, others, and the natural world. One result of connecting students with nature is increased empathy for animals. This translates directly to a deeper empathy for people. Castano (2012) documents that youth who had previously acted indifferently or harmfully toward animals were better able to feel concern and empathy toward them, and subsequently toward their human peers, after an SEL-science unit in their school. Interacting with animals and nature has the potential to reduce aggressive behaviors ( Katcher and Teumer, 2006 ).

Materials and Methods

Research design.

To answer our research questions, we conducted action research ( Creswell, 2012 ) to determine the impact that an arthropod-themed SEL + STEM curriculum intervention has on students’ attitudes and perceptions not only of arthropods, but also themselves and others.

We predicted that this curriculum would result in positive emotional mindset shifts in students, while also encouraging engagement and interest in arthropods.

The DIFFERENT Curriculum

DIFFERENT: social-emotional learning using arthropods is a curriculum developed in 2019 by entomologists and educators Kristie Reddick and Jessica Honaker. It integrates arthropod biology, empathy, and self-reflection with emotional capacity building and self-management. A service-learning project that encourages students to showcase their creativity and communication skills is also included. DIFFERENT is designed to challenge students’ perceptions of themselves, others and the natural world.

The curriculum is designed for grades 4–12 and is matched for each grade to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) ( NGSS Lead States, 2013 ) complete with further science investigations for each matched standard. It is also aligned with the social-emotional principles and objectives outlined by CASEL ( Zins and Elias, 2007 ).

The curriculum consists of four phases ( Table 1 ). By placing the initial focus squarely on arthropod survival strategies, these lessons are designed to relieve some of the pressures that students can feel in traditional SEL. Because the DIFFERENT curriculum is integrated with regular science instruction, it creates a space where students have the freedom to wonder about themselves and/or the entomological subjects.

TABLE 1 . Roadmap and phase descriptions of the DIFFERENT curriculum.

Participants

From December 2019 to January 2020, a pilot study was completed with 100 students and four teachers in four classrooms at an options-based middle school program hosted inside a traditional middle school in a suburb of a city in the Pacific Northwest. Each class had a mix of sixth–eighth graders. The OBMP is open to students across the district through an application process. The school is populated partially through a lottery system.

The demographic makeup of the OBMP is reported with the TMS in which it is hosted. The student body is 40% Hispanic, 39% White, 5% Black/African American, 7% Asian, 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 7% Multiracial, and <0.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native. Fifty-nine percent of students at this school receive free or discounted lunches.

During the pilot, four videos from the DIFFERENT curriculum and their corresponding Student Self-Reflection questions were chosen: Feeling Fear, Misunderstood, What’s in a Name, Mistaken Identity . Feeling Fear explains how arthropods respond to negative stimuli when they feel threatened and follows the journey of a high school student who was terrified of bugs and overcame her fear during a week-long trip to the Amazon Rainforest. Misunderstood dives into various misconceptions of arthropods and how those mix-ups can be dangerous and unhelpful. What’s in a Name explores the ways that names tell us how to feel about certain animals and the power of meaning, myth and fact. Mistaken Identity explores how mimicry can go far beyond color to help arthropods successfully maneuver through their habitats.

The curriculum developer/entomological facilitator spent one full day in each classroom. All students watched the four videos and answered the Student Self-Reflection questions before moving on to class-sized group discussions about the arthropod content and their individual experiences and feelings. The facilitator then engaged the students with live arthropods, ranging from beetles to tarantulas, and helped to facilitate the group discussion along with each of the four teachers. Students then split into small groups and created short technology projects based on what they learned about arthropods, themselves, and others from DIFFERENT.

Data Collection

Students were asked to complete a 12-item online assessment to determine sentiment change and possible change in behavior of students toward arthropods and people who are/think/look differently from them. The assessment consisted of five open-ended, fill-in-the-blank couplet statements, and seven short answer questions. The couplet questions are based on a style of rapid assessment used to measure change in attitude or thinking in a before/after mode called, “I used to think ... Now I think...” ( Harvard Graduate School of Education - Project Zero, 2015 ).

For the purposes of this study, we chose a subset of three open-ended couplet statements for analysis:

1. I used to think arthropod (bug) behaviors were … Now I think arthropod (bug) behaviors are…

2. Before these lessons, this is how I felt about these animals (picture of a tarantula shown) ... After these lessons, this is how I feel about these animals (picture of same tarantula shown)...

3. I used to feel that people who think differently from me are … Now I feel that people who think differently from me are…

Data Analysis

Data cleaning.

All students completed the first two questions about arthropod behaviors and the tarantula photo (N = 100). The question about people who think differently had 98 responses, as two of the student responses were unable to be coded because they were incomplete. Student responses were analyzed using two different methods: traditional inductive coding and artificial intelligence (AI) aided analysis.

Manual Qualitative Coding

Using an inductive coding process ( Thomas, 2006 ), data were qualitatively coded into one of five different categories ranging from Negative (1) to Positive (5). Responses were coded based on keywords in individual student responses ( Table 2 ).

TABLE 2 . Code matrix with keywords and example student answers.

Inferential Statistical Analysis

Responses were condensed into three broad categories (negative, neutral, and positive). For each couplet tested, a two-dimensional matrix was created to show response frequencies across the three categorical variables (negative, neutral, and positive) for the before ( Harvard Graduate School of Education - Project Zero, 2015 ) and after (Now I think … ) couplet statements.

Overall sentiment shift was analyzed using a chi-square statistical test ( Dowdy et al., 2004 ) to identify if observed response frequencies differed from expected frequencies. A chi-square statistic was calculated for three types of sentiment shifts: Negative to Neutral, Negative to Positive, and Neutral to Positive.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Coding

Our second method of analysis was using a prototype Artificial Intelligence program based on IBM Watson’s Tonal Analysis Tool ( IBM, 2021 ), driven by a Natural Language Processing database ( Forshaw, 2019 ). The prototype allowed us to quantify the strength of various tones from each input statement: anger, fear, joy, sadness, analytical, confident, and tentative. By combining this with the before/after model, we measured the change (Δ or delta) in sentiment that students communicated as a result of their participation in the curriculum. Delta is defined between −1.0 and 1.0, where negative indicates a decrease in a particular tone or sentiment, and positive indicates an increase in a particular tone or sentiment.

Though our initial goal was to utilize IBM Watson’s AI solutions to code our qualitative data, it quickly became apparent that current tonal analysis methods are neither robust nor flexible enough to deal with the nuances of our dataset.

The AI was able to detect some responses that illustrated positive changes. As an example, a student responded that before the curriculum they felt “scared” about tarantulas, and after the intervention they felt “interested.” The tonal analysis returned a Fear of −0.91, where the negative indicates a decrease in the initial sentiment of fear.

Unfortunately, we found numerous anomalies in the quantitative tonal analysis that failed to reflect the actual sentiments of the students. Compound and/or contradictory statements in particular led to counterintuitive results. For example, a student reported that before the curriculum they felt “grossed out and a bit afraid” of tarantulas, and after they felt “less afraid more fasinated (sic).” However, the tonal analysis showed a Fear of −0.1 indicating an increase, rather than a decrease, of fear.

This could be the algorithm not picking up on the compound statement due to a lack of punctuation or the misspelling of the word ‘fascinating.’ It could also be because the word “more” is next to “afraid” even though the sentiment is very obviously a positive shift from the before statement. There are known racial and cultural biases of coding language with AI as well as an ageist “formal speak” bias that does not lend itself to youth vernacular, tone, and writing/typing styles ( Gebru, 2020 ; Bender et al., 2021 ). Therefore, at this time, we cannot recommend using this method to determine sentiment change in students.

Response Frequencies

Frequencies of individual before and after responses within each category are shown in Figure 1 . A frequency decrease in negative sentiment for all three couplet statements is clearly observed. The students’ sentiments regarding arthropod behaviors changed from negative or neutral statements to more positive statements. This frequency shift suggests an increase in empathy towards something that some students initially perceived as a threat.

FIGURE 1 . Frequency of student responses for each sentiment category (1–5) for three statements before and after the DIFFERENT curriculum intervention. Response code categories are as follows: Negative, 1; Negative-Neutral, 2; Neutral, 3; Positive-Neutral, 4; Positive, 5.

The highest number of negative student responses (N = 70) were recorded in response to how they remembered feeling about the tarantula before the curriculum; however, after the intervention there was a clear increase in positive sentiment. Student perceptions of arthropod behaviors tended to be more negative (N = 37) prior to intervention and skewed toward positive sentiment after.

Chi-Square Analysis

For simplicity, both negative and negative-neutral responses were pooled into a single category (Negative); and positive and positive-neutral responses were pooled into another single category (Positive). Neutral responses were categorized as such.

For the couplet “I used to think arthropod (bug) behaviors were _____, now I think bug behaviors are ______,” responses were significantly different before and after exposure to the DIFFERENT curriculum. A greater proportion of students had a positive response for all categories of sentiment change: Negative to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 74) = 78.13, p > 0.00001, Negative to Neutral: X 2 (1, N = 88) = 23.1300, p > 0.00001; Neutral to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 38) = 17.00, p > 0.000037.

For the couplet “Before these lessons, this is how I felt about these animals (picture of a tarantula shown) ... After these lessons, this is how I feel about these animals (picture of same tarantula shown) ...,” before and after responses to the DIFFERENT curriculum were significantly different for shifts from Negative to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 91) = 36.89, p < 0.00001 and Negative to Neutral: X 2 (1, N = 84) = 6.51, p > 0.01707. There was no significant difference in sentiment shift from Neutral to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 25) = 2.76, p > 0.09686. This lack of significance is likely because few students initially felt neutral about tarantulas (9 out of 100).

For the couplet “I used to feel that people who think differently from me are … Now I feel that people who think differently from me are … ”, before and after responses were significantly different. A greater proportion of students shifted to a more positive response for two categories of sentiment change: Negative to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 64) = 45.58, p < 0.00001 and Negative to Neutral: X 2 (1, N = 74) = 29.50, p < 0.00001.

There was no significant difference in sentiment shift from Neutral to Positive: X 2 (1, N = 58) = 3.20, p 0.07369. Student responses were coded as neutral if they used the term “normal” or “different” ( Table 2 ). Neutral before statements often parroted the question in their answer by using the word “different”. For example, “I used to feel that people who think differently from me are different.” If a student thinks it’s normal that people are different, then a large shift in sentiment after the curriculum is unlikely.

Findings from this study suggest that the DIFFERENT curriculum coupled with in-person facilitation is effective at shifting students’ mindsets and beliefs. Our results provide valuable insights into how this curriculum can be used to successfully integrate SEL instruction in a science education context.

Our results are in alignment with previous studies that have acknowledged the role emotion can play in the science education classroom ( Pekrun et al., 2002 ; Goetz et al., 2006 ; Pekrun and Stephens, 2012 ; Broughton et al., 2013 ). Unsurprisingly, we found that some arthropods elicit generally strong negative emotional responses; however, with explicit instructional guidance provided in the curriculum, students’ sentiments shifted in a positive direction.

The shift we observed in students’ sentiments about arthropods moving from generally negative to neutral or positive is noteworthy because previous studies have shown that fear can negatively impact students’ ability to learn ( Warr and Downing, 2000 ; Owens et al., 2012 ; Bledsoe and Baskin, 2014 ). On its own, this fact may discourage science teachers from presenting content such as arthropods which elicit a fear response in their students. We argue that those studies did not look at SEL integration with science programming. For the OBMP students who came into the lessons with a negative response, there was already an SEL plan in place to help transition the students from a place of fear to a more positive mindset.

Our results also suggest that arthropods are an effective vehicle for teaching SEL in a science education context. Using arthropods as model organisms in the science classroom is not a new concept ( Davis, 2004 ). Our study advances this idea by suggesting that in much the same way that we use arthropods as a model organism to teach about science concepts such as genetics, we can also use arthropods to embed SEL in the science classroom.

Students’ strong emotional responses to arthropods may be the very reason that entomology provides a successful model for integrating SEL with science content. Because of their inherent “otherness,” arthropods reliably provoke some sort of emotional response in students. This provides access to feelings that are traditionally held apart or separate from scientific teaching. Though some students express disgust, this does not necessarily mean that they are not also intrigued or interested in learning more about them. It’s up to the facilitator to see disgust or fear as a pathway for transforming fear into fascination and engaging in social and emotional skill building.

Traditional SEL makes humans the object of study and can cause students to feel like they are “the bug under the microscope”, i.e., that their attitudes, perceptions, and worldviews are being scrutinized when they are asked to think introspectively about themselves. The DIFFERENT curriculum intentionally focuses student attention on arthropods first before exploring humans. By introducing the concept of “otherness” using arthropods, we can then help students reflect on their perceptions or attitudes about otherness in humans. We draw attention to similarities between arthropod and human behaviors to help guide students to see parallels between the arthropod experience and the human experience. Our results suggest that an intentionally integrated SEL approach can not only challenge students’ perceptions of arthropods, but that it can also help students in successfully challenging their perceptions of people as well.

While our findings show positive results, we must acknowledge several limitations of our study. One clear limitation was that we were unable to enact the intervention with both the OBMP and TMS populations. In order to facilitate problem solving, nurture empathy, and improve relations between the two groups of students, both groups would, ideally, be involved in the intervention. Unfortunately, almost immediately after completion of the program with the OBMP, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated school closures and the researchers were unable to work with the TMS students. Our results indicate that our intervention had an impact on the OBMP students’ emotions; however, we do not know if it had real-world implications for resolving conflict between the students in these two schools.

Another challenge for our study is the layered and multifaceted nature of emotions themselves. This led to several limitations in our analysis. First, we were unable to manually code student sentiment beyond negative, neutral, or positive. As entomologists who work in outreach and teaching, we understand that students may communicate disgust, but it is often combined with curiosity or intrigue. Unfortunately, we likely need more powerful tools of analysis to reliably parse these differences and reliably identify seemingly contradictory emotions in student responses.

In addition, while great strides are being made in using AI for tonal analysis and such tools may eventually allow for a more granular analysis of student sentiment, we were unable to leverage the technology in its current form to reliably or accurately code students’ responses. When multiple emotions are felt simultaneously, it is understandably challenging to clearly or concisely express these sentiments, especially as a middle school student. We see evidence of this in students’ responses showing subtle or nuanced language but also in the particular vernacular and syntax used by middle school students. Perhaps future advances in AI will produce the necessary algorithms to measure not only complex emotions, but also language as it is commonly used by diverse K-12 students.

We understand that many teachers may struggle to find the time and bandwidth to teach an isolated SEL curriculum. The integration of SEL with a required academic subject may ease the burden of attempting to fit new content into an already packed academic schedule. Given the positive results of this study which successfully integrated SEL into a science education context with the DIFFERENT curriculum and in-person facilitation, we recommend the following to teachers who are considering adopting an interdisciplinary approach to SEL instruction.

First, our results highlight the need for a quality curriculum and proper professional development and teacher mentorship when initializing an interdisciplinary approach to SEL. While some teachers come to an interdisciplinary approach to education organically, others may benefit from explicit guidance on how to integrate SEL with science and other subjects along with existing learning targets and standards in order to feel confident in the foundations of this type of pedagogy. In part, this guidance may come in the form of high-quality curricular materials. We echo the recommendation of previous studies that have called for the use of curriculums that include the recommended SAFE elements ( Durlak et al., 2010 ; Durlak et al., 2011 ).

In addition, professional development including the modeling of techniques for engaging students in SEL content is essential. In this intervention, the facilitator (author Reddick) used a host of techniques that helped to engage students in the science and SEL material. Part of our strategy as entomological educators and teacher trainers is to model the strategy of integrating SEL and STEM with teachers in the classroom. The strategies have been successful for us in classrooms with students and during teacher professional development.

A key part of the intervention enacted for this study involved students experiencing, first-hand, several live arthropod species with an experienced entomological educator. Because we recognize that many teachers may also have emotions about arthropods, we conducted teacher training during the curriculum pilot in order to equip teachers to reflect and process their own emotions about arthropods. While the DIFFERENT curriculum does not explicitly require the presentation of live arthropods, we cannot discount the potential impact that their use may have had on students’ emotional responses during this study. For others who would like to integrate SEL into academic disciplines, we recommend being intentional about selecting engagement tools (such as live arthropods) that allow students to feel and reflect on their emotional response and connect relevant disciplinary concepts to deeper self-reflection about self, others, and community.

In the future, we would like to compare how the phrasing of questions affects sentiment and emotional change. During this study, we found that how we phrased questions matters greatly. When we asked students what they think in a before/after set of questions, they often defaulted to “fact-based” thinking, e.g.,: “I used to think that tarantulas didn’t have silk and now I think they do.” In later tests of the curriculum, we shifted to “I used to feel.../Now I feel...” statements, which guide student responses away from their tendency toward right/wrong answers and fact-based responses to more values/emotions-based answers.

We were surprised at how readily students shared the answers to their individual reflection questions to Phase 1 of the curriculum. They were excited to build on other students’ responses in Phase 2 to find shared experience. The reflection questions served as a strong foundation for the group discussion pieces and gave students the opportunity to approach the experience from different points of view; at the same time, they were open and able to consider new points of view. They were realizing that different points of view/experiences exist and wanting to explore those differences in real time during the class discussions. In the future, we would like to find a way to capture that moment of discovery.

In future studies, we would like to explore the potential for this intervention to impact students’ later decisions and behaviors. This may be accomplished by modifying the assessment items slightly from the couplet statement, “I used to feel.../Now I feel...,” to a triplet statement which also includes the statement “because of this, I will...”. This information along with an analysis of students’ DIFFERENT Action Technology Projects from Phase 3 of the curriculum may provide evidence for a link between sentiment change and students’ decisions and actions.

In this study, we found arthropods to be a useful engagement tool for successfully integrating science content and SEL in order to build empathy not only for arthropods, but also for people with differing experiences. While this intervention was conducted in a science education context, we feel it is possible to tie SEL into many different academic disciplines. We never stop being people with emotions and individual experiences that make us who we are and influence our behaviors, so asking a student to “leave it at the door” when coming into a class isn’t realistic.

While this intervention was conducted in a science education context, we feel it is possible to tie SEL into many different academic disciplines. For those who aren’t interested in integrating SEL with science but are interested in other academic areas, we encourage using our experience as inspiration to blend SEL with other academic subjects. In working directly with students, teachers are in a unique position to identify content which engages students’ emotions leading to a high level of engagement. This understanding will be essential to the development of future interdisciplinary SEL approaches.

Data Availability Statement

The deidentified raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. The deidentified raw data supporting the conclusions.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

JH and KR conceived and designed the study; JH, KR, EI, and GP contributed equally to writing the manuscript; JH and KR collected, cleaned, and analyzed the data.

Development of the DIFFERENT curriculum was funded in part by a grant from H. Auerbach Memorial Fund.

Conflict of Interest

Solpugid Productions LLC (DBA The Bug Chicks) is a business owned by KR and JH. Solpugid Productions is the sole owner of the copyright to the DIFFERENT curriculum, which has been commercially available for purchase since 2019. The DIFFERENT curriculum was given to the school district in this study free of charge as part of a workshop series for students paired with a professional development experience for teachers.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Janelle Johnson and Chanda Jefferson for their valuable feedback during the creation of the DIFFERENT curriculum and the four teachers and school district that invited us to pilot the DIFFERENT curriculum and the students who participated. We thank Celestron, LLC for sponsoring the NSTA workshops where the idea for the curriculum was first conceived and developed. Finally, we wish to thank Zachary Mayko for assistance with statistics and Jenny Keshwani for feedback and suggestions on this manuscript and helpful discussions about integrating SEL into science education.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., and Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education . NC: Chapel HillHorizon Research, Inc . Available at: http://horizon-research.com/NSSME/2018-nssme/research-products/reports/technical-report (Accessed August 15, 2019).

Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., and Zander, S. (2015). The Economic Value of Social and Emotional Learning. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 6, 508–544. doi:10.1017/bca.2015.55

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., and Shmitchell, S. (2021).On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency FAccT ’21 . New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery , 610–623. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922

Bledsoe, T. S., and Baskin, J. J. (2014). Recognizing Student Fear: The Elephant in the Classroom. Coll. Teach. 62, 32–41. doi:10.1080/87567555.2013.831022

Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., and Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). "Pluto Has Been a Planet My Whole Life!" Emotions, Attitudes, and Conceptual Change in Elementary Students' Learning about Pluto's Reclassification. Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 529–550. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9274-x

Brown, B. A. (2021). Science in the City: Culturally Relevant STEM Education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press . doi:10.20935/al2014

CrossRef Full Text

CASEL (2015). Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs: Middle and High School Edition . Chicago, Illinois . Available at: http://secondaryguide.casel.org/ .

CASEL (2013). Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs: Preschool and Elementary School Edition . Chicago, Illinois . Available at: https://casel.org/preschool-and-elementary-edition-casel-guide/ .

Castano, C. (2012). Fostering Compassionate Attitudes and the Amelioration of Aggression through a Science Class. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 961–986. doi:10.1002/tea.21023

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc .

Davis, R. H. (2004). The Age of Model Organisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 69–76. doi:10.1038/nrg1250

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dowdy, S., Wearden, S., and Chilko, D. (2004). Statistics for Research . 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons . doi:10.1002/0471477435

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The Impact of Enhancing Students' Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child. Development 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., and Pachan, M. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of After-School Programs that Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents. Am. J. Community Psychol. 45, 294–309. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6

Forshaw, T. (2019). Designing Your Educational Design Work #4-I Used to Think Now I Think. Medium . Available at: https://medium.com/stanford-d-school/designing-your-educational-design-work-4-i-used-to-think-now-i-think-8c33847bb839 (Accessed May 20, 2021).

Google Scholar

Gebru, T. (2020). “Race and Gender,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI . Editors M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, and S. Das ( Oxford University Press ), 251–269. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.16

Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., and Hall, N. C. (2006). The Domain Specificity of Academic Emotional Experiences. J. Exp. Edu. 75, 5–29. doi:10.3200/jexe.75.1.5-29

Harvard Graduate School of Education - Project Zero (2015). The “I Used to Think... Now I Think...” thinking routine. Available at: http://pz.harvard.edu/resources/i-used-to-think-now-i-think (Accessed May 20, 2021).

IBM (2021). Watson Natural Language Understanding - Overview. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/cloud/watson-natural-language-understanding (Accessed May 20, 2021).

Immordino-Yang, M. H., and Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain Educ. 1, 3–10. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228x.2007.00004.x

Ingram, E. (2019). A Mixed-Methods Study of Entomology Incorporation in u.S. Secondary Science Instruction. Dissertations Student Res. Entomol. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/60 .

J. E. Zins (2004). Building Academic success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say? (New York, NY: Teachers College Press ).

Jones, S. M., and Kahn, J. (2017). The Evidence Base for How We Learn: Supporting Students’ Social, Emotional, and Academic Development. Consensus Statements of Evidence from the Council of Distinguished Scientists . Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute .

Katcher, A., and Teumer, S. (2006). A 4-year Trial of Animal-Assisted Therapy with Public School Special Education Students. Handbook animal-assisted Ther. Theor. foundations Guidel. Pract. 2, 227–242.

National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas . Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press .

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States . Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press . Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18290&page=R16 (Accessed May 27, 2014).

Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Hadwin, J. A., and Norgate, R. (2012). Anxiety and Depression in Academic Performance: An Exploration of the Mediating Factors of Worry and Working Memory. Sch. Psychol. Int. 33, 433–449. doi:10.1177/0143034311427433

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic Emotions in Students' Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Educ. Psychol. 37, 91–105. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4

Pekrun, R., and Stephens, E. J. (2012). “Academic Emotions,” in APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors ( American Psychological Association ), 3–31. doi:10.1037/13274-001

Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting Positive Youth Development through School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Effects. Child. Dev. 88, 1156–1171. doi:10.1111/cdev.12864

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

Warr, P., and Downing, J. (2000). Learning Strategies, Learning Anxiety and Knowledge Acquisition. Br. J. Psychol. 91, 311–333. doi:10.1348/000712600161853

Zins, J. E., and Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and Emotional Learning: Promoting the Development of All Students. J. Educ. Psychol. consultation 17, 233–255. doi:10.1080/10474410701413152

Keywords: social-emotional learning, arthropods, middle school, science education, integrated learning, interdisciplinary, entomology

Citation: Ingram E, Reddick K, Honaker JM and Pearson GA (2021) Making Space for Social and Emotional Learning in Science Education. Front. Educ. 6:712720. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.712720

Received: 21 May 2021; Accepted: 26 July 2021; Published: 17 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ingram, Reddick, Honaker and Pearson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Erin Ingram, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Theory and Empirical Practice in Research on Social and Emotional Skills

Social-emotional learning practices: insights from outlier schools

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 11 June 2019

Issue publication date: 11 June 2019

There is a growing consensus in education that schools can and should attend to students’ social-emotional development. Emerging research and popular texts indicate that students’ mindsets, beliefs, dispositions, emotions and behaviors can advance outcomes, such as college readiness, career success, mental health and relationships. Despite this growing awareness, many districts and schools are still struggling to implement strategies that develop students’ social-emotional skills. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap by examining the social-emotional learning (SEL) practices in ten middle schools with strong student-reported data on SEL outcomes, particularly for African American and Latinx students.

Design/methodology/approach

Case study methods, including interviews, observations and document analysis, were employed.

The authors identify six categories of common SEL practices: strategies that promote positive school climate and relationships, supporting positive behavior, use of elective courses and extracurricular activities, SEL-specific classroom practices and curricula, personnel strategies and measurement and data use. Absence of a common definition of SEL and lack of alignment among SEL practices were two challenges cited by respondents.

Originality/value

This is the first study to analyze SEL practices in outlier schools, with a focus on successful practices with schools that have a majority of African American and/or Latinx students.

Social-emotional learning
Social and emotional development
SEL practices
School climate
Educational leadership
Middle school
Qualitative research
Positive outliers

Allbright, T.N. , Marsh, J.A. , Kennedy, K.E. , Hough, H.J. and McKibben, S. (2019), "Social-emotional learning practices: insights from outlier schools", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-02-2019-0020

Emerald Publishing Limited

Published in Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

For the past decade, a growing number of scholars and educators have called for greater attention to aspects of student development beyond mastery of academic content, such as students’ mindsets, beliefs, dispositions, emotions and behaviors. Interest in advancing these aspects of student development, broadly described as social-emotional learning (SEL), is gaining momentum among teachers, administrators, researchers and policy makers across the USA. Past studies have demonstrated that embedding high-quality SEL programs, curricula and activities into a school may improve academic performance, attendance, behaviors, culture and climate ( Aos et al. , 2004 ; Belfield et al. , 2015 ; Berkowitz et al. , 2017 ; Duckworth and Carlson, 2013 ; Duckworth et al. , 2010 ; Durlak et al. , 2011 ; McCormick et al. , 2015 ).

Perhaps as a result of this emerging research base and popular texts (e.g. Tough, 2012 ), the growing consensus in education is that schools can and should attend to students’ social-emotional development. This consensus is reflected in recent policy decisions at the state and federal levels, which require schools and districts to measure and attend to non-academic outcomes. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 requires states to measure at least one indicator of “School Quality or Student Success,” defined broadly to include measures of student engagement, educator engagement, student access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, or school climate and safety. Similarly, under California’s Local Control Funding Formula and the supporting Local Control Accountability Plan process, districts are expected to develop and report indicators representing a wide range of educational goals, including measures of school culture–climate (CC) ( California Department of Education, 2016 ). While no state has chosen to measure SEL at this time ( Blad, 2017 ), in 2017, all 50 states had SEL standards at the preschool level, and eight states had SEL standards for K-12 ( Dusenbury et al. , 2018 ). Additionally, many more states are working to build capacity in developing approaches to SEL. For example, 25 states are currently working with the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) through the Collaborating States Initiative (Weissberg, personal communication, March 23, 2018).

Despite this growing interest, many districts and schools are still struggling to integrate SEL programs and practices in ways that are meaningful, sustained and embedded ( Jones and Bouffard, 2012 ). In many ways, this is a new instantiation of an old problem in education. This phenomenon – the disconnect between having a solid knowledge base and the actual work that occurs – is often referred to as the knowing–doing gap ( Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999 ). Part of the challenge in implementing SEL is that understandings of what constitutes high-quality SEL support and instruction are often elusive and unclear ( Berkowitz et al. , 2017 ; Jones and Doolittle, 2017 ). As such, several researchers have called for more research on schools’ implementation of integrated SEL strategies (e.g. Jones and Bouffard, 2012 ). Similarly, policy makers and practitioners often request information about concrete practices and approaches that can provide a basis for action.

What strategies do outlier schools use to enact and support the various conceptions of SEL?

What challenges emerge in outlier schools’ SEL efforts?

In the end, the experiences of these administrators, teachers and staff yield important insights for educators and policy makers in California and beyond.

In the remainder of this paper, we first describe the definitions of SEL and what we know from extant literature about effective approaches. Then, we present background on the research partnership that generated this study, and we describe our research methods. Next, we present the results of our analysis of how schools supported SEL, and the challenges that they faced in this work. We conclude with implications of our work for policy, practice and future research.

Grounding the study

CASEL coined the term “social and emotional learning” in the 1990s ( Cherniss et al. , 2006 ), defining SEL as the process of acquiring “the ability to understand, manage, and express the social and emotional aspects of one’s life […]. It includes self-awareness, control of impulsivity, working cooperatively, and caring about oneself and others” ( Elias, 1997 , p. 2). In recent years, the term SEL has become associated with a broad category of beliefs, attitudes, personality traits and behaviors that are considered foundational for success in school and life. However, researchers have lacked a clear consensus on a name or definition for this category ( Duckworth and Yeager, 2015 ); rather than using the term SEL, many scholars have referred to “noncognitive factors” ( Farrington et al. , 2012 ), “success skills” ( Conley, 2015 ), “mindsets, essential skills, and habits” ( Gabrieli et al. , 2015 ), “character” ( Tough, 2012 ) or “personal qualities” ( Duckworth and Yeager, 2015 ). In this paper, we use the term “social-emotional learning” to refer specifically to student development in this broad domain, which includes beliefs, dispositions, attitudes, skills and behaviors that are distinct from academic achievement and are widely perceived as beneficial to individuals and society ( Duckworth and Yeager, 2015 , pp. 238-239).

Extant literature has suggested that SEL is foundational for students’ well-being and academic performance, for example, researchers have demonstrated that SEL competencies such as self-efficacy, self-control and growth mindset are powerful predictors of academic, social, economic and physical outcomes ( Almlund et al. , 2011 ; Bandura, 1997 ; Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Borghans et al. , 2008 ; Duckworth et al. , 2010 ; Durlak et al. , 2011 ; Jackson et al. , 2015 ; Moffitt et al. , 2011 ; Sklad et al. , 2012 ; Strayhorn, 2013 ; West et al. , 2016 ; Zimmerman, 2000 ) [1] . Research has also indicated that many SEL constructs are malleable and can be influenced by educational practice ( Almlund et al. , 2011 ; Berg et al. , 2017 ; Blackwell et al. , 2007 ; Yeager and Walton, 2011 ). The literature on SEL practices in the classroom has demonstrated an increase in positive social behaviors, fewer conduct issues, minimization of emotional distress and improved grades and test results ( Benson, 2006 ; Catalano et al. , 2002 ; Guerra and Bradshaw, 2008 ; Weissberg et al. , 2003 ). Moreover, SEL programs have been tied to positive gains in school climate outcomes ( Cohen et al. , 2009 ), demonstrating the relationship between SEL and a school climate that allows participants in the school community to feel socially, emotionally and physically safe.

Research using the survey data from the case districts discussed this paper have echoed these findings. For example, West et al. (2017) have shown that measures of growth mindset, self-efficacy, self-management and social awareness are predictive of proficiency on math tests, overall academic growth in mathematics and improvement on graduation rates and English Learner redesignation rate. Hough et al. (2017) found a close relationship between these SEL measures and measures of school culture–climate, and Loeb et al. (2018) have observed that schools contribute to students’ social-emotional growth. In sum, the literature has suggested that SEL supports students’ academic success and personal well-being, that SEL is linked to perceptions of a safe and supportive school climate, and that schools have an important role to play in fostering students’ SEL.

Some researchers have also argued that SEL support could mitigate long-standing racial inequities in education ( Aronson et al. , 2009 ; Borman et al. , 2016 ; Elias and Haynes, 2008 ; Strayhorn, 2013 ), and advocates have called for consideration of role of SEL and school climate in furthering racial justice ( The Aspen Institute, 2018 ; Californians for Justice, 2017 ). Black and Latinx [2] students may experience stereotype threat, or an awareness of negative stereotypes about their racial group’s intellectual competence that interferes academic performance ( Steele, 1997 ). SEL supports may have the potential to counter this threat ( Aronson et al. , 2009 ; Borman et al. , 2016 ), suggesting that SEL practices are particularly important for schools serving Black and Latinx youth. Additionally, compared to Whites, racially minoritized students may experience a less supportive school climate and lower quality relationships with teachers and peers ( Blanco-Vega et al. , 2008 ; Cherng, 2017 ; Dinkes et al. , 2009 ; van den Bergh et al. , 2010 ), perhaps as a result of racial implicit bias among educators and students ( Warikoo et al. , 2016 ). Moreover, limited resources and high teacher turnover might be expected to interfere with school climate, and these challenges are more likely to impact Black and Latinx students than their White peers ( Guin, 2004 ; Morgan and Amerikaner, 2018 ). Indeed, research on the case districts in this study has shown that White students perceive a more positive school climate and report higher levels of SEL than African American and Latinx students ( Hough et al. , 2017 ). Overall, SEL practices might have the potential to improve school climate and mitigate stereotype threat among racially minoritized youth. However, researchers have yet to explore how schools might integrate SEL programs and practices in ways that promote racial equity.

Extant literature has, however, suggested a few key lessons for supporting SEL generally. Durlak et al. (2011) found that the most effective SEL programs featured four elements, summarized by the acronym SAFE: sequenced activities that lead in a coordinated and connected way to skills, active forms of learning, focused activities to develop one or more social skills and explicit targets concerning specific skills. Embracing these findings, in 2017 The Aspen Institute identified some promising SEL practices – including a strong and intentionally integrated curriculum – as key factors contributing to student success ( Johnson and Wiener, 2017 ). Research has also demonstrated that successful SEL programs train personnel in the “languages and practices” to use in times when students have less structure (e.g. recess) ( Schafer, 2016 , p. 1). At the same time, other work has suggested that “kernels of practice” – low cost, targeted strategies that can be taught quickly and used multiple times per day – may be more feasible for schools and districts to implement and sustain as compared to more comprehensive programs ( Jones et al. , 2017 ).

Nevertheless, while the research has suggested that comprehensive, integrated approaches are the most effective for school-wide change, questions remain about the kinds of district and school practices needed to facilitate SEL. In particular, there is a need for a knowledge base of concrete practices one can undertake in classrooms, schools, and districts to support SEL ( Weissberg et al. , 2015 ). We designed our study to begin to address this knowledge gap.

Context of the CORE-PACE research partnership

This study was conducted as part of a research–practice partnership between Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the CORE districts, a consortium of eight California school districts (Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco and Santa Ana). The CORE districts began measuring SEL as part of the waiver they received from the US Department of Education that freed them from some of their federal obligations under No Child Left Behind. Under the terms of the waiver, the CORE districts developed an accountability system that featured measures of both academic and non-academic performance, including measures of SEL and school climate (see Marsh et al. , 2017 for further details on the CORE waiver and accountability system). With the passage of ESSA in 2015 and the termination of NCLB waivers, this accountability system was not fully implemented; however the CORE districts continued administering annual SEL and school culture–climate (CC) surveys to support educators’ practice.

To develop measures of SEL and CC, the CORE districts consulted with SEL scholars and advocates, developing a survey instrument with four SEL constructs and four CC constructs (see Table I ). SEL and CC surveys are administered annually to students in Grades 4–12. The districts also administer CC surveys to all parents and school staff (for on the development and validity of CORE’s SEL and CC surveys, see Gehlbach and Hough, 2018 ; West et al. , 2017 ).

In 2016, the CORE districts set a common vision of accelerating math achievement among African American and Latinx students in Grades 4–8. CORE district leaders suggested that SEL might play a key role in shaping math outcomes and closing racial achievement gaps. To support these efforts, CORE district leaders asked our research team to pursue information about what SEL practices might support racially minoritized students’ math achievement. Our intent was to document practices in schools that could be shared across the CORE districts and inform policy makers and practitioners throughout the country. To support CORE’s focus on math achievement among African American and Latinx students in Grades 4–8, in this study we chose a set of middle schools that had demonstrated higher-than-average performance in student-reported SEL for African American and/or Latinx students.

In previous work, researchers using the CORE data found that among the available demographic measures, race/ethnicity is the factor most strongly associated with SEL and culture–climate outcomes, after controlling for other student characteristics ( Hough et al. , 2017 ; West et al. , 2018 ). Specifically, these researchers found that Black students, Latinx students and students in special education report the lowest levels of SEL and that differences between these groups and other student sub-populations persist even within the same school. The authors found wide variation in within-school gaps, with some schools demonstrating large gaps between student groups while others had relatively high levels of SEL for their African American and Latinx students in particular. Our goal in drawing the sample for this study was to identify schools that might be leaders in promising SEL practices.

Our school sampling plan was then developed in partnership with the five CORE districts that chose to participate in the study. Together, we decided that the following considerations were important for selecting schools for this study: that researchers felt confident that student reports of SEL were meaningfully high for selected schools; that the schools selected served large proportions of African American or Latinx youth and that those students reported high levels of SEL; that selected schools also were performing relatively well in mathematics; and that schools were selected in each of the participating CORE districts. To be considered for the sample, a school had to have SEL scores in the top quartile across both years SEL had been measured (2014–2015 and 2015–2016). By eliminating schools that had high scores in one year but not the other, we isolated schools where the high SEL reports are more consistent across time and thus more likely to represent “true” SEL for students (rather than being an anomaly or the result of measurement error). If this method oversampled schools, we then imposed further restrictions on the sample to include: only schools eligible for Title 1 designation, schools with a concentration of student subgroup greater than schools in that district at the 25th percentile and schools with math growth scores higher than a level 3 (out of 10) in 2015–2016 for the specified subgroup [3] . This sample selection resulted in five schools selected for high SEL for both African American and Latinx students, four for just Latinx students and three for just African American students.

Our final sample differs slightly from our sample design, because schools and districts could voluntarily decide whether or not to participate. In the end, five of the six CORE districts with available data agreed to participate in the study. In each participating district, we contacted principals via e-mail at the first two schools listed in our sample selection. If a principal declined to participate, we then contacted the next school on the list. In one case, district leaders recommended and connected researchers to another school within their district when a school on the list did not respond to requests for participation. Ultimately, we visited two schools per participating district, and the selected schools serve students that match the demographics of the districts.

To identify interviewees within each school, we asked the principal to suggest at least one math teacher for us to speak with and observe (due to the network’s math focus) and at least one teacher who was explicitly involved in promoting SEL or culture–climate at the school. We also asked to interview administrators or non-teaching staff tasked with SEL or culture–climate issues, including counselors or social workers, afterschool program directors, as well as teachers, administrators or other staff managing campus–climate initiatives or SEL-related activities or programs.

Data collection and analysis

In each of the five participating CORE districts, the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with between one and three central office administrators responsible for SEL-related work ( n =12), including administrators overseeing measurement and evaluation, school climate, student discipline and SEL. Teams of two researchers visited each school in the spring of 2017 (March–June). In each school, we conducted interviews with school leaders ( n =15), other adults responsible for social-emotional support ( n =13) and teachers ( n =26). We also gathered documents and other artifacts (e.g. program descriptions, data reports, school and classroom posters with SEL material) and observed school activities and classrooms (a total of 28 observations of classes, passing periods, lunch periods and other events) to understand how SEL opportunities played out on campus during and after the school day. We also interviewed three leaders from within the CORE office and two CORE non-profit partners. (See Table II for a tally of interviews by district and school.) We used semi-structured protocols in all interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. To protect the anonymity of respondents, we do not include the names of any organizations or individuals included in the research and changed details where necessary to protect their identity.

In our analysis we used an inductive, exploratory approach to understand how educators sought to promote SEL ( Stake, 2005 ). We analyzed the data separately for each district and its schools, developing detailed case memos. These initial embedded case study memos helped to specify the local SEL strategies and practices, along with key contextual elements in each district and school. Next, we completed cross-case analysis, drawing on the case study memos and all transcripts to examine how definitions and implementation varied across cases ( Miles et al. , 2013 ). To further understand patterns across districts and schools, the research team met in person for a two-day retreat to identify key findings. Whenever possible, we also triangulated findings among multiple respondents and data sources to strengthen the validity of our findings. Finally, we revised the report based on extensive review and feedback from two external reviewers.

Several caveats are important to keep in mind. First, our intent with this study is not to make causal claims or to identify “effective” practices. We have not evaluated the impact of the practices or strategies identified herein, nor can we attribute the schools’ SEL outcomes to these practices or strategies. Instead, this is an exploratory study intended to highlight common approaches from which other schools and districts can learn and explore further as they advance SEL in their own contexts. Second, we selected schools based on the level of SEL score, not the extent to which a school influenced student growth in these schools; in this way, we cannot eliminate the possibility that students may come to the school already with high levels of SEL (though another study using CORE district survey data found evidence that schools contribute to students’ SEL; Loeb et al. , 2018). Third, we acknowledge that a few of the schools studied are atypical in their enrollment process or context and may limit the applicability to other sites. Finally, while we started this study with an intent to understand SEL practices in the context of mathematics achievement among African American and Latinx students, our data collection ultimately surfaced a set of broader strategies that, in general, are not targeted to particular areas of academic content or specific student populations.

SEL practices in outlier schools

Overall, educators reported using multiple practices to advance SEL, which they broadly defined as encompassing students’ emotional well-being, students’ social and behavioral skills and a safe and inclusive school climate (we provide more detail on respondents’ conceptions of SEL in a later section). We identified six common and overlapping categories of practice intended to support student SEL in schools. Table III summarizes the six categories of practice, including the number of schools reporting them and examples of specific strategies within each category. Given limited space, we highlight just a few examples in the text below.

Category 1: strategies to promote positive school climate and relationships

Advisory is the time where […] we do circles […], so you’re connecting, you start to hear what’s happened over the weekend with students or just where they are. […]. our goal around it is to get every student access to a caring and supportive adult [who] knows them way better than anyone else in the school. The idea is to create a safe group setting as well, so it’s not just this access to this adult, but this environment is where home is. This is my base at this school.

Category 2: supporting positive behavior

We have restorative responses to discipline. Instead of looking at a punitive approach for everything and also having a blanket zero tolerance policy, we have more case-by-case responses to students […]. Sort of look at the why behind it and start to dig around that. That’s what we do with restorative practice, to sort of disrupt our punitive ways that we were used to going about responding to discipline.

Category 3: promoting engagement, relationships, and SEL-related skills using elective courses and extracurricular activities

Say if I play my wrong note, makes us all look bad, makes us all sound bad. And if I work really hard at doing the right part and play my part well, then we can all really rise up. Which I think is a real analogy for how we work as human beings, that we have to pull each other up, we have to support each other.

Category 4: SEL-specific classroom practices

So we really put an emphasis on how making mistakes is the only way we can learn, how mistakes are really put in this special place where we applaud them, look at them […]. So we go through all of that to talk about how these things make your brain grow […] And every so often throughout the year we will pick […] our favorite mistake and have the students do error analysis on those mistakes.

Category 5: hiring, organizing and training personnel

New teachers come in and they’re overwhelmed and they just start teaching […] without really creating a relationship space. One teacher for instance, he was a musician […]. When I went to his room, I said, “I don’t see one thing about your life, about you in this room. I see all this history stuff, the normal classroom stuff, it’s textbook, good job, but your students don’t know who you are […]” He admitted, […]“Yeah I keep that separate.” I was like, “You might want to let them see a little, that’s a cool thing. […] Maybe put up an old guitar.” He said, “I have so many guitars, I could do that.” I was like, “Yeah, have it up and they’re going to ask what it is and that’s a story and stories make relationships.”

Category 6: measurement and data use

Some schools drew on the CORE-administered SEL surveys or other data sources to inform their SEL efforts (see Table III ). For instance, one used the CORE data to identify growth mindset as a focus area for the year. Another school used their own monthly survey to track progress on campus climate. Responses to questions such as, “Do you feel safe, do you have friends, do you feel like there’s an adult you can go to [in order] to have a conversation?” were paired with discipline referral, suspension, and attendance data in order to identify trends and to highlight students for intervention.

Cross-cutting themes and challenges

Looking across the case study schools, we observed two cross-cutting themes regarding their approaches to supporting SEL, as well as two common challenges. First, in outlier schools, we noticed that educators tailored approaches based on the school’s assets and needs. For example, schools with strong music or sports programs built on those focal points to broaden and emphasize SEL skills. In these schools, existing programs were re-purposed to help build student confidence, promote teamwork, build positive relationships with peers and adults and improve student attendance and motivation. We also found that schools adjusted their SEL efforts to fit the specific needs of their sites. For instance, one school was concerned about large numbers of students skipping classes and socializing in hallways during class time. Considering their campus needs, educators decided that their SEL efforts needed to start with positive behavior. The school began by focusing on establishing expectations for attending class on time, and implementing clear routines, such as hallway passes. After addressing foundational concerns around attendance, educators were then able to bring in additional efforts to further SEL.

Second, we heard reports that efforts led by students not only helped other students to buy in and engage, but also promoted positive behaviors and a school culture of trust and inclusion. For instance, student-led clubs at several schools sponsored “Kindness Weeks,” in which students engaged in activities such as writing public notes about what they appreciate about others. In other schools, students focused on promoting inclusivity by inviting other students to join their table at lunch. One school featured a peer-leadership program that organized teacher–student “Friendship Lunches” and trained students to mediate conflicts among their peers. This same school also had a peer mentorship program, in which student mentors offered support to their peers who were struggling with organization and time management.

Despite the positive results reported on surveys, our outlier schools nevertheless experienced two common challenges when implementing SEL practices. First, we found wide variation in how educators defined SEL within and across outlier schools. Some described it as supporting student mental and emotional well-being, while others emphasized creating a safe and supportive school climate, developing social skills and behavior, supporting adolescent development, building a culture of inclusion and acceptance of difference, or addressing the needs of the whole child. A number of respondents conflated the terms SEL (which refers to an individual’s competencies) and campus climate (which refers to the school environment). A lack of clarity or agreement about the definition of SEL, or the relationships among these different dimensions of SEL and school climate, could present problems for implementing SEL practices.

Relatedly, although the outlier schools were all engaged in a variety of SEL practices, as described above, the programs, practices and curricula we found were not always consistently implemented across an entire school or district. In some schools, this lack of coherence may have been due to the fact that some SEL practices were driven by individuals and not part of a school-wide strategy with broad buy-in. We found the strongest evidence of coherence in one district, which had an official SEL definition, SEL standards for both students and adults and had incorporated SEL into principal and teacher evaluation and the framework used to evaluate schools. Collectively these efforts built a shared understanding of SEL, and conveyed to educators that SEL was a priority throughout the district.

Conclusion and implications

In this paper, we explored the SEL practices in ten outlier California middle schools with high student self-reports of SEL. We found six overall categories of SEL practices and noted that outlier schools shared the common themes of tailoring SEL approaches to their site, implementing with intentionality and advancing student leadership. Our data suggested two challenges to this work: a lack of consensus around the definition of SEL and limited alignment of practices.

The experiences of the case study schools suggest several important implications for practice as well as state and district policy makers nationally. First, practitioners wishing to support SEL and school climate may find it helpful to consider the full range of strategies described in this report. While we cannot determine which approaches are most appropriate for a particular context, it was clear that every school drew upon multiple strategies, addressing most or all of the six broad categories: school climate and relationships, positive behavior, electives and extracurriculars, classroom instruction, staffing and professional development and data use. The array of efforts herein provides useful examples that educators could draw upon based on the unique assets and needs of their schools.

Given the wide variation in SEL conceptions and limited alignment of practices that surfaced in our research, it may behoove school, district and policy leaders to support schools in developing common understandings of SEL and aligning SEL activities within schools and districts. Common understandings of SEL – including articulation of the relationships among different dimensions of social-emotional development and school climate – might facilitate the enactment of SEL practices. Policy makers might also invest in SEL-related staff positions and adult learning activities, as such practices played a key role in the outlier schools featured in this study. Finally, as some of our outlier schools drew on various data sources as part of their SEL efforts, we suggest that policy makers could explore approaches to measuring SEL and related constructs, and provide support to school-level educators in using these data.

Our study also offers implications for the research field. Interestingly, we initiated this study to understand SEL practices as part of efforts to accelerate math achievement among Black and Latinx students. As noted, in the course of our data collection, however, our respondents did not describe their SEL efforts as tied to mathematics specifically, nor as targeted toward the needs of African American and Latinx youth (with a few exceptions, such as one school’s efforts to recruit Black male educators). Future studies could examine emerging efforts that are more tailored to particular academic disciplines or are intended to ameliorate long-standing educational inequities. For example, researchers could investigate efforts to build teachers’ awareness of implicit racial bias, and impact of this work on student social-emotional and academic learning. Such research would align with calls from advocates to consider the role of SEL in furthering racial equity (e.g. The Aspen Institute, 2018 ).

Given our study’s focus on middle schools, it may behoove researchers to also examine SEL practices within the elementary and high school contexts. Future research might also seek to evaluate the direct link between strategies and outcomes. As noted, we did not measure the impact of the practices or strategies identified herein, and we cannot attribute the schools’ SEL outcomes to these practices or strategies. Future studies could be designed to pursue causal analyses, with a particular focus on identifying interventions, programs and strategies that not only yield positive SEL outcomes but also help narrow gaps between students from different racial groups in reported SEL.

While there is a growing consensus that educators should support students’ social-emotional development, we lack a clear understanding about how schools might do so. By investigating schools with high student self-reports of SEL, this paper seeks to shed light on policies and practices that might foster students’ mental and emotional well-being, quality relationships among students and staff and safe and inclusive school climates. In doing so, we aim to contribute to a broader conversation about how to advance students’ success, health and happiness.

CORE SEL and culture–climate constructs and definitions

Number of interviews by school and district

Reported school-level practices to support student SEL

While many researchers and educators have argued that SEL is beneficial, we note that others have critiqued SEL efforts for focusing on individual students rather than broader social systems ( Hoffman, 2009 ; Kohn, 2014 ; Stokas, 2015 ); for relying on dominant values that may not be shared by all cultural groups ( Hoffman, 2009 , p. 540); and for prioritizing obedience over critical questioning ( Hoffman, 2009 ; Kohn, 2014 ).

In this paper, we use the terms “Latinx,” “Black” or “African American,” and “White” to refer to three socially constructed racial/ethnic categories. We acknowledge that these terms are imperfect, and that others have argued for alternate language. For more discussion of racial group terms, see Tatum (2017) .

CORE’s academic growth measure takes into account an individual student’s prior test history, socioeconomic disadvantage, disability status, English learner status, homelessness and foster care status, and uses this information to measure how quickly they grow relative to students similar to them in these categories. The CORE model also accounts for concentration of these characteristics within schools. In this way, the CORE growth measure is constructed as a “value added” model, estimating the school’s impact on student achievement relative to that of other schools serving similar students. A school with a score of 10 has the highest growth, whereas a school with a score of 1 has the lowest growth.

Almlund , M. , Duckworth , A.L. , Heckman , J.J. and Kautz , T.D. ( 2011 ), “ Personality psychology and economics ”, in Hanushek , E.A. , Machin , S. and Woessmann , L. (Eds), Handbook of the Economics of Education , Elsevier , Amsterdam , pp. 1 - 181 .

Aos , S. , Lieb , R. , Mayfield , J. , Miller , M. and Pennucci , A. ( 2004 ), Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth , Washington State Institute for Public Policy , Olympia, WA .

Aronson , J. , Cohen , G. and McColskey , W. ( 2009 ), “ Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: a review of social-psychological intervention studies on improving the achievement of black students ”, REL 2009-076, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, Greensboro, NC .

Bandura , A. ( 1997 ), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , Freeman , New York, NY .

Belfield , C. , Bowden , A.B. , Klapp , A. , Levin , H. , Shand , R. and Zander , S. ( 2015 ), “ The economic value of social and emotional learning ”, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 508 - 544 .

Benson , P.L. ( 2006 ), All Kids are Our Kids: What Communities Must Do to Raise Caring and Responsible Children and Adolescents , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Berg , J. , Osher , D. , Moroney , D. and Yoder , N. ( 2017 ), “ The intersection of school climate and social and emotional development ”, February, available at: www.air.org/resource/intersection-school-climate-and-social-and-emotional-development (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Berkowitz , R. , Astor , R.A. , Pineda , D. , DePedro , K.T. , Weiss , E.L. and Benbenishty , R. ( 2017 ), “ Parental involvement and perceptions of school climate in California ”, Urban Education , pp. 1 - 31 , doi: 10.1177/0042085916685764 .

Blackwell , L.S. , Trzesniewski , K.H. and Dweck , C.S. ( 2007 ), “ Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention ”, Child Development , Vol. 78 No. 1 , pp. 246 - 263 .

Blad , E. ( 2017 ), “ No state will measure social-emotional learning under ESSA: will that slow its momentum? ”, Education Week , October 4, available at: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/10/04/no-state-will-measure-social-emotional-learning-under.html (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Blanco-Vega , C.O. , Castro-Olivo , S.M. and Merrell , K.W. ( 2008 ), “ Social and emotional needs of Latino immigrant adolescents: an ecological model for developing, planning, and implementing culturally sensitive interventions ”, Journal of Latinos and Education , Vol. 1 , pp. 43 - 61 .

Borghans , L. , Duckworth , A.L. , Heckman , J.J. and Weel , B.T. ( 2008 ), “ The economics and psychology of personality traits ”, Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 43 No. 4 , pp. 972 - 1059 .

Borman , G.D. , Grigg , J. and Hanselman , P. ( 2016 ), An Effort To Close Achievement Gaps at Scale Through Self-Affirmation , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

California Department of Education ( 2016 ), “ Preparing all students for college, career, life, and leadership in the 21st century ”, Sacramento, CA .

Californians for Justice ( 2017 ), Relationship Centered Schools , Californians for Justice , Oakland, CA .

Catalano , R.F. , Hawkins , J.D. , Berglund , M.L. , Pollard , J.A. and Arthur , M.W. ( 2002 ), “ Prevention science and positive youth development: competitive or cooperative frameworks? ”, Journal of Adolescent Health , Vol. 31 No. 6 , pp. 230 - 239 .

Cherng , H.-Y.S. ( 2017 ), “ The ties that bind: teacher relationships, academic expectations, and racial/ethnic and generational inequality ”, American Journal of Education , Vol. 124 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 100 .

Cherniss , C. , Extein , M. , Goleman , D. and Weissberg , R.P. ( 2006 ), “ Emotional intelligence: what does the research really indicate? ”, Educational Psychologist , Vol. 41 No. 4 , pp. 239 - 245 .

Cohen , J. , McCabe , L. , Michelli , N.M. and Pickeral , T. ( 2009 ), “ School climate: research, policy, practice, and teacher education ”, Teachers College Record , Vol. 111 No. 1 , pp. 180 - 213 .

Conley , D.T. ( 2015 ), “ Renaming noncognitive skills to emphasize success ”, Education Week , August 4, available at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2015/08/whats_in_a_name_redux_how_about_success_skills.html (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Dinkes , R. , Kemp , J. and Baum , K. ( 2009 ), Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 , NCES 2009-022 NCJ 226343 , National Center for Education Statistics , Washington, DC .

Duckworth , A.L. and Carlson , S.M. ( 2013 ), “ Self-regulation and school success ”, in Sokol , B.W. , Grouzet , F.M.E. and Müller , U. (Eds), Self-Regulation and Autonomy: Social and Developmental Dimensions of Human Conduct , Cambridge University Press , New York, NY , pp. 208 - 230 .

Duckworth , A.L. and Yeager , D.S. ( 2015 ), “ Measurement matters: assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes ”, Educational Researcher , Vol. 44 No. 4 , pp. 237 - 251 .

Duckworth , A.L. , Tsukayama , E. and May , H. ( 2010 ), “ Establishing causality using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling: an illustration predicting achievement from self-control ”, Social Psychological and Personality Science , Vol. 1 No. 4 , pp. 311 - 317 .

Durlak , J.A. , Weissberg , R.P. , Dymnicki , A.B. , Taylor , R.D. and Schellinger , K.B. ( 2011 ), “ The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions ”, Child Development , Vol. 82 No. 1 , pp. 405 - 432 .

Dusenbury , L. , Dermody , C. and Weissberg , R.P. ( 2018 ), “ 2018 State scorecard scan ”, available at: https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-State-Scan-FINAL.pdf (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Elias , M.J. ( 1997 ), Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators , Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development , Alexandria, VA .

Elias , M.J. and Haynes , N.M. ( 2008 ), “ Social competence, social support, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children ”, School Psychology Quarterly , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 474 - 495 .

Farrington , C.A. , Roderick , M. , Allensworth , E. , Nagaoka , J. , Keyes , T.S. , Johnson , D.W. and Beechum , N.O. ( 2012 ), Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance: A Critical Literature Review , University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research , Chicago, IL .

Gabrieli , C. , Ansel , D. and Krachman , S.B. ( 2015 ), Ready to be Counted: The Research Case for Education Policy Action on Non-Cognitive Skills , Transforming Education , Boston, MA .

Gehlbach , H. and Hough , H. ( 2018 ), Measuring Social-Emotional Learning Through Student Surveys in the CORE Districts: A Pragmatic Approach to Validity and Reliability , Policy Analysis for California Education , Stanford, CA .

Guerra , N.G. and Bradshaw , C.P. ( 2008 ), “ Core competencies to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive youth development ”, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , Vol. 122 , Winter , pp. 33 - 46 .

Guin , K. ( 2004 ), “ Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools ”, Education Policy Analysis Archives , Vol. 12 No. 42 , pp. 1 - 30 .

Hoffman , D.M. ( 2009 ), “ Reflecting on social emotional learning: a critical perspective on trends in the United States ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 79 No. 2 , pp. 533 - 556 .

Hough , H. , Kalogrides , D. and Loeb , S. ( 2017 ), Using Surveys of Students’ Social-Emotional Learning and School Climate for Accountability and Continuous Improvement , Policy Analysis for California Education , Stanford, CA , available at: http://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/SEL-CC_report.pdf

Jackson , J.J. , Connolly , J.J. , Garrison , S.M. , Leveille , M.M. and Connolly , S.L. ( 2015 ), “ Your friends know how long you will live a 75-year study of peer-rated personality traits ”, Psychological Science , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 335 - 340

Johnson , H. and Wiener , R. ( 2017 ), This Time, with Feeling: Integrating Social and Emotional Development and College- and Career-Readiness Standards , The Aspen Institute , Washington, DC , March, available at: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/05/ThisTimeWithFeeling.pdf

Jones , S. , Bailey , R. , Brush , K. and Kahn , J. ( 2017 ), “ Kernels of practice for SEL: low-cost, low-burden strategies ”, The Wallace Foundation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, available at: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Kernels-of-Practice-for-SEL.pdf (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Jones , S.M. and Bouffard , S.M. ( 2012 ), “ Social and emotional learning in schools: from programs to strategies ”, Society for Research in Child Development , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 33 .

Jones , S.M. and Doolittle , E.J. ( 2017 ), “ Social and emotional learning: introducing the issue ”, The Future of Children , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 2 - 11 .

Kohn , A. ( 2014 ), “ Ten concerns about the ‘let’s teach them grit’ fad ”, April 8, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/08/ten-concerns-about-the-lets-teach-them-grit-fad/ (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Loeb , S. , Christian , M.S. , Hough , H. , Meyer , R.H. , Rice , A.B. and West , M.R. ( 2018 ), “ School effects on social-emotional learning: findings from the first large-scale panel survey of students ”, Policy Analysis for California Education , Berkeley, CA .

McCormick , M.P. , Cappella , E. , O’Connor , E.E. and McClowry , S.G. ( 2015 ), “ Do intervention impacts on academic achievement vary by school climate? Evidence from a randomized trial in urban elementary schools ”, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Evanston, IL .

Marsh , D.R. , Schroeder , D.G. , Dearden , K.A. , Sternin , J. and Sternin , M. ( 2004 ), “ The power of positive deviance ”, British Medical Journal , Vol. 329 No. 7475 , pp. 1177 - 1179 .

Marsh , J.A. , Bush-Mecenas , S. and Hough , H. ( 2017 ), “ Learning from early adopters in the new accountability era ”, Educational Administration Quarterly , Vol. 53 No. 3 , pp. 327 - 364 , doi: 10.1177/0013161X16688064 .

Miles , M.B. , Huberman , A.M. and Saldaña , J. ( 2013 ), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Moffitt , T.E. , Arseneault , L. , Belsky , D. , Dickson , N. , Hancox , R.J. , Harrington , H. , Houts , R. , Poulton , R. , Roberts , B.W. , Ross , S. , Sears , M.R. , Thomson , W.M. and Caspi , A. ( 2011 ), “ A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety ”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , Vol. 108 No. 7 , pp. 2693 - 2698 .

Morgan , I. and Amerikaner , A. ( 2018 ), “ Funding gaps 2018: an analysis of school funding equity across the U.S. and within each State ”, Education Trust , Washington, DC .

Pascale , R. , Sternin , J. and Sternin , M. ( 2010 ), The Power of Positive Deviance , Harvard Business School Publishing , Boston, MA .

Pfeffer , J. and Sutton , R.I. ( 1999 ), The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action , Harvard Business Press , Boston, MA .

Schafer , L. ( 2016 ), “ What makes SEL work? An effective social-emotional learning program has to be a whole school initiative ”, Usable Knowledge: Connecting Research to Practice , Harvard Graduate School of Education , Boston, MA , available at: www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/16/07/what-makes-sel-work (accessed April 23, 2019 ).

Sklad , M. , Diekstra , R. , Ritter , M.D. , Ben , J. and Gravesteijn , C. ( 2012 ), “ Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? ”, Psychology in the Schools , Vol. 49 No. 9 , pp. 892 - 909 .

Stake , R. ( 2005 ), “ Qualitative case studies ”, in Denzin , N.K. and Lincoln , Y.S. (Eds), Qualitative Research , 3rd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 433 - 466 .

Steele , C.M. ( 1997 ), “ A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 52 No. 6 , pp. 613 - 629 .

Stokas , A.G. ( 2015 ), “ A genealogy of grit: education in the new gilded age ”, Educational Theory , Vol. 65 No. 5 , pp. 513 - 528 .

Strayhorn , T.L. ( 2013 ), “ What role does grit play in the academic success of black male collegians at predominantly white institutions? ”, Journal of African American Studies , Vol. 18 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Tatum , B.D. ( 2017 ), Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race , Basic Books , New York, NY .

The Aspen Institute ( 2018 ), Pursuing Social and Emotional Development Through a Racial Equity Lens: A Call to Action , Aspen Institute , Washington, DC .

Tough , P. ( 2012 ), How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character Mariner Books , Mariner Books , New York, NY .

van den Bergh , L. , Denessen , E. , Hornstra , L. , Voeten , M. and Holland , R.W. ( 2010 ), “ The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap ”, American Educational Research Journal , Vol. 47 No. 2 , pp. 497 - 527 .

Warikoo , N. , Sinclair , S. , Fei , J. and Jacoby-Senghor , D. ( 2016 ), “ Examining racial bias in education: a new approach ”, Educational Researcher, American Educational Research Association , Vol. 45 No. 9 , pp. 508 - 514 .

Weissberg , R.P. , Durlak , J. , Domitrovich , C. and Gullota , T. ( 2015 ), “ Social and emotional learning: past, present, and future ”, in Durlak , J. , Domitrovich , C. , Durlak , J.A. , Domitrovich , C.E. , Weissberg , R.P. and Gullotta , T.P. (Eds), Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice , Guilford Press , New York, NY , pp. 3 - 19 .

Weissberg , R.P. , Kumpfer , K.L. and Seligman , M.E.P. ( 2003 ), “ Prevention that works for children and youth: an introduction ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 58 Nos 6-7 , pp. 425 - 432 .

West , M.R. , Buckley , K. , Krachman , S.B. and Bookman , N. ( 2017 ), “ Development and implementation of student social-emotional surveys in the CORE Districts ”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , Vol. 55 , March-April , pp. 119 - 129 , available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.06.001

West , M.R. , Kraft , M.A. , Finn , A.S. , Martin , R.E. , Duckworth , A.L. , Gabrieli , C.F. and Gabrieli , J.D. ( 2016 ), “ Promise and paradox: measuring students’ non-cognitive skills and the impact of schooling ”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , Vol. 38 No. 1 , pp. 148 - 170 .

West , M.R. , Pier , L. , Fricke , H. , Hough , H. , Loeb , S. , Meyer , R.H. and Rice , A.B. ( 2018 ), Trends in Student Social Emotional Learning: Evidence from the CORE Districts , Policy Analysis for California Education , Stanford, CA .

Yeager , D. and Walton , G.M. ( 2011 ), “ Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 81 No. 2 , pp. 267 - 301 .

Yin , R.K. ( 2013 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Zimmerman , B.J. ( 2000 ), “ Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn ”, Contemporary Educational Psychology , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 82 - 91 .

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the generous sponsor of this research, the S.D. Bechtel, Jr Foundation. The authors also thank all of the leaders in the CORE districts for their support throughout this project, along with the many educators who shared their time and insights. This project would not have been completed without the assistance of many colleagues, including Michelle Hall, Ananya Matewos and Caetano Siqueira. Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful comments of reviewers and colleagues who offered feedback on earlier versions of this paper. This research originally appeared as a policy report for Policy Analysis for California Education.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Taylor N. Allbright is PhD candidate in Urban Education Policy at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. Her research focuses on efforts to further educational equity in K-12 schools, investigating how leaders design and implement policies with equity goals, the enactment of policies intended to mitigate racial inequity and the politics and process of educational policy change. She also seeks to bridge research, policy and practice with scholarship that directly informs the work of educational leaders.

Julie A. Marsh is Professor of Education Policy at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. She specializes in research on K-12 policy, including the implementation and effects of accountability and instructional improvement policies, the roles of central office administrators, intermediary organizations and community members in educational reform, the use of data to guide decision making and the politics of educational reform. Her research blends perspectives in education, sociology and political science.

Kate E. Kennedy is PhD student in Urban Education Policy at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and Research Associate at the Center on Education Policy, Equity and Governance. Kate focuses on education leadership, politics of education and equity. Areas of specialty include teacher work conditions, student and school morale, teachers’ unions, school choice and affective policies (e.g. social-emotional learning and discipline reform policies).

Dr Heather J. Hough is Executive Director of Policy Analysis for California Education. Prior to serving in this role, she led the partnership between PACE and the CORE Districts. Her recent work has focused on using research to strengthen state structures supporting continuous improvement and advance policies that support the whole child. Dr Hough received the PhD Degree in Education Policy and the BA Degree in Public Policy from Stanford University.

Susan Mckibben is Administrative Director for the USC Rossier Center on Education Policy, Equity and Governance. She received the PhD Degree in education from the University of California, Los Angeles.

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Our Mission

Social and Emotional Learning Research Review

Editor's Note: This article was originally written by Vanessa Vega, with subsequent updates made by the Edutopia staff.

Numerous research reports show that social and emotional learning (SEL) can have a positive impact on students' academic performance. Edutopia's SEL research review explores those reports and helps make sense of the results. In this series of four articles, learn how researchers define social and emotional learning , review some of the possible learning outcomes , get our recommendations of evidence-based programs , find tips for avoiding pitfalls when implementing SEL programs, and dig in to a comprehensive annotated bibliography with links to all the studies and reports cited in these pages.

What is Social and Emotional Learning?

How do we define social and emotional learning (SEL)? Researchers generally agree upon five key competencies of SEL ( Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2011 ; Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2016 ). These competencies provide the foundation for maintaining high-quality social relationships and for responding to the challenges of life.

1. Self-Awareness:

What are my thoughts and feelings?
What causes those thoughts and feelings?
How can I express my thoughts and feelings respectfully?

2. Self-Management:

What different responses can I have to an event?
How can I respond to an event as constructively as possible?

3. Social Awareness:

How can I better understand other people's thoughts and feelings?
How can I better understand why people feel and think the way they do?

4. Relationship Skills:

How can I adjust my actions so that my interactions with different people turn out well?
How can I communicate my expectations to other people?
How can I communicate with other people to understand and manage their expectations of me?

5. Responsible Decision Making:

What consequences will my actions have on myself and others?
How do my choices align with my values?
How can I solve problems creatively?

Editor's Note: To learn more about the five key competencies, visit the "What is SEL? Skills and Competencies" page from the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) .

Learning outcomes.

A meta-analysis of 213 programs, primarily covering three decades of research, found that social and emotional learning interventions that address the competencies listed above increased students' academic performance by 11 percentile points, as compared to students who did not participate in such SEL programs (Durlak et al., 2011). The social and emotional learning programs also reduced aggression and emotional distress among students, increased helping behaviors in school, and improved positive attitudes toward self and others (Durlak et al., 2011). Effective SEL programs addressed the five key competencies listed above, explicitly and sequentially, and used active-learning techniques to engage youth in developing understanding of them. Specific practices and programs shown by multiple, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies to benefit K-12 youth are described on the Evidence-Based Programs page of the SEL research review.

SEL Skills and Academic Success

Relationships and emotional processes affect how and what we learn. By reducing misbehavior and the amount of time spent on classroom management, SEL programs create more time for teaching and learning. SEL also strengthens students' relationships with their peers, families, and teachers, who are mediators, collaborators, and encouragers of academic achievement.

Researchers have documented the importance of caring teacher-student and student-student relationships in fostering students' commitment to school and in promoting academic success (e.g. Blum & Libby, 2004; Hamre & Pianta, 2006; Hawkins, Smith, & Catalano, 2004; Jennings & Greenberg 2009; cited in Durlak, et al., 2011). Safe and orderly environments that encourage and reinforce positive classroom behavior have been identified by research as one of the necessary conditions for academic achievement ( Marzano, 2003 ).

There are also several person-centered reasons SEL can promote academic success. Self-regulation, the ability to control and manage thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, has been linked to academic achievement in numerous studies. Students who are more self-aware and confident about their learning capacities try harder and persist in the face of challenges (Aronson, 2002; cited in Durlak et al., 2011; Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2014 ). Students who set high academic goals, have self-discipline, motivate themselves, manage stress, and organize their approach to work learn more and get better grades (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Elliot & Dweck, 2005; cited in Durlak et al., 2011). Finally, students who use problem-solving skills to overcome obstacles and make responsible decisions about studying and completing homework do better academically (Zins & Elias, 2006; cited in Durlak et al., 2011).

According to a national survey of middle and high school students, less than one third indicated that their school provided a caring, encouraging environment, and less than half reported that they had competencies such as empathy, conflict resolution and decision-making skills (Benson, 2006; cited in Durlak et al., 2011). By strengthening students' social support networks and their skills in self-management, SEL can help to unleash the potential within academic environments to support students' well-being and success.

Several studies explore the long-term benefits of social and emotional learning programs. In one, researchers examined how SEL intervention programs (such as social skills training, parent training with home visits, peer coaching, reading tutoring, and classroom social-emotional curricula) for kindergarten students impacted their adult lives, and found that these programs led to 10% (59% vs. 69% for the control group) fewer psychological, behavioral, or substance abuse problems at the age of 25 ( Dodge et al., 2014 ). Another study examined kindergarten teachers’ ratings of their student’s prosocial skills (e.g. kindness, sharing, and empathy) and discovered a strong correlation to adult outcomes such as higher educational attainment, stronger employment, and better mental health, in addition to reduced criminal activity and substance use ( Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015 ). In 2015, researchers analyzed the economic impact of six widely-used SEL programs and found that on average, every dollar invested yields $11 in long-term benefits, ranging from reduced juvenile crime, higher lifetime earnings, and better mental and physical health ( Belfield et al., 2015 ). Additional research supports the long-term benefits of SEL programs, finding evidence that investing in high-quality programs for all children can increase the number of productive, well-adjusted adults and yield positive economic benefits in the future ( Jones et al., 2017 ). Finally, a 2017 meta-analysis of 82 school-based SEL programs found long-term (between 6 months and 18 years) improvements in four areas: SEL skills, attitudes, positive social behavior, and academic performance. Additionally, decreases were found in three areas: conduct problems, emotional distress, and drug use ( Taylor et al., 2017 ).

A 2015 economic analysis found that in the period from 1980 to 2012, automation has increasingly replaced repetitive and analytical tasks, placing greater demand on jobs that require social skills ( Deming, 2015 ). In a 2015 Amici Curiae brief , nearly 50 Fortune-100 and other leading American businesses argued that in order to be competitive, businesses need to be able to hire workers who have experience sharing ideas and viewpoints with diverse groups of people.

A 2017 research review found that SEL programs can promote academic success and increase positive behavior, while reducing misconduct, substance abuse, and emotional distress for elementary school students. In addition, effective SEL programs are enhanced when schools partner with families and when they are culturally and linguistically sensitive ( Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2017 ).

Continue to the next section of the SEL research review, Evidence-Based Programs .

Introduction and Learning Outcomes
Evidence-Based Programs
Avoiding Pitfalls
Annotated Bibliography

Plan for College and Career
Take the ACT
School and District Assessment
Career-Ready Solutions
Students & Parents
Open Search Form
ACT Research
All Services and Resources
Growth Modeling Resources
Data and Visualization
All Reports
ACT Research Publications
Technical Documentation
Studies and Partnerships
About ACT Research
Meet Our Experts
Get Research Updates

Other ACT Services and Products

New Featured May 13, 2024

Social and Emotional Learning Is Associated With Students Hard Work

Social and emotional learning (SEL) is known to have positive effects on students’ social and emotional skills (Mahoney et al., 2008). We sought to determine if the efficacy of SEL could be detected with single-item predictor and criterion variables.

Size: 175.5KB | Pages: 3

This action will open a new window. Do you want to proceed?

Welcome to ACT

If you are accessing this site from outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or U.S. Territories, please proceed to the non-U.S. version of our website.

Future Directions in Social and Emotional Learning and Education / Issue Briefs

Systemic Social and Emotional Learning: A Coordinated Approach to Student Success Across Settings

Joseph L. Mahoney, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America; Karen Van Ausdal, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning; Celene E. Domitrovich, Early Childhood Innovation Network, Georgetown University Medical Center

Executive Summary

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions. SEL is an evidence-based educational approach aimed at developing social and emotional competencies (SECs) that students need to succeed in school and life. Decades of research demonstrate that SEL programs enhance SECs and foster prosocial behaviors, improve academic performance, and mitigate emotional distress and problem behavior. A systemic approach to SEL emphasizes coordination of SEL programming across settings and over time. Systemic SEL recognizes that a limited impact is possible with stand-alone programming in individual classrooms, and advocates for aligned and coordinated strategies across school, district, and state levels. The significance of systemic SEL lies in its ability to consistently reinforce SECs across multiple settings, preventing disjointed learning experiences. By fostering a shared vision and aligned actions among families, education staff, and communities, systemic SEL creates synergies, reduces fragmentation, and integrates educational practices, promoting the holistic development of academic, social, and emotional skills for all students.

In practice , systemic SEL is implemented strategically across in-school and out-of-school settings. Within school buildings, this includes embedding SEL into strategic policies and practices, supporting SEL for adults, embedding SEL into instruction and supports for students, and ensuring continuous improvement of those practices. Districts tailor their SEL work to their context, fostering a shared vision for SEL co-created by diverse stakeholders, and sustaining practices for adults and students over time. Leadership from superintendents, central offices, and school administrators is essential in modeling and supporting SEL. At the district level, this includes ensuring the integration of SEL into district strategy, culture, and practices that ultimately support teaching and learning experiences for students.

In terms of research , well-implemented SEL programs can positively impact children’s lives. However, less is known about the effectiveness of systemic SEL. Studying systemic SEL, which involves complex systems change, involves substantial time and resource requirements. To date, most research is qualitative. Quantitative research about the CASEL School Guide highlights the potential of systemic SEL for improving social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Meta-analytic findings support multi-component programs involving community or family components, yet inconsistent results from these reviews suggest a need for further research to understand their effectiveness fully.

In c onclusion , while systemic SEL has significant potential to transform education systems, challenges like limited funding, time constraints, and prioritization need to be addressed. Coordinating systemic SEL requires strong leadership, integration, and continuous improvement systems, and a focus on adult SEL. Emphasizing collaboration and advocating for policy interventions at the local, state, and federal levels is vital. For example, states and districts should prioritize the future of systemic SEL by including measures related to social and emotional development, such as attendance and discipline rates, in their accountability systems. This will support broader academic and societal goals through equitable resource allocation and the integration of SEL assessments with other data sources that drive decision-making.

Related Resources

Systemic Implementation CASEL
Framework for Systemic Social and Emotional Learning New York State Education Department

Reports and Paper

Systemic Social and Emotional Learning Mahoney et al. / CASEL
Supportive Environments: Demystifying Systemic Social and Emotional Learning CASEL

Made possible through support from:

More Issue Briefs

IMAGES

(PDF) Social and Emotional Learning: Recent Research and Practical
The social emotional development among the adolescents Essay Example
Cooperative Learning and Social Emotional Learning Research Paper
Social and Emotional Learning Research Review
(PDF) Social and emotional learning
Why Social and Emotional Learning Is Essential for Students

VIDEO

Supporting Equity and Social and Emotional Learning
Advancing Social and Emotional Learning Research, Practice, and Policy: A New Journal for the Field
The Impact of Social Emotional Learning on Education: Whose Values Are Being Taught?
Andrew Preston: Breaking the Wall to enable next Generation Research Videos
Recent Research on Science Behind Social Emotional Learning
Introduction to Social and Emotional Learning

COMMENTS

The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis
Introduction. Social-emotional learning (SEL) represents an educational model for improving social-emotional competences of all students and is known as a long-term education program connecting school, family, and community [].SEL aims to promote five core competencies including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making [].
PDF A review of the literature on social and emotional learning for
Box 1. Five competencies deine social and emotional learning . The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) identiies these ive interrelated compe tencies as central to social and emotional learning: Self-awareness. Knowing what one feels, accurately assessing one's interests and strengths, and maintaining a
Social and Emotional Learning: A Principled Science of Human
Jennifer Kahn. Decades of research and practice in social and emotional development have left us with a body of knowledge that tells us that (1) social, emotional, and cognitive development are intertwined in the brain and in behavior and influence school and life outcomes; (2) social, emotional, and cognitive skills and competencies grow in ...
Social-Emotional Learning and Academic Achievement:
Early social-emotional competencies, such as behavioral regulation, attentional skills, and the ability to problem solve, are critical to children's academic outcomes (Blair, 2002; Diamond & Lee, 2011).Such findings have prompted the development and implementation of social-emotional learning (SEL) programs, which are a type of school-based preventive intervention explicitly designed to ...
The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL ...
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is an educational model for improving social-emotional competences of all students and a long-term education program connecting school, home, and community. Although there has been active research to establish evidence-based practice (EBP) of SEL programs worldwide, the quality of SEL intervention studies which is an integral part of evaluating EBP was rarely ...
Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy
An independent Journal sponsored by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy is the primary international destination for research on the science, practice, and policy in the field of social and emotional Learning (SEL). This peer-reviewed journal is designed to publish the highest quality articles on SEL ...
Social Emotional Learning in Schools: The Importance of Educator
Dustin Miller is the director of the EdD in Educational Administration and an assistant professor -clinical in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. His research interests focus on principal professional learning, leading in times of crises, and creating supportive LGBTQ+ environments for students, teachers, and school leaders.
Social-Emotional Learning: A Literature Review
Social-emotional learning targets the development of positive interpersonal relationships, empathy, emotional regulation, healthy identities, personal/collective goal orientation, and responsibility in the decision-making process (CASEL Organization, 2021). Schools, however, have the main objective of ensuring that academic measures are met ...
Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy
Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy. Volume 3, June 2024, 100021. ... This is the vision at the heart of social and emotional learning (SEL), an educational process which aims to equip students with essential life-skills (Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning ...
PDF Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) and Student Benefits
review of research ever done on interventions that promote children's social and emotional development.3 This review of more than 700 studies published through 2007 included school, family, and community interventions designed to promote social and emotional skills in children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 18.
Integrating Social and Emotional Learning: Creating Space for
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is a growing movement in the United States. Publications about SEL increased sixfold from 2009 to 2020 (see Figure 1), and 18 states now have K-12 SEL standards.In one notable report, From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope, the authors frame SEL as "the substance of education itself" rather than a passing "fad" (Aspen Institute, 2019, pp. 4, 6).
Social and Emotional Learning Program Implementation: Educators
Social and emotional learning (SEL) programs are designed to promote and cultivate the development of students' social and emotional competencies (Haymovitz et al., 2018; Martinsone & Vilcina, 2017a). SEL competencies include managing and understanding emotions, engaging in responsible decision making, forming and
PDF (Research Brief) Evidence for Social and Emotional Learning in Schools
Research regarding the efects of SEL programs has grown dramatically over the past 2 decades, providing strong scientific evidence to support the use of SEL programs in schools. This brief summarizes the findings from 12 independent meta-analyses of hundreds of school-based SEL programs in PreK-12th grade.2 It also describes some of the ...
PDF A Data-Informed Approach to Social-Emotional Learning
A Data-Informed Approach to Social-Emotional Learning˜ 3 The demand for advancing social-emotional learning (SEL) in U.S. schools is strong and growing. But while findings signal significant support and enthusiasm for SEL, most school systems have not yet adopted a set of policies that prioritize the development and assessment of social-emotional
Implementing Social-Emotional Learning in the Elementary Classroom
Social-emotional learning has the power to change how educators deliver instruction across the country. For this article, social-emotional learning research and journal articles were reviewed for the purposes of identifying common themes among existing research. Multiple perspectives were considered in the review of literature and the findings were used to identify potential issues and create ...
Making Space for Social and Emotional Learning in Science Education
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is known to improve student outcomes but is rarely combined with STEM. In this paper we present an action research study to examine the impact of a STEM + SEL curriculum intervention to address a real-world school conflict. One hundred sixth-eighth graders and four teachers participated in an in-person facilitation of a SEL Arthropod curriculum, DIFFERENT.
Social-emotional learning practices: insights from outlier schools
In this paper, we use the term "social-emotional learning" to refer specifically to student development in this broad domain, which includes beliefs, dispositions, attitudes, skills and behaviors that are distinct from academic achievement and are widely perceived as beneficial to individuals and society (Duckworth and Yeager, 2015, pp. 238 ...
Social and Emotional Learning Research Review
Edutopia's SEL research review explores those reports and helps make sense of the results. In this series of four articles, learn how researchers define social and emotional learning, review some of the possible learning outcomes, get our recommendations of evidence-based programs, find tips for avoiding pitfalls when implementing SEL programs ...
Promoting the Social and Emotional Learning of Millions of School
Our research and practice has focused on working with classrooms, schools, districts, families, and communities to promote young people's social, emotional, and academic learning. We have worked at all levels, from the statehouse to the schoolhouse, and on research, practice, and policy ( Dusenbury & Weissberg, 2018 ; Weissberg & Cascarino ...
Social and Emotional Learning Is Associated With Students Hard Work
Social and Emotional Learning Is Associated With Students Hard Work. Social and emotional learning (SEL) is known to have positive effects on students' social and emotional skills (Mahoney et al., 2008). We sought to determine if the efficacy of SEL could be detected with single-item predictor and criterion variables.
Systemic Social and Emotional Learning: A Coordinated Approach to
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.
Protocol for a feasibility evaluation of a Social and Emotional
This paper describes a protocol for the feasibility evaluation of the Participatory Action Research on Social and Emotional Learning (PARSEL) programme. PARSEL aims to contribute towards the development of academic achievement and resilience among urban refugee students in a community learning centre in an upper middle-income country. The evaluation is a single arm pre-post design using a ...
What Do I Know About Social-Emotional Learning: A Comparative Analysis
Childhood is a crucial stage of development that forms the foundation of holistic development and psychological wellbeing (UNICEF, 2018).A growing body of research has shown that it is essential to develop students' social-emotional learning (SEL) competencies (Oberle et al., 2016).The studies have concluded that preschool years are the crucial developmental period wherein the development of ...

The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis

Jin Hyung Lim

Associated Data

Introduction

Literature search

Coding procedures

A coding system for meta-analysis

Publication bias check

Effect size synthesis and a random effect model

Study characteristics

Analysis of quality indicators

A global effect size

Effect sizes by controlling variables

Quality of experimental studies on SEL

Effectiveness of SEL

Limitations

Supporting information

Data Availability

The quality and effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) intervention studies in Korea: A meta-analysis

Introduction

Literature search

Coding procedures

A coding system for meta-analysis.

Publication bias check.

Effect size synthesis and a random effect model.

Study characteristics

Analysis of quality indicators

A global effect size

Effect sizes by controlling variables

Quality of experimental studies on SEL

Effectiveness of SEL

Limitations

Supporting information

S1 File. References included in a meta-analysis.

S2 File. A questionnaire for a quality analysis.

Implementing Social-Emotional Learning in the Elementary Classroom

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review

Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes

Introduction

Current Approaches to SEL

The Benefits of Social-Emotional Learning

Opposing Views of Social-Emotional Learning

Current Social-Emotional Learning Practices in the United States

Available Resources

Necessary Components for Implementation

Roadblocks to Address

Recommendations and an Example Case

Action Plan

Social-Emotional Learning Leadership Team

Professional Development

Communication with Stakeholders

Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom

Multi-Tiered System of Supports for SEL

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

People also looked at

Introduction

Materials and Methods

The DIFFERENT Curriculum

Participants

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Manual Qualitative Coding

Inferential Statistical Analysis

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Coding

Response Frequencies

Chi-Square Analysis

Data Availability Statement

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Acknowledgments

This article is part of the Research Topic