PART I
The Foundations of Social and
Emotional Learning
CHAPTER 1
The Scientific Base Linking
Social and Emotional Learning to School Success
JOSEPH E. ZINS, MICHELLE R.
BLOODWORTH, ROGER P. WEISSBERG, AND HERBERT J. WALBERG
Building Academic
Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say? Copyright
© 2004 by Teachers College, Columbia University. All rights reserved. ISBN
0-8077-4439-5 (pbk), ISBN 0-8077- 4440-9 (cloth). Prior to photocopying items
for classroom use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer
Service, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, USA, tel. (508) 750-8400.
Schools will be most
successful in their educational mission when they inte- grate efforts to
promote children’s academic, social, and emotional learning (Elias et al.,
1997). There is general agreement that it is important for schools to foster
children’s social-emotional development, but all too often educa- tors think
about this focus in a fragmented manner, either as an important end in itself
or as a contributor to enhancing children’s health (e.g., drug prevention),
safety (e.g., violence prevention), or citizenship (e.g., service learning).
Although social and emotional learning (SEL) plays important roles in influencing
these nonacademic outcomes, SEL also has a critical role in improving
children’s academic performance and lifelong learning. This chap- ter and book
make a compelling conceptual and empirical case for linking SEL to improved
school attitudes, behavior, and performance. Intrinsically, schools are social
places and learning is a social process. Students do not learn alone but rather
in collaboration with their teachers, in the company of their peers, and with
the support of their families. Emo- tions can facilitate or hamper their
learning and their ultimate success in school. Because social and emotional
factors play such an important role, schools must attend to this aspect of the
educational process for the benefit of all students. Indeed most do. There is a
long history of schools focusing on areas such as social responsibility and
moral character (e.g., Jackson, 1968), and learning and behaving responsibly in
the classroom have been seen as causally related. Researchers have found that
prosocial behavior in the classroom is linked with positive intellectual
outcomes (e.g., DiPerna & Elliott, 1999; Feshbach & Feshbach, 1987;
Haynes, Ben-Avie, & Ensign,
4 Foundations of Social
and Emotional Learning
2003; Pasi, 2001) and
is predictive of performance on standardized achieve- ment tests (e.g., Cobb,
1972; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Welsh, Park, Widaman, & O’Neil, 2001;
Wentzel, 1993). Conversely, antisocial conduct often co- occurs with poor
academic performance (Hawkins, Farrington, & Catalano, 1998). But, beyond
such correlational findings, it is crucial to determine whether interventions
can be designed to promote social and emotional learn- ing, and if there is
empirical evidence that these SEL efforts improve children’s success in school
and life. Thus, the focus of this book is on interventions that enhance
academic, social, and emotional learning. Social and emotional learning is an
integral element of education in an increasing number of schools, and such
instruction is consistent with teacher education standards (see Fleming &
Bay, this volume). SEL is the process through which we learn to recognize and
manage emotions, care about oth- ers, make good decisions, behave ethically and
responsibly, develop positive relationships, and avoid negative behaviors
(Elias et al., 1997). These key char- acteristics need to be developed for our
children to be successful not only in school but in life; those who do not
possess these skills are less likely to suc- ceed. They are particularly
important for children to develop because they are linked to a variety of
behaviors with long-term implications. In addition, be- cause schools have
access to virtually all children and are expected to educate them to become
responsible, contributing citizens, they are ideal settings in which to promote
children’s social-emotional as well as academic development. The need to
address the social-emotional challenges that interfere with students’
connecting to and performance in school is critical. Issues such as discipline,
disaffection, lack of commitment, alienation, and dropping out frequently limit
success in school or even lead to failure. Related to the need for such
instruction, the many new professionals entering the teaching force need
training in how to address social-emotional learning to manage their classrooms
more effectively, to teach their students better, and to cope suc- cessfully
with students who are challenging. Moreover, such skills likely will help these
teachers to manage their own stress more effectively and to en- gage in problem
solving more skillfully in their own lives. Adelman and Taylor (2000) argue
that if schools focus only on academic instruction and school management in
their efforts to help students attain academic success, they will likely fall short
of their goals. As an alternative, these authors propose a model that includes
a third domain, an enabling component, that is combined with the instructional
and management com- ponents. This component promotes academic success and
addresses barriers to learning, development, and teaching. It includes
activities such as resource coordination, classroom-focused enabling, support
for transitions, and home involvement in schooling. The enabling component is
an essential facet of
The Scientific Base 5
efforts to improve
academic success, and SEL serves as a critical element of it by assisting
students in navigating the social and emotional contexts of the classroom
effectively and by helping schools create positive environments conducive to
learning. This three-component model recognizes that address- ing students’
social and emotional development is not an additional duty charged to schools
along with academic instruction, but rather is an integral and necessary aspect
to helping all students succeed. Recent years have witnessed growing pressure
and much greater inter- est from professionals and the public in how well
schools perform with re- spect to student achievement. The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2002, with its requirements for accountability through state and
district report cards and testing of children (U.S. Department of Education,
2002), is an example of such heightened emphasis. How well schools prepare
students for these vari- ous high-stakes tests has become the gold standard.
While most schools re- main highly concerned about the social and emotional
development of their students and the need for safe, supportive schools that
educate socially and emotionally competent students (Learning First Alliance,
2001), they often are hesitant to engage in any activities for which they
cannot predict clear, discernable benefits to students’ academic progress as
reflected in their test scores. Therefore, in this era of academic
accountability, receptivity for SEL programming will be even greater if a strong
empirical case is made connect- ing the enhancement of social and emotional
influences to improved school behavior and academic performance. To that end, a
number of analyses of school-based prevention programs conducted in recent
years provide gen- eral agreement that some of these programs are effective in
reducing mal- adaptive behaviors, including those related to school success
(e.g., Durlak, 1995; Gottfredson, 2001; Institute of Medicine, 1994), a
conclusion that was not as strongly supported in the past. Indeed, this level
of support and the recognized need for SEL is greater than at any time in
recent decades, thereby presenting an opportunity to which educators and policy
makers must give serious consideration. One problem with current efforts to promote
social and emotional learn- ing is that they are quite often fragmented. That
is, there are separate pro- grams to promote health, prevent violence and
delinquency, encourage school bonding and attachment, prevent dropping out, and
decrease teen pregnancy and AIDS. As a result, there simply have been too many
programs introduced; schools nationally are implementing a median of 14
practices to prevent problem behavior and to promote safe environments. With
this prolifera- tion of efforts, the question must be raised about how well
they can carry out so many different activities (Gottfredson & Gottfredson,
2001). It also is a mistake to address these problems in isolation instead of
establishing
6 Foundations of Social
and Emotional Learning
holistic, coordinated
approaches that effectively address academic perfor- mance mediators such as
motivation, self-management, goal setting, engage- ment, and so forth (see
Christensen & Havsy, this volume). Our goal is to examine relationships
between SEL and school success, an outcome that, to be fully understood, must
be defined far more broadly than as the scores students receive on standardized
tests (Elias, Wang, Weissberg, Zins, & Walberg, 2002). Success in school
can be reflected in many ways, and contributors to this volume discuss a vast
array of vari- ables associated with school success that can be addressed
through effec- tive SEL practices. Examples include school attitudes (e.g.,
motivation, responsibility, attachment), school behavior (engagement, attendance,
study habits), and school performance (e.g., grades, subject mastery, test
perfor- mance). These are important components that can foster commitment to
academics and effective school performance. In the next section of this chapter
we define SEL and high-quality SEL programming so that readers understand the
scientific foundations of the field and the bases on which the other chapters
are grounded. Following that dis- cussion we review some relevant findings from
the literature. We then pro- vide an overview of the contents and conclude with
some thoughts about the field.
EFFECTIVE
PRACTICES FOR SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING
As noted earlier, we
define SEL as the process through which children en- hance their ability to
integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks.
Those competent in SEL are able to recognize and man- age their emotions,
establish healthy relationships, set positive goals, meet personal and social
needs, and make responsible and ethical decisions (Elias et al., 1997; Payton
et al., 2000).
Person-Centered
Focus
Social and emotional
education involves teaching children to be self-aware, socially cognizant, able
to make responsible decisions, and competent in self- management and
relationship-management skills so as to foster their aca- demic success. The
framework in Figure 1.1 makes it clear that children need to be aware of
themselves and others; that they need to make responsible decisions; that they
need to be ethical and respectful of others; and that they need to give
consideration to the situation and relevant norms. They also need to manage
their emotions and behaviors and to possess behavioral so-
The Scientific Base 7
cial skills that enable
them to carry out solutions effectively with others. As a result, these skills
and attitudes can help students feel motivated to suc- ceed, to believe in
their success, to communicate well with teachers, to set academic goals, to
organize themselves to achieve these goals, to overcome obstacles, and so
forth. In sum, their attachment to school and commitment to academics can be
fostered so that they lead to effective school performance.
Self-Awareness
Identifying
and recognizing emotions
Accurate
self-perception
Recognizing
strengths, needs, and values
Self-efficacy
Spirituality
Social
Awareness
Perspective
taking
Empathy
Appreciating diversity
Respect
for others
Responsible
Decision
Making
Problem identification and situation analysis
Problem
solving Evaluation and reflection Personal, moral, and ethical responsibility
Self-Management
Impulse
control and stress management
Self-motivation
and discipline
Goal
setting and organizational skills
Relationship
Management
Communication,
social engagement, and building relationships
Working
cooperatively
Negotiation,
refusal, and conflict management
Help
seeking and providing
Figure 1.1. Framework
of person-centered key SEL competencies.
8 Foundations of Social
and Emotional Learning
Environmental
Focus
It is not sufficient to
focus only on person-centered skill development. Con- sequently, effective SEL
interventions are provided within supportive envi- ronments, and they also are
directed at enhancing the social-emotional environmental factors that influence
learning so that the climate is caring, safe, supportive, and conducive to
success (Hawkins, 1997; Learning First Alliance, 2001). Communication styles,
high performance expectations, classroom struc- tures and rules, school
organizational climate, commitment to the academic success of all students,
district policies, and openness to parental and commu- nity involvement are all
important. They can build on one another and foster the development, effective
application, extension, and generalization of SEL skills to multiple settings
and situations, as well as remove some barriers to learning (see Christenson
& Havsy and Hawkins, Smith, & Catalano, this volume, for discussion of
this aspect). Schools can give students ample opportunities to develop and
practice appropriate social-emotional skills and serve as bases from which to
promote and reinforce SEL. Ultimately, these efforts can enable stu- dents to
become knowledgeable, responsible, caring, productive, nonviolent, ethical, and
contributing members of society (Elias et al., 1997).
ILLUSTRATIVE
MODEL FOR SEL PROGRAMMING AND SCHOOL SUCCESS
Figure 1.2 illustrates
the connection between evidence-based SEL program- ming and better academic
performance and success in school and in life. It indicates that SEL
interventions and skill development should occur within a supportive learning
environment, as well as help to produce such a climate. As a result,
opportunities for reward are created and SEL competencies are developed and
reinforced. These enablers in turn lead to more assets and greater attachment
and engagement in school. The final outcome is improved performance in school
and life (Collaboration for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2003).
SEL
INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES THAT ENABLE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Today’s most effective
SEL efforts are characterized as being provided in more coordinated, sustained,
and systematic ways using comprehensive, multiyear, multicomponent approaches
(see Figure 1.3) (Elias et al., 1997) than was the case in the past. Brown,
Roderick, Lantieri, and Aber and others, this vol-
The Scientific Base 9
ume, present examples
of such multifaceted interventions. In addition, we are learning more about the
relationship of neurocognitive functioning and our emotions, and there are
promising examples of how this body of knowl- edge can be applied to strengthen
SEL instruction (see Greenberg, Kusché, & Riggs, this volume). Furthermore,
the promotion of social-emotional learn- ing goals is no longer seen as
“separate” or even parallel to the academic mission of schools; rather, it is
essential and can be taught and implemented in schools in a number of ways. A
number of SEL instructional approaches can be used to promote school
achievement. First, there are specific SEL curricula (Collaborative for Aca-
demic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2003; Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson, 2002)
that address content areas such as substance abuse or bullying. Sec- ond,
social-emotional skills also can be infused into the regular academic
curriculum so that academic and SEL skills are coordinated and reinforce one
another. Once students possess skills such as being able to set goals and solve
problems, they can apply them to enhance their study behaviors and increase
their academic engagement, or these same skills can be applied to subjects such
as social studies and literacy. Schaps, Battistich, and Solomon, this volume,
show how SEL can be integrated with the language arts cur- riculum, and Elias
illustrates its infusion across the curriculum. As a result
Figure 1.2.
Evidence-based SEL programming paths to success in school and in life.
Opportunities &
Rewards for Positive Behavior Provide Opportunities & Rewards for Positive
Behavior
SEL Competencies
•Self-awareness •Social awareness •Self-management •Relationship skills
•Responsible decision making Teach SEL Competencies • Self-awareness • Social
awareness • Self-management • Relationship skills • Responsible decision making
Greater Attachment,
Engagement, & Commitment to School Greater Attachment, Engagement, &
Commitment to School
Less Risky Behavior,
More Assets & Positive Development Less Risky Behavior, More Assets, &
Positive Development
Better Academic
Performance and Success in School and Life Better Academic Performance and
Success in School and Life
Evidence- Based SEL
Programming Evidence- Based SEL Programming
Safe, Caring,
Cooperative, Well-Managed Learning Environments Safe, Caring, Cooperative,
Well-Managed Learning Environments
10 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
Figure 1.3. Essential
characteristics of effective SEL programming.
Carefully Planned,
Theory and Research Based
• Organized systematically to address
identified local needs
• Based on sound
theories of child development, learning, prevention science, and empirically
validated practices
• Implementation monitoring and program
evaluation incorporated during planning process
Teaches SEL Skills for
Application to Daily Life
• Instruction in broad
range of social-emotional skills, knowledge, and attitudes provided in
developmentally and socioculturally appropriate ways
• Personal and social
applications encourage generalization to multiple problem areas and settings
• Helps develop positive, respectful, ethical
attitudes and values about self, others, work, and citizenship
• Skills include
recognizing and managing emotions, appreciating perspectives of others, setting
positive goals, making responsible decisions, and handling interpersonal
interactions effectively
Addresses Affective and
Social Dimensions of Learning
• Builds attachment to
school through caring, engaging, interactive, cooperative classroom, and school-wide practices
• Strengthens relationships among students,
teachers, other school personnel, families, and community members
• Encourages and
provides opportunities for participation
• Uses diverse, engaging teaching methods that
motivate and involve students
• Promotes
responsibility, cooperation, and commitment to learning
• Nurtures sense of
security, safety, support, and belonging
• Emphasizes cultural
sensitivity and respect for diversity
Leads to Coordinated,
Integrated, and Unified Programming
Linked to Academic Outcomes
• Offers unifying
framework to promote and integrate social-emotional and academic development
• Integral aspect of
formal and informal academic curriculum and daily routines (e.g., lunch,
transitions, playground, extracurricular)
• Provided systematically to students over
multiple years, prekindergarten through high school
• Coordinated with
student support services efforts, including health, nutrition, service
learning, physical education, psychology, counseling, and nursing (continued)
The Scientific Base 11
of these efforts,
materials become more relevant and engaging, and students’ motivation to learn
can increase. A third approach, illustrated by Hawkins and colleagues, is to
develop a supportive learning environment so that student learning occurs
within a safe, caring atmosphere in which high expectations are expressed and
there are many opportunities for reinforcement. Students thus may be more en-
gaged, feel more attachment, and exert greater effort. Closer relationships and
better communication with teachers may result, and students may be better able
to seek help when they need it. These authors also describe pro- active
classroom management, which can lead to better discipline and a more orderly
environment in which students can learn better. Altering the instructional
process to promote social-emotional skills and learning is another approach. A
good example is described by Johnson and
Figure 1.3 (cont.)
Addresses Key
Implementation Factors to Support Effective
Social and Emotional Learning and Development • Promotes a safe, caring,
nurturing, cooperative, and challenging learning environment • Monitors
characteristics of the intervention, training and technical support, and
environmental factors on an ongoing basis to ensure high-quality implementation
• Provides leadership, opportunities for participation in planning, and
adequate resources • Institutional policies aligned with and reflect SEL goals
• Offers well-planned professional development, supervision, coaching, support,
and constructive feedback
Involves Family and
Community Partnerships
• Encourages and
coordinates efforts and involvement of students, peers, parents, educators, and
community members
• SEL-related skills
and attitudes modeled and applied at school, home, and in the community
Design Includes
Continuous Improvement, Outcome Evaluation,
and Dissemination Components
• Uses program
evaluation results for continuous improvement to determine progress toward
identified goals and needed changes
• Multifaceted
evaluation undertaken to examine implementation, process, and outcome criteria
• Results shared with key stakeholders
12 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
Johnson, who review the
research on cooperative learning. Within such class- rooms, students not only
experience the excitement of learning academic material from one another, but
they also develop important skills in nego- tiation and conflict resolution,
and a peer culture for supporting academic achievement is developed. A fifth
example of how instruction can be pro- vided is found in programming in which
the informal curriculum, such as the learning that takes place in morning
meetings, the lunchroom, on the playground, or in extracurricular activities,
is used as a basis for improving behaviors so students are better able to
participate in the classroom and thus become more effective learners. Schaps
and colleagues illustrate this type of approach. Partnerships between parents
and teachers, as described by Christenson and Havsy, represent a sixth
approach. Such efforts to create good social relationships can help make
expectations clearer and also provide additional support and encouragement for
student learning. Finally, engaging students actively and experientially in the
learning process can be highly beneficial. The best SEL approaches encourage
appli- cation of SEL competencies to real-life situations, and combining SEL
and service learning is an excellent way to utilize innovative instructional
meth- odologies to engage students in the learning process. Service learning
involves “teaching and learning . . . that integrates community service with
academic study to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen
commu- nities” (National Commission on Service Learning, 2002, p. 3). The Teen
Outreach program, for example, contains an explicit developmental focus aimed
at reducing rates of teen pregnancy and school failure through struc- tured
service learning experiences in the community, along with classroom- based
discussion of the service experiences (Allen, Philliber, Herrling, &
Kuperminc, 1997). The program also incorporates classroom-based discus- sion of
social-developmental tasks such as understanding oneself and one’s values,
human growth and development, and social and emotional transi- tions from
adolescence to adulthood. Students who participated in the pro- gram reported
significantly fewer pregnancies, school suspensions, and failed courses during
the year compared with controls. It can be hypothesized that as an enabling
component, the program’s positive outcomes are in part related to the promotion
and development of SEL skills such as self-awareness, empathy, problem solving,
adaptive goal setting, and communication. These examples show that SEL
instruction can be provided in many different ways to promote, enhance, and
support students’ academic perfor- mance. Such efforts involve more than
focusing on academic content; they also require addressing social-emotional or
psychological aptitudes (i.e., metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and
affective), as these are among the greatest influences on school performance
(Wang, Haertel, & Walberg,
The Scientific Base 13
1993). Further, Wang
and colleagues found a number of other factors ad- dressed by SEL programming
to be linked to learning outcomes, including instructional variables (e.g.,
classroom management, the frequency and qual- ity of teacher and student social
interactions) and characteristics of the home environment (e.g., parents’
interest in and expectations for students’ success).
CHARACTERISTICS OF
EFFECTIVE SEL INTERVENTIONS
Researchers from CASEL
identified the essential aspects of effective SEL practice. Thirty-nine
guidelines were developed based on their scientific in- vestigations, reviews
of the empirical and theoretical literature, visits to model sites throughout
the country, and personal experiences in implementing and evaluating SEL
practices (Elias et al., 1997). Essential characteristics of ef- fective SEL
programming are summarized in Figure 1.3, and additional dis- cussion of the
guidelines may be found in a variety of sources (e.g., CASEL, 2003; Elias et
al., 1997; O’Brien, Weissberg, & Shriver, 2003; Weissberg, 2000; Zins,
Elias, Greenberg, & Weissberg, 2000). The guidelines are consistent with
the learner-centered psychological principles described by McCombs in this book
and are supported by many of the studies cited in various other chapters. In
contrast to the guidelines outlined in Figure 1.3, the use of traditional
short-term, primarily didactic, isolated (uncoordinated) efforts to promote SEL
has not been shown to be as effective as long-term coordinated efforts,
although these isolated approaches continue to be found in many schools. For
example, negative effects on dropout, nonattendance, and several con- duct
problems are associated with counseling, social work, and other thera- peutic
preventive interventions (Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001). Of
additional concern is the finding that many practices, including some well-
designed interventions, are either not evaluated or their evaluation proce-
dures tend to be weak (Drug Strategies, 1998). In fact, a recent review of 80
nationally available classroom programs found that only 14% provided evi- dence
of effectiveness, as demonstrated by multiple studies documenting positive
behavioral outcomes posttest, with at least one showing positive behavioral
impact 1 year postintervention (CASEL, 2003).
ACADEMIC OUTCOMES
ASSOCIATED WITH SEL INTERVENTIONS
SEL programs vary in
the extent to which they directly address academic achievement, and in the past
many researchers did not evaluate such out- comes. Nevertheless, even one of
the first examinations of the research on the connections between SEL and
school performance concluded that the
14 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
research base was
strong enough that “an important task for schools and teachers is to integrate
the teaching of academic and social and emotional skills in the classroom”
(Hawkins, 1997, p. 293). Today it is becoming more common to address academic
along with social-emotional issues, as well as to measure the results of such
efforts. In the CASEL (2003) review of the 80 nationally available programs,
34% in- cluded methods to promote the integration of SEL with academic
curricula and teaching practices. For example, some encourage students to apply
SEL skills such as goal setting to improve their study habits; others emphasize
integration of SEL with academic subject matter such as by providing a lit-
erature selection that requires using conflict resolution skills to resolve a
disagreement between characters in the novel; and others promote teaching
practices such as cooperative learning and effective classroom management. All
of these approaches can have positive effects on academic performance,
especially those that had teachers acquire and use more effective teaching
techniques; 83% of such programs produced academic gains. In addition, 12% of
the programs that did not specifically target academic performance documented
an impact on academic achievement. This figure, however, might have been higher
if more of these programs had assessed academic outcomes systematically, as
these programs accounted for 40% of the SEL programs that yielded academic
gains. These findings underscore the need to assess academic outcomes in future
investigations of SEL interventions. As you read this book, you will find what
has become an impressive amount of empirical evidence documenting the
connections between SEL and school success that largely reflects outcomes from
the contributors’ own programs. There also are many examples of relevant
findings from other researchers available in the literature (e.g., Feshbach
& Feshbach, 1987; Hawkins, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Ryan &
Patrick, 2001; Schmitz & Skinner, 1993; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell,
1990; Stevens & Slavin, 1995; Wentzel, 1991, 1993). These studies found a
broad range of outcomes related to school success that result from SEL
interventions. Additional de- tail about two such investigations is summarized
next. Wilson and colleagues (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 165 pub- lished
studies of the outcomes of school-based prevention programs that ranged from
individually focused counseling or behavior modification pro- grams through
broad, school-wide efforts to change the way schools are managed. Among their
findings are that programs focusing on SEL resulted in improved outcomes
related to dropout and nonattendance, both of which are important factors in
school success. Interestingly, the findings in these two areas are even
stronger than those related to delinquency and substance use, the other two
areas in which prevention practices appeared to be effec- tive. Self-control or
social competency promotion instruction using cognitive-
The Scientific Base 15
behavioral and
behavioral instructional methods and noninstructional pro- grams are found
consistently to be effective in reducing alcohol and drug use, dropout and
nonattendance, and other conduct problems. Environmentally focused
interventions (e.g., classroom management, class reorganization, school
management) also have good outcomes. The intervention features associated with
these outcomes correspond with those described previously. A recent report on
school-based prevention programs identified a number of them as model programs
and subsequently examined them with respect to risk and protective factors
related to school performance (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2002). Among the specific aca- demic outcomes were improved grades,
standardized test scores, and gradu- ation rates; increased grade point
average; and improved reading, math, and writing skills. Other school
performance measures found include improved attendance and fewer out-of-school
suspensions, retentions, and special edu- cation referrals. The majority of
these programs were comprehensive and involved school and family partnerships.
OVERVIEW OF BOOK
Contributors to the
volume were commissioned by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory
for Student Success at the Temple University Cen- ter for Research in Human
Development and Education to write papers that investigated the research on the
influences of SEL on specific educational outcomes. Outcomes of interest
include those that are a result of an instruc- tional or curricular approach
(e.g., cooperative learning) or a school climate change (e.g., improved
behavior management), and/or that involve coordi- nated efforts among the
constituencies who contribute to the educational process (e.g., facilitating
parent–teacher partnerships). The foundation for the book is the conceptual
framework developed by members of CASEL and described in several of their
publications (Elias et al., 1997; Payton et al., 2000; Zins et al., 2000). The
common SEL framework found across chap- ters that serves to unify the contents
is based on this conceptualization. In each chapter authors define the bases of
their work and its relation- ship to SEL. They explain how much of what they do
fits under the SEL umbrella and make it clear how SEL can improve opportunities
for school success. Collectively, a range of developmental ages and school
settings are presented. In addition, many chapters cite empirical data
demonstrating the impact of SEL on school success. Chapters in Part I describe
conceptual and theoretical issues that are helpful in understanding social and
emotional learning, as well as more gen- eral intervention strategies that are
used in many SEL programs. Barbara
16 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
McCombs begins by
discussing research-validated, learning-centered psycho- logical principles
that are relevant to most SEL programs and that can be used to integrate them
into comprehensive school reform models. The prin- ciples of learning,
motivation, and development help provide a solid empiri- cal and theoretical
basis for understanding learners and learning. In the next chapter, David Johnson
and Roger Johnson discuss a number of facets of group social interactions and
the social competencies necessary for interact- ing effectively. They provide
extensive documentation of how schools based on cooperative community,
constructive conflict resolution, and civic val- ues create an effective and
nurturing environment where children learn and develop in positive, healthy
ways, and many of their ideas are reflected in the SEL interventions developed
by other researchers. Families, schools, and peers exert considerable influence
on school suc- cess and are considered essential in many SEL intervention
programs. Sandra Christenson and Lynne Havsy discuss Check & Connect, a
program to pro- mote student engagement in school, to build capacity within families,
and to alter the culture of failure that often surrounds students. They provide
a variety of empirical support for such an approach. Paulo Lopes and Peter
Salovey offer several challenges to the SEL field through a series of questions
about its underlying conceptual bases. They also cite evidence from the lit-
erature that SEL programs can promote children’s social and emotional ad-
aptation and bonding to school. In the final chapter of this part, Jane Fleming
and Mary Bay examine the extent to which teacher training in social and
emotional learning is con- sistent with professional teacher preparation
standards. The fact that their analysis demonstrates a high degree of
congruence provides important guid- ance for those involved in preservice and
inservice educator training, and such information may be useful to those who
seek to introduce SEL into college and university educator preparation
programs. Chapters in Part II demonstrate application of many of the principles
and intervention strategies contained in the first part. For example, you’ll
find that efforts to promote school engagement and bonding, home–school
partnerships, and cooperative learning are components of most of the pro- grams
described. In addition, each of these chapters cites solid research evi- dence
that demonstrates the effects of SEL on school success, as summarized in Figure
1.4. The part begins with Maurice Elias providing a description of the widely
used Social Decision Making and Social Problem Solving curriculum and il-
lustrations of how it can be integrated into the overall academic curriculum.
The structure for skills instruction is provided, and efforts also are directed
at integrating academic instruction to promote generalization. A number of spe-
cific academic gains are described that are associated with the program.
The Scientific Base 17
Figure 1.4. SEL
intervention outcomes related to school success.
ACADEMIC OUTCOME
INTERVENTIONS School Attitudes •
Stronger sense of community (bonding) CDP • More academic motivation and higher
aspirations CDP, Coop, SSDP • Better understanding of consequences of behavior
SDM/SPS • Able to cope more effectively with middle school stressors SDM/SPS •
Positive attitudes toward school Coop, SSDP School Behavior • More prosocial behavior
C & C, CDP, Coop, PATHS, RCCP, SDM/SPS, SSDP • Fewer absences; maintained
or improved attendance C & C, SDM/SPS • More classroom participation SSDP •
Greater effort to achieve Coop • More likely to work out own way of learning
CDP • Reductions in aggression and disruptions; lower rate of conduct problems
Coop, PATHS, RCCP, SSDP • Fewer hostile negotiations CDP, Coop • More likely to
be enrolled in school/fewer dropouts C & C • On track to graduate C & C
• Fewer suspensions C & C • Better transition to middle school SDM/SPS •
Higher engagement C & C, Coop, SSDP School Performance • Higher in math
RCCP, SDM/SPS • Higher in language arts and social studies SDM/SPS • More
progress in phonological awareness C & C • Increases in performance over time
(middle school) CDP • No decreases in standardized test scores PATHS •
Improvements in reading comprehension with deaf children PATHS • Higher
achievement test scores and/or grades Coop, SSDP • Better problem solving and
planning PATHS • Use of higher-level reasoning strategies Coop • Improved
nonverbal reasoning PATHS • Better learning to learn skills SDM/SPS
Notes: “C & C” is
the Check & Connect intervention (Chapter 4); “CDP” is the Child
Development Project (Chapter 11); “Coop” is the cooperative learning intervention
(Chapter 3); “PATHS” is the Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies
curriculum (Chapter 10); “RCCP” is the Resolving Con- flict Creatively Program
(Chapter 9); “SDM/SPS” is the Social Decision Making/Social Problem Solving
Project (Chapter 7); “SSDP” is the Seattle Social Development Project (Chapter
8).
18 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
The Seattle Social
Development Project (SSDP), a universal preventive intervention in elementary
schools, is described by David Hawkins, Brian Smith, and Richard Catalano in
the next chapter. Using a social-developmental perspective, the program creates
conditions that enable children to develop strong bonds to family, school, and
community, and it increases opportuni- ties for children to be involved in
prosocial activities. A wealth of evidence is presented showing that the SSDP
has a positive impact on academic perfor- mance and that these gains were still
found at age 18. Joshua Brown, Tom Roderick, Linda Lantieri, and Lawrence Aber
dis- cuss the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) that has been
implemented widely throughout the United States. The program empha- sizes
professional development for teachers to support the delivery of the RCCP
curriculum. Evaluations of the program show a variety of promising results.
High rates of RCCP instruction were significantly related to positive changes
in academic achievement, thereby reducing the risk of future school failure.
Another widely adopted curriculum, the Promoting Alternative THink- ing
Strategies (PATHS), is the focus of the chapter by Mark Greenberg, Carol
Kusché, and Nathaniel Riggs. PATHS is intended to promote skills in emo- tional
literacy, positive peer relations, and problem solving, as well as to prevent
behavioral and emotional problems in young children. It is an inte- grated
component of the regular curriculum and also includes generaliza- tion
activities. Studies have found significant positive effects on cognitive
processing abilities important for school success, and that these effects had a
reasonably enduring impact over time. The final chapter in the part, by Eric
Schaps, Victor Battistich, and Daniel Solomon, discusses the Child Development
Project. It emphasizes helping schools become caring communities of learners so
that positive relationships, norms, and values are developed. Their research
shows that strengthening students’ sense of community in school increased
academic motivation and aspirations, that many effects persisted, and that
several years later a sub- stantial effect on academic achievement was found.
In Part III, we first summarize the most important findings in the book, along
with our ideas about the future of the field. The chapter concludes with a
series of recommendations for practice, research, training, and policy that
were developed by participants at the invitational conference at Temple
University. Among the overarching themes of the conference were a num- ber that
addressed the complexity and challenges in the research arena. For example,
there is a need to employ common ideas and procedures across studies in the
field so the results are more comparable. The professional preparation of
educators was also a concern, and the field was challenged to include not only
didactic instruction for these individuals, but also field
The Scientific Base 19
experiences with
supportive, competent supervisors that mirror effective SEL practices. Program
implementation, a third general topic, is far more com- plex than commonly
treated, and guidelines for quality implementation are needed to increase the
fidelity with which the practices are implemented. The final major theme was
dissemination, which was seen as a key element to introducing and maintaining
SEL interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
As you read the book,
we hope you are inspired by the magnitude of possible methods to address SEL
and boost school success. A clear, evidence-supported case is made that SEL, as
an enabling component, fosters academic learning. The contents offer educators,
policy makers, university trainers, researchers, and practitioners important
guidance and useful tools that can be applied to improve the lives of today’s
students and tomorrow’s leaders. They also dem- onstrate that the SEL field has
a solid and expanding scientific base. Our goal is to share the knowledge base
regarding how SEL can improve children’s academic performance, so that a
similar case is made for it as already has been made regarding citizenship
(Billig, 2000), health (Blum, McNeely, & Rinehart, 2002), and other important
outcomes that we want for children. The major conclusion drawn following the
extensive examination of the topic reported in this book is that there is a
growing body of scientifically based research supporting the strong impact that
enhanced social and emotional behaviors can have on success in school and
ultimately in life. Indeed, the re- search-based findings in the book are so
solid that they emboldened us to introduce a new term, “social, emotional, and
academic learning,” or “SEAL.” Our challenges now are to continue to develop
the link between SEL interven- tions and academic achievement and to apply this
knowledge more broadly to assist all children. By providing readers with this
information, we hope to influence practice, research, training, and policy. We
invite you to travel with us on the journey to learn more about the promotion
of SEAL.
REFERENCES
Adelman, H. S., &
Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric of school
improvement. Journal of Education and Psychological Con- sultation, 11(1),
7–36. Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997).
Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a
developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64, 729–742.
20 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
Billig, S. (2000). The
impact of service learning on youth, schools, and communities: Research on K–12
school-based service learning, 1990–1999 [On-line]. Avail- able from
http://www.learningindeed.org/research/slreseaerch/slrschsy.html Blum, R. W.,
McNeely, C. A., & Rinehart, P. M. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped
power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis: Uni- versity of
Minnesota, Center for Adolescent Health and Development. Cobb, J. A. (1972).
Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade academic
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 74–80. Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An
educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning
programs. Chicago: Author. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). The
development and validation of the Aca- demic Competence Evaluation Scales.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 207–225. Drug Strategies. (1998).
Safe schools, safe students: A guide to violence prevention strategies.
Washington, DC: Author. Durlak, J. A. (1995). School-based prevention programs
for children and adoles- cents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Elias, M. J., Wang, M.
C., Weissberg, R .P., Zins, J. E., & Walberg, H. J. (2002). The other side
of the report card: Student success depends on more than test scores. American
School Boards Journal, 189(11), 28–31. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R.
P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M.
E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning:
Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: As- sociation for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1987). Affective
processes and academic achieve- ment. Child Development, 58, 1335–1347.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Delinquency prevention in schools. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press. Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001).
What schools do to prevent prob- lem behaviors and promote safe environments.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 313–344. Hawkins, J.
D. (1997). Academic performance and school success: Sources and consequences.
In R. P. Weissberg, T. P. Gullotta, R. L. Hampton, B. A. Ryan, & G. R.
Adams (Eds.), Healthy children 2010: Enhancing children’s wellness (pp.
278–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hawkins, J. D., Farrington, D. P., &
Catalano, R. F. (1998). Reducing violence through the schools. In D. S. Eliot, B.
A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A new
perspective (pp. 188–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haynes, N. M,
Ben-Avie, M., & Ensign, J. (Eds.). (2003). How social and emotional
development add up: Getting results in math and science education. New York:
Teachers College Press. Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for
mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
The Scientific Base 21
Jackson, P. W. (1968).
Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Learning First
Alliance. (2001). Every child learning: Safe and supportive schools.
Washington, DC: Author. Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children’s
social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal
analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (1), 1–23. National Commission on
Service Learning. (2002). The power of service learning. Newton, MA: Author.
O’Brien, M. U., Weissberg, R. P., & Shriver, T. P. (2003). Educational
leadership for academic, social, and emotional learning. In M. J. Elias, H.
Arnold, & C. Steiger Hussey (Eds.), EQ + IQ = Best leadership practices for
caring and successful schools (pp. 23–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Osher,
D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2002). Safe, supportive, and successful
schools step by step. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
Mental Health Services. Pasi, R. J. (2001). Higher expectations: Promoting
social emotional learning and academic achievement in your school. New York:
Teachers College Press. Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A.,
Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and
emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk
behavior in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 179–185.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L.,
Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool
child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental
trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553. Ryan, A.,
& Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’
motivation and engagement during middle school. American Edu- cational Research
Journal, 38, 801–823. Schmitz, B., & Skinner, E. A. (1993). Perceived
control, effort, and academic per- formance: Interindividual, intraindividual,
and multivariate time-series analy- ses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 1010–1028. Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J.
P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A
process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in
school. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 82, 22–32. Stevens, R. J., &
Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’
achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 321–351. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). What to know &
where to go, parents’ guide to no child left behind. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration. (2002). SAMHSA model programs: Model prevention
programs supporting academic achievement. Retrieved January 23, 2003, from
http\\nidekorigrams.samhsa.gov
22 Foundations of
Social and Emotional Learning
Wang, M. C., Haertel,
G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school
learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294. Weissberg, R. P. (2000).
Improving the lives of millions of school children. Ameri- can Psychologist,
55(11), 1360–1372. Welsh, M., Park, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R.
(2001). Linkages between children’s social and academic competence: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39(6), 463–481. Wentzel,
K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social respon-
sibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and aca-
demic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
357–364. Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001).
School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247–272. Zins, J. E., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M.
T., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Promoting social and emotional competence in
children. In K. M. Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school
problems—promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp.
71–100). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
