social emotional learning research proposal

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
• Front Psychol
• PMC10410557

Measuring social and emotional learning implementation in a research-practice partnership

Joanna L. Meyer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2656-8572

Michael J. Strambler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5576-0408

The measurement of social and emotional learning (SEL) implementation is a critical part of enhancing and understanding the effects of SEL programming. Research has shown that high-quality SEL implementation is associated with social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Schools achieve these outcomes in part through organizational practices that emphasize ongoing communication, collaboration, coordination, shared decision making, and strategic planning, processes that are ideally informed by evidence. The application of implementation science to SEL has advanced our understanding of the role of implementation in achieving student outcomes. However, the development of practical approaches for measuring and supporting SEL implementation have lagged behind work on measuring student SEL outcomes. Research-practitioner partnerships (RPP), long-term, mutually-beneficial collaborations geared toward identifying problems of practice and testing solutions for improvement, are a promising means for addressing this important gap. Though implementation science and RPPs have complementary aims, there has been limited attention to the integration of these approaches in the context of SEL programming. The goal of this paper is to offer practical strategies for measuring and using SEL implementation data in schools, using the example of an RPP that used implementation science practices to guide SEL implementation. We give special attention to structures that can support the collection and use of implementation data to improve practice, as well as considerations around developing measures, considering trade-offs of data collection decisions, and conducting data analysis.

Introduction

When education practitioners implement a social and emotional learning (SEL) approach, they usually are hoping to enhance students’ social and emotional skills. Although there is a great deal of evidence on the impact of SEL programs on a range of student outcomes, SEL practices and the contexts in which they are implemented vary widely ( Durlak et al., 2011 ; Cipriano et al., 2022 ). Therefore, in most cases, we cannot assume that the effects of a given SEL approach will be the same as the evidence from prior studies. In short, to know whether SEL practices “work” in a specific case, we first need to know about what was implemented, how much of it was provided, and how well it was delivered. However, this essential step in understanding effectiveness if often overlooked and the development of SEL implementation measurement tools has been far outpaced by measures of SEL skills and school climate. As a result, much less is known about questions such as: How much of a program needs to be implemented to see meaningful effects? Which aspects of programs are most associated with effects? Perhaps more importantly, the lack of use of SEL measures in school settings among school staff makes it challenging for schools to monitor the progress of their implementation and to act on ways of improving it. It is this last point on which we place the greatest emphasis in this paper—how SEL implementation measures can be developed and used in efficient ways to support SEL practices.

The slower growth of SEL implementation measures for school use is not for a lack of emphasis from researchers, as it is well-known that the role of implementation is central to understanding program effectiveness. In fact, for decades, there has existed a sub-field of implementation science dedicated to understanding and ensuring strong program and intervention implementation ( Bauer and Kirchner, 2020 ). Implementation science is “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service” ( Eccles and Mittman, 2006 ). Rather than solely focusing on the impact of an evidence-based intervention on outcomes, implementation science tends to focus on measuring the impact of implementation practices on intervention effectiveness in “real-world” settings ( Bauer et al., 2015 ). These intervention practices evaluated may include program fidelity, quality of delivery, dosage, participant responsiveness or engagement, program differentiation, monitoring of comparison/control conditions, adaptation, and program reach, all of which are important when evaluating the strengths of and barriers to implementation ( Durlak and DuPre, 2008 ).

Implementation science and social and emotional learning

In the SEL field, researchers have also stressed the importance of implementation when evaluating social and emotional learning (SEL) programs ( Meyers et al., 2012 ; Durlak, 2016 ; Oberle et al., 2016 ). Many of these arguments emphasized the importance of studying how implementation strategies are executed to provide information about processes (e.g., school resources and values, decision making processes, team and school staff responsibilities for evaluation, and teachers and staff attitudes) that helped promote implementation success. Further, studies of SEL point to the importance of certain implementation characteristics promoting outcomes in students. For example, a 2011 meta-analysis found four qualities of effective SEL programs: (1) sequenced training approach, (2) active forms of learning, (3) focused and adequate time spent on skill development, and (4) explicit learning goals ( Durlak et al., 2011 ). In general, evaluating these aspects of implementation quality can encompass three forms, including (a) a process evaluation in which there is simply an observation and collection of data related to characteristics of a program either before, during, and/or after it is been implemented; (b) a formative evaluation in which data are collected and shared with the implementation team in order to improve and modify processes of implementation; or (c) a summative evaluation in which data are collected to study the impact of the implementation strategies on program outcomes (e.g., rates or quality improvement of an program; Bauer et al., 2015 ). In this paper, we primarily focus on ways in which implementation measures can be used in formative ways, but we also address their use in summative evaluation.

At the core of implementation, science is an over-arching goal: to bridge the gap between prevention research and practice by way of developing and evaluating evidence-based interventions and enhancing their use ( Chambers, 2012 ). One framework that illustrates these processes is the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF), which includes three core systems that co-function to improve dissemination and implementation practices: (a) the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System, (b) the Prevention Support System, and (c) the Prevention Delivery System ( Wandersman et al., 2008 ). The Prevention Synthesis and Translation System involves gathering, synthesizing, and translating research literature for practitioner use; the Prevention Support System involves providing innovation-specific support (i.e., intervention related training and providing information and technical assistance with intervention goals) and general support with building the organizational infrastructure and support; and the Prevention Delivery System involves implementing the service activities planned after building capacity. In the example presented in this paper, we discuss what might be considered yet another more overarching framework for supporting implementation—research-practice partnerships (RPPs).

In the context of SEL programs, there are other key implementation-related questions that need to be addressed such as: How much of a program needs to be implemented to see meaningful effects? Which aspects of SEL programs are most associated with effects? Perhaps, more importantly, the lack of practical SEL measures for use in school settings by school staff makes it challenging for schools to monitor the progress of their implementation and to make improvements as needed. It is this last point that we place the greatest emphasis on in this paper—how SEL implementation measures can be developed and used in efficient ways to support SEL practices. We demonstrate these measures using an example of a research-practice partnership (RPP) that used implementation science practices to guide the implementation of SEL in the Bridgeport Public Schools. In the following sections of the paper, we first briefly define and explain the purpose and practices of implementation science. Lastly, we define and outline a framework for RPPs and discuss the implications for implementation science methods within SEL program development.

Research-practice partnerships

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners that aim to improve education by conducting mutually beneficial research ( Coburn et al., 2013 ; Farrell et al., 2021 ). RPPs bring together stakeholders from the fields of education research, policy, and practice—fields that are sometimes siloed—to engage the diverse expertise of these stakeholders. RPPs use a variety of strategies to manage the challenges of working in collaboration, including power dynamics that arise from differences in professional backgrounds, individual perspectives, organizational cultures, inter-organizational politics, and much more ( Denner et al., 2019 ; Farrell et al., 2021 ; Yamashiro et al., 2023 ). According to a review by Phelps (2019) of 56 studies on challenges in research-practice partnerships in education, building organizational infrastructure (e.g., defining roles, decision-making processes, and communication strategies), shared meaning (i.e., identifying shared values and understanding of goals), and trusting relationships (e.g., favoring equality over hierarchy, respecting the value of diverse contributions) are essential in RPPs.

The guiding principles inherent in the ISF framework align well with the research-practice partnership model. First, ISF posits that research and practice should mutually build upon one another through using scientific literature and evidence-based research methods. Secondly, the ISF invites shared decision-making and collaboration, communication, and strategic planning and coordination among all parties involved in the dissemination and implementation of the intervention ( Wandersman et al., 2008 ; Chambers, 2012 ). Regarding this latter point, the ISF proposes that multiple parties (i.e., researchers, prevention practitioners, funding agencies, and support agencies) be involved and utilize their scientific knowledge and expertise to (1) understand the capacity required to deliver a specific service and (2) engage in data driven practices to build organizational capacity to promote an intervention’s success ( Wandersman et al., 2008 ; Chambers, 2012 ).

RPPs and implementation science in social–emotional programming

The principles of RPPs and implementation science are especially useful within education partnerships that aim to promote SEL competencies among students, such as self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and decision-making skills that are especially useful for supporting developmental transitions into adulthood ( Oberle et al., 2016 ). Historically, schools have primarily focused on academic outcomes and performance, however, schools have been increasingly integrating SEL programming given its connection with improvements in academic performance, student conduct, school climate, peer relationships, and teacher well-being ( Durlak et al., 2011 ; Oberle et al., 2016 ; Herrenkohl et al., 2020 ).

Though impactful, the process of adopting and implementing SEL programming school-wide can be challenging; without buy-in from teachers, school staff, and district leaders, SEL practices and policies will be unsustainable and difficult to implement ( Herrenkohl et al., 2020 ). An RPP can help to address these challenges if it attends to the strategies identified above: building organizational infrastructure (e.g., the availability of school resources to assist in coordinating and communicating about SEL), shared meaning (i.e., establishing values and goals related to SEL that are shared by stakeholders throughout the research and practice organizations), and trusting relationships (i.e., teachers’ perception that SEL programming is in their best interest, district and school leaders’ belief that they will benefit from partnering with researchers, and researchers valuing the expertise of practice-side partners).

Research-practitioner partnership approaches have also been used to enhance the fidelity and sustainability of SEL practices ( Ackerman and Skoog-Hoffman, 2020 ). One notable example of a large scale SEL-related RPP is the Collaborative Districts Initiative of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). In 2011, CASEL began partnering with eight large school districts to support and study high-quality SEL implementation. For example, the CASEL-Lowell partnership aimed to understand how to integrate and leverage SEL programming in elementary math classes in order to support teachers ( Ackerman and Skoog-Hoffman, 2020 ). Their collaboration yielded insights indicating that the practices were vital for fostering equitable learning and development for children from diverse backgrounds.

Purpose of the current paper

The main goal of this paper is to offer practical strategies for measuring and using SEL implementation data in schools that draw upon practices drawn from implementation science and the RPPs. Throughout the paper, we highlight examples from an RPP focused on the implementation of a social and emotional learning initiative in an urban district. After providing context about the partners and the SEL initiative, we discuss ways in which researchers and practitioners can work together to develop implementation measures and structures that facilitate the sustainable collection and utilization of data. We also discuss methodological trade-offs concerning data privacy and data linking important considerations when analyzing collected data and reporting findings.

The Bridgeport public schools SEL initiative

We begin the remainder of this paper by describing the Bridgeport Public Schools (BPS) SEL Initiative, which grew out of the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership, a research-practice partnership that began in 2013 as a collaboration between BPS, The Consultation Center at Yale School of Medicine (YSM), and Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. This partnership aimed to build the social and emotional skills of BPS administrators, teachers, staff, students, and their families. At the start of the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership in the 2013–14 school year, the school district was serving 19,231 students enrolled in grades PK-12 at 28 elementary/middle schools, seven high schools, one early childhood center, and two alternative schools. Approximately 49% of students identified as Hispanic or Latino of any race, 37% of students identified as Black or African American (and not Hispanic or Latino), and 100% of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch [ Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), 2023 ]. In 2014, Bridgeport was the Connecticut’s most populous city with about 148,000 residents; it had an estimated median household income of approximately $43,000 for 2012–2016 (compared to approximately $72,000 for the state), making it one of the poorest cities in the state ( Connecticut Data Collaborative, 2023 ). In addition, the school district faced challenges related to discipline concerns and low academic performance. In 2013–2014, the BPS rates of chronic absenteeism and suspensions were more than double the statewide rates [ Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), 2023 ].

The Yale-BPS SEL partnership included a collaboration with a diversity of stakeholders/practitioners with expertise in school policy and practice. For instance, members of the university team worked directly with representatives from the district leadership team (e.g., superintendents, assistant superintendents, and SEL coordinators) and school leaders (principals and assistant principals). As the practice partner, the district led SEL decision-making and managed the implementation of SEL programming. As the research partner, The Consultation Center supported SEL implementation and continuous improvement through data collection, analysis, and reporting, serving as a formative and summative evaluation partner over the first 5 years of the partnership.

The Yale-BPS SEL Partnership began in the summer of 2013 with a 5-year grant from the Tauck Family Foundation awarded to The Consultation Center. The funding was initially intended to support SEL implementation in one school with the intention of gradually scaling up the work to include 3–4 schools. However, when the superintendent left his role mid-way through the 2013–14 school year, the new superintendent was so enthusiastic about the work that she charged the partnership to expand the work districtwide; additional funding was sought and acquired to do so. The overall goal of the partnership was to: (a) promote learning, healthy interpersonal relationships, and sound decision-making; (b) foster safe, supportive, and respectful classrooms and schools; (c) utilize measures relevant to these goals that can be used to measure progress, gage impact and guide improvements; and (d) create a model for school improvement that actively engages all stakeholders ( Strambler and Meyer, 2018 ). Table 1 describes the focus of the 5-year Yale-BPS SEL Partnership; related materials are available on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/nwzrs/ . In 2018, The Consultation Center transitioned to an as-needed consultative role and the Bridgeport Child Advocacy Coalition (BCAC) at RYASAP became the partnership’s co-leader alongside the district. As of the last quarter of 2022, the SEL initiative is still in place and has persisted across four superintendent transitions.

Timeline for the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership.

A description of each year’s activities is available on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/kdh5t .

The BPS SEL initiative began with the introduction of RULER, which was developed at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence ( Brackett et al., 2019 ). Unlike other SEL frameworks that focus on various inter-and intra-personal competencies (e.g., CASEL; see Blyth et al., 2018 ), RULER is an evidence-based approach to social and emotional learning designed to enhance emotional intelligence in educators and students. RULER stands for the five key emotion intelligence skills, this approach intends to promote: recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotions. The RULER approach relies on first teaching educators (principals, teachers, and school staff) to appreciate the significance of their own and their students’ emotions. The RULER approach asks educators to value the skills of recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions; to learn and model these skills; and to support, teach, and encourage students to develop these skills. Instead of being taught as a separate lesson or set of activities, RULER is designed to be integrated into the everyday routine of teaching and learning, by infusing it into classroom practices and the curriculum. For example, the RULER feeling words approach lays out a process for building students’ emotion vocabulary that can be applied to fiction or non-fiction texts in the curriculum. As described by Brackett et al. (2019) , RULER also provides four anchor tools that can be used across the day and the school year to support the development of social–emotional skills: the Classroom Charter , Mood Meter , Meta-Moment , and Blueprint . For example, the RULER Mood Meter is a tool that teachers and students can use together or independently to develop awareness of their emotions and how to shift among emotions to enhance learning.

Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence typically uses a train-the-trainer model, in which a school or district identifies a small group of school or district personnel (known as a RULER Implementation Team, RIT) to attend RULER trainings conducted by YCEI. A school RIT typically includes at least three people: a school leader (principal, assistant principal, dean of students, etc.), a school counselor or social worker, and at least one teacher. When they return to their school, the members of an RIT are expected lead professional development for their colleagues and support RULER implementation. RITs are encouraged to first implement RULER among their faculty before classroom implementation begins. In Bridgeport, the districtwide SEL initiative began with a readiness/leadership development year, when all district and school leaders participated in a series of workshops, meetings, and individual coaching focused on the development of emotional-intelligence leadership mindsets and skills before school teams began RULER training. The BPS SEL initiative also had the benefit of a full-time SEL coordinator, an experienced educator with RULER training, who provided focused support to school teams starting when the teams began RULER training.

In practice, schools vary in their readiness to implement RULER, which may relate to school administrators’ willingness or ability to dedicate professional development time to RULER, the preparedness of RIT members to train their colleagues, or teacher buy-in. Some schools launch RULER quickly and with fidelity, while other schools are slower to introduce the approach to their teachers and ultimately, their students. As noted above, the implementation quality for any intervention is likely to influence the intervention’s effects. The central goal of the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership was to monitor SEL implementation across schools to identify areas of strength and areas of need, so that resources and support could be allocated appropriately.

Developing implementation measures

When we set out to develop implementation measures for the partnership, a high priority was placed on measures that were useful, practical, low-burden, and inexpensive. Accomplishing this meant giving special attention to balancing feasibility and rigor. The first step in the process involved holding discussions with district leaders about what data were meaningful to them. To maximize the value of data collection, we discussed which data would not only be valuable for assessing the implementation progress, quality, and signals of impact but could also be useful for other related initiatives in the district. For example, we worked with the district to develop a school climate survey that could inform the districts’ Safe Schools Healthy Students project as well as the SEL initiative. In these discussions, it was crucial to define how the data would be collected, who would use it, for what purposes it would and would not be used, and how interim results would be disseminated. This issue is crucial because data that is collected without being used in meaningful ways by the district is a burden without adequate benefit to the district. Ideally, any SEL-related data collected would be useful at multiple levels—by district leaders, school leaders, school SEL teams, and potentially, by teachers, as each group plays an important role in improving implementation. District leaders can identify resources and supports that schools need for high-quality SEL implementation. School leaders must provide the supports and vision to implement SEL practices. School SEL teams can serve as resources for one another, especially those that have consistently strong implementation. And teachers are essential as the main implementers of SEL practices in the classroom.

In terms of developing practical measures, one important consideration is the type and nature of the measures used. This is essential because, depending on the type of measure, data collection can be very time-consuming. Because observational measures require a great deal of time and resources to use, SEL implementation data is often collected through teacher self-report measures that ask teachers about the SEL practices that they are engaged in. In selecting these measures, it is important to consider the measures’ sensitivity to change. That is, the ability of the measure to pick up on change of what it is capturing over the period of time that the measure is being used. The same measure that is intended to capture change over a 6-month period may not be sensitive enough to pick up on change over a 2-month period. Thus, it is valuable to use theory to develop or select items that have a chance of changing over the time being assessed. While some established measures provide psychometric information regarding sensitivity, typically this needs to be assessed following the collection of the data by inspecting change scores. If there is very little change, there could be two possibilities—that the measure genuinely did not change or that the measure was not sensitive enough to pick up on the change. If data are collected over multiple time points it provides various time points to examine such change. We used a variety of implementation measures and other measures over the course of the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership to balance rigor, feasibility, and sensitivity to change, and to account for potential bias. Figure 1 depicts the initiative’s theory of change and the measures used at each stage ( Strambler and Meyer, 2018 ). As shown in Figure 1 , the partnership developed two types of SEL implementation measures: SEL implementation logs and SEL implementation surveys, which are discussed below, along with other SEL implementation measurement approaches that we considered but did not use. Note that this paper does not discuss the leadership development surveys and RULER training surveys that were used to assess the readiness and training phases, nor does it describe the school climate and SEL student survey and administrative data that we used to assess student outcomes.

Bridgeport SEL initiative theory of change mapped to measurement tools.

SEL implementation logs

The logs were designed to track SEL-related trainings and activities at the school level in the first 2 years after RULER training. During the final day of RULER training, we met with the school teams to explain the purpose of the SEL implementation log and asked each school’s SEL team to identify a contact person who would be responsible for completing and submitting the school’s SEL log each month. The researchers worked with the SEL coordinators to design this measure to be brief and easy to complete, with the final version of the measure consisting of only six items, two of which were optional open-ended questions. The first item asked the team to estimate how much whole-staff meeting or professional development time the school had spent on each of six RULER topics over the past month, with responses ranging from none to over 60 min. The second question asked the SEL team to rate the knowledge of their school staff regarding the same six RULER topics, with response categories of Beginning, Progressing , and Advanced . The third and fourth items asked the SEL team to describe any RULER events held for students and parents, respectively, during the past month. The last two questions asked the SEL team to share any comments about how implementation was progressing and what additional supports they needed to support implementation. A copy of the 2016–2017 SEL log is available on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/h86am . The SEL log was mailed to school contact people monthly as an online survey on the Qualtrics platform, with additional reminders sent to those schools who did not complete the survey on time. At the end of the month, we compiled the results and shared them with the SEL coordinators, so that these district leaders could follow up with individual schools, as needed.

SEL implementation surveys

As described by Yeager et al. (2013) , we needed to manage the level of burden on school personnel while collecting detailed data about on-the-ground implementation that could inform improvement. Classroom observations were impractical given the scale of the district-wide initiative and funding constraints. Instead, we took a more practical approach to measurement that focused on implementation specific related questions that would have more direct implications for service improvement strategies ( Yeager et al., 2013 ); we chose to conduct periodic surveys of school leaders (i.e., principals and assistant principals), teachers, and other district personnel. In close consultation with the RULER developers, SEL coordinators, and other district personnel, we created surveys that asked educators about their perceptions of SEL implementation in their school and district. While developing the survey, we met with our partners several times to discuss potential survey items, in order to ensure we were prioritizing domains of interest, asking questions clearly and efficiently, and keeping the survey to a manageable length. Ultimately, we asked about quality of implementation, support for program implementation, teacher attitudes, perceived barriers to implementation, principal factors, and professional experience . Different respondent groups saw different sets of questions, as documented in Table 2 . We continued to meet with our partners before and after every survey administration to discuss survey data and potential revisions to survey items. Although we generally sought to keep items consistent to allow for comparisons over time, our partners’ input led to some revisions to improve clarity and address evolving priorities. The 2015–16 through 2017–18 versions of the survey are available at https://osf.io/n8dfy/ .

SEL implementation survey domains by respondent.

As with the logs, a key decision was how often to administer the implementation surveys to staff. We consulted with our district partners about how many times per year would be feasible while taking into consideration the time staff had available to complete the survey and the other surveys that they were expected to complete a greater opportunity to observe change over time. It is important note that district buy-in was essential to meaningful data collection. Although the district emailed the survey link to all teachers and staff members, response rates were relatively low for the initial survey, and the superintendent and SEL coordinators expressed concern that the data may not be sufficiently representative of the experiences of district personnel as a whole. The superintendent and our team were also concerned that we would not see signals of change in SEL implementation if we only surveyed teachers and staff twice in the fall and spring. We collectively agreed to add a winter survey administration the following year, and we collaborated with our partners to increase response rates in subsequent surveys. For example, the superintendent pointed out that all schools held a monthly staff meeting on the first Wednesday of the month. She asked us to schedule each future survey to launch the day before a monthly staff meeting, and she directed principals to allocate time during those meetings for teachers and staff members to complete the survey. In addition, we agreed that during each survey administration, the research team should share weekly reports showing response rates by school so that the district could follow up with the principals of schools with low response rates to ask them to re-send the survey link to their teachers and staff. These collaborative efforts increased response rates dramatically and increased the confidence of district and school leaders in the value of the data.

Other potential data collection

While we did not have the capacity to support studying how data were used by the teachers and administrators, this can be an important process for understanding the effectiveness of the data use process. For instance, one option researchers could consider are mixed methods in which the quantitative surveys described herein are paired with qualitative interviews that focuses on how practitioners interpreted and used the data to inform decision-making. Utilizing mixed methods has multiple benefits; combining elements of qualitative and quantitative research methods and analyses allows researchers to clarify and/or develop their research approach to converge, corroborate, expand, or elaborate on research findings ( Schoonenboom and Johnson, 2017 ). Though survey data have the potential to produce evidence that is generalizable to a larger population, the structured format limits the ability to document individuals’ subjective experiences, especially when such experiences do not fit well within constructs assessed by surveys. Interviews and focus groups, however, are very useful when the objective is to understand how individuals construct meaning of what is relevant and salient to them, and descriptive details about context-specific actions within settings ( Nowell et al., 2017 ). Conducting follow-up interviews with teachers, administrators, and district leaders could shed light on how they personally experience the implementation strategies applied. Specifically, qualitative interviews could (a) help discern possible strengths and areas in need of change within implementation strategies, (b) provide multiple perspectives across the leadership hierarchy, which can identify areas of miscommunication and converging and diverging opinions about actions taken; and (c) create discussion of improvement recommendations that are grounded in the practitioners’ experiences.

Teacher privacy and linking of implementation data

One necessary decision to make when collecting implementation data from school staff is whether to collect the data in a confidential, but identifiable way, or anonymously. From a research perspective, it is advantageous to collect the data in an identifiable way since it allows for individual teachers’ implementation practices to be examined over time; it also allows for teacher-reported implementation data to be linked to student outcomes (assuming these data are accessible). However, educators’ concerns about privacy need to be taken seriously in school-based research, to ensure that educators feel comfortable sharing their perspectives. It is not uncommon for teachers to feel uncomfortable with providing identifiable implementation due to concerns about it being used in an evaluative way rather than a supportive one. Even if the data collector were to use methods to ensure confidentiality, teachers may be understandably skeptical about whether their privacy is protected adequately. Therefore, one is often faced with a tradeoff. If data are collected anonymously, it protects privacy but limits the ability to link implementation data to students’ outcomes. Yet, if data are collected in an identifiable manner, it allows for linking and other data analytic options, but runs the risk of losing the trust of the school staff and potentially biasing educators’ responses toward reporting in ways that they view as more favorable. Especially in a partnership context, if one suspects that a substantial portion of the teaching body is concerned about privacy, the most prudent choice is to collect data anonymously given that trust among partners is essential for all aspects of the work. For the reasons noted above, for the Yale-BPSSEL Partnership, we opted to collect survey data anonymously, where the only identifying characteristics were the teachers’ school and role. While this prevented us from linking teachers’ responses over time and from linking teachers to students to analyze implementation data at the classroom level, we were able to create school-level implementation measures and to link them to student outcome data.

Summarizing and analyzing implementation data

Once SEL implementation data are collected, there are two broad ways in which the data can be summarized to use for formative purposes—descriptively and statistically. Descriptive summaries (for example, frequency tables), visualizations (for example, frequency plots), or combining items into composites using mean or sum scores, are especially useful for using data continuous improvement purposes. These data can also be organized thematically in ways that are most meaningful to staff members. For example, a self-report measure might involve a collection of items organized around the components of an SEL program. In such cases, decisions might be made about reporting single items under category headings or creating mean and/or sum scores of the items of such items. In general, it has been our experience that when using Likert-type continuous items, means are more interpretable than sum scores.

In the case of the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership, the way we presented data to our partners depended on the audience. As noted above, we provided the SEL coordinators with a tabulation of implementation log responses at the end of the month. The district was not interested in a summary or descriptive statistics for the SEL logs, because the SEL coordinators were using each school’s response to guide their interactions with that school. The monthly report gave the SEL coordinators a snapshot of each school’s progress that the SEL coordinators could use to start conversations and provide tailored supports. For example, if a school’s SEL team reported that they had hosted their second all-staff RULER training, the SEL coordinators could ask about how it went. If a school’s SEL team reported that they had not done anything in the past month, the SEL coordinators could inquire about barriers and offer their support.

For the SEL implementation surveys, which received responses from hundreds of educators, it was essential to summarize and visualize overall responses descriptively and also to share each school’s results with its leaders. For this reason, we communicated results from each survey to our partners in four formats. First, we generated a district-level summary report, which showed frequencies and means for key survey items, to share with our district administrator partners. Second, we generated a school-level report for each school, which included frequency tables and plots for each item, to share with the principal and assistant principal at each school. Third, we generated a district-level detailed report, which showed frequencies and means for key survey items broken out by school and with comparisons over time, to share with our district administrator partners. Finally, we presented survey results to all district and school leaders as part of one of the districts regularly scheduled meetings for administrators. At these meetings, we focused on a small number of key items and discussed how responses were changing over time. For example, we reported the percentage of teachers who said they had used a specific SEL practice with their students in the past week. We typically provided the district-level summary report within 10–14 days of the survey administration, so that the SEL coordinators, the superintendent, and her leadership team could see an overview of the data when it was still quite recent. Although it took more time to produce the detailed reports, we made sure to share them with district and school leaders within 1 month while the results were still relevant. We were usually invited to present at the first administrator meeting after the survey.

Although the Yale-BPS SEL Partnership did not have a process for systematically tracking how district or school leaders received and used data from the SEL survey, we believe it useful to provide some anecdotal evidence about how we built trust and buy-in around the collection and use of data. Our first presentation to the BPS administrative council was during the leadership development year. Our first goal was to explain The Consultation Center’s role within the districtwide SEL initiative that the superintendent had launched the preceding summer. Our second goal was to explain what data would be collected and why. In this initial presentation, we explained that in close collaboration with district leaders, we would use data to know whether we were achieving our goals, to improve professional development programming provided by Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and to facilitate evidence-based decision-making. We made it clear that we were not evaluating school leaders or teachers, and we emphasized how we would protect the confidentiality of survey respondents throughout the project. These themes remained central when we presented to the administrative counsel two more times that year and in subsequent years, as well as remaining central in our meetings with the SEL coordinators and superintendent. Over time, we observed greater interest and engagement among school leaders during our presentations and more instances where they approached us with questions in person or via email. We took these interactions as signs of greater trust although we do not have data to this effect.

Meeting with these partners over time also allowed us to build interest in the data we were sharing, especially when we were able to build curiosity. Initially, the SEL coordinators valued qualitative data from the SEL logs more than quantitative data from the SEL survey. We suspected that part of the problem was that while it was challenging to consider each survey item separately, the SEL coordinators found it challenging to interpret or use the reported scale scores. We also suspected that while it was overwhelming for them to review 30 school-level reports, the SEL coordinators were interested in school-level results. To address these perceived concerns and to promote their interest and investment in the data, we designed an experience to help the coordinators interpret and connect with the data. Specifically, we brought three simple bar charts to a meeting with the SEL coordinators, each of which showed the median value by school for one of three items in the “teacher self-efficacy” scale, but the schools were not labeled by name. This approach piqued SEL coordinators’ curiosity as they began looking for patterns to try to guess which school had produced which values. This practice of observing patterns with real data provided a basis for us to discuss the basis for applying these skills more broadly to the full reports we provided. The meeting is memorable because it marked a shift in the SEL coordinators’ investment in the SEL survey as a source of meaningful data. We also aimed to build curiosity in school leaders about their schools’ SEL survey data by presenting district-level results to them at a meeting before they received their school-level reports. We found that sharing the district-level results at these meetings got school leaders excited to receive their individual reports and to see how their school-level data would compare to the district as a whole.

While descriptive summaries can be useful for research purposes, sometimes summarizing the data requires using more sophisticated techniques. For example, when the data are intended to be used for predicting student outcomes from implementation measures. Reporting such findings can be challenging when sharing them with practitioners who usually do not have the research background to interpret technical statistical findings. In such cases like ours, it is necessary to translate findings in a way that is interpretable to practitioners. When conducting analyses focused predicting student outcomes from implementation, we used multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to create school-level measures of implementation, and then used multilevel modeling to examine the relationships between these measures and outcomes. It would have been inappropriate to report such findings as one would for a scientific journal. Instead, in a brief report, we described the goal of these statistical techniques in lay terms and summarized results visually. As shown in the example in Table 3 , we use symbols to indicate whether effects were effects were present (positive or negative) or absent (blank) and color-coded these findings to indicate whether they were in the expected direction (green if yes, yellow if in the opposite of the predicted effect). Researchers can increase the level of detail in these types of depictions, such as including regression coefficients and other relevant statistics, depending on the background of the audience to which they are presenting.

Practitioner-oriented reporting of the statistical association between SEL implementation (as reported by teachers) and school climate outcomes (as reported by students).

Note: Plus signs indicate positive correlations, and minus signs indicate negative correlations. Green shading indicate that correlations are in the expected/favorable direction, whereas yellow boxes indicate counterintuitive/unfavorable effects.

Approaches for building sustainable implementation data use

Anytime a partnership is established between researchers and practitioner careful attention needs to paid to sustaining the practices implemented. However, a sustainability practice that is often underappreciated is considering the sustainability of data use. Also. while it is common for sustainability to become the focal point toward the end of implementation-supporting resources such as grant funding coming to an end, we argue for the importance of building sustainable data practices from the start. We have found that regular and meaningful opportunities to promote the engagement of partners with data can go a long way for deepening the roots of the partnership and increasing the chances for sustainability—from the development of measures to the collection of data to exploring what the data are saying. It is often the case that education practitioners find the collection and use of data as detached from the “real work” of teaching students. This is in part because researchers are not commonly trained on the nuances of managing the factors associated with building enduring data procedures and practices that work for practitioners as opposed to other researchers. In the dissemination space, there are four stakeholders that are important to consider engaging around data: (1) key district leaders; (2) school leaders and their SEL implementation teams; (3) teachers and other school staff; and (4) community partners. Engaging such a broad “web” of stakeholders is especially valuable in urban settings where there is a higher rate of leadership transition at the school and district levels. Sharing valuable information about the progress of SEL implementation with various stakeholders can help keep the partnership engaged and motivated to continue their mission, even in the midst of top-level leadership changes such superintendents.

In Yale BPS SEL Partnership, there were four partnership structures that were developed and utilized to support the dissemination of implementation data. One structure was the establishment of SEL teams at each school as noted above. As depicted in Figure 1 , the school-based SEL teams were established prior to SEL implementation during a “RULER-readiness” phase of the initiative’s rollout. These teams, consisting of 4–5 school staffs supported RULER trainings and the monitoring of SEL implementation at the school level. The second structure was an SEL task force, which consisted of district-level members and representatives from community-based organizations and universities. The SEL task force met quarterly to provide updates about the initiative’s progress and opportunities for input from members. The Task Force served as a valuable venue for the evaluation team to provide status reports about SEL implementation across the district and to receive input about improving implementation.

The third structure was the establishment of monthly meetings between the university partners and the district partners, specifically the researchers, the RULER developers, the SEL coordinators, and the superintendent. These meetings provided a crucial opportunity for communication and strategic planning and demonstrated the district leadership’s deep commitment to the partnership. The fourth structure for supporting sustainable implementation and data practices was establishing a SEL coordinator position at the district level—a person who is responsible for overseeing and supporting SEL implementation. This role greatly facilitated the use of implementation data at both the district and school levels. The coordinator proved to be instrumental in using the implementation data in ways that were palpably useful. In Figure 2 , we depict the flow of data to the coordinator and how the coordinator used it. As shown, the evaluation team would compile implementation data from the SEL team logs and educator surveys in addition to student outcome data and share it with the SEL coordinator, who in turn would use the data to identify where implementation was going well and where it needed more improvement. These data would be used to inform her regular visits to the schools focused on supporting and strengthening implementation.

Illustration of data flow and data use for school supports.

Whenever one is interested in studying the effects of SEL, it is also important to consider coupling outcome measures with measures of SEL implementation. Doing so allows one to move beyond understanding whether SEL programming works to understanding why and how it works. Although the development of measures of SEL implementation is lagging measures of SEL outcomes, the field is rapidly growing in this area with implementation being afforded a greater deal of attention. In this paper, we focus on strategies for advancing SEL implementation. First, developing useful measures of SEL implementation that are feasible to use and capture meaningful indicators, provides valuable information to district and school leaders about the progress of SEL implementation. This information is especially helpful for understanding where implementation progress is being made, where more supports are required, and how to make use of effective implementation happening in schools to support the less effective ones. As we discuss in this paper, to make these measures as useful as possible, researchers should be in regular consultation with district and school leaders during the development/selection of measures and the methods for administering them. To ensure that the measures are aligned with the theory of the program that is being implemented, it is also essential that one consult the program’s theory of change, and/or the program developers if possible. When SEL practices are “home grown” by districts or schools, the developers should create a theory of change or logic model that articulates a clear process about the key elements of the practices and how they are anticipated to effect outcomes. In short, the aim of these practice recommendations is to make measures that are useful, practical, and reflective of the theory and mechanisms expected to change outcomes.

We also emphasize the importance of building and maintaining relationships with practitioners in the development and administration of implementation measures. While this is important to do in any context, an especially effective way of doing this is through research-practice partnerships (RPPs) that create opportunities for researchers and practitioners to have ongoing collaborative interactions with each other that are mutually beneficial. In such partnerships, practitioners benefit by expanding their capacity to conduct implementation evaluation and research—a capacity that is often very limited in schools and districts. Practitioners also have opportunities to make valuable contributions to the work such that it reflects what measures that are important to them. For researchers, RPPs can help make the research they care about more relevant and applicable in the “real world.” RPPs can also help advance scientific knowledge by improving our understanding of the nuances of setting features that act to enhance and hinder high quality implementation. Finally, by advancing our knowledge of implementation and connecting them to outcomes, we can improve our understanding of the “active” ingredients most important to impacting outcomes.

Author contributions

NG contributed to conceptualization of the manuscript, writing of the manuscript, and reviewing. JM contributed to conceptualization of the research and manuscript, carrying out the described research, writing of the manuscript, and reviewing. MS contributed to conceptualization of the research and manuscript, carrying out the research, writing of the manuscript, and acquiring funding. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The Tauck Family Foundation supported this research.

Conflict of interest

The 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 thank all of the Bridgeport Public Schools leaders, teachers, and staff who committed many hours to the work described in this article, including Fran Rabinowitz, Aresta Johnson, Michal Testani, Alana Callahan, Helen Moran, and Carrie Ramanauskas. We also appreciate our partners at the Bridgeport Child Advocacy Coalition at RYASAP, including Mary Pat Healy, Mory Hernandez, Ashley Blanchard-Miller, and Marc Donald. We thank our past and present partners at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, especially Marc Brackett, Susan Rivers, Bonnie Brown, and Dena Simmons. We are grateful to Mirellise Vasquez, Kim Hein, and the rest of the Tauck Family Foundation for funding this work and providing many other resources beyond financial supports.

• Ackerman C., Skoog-Hoffman A. (2020). School-Level Learnings from the Field: Insights in Establishing a Collaborative Research-Practice Partnership [Learning Series on Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs). Brief 2]. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
• Bauer M. S., Damschroder L., Hagedorn H., Smith J., Kilbourne A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist . BMC Psychology 3 , 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer M. S., Kirchner J. (2020). Implementation science: what is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Res. 283 :112376. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blyth D. A., Jones S., Borowski T. (2018). SEL frameworks–what are they and why are they important . Measur SEL Data Pract 1 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brackett M. A., Bailey C. S., Hoffmann J. D., Simmons D. N. (2019). RULER: a theory-driven, systemic approach to social, emotional, and academic learning . Educ. Psychol. 54 , 144–161. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1614447 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chambers D. A. (2012). The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation: enhancing the opportunity for implementation science . Am. J. Community Psychol. 50 , 282–284. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9528-4, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cipriano C., Strambler M. J., Naples L. H., Ha C., Kirk M., Wood M., et al.. (2022). The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions. Accessed December 2022. [ PubMed ]
• Coburn C. E., Penuel W. R., Geil K. E. (2013). Research practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts . New York: William T. Grant Foundation [ Google Scholar ]
• Connecticut Data Collaborative . (2023). Demographics and Population Data. Available at: https://www.ctdata.org/demographics (Accessed March 21, 2023).
• Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) . (2023). EdSight Interactive Data Portal: Enrollment Dashboard. Available at: https://public-edsight.ct.gov/Students/Enrollment-Dashboard (Accessed March 21, 2023).
• Denner J., Bean S., Campe S., Martinez J., Torres D. (2019). Negotiating trust, power, and culture in a research practice partnership . AERA Open 5 , 233285841985863–233285841985811. doi: 10.1177/2332858419858635 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak J. A. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: basic issues and research findings . Camb. J. Educ. 46 , 333–345. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2016.1142504 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak J. A., DuPre E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation . Am. J. Community Psychol. 41 , 327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak J. A., Weissberg R. P., Dymnicki A. B., Taylor R. D., Schellinger K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions . Child Dev. 82 , 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles M. P., Mittman B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implement. Sci. 1 . doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell C. C., Penuel W. R., Coburn C. E., Daniel J., Steup L. (2021). Research-Practice Partnerships in Education: The State of the Field. William T. Grant Foundation.
• Herrenkohl T. I., Jones T. M., Lea C. H., III, Malorni A. (2020). Leading with data: using an impact-driven research consortium model for the advancement of social emotional learning in schools . Am. J. Orthop. 90 , 283–287. doi: 10.1037/ort0000435, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers D. C., Durlak J. A., Wandersman A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process . Am. J. Community Psychol. 50 , 462–480. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell L. S., Norris J. M., White D. E., Moules N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria . Int J Qual Methods 16 , 1–13. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oberle E., Domitrovich C. E., Meyers D. C., Weissberg R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: a framework for schoolwide implementation . Camb. J. Educ. 46 , 277–297. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2015.1125450 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps D. (2019). The challenges of bridging the research–practice gap through insider–outsider partnerships in education . Teach. Coll. Rec. 121 , 1–28. doi: 10.1177/016146811912101202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoonenboom J., Johnson R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design . Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 69 , 107–131. doi: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strambler M. J., Meyer J. L. (2018). Bridgeport SEL Evaluation . Open Science Framework. Available at: 10.17605/osf.io/nwzrs (Accessed March 21, 2023). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wandersman A., Duffy J., Flaspohler P., Noonan R., Lubell K., Stillman L., et al.. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation . Am. J. Community Psychol. 41 , 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yamashiro K., Wentworth L., Kim M. (2023). Politics at the boundary: exploring politics in education research-practice partnerships . Educ. Policy 37 , 3–30. doi: 10.1177/08959048221134916 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager D., Bryk A., Muhich J., Hausman H., Morales L. (2013). Practical measurement . Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 78712 [ Google Scholar ]

The Case of Social Emotional Learning: Evidence-Based Practices

Loading... Original Research 01 November 2023 The Me and the Us of Emotions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the feasibility and efficacy of a compassion-based social–emotional learning program for children Ana Xavier ,  5 more  and  Marta Tavares 1,415 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 26 September 2023 Curiosity saved the cat: socio-emotional skills mediate the relationship between parental support and career exploration Vítor Gamboa ,  3 more  and  Olímpio Paixão 1,306 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 28 August 2023 Assessing the benefits of the “Intergalactic World” social emotional learning program for 8–12-year-old children in Portugal: perspectives from teachers and caregivers Rita Antunes ,  3 more  and  Manuela Veríssimo 1,234 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 21 August 2023 Validation of a community-based application of the Portuguese version of the survey on Social and Emotional Skills – Child/Youth Form Catarina Castro ,  2 more  and  Carla Colaço 1,421 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 09 August 2023 Socio-emotional skills profiles and their relations with career exploration and perceived parental support among 8th grade students Vítor Gamboa ,  3 more  and  Olímpio Paixão 1,765 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 03 August 2023 OUT to IN: a body-oriented intervention program to promote preschoolers’ self-regulation and relationship skills in the outdoors Guida Veiga ,  3 more  and  Clarinda Pomar 1,419 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 31 July 2023 Body-oriented interventions to promote preschoolers’ social–emotional competence: a quasi-experimental study Andreia Dias Rodrigues ,  4 more  and  Guida Veiga 1,447 views 2 citations

Loading... Methods 17 July 2023 #EntreViagenseAprendizagens: study protocol of a school-based intervention to promote well-being and healthy lifestyles among adolescents Rita Francisco ,  5 more  and  Cristina Albuquerque Godinho 1,614 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 26 May 2023 Preliminary perceived intervention changes and engagement in an evidence-based program targeted at behavioral inhibition during early childhood, delivered in-person and online Maryse Guedes ,  7 more  and  António J. Santos 2,827 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 17 May 2023 Positive Attitude Upper Middle School social and emotional learning program: influences of implementation quality on program outcome Vítor Alexandre Coelho ,  1 more  and  Patrícia Brás 1,408 views 2 citations

Loading... Original Research 16 May 2023 Effects of a Portuguese social–emotional learning program on the competencies of elementary school students Vera Coelho ,  4 more  and  Andreia Espain 2,508 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 12 May 2023 Inspiring IDEA: Girls on the Run’s developmental approach to and assessment of inclusion, diversity, equity, and access programming Maureen R. Weiss ,  1 more  and  Allison Riley 2,133 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 24 January 2023 The impact of Emotion-focused training for emotion couching delivered as mobile app on self-compassion and self-criticism Júlia Halamová ,  1 more  and  Lukáš Bakoš 1,812 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research Frontiers in Psychology A Self-Regulation Intervention Conducted by Class Teachers: Impact on Elementary Students' Basic Psychological Needs and Classroom Engagement Jennifer Cunha ,  2 more  and  Pedro Rosário 1,461 views 0 citations

Curriculum, Instruction, and Pedagogy Frontiers in Psychology The impact of adolescents' voice through an online school radio: a socio-emotional learning experimental project 282 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research Frontiers in Psychology Implementation in the "real world" of an evidence-based SEL program for teachers: Effects on children social, emotional, behavioral and problem solving skills Maria Filomena Gaspar ,  5 more  and  Mariana Moura-Ramos 1,682 views 0 citations

Original Research Frontiers in Education Can community and educational interventions designed from the ground-up promote social and emotional learning? Experimental and quasi-experimental impacts of a country-wide Portuguese initiative M. Clara Barata ,  2 more  and  Carla Colaço 691 views 0 citations

• 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

Applied social and emotional learning (SEL) research that fosters quality practice at scale

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 11 June 2019

Issue publication date: 11 June 2019

Blyth, D. , Weissberg, R.P. and Durlak, J. (2019), "Applied social and emotional learning (SEL) research that fosters quality practice at scale", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-02-2019-0041

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Dale Blyth, Roger P. Weissberg and Joseph Durlak

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

It is clear from hundreds of controlled studies that well-implemented school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs lead to multiple positive results in both the short and long term. Consistent positive results include improved social and emotional skills and attitudes, enhanced positive and reduced negative behaviors, greater emotional well-being and increased academic achievement ( Mahoney et al. , 2019 ). A handbook devoted to SEL integrated outcome research with practice and policy considerations designed to advance the field ( Durlak et al. , 2015 ). The Aspen Institute’s recent National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development’s (2019) report, “From a nation at risk to a nation at hope”, further synthesizes what is known about learning and what is needed from research, practice, and policy to ensure all children and youth learn and develop the types of knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to succeed in school, careers and life.

What would it look like a decade or two from now if the next generation of research took seriously what we have learned about why these competencies are important and that they can indeed be learned and developed intentionally? What if we really shifted more of our research focus from how we prove SEL makes a difference to study more deeply how we can best improve the learning environments, prepare the practitioners, deal with cultural, racial and contextual factors better, and engage children and youth in opportunities where they develop and use these competencies? That is, what if we moved significantly from a prove it or lose it approach in education and accountability to an improve it to move it approach whose goal is to find ways to improve practice in real world settings and doing so at scale – in classrooms, school buildings, districts, communities, statewide and nationally ( Weissberg, 2019 ).

A dynamic, bidirectional relationship between research and practice demands precision.

Assessment is a tool for continuous improvement and capacity building, not high-stakes accountability.

Theory of change is the glue that links research and practice; it is a common blueprint to action in both arenas.

These three principles highlight the importance of a new bidirectional relationship with practice; a fundamental change in how data and assessment are primarily used, and recognition that both research and practice moving forward need to be grounded in common theories of action. These principles come to life with the suggested changes in the paradigms used to conduct research, prioritize questions and disseminate findings.

Of particular relevance here is the call for “next-generation project teams” to be vertical (involving people from multiple levels of research and practice within organizations), multidisciplinary and diverse in ways that bring insights into the lives and cultures of the students and communities. We believe applied research moving forward needs to be done by teams that include practitioners as partners not just subjects and focus on questions of practice driven by a common understanding of what is sought and how we believe we can best get there. With respect to changing the paradigm for the way information is shared and disseminated, the report notes many important changes we encourage readers to review – particularly its recommendations to universities, funders and the larger education ecosystem. To these three areas, we would add the critical need to support practitioners not only in understanding the evidence but also supporting practitioners in the use of data to inform and guide their specific practices – to making data a more useful and central part of practice itself (see http://measuringsel.casel.org/ ).

If the next generation of research and practice move in the directions called for above and by the Commission, we are excited by what can occur. Much more will be learned as we move to a new balance between research that helps us understand ways to improve practice and not just judge its effectiveness – though ultimately both are needed. We can envision a synthesis of this next generation of studies that examines the different impact of how data are used in practice in ways that help practitioners shape the learning experiences of children and youth. Studies that examine the ways training, professional development, coaching incentives, and policy priorities inform and change effective and ineffective SEL efforts. We need more studies where we do not control out the complexities of learning and development but attempt to understand and study them as the heart of what matters – to identify and continuously improve the beneficial evidence-based strategies to implement best practices and quality learning opportunities for all children and youth.

Durlak , J.A. , Domitrovich , C.E. , Weissberg , R.P. and Gullotta , T.P. (Eds) ( 2015 ), Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice , Guilford , New York, NY .

Mahoney , J.L. , Durlak , J.A. and Weissberg , R.P. ( 2019 ), “ An update on social and emotional learning outcome research ”, Phi Delta Kappan , Vol. 100 No. 4 , pp. 18 - 23 .

The Aspen Institute National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development ( 2019 ), “ From a nation at risk to a nation at hope: recommendations from the National Commission on Social, Emotional, & Academic Development ”, SAME, Washington, DC .

Weissberg , R.P. ( 2019 ), “ Promoting the social and emotional learning of millions of school children ”, Perspectives on Psychological Science , Vol. 14 No. 1 , pp. 65 - 69 .

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Dr Dale Blyth is Senior Consultant and Professor Emeritus from the University of Minnesota where he was the Howland Endowed Chair in Youth Development Leadership and Associate Dean. Prior to that, he was the Director of Research and Evaluation at Search Institute and on the faculty of Cornell University and Ohio State University.

Roger P. Weissberg is Chief Knowledge Officer of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) and UIC Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. For 40 years, he has trained scholars and practitioners about innovative ways to design, implement and evaluate family, school and community interventions.

Dr Joseph Durlak is Professor Emeritus at Loyola University Chicago. He remains active as Researcher and Reviewer, and his main specialty areas are social and emotional learning and prevention programs for children and adolescents.

Related articles

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

This brief, supported by Grant\ Number 2HR1SM54865 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration \(SAMSHA\), was written by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning \(CASEL\) in collaboration with The National Center for Mental Health Promotio\ n and Youth Violence Prevention which is managed by the Education Development Center. The contents of this brief are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of SAMHSA or HHS.

Popular Searches

Research map.

• Network Graph Visualization
• Topics Home
• Cognition & Memory
• Computational Thinking
• Family Engagement
• Instruction & Teacher Learning
• Language Learning
• Math Learning
• Technology & Learning
• Project-Based Learning

Social-Emotional Learning

• Special Education
• STEM Learning
• Student Motivation
• Supporting Teachers of Color
• Whole Child Supports & Interventions
• Curated Resources
• Introduction to the Learning Sciences
• Ask a Researcher

How do social-emotional skills affect learning outcomes for students?

Introduction

Children’s ability to learn is determined by much more than their cognitive capabilities. Social and emotional issues play a significant role, as how students see themselves and how their relationships to people around them can help shape their learning process. [i]  Research shows that social and emotional factors are connected to later success in school, starting as early as preschool. [ii]

Social-emotional learning (SEL) refers to a set of competencies that form the basis of human interaction. Despite a range of SEL definitions and models, common ground can be found in identifying three broad categories that SEL skills and competencies can be classified as: thinking skills; behavioral skills; and beliefs and attitudes. [iii] Thinking skills can change with age and include: the ability to recognize emotions in others; perspective-taking; and social problem-solving. Behavioral skills , like thinking skills, appear to change over time and include a range of positive and aversive social behaviors. The beliefs and attitudes category includes other behaviors, mindsets, and attitudes—such as self-regulation and perseverance—that affect learning outcomes. [iv]

In early childhood, children build the capacity to understand and manage their own emotions and behaviors, which is an important foundation for success both in school and life. For example, studies show that children who are self-aware are better able to recognize their strengths and challenges, figure out what they need to do to complete a task, recognize other people’s needs and feelings, and see how their behavior affects others. These are key SEL skills that not only improve achievement, but also improve prosocial behaviors and attitudes towards school. [v]

For SEL to be effectively implemented, teachers and schools must understand how these skills reflect an approach toward the whole child (See Whole Child Supports & Interventions Topic Page ). Rather than only measuring student success based on academic achievement, SEL demonstrates how nurturing relationships and understanding students’ needs beyond the classroom also shape learning.

The sections below highlight key findings from the research on social-emotional learning, including the effect of SEL on learning outcomes , and best practices for integrating SEL practices in educational settings.

Key Findings

Sel and learning outcomes, the social and emotional climate in schools affects learning outcomes..

Children’s brains develop differently based on their environments. [vi] Some children arrive at school having had opportunities to engage actively and safely with rich and meaningful environments, while others come from stressful, physical and emotional environments that can be toxic to brain development. Decades of research and practice show that social, emotional, and cognitive development are deeply intertwined, and that the growth of related skills and competencies is fostered by supportive environments. Furthermore, a rigorous body of evidence documents the importance of social, emotional, and cognitive development for a range of positive outcomes including academic achievement, well-being, and career and economic stability. [vii] Designing schools and other learning environments to foster positive emotions can help students make meaning of what they are learning, and apply their skills and knowledge in useful ways in real­-world situations. [viii]

Optimal learning environments, such as classrooms with small ratios of children to adults can lead to healthy early-care environments, when interpersonal interactions between children and adults are maximized. [ix] This kind of environment can provide young people opportunities to: follow their interests and passions; reflect on their strategies so they can guide their own learning over time; examine ideas from multiple perspectives; and interact with trusted adults. [x] In addition to a small adult to child ratio, it is important that students have the opportunity to pursue worthwhile goals within a rigorous and supportive environment. Children do better when challenged in a supportive environment, where they have the right SEL tools to deal with obstacles. On the other hand, children who are not challenged to take on long-term or higher-order goals might not stretch themselves to match their skill level. After all, research shows that individuals are most productive and motivated in the face of challenges appropriate to their skill level. [xi]

Relationships with peers affect learning outcomes.

Students’ relationships with their peers also affect how they learn; the more comfortable and connected students feel in a classroom, the more they can focus on learning. For example, one study found that strong and positive emotional interactions between students are associated with higher grades. [xii] In classrooms, stronger achievement has been found to occur when tasks are undertaken in a cooperative manner with mastery focus , where students are recognized for accomplishing their individual and collective learning goals, rather than in competitive settings focused on student rank or grades achieved. [xiii] Unfortunately, many students will encounter challenges throughout their schooling that can negatively affect learning, including bullying and interpersonal conflicts. Positive and negative peer relationships can shape outcomes for students and their learning experiences. By honing SEL skills like communication and collaboration, students can be better prepared and supported for learning in school and beyond. [xiv]

Implementing SEL Programming

Social-emotional competencies can be taught..

Emotions play an important role in many aspects of the learning process including memory, decision-making, and creativity, as well as reasoning and rational thinking. [xv] Research shows that students can develop SEL thinking and behavioral skills to help them persevere in and out of the classroom. In a recent report , SRI International researchers identified three teachable psychological resources that support perseverance to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals. These include: academic mindsets; strategies and tactics; and effortful control. [xvi] Academic mindsets refer to how students understand themselves as learners and how they understand their learning environments. Strategies and tactics refer to the tools that equip students to deal with setbacks and challenges so that they are better prepared to persevere. Effortful control refers to the willpower and attention regulation that successful students can enlist in order to stay on track and execute on long-term goals.

Research shows that well-implemented school-based SEL programs can significantly improve these mindsets and skills. [xvii] As a result of the widespread adoption and availability of SEL programs, efforts are beginning to focus on building usable, feasible, and scalable tools to measure and assess SEL.

Social-emotional learning skills can be assessed.

Researchers have found that the SEL thinking skills that can be reliably assessed include children’s ability to recognize emotions in others, perspective-taking, and social problem-solving. [xviii] By using a framework like the model defined by the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL ) to identify skills and attitudes that an organization wants to assess, schools can begin to develop an SEL assessment strategy that can benefit teaching and learning. Social-emotional learning assessment options can include direct assessment of SEL thinking skills, rating scales and structured observations for assessing behavioral skills, questionnaires to assess attitudes and beliefs. [xvix]

Some SEL thinking skills have already been incorporated in state standards and benchmarks. [xx] For example, the Illinois SEL standards include a measure for self-control, stating that children should “identify and manage … emotions and behavior” and “express emotions in a socially acceptable manner.” [xxi] It is important to note that an assessment of an individual’s SEL competencies should not be taken lightly. The American Institutes for Research , for example, provide a decision tree to guide educators in crafting their assessment plan while avoiding unethical assessments.

Programs that teach social and emotional skills can improve students’ behavior and academic performance.

Social and emotional learning programs help enhance students’ social and emotional competence explicitly. For example, some programs teach students to regulate their emotions, develop positive social relationships, engage in cooperative learning, and practice responsible decision-making. [xxii] A large body of research suggests that SEL interventions can improve children’s social and emotional skills, attitudes, and behaviors, as well as significantly increase their academic achievement. [xxiii] A cost-benefit analysis found that for every dollar schools spend on six common SEL programs, those interventions return an average $11 worth of benefits to students, taxpayers, and society. [xxiv] The benefits to students include higher wages, better health, and a lower likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system.

Studies suggest that SEL programs work in a variety of school settings and with students of all ages. [xxv] There is also evidence that SEL programming has lasting effectiveness in fostering positive youth development. [xxvi] Research indicates that SEL programs are more effective when they follow a set of best practices known as SAFE : a sequenced, step-by-step approach (S); opportunities for active learning (A); a focus on skills development (F); and the use of explicit learning goals (E). [xxvii] Because SEL programs target social skills, they may work best when implemented systematically throughout an entire school, like the RULER approach . For instance, a review of research on anti-bullying programs found that school-wide programs are more effective than individual-level interventions, likely because they influence the social and emotional climate of the school as a whole. [xxviii] Finally, best practices in SEL interventions call for adaptations based on ongoing refinements in order to lead to continuous improvement. [xxvix]

[i] Elias, M. J. (1997).  Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators . ASCD. [ii] Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Zinsser, K., and Wyatt, T. M. (2014). How preschoolers’ social–emotional learning predicts their early school success: Developing theory promoting, competency-based assessments. Infant and Child Development , 23(4), 426-454. Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Haugen, R.G., Spinrad, T.L., Hofer, C., Liew, J. and Kupfer, A. (2011). Children’s effortful control and academic achievement: Mediation through social functioning . Early Education & Development , 22(3): 411-433. Montroy, J.J., Bowles, R.P., Skibbe, L.E. and Foster, T.D. (2014). Social skills and problem behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 29(3): 298-309. [iii] Schonert-Reichl. K.A. (2019). Advancements in the landscape of social emotional learning and emerging topics on the horizon . Educational Psychologist,  54(3), 222-232. [iv] McKown, C. (2017). Social-emotional assessment, performance, and standards . The Future of Children, 27(1): 157-178.  Swann Jr., W. B., Chang-Schneider, C., and Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life . American Psychologist , 62(2): 84-94. Ferkany, M. (2008). The educational importance of self-esteem . Journal of Philosophy of Education , 42(1): 119–132. Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learning: An overview .  Theory Into Practice , 41(2): 64-70. Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., and Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92(6): 1087-1101. [v] 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(1): 405-432.  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, 49 (9):892-909. [vi] Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., and Krone, C. (2018). The brain basis for integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions and social relationships drive learning . Aspen Institute. [vii] Jones, S.M., McGarrah, M.W., and Kahn, J. (2019) Social and emotional learning: a principled science of human development in context , Educational Psychologist , 54(3): 129-143. [viii] Immordino Yang, M. H., and Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 1(1): 3­-10. [ix] Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., and Krone, C. (2018). The brain basis for integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions and social relationships drive learning . Aspen Institute. [x] Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., and Krone, C. (2018). The brain basis for integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions and social relationships drive learning . Aspen Institute. [xi] SRI International (2018). Promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance: Critical factors for success in the 21st century . SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. [xii] Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., and Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement . Journal of Educational Psychology,  104: 700-712. [xiii] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. [xiv] SRI International (2018). Promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance: Critical factors for success in the 21st century . SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. [xv] Immordino Yang, M. H., and Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 1(1): 3­-10. [xvi] SRI International (2018). Promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance: Critical factors for success in the 21st century . SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. McKown, C. (2017). Social-emotional assessment, performance, and standards . The Future of Children , 27(1): 157-178. [xvii] McKown, C., and Taylor, J. (2018). Introduction to the special issue on social-emotional assessment to guide educational practice . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55: 1-3. [xviii] McKown, C. (2017). Social-emotional assessment, performance, and standards . The Future of Children , 27(1): 157-178. [xvix]  McKown, C. (2017). Social-emotional assessment, performance, and standards . The Future of Children , 27(1): 157-178. [xx] Blyth, D. A., Jones, S., and Borowski, T. (2018). SEL frameworks – What are they and why are they important? Chicago, IL: CASEL. [xxi] McKown, C., and Taylor, J. (2018). Introduction to the special issue on social-emotional assessment to guide educational practice . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55: 1-3. [xxii] Domitrovich, C., Durlak, J., Goren, P., and Weissberg, R. (2013). Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school edition . 2013 CASEL guide. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. [xxiii] 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(1): 405-432. [xxiv] Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., and Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning . J ournal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , 6(03): 508-544. [xxv] 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(1): 405-432. [xxvi] 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 Development , 88(4): 1156–1171. [xxvii] Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. P. (2011). Afterschool programs that follow evidence-based practices to promote social and emotional development are effective . In Expanding Minds and Opportunities: Leveraging the Power of Afterschool and Summer Learning for Student Success, Eds. White, W. S., & Peterson, T.K., pp 24-28. [xxviii] Pearce, N., Cross, D., Monks, H., Waters, S., and Falconer, S. (2011). Current evidence of best practice in whole-school bullying intervention and its potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. A ustralian Journal of Guidance and Counselling , 21(1): 1-21. [xxvix] Elias, M.J. (2019) What if the doors of every schoolhouse opened to social-emotional learning tomorrow: Reflections on how to feasibly scale up high-quality SEL , Educational Psychologist , 54(3): 233-245.

Sign up for updates!

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

The Pennsylvania State University ©  2023  |  Privacy   |  Non-discrimination   |  Equal Opportunity   |  Accessibility   |  Copyright

• 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.

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.

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

Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment

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