Chapter 11
Social and Emotional Learning and Prosocial Education
Theory, Research, and Programs
Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl and Mary Utne O’Brien
Darren was the oldest child I ever saw in a Roots of Empathy class. He was in Grade 8 and had been held back twice. He was two years older than everyone else and already starting to grow a beard. I knew his story: his mother had been murdered in front of his eyes when he was four years old, and he had lived in a succession of foster homes ever since. Darren looked menacing because he wanted us to know he was tough: his head was shaved except for a ponytail at the top and he had a tattoo on the back of his head. The instructor of the Roots of Empathy program was explaining to the class about differences in temperament that day. She invited the young mother who was visiting the class with Evan, her six-month-old baby, to share her thoughts about her baby’s temperament. Joining in the discussion, the mother told the class how Evan liked to face outwards when he was in the Snugli and didn’t want to cuddle into her, and how she would have preferred to have a more cuddly baby. As the class ended, the mother asked if anyone wanted to try on the Snugli, which was green trimmed with pink brocade. To everyone’s surprise, Darren offered to try it, and as the other students scrambled to get ready for lunch, he strapped it on. Then he asked if he could put Evan in. The mother was a little apprehensive, but she handed him the baby, and he put Evan in, facing towards his chest. That wise little baby snuggled right in, and Darren took him into a quiet corner and rocked back and forth with the baby in his arms for several minutes. Finally, he came back to where the mother and the Roots of Empathy instructor were waiting and he asked: “If nobody has ever loved you, do you think you could still be a good father?” (Gordon, 2005, pp. 5–6)
This story of Darren and baby Evan is emblematic of how a classroom-based program can galvanize advances in a student’s self-awareness, emotion understanding, and empathy—those factors identified as important prerequisites for prosocial action (e.g., de Waal, 2008; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Schonert-Reichl, 2011). This example is taken from a real-life event that occurred in a classroom in which an evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) program—the Roots of Empathy (ROE)—was being implemented. ROE is one of a multitude of classroom-based programs designed specifically to promote elementary children’s social and emotional competence and prosocial behaviors. The program has as its cornerstone monthly visits by an infant and his or her parent(s) that serve as a springboard for lessons on emotional understanding, perspective taking, and infant development.* In programs like ROE that are designed to promote children’s social-emotional understanding and prosocial behaviors, the recognition and discussion of emotions and emotion understanding—including how we feel, why we feel the way we do, and how our actions make others feel—comes to the fore in the classroom context. This social and emotional knowledge provides a foundation for empathic responding and prosocial action. In short, programs like the ROE program illustrate the ways in which perspective taking, empathy, and caring for others can be accelerated when children are exposed to a curriculum designed explicitly to educate both their minds and their hearts.
This chapter profiles contemporary work on social and emotional learning, the influence of SEL on school and life success, and the elementary school programs that link SEL with prosocial education. We begin this chapter by providing the case for a focus on SEL, a definition of SEL, and a delineation of the various dimensions that make it up. In the next section, we consider why this matters in today’s educational and societal climate and provide a summary of some of the research that establishes an evidentiary base for the promotion of SEL in schools. Following that, we highlight the ways in which SEL is a movement that is taking hold nationally and internationally and provide examples of some of the work in SEL that is being done across the world. In a concluding section, we provide a description of several of the extant evidence-based programs in which the promotion of SEL and prosocial behaviors is core. Included in this section is a delineation of some of the research supporting each program’s effectiveness. The chapter ends with some conclusions on how an understanding of SEL has implications for our thinking about children’s prosocial education in schools along with some future directions for work in this area.
Social and Emotional Learning 101
Making the Case for Increased Attention to SEL in Schools
Recent years have witnessed increased theoretical and empirical attention to the school-based promotion of children’s social and emotional competence, as educators, parents, policy makers, and other societal agencies contemplate solutions for contemporary problems such as declining academic motivation and achievement, escalating school dropout rates (Battin-Pearson et al., 2000; Finn, 1989), increasing school bullying and aggression (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010), and increasing problems in children’s mental health (Romano, Tremblay, Vitaro, Zoccolillo, & Pagani, 2001). Indeed, much discussion has ensued as scholars, educators, parents, and others have deliberated on the role of education in promoting children’s social and emotional skills as a way to stave off emotional and behavioral problems and promote children’s positive development (Greenberg, 2010; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001; Hazell, 2007), posing such questions as, How can we help children develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life? What can we do to lead children on a positive path to becoming caring and contributing citizens of tomorrow? and Would taking the time in school to promote children’s social and emotional competence compromise children’s academic success, or might academic success be enhanced by schools explicitly addressing children’s SEL and development? Although answers to these questions and similar iterations of them have been a long-held interest of researchers, educators, and parents, it is only recently that there has been focused empirical attention specifically aimed at trying to discover the ways in which children’s social and emotional development can be promoted in tandem with their academic success.
Schools have been implicated as contexts that can play a crucial role in fostering children’s positive development, and they have recently been acknowledged as one of the primary settings in which activities to promote social competence and prevent unhealthy behaviors should occur (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Kress & Elias, 2006; Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998; Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). Indeed, schools are important settings in which to promote social and emotional development because they provide access to most children on a regular and consistent basis over the majority of their formative years of development. Given that behavior problems during the early school years can be potent warning signs for later more serious forms of psychopathology, elementary schools in particular have been considered as the locus for primary prevention because early instantiations of problems may be more amenable to prevention efforts than their later manifestations. Today’s schools, however, are facing increasing pressure to improve academic performance while also giving attention to children’s social and emotional needs, and thus are expected to do more than ever before with diminishing resources. Given competing demands, educators often struggle to implement evidence-based curricular approaches that optimize learning and social adaptation while proving to be both time and cost effective. Indeed, as illustrated in this chapter, implementing SEL approaches can show both short-term benefits such as student engagement and long-term benefits in terms of prosocial relationships and behavior.
The increased emphasis on the role of schools in promoting children’s social and emotional competence and well-being reflects, in part, growing concerns about increases in psychological and behavioral adjustment problems and the number and intensity of stressors experienced by today’s young people (e.g., Caspi, Taylor, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2000; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). Epidemiological reports highlight increased childhood mental health disturbances, with approximately one in five children and adolescents experiencing psychological disorders severe enough to warrant mental health services (U.S. Public Health Service, 2000). A review of three longitudinal studies examining the prevalence of mental health problems among school-aged children and adolescents revealed that between the ages of nine and sixteen, between 37 and 39 percent of youth have been diagnosed with at least one or more diagnosable psychiatric disorders (Jaffee, Harrington, Cohen, & Moffitt, 2005). Later follow-ups to these longitudinal studies found that the prevalence rate of psychiatric disorders grew to 40 to 50 percent by age twenty-one (e.g., Arseneault, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Silva, 2000). School-based studies of children who suffer from serious emotional disorders reveal that a large proportion of those who need mental health services do not receive them (Estrada & Pinsof, 1995; Illback, 1994; Malti & Noam, 2008).
As mental illness and the problem behaviors of youth become increasingly recognized as significant predictors of overall health and long-term adjustment, the cost of addressing such problems is quite staggering. With regard to adolescent problems, in one cost-benefit analysis, Cohen (1998) estimated that each high-risk youth who becomes a career criminal costs society $1.3 to $1.5 million in external costs over a lifetime (e.g., lost wages, medical costs, stolen property, incarceration, the criminal justice system), with each high-risk youth who drops out of school early costing society $243,000 to $388,000. The Institute of Medicine’s 2009 report on mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders of young people indicated that the “annual quantifiable cost of such disorders among young people was estimated in 2007 to be $247 billion” (O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009, p. 1) and emphasized that prevention and the use of empirically supported interventions are essential strategies for reducing mental illness and promoting social and emotional health. Such extraordinary costs of addressing mental health problems are not limited to the United States. A report by Stephens and Joubert (2001), for example, indicated that Canada spends about $14.4 billion annually on the treatment of mental illness. This figure is expected to steadily increase such that, by 2020, it is estimated that mental illness will represent the leading health care cost in the country.
The latest scientific research indicates that many of these problems can be prevented via school-based approaches designed specifically to promote children’s social and emotional development. Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, and Abbott (2008), for example, evaluated the long-term effects of a universal, multicomponent program for elementary school children—the Seattle Social Development Project—a program that combines parent and teacher training and focuses on promoting children’s social and emotional competence. Hawkins and colleagues found significantly reduced multiple-diagnosable mental health disorders (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, social phobia) at ages twenty-four and twenty-seven, twelve and fifteen years after the intervention had ended. Their results also showed intervention effects indicating better educational and economic achievement among those individuals who received the intervention in contrast to those who did not.
Although much of the research in psychology during the past several decades has focused almost exclusively on problem or disease models, recent years have witnessed a shift from a preoccupation with repairing weaknesses to the enhancement of positive qualities and proactively preventing or heading off problems before they arise (Gilman, Huebner, & Furlong, 2009; Greenberg, 2010; Kia-Keating, Dowdy, Morgan, & Noam, 2011; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Implicit in this trend is the assumption that educational interventions can be designed to foster children’s strengths and resiliency.
What Is Social and Emotional Learning?
Social and emotional learning, or SEL, is the process of acquiring the competencies to recognize and manage emotions, develop caring and concern for others, establish positive relationships, make responsible decisions, and handle challenging situations effectively (Greenberg et al., 2003; Osher et al., 2008; Payton et al., 2000; Weissberg, Payton, O’Brien, & Munro, 2007). That is, SEL teaches the personal and interpersonal skills we all need to handle ourselves, our relationships, and our work effectively and ethically. Accordingly, SEL is aimed at helping children and even adults develop fundamental skills for success in school and life.
The research that informs SEL indicates that emotions and relationships affect how and what is learned (Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence, 1994; Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, & Miller, 2006; Izard, 2002; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Schonert-Reichl & Hymel, 1996; Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009; Wentzel, 1993). Moreover, SEL is grounded in research findings that social and emotional skills can be taught, that they promote developmental assets and reduce problem behaviors, and that they improve children’s academic performance, citizenship, and health-related behaviors (e.g., Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003).
Historically, SEL has been characterized in a variety of ways, often being used as an organizing framework for an array of promotion and prevention efforts in education and developmental science, including conflict resolution, cooperative learning, bullying prevention, and positive youth development (Devaney, O’Brien, Resnick, Keister, & Weissberg, 2006; Elias et al., 1997). SEL builds from work in child development, classroom management, prevention, and emerging knowledge about the role of the brain in self-awareness, empathy, and social-cognitive growth (e.g., Best & Miller, 2010; Carter, Harris, & Porges, 2009; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Gallese & Goldman, 1998; Goleman, 2006; Greenberg, 2006; Singer & Lamm, 2009) and focuses on the skills that allow children to calm themselves when angry, make friends, resolve conflicts respectfully, and make ethical and safe choices. Moreover, SEL offers educators, families, and communities relevant strategies and practices to better prepare students for “the tests of life, not a life of tests” (Elias, 2001, p. 40). In short, SEL competencies constitute the foundational skills for positive health practices, engaged citizenship, and school success. SEL is sometimes called “the missing piece” because it represents a part of education that is inextricably linked to school success, but it has not been explicitly stated or given much attention until recently. SEL emphasizes active learning approaches in which skills can be generalized across curriculum areas and contexts when opportunities are provided to practice the skills that foster positive attitudes, behaviors, and thinking processes. The good news is that SEL skills can be taught through nurturing and caring learning environments and experiences (Elias et al., 1997; Greenberg, 2010).
The SEL Competencies
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), a nonprofit organization in Chicago, Illinois, is one of the organizations at the forefront of North American and international efforts to promote SEL. Founded in 1993 by Daniel Goleman (author of the 1995 landmark book, Emotional Intelligence) and Eileen Rockefeller Growald, its mission is to advance the science of SEL and expand evidence-based, integrated SEL practices as an essential part of preschool through high school education. CASEL has identified a set of social-emotional skills that underlie effective and successful performance for social roles and life tasks, drawing from extensive research in a wide range of areas, including brain functioning and methods of learning and instruction. The SEL competencies identified by CASEL include the five dimensions delineated by Weissberg et al. (2007) in table 11.1.
Table 11.1. Dimensions of Social and Emotional Learning and Related Skills
|
SEL Dimension |
Description |
|
Self-awareness |
Accurately assessing one’s feelings, interests, values, and strengths; maintaining a well-grounded sense of self-confidence. |
|
Social awareness |
Being able to take the perspective of and empathize with others; recognizing and appreciating individual and group similarities and differences; recognizing and using family, school, and community resources. |
|
Self-management |
Regulating one’s emotions to handle stress, control impulses, and persevere in overcoming obstacles; setting and monitoring progress toward personal and academic goals; expressing emotions appropriately. |
|
Relationship skills |
Establishing and maintaining healthy and rewarding relationships based on cooperation; resisting inappropriate social pressure; preventing, managing, and resolving interpersonal conflict; seeking help when needed. |
|
Responsible decision making |
Making decisions based on consideration of ethical standards, safety concerns, appropriate social norms, respect for others, and likely consequences of various actions; applying decision-making skills to academic and social situations; contributing to the well-being of one’s school and community. |
A Framework for SEL: Linking SEL to School and Life Success
The five SEL competencies, however, are just one dimension of SEL. Figure 11.1 illustrates what research shows about the multiple factors that comprise an SEL approach, including the links among the learning environment, SEL competencies, SEL programming, and better academic performance and success in school and in life. The column to the far left includes boxes that provide the core elements of SEL. The figure posits that SEL comprises two components: (1) the creation of safe, caring, participatory, and well-managed learning environments, addressing the classroom and school climate in systematic ways (top left box), and (2) sequenced, developmentally appropriate, classroom-based instruction in five major areas of social and emotional competence (bottom left box). SEL interventions and skill development should occur within a supportive learning environment, as well as help to produce such a climate. Few SEL programs accomplish all of these objectives. Instead, schools typically combine programs with strengths in one or the other area to achieve the full benefits of SEL programming (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2003).
Figure 11.1. A framework identifying the relations among classroom and school contexts, social and emotional competencies, and outcomes. Source: CASEL (2003).
As illustrated in the model, SEL includes both an environmental focus and a person-centered focus (Zins et al., 2004). Recent research points to the importance of classroom environments (Milkie & Warner, 2011) and positive teacher–student relationships in promoting students’ positive academic, social, and emotional competence (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011; Gest, Welsh, & Domitrovich, 2005; Hamre & Pianta, 2001, 2006; Hargreaves, 2000; Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009). Hence, in addition to focusing on specific instruction in social and emotional skills, SEL is a process of creating a school and classroom community that is caring, supportive, and responsive to students’ needs. Indeed, effective SEL interventions and skill development should occur in an environment that is safe, caring, supportive, and well managed, an environment that supports a child’s development and provides opportunities for practicing the skills. Issues including communication styles, high performance expectations, classroom structures and rules, school organizational climate, commitment to the academic success of all students, district policies, teacher social and emotional competence (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), and openness to parental and community involvement are all important components of an SEL approach.
A person-centered focus indicates that social and emotional education involves teaching children and adolescents to be self-aware, socially aware, competent in self-management and relationship skills, and able to make responsible decisions. SEL instruction is most effective when provided through multiyear, integrated programming and when it involves partnerships of schools, families, and communities. Moreover, effective SEL programs infuse SEL into the regular school curriculum. For instance, some programs encourage students to apply SEL skills more generally to such areas as goal setting to improve their study habits. Other SEL programs infuse the development of SEL skills with academic subject matter, such as providing a literature activity that requires using social awareness to understand a protagonist’s perspective in a novel.
What Are the Characteristics of Effective SEL Programs?
Table 11.2 delineates the characteristics of effective SEL programming. Research has shown that the most beneficial school-based prevention and promotion programs are based on sound theory and research and provide sequential and developmentally appropriate instruction in SEL skills (Bond & Hauf, 2004). They are implemented in a coordinated manner, schoolwide, from preschool through high school. Lessons are reinforced in the classroom, during out-of-school activities, and at home. In effective SEL programs, educators receive ongoing professional development in SEL, and families and schools work together to promote children’s social, emotional, and academic success (Nation et al., 2003). In short, SEL can be seen as a template for effective school reform.
Table 11.2. Characteristics of Effective SEL Programming
|
Characteristic |
Description |
|
It is based on sound theories of child development, incorporating approaches that demonstrate beneficial effects on children’s attitudes and behavior through scientific research. |
|
Through systematic instruction and application of learning to everyday situations, it enhances children’s social, emotional, and ethical behavior. Children learn to recognize and manage their emotions, appreciate the perspectives of others, establish positive goals, make responsible decisions, and handle interpersonal situations effectively. They also develop responsible and respectful attitudes and values about self, others, work, health, and citizenship. |
|
It uses diverse teaching methods to engage students in creating a classroom atmosphere where caring, responsibility, and a commitment to learning thrive. It nurtures students’ sense of emotional security and safety, and it strengthens relationships among students, teachers, other school personnel, and families. |
|
It offers developmentally appropriate classroom instruction, including clearly specified learning objectives, for each grade level from preschool through high school. It also emphasizes cultural sensitivity and respect for diversity. |
|
It offers schools a coherent, unifying framework to promote the positive social, emotional, and academic growth of all students. It coordinates school programs that address positive youth development, problem prevention, health, character, service learning, and citizenship. |
|
It teaches students social and emotional competencies that encourage classroom participation, positive interactions with teachers, and good study habits. It introduces engaging teaching and learning methods, such as problem-solving approaches and cooperative learning, that motivate students to learn and to succeed academically. |
|
It involves school staff, peers, parents, and community members in applying and modeling SEL-related skills and attitudes at school, at home, and in the community. |
|
It ensures high-quality program implementation by addressing factors that determine the long-term success or failure of school-based programs. These include leadership, active participation in program planning by everyone involved, adequate time and resources, and alignment with school, district, and state policies. |
|
It offers well-planned professional development for all school personnel. This includes basic theoretical knowledge, modeling and practice of effective teaching methods, regular coaching, and constructive feedback from colleagues. |
|
It begins with an assessment of needs to establish a good fit between the school’s concerns and SEL programs. It continues gathering data to assess progress, ensure accountability, and shape program improvement. |
The Importance of School Leadership
As posited by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002), “Great leaders move us. They ignite our passion and inspire the best in us. When we try to explain why they are so effective, we speak of strategy, vision, or powerful ideas. But the reality is much more primal: Great leadership works through the emotions” (p. 1). Although effective school leadership is essential in any successful school improvement effort, it is particularly important to SEL programming. SEL is as much about adult change as it is about improvements in student performance. In a review of the leadership literature, Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) identify the three major practices through which an effective school leader creates school change that benefits student learning: (1) setting direction (helping staff to see a unifying “big idea” behind their work and the requested changes), (2) developing people, and (3) redesigning the organization.
Beyond these practices, leaders must show “emotional intelligence.” Their highly visible leadership role requires an ability to demonstrate the SEL skills sought for all students and staff. Thus, modeling is a leader’s most powerful instructional tool. It gives the principal credibility in promoting SEL as a “big idea” and in leading the planning and implementation of SEL programming, and it demonstrates the relational trust essential to the success of effective SEL implementation in schools (Elias, O’Brien, & Weissberg, 2006).
In his classic Harvard Business Review article “What Makes a Leader?,” CASEL cofounder Dan Goleman (1998) describes research he conducted with executives that showed emotional intelligence to be twice as important as other qualities, including technical knowledge and IQ, in predicting successful leadership and company performance. Experts in the field of school leadership (Cherniss, 1998; Lambert, 2003; Patti & Tobin, 2003) have confirmed the importance of emotionally intelligent leadership in schools. SEL is most effective when it is part of a schoolwide initiative that
- creates a shared SEL vision for the school;
- establishes norms for appropriate positive behaviors among staff and students;
- promotes well-managed, safe, caring, cooperative, and participatory learning environments;
- implements evidence-based, sequential, and ongoing skills instruction for all students; and
- integrates SEL concepts and skills into every subject and aspect of school life (for examples of programs that share many of these characteristics, see CASEL’s [2003] Safe and Sound and Devaney et al.’s (2006) Sustainable Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning Implementation Guide and Tool Kit).
SEL: A Growing Movement
The recognition of the importance of SEL in schools has spread rapidly across the globe in the last several years. SEL is seen as an umbrella term for many different education movements emphasizing similar concepts and skills, such as programs in violence prevention, antibullying, drug prevention, and school discipline.
Although attention to the social-emotional and moral side of learning has been around for decades (Hartshorne, May, & Shuttleworth, 1930; Jackson, 1968; Kohlberg & Higgins, 1987; Kohlberg & Turiel, 1971; Minuchin & Shapiro, 1983; Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989), the empirical investigation of SEL programs and practices in relation to schooling is relatively new. Within the past few decades, scholars have shifted from a cursory interest in the concept of SEL to explicit attention, as illustrated in the rapid increase of publications on the topic of SEL. PsycINFO includes 114 citations for the phrase “social and emotional learning” (peer reviewed, not counting proper names) from 1933 to 1999. From 2000 to 2011, the number of citations in PsycINFO has more than tripled to a total of 365 citations in only ten years. A search through related databases (e.g., ERIC) yielded similar results. This mounting interest in the field of SEL specifically, and in the area of the school-based promotion of children’s social, emotional, and moral development in general, is not found only in the scholarly literature; recent years have also seen a parallel increase in attention to the social side of learning in educational research and policy across the world.
United States and Canada
In 2003, the state of Illinois adopted the Children’s Mental Health Act, legislation that has significant potential for helping schools achieve their goals and has become nationally recognized for paving the way to school improvement and success for all students. The act was designed to ensure that Illinois schools (1) regard social and emotional learning (SEL) as integral to their mission and (2) take concrete steps to address their students’ social and emotional development.
Although Illinois is the only state that currently has freestanding comprehensive SEL standards at the K–12 level, there are a number of other states that include standards that feature a focus on social, emotional, and character development for the K–12 level. These states include New Jersey, Washington, Idaho, Kansas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont.
In Canada a number of initiatives that focus on the promotion of children’s social and emotional competence have emerged in the last several years. For example, in British Columbia in 2000, the Ministry of Education identified social responsibility as one of four “foundational skills”—as important as reading, writing, and numeracy. The framework for British Columbia’s Social Responsibility Performance Standards includes a common set of expectations for the development of students along four categories (see table 11.3; for a full report, see British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2001).
Table 11.3. Categories of British Columbia’s Social Responsibility Standards
|
Social Responsibility Dimension |
Example Behaviors |
|
Contributing to the classroom and school community |
|
|
Solving problems in peaceful ways |
|
|
Valuing diversity and defending human rights |
|
|
Exercising democratic rights and responsibilities |
|
SEL around the Globe
In 2008, the Marcelino Botin Foundation published a report titled “Social and Emotional Education: An International Analysis” in which they describe some of the SEL work taking place in Europe and the United States. The foundation’s website has reports describing SEL in the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, and Germany (click the country name to see that country’s report). Singapore has undertaken an active initiative, as have some schools in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Japan, and North Korea. In Europe, the UK has led the way, but more than a dozen other countries have schools that embed social-emotional learning approaches within the school curriculum, including the Isle of Man, Israel, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, and some countries in Latin America and Africa (see the CASEL website for a full description of SEL initiatives in various countries around the world). In 2003, UNESCO initiated a worldwide plan to promote SEL by preparing a report delineating ten basic principles for implementing SEL based on the latest empirical research in the area (Elias, 2003). The UNESCO report was sent to the ministries of education in 140 countries (available on the CASEL website).
SEL: The Research Evidence
Centuries ago, Aristotle (fourth century BC) proclaimed that “educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” And only decades ago, educational philosopher John Dewey recognized that “the aim of education is growth or development, both intellectual and moral” (Dewey, 1934/1964, p. 213). Although it is commonly believed that a fundamental mission of schools is to educate students to master essential content areas such as reading, writing, math, and science, back then and now most educators, parents, students, and the public at large support a more comprehensive agenda for education—one that includes promoting students’ social and emotional competence, morality, and social responsibility (Rose & Gallup, 2000). And so we argue that a combination of academic learning and prosocial learning (which includes social and emotional learning and skills) is the true standard for effective education for the world in which we now live. Moreover, we now have the scientific evidence to back up the claim that a focus on educating the heart does not undermine children’s academic success but instead improves it.
Recent years have seen a burgeoning of empirical literature demonstrating the importance of social and emotional learning for students’ academic success. In their book Building Academic Success on Social Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say?, Zins, Weissberg, Wang, and Walberg (2004), for example, make the case for SEL in schools by delineating recent research showing how it leads to (1) improved student attitudes, including motivation and an increased sense of belonging to school; (2) positive behavioral changes, including reductions in bullying behaviors and risky health behaviors; and (3) improvements in academic achievement as assessed by a variety of measures, including standardized achievement test scores and grades.
Although social and emotional competencies and behaviors are valued in their own right, these types of behaviors have been identified as playing an important role in predicting both long-term physical health and well-being. Moffitt et al. (2011), for example, in a longitudinal study following a cohort of one thousand children from birth to thirty-two years, found that children’s self-control (synonymous with the SEL competency of self-management) predicted physical health, substance dependence, personal finances, and criminal offending. These effects of children’s self-control on long-term outcomes remained after taking into account intelligence, social class, and problems the children had in adolescence (e.g., smoking, school dropout, having an unplanned baby). These authors suggest that interventions that focus on the promotion of children’s self-control “might reduce a panoply of societal costs, save taxpayers money, and promote prosperity” (p. 1).
Social and emotional competencies also have been linked to students’ school success and academic achievement. In a study of 423 sixth and seventh graders, Wentzel (1993) found that students’ prosocial behaviors, such as helping, sharing, and cooperating exhibited in the classroom, were better predictors of academic achievement than were their standardized test scores, after taking into account academically oriented behavior, teachers’ preferences for students, IQ, family structure, sex, ethnicity, and days absent from school. Findings similar to those of Wentzel’s were found in a study conducted by Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, and Zimbardo (2000) in Rome, Italy. More specifically, in a longitudinal study of 294 children, Caprara and colleagues found that a composite score of prosocial behavior in third grade (average age 8.5 years), as rated by self, peers, and teacher, significantly predicted both academic achievement (explaining 35 percent of the variance) and social preference (explaining 37 percent of the variance) five years later when children were in eighth grade. This “prosocialness” score, which included cooperating, helping, sharing, and consoling behaviors, significantly predicted academic achievement five years later even after controlling for third-grade academic achievement, whereas early academic achievement did not contribute significantly to later academic achievement after controlling for effects of early prosocialness. Interestingly, early aggression had no significant effect on later academic achievement or social preferences in this study. A recent summary of fifteen years of research on school reform by Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) provides further evidence that a focus on the social and emotional side of learning can be a powerful force for school improvement. In their report, Bryk and colleagues identify five dimensions of support that are paramount for effective school change. These five dimensions include strong leadership; solid parent and community involvement; development of professional capacity; strong instructional guidance and materials; and a learning climate that is safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing to all students. Bryk and colleagues found that schools that were the strongest in all or most of these dimensions were at least ten times more likely to show substantial gains in both reading and mathematics than schools weak in most of these supports.
Some of the most compelling evidence for the assertion that SEL programs promote children’s and adolescents’ social-emotional well-being and academic achievement comes in the form of a recent meta-analysis conducted by Durlak et al. (2011) of 213 school-based universal SEL programs involving 270,034 students from kindergarten through high school. Their findings revealed significant and positive effects for students in SEL programs relative to controls. More specifically, in contrast to students not enrolled in SEL programs, SEL students demonstrated significantly improved social-emotional competencies, attitudes, and behavioral adjustment in the form of increased prosocial behavior and decreased conduct problems and internalizing problems. SEL students also outperformed non-SEL students on indices of academic achievement by eleven percentile points. In addition to the positive effects of SEL programs for students, Durlak and colleagues found that classroom teachers and other school personnel effectively implemented SEL programs—a finding which suggests that SEL programs can be easily incorporated into routine school practices and do not require staff from outside the school to successfully deliver an SEL program. To yield the greatest benefits, SEL programming must be “S-A-F-E.” That is, it must provide Sequenced instruction, Active learning strategies, a Focus on developing social-emotional skills, and Explicit targeting of specific social-emotional skills.
SEL Programs that Promote Children’s Social and Emotional Competence and Prosocial Behaviors
In the following, we review several programs that are aligned with theoretical principles for preventive interventions designed to promote elementary school children’s social and emotional learning and prosocial behaviors. This section highlights just a select few of the most widely used and studied SEL programs implemented in elementary schools. The programs selected were chosen based on the following criteria: (1) there is an explicit focus in the curriculum on the promotion of prosocial behavior (e.g., sharing, helping, cooperating) and/or a focus on creating a prosocial classroom environment—one in which caring for others and mutual respect and cooperation are at the fore; (2) the program is school-based and has sequenced lessons intended for a general student population; that is, the program is universal and is implemented with all children in the typical classroom and not targeted to a special group of children; (3) there are at least eight lessons in one of the program years; (4) the program is available commercially and requires that teachers receive some training before implementing the program in their classrooms; and (5) the program has empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness via a rigorous pretest/posttest, control group experimental or quasi-experimental design. Programs that were not included in this section are those in which the focus is on the development of skills and behaviors not explicitly associated with prosocial education and programs that are targeted specifically at students who are already experiencing identified social and emotional problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, conduct problems) and are in need of more intensive treatment approaches.
The Caring School Community Program
Program Description
The Caring School Community (CSC) program (formerly called the Child Development Project) was developed by researchers at the Developmental Studies Center, a nonprofit organization with a focus on developing and disseminating programs that promote children’s social, emotional, and academic development. CSC was developed for children in kindergarten through sixth grade and teaches teachers to employ participatory instructional practices such as cooperative learning groups, mastery teaching, and experiential activities that promote relevant, interactive classroom learning. The program aims to promote core values, prosocial behavior, and a schoolwide feeling of community and consists of four program elements: (1) class meeting lessons to promote dialogue among students; (2) a cross-age “buddies” program that pairs students across grades to build relationships and trust; (3) “homeside” activities that promote family involvement and inform parents of school activities while providing them with opportunities to participate; and (4) schoolwide community-building activities that involve school, home, and community. Class lessons provide teachers and students with a forum to get to know one another, discuss classroom issues as they arise, identify and solve problems collaboratively, and make a range of decisions collaboratively that affect classroom life. The CSC is unique in that it involves both extensive classroom-wide and schoolwide efforts to create a sense of common purpose and commitment to prosocial norms and values such as caring, justice, responsibility, and learning. These efforts are designed to promote a “caring community” of learners. The entire faculty and student body at CSC schools must commit to these values and to an extensive three-year school development program. The ultimate goal is the development of students who are ethically sophisticated decision makers and caring human beings (Kohn, 1997). Adults act as role models and offer guidance that helps children understand the effects of their actions upon others. Students in the CSC are expected to demonstrate involvement in prosocial activities that benefit others through meaningful school and community service learning experiences (e.g., the School-Wide Buddies program).
Program Evaluations
Research conducted over the past two decades evaluating the effectiveness of CSC has shown that students who have participated in the program demonstrate more prosocial and fewer aggressive behaviors, as well as a range of positive school and motivation outcomes, compared to children who have not received it (Battistich, Schaps, Solomon, & Watson, 1991; Battistich, Schaps, Watson, & Solomon, 1996; Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004; Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Battistich, Solomon, Watson, Solomon, & Schaps, 1989). In the schools in which CSC has been implemented, increases in students’ sense of the school as a caring community have been reflected in a positive orientation toward school and learning, mutual trust in and respect for teachers, and overall increases in prosocial behavior and social skills. These positive effects remained stable in high-poverty schools with the highest sense of community, suggesting the effectiveness of this program for high-risk settings (Battistich et al., 1997). A follow-up study evaluated program effects on 525 students after they reached middle school. Findings at follow-up included higher grade point averages and achievement test scores, greater involvement in positive youth activities, and less frequent problem behavior at school and fewer acts of violence (Battistich et al., 2004).
The 4Rs (Reading, Writing, Respect, and Resolution)
Program Description
The 4Rs program is a universal school-based intervention for children in kindergarten to fifth grade that was developed by the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility in response to several national and local policy shifts in the United States. More specifically, the 4Rs evolved in response to the tension between, on the one hand, the movement to reform education in terms of standards-based accountability, with its focus on academic achievement (e.g., the policy and practice promoted by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), and SEL on the other hand (e.g., the growing recognition of social-emotional skills as critical to school success) and provides a pedagogical link between the teaching of social-emotional competencies and fundamental academic skills. The 4Rs program has two primary components: (1) a comprehensive seven-unit, twenty-one- to thirty-five-lesson, literacy-based curriculum in conflict resolution and SEL (provided to teachers in a standardized, grade-specific teaching guide), and (2) twenty-five hours of training followed by ongoing coaching of teachers to support them in teaching the 4Rs curriculum with a minimum of twelve contacts in one school year. The theory of change underlying the 4Rs program emphasizes the importance of introducing teachers to a set of SEL skills and concepts and then supporting them in the use of these skills and concepts in their everyday interactions in the school with one another, with school administrators, and with the children in their classrooms. Moreover, emphasis is given to attending to the social-cognitive and social-emotional processes that previous research has shown link individual, family, school, and community risk factors to the development of aggressive behavior, and that place children at higher risk for future violence. By highlighting universal themes of conflict, feelings, relationships, and community, the 4Rs curriculum adds meaning and depth to literacy instruction. Because reading and writing are excellent tools for exploring conflict, feelings, and problem solving, the 4Rs program also provides opportunities for conflict-resolution instruction as well. See the accompanying case study C for more information about the 4Rs program.
Program Evaluations
Although the 4Rs is a relatively new SEL program, there have already been two rigorous evaluation studies conducted. In the first study, Brown, Jones, LaRusso, and Aber (2010) employed a cluster randomized controlled trial design to examine whether teacher social-emotional functioning predicts differences in the quality of third-grade classrooms and to test the impact of the 4Rs program on the quality of classroom processes controlling for teacher social-emotional functioning. Participants included eighty-two third-grade teachers and eighty-two classrooms in eighteen public urban elementary schools in a large metropolitan city in the eastern United States. Their findings yielded positive effects of teachers’ perceived emotional ability on classroom quality. More specifically, teachers’ perceptions of their own emotional abilities at the beginning of the year significantly and positively predicted their ability to create high-quality social processes in their classroom by the end of the year, as evidenced via classroom observations. Moreover, positive and significant effects of the 4Rs program on overall classroom quality were demonstrated after taking into account differences in these teacher factors.
More recently, Jones, Brown, and Aber (2011) conducted a two-year experimental study of the 4Rs program on children’s social-emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning. Their study employed a school-randomized experimental design with 1,184 children in eighteen elementary schools. Findings revealed that children in the intervention schools showed significant improvements across several domains of functioning including self-reports of hostile attributional bias, aggressive interpersonal negotiation strategies, and depression. Teacher reports of attention skills, aggression, and socially competent behavior also improved. In addition to the program’s positive effects on children’s behaviors, the results showed effects of the intervention on children’s math and reading achievement for those children identified by teachers as having the highest behavioral risk at baseline.
The MindUP Program
Program Description
The MindUP Program is a comprehensive classroom-based program for children from prekindergarten to eighth grade aimed at fostering children’s social and emotional competence, psychological well-being, and self-regulation while decreasing acting-out behaviors and aggression. MindUP was designed to enhance children’s self-awareness, social awareness, focused attention, self-regulation, problem solving, prosocial behaviors, and positive human qualities such as happiness, optimism, and altruism. The curriculum is theoretically derived and informed by the latest scientific research in the fields of cognitive neuroscience, mindfulness-based stress reduction, social and emotional learning (SEL), and positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Further, the MindUP program was developed as an approach to teaching, as opposed to a curriculum that is separate from other subject areas. In other words, the MindUP curriculum has been designed expressly to ensure that it does not compete or conflict with existing lesson plans but can be easily integrated with them. There are daily activities which consist of deep belly breathing and attentive listening to a single sound (i.e., a resonating instrument) that are central to the program, with the intention of enhancing children’s self-awareness, focused attention, self-regulation, and stress reduction. The program consists of fifteen lessons grouped into four units (see table 11.4). A discussion of the MindUP program is also included in chapter 12.
Table 11.4. Units and Lessons of the MindUP Program
|
Unit |
Lesson |
|
|
I. |
Let’s Get Focused! |
|
|
II. |
Paying Attention to Our Senses |
|
|
III. |
It’s All about Attitude |
|
|
IV. |
Taking Action Mindfully |
|
Program Evaluations
To date, there are two experimental studies examining the effectiveness of the MindUP program (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010; Schonert-Reichl, Oberle, et al., 2011). For the first one, a quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest, control group design was used to evaluate the MindUP program (formerly called the Mindfulness Education Program) among 246 fourth- to seventh-grade children drawn from twelve classrooms. Six MindUP program classes were matched with six comparison classes in which the average age, gender, and race/ethnicity of the class were equivalent. Overall, both teachers and students reported satisfaction with the program. In addition, results revealed that children who participated in the MindUP program, compared to children who did not, showed significant improvements on teacher-rated attention and social competence and decreases in aggressive/dysregulated behavior in the classroom. In addition, children in the MindUP program self-reported greater optimism and mindful attention than those not in the program. Student and teacher reports indicate that MindUP promotes enhanced feelings of empathy, more frequent prosocial behaviors, focused attention, emotional regulation, and greater appreciation for “school and learning in general.” The skills and strategies of MindUP help children become more optimistic and willing to face the challenges they encounter in school and elsewhere. The second study (Schonert-Reichl, Oberle, et al., 2011) both replicated and extended the findings of the previous study, showing significant improvements in children’s optimism, empathy, emotional control, attention, self-concept, and prosocial behaviors in the classroom.
The PATHS Program
Program Description
The PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school children. The PATHS curriculum was designed to be used by educators and counselors in a multiyear, universal prevention model. The PATHS curriculum, taught three times per week for a minimum of twenty to thirty minutes per day, provides teachers with systematic, developmentally based lessons, materials, and instructions for teaching their students emotional literacy, self-control, social competence, positive peer relations, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Students have many opportunities to practice identifying a wide range of feelings and their associated bodily sensations, calming themselves through breathing techniques, and taking others’ perspectives while solving interpersonal problems using an eleven-step model. Consistent opportunities are provided for students to apply many of these competencies beyond the lesson. PATHS lessons include instruction in identifying and labeling feelings, expressing feelings, assessing the intensity of feelings, managing feelings, understanding the difference between feelings and behaviors, delaying gratification, controlling impulses, reducing stress, self-talk, reading and interpreting social cues, understanding the perspectives of others, using steps for problem solving and decision making, having a positive attitude toward life, self-awareness, nonverbal communication skills, and verbal communication skills. Creative instructional strategies include meetings to resolve conflicts that arise during class. Although primarily focused on school and classroom settings, information and activities are also included for use with parents. See the accompanying case study A for more information about the PATHS program.
Program Evaluations
PATHS has been field-tested and researched with children in regular education classroom settings, as well as with a variety of special needs students (deaf, hearing impaired, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, mildly mentally delayed, and gifted). The PATHS program has robust evidence from well-designed and methodologically rigorous studies showing its effectiveness in reducing children’s aggression and hyperactive-disruptive behavior and in increasing their positive and prosocial behaviors (e.g., Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999, 2010; Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg, 2007; Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma, 1995). Specific positive outcomes found across a range of studies, with a range of populations, have included better understanding of emotional and social situations, greater tolerance of frustration, improved problem solving and conflict resolution, and decreased sadness and disruptive behaviors. PATHS has been rated as a “select program” by CASEL and as a “model program” by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices and has received many accolades, including awards from the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Responsive Classroom Approach
Program Description
The Responsive Classroom (RC) approach is an SEL intervention that was designed to create safe and supportive classroom environments conducive to improving the social, emotional, and academic skills of elementary school children. The program was created by former teachers and educational professionals at the Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC, 1997), and program elements of the RC approach have been informed by classic educational theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Vygotsky, 1978) and are in accord with both theory and research examining the intersection between classroom processes and children’s development (e.g., Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008).
The underlying principles of the RC approach give emphasis to children’s development in family and school contexts, social interactions, social skills, and process-oriented learning. As delineated by the program developers, the RC approach has seven essential principles designed to guide teachers’ thinking and actions (NEFC, 2003): “1) equal emphasis on the academic and social curricula, 2) equal emphasis on the content and process of learning, 3) the importance of social interaction in cognitive development, 4) the importance of social skills in academic and social competence, 5) the importance of understanding students as individuals, 6) the importance of working with students’ families, and 7) the importance of the climate among school teachers and administrators.” Emerging from these guiding principles are classroom practices. These principles include the following elements: (1) the morning meeting, which refers to a daily meeting that is specifically designed to foster a positive classroom climate and positive social interactions among teachers and among students through the use of greetings, activities, sharing, and synthesis of an interactive morning message written by the teacher for the students; (2) collaborative rule creation in which teachers and students work together to create a set of positively stated rules that will provide all students with the opportunity to meet their self-identified social and academic goals; (3) interactive modeling, which refers to a multistep process in which behavioral demonstrations, observations, and opportunities for practice are utilized to instruct students in the expectations for regular classroom behavior; (4) the utilization of positive teacher language which supplies students with feedback that focuses on their efforts rather than outcomes; and (5) logical consequences for students’ misbehavior and misconduct that are individualized to the particular child and are linked directly to the child’s misbehavior. Training in the principles and practices of the RC approach occur via structured training procedures that involve comprehensive weeklong training sessions, ongoing coaching support, instructional books, and RC approach newsletters.
Program Evaluations
The RC approach has been evaluated with overall positive findings showing improvements in classroom quality, student achievement, and teacher efficacy. For example, in one study, Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, and Rimm-Kaufman (2008) examined the effectiveness of the RC approach using a quasi-experimental longitudinal design and found that children in RC classrooms had more favorable perceptions of school and showed better academic and social behavior when their teachers used more responsive classroom practices. In a three-year longitudinal study examining the impact of the RC approach on student achievement (Rimm-Kaufman, Fan, Chiu, & You, 2007), the RC approach was found to be associated with gains in both reading and math, with improvements more pronounced over a three-year period than over a one- or two-year period. In a more recent study utilizing a cluster randomized controlled trial, Abry, Rimm-Kaufman, and Ponitz (2011) examined the impact of one year of training in the RC approach on teacher–student interaction quality and the relation between implementation fidelity of RC practices and teacher–student interaction quality. Their findings revealed no impact of treatment assignment on teacher–student interaction quality. However, teachers who reported higher implementation fidelity of RC practices demonstrated higher teacher–student interaction quality in emotional and organizational domains, but not in instructional interactions. Taken together, this research demonstrates the importance of attention not only to outcomes but to the fidelity with which a program is implemented.
The Roots of Empathy Program
Program Description
The Roots of Empathy (ROE) program is a theoretically derived, universal preventive intervention that facilitates the development of children’s social-emotional understanding in an effort to reduce aggression and promote prosocial behavior (Gordon, 2009). As mentioned at the start of this chapter, the cornerstone of the program is monthly visits by an infant and his or her parent(s) that serve as a springboard for lessons on emotional knowledge, perspective taking, and infant development. Facilitated by a trained ROE instructor, each visit of the baby and his or her parent follows a lesson plan with nine different themes (Meeting the Baby, Crying, Caring and Planning for the Baby, Emotions, Sleep, Safety, Communication, Who am I?, Goodbye and Good Wishes), helping children to understand and reflect on their own and others’ feelings. Over the course of the school year, children learn about the baby’s growth and development via interactions and observations with the baby. For example, through explicit classroom lessons designed to recognize a baby’s facial and nonverbal expressions, children are led through a discussion of how they might know how a baby feels and why the baby might feel that way; this then leads to a discussion of a time when they might have experienced an emotion similar to that of the baby’s (e.g., a time that they were sad or excited), which in turn is followed by a wider discussion of emotion identification and emotion expression, namely why people feel the way they do and why (e.g., why a classmate might have looked sad that day).
Each month the ROE program instructor visits his or her participating classrooms three times, once for a pre-family visit, another time for the visit with the parent and infant, and finally a post-family visit. The lessons for the visits from the instructor foster empathy, emotional understanding, and problem-solving skills through discussion and activities in which the parent-infant visit serves as a springboard for discussions about understanding feelings and infant development and effective parenting practices. Specifically, each lesson plan is designed to capitalize on shared observations from the family visit. Lesson plans and accompanying activities are scripted to match the age of the baby and are calibrated to the students’ level of development. Each of the ROE lessons provides opportunities to discuss and learn about the different dimensions of empathy, namely emotion identification and explanation, perspective taking, and emotional sensitivity. For example, across various lessons, children are invited to identify the emotions of the baby and to provide explanations for those emotions. Following, children then become engaged in lessons either through stories, art activities, or general classroom discussion in which they reflect and discuss their own emotions and the emotions of others. For theme 3 (Caring and Planning for the Baby), for instance, in the pre-family visit, the instructor reads the book Sasha and the Wriggly Tooth to the children. After the story, the instructor leads a discussion with the children about the mixed feelings that can ensue when one loses a tooth (e.g., “happy to be getting a visit by the tooth fairy,” “embarrassed because you may look funny with a missing tooth”). In the subsequent parent and infant visit, children are provided opportunities for perspective taking through asking questions of the parents about their feelings regarding their infant’s teething experience (e.g., “How does it feel to see your baby in pain?” “What do you do to help your baby feel better?”). Also included in the ROE program are lessons that engage children collectively in a series of activities that benefit the baby—those activities identified by Staub (1988, 2003, 2005) as ones through which a prosocial value orientation can be fostered. From singing a welcoming song to the baby upon his or her arrival in the classroom to creating a book of nursery rhymes, in every lesson children are brought together to form a unified “we.” The ROE curriculum is aligned with research on empathy (e.g., Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Sadovsky, 2006; Schonert-Reichl, 1993; Schonert-Reichl & Oberle, 2011) and a functionalist approach to emotions (Campos, Mumme, Kermoian, & Campos, 1994), wherein emotional understanding and expressivity are seen as playing central roles in the establishment and maintenance of children’s interpersonal relationships (Mostow, Izard, Fine, & Trentacosta, 2002; Saarni, 1999; Shipman, Zeman, Penza, & Champion, 2000). As well, the ROE model’s “roots” are founded on the belief that “emotions form the motivational bases for empathy and prosocial behavior” (Izard, Fine, Mostow, Trentacosta, & Campbell, 2002, p. 761). For more information about ROE, see the accompanying case study B.
Program Evaluations
To date, there have been several outcome studies examining the efficacy of ROE (see Schonert-Reichl & Scott, 2009, for a review). These include an examination of ROE’s effectiveness with primary grade children, a multisite evaluation (including children in Vancouver and Toronto), and two randomized controlled trials (Santos, Chartier, Whalen, Chateau, & Boyd, 2011). Research on the effectiveness of ROE has yielded consistent and highly promising findings regarding the impact of the program across age and sex (Schonert-Reichl, Smith, Zaidman-Zait, & Hertzman, 2011). Children who have participated in ROE, compared to those who have not, demonstrate advanced emotional and social understanding, as well as reduced aggressive behavior (specifically proactive aggression) and increased prosocial behavior.
Consistent findings emerged across our research studies evaluating the effectiveness of ROE. Specifically, results revealed that children who had experienced the ROE program, compared to children who had not, were more advanced in their emotional and social understanding on almost all dimensions assessed. Developmental changes in children’s social and emotional knowledge were associated with concomitant reductions in aggressive behaviors and increases in prosocial behaviors (helping, sharing, cooperating). Most notably, while ROE program children significantly decreased in aggression across the school year, comparison children demonstrated significant increases in aggression. Subsequent studies evaluating changes in experiences within the classroom found a significant increase in children’s assessments of classroom supportiveness and their sense of belonging in the classroom.
The RULER Approach
Program Description
The RULER Approach to Social and Emotional Learning (“RULER”) is a multiyear, structured SEL curriculum designed for students in elementary, middle, and high schools to promote social, emotional, and academic learning (Brackett, Patti, et al., 2009; Maurer & Brackett, 2004). RULER is grounded in decades of research evidencing that the knowledge and skills associated with recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotion (i.e., the RULER skills) are essential to effective teaching, learning, and decision making, as well as overall positive development in both students and adults (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008; Rivers & Brackett, 2011; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). RULER focuses on the development of RULER skills in both the adult stakeholders in students’ education (i.e., teachers, parents, administrators, and other school staff) as well as the students themselves.
First, adults develop their own RULER skills and learn how to foster an emotionally supportive learning environment through the use of Anchor tools designed to build RULER skills and promote self- and social awareness, empathy, perspective taking, sound decision making, and self-management. The Anchors provide a common language and set of strategies that integrate into every aspect of a school, including its physical spaces and learning environments. The Charter is a joint mission statement that focuses on how each stakeholder wants to feel, what needs to happen for those feelings to be present consistently, guidelines for handling uncomfortable feelings and conflict, and methods for creating and sustaining a positive climate. The Mood Meter helps individuals to identify their feelings accurately; it involves the use of multiple senses to build emotional awareness. Meta-Moments are a process that children and adults learn to help develop strategies to improve their reflective practices and problem-solving skills so they can respond effectively to challenging emotional experiences with their best selves in mind. Finally, the Blueprint helps all stakeholders to problem solve effectively about conflicts, challenging real-time interactions, and upcoming difficult situations.
Once the Anchor tools have been introduced and are used regularly in the classroom and school, the Feeling Words Curriculum is introduced to students in grades K–8. The “Feeling Word” units are available for kindergarten through eighth grade and include developmentally appropriate lessons and content that are calibrated for each grade level. The curriculum is designed to help students obtain a thorough and deep understanding of the feeling words—words that characterize a range of human emotions such as excitement, shame, alienation, and commitment. Each of the RULER units focuses on one feeling word and includes a number of lessons or steps that are integrated into the regular classroom curriculum and instruction. Taking into consideration the demands on teachers’ instructional time, the RULER units are most applicable to subject areas in English language arts (ELA; see Rivers & Brackett, 2011) and history because of their focus on literature, writing, and understanding the experiences of humans. For example, through the ELA curriculum, characters in literature (from children’s picture books to chapter books and novels) provide a rich opportunity for students to become cognizant of a range of rich human emotional experiences that need to be recognized, understood, labeled, expressed, and regulated. An example of how the RULER curriculum can be easily incorporated into ELA lessons is illustrated with the book The Diary of Anne Frank. For the RULER unit lesson on empathy, students are asked to identify instances in the book in which one character felt empathy for one of the other characters. To do so, students must first recognize and label each of the character’s emotions. After having the opportunity to identify empathy, students are then prompted to examine how feeling empathy may have caused each of the characters to change his or her behaviors toward the other (e.g., treating the character more kindly), which involves understanding the causes and consequence of emotion.
The RULER Approach is currently expanding its programmatic reach to high school students. The goal of the program is to help students to develop advanced (1) RULER skills, (2) creative problem-solving skills, and (3) critical-thinking skills. Through course work, assessments, and self-reflective practices, students will be provided with opportunities through the curriculum to identify their strengths and challenges in these areas and set personal development goals. Through skill-building activities and visioning exercises, students will learn how to apply the skills they develop to all aspects of their high school lives. Ultimately, the goal is for students to use their new skills to enhance their well-being, extracurricular endeavors, relationships, academic performance, and their pursuits beyond high school.
Program Evaluations
Although RULER is a relatively new SEL program, it has already been rigorously evaluated, with very promising results. For example, in one study by Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, and Salovey (2012), students in classrooms integrating RULER had higher year-end grades and higher teacher ratings of social and emotional competence (e.g., leadership, social skills, and study skills) compared to students in the comparison group. In a more recent study, Rivers, Brackett, Reyes, and Salovey (in press) examined the hypothesis that the RULER Approach would improve the social and emotional climate of classrooms. Using a rigorous empirical design—a cluster randomized controlled trial—sixty-two schools either integrated RULER into fifth- and sixth-grade ELA classrooms or served as comparison schools in which only the standard ELA curriculum was implemented. Findings supporting the hypothesis were found. Specifically, using multilevel modeling, the researchers found that schools in which the RULER Approach was implemented in classrooms were rated as having higher degrees of warmth and connectedness between teachers and students, more autonomy and leadership among students, and teachers who focused more on students’ interests and motivations than in the comparison schools in which only the traditional ELA curriculum was used. These findings suggest that RULER enhances classrooms in ways that can promote students’ social and emotional learning and well-being.
The Second Step Program
Program Description
Second Step is a classroom-based program designed to promote children’s social skills and academic success and consists of commercially available curriculum materials (see Committee for Children in the reference list). It is a universal social and emotional competence promotion program that is developmentally sequenced for children from preschool through middle school. Lessons lasting twenty-five to forty minutes (depending on grade level) are presented by classroom teachers. Using suggested lesson scripts, photo cards, and/or videotaped stories, teachers introduce key concepts by asking a series of questions designed to promote perspective taking and self- and other awareness. As the lessons progress, the questions are used to elicit specific strategies for dealing with the illustrated situations. Teachers and videotapes provide models of the key skills. Following, role-playing and other classroom activities are used to provide children with opportunities to practice specific self-regulatory strategies and behavioral skills. Included in the program materials are strategies for teachers for cuing, coaching, and acknowledging the targeted behaviors. Program materials also include suggestions for integrating content with the academic program.
The Second Step curriculum includes three units: (1) empathy training, (2) impulse control, and (3) problem solving and anger management. With eight to twenty-eight lessons per year, the curriculum is designed to develop students’ social and emotional skills while teaching them to change behaviors and attitudes that contribute to aggression. The three units of the Second Step program address these core competencies in conjunction with teaching specific behavioral skills. Second Step also includes lessons dedicated to relational aggression topics and the application of skills to reduce or inhibit such behaviors (Van Schoiack-Edstrom, Frey, & Beland, 2002).
Program Evaluations
Previous research on the efficacy of Second Step has supported the program’s effectiveness in promoting prosocial behavior and reducing aggression. For example, a number of studies have demonstrated significant reductions in physical aggression and decreased tolerance of physical/verbal aggression and social exclusion (Grossman et al., 1997; Van Schoiack-Edstrom et al., 2002). Improvements also have been shown in children’s social-emotional competence, such as increased prosocial behaviors (Grossman et al., 1997; McMahon & Washburn, 2003); self-reported empathy (McMahon & Washburn, 2003); greater use of empathic and prosocial goals in peer negotiations (Frey, Nolen, Van Schoiack Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005); increased social knowledge (McMahon, Washburn, Felix, Yakin, & Childrey, 2000); and greater social self-efficacy (Van Schoiack-Edstrom et al., 2002).
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
Imagine schools where children feel safe, valued, confident, and challenged, where they have the social, emotional, and academic skills to succeed, where the environment is safe and supportive, and where parents are fully engaged.
Imagine this not as the exception in an elite or small school but in every school and for all children. Imagine the integration of social and emotional skills as a part of education at every level, from preschool to high school. Imagine it as part of district, state, and federal policies.
This is our dream for 21st century education—and it is happening now. Through rigorous experimental and action research and partnerships with schools throughout the country, we have seen the impact of social and emotional learning not only on children’s learning and development but also on school functioning. More and more schools are adopting social and emotional learning as an overarching philosophy and framework for school improvement and children’s optimal development. (O’Brien, Weissberg, & Munro, 2005/2006, para. 1–3)
I close this chapter with the words of my coauthor, colleague, and close friend—Dr. Mary Utne O’Brien—who lost her heroic struggle with cancer on April 28, 2010. Mary was the vice president for strategic initiatives at CASEL and worked there for more than a decade. Mary was one of those rare individuals who practiced what she preached—indeed Mary embodied SEL with her warm, caring, and personable manner that touched everyone with whom she came in contact. She was a brilliant scholar, an extraordinary communicator, and a tireless advocate for SEL. Mary helped to shape the field of SEL through her effortless devotion and passion for creating a world where all children and youth would feel loved and cared for and would have the SEL skills to lead them on the path to school and life success.
Although much has been learned in the past decade about SEL programs and their effects on children’s social and emotional competence and academic success, the field has much further to go before firm conclusions can be made about the specific ways in which an SEL approach advances children’s short-term and long-term school and life success. Indeed, many questions still remain regarding the ways that programs and practices designed to promote children’s SEL skills can forecast children’s future success. For example, what are the processes and mechanisms that lead to successful improvements in children’s behaviors across programs? What role does context play? Which programs work best for which children? And under what conditions is optimal development fostered? These are the types of questions that are being asked among both educators and researchers in the field of prosocial education, and they are the types of questions asked by all the authors of this book, who share a focus on determining the factors underlying the development of children’s social and emotional competence and kind, helpful, and caring behaviors.
Several new studies illustrate the type of work that needs to be done in this area to advance the science and practice of SEL. For example, recent work on the context of classrooms illustrates the importance of the emotional climate of the classroom on students’ behaviors, the implementation of SEL programs, and the mediating role of teachers and the teacher–student relationship. In one recent study, Brackett et al. (2011), using a sample of ninety fifth- and sixth-grade classrooms (N = 2,000 students), examined the relation between the classroom emotional climate and student conduct and included as a mediator students’ perceptions of their relationship with their teachers. Using multiple methods that included classroom observations, student reports of affiliation with their teachers, and conduct grades on report cards, results revealed a direct and positive relation between classroom emotional climate and student conduct after controlling for teacher characteristics and the organizational and instructional aspects of the classroom. Moreover, this relation was mediated by students’ affiliation with their teachers.
The quality of teacher–student relationships also appears to be important for children’s academic achievement as illustrated by the recent work of Maldonado-Carreno and Votruba-Drzal (2011). Using data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s (NICHD’s) Study of Early Childcare (N = 1,364), which included children from kindergarten through fifth grade, they found that increases in the quality of the teacher–student relationship were associated with concomitant improvements in teacher-reported academic skills. These relations remained unchanged as children progressed from kindergarten through fifth grade.
Because social and emotional competence and academic achievement are inter-woven, they must be integrated and coordinated to maximize the potential for students to succeed in school and throughout their lives. Genuinely effective schools—schools that succeed in preparing students to become constructive citizens and lifelong learners—are already doing this kind of work. In the twenty-first century, the importance of finding ways to promote SEL in our children becomes paramount. One of the biggest challenges that confront the field of SEL and prosocial education is the translation of knowledge garnered from rigorous research on the effectiveness of programs into policy and widespread practice (Greenberg, 2010; Shonkoff & Bales, 2011). Clearly, there is a need for greater efforts to translate science into practice and policy so that SEL approaches can be better integrated into schools and communities. Such efforts can help build the processes and structures needed to foster high-quality implementation and promote the sustainability of programs (see Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003). Also necessary is a much greater degree of collaboration between researchers and educators in order to learn from one another. Indeed, to create a world characterized by the values and practices that illustrate caring and kindness among all people, it is essential that educators, parents, community members, and policy makers work in concert to achieve long-term change. In today’s complex society, we need to take special care to encourage and facilitate our young people to reach their greatest potential and to flourish and thrive. It is therefore critical that we make intentional efforts to devise the most effective preventions and educational practices that promote SEL and prosocial education in all children. Such efforts must be based on strong conceptual models and sound research. Only then will we be in a position to advance the development of our world’s children and youth.
For More Information
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL): www.casel.org
The Committee for Children: http://www.cfchildren.org
The Developmental Studies Center: www.devstu.org
The Marcelino Botin Foundation: http://educacion.fundacionmbotin.org
The MindUP Program: www.thehawnfoundation.org
The Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility: http://www.morningsidecenter.org
The PATHS (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) Program: http://www.channing-bete.com/prevention-programs/paths/paths.html
The Responsive Classroom Approach: http://www.responsiveclassroom.org
The Roots of Empathy Program: http://www.rootsofempathy.org
The RULER Approach: http://therulerapproach.org
The Second Step Program: http://www.cfchildren.org/programs/ssp/overview
References
Abry, T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2011). Beyond treatment and control: The influence of fidelity of implementation on teacher-student interaction quality in the first year of an experimental trial of the Responsive Classroom approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Promoting mental health in schools in the midst of school reform. Journal of School Health, 70, 171–178.
Arseneault, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, P. J., & Silva, P. A. (2000). Mental disorders and violence in a total birth cohort: Results from the Dunedin study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 979–986.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.568
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Solomon, D., & Watson, M. (1991). The role of the school in prosocial development. In H. E. Fitzgerald, B. M. Lester, & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Theory and research in behavioral pediatrics (pp. 89–127). New York: Plenum Press.
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the Child Development Project: Early findings from an ongoing multi-site demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 12–25.
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 243–262.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., Solomon, J., & Schaps, E. (1989). Effects of an elementary school program to enhance prosocial behavior on children’s cognitive social problem-solving skills and strategies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 147–169.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81, 1641–1660.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934–946.
Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock and putting stock in primary prevention: Characteristics of effective programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 199–221.
Brackett, M. A., Patti, J., Stern, R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N., Chisholm, C., et al. (2009). A sustainable, skill-based model to building emotionally literate schools. In R. Thompson, M. Hughes, & J. B. Terrell (Eds.), Handbook of developing emotional and social intelligence: Best practices, case studies, and tools (pp. 329–358). New York: Wiley.
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N., & Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46, 27–36.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Enhancing academic performance and social and emotional competence with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 218–224.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 88–103. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.x
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2001). BC performance standards—Social responsibility: A framework. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/social_resp.htm#top
Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129–149.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4Rs Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 153–167.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campos, J., Mumme, D., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 284–303.
Caprara, G. V., Barbanelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.
Carter, D. S., Harris, J., & Porges, S. W. (2009). Neural and evolutionary perspectives on empathy. In J. Decety & W. J. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 169–182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caspi A., Taylor A., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2000). Neighborhood deprivation affects children’s mental health: Environmental risks identified in a genetic design. Psychological Science, 11, 338–342.
Cherniss, C. (1998, April). Social and emotional leadership for leaders. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 26–28.
Cohen, A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–33.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003, March). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/1A_Safe__Sound-rev-2.pdf
Committee for Children. (1997a). Second Step: A violence prevention curriculum, grades 1–3 (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Author.
Committee for Children. (1997b). Second Step: A violence prevention curriculum, grades 4–5 (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Author.
Committee for Children. (2001). Steps to respect: A bullying prevention program. Seattle, WA: Author.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems II: Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156–168.
Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1994). The school-based promotion of social competence: Theory, research, practice and policy. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 268–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.
Devaney, E., O’Brien, M. U., Resnik, H., Keister, S., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Sustainable schoolwide social and emotional learning (SEL): Implementation guide and toolkit. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Dewey, J. (1964). Need for a philosophy of education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings (pp. 3–14). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1934)
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 387–388.
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959–964.
Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the preschool “PATHS” curriculum. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 67–89.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). Enhancing students’ social and emotional development promotes success in school: Results of a meta-analysis. Child Development, 82, 474–501.
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115–152.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Sadovsky, A. (2006). Empathy-related responding in children. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 517–549). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elias, M. J. (2001). Prepare children for the tests of life, not a life of tests. Education Week, 21(4), 40.
Elias, M. J. (2003). Academic and social-emotional learning (Educational Practices Series). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education; Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education.
Elias, M. J., O’Brien, M. U., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006, December). Transformative leadership for social, emotional, and academic learning: Principles for education leaders. Principal Leadership, 7(4), 10–13. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling-up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303–319.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Estrada, A. U., & Pinsof, W. M. (1995, October). The effectiveness of family therapies for selected behavioral disorders of childhood. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(4), 403–440.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41(3), 479–491.
Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 171–200.
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. I. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 493–501.
Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281–301.
Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. (2009). A handbook of positive psychology in the schools: Promotion of wellness in children and youth. New York: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (1998, November–December). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 93–102.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gordon, M. (2005). Roots of Empathy: Changing the world child by child. Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen.
Gordon, M. (2009). The Roots of Empathy: Changing the world child by child. Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen Publishers.
Greenberg, M. T. (2006, December). Promoting resilience in children and youth: Preventive interventions and their interface with neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 139–150. doi:10.1196/annals.1376.013
Greenberg, M. T. (2010). School-based prevention: Current status and future challenges. Effective Education, 2, 27–52.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, 1–48.
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged deaf children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117–136.
Greenberg, M., Weissberg, R., O’Brien, M., Zins, J., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.
Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., et al. (1997). The effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605–1611.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and trajectory of school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G. G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–71). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.
Hartshorne, H., May, M. A., & Shuttleworth, F. K. (1930). Studies in the nature of character: Vol. 3. Studies in the organization of character. New York: Macmillan.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Effects of a social development intervention in childhood 15 years later. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 1133–1141.
Hazell, P. (2007). Does the treatment of mental disorders in childhood lead to a healthier adulthood? Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20, 315–318.
Huebner, E., & Gilman, R. (2003). Toward a focus on positive psychology in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 99–102.
Hymel, S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Miller, L. D. (2006). Reading, ’riting, ’rithmetic and relationships: Considering the social side of education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 16(3), 1–44.
Illback, R. (1994). Poverty and the crisis in children’s services: The need for services integration. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 413–424.
Izard, C. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796–824.
Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., Mostow, A. J., Trentacosta, C. J., & Campbell, J. (2002). Emotion processes in normal and abnormal development and preventative intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 761–787.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaffee, S. R., Harrington, H., Cohen, P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Cumulative prevalence of psychiatric disorder in youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 406–407.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525.
Jerome, E., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher-child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18, 915–945.
Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based social-emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in translational developmental research. Child Development, 82(2), 533–554. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01560.
Kia-Keating, M., Dowdy, E., Morgan, M. L., & Noam, G. G. (2011). Protecting and promoting: An integrative conceptual model for healthy development of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 220–228.
Kohlberg, L., & Higgins, A. (1987). School democracy and social interaction. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction (pp. 102–128). New York: Wiley.
Kohlberg, L., & Turiel, E. (1971). Moral development and moral education. In Lawrence Kohlberg, Collected Papers on Moral Development and Moral Education (1973) (pp. 410–465). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Moral Education.
Kohn, A. (1997). How not to teach values: A critical look at character education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 429–439.
Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2006). School-based social and emotional learning programs. In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 592–618). New York: Wiley.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72, 1579–1601.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Maldonado-Carreno, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher-child relationships and the development of academic and behavioral skills during elementary school: A within- and between-child analysis. Child Development, 82, 601–616.
Malti, T., & Noam, G. G. (2008). The hidden crisis in mental health and education: The gap between student needs and comprehensive supports. New Directions in Youth Development, 120, 13–29.
Marcelino Botin Foundation. (2008). Social and emotional education: An international analysis. Cantabria, Spain: Author.
Maurer, M., & Brackett, M. A. (2004). Emotional literacy in the middle school: A 6-step program to promote social, emotional, & academic learning. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.
McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing academic achievement and social-emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 23−39). New York: Teachers College Press.
McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62.
McMahon, S. D., Washburn, J. J., Felix, E. D., Yakin, J., & Childrey, G. (2000). Violence prevention: Program effects on urban preschool and kindergarten children. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 9, 271–281.
Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 4–22. doi:10.1177/0022146510394952
Minuchin, P. P., & Shapiro, E. K. (1983). The school as a context for social development. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 197–274). New York: Wiley.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108, 2693–2698.
Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2002). Modeling the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development, 73, 1775–1787.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrisey-Kane, E., et al. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 449–456.
Northeast Foundation for Children. (1997). Guidelines for the Responsive Classroom. Greenfield, MA: Author.
Northeast Foundation for Children. (2003). The Responsive Classroom level 1 workbook. Greenfield, MA: Author.
O’Brien, M. U., Weissberg, R. P., & Munro, S. B. (2005/2006, Winter). Reimagining education: In our dream, social and emotional learning—or SEL—is a household term. Green Money Journal. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?newsletterid=35&articleid=445
O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Osher, D., Sprague, J., Weissberg, R. P., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S., Kendziora, K., et al. (2008). A comprehensive approach to promoting social, emotional, and academic growth in contemporary schools. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (Vol. 4, pp. 1263–1278). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Patti, J., & Tobin, J. (2003). Smart school leaders: Leading with emotional intelligence. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Payton, J. W., Graczyk, P., Wardlaw, D., Bloodworth, M., Tompsett, C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework of promoting mental health and reducing risk behavior in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70, 179–185.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.
Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education: A study of three democratic high schools. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Fan, X., Chiu, Y., & You, W. (2007). The contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach on children’s academic achievement: Results from a three year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 401–421.
Rivers, S. E., & Brackett, M. A. (2011). Achieving standards in the English language arts (and more) using the RULER approach to social and emotional learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27, 75–100.
Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (in press). Improving the social and emotional climate of classrooms: A clustered randomized controlled trial testing The RULER Approach. Prevention Science.
Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Zoccolillo, M., & Pagani, L. (2001). Prevalence of psychiatric diagnosis and the role of perceived impairment: Findings from an adolescent community sample. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 451–461.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2000). The 32nd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes towards the public schools. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpol0009.htm
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Santos, R. G., Chartier, M. J., Whalen, J. C., Chateau, D., & Boyd, L. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based violence prevention for children and youth: Cluster randomized controlled field trial of the Roots of Empathy program with replication and three-year follow up. Healthcare Quarterly, 14, 80–91.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1993). Empathy and social relationships in adolescents with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 189–204.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2011). Promoting empathy in school-aged children: Current approaches and implications for practice. In K. Nader (Ed.), School rampage shootings and other youth disturbances: Early preventive interventions (pp. 159–203). New York: Routledge.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Hymel, S. (1996). Promoting social development and acceptance in the elementary classroom. In J. Andrews (Ed.), Teaching students with diverse needs: Elementary classrooms (pp. 152–200). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Hymel, S. (2007). Educating the heart as well as the mind: Why social and emotional learning is critical for students’ school and life success. Education Canada, 47, 20–25.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre- and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mindfulness, 1, 137–151.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Oberle, E. (2011). Teaching empathy to children: Theoretical and empirical considerations and implications for practice. In B. Weber & E. Marsal (Eds.), The politics of empathy: New interdisciplinary perspectives on an ancient phenomenon. Berlin, Germany: Lit Verlag.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thomson, K., Oberlander, T. F., et al. (2011). Enhancing cognitive and social emotional development through a simple to administer school program. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Scott, F. (2009). Effectiveness of the “Roots of Empathy” program in promoting children’s emotional and social competence: A summary of research findings. In M. Gordon (Ed.), Roots of Empathy: Changing the world child by child (pp. 239–262). Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen Publishers.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Smith, V., Zaidman-Zait, A., & Hertzman, C. (2011). Promoting children’s prosocial behaviors in school: Impact of the “Roots of Empathy” program on the social and emotional competence of school-aged children. School Mental Health. doi:10.1007/s12310-011-9064-7
Seligman, E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Shipman, K., Zeman, J., Penza, S., & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmaltreated girls: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 47–62.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82, 17–32.
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience, New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 81–96.
Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy, prosocial behavior, and positive development in the schools. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 119–129). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Staub, E. (1988). The evolution of caring and nonaggressive persons and societies. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 81–100.
Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfillment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24, 1–21.
Staub, E. (2005). The roots of goodness: The fulfillment of basic human needs and the development of caring, helping and non-aggression, inclusive caring, moral courage, active bystandership, and altruism born of suffering. In G. Carlo & C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the lifespan (Vol. 51, pp. 33–72). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Stephens, T., & Joubert, N. (2001). The economic burden of mental health problems in Canada. Chronic Disease in Canada, 22, 18–23.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47.
Tregebov, R. (1993). Sasha and the wiggly tooth. Toronto, Ontario: Second Story Press.
U.S. Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s Mental Health: A national action agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland, K. (2002). Changing adolescents’ attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a school-based intervention. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 201–216.
Vygotsky, L .S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence-enhancement and prevention programs. In I. E. Siegel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 5. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 877–954). New York: Wiley.
Weissberg, R. P., Payton, J. W., O’Brien, M. U., & Munro, S. (2007). Social and emotional learning. In F. C. Power, R. J. Nuzzi, D. Narvaez, D. K. Lapsley, & T. C. Hunt (Eds.), Moral education: A handbook, Vol. 2, M–Z (pp. 417–418). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357–364.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411–419.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136–149.
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 3–22). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press.
*A more complete description of the ROE program is included in a later section of this chapter. Also see chapter 11, case study B, for another example of the ROE program in action.