Joseph Mahoney, Joseph Durlak, and Roger Weissberg compare results from four large-scale meta-analyses of student outcomes related to participation in universal, school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs. Their examination includes 356 research reports with rigorous designs and outcome data at post or follow-up from hundreds of thousands of K-12 students within and outside the U.S. on a range of SEL programs. The reviews indicate that universal school-based SEL programs produce positive benefits for participating students on a range of important behavioral and academic outcomes that are evident immediately following the end of intervention and that persist during various follow-up periods. Therefore, current data indicate that SEL programs are both feasible and effective in a variety of educational contexts in many countries around the world.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AEI/Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity. (2015). Opportunity, responsibility, and security: A consensus plan for reducing poverty and restoring the American dream. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy and the Brookings Institution.
2.
BermanS.with ChaffeeS.SarmientoJ. (2018). The practice base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development — Consensus statements of practice from the Council of Distinguished Educators. Washington, DC: National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, The Aspen Institute.
3.
BridgelandJ.BruceM.HariharanA. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises and Hart Research Associates for CASEL.
4.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2017). Key implementation insights from the Collaborating District Initiative. Chicago, IL: Author.
5.
DePaoliJ.L.AtwellM.BridgelandJ. (2017). Ready to lead: A national principal survey on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform schools. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises and Hart Research Associates for CASEL.
6.
DuncanR.WashburnI.J.LewisK.M.BavarianN.DuBoisD.L.AcockA.C.…FlayB.R. (2017). Can universal SEL programs benefit universally?Effects of the Positive Action Program on multiple trajectories of social-emotional and misconduct behaviors. Prevention Science, 18, 214–224.
7.
DurlakJ.A.WeissbergR.P.DymnickiA.TaylorR.D.SchellingerK.B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
8.
DusenburyL.A.Zadrazil NewmanJ.WeissbergR.P.GorenP.DomitrovichC.E.MartA.K. (2015). The case for preschool through high school state learning standards for SEL. In DurlakJ.A.DomitrovichC.E.WeissbergR.P.GullottaT.P. (Eds.), Handbook for social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 532–548). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
EliasM.J. (2014). Social-emotional skills can boost Common Core implementation. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (3), 58–62.
10.
HillC.J.BloomH.S.BlackA.R.LipseyM.W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.
11.
HumphreyN. (2013). Social and emotional learning: A critical appraisal. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
JonesS.M.KahnJ. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development – Consensus statements of evidence from the Council of Distinguished Scientists. Washington, DC: National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, The Aspen Institute.
13.
MillerC.F.KochelK.P.WheelerL.A.UpdegraffK A.FabesR.A.MartinC.L.HanishL.D. (2017). The efficacy of a relationship building intervention in 5th grade. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 75–88.
14.
MuratoriP.BertacchiI.GiuliC.NocentiniA.LochmanJ.E. (2017). Implementing Coping Power adapted as a universal prevention program in Italian primary schools: A randomized control trial. Prevention Science, 18, 754–761.
15.
Schonert-ReichlK.A.KitilM.J.Hanson-PetersonJ. (2017). To reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social and emotional learning. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
16.
SkladM.DiekstraR.De RitterM.BenJ.GravesteijnC. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs. Do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology and Schools, 49, 892–909.
17.
TaylorR.OberleE.DurlakJ.A.WeissbergR.P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88, 1156–1171.
WeissbergR.P.DurlakJ.A.DomitrovichC.E.GullottaT.P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In DurlakJ.A.DomitrovichC.E.WeissbergR.P.GullottaT.P. (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
WiglesworthM.LendrumA.OldfieldJ.ScottA.ten BokkelI.TateK.EmeryC. (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46, 347–376.
