Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research over the past few decades has demonstrated the efficacy of well-defined Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) programs when implemented with fidelity. Such programs have improved students' social skills, mental health and academic achievement. However, there has been no description or synthesis of current inclusion of SEL-related outcomes in Canadian public school curricula. While SEL has been shown to be effective when implemented with fidelity, the current inclusion of SEL in Canadian curricula may be too scattered and fragmented to lead to consistent implementation or the positive outcomes associated with SEL reported in literature. The purpose of this study was to identify the SEL-related specific learning outcomes currently included in Canadian primary to grade 6 curricula. The descriptive and deductive analysis provided insights into the current state of SEL inclusion in Canadian curricula. Results indicated that despite significant variation in each province and territory’s approach to curricula, emphasis was placed on teaching students social skills such as prosocial behavior, conflict resolution, and social cues. All provinces placed the least amount of emphasis on teaching or enforcing attitudes such as optimism, enthusiasm, openness, and gratitude. Considerations for ongoing Canadian research and psychology-informed curriculum development are discussed.

Keywords

Social Emotional Learning curriculum synthesis elementary school child psychology school psychology evidence-based practice inclusive practices multi-tiered system of supports

Introduction

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) has become a popular term for classroom instruction and school-wide programming that aims to teach students emotional and social skills thought to support child and adolescent development (Kilborn et al., 2024; Kim et al., 2024; Mahoney et al., 2021). SEL refers to teaching social and emotional skills to foster mental health and healthy relationships, which are necessary for success in school and life (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2020). When evaluating instruction, proximal outcomes are those that are closely aligned to instruction temporally and contextually, and distal outcomes represent the broader goals of healthy development and educational attainment. Well-defined SEL programs have led to positive proximal (in school) and distal (new contexts and over long periods) outcomes when implemented with high fidelity (Cipriano et al., 2023; Durlak et al., 2011; Soto et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2008). Proximal outcomes studied to date include improved emotion regulation, empathy, problem-solving skills, prosocial skills, and academic achievement (Bierman et al., 2010; Cipriano et al., 2023; Low & Van Ryzin, 2024; Shi & Cheung, 2024). Distal outcomes are those that are long-term or transfer to outside of instructional contexts and include increased rates of high school and college graduation and lower rates of STD diagnoses, arrests, substance use diagnoses, suicidality, and clinical mental health disorders (Cipriano et al., 2023; Durlak et al., 2011; Soto et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2008). Durlak et al. (2010, 2011) characterized all effective SEL programs to be sequenced, active, focused, and including explicit instruction and assessment. These characteristics are summarized with the acronym S.A.F.E.

With the rising popularity and promising research on SEL, there is currently an abundance of varied definitions and frameworks. The Taxonomy Project by Harvard University’s Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning (EASEL) Lab has mapped over 40 SEL frameworks and associated publications. While there is often some overlap between these frameworks, the vernacular and scope vary widely. This can lead to significant confusion regarding the meaning of SEL and the inability to compare SEL-related programs and instructional strategies (Abrahams et al., 2019). To better understand the scope of frameworks being used in relation to SEL, see the EASEL Taxonomy Project’s interactive open-source website, where people can explore a specific domain or skill across frameworks and identify connections across frameworks (http://exploresel.gse.harvard.edu/visual-tools/). Without a broadly agreed upon framework with operationalized constructs that meet the S.A.F.E criteria, educators may easily misunderstand what qualifies as SEL or use SEL terminology to try to lend validity to their own goals and aims in educational settings, which further convolutes the meaning of the construct and takes away from the validity of SEL as a useful term in curriculum and instruction (Finn & Hess, 2019). Without a clear consensus on what SEL is, it risks becoming an educational buzzword that is used to refer to so many different things that it fails to retain any meaning. Some frameworks are more prevalent than others, such as the one put forward by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (casel.org). We propose that until there is sufficient evidence that this (or any other) framework is most parsimonious in comparison to others, it is too early to conclude any one framework is sufficiently comprehensive.

To address this issue, Jones et al. (2021) developed an SEL taxonomy based on a qualitative analysis of 33 published SEL programs. This taxonomy organizes and describes the breadth of skills and knowledge included in the reviewed SEL programs and frameworks and is organized into six broad domains: cognitive, emotion, social, values, perspectives, and identity. Each broad domain has three to five sub-domains that further categorize SEL concepts. The goal of this ‘umbrella’ taxonomy is solely to capture the breadth of knowledge, attitudes, and skills currently being called SEL as a needed step in taking stock and then moving forward in evidence-based ways. In evidence-based practice, parsimony is the process of capturing something in its entirety as simply as possible. Jones et al. (2021) brought together the full range of competencies addressed in SEL frameworks, with the caveat that not all of these have equal or even sufficient evidence regarding developmental appropriateness or success. The field of education research and practice must now determine what to retain and why. Table 1 provides a summary of each of the 23 sub-domains that comprise the six domains. The full coding guidelines can be found in Appendix C of Jones et al. (2021), starting on page 525.

Table 1.

Summary of Jones et al.’s (2021) Domains and Sub-Domains.

DomainSub-Domain	Sub-domain summary
Cognitive domain
Attention control	Selecting relevant information or tasks to attend to, maintaining attention, and ignoring distractions.
Working memory and planning skills	Holding information in mind and manipulating it to carry out a task; identifying and organizing steps of a plan to achieve a goal.
Inhibitory control	Suppressing a specific behavior in order to achieve a goal.
Cognitive flexibility	The ability to shift thinking from one concept to another, or to consider multiple concepts at once.
Critical thinking/problem solving	Identifying, understanding, and solving problems, and engaging in reasoning and analytical thinking.
Emotion domain
Emotional knowledge and expression	Identifying and understanding emotions experienced by oneself or others, and expressing emotions in an appropriate manner.
Emotional and behavioral regulation	Using strategies to manage one’s emotional and behavioral responses and self-regulate.
Empathy/perspective taking	Understanding another person’s perspective, opinions, and feelings.
Social domain
Understanding social cues	Accurately understanding and using social cues including non-verbal cues and identifying the motivations of others.
Conflict resolution/social problem solving	Using strategies to appropriately navigate conflict and other challenging interpersonal situations.
Prosocial/cooperative behavior	The ability to initiate and maintain positive and cooperative social relationships.
Values domain
Ethical values	Prosocial values and habits related to justice, fairness, and the well-being of others.
Performance values	Values and habits related to a strong work ethic, giving one’s best effort, and meeting goals.
Civic values	Values and habits related to active participation in the community and seeking the common good of the group.
Intellectual values	Values and habits related to learning, curiosity, and creative thinking.
Perspectives domain
Optimism	Having a positive attitude and approaching the future with hope.
Gratitude	A sense of thankfulness and appreciation for the things in one’s life.
Openness	Displaying traits of adaptability and acceptance, including adapting to change, accepting one’s circumstances, and appreciating beauty.
Enthusiasm/Zest	Having an attitude of excitement, enthusiasm, and energy.
Identity domain
Self-knowledge	Having self-awareness and an established self-concept, including awareness of one’s personality, strengths, and weaknesses.
Purpose	Being motivated by something larger than yourself that shapes your values, goals, and actions.
Self-efficacy/growth mindset	A belief in one’s own ability to learn, improve skills, and succeed.
Self-esteem	A belief in one’s own self-worth; feeling a sense of belonging and feeling valued by others.

To our knowledge, the Jones et al. (2021) taxonomy is the most recent broad summary integrating existing concepts included in SEL research and practice. Although meta-analyses have demonstrated that specific aspects of SEL are associated with increased rates of educational attainment, well-being, and healthy development, the field still does not have an agreed-upon, evidence-based, comprehensive, feasible, and effective SEL framework to guide school practices and curriculum development. This broad integration of a wide range of domains and sub-domains is appropriate for research aiming to map the range of SEL-related learning targets in public school curriculum documents. Once we can synthesize the words we are using to tell teachers what they need to teach at a national scale, we can then begin to identify which are associated with relevant and high-quality evidence, which demonstrate ineffectiveness, and which may hold promise but have yet to be studied.

Canadian Curricula-Synthesis Research

With Canada’s public education being provincially or territorially mandated, curricula-synthesis research is needed to capture a national portrait of what Canadian teachers are being told to teach in their classrooms. Comparisons lead to a sense of the extent to which we mean the same thing when we speak of SEL; is it operationalized similarly across the country? Similar work in health and physical education has been completed by Robinson et al. (2019) and Kilborn et al. (2016). Applying similar methods across curriculum synthesis studies could foster consistency and provides a template for others to replicate in their own respective areas of curriculum research.

Robinson et al.’s (2019) deductive analysis of sexual health education outcomes within Canada’s elementary health education curricula applied UNESCO’s 2018 framework containing eight key recommendations for sexual health education outcomes. They first collected all specific curriculum outcomes from provincial and territorial elementary health curricula and organized the outcomes in an Excel spreadsheet. Each outcome was then compared to UNESCO’s framework; if an outcome contained at least one of the key recommendations indicated by UNESCO, it was highlighted for further examination and analysis. All highlighted outcomes were then analyzed to identify the specific topics addressed within them. Once this process was complete, the researchers were able to describe how the recommendations suggested by UNESCO were present in Canadian elementary health curriculum documents.

Kilborn et al. (2016) conducted an inductive qualitative analysis of Canadian physical education curricula to synthesize and analyze the current topics and outcomes represented in Canadian physical education and health curricula in grades one through nine. Only primary curriculum documents were used in their analysis; secondary documents, such as teaching strategies or evaluation tools, were not included. Their analysis included 3,134 specific learning outcomes from all 10 Canadian provinces. Outcomes were organized and inductively coded in an Excel spreadsheet. Their results included three broad themes: fitness, movement skills, and healthy living. Frequency statistics described the distribution of themes within each province.

Canadian Educational and Health Context

In Canada, each of the ten provinces and three territories oversees its own education department and curriculum. Without nationally prescribed curricula, regional educational approaches tend to vary significantly (Lu & McLean, 2011; Robinson et al., 2024). There is significant variability in the length, content, time recommendations, and organization of curricula among provinces and territories. Most Canadian curriculum documents are organized into levels, from broad subject areas to specific learning outcomes (SLOs). This general organization from broad subject area to narrow learning outcome is present in some form in all Canadian provincial and territorial curriculum documents, but the categories that structure curricula often use different names and terminology across provinces and territories.

Although SEL content has been included in Canadian educational curricula for many years, to our knowledge, there have been no studies on what is included and where. A common approach to Canadian elementary curriculum design is to have core subject areas, topics (such as SEL) embedded across core subject areas, and an expectation to integrate both in classroom instruction without specific direction for what to integrate, when, or how to do so. Although this might be an opportunity for teacher agency to integrate outcomes how and when they wish, it is often seen as onerous and confusing (Kilborn et al., 2024; Ritchie et al., 2025). Core subject areas most often include English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Health, and Physical Education. Topics espoused as important but scattered through other subject areas include SEL; there is no specific subject area or set curriculum for SEL-related outcomes across the country. There has been no systematic analysis of whether the current inclusion of SEL-related outcomes in Canadian curricula is effective in improving student outcomes such as social skill development, emotional regulation skills, or academic achievement (Whitley & Gooderham, 2015). Furthermore, there has been no synthesis of what Canadian provinces and territories are trying to achieve through the implementation of SEL curricula. The current scattered inclusion of SEL content across curricula is not yet well-defined; thus, it is to date impossible to implement with any fidelity or evaluate with observable indicators of success.

Because well-defined and -implemented SEL is associated with long-term physical and mental health benefits (Cipriano et al., 2023; Durlak et al., 2011; Soto et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2008), it has the potential to be a powerful preventative health tool, which may be especially useful given the current state of access to health care across Canada (Li et al., 2023). Many Canadians currently live without access to a regular health care provider because of the widespread shortage of primary care physicians. As of 2019, an estimated 14.5% of Canadians did not have access to a primary care physician (Statistics Canada, 2021). As approximately 92% of students in Canada attend public schools (Statistics Canada, 2021), teachers are the only professionals who have regular access to nearly every child in Canada. Children spend a large portion of their lives in school, making it an ideal location for preventive interventions to promote well-being (Domitrovich et al., 2017). Public schools have a long history of taking effective and active roles in promoting child health (Kilborn et al., 2016; Pulimeno et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2019). Teachers, school psychologists, and other school-based support staff are in an excellent position to implement universal SEL programs to improve the well-being of the student population and prevent future health problems (Greenberg et al., 2017). If SEL is taught effectively across Canada, it may support the health and well-being of Canadians and relieve some of the current burden on the healthcare system, alleviating some of the urgent need for regular healthcare providers (Greenberg et al., 2017). Although SEL is not a panacea for all health problems or a substitute for medical care, evidence-based preventative SEL instruction has the potential to ease some of the burden on the healthcare system by teaching children how to make healthy choices and learn skills that will promote holistic health across the lifespan (Durlak et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2008). Teachers are well-positioned to succeed if they are taught about and supported to implement a well-defined and feasible SEL curriculum (Kilborn et al., 2024).

Objective

Given the benefits associated with S.A.F.E. SEL programs, the current landscape of healthcare in Canada, and the role education plays in child development and health promotion, it is more important than ever that all Canadian children have access to evidence-based instruction that prepares and empowers them to use developmentally appropriate skills and make choices that will support healthy development. Positioning teachers and students for success across Canada requires a description of the landscape of SEL curricula across the country. The objective of the present study was to describe and assess the consistency of Canadian provincial and territorial SEL-related curricula.

Method

This exploratory and descriptive study applied Jones et al.’s (2021) six broad domains of SEL to synthesize the inclusion of SEL-related knowledge, attitudes, and skills. The analysis identified the percentage frequencies of inclusion of each domain across Canada and in each individual province or territory. Based on the national average inclusion of each domain, individual provincial and territorial variations were based on the method outlined by Jones et al. (2021) (see Procedure). All subject areas were first read by two authors for instances of SEL-related outcomes and learning targets. Almost no SEL-related content was evident in science or mathematics. Given the initial scan of all subject areas, this first (to our knowledge) investigation of SEL-related content in Canadian public elementary school curricula focused on Social Studies, English Language Arts, Physical Education, and Health.

Data Collection

Similar to Robinson et al. (2019) and Kilborn et al. (2016), all Canadian public education curriculum documents publicly available on provincial or territorial government websites were analyzed. Unique curriculum documents from each Canadian province and territory in the areas of Health, Physical Education, English Language Arts, and Social Studies for Kindergarten (or Primary) through grade six were organized into Excel spreadsheets. Each curriculum document was assigned a unique numeric code for identification and organized into a comprehensive table of contents for easy retrieval. Each title in the table of contents was assigned an individual live link to the web version of the specific curriculum document. Only the curriculum materials that were in use at the time of data collection (June 2023) were included in the analysis; past iterations of curricula or updated iterations released after June 2023 were not included in the analysis. Nunavut and Yukon borrowed their curriculum documents for these subjects from other provinces and did not report specifically which aspects, therefore these territories did not have unique curriculum documents to include in the study. Yukon uses the British Columbia curriculum (Government of Yukon, n.d.), and Nunavut uses the curriculum from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories (Nunavut Department of Education, 2019). All curricula used in this analysis are listed and linked in the Supplementary Materials, along with their publication dates, if available.

In most cases, the full curriculum guide was available; therefore, these documents were used for the analysis. In some cases, such as when a province or territory was revising the curriculum document, a full curriculum guide was not available, and instead, the province provided a curriculum framework or summary document. In these instances, the most comprehensive curriculum document available at the time of data collection was utilized. All general curriculum and specific learning outcomes were populated into Excel spreadsheets. Secondary resources, such as teaching strategies, instructional samples, assessment guides, or brochures, were not examined.

Each subject area in each province was assigned a separate worksheet. Curriculum outcomes across grades primary to six in that subject within that province’s curricula were included in the worksheet (e.g., the Manitoba English Language Arts curriculum outcomes for kindergarten through grade six were included in one worksheet). Descriptive information about the curriculum outcomes was organized into spreadsheet columns, including grade level, numerical table of contents code, subject area, specific outcome code (if applicable), section or unit, specific learning outcome (SLO), and general learning outcome. Each SLO was assigned its own row and was considered the unit of analysis for this study. All spreadsheets were imported and coded using MAXQDA 2024 (VERBI Software, 2023).

Procedure

The coding manual created by Jones et al. (2021) was applied deductively to each SLO using a team-based approach (Guest & MacQueen, 2008). The procedure replicated that of Robinson et al. (2019) in examining the alignment of sexual health curriculum outcomes with the 2019 UNESCO framework. Each SLO was coded if it fit at least one of the descriptions of Jones et al.’s (2021) 23 sub-domains. Jones et al. (2021) noted that it is common for there to be overlaps between codes. Team-based analysis involved two study investigators collaboratively familiarizing themselves with the taxonomy and original curricula documents. Coding began through discussion and shared meaning making; once agreement was consistent, one investigator took on all of the coding, with weekly meetings (or more as needed) to review decisions and discuss any areas of surprise or confusion. This is a unique approach to qualitative validity and analysis for transparent deductive analysis that relies on intentional conversation and shared understanding of complex documents.

Following the coding of all SLOs, a cross-provincial/territorial analysis was conducted to identify the distribution of SEL domains across all provinces and territories included in the study. Using MaxQDA software, 12,837 SLOs were individually analyzed, and 6,376 codes were deductively applied. Sub-domain codes were collapsed into their broader domain, and curriculum documents were grouped by region. The percentage was calculated to determine the amount of each province or territory’s curriculum represented by each of the six domains. This was done by dividing the number of domain codes applied to a province or territory by the total number of SLOs in that province or territory. The national mean was then calculated to determine the average frequency of each domain across all Canadian curricula.

The percentage was calculated by comparing the degree to which each province included a domain relative to the average of all Canadian provinces and territories. This percentage indicates whether each province had a high, low, or typical inclusion of a specific SEL domain. The specific guidelines for this analysis are included in Jones et al. (2021) (p. 513) and summarized in Table 2. To determine the extent to which the provincial percentage varied from the national average, the provincial percentage was subtracted from the national average, and the difference was divided by the national average. For example, in Alberta, 8.46% of the curricula fell into the cognitive domain, and the national average for the cognitive domain was 10.52%. The above formula was applied, and Alberta’s inclusion of the cognitive domain in its curricula was 19.55% below the national average.

(8.46 - 10.52) / 10.52 = - 19.55 %

Table 2.

Criteria for Comparison of Domains to National Average as Developed by Jones et al. (2021).

Province/territory is considered high or low in a domain when:	And the national average for that domain is:
Provincial average was ≥ 20% above/below the national mean.	> 20%
Provincial average was ≥ 15% above/below the national mean.	11–20%
Provincial average was ≥ 10% above/below the national mean.	5–10%
Provincial average was ≥ 5% above/below the national mean.	< 5%

To determine whether a province or territory’s inclusion of a specific domain was higher, lower, or consistent with the national average, each provincial percentage was compared to the national percentage to determine the difference, as seen in Table 2. The difference required for a province to be considered high or low in a particular domain depended on the national average. If a province did not meet the criteria to be considered high or low in a particular domain, it was considered typical in that domain.

Results

Some SLOs did not receive any codes as they were not, on close inspection of the data, related to SEL as indexed by Jones’ et al. (2021), whereas other SLOs that contained several different facets of SEL within a single outcome received several codes. The length and complexity of SLOs varied widely between regions; thus, there was also significant variability in the number of codes applied to each SLO. Ontario had the longest SLOs of all provinces and territories, with their outcomes often taking the form of a long run-on sentence or a short paragraph. For example, the following is an SLO taken from the Ontario grade two Physical Education Curriculum:

Describe how to relate positively to family members, caregivers, and others (e.g., cooperate, show respect, communicate openly, manage anger, pay attention to what people say and to their facial expressions and body language), and describe behaviors that can be harmful in relating to others (e.g., verbal abuse, including both online and face-to-face name calling, insults, and mocking; deliberately ignoring someone, or ignoring the feelings they express; physical violence, including pushing, kicking, and hitting). (Government of Ontario, 2019, outcome D3.1)

In this instance, seven sub-domain codes were applied. “Prosocial/cooperative behaviour” was applied because the overall goal of the outcome was to relate positively to other people, including cooperating, showing respect, and communicating openly. “Emotional and behavioural regulation” was coded because the outcome mentioned managing anger. “Ethical values” was coded because the outcome mentioned showing respect for others and avoiding abuse. “Understanding social cues” was applied because the outcome included awareness of people’s facial expressions and body language. “Conflict resolution/social problem solving” was applied because the outcome mentioned having awareness of behaviors that could harm others. “Empathy/perspective taking” was coded because the outcome involved understanding that ignoring another person’s feelings can be harmful. “Emotional knowledge and expression” was coded because the outcome required students to understand appropriate and inappropriate ways to express anger. This example illustrates how a single SLO may be complex and involve several SEL components.

Alternatively, some curricula included SLOs that were so short and cryptic that it was difficult to understand what specific skill was being taught and how it could be assessed. Quebec’s curricula included many such SLOs, including “relaxation,” “fighting spirit,” and “fairness” (Government of Quebec, n.d.). These outcomes were not codable because the purpose or meaning of the outcome was ambiguous. For this study, if the SLO was too vague to clearly fit the coding manual applied (e.g., fighting spirit), it was not coded.

All six domains of Jones et al. (2021) and all 23 sub-domains of SEL were represented across Canadian provincial and territorial curricula. Table 3 shows the percentage of each domain in each region. Table 4 compares each province’s or territory’s inclusion of each domain to the national average. Based on the data in Table 4 and the analysis procedure outlined by Jones et al. (2021) and summarized in Table 2, Table 5 indicates whether each province and territory’s inclusion of each broad domain was high, low, or typical when compared to the national average of inclusion for each domain. Distributions of each province’s and territory’s curriculum outcomes are represented in Figures 1 to 11, which can be retrieved in the Appendix to visually illustrate the percentages of all SLOs by broad SEL domain for each region.

Table 3.

Percentages of Each Domain Included Across Curriculum Subjects in Each Province and Territory.

Province or Territory	Cognitive	Emotion	Social	Values	Perspectives	Identity
Alberta	8.46%	6.25%	14.56%	12.12%	0.38%	5.95%
British Columbia	13.16%	6.88%	10.02%	5.70%	0.00%	9.82%
Manitoba	10.53%	7.89%	19.21%	17.02%	3.25%	7.89%
New Brunswick	9.09%	11.66%	17.02%	11.66%	1.17%	7.46%
Newfoundland and Labrador	10.46%	11.17%	20.73%	10.37%	0.98%	8.94%
Nova Scotia	7.06%	7.70%	12.62%	8.45%	0.53%	3.53%
Northwest Territories	7.82%	3.83%	11.93%	10.55%	1.18%	9.49%
Ontario	13.99%	10.69%	15.38%	7.49%	1.40%	6.69%
Prince Edward Island	6.73%	6.57%	14.09%	10.01%	0.96%	3.84%
Quebec	16.50%	3.22%	10.35%	4.34%	0.56%	3.22%
Saskatchewan	11.89%	5.69%	15.24%	10.47%	0.23%	6.98%
National Average	10.52%	7.41%	14.65%	9.83%	0.97%	6.71%

Table 4.

Comparison of Each Curriculum’s Inclusion of Each Domain Compared to the National Average.

Province or Territory	Cognitive	Emotion	Social	Values	Perspectives	Identity
Alberta	−19.55%	−15.68%	−0.63%	+23.26%	−60.60%	−11.40%
British Columbia	+25.17%	−7.24%	−31.61%	−42.05%	−100.00%	+46.40%
Manitoba	+0.10%	+6.50%	+31.12%	+73.08%	+235.57%	+17.66%
New Brunswick	−13.55%	+57.23%	+16.15%	+18.54%	+20.50%	+11.17%
Newfoundland and Labrador	−0.58%	+50.70%	+41.52%	+5.43%	+1.64%	+33.19%
Nova Scotia	−32.88%	+3.88%	−13.86%	−14.07%	−44.71%	−47.40%
Northwest Territories	−25.66%	−48.37%	−18.57%	+7.26%	+22.08%	+41.39%
Ontario	+32.99%	+44.20%	+5.01%	−23.80%	+44.60%	−0.25%
Prince Edward Island	−36.05%	−11.43%	−3.82%	+1.79%	−0.66%	−42.72%
Quebec	+56.93%	−56.60%	−29.36%	−55.90%	−42.16%	−52.06%
Saskatchewan	+13.08%	−23.19%	+4.05%	+6.47%	−76.26%	+4.01%

The highest and lowest rates of inclusion for each domain are highlighted in bold font.

Table 5.

Level of Inclusion of Each Domain by Province Compared to the National Average.

Province or Territory	Cognitive	Emotion	Social	Values	Perspectives	Identity
Alberta	low	low	typical	high	low	low
British Columbia	high	typical	low	low	low	high
Manitoba	typical	typical	high	high	high	high
New Brunswick	low	high	high	high	high	high
Newfoundland and Labrador	typical	high	high	typical	typical	high
Nova Scotia	low	typical	typical	low	low	low
Northwest Territories	low	low	low	typical	high	high
Ontario	high	high	typical	low	high	typical
Prince Edward Island	low	low	typical	typical	typical	low
Quebec	high	low	low	low	low	low
Saskatchewan	high	low	typical	typical	low	typical

Figure 1

Distribution of Alberta’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 2.

Distribution of British Columbia’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 3.

Distribution of Manitoba’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 4.

Distribution of New Brunswick’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 5.

Distribution of Newfoundland and Labrador’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 6.

Distribution of Northwest territories’ curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 7.

Distribution of Nova Scotia’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 8.

Distribution of Ontario’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 9.

Distribution of Prince Edward Island’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 10.

Distribution of Quebec’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Figure 11.

Distribution of Saskatchewan’s curriculum outcomes into each of the six broad factors of SEL.

Discussion

The present study examined the inclusion of Jones et al.’s (2021) six broad domains of SEL in Canadian primary to grade 6 curriculum documents. SLOs were coded according to Jones et al.’s (2021) coding manual, and percentage statistics were calculated to identify regional similarities and differences. Three notable trends were observed across all provinces and territories: the social domain was the most prevalent, the perspectives domain was the least prevalent, and there was a high degree of variability across curricula.

First, for most provinces and territories, the social domain was heavily represented in curriculum documents. The only two provinces for which the social domain was not the most prominent were Quebec and British Columbia. For both provinces, the inclusion of the social domain came second after the cognitive domain, and both provinces’ inclusion of the social domain represented over 10% of curriculum outcomes. This indicates that all provinces’ and territories’ curricula documents placed great emphasis on teaching primary/kindergarten to grade 6 students’ social skills, such as being cooperative, showing empathy, and resolving conflicts.

Second, the perspectives domain was the least frequently included domain among all provinces and territories. The rate of inclusion for the perspectives domain ranged from < 0.01% to 3.53%. This indicates that Canadian curricula might not currently prioritize cultivating perspectives of optimism, gratitude, openness, and enthusiasm in their elementary school curricula. It is possible that the perspectives domain is least relevant to SEL. Taylor et al.’s (2017) study found that teaching concrete skills, compared to general attitudes, led to more positive outcomes. While attitudes such as optimism or gratitude may be positive attributes, it may not be necessary to enforce or evaluate them in academic contexts.

Third, no province had more than three of the six domains that were considered typical compared to the national average. This indicates that while there are themes in the distribution of SEL domains across provinces and territories, there is no comprehensive agreement on the weighting or wording of SEL domains in curricula across provinces and territories. It was much more common for a province to be high or low in a domain than to be typical, which indicates the difference and variation between provinces in their inclusion of each domain. With few regions considered “typical” in their inclusion of any domain, there was so much variation that we conclude there truly is no “typical.” This variation is to be expected, as there is no national mandate for public education and little Canadian national-scale education research to learn from (Lu & McLean, 2011). Ideally, the inclusion of an SEL domain should be based on evidence of its efficacy. To date, there are no guidelines or recommendations regarding which domains should be prioritized. If curriculum outcomes were based on research as to what is logistically feasible and most benefits students’ learning and health, then there would be a greater probability of consistency across curricula. These findings are similar to those of Kilborn et al. (2016) and Robinson et al. (2019), who both noted inconsistency and variation between provinces and territories in their analyses of Canadian health and physical education curricula. Overall, the findings from this study show the effects of having education fragmented into provincial and territorial governments without national-scale evidence or discourse to inform practices. The variability between provinces and territories appears to suggest that Canada does not have a national understanding of or approach to SEL.

Simply because these broad domains and sub-domains were highlighted by Jones et al. (2021) as common facets of preexisting SEL programs or curricula does not mean that they are all evidence-based and should be taught. The taxonomy provided by Jones et al. (2021) simply outlines what is included in frameworks and program objectives that people label as SEL. It is possible that some domains or sub-domains of SEL are more important, developmentally appropriate, or evidence-based than others. Removing SLOs that have no evidence of function in learning or health can also enhance the parsimony of curricula, which in turn may decrease the cognitive demands on teachers who are expected to achieve so much with so little. Further research is needed to determine what is worth keeping.

While the specific mechanisms or ‘active ingredients’ of SEL programming in terms of content are unknown, some effective content can be inferred from the programs and outcomes included in various studies. Positive social-emotional outcomes are linked to specific skill instruction, practice, and development (Taylor et al., 2017); therefore, programs resulting in improved conflict resolution skills likely teach content that falls under Jones et al.’s (2021) “Conflict Resolution/Social Problem Solving” sub-domain within the social domain. Previous research has shown that skills can be effectively taught to students because they are explicit, practical, and measurable (Durlak et al., 2010, 2011).

The first three domains of Jones et al. (2021) are cognitive, emotional, and social, all of which comprise behaviors and skills that can be taught, such as inhibitory control, critical thinking/problem solving, emotional and behavioral regulation, and conflict resolution/social problem solving. The latter three domains are the values, perspectives, and identity domains, which largely consist of attitudes that students can hold, such as having a sense of purpose, displaying enthusiasm and zest, and holding ethical values. While there has not yet been an investigation of which domains or sub-domains are evidence-based and necessary for SEL instruction in Canadian schools, it is evident that the first three domains are more skill-based and the last three are more attitude-based. Research has shown that it is more efficacious to teach specific skills than to encourage certain attitudes; it is skill-knowledge and -development that leads to measurable improvement in student outcomes rather than broad conceptual knowledge or attitudes (Durlak et al., 2010, 2011; Taylor et al., 2017). Additionally, a student’s attitudes and values are highly influenced by a variety of factors, such as their family upbringing and culture. It is possible that SEL SLOs focused on attitudes and values align more closely with some cultures than others (McCall et al., 2023). Instead of having specific values, perspectives, and aspects of identity in SLOs, curricula might be more amenable to local interpretation and cultural relevance by teaching the skills of self-awareness and regulation, which, in turn, may have a positive influence on one’s own personal (perhaps private) values, perspectives, and identity. Further research is needed to determine whether this hypothesis holds and to clarify SEL in Canadian curricula.

Curricula are often designed by experienced teachers and educators (Lu & McLean, 2011). Teachers are trained professionals, and their contributions to the curriculum design process are invaluable. Teachers can provide countless contributions and insights into the feasibility of implementing a certain curriculum in an actual classroom with actual students. It is also important to collaborate with subject-matter experts when designing curricula. Many teachers are experts in teaching, and, especially for those who teach elementary school subjects, are not necessarily specialists in every subject they teach (e.g., an elementary school teacher does not need a degree in science to teach a science class). When designing curriculum outcomes related to SEL, curriculum designers should consult experts with specialized knowledge and experience in evidence-based SEL and child development (e.g., psychologists). This may help ensure that the curriculum is evidence-informed by high-quality research and relevant to the grade level taught. Drawing from the strengths and expertise of multiple professions may help ensure that students receive the best possible SEL instruction.

Relevance to the Practice of School Psychology

In the school environment, school psychologists are typically the professionals with the most training in mental health and evidence-based psychological practices (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). Given their expertise, it is important for school psychologists to be involved in tier 1 preventative education, such as SEL instruction, rather than only tier 2 and 3 interventions, such as counselling, small group intervention, behavioral assessment, or referral to external mental health services (Jordan et al., 2009). However, school psychologists’ allocation of time and resources is often dictated by their administrators, school boards, or the government, which means that some school psychologists may not be able to implement evidence-based practices even if they have the knowledge (Jordan et al., 2009; Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004). Additionally, Jordan et al. (2009) found that 84% of Canadian school psychologists surveyed indicated that there were not enough school psychologists to meet the needs of their schools. When school psychologists have high caseloads, they are forced to focus more of their time and resources on urgent cases at tier three rather than on preventative measures at tier one. In Jordan et al.’s (2009) study, 69% of Canadian school psychologists indicated that they desired to spend more of their time at the Tier 1 level doing preventative, universal intervention, such as promoting effective SEL instruction. To achieve this goal, evidence-based approaches to curriculum design and implementation would benefit from monitoring applications of SEL-related models within schools and across school boards or regional centers of education. Doing so can also facilitate teachers’ expressed needs for professional development in SEL instruction and a feasible curriculum (Kilborn et al., 2024).

Even if the school psychologist is not able to assist with the implementation of an SEL program, they can use their knowledge of research and evidence-based practice to act as a consultant with administrators and classroom teachers to choose an evidence-based SEL program tailored to the needs of the school or class. Psychologists are trained as both scientists and clinicians, and they have experience discerning between evidence-based and non-evidence-based interventions and can recognize the strengths and limitations of different programs (American Psychological Association, 2006; Dozois et al., 2014). School psychologists can also assist with coaching teachers and training them in SEL interventions or providing professional development in behavioral principles. Efficacious SEL programs involve skill development (Durlak et al., 2010, 2011; Taylor et al., 2017), and skill development is behavior; therefore, teachers can support SEL skill development by applying behavioral techniques in their classroom. A school psychologist can support teachers in using behavior management techniques to support SEL instruction in their classrooms. School psychologists are healthcare professionals committed to supporting students’ well-being; however, the extent to which this occurs depends on mandated workplace constraints and affordances. For example, if teachers must implement instruction according to the curriculum, then school psychologists can consult on curriculum development for parsimony and developmental appropriateness. If documented constraints on education were not a factor, school psychologists might instead recommend stopping the writing of thousands of specific learning outcomes in curricula documents that are not tied to implementation strategies or school-wide supports and instead adopt a small handful of well-developed school-wide and evidence-based SEL programs based on consistent approaches to implementation science in Canadian schools. Programs that could be tested and, if effective, adopted in lieu of a broad curriculum might include SNAP (Augimeri, 2007), JUMP Math (Molyneux & Diamond, 2025), or PATHS (Shi et al., 2022).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study provided an analysis of six categories of SEL content currently included in the Canadian elementary curricula. Further research is needed to explore whether the current inclusion of SEL content in curricula is evidence-based, feasible, and developmentally appropriate. Mapping outcomes to evidence-based content, strategies, and assessment approaches could lead to a manageable number of well-defined curriculum outcomes for classroom teachers. Supporting teachers to implement well-defined SEL will promote the use of SEL as a cross-sectoral public health promotion approach. Further research could link Canadian health data with education data to investigate the association between Canadian students’ SEL skills and specific SEL-related health variables, such as rates of STIs, diagnoses of mental health disorders, and drug use (see Durlak et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2017). This work across organizational levels of provincial departments, regional centers or school boards, and specific school planning teams and staff would benefit from cross-disciplinary consultation with experts in evidence-based practices and child development (Cole & Kokai, 2022; CPA, 2022; Newman & Rosenfield, 2019).

One limitation of the present study is that it only examined four core subject areas rather than every subject area in the curriculum. Because there is no separate SEL curriculum and SEL-related outcomes are scattered throughout multiple subject areas, some SEL-related outcomes may have been missed in curriculum subjects that were not included in the analysis. Though initial review to focus on the chosen subject areas did not demonstrate prevalence of SEL in mathematics, JUMP Math is a SEL and numerical literacy program that has demonstrated positive outcomes in Canadian schools (Molyneux & Diamond, 2025; Solomon et al., 2019). Further research focusing specifically on mathematics and areas not captured within the scope of this study is needed. Jones et al.’s (2021) coding guidelines were initially developed by coding 33 existing SEL programs, not public school curriculum documents. The application of this framework to public curricula is, however, novel. Without other existing structures for a comprehensive description of what SEL might entail, this taxonomy was easily applied to curricula. It will be beneficial to compare these results with future efforts to synthesize SEL curricula in other countries. Future studies of curriculum documents could replicate this study procedure to build comparable evidence across Canadian contexts and subject areas.

The present study explored the inclusion of SEL in Canadian elementary curricula as a small first step toward answering the bigger questions of what should be included in the curricula and how it should be implemented and evaluated. This study describes the general trends in SEL inclusion across Canadian curriculum documents. Next steps might include exploring whether the current inclusion of SEL aligns with evidence-based literature on content and implementation of SEL skills and knowledge. The results of this study indicate that Canada covers all the outcomes synthesized by Jones et al. (2021). Additionally, the present study only addressed SLOs, which typically only address the content of instruction rather than classroom teaching strategies or program implementations. Most research on SEL has examined the effects of implementing specific SEL programs rather than the impact of specific SEL-related knowledge or skills implemented by classroom teachers following a mandated curriculum. Research has supported evidence-based implementation methods for SEL programs (e.g., Durlak et al., 2010, 2011). However, it is difficult to apply this research to curriculum documents, as they typically address the content of instruction rather than the method of instruction. Whether governments choose to continue developing the curriculum or adopt school-wide programs, classroom-based research is required to assess feasibility and fidelity and track potential short- and long-term outcomes for Canadian students.

Conclusion

In closing, although international research has evidenced that SEL programs can be effective, researchers have yet to figure out why they are effective or how this works when implemented by teachers through government-mandated curricula. It will be important to determine what component(s) of SEL programs make them effective and what the ‘active ingredients’ are (Domitrovich et al., 2017). Perhaps one or two components of SEL need to be included, and the rest are inconsequential. Without further evidence, this remains uncertain. It is worth exploring whether effective SEL programs or curricula need to include all 23 sub-domains of SEL; perhaps only two or three need to be included to lead to improvements in student outcomes. Further research is required to determine which aspects of SEL have the most potential to support child development and well-being. This will improve the efficacy of SEL programs and refine curricula, as unnecessary components can be removed and the most important components can be amplified.

This study was the first step toward a broader goal of implementing effective SEL in Canadian schools. To identify the steps needed to reach this goal, it is important to first understand the current state of the SEL curriculum in Canada. This curriculum analysis provides insights into the current inclusion of SEL-related outcomes in Canadian provincial and territorial curricula. English Language Arts, Social Studies, Health, and Physical Education curricula from ten provinces and one territory were included in the analysis. The analysis found substantial variability between provinces and territories in their inclusion of SEL, but general themes showed that most provinces placed the most emphasis on teaching social skills, such as prosocial behavior and conflict resolution, and the least emphasis on enforcing specific attitudes in their students, such as enthusiasm or optimism. This research may provide a starting point for further exploration into the implementation of evidence-based SEL instruction in Canadian elementary schools to support the learning and overall well-being of Canadian students.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjs-10.1177_08295735261430424 – Supplemental material for A Pan-Canadian Analysis of Social-Emotional Learning Curriculum Outcomes in Elementary Grades

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjs-10.1177_08295735261430424 for A Pan-Canadian Analysis of Social-Emotional Learning Curriculum Outcomes in Elementary Grades by Julia Hall, Krista C. Ritchie and Sara King in Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Krista C. Ritchie

Sara King

Ethical Considerations

This study examined publicly available curriculum documents and was exempt from ethics review.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is a result of Julia Hall’s MA thesis research, funded by Research Nova Scotia

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data analysed are in the publicly available curriculum documents, linked in the supplementary materials document

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Julia Hall, MA, is a School Psychologist in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Krista C. Ritchie, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Mount Saint Vincent University.

Sara King, PhD, RPsych is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at Mount Saint Vincent University.

References

Abrahams

Pancorbo

Primi

Santos

Kyllonen

John

O. P.

De Fruyt

(2019). Social-emotional skill assessment in children and adolescents: Advances and challenges in personality, clinical, and educational contexts. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000591

American Psychological Association. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271

Augimeri

Farrington

D. P.

Koegl

C. J.

Day

D. M.

(2007). The SNAP® under 12 outreach project: Effects of a community-based program for children with conduct problems.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 799–807. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10826-006-9126-x

Bierman

K. L.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

Lochman

J. E.

McMahon

R. J.

Pinderhughes

, & 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(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018607

Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). (2022). Mental health care for Canadian children and youth. The role of school psychologists. https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Sections/EDsection/Mental%20Health%20Care%20for%20Canadian%20Children%20and%_20Youth%20-%20FINAL%20EN.pdf_

Cipriano

Strambler

M. J.

Naples

L. H.

Kirk

Wood

Sehgal

Zieher

A. K.

Eveleigh

McCarthy

Funaro

Ponnock

Chow

J. C.

Durlak

(2023). The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions. Child Development, 95(5), 1181–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13968

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2020). CASEL’s SEL framework: What are the core competence areas and where are they promoted? CASEL. www.casel.org/what-is-SEL

Cole

Kokai

(2022). School psychology. More than changing lives one child, one class, one school at a time. Psynopsis Canada’s Psychology Magazine, 44(3), 8–9. https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Psynopsis/2022/Psynopsis_Vol44-3.pdf

Domitrovich

C. E.

Durlak

J. A.

Staley

K. C.

Weissberg

R. P.

(2017). Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739

10.

Dozois

D. J. A.

Mikail

S. F.

Alden

L. E.

Bieling

P. J.

Bourgon

Clark

D. A.

Drapeau

Gallson

Greenberg

Hunsley

Johnston

(2014). The CPA presidential task force on evidence-based practice of psychological treatments. Canadian Psychology, 55(3), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035767

11.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Pachan

(2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6

12.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

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

13.

Finn

C. E.

Jr. Hess

F. M.

(2019). What social and emotional learning needs to succeed and survive. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/what-social-and-emotional-learning-needs-to-succeed-and-survive/

14.

Government of Ontario. (2019). Health and Physical Education: The Ontario Curriculum: Grades 1–8. Government of Ontario. https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/fbd574c4-da36-0066-a0c5-849ffb2de96e/db4cea83-51a1-458d-838a-4c31be56bc35/2019-health-pysical-education-elem-PUBLIC.pdf

15.

Government of Quebec. (n.d.). Chapter 9: Personal development. https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/education/pfeq/primaire/programmes/PFEQ-education-physique-primaire-AN.pdf

16.

Government of Yukon. (n.d.). Learn about the Yukon’s school curriculum. https://yukon.ca/en/school-curriculum

17.

Greenberg

M. T.

Domitrovich

C. E.

Weissberg

R. P.

Durlak

J. A.

(2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0001

18.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

(2008). Handbook for team-based qualitative research. Lanham: Altamira.

19.

Jones

S. M.

Brush

K. E.

Ramirez

Mao

Z. X.

Marenus

Wettje

Finney

Raish

Podoloff

Kahn

Barnes

Stickle

Brion-Meisels

McIntyre

Cuartas

Bailey

(2021). Navigating SEL from the inside out: Looking inside & across 33 leading SEL programs. A practical resource for schools and OST providers: Preschool & Elementary Focus (Revised & Expanded 2^nd Ed.). The Easel Lab. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/navigating-social-and-emotional-learning-from-the-inside-out-2ed.pdf

20.

Jordan

J. J.

Hindes

Y. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2009). School psychology in Canada: A survey of roles and functions, challenges and aspirations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509338614

21.

Kilborn

Lorusso

Francis

(2016). An analysis of Canadian physical education curricula. European Physical Education Review, 22(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15586909

22.

Kilborn

Montgomery

J. N.

Shooshtari

Roy

Tze

(2024). Feasibility of evidence-based social and emotional learning in Prairie Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 39(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735241234782

23.

Kim

E. K.

Allen

J. P.

Jimerson

S. R.

(2024). Supporting student social emotional learning and development. School Psychology Review, 53(3), 201–207. https://doi-org.ezproxy.msvu.ca/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2346443

24.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Shernoff

E. S.

(2004). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.4.389.27000

25.

Frumkin

W. G.

Magrill

Newton

(2023). Biopsy of Canada’s family physician shortage. Family Medicine and Community Health, 11(2), e002236. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2023-002236

26.

Low

Van Ryzin

M. J.

(2024). Student-centered instruction can build social-emotional skills and peer relations: Findings from a cluster-randomized trial of technology-supported cooperative learning. School Psychology, 39(6), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000589

27.

McLean

(2011). School health education in Canada: A critical analysis. PHENex Journal, 3(2). https://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/phenex/article/view/1404

28.

Mahoney

J. L.

Weissberg

R. P.

Greenberg

M. T.

Dusenbury

Jagers

R. J.

Niemi

Schlinger

Schlund

Shriver

T. P.

VanAusdal

Yoder

(2021). Systemic social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high school students. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1128–1142. https://doi-org/10.1037/amp0000701

29.

McCall

C. S.

Romero

M. E.

Yang

Weigand

(2023). A call for equity-focused social-emotional learning. School Psychology Review, 52(5), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2093125

30.

Molyneux

T. M.

Diamond

(2025). Integrating social and emotional learning into mathematics education: A multiple case study of JUMP Math’s approach to creating socially and emotionally supportive learning environments. Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), 1426. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101426

31.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (n.d.). Towards a comprehensive school health program: A health curriculum guide. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/files/k12_curriculum_guides_health_elementary_towards-a-comprehensive-school-health-program-an-elementary-health-curriculum-guide.pdf

32.

Newman

D. S.

Rosenfield

S. A.

(2019). Building competence in school consultation: A developmental approach. Routledge.

33.

Northwest Territories Education, Culture and Employment, Health and Social Services. (1995). Northwest territories school health program: grade 6. Government of Northwest Territories. https://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/sites/ece/files/resources/health_studies._grade_6.pdf

34.

Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2019). Health education 4 guide. Province of Nova Scotia.

35.

Nunavut Department of Education. (2019). 2019–2020 Nunavut approved curriculum and teaching resources. Government of Nunavut. https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/2019-20_nunavut_approved_curriculum_and_teaching_resources.pdf

36.

Pulimeno

Piscitelli

Colazzo

Colao

Miani

(2020). School as ideal setting to promote health and wellbeing among young people. Health Promotion Perspectives, 10, 316–324. https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2020.50

37.

Ritchie

K. C.

Doe

Becker

(2025). Teacher emotion-regulation in the elementary classroom: A psychological case study. European Journal of Education, 60(3), e70139. http://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70139

38.

Robinson

D. B.

MacLaughlin

Poole

(2019). Sexual health education outcomes within Canada’s elementary health education curricula: A summary and analysis. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 28(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2018-0036

39.

Robinson

D. B.

Sulz

Morrison

Wilson

Harding-Kuriger

(2024). Health education curricula in Canada: An overview and analysis. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 15(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2023.2178944

40.

Sheridan

S. M.

Gutkin

T. B.

(2000). The ecology of school psychology: Examining and changing our paradigm for the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 29(4), 485–501. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-14347-001

41.

Shi

Cheung

A. C. K.

(2024). Effective components of social emotional learning programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(4), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01942-7.

42.

Shi

Cheung

A. C. K.

(2022). The effectiveness of promoting alternative thinking strategies program: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030572

43.

Solomon

Dupuis

O’Hara

Hockenberry

M-N.

Lam

Goco

Ferguson

Tannock

(2019). A cluster-randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the JUMP Math program of math instruction for improving elementary math achievement. PLoS ONE, 14(10) e0223049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223049

44.

Soto

C. J.

Napolitano

C. M.

Sewell

M. N.

Yoon

H. J.

Roberts

B. W.

(2024). Going beyond traits: Social, emotional, and behavioral skills matter for adolescents’ success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(1), 33–45.https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221127483

45.

Statistics Canada (2021). Number and proportion of students in elementary and secondary schools, by school type, Canada, provinces and territories, 2019/2020. Site last accessed April 14, 2021 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/211014/t001c-eng.htm

46.

Taylor

R. D.

Oberle

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

(2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864

47.

VERBI Software. (2023). MAXQDA 2024 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com.

48.

Whitley

Gooderham

(2015). Mental health promotion efforts for children and youth in Canada and beyond: Evidence in research, policy, and practice. Exceptionality Education International, 25(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v25i1.7718

49.

Wilcox

H. C.

Kellam

S. G.

Brown

C. H.

Poduska

J. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

Wang

Anthony

J. C.

(2008). The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S60–S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.005

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB