RTL2 Assignment 2

Part A: Literature review

Overarching question: How does social and emotional learning
impact on a student’s ability to learn?
Individual question: How can social and emotional learning be used
to improve engagement?
The term social and emotional learning (SEL) has been around for around 20 years now

(Swartz, 2017) but the interest in the topic has increased recently among parents, policy

makers, educators and health professionals. SEL is defined as the process in which children

and adults acquire and apply their knowledge and skills needed to manage emotions, set

goals, make responsible decisions and form and maintain positive relationships (CASEL,

2018; Jones & Doolittle, 2017). Schools engagement with SEL programs have been identified

to improve life outcomes among students including their academic and social outcomes

(Swartz, 2017; CASEL, 2018; Yang, Bear & May, 2018). The term Social and Emotional

Learning can also go by other names such as Character education, soft skills and non-

cognitive skills (Jones & Doolittle, 2017). Though these terms are at times used, the most

familiar and preferred term among educators, policy makers and parents is SEL, this is the

reasons for the choice of SEL over other terms that could be used to address the topic. To

better understand the approach of understanding the impacts of SEL on engagement we need

to understand student engagement which is generally defined as “the quality of a student’s

connection or involvement with the endeavor of schooling and hence with the people,

activities, goals, values and place that compose it” (Yang et al, 2018, p. 45).

As the approach to SEL is a recent phenomenon there is much research still going on

around the best applications and approach to SEL within education. From the literature that is

currently out there is an indication that the SEL approach is a positive one which has

immediate and long term benefits for students seen in a meta- analysis carried out by the

Trevor Rothery 17877419

Center for the Promotion of Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), Loyola University and

the University of British Columbia in 2017. Mark Greenburg, Celene Domitrovich, Roger

Weissberg and Joseph Durlak (2017) identify that evidence based SEL programs, when

implemented effectively can lead to long lasting improvements in a range of areas. The

literature does identify some areas of consideration when applying the SEL approach. These

include the need for a school wide SEL approach along with the classroom based application

(Yang et al., 2018), the investment and proficiency of teacher application of SEL (Collie,

Shapka & Perry, 2012; Greenberg et al., 2017; Wagner, 2013) and the consideration of the

differing demands of students developmental period (Jones & Doolittle, 2017; Yeager, 2017).

There is a variety of different frameworks to view SEL with the most common and

used framework being the one developed by CASEL which has fire core competences. These

competences are self-awareness, self-management, relationship skills, social awareness and

responsible decision making (CASEL, 2018). These competencies can be given to students in

three different ways: by teaching specific SEL skills, through a change in the overall school

environment and using a specific curriculum (Jones, Doolittle, 2017). Through addressing

these competencies research has shown that SEL programs can be effective in improving

decision making and confidence in academic skills, this in turn assists students with

engagement whilst promoting desirable behaviours (Greenburg et al., 2017).

Vitor Coelho and Vanda Sousa’s (2016) multilevel effectiveness study examined two

different delivery programs for year 5 and 6 students. The study looked at how curriculum

delivery and a fixed SEL program differ in the outcomes between students. The study had

982 participants spread into three groups including a control group, the groups had 46.8%

girls participating with the average age of the participants being 11.2. The aims of the

delivered program was to improve the social awareness, self-awareness, self-control,

relationship skills and responsible decision making skills of the students (Coelho & Sousa,

Trevor Rothery 17877419

2016). The results of the research showed gains in several social competences including:

social awareness, self-control and self-esteem, whilst also reducing social isolation and

anxiety. The results showed that the immediate effects of the SEL programs were maintained

and did not show a sharp decrease shortly after the program (Coelhi & Sousa, 2016) which

was a contrast to Sklad, Diekstra, Ritter, Bed and Gravesteijn’s (2012) research on the topic.

The results of the research also showed differences between delivery formats with pre-

packaged delivery providing the best overall results. The final results of the program was that

different delivery formats can lead to a variety of different effectiveness results, with pre-

packaged delivery being better than curriculum based for this age group.

A Meta-Analysis of school based universal intervention was undertaken by Joseph

Durlak, Roger Weissberg, Allison Dymnicki, Rebecca Taylor and Kriston Schellinger (2011)

looking at 213 school based SEL programs involving 270,034 Kindergarten through high

school students. The findings of the Meta-analysis found that there was a positive effect on

the targeted SEL competencies explored in the research (Durlak et al., 2011). The studies

were found to have positive results in behavioural adjustment, attitudes about school,

reduction in internalizing problems and improved academic performance. Though there were

positive results the research also found that in follow up’s there was a reduction in the

retention of these behaviours, but they were still at a satisfactory level after a 6 month period

(Durlak et al., 2011). The findings also established that current teaching staff effectively

implemented the SEL programs and that outside intervention would not be required for the

implementation of school based SEL programs. Durlak et al. (2011) identifies the ability for

the SEL programs to be implemented at all schooling levels but acknowledges the lack of

testing and research done at the high school level. The results also indicate that SEL

competencies improve students attitude and performance at school, with the examples of

students who are more self-aware and confident about learning, trying harder and persisting

Trevor Rothery 17877419

through challenges and those who have appropriate goals and self-discipline manage their

stress and learn more and achieve higher grades (Durlak et al., 2011).

The findings of these articles and research analysis have shown that SEL programs do

foster success among students improving their social interactions, ability to set goals, connect

with the school community and achieve higher academic results (Durlak et al., 2011; Coelho

& Sousa, 2016; Yang et al., 2018; CASEL, 2017; Greenburg et al., 2017; Yeager, 2017;

Jones & Doolittle, 2017; Swartz, 2017). They did recognize considerations that must be

recognized for the effective implementation of the SEL programs as mention being the

competence, willingness and SEL capabilities of the teachers (Collie et al., 2012; Wagner,

2013; Jones & Doolittle, 2017), a consideration of the developmental period of the students

and the need for a school wide approach to the SEL program (Yeager, 2017). The research

around engagement though not specifically targeting engagement as an area of focus, still

show the positive influence of SEL programs on the level of students engagement if we use

the definition by Yang et al. (2018) “the quality of a student’s connection or involvement

with the endeavor of schooling and hence with the people, activities, goals, values and place

that compose it” (p.45). The findings to show an increase in the ability for students to engage

with the endeavor of school, learn to set goals, establish self-awareness of values and abilities

and make responsible decisions not only in the classroom but in life (Durlak et al., 2011;

Coelhi & Sousa, 2016; Yang et al., 2018; CASEL, 2017; Greenburg et al., 2017; Yeager,

2017; Jones & Doolittle, 2017; Swartz, 2017). Though further research should be undertaken

in regards to both the engagement of students in general and at the high school level, the

current results still provide a good base point and hypothesis that SEL programs have a

positive effect on improving student’s engagement in the classroom.

Trevor Rothery 17877419

Reference List
Coelho, V. A., & Sousa, V. (2017). Comparing two low middle school social and emotional
learning program formats: A multilevel effectiveness study. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 46(3), 656-667.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10964-016-0472-8
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2018). What is SEL?
Retrieved from https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, N. (2012). School climate and social-emotional
learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching
efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189.
Durlak, J. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: Basic
issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333-345.
Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-32.
Greenburg, 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.
Jones, S. M., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Social and Emotional Learning: Introducing the Issue.
The Future of Children, 27(1), 3-11.
McKown. C. (2017) Social-Emotional Assessment, Performance, and Standards. The Future
of Children, 27(1), 157-178.
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of
school‐based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they enhance
students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in
the Schools, 49(9), 892-909. doi:doi:10.1002/pits.21641
Swartz, M. K. (2017). Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of Pediatric Health Care,
31(5), 521-522. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2017.06.001
Wagner, A. K. (2013). How social and emotional learning beliefs predict efficacy and
engagement beliefs in practicing and preservice teachers (Order No. MS25014).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1502845702). Retrieved
from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1502845702?accountid=36155
Yang, C., Bear, G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel Associations Between School -Wide
Social–Emotional Learning Approach and Student Engagement Across
Elementary, Middle, and High Schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45-
61.
Yeager. D.S. (2017) Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Adolescents. The Future of
Children, 27(1), 73-94.

Trevor Rothery 17877419

 Part B: Data Collection Protocol

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled How can social and emotional learning be used to improve engagement?
for the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project,
I am collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

Our topic looks at social and emotional learning which is the skills needed to manage emotions, set goals,
make responsible decisions and form and maintain positive relationships. The survey is to explore the
relationship between social and emotional learning and the levels of engagement within the classroom.
In order to do this we have put together a range of questions that will be used to determine engagement
levels among students who have either completed a social and emotional learning program at school or
who have not completed a social and emotional program at school.

By participating in this survey, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to answering the survey questions to the best of my ability.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

Trevor Rothery 17877419

 Part B: Data Collection Protocol
Online Survey link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11AeSRmaChVmwyFN7oMej0ynrqjO9QYd83bDzKUD
Moss

Part C: Data Collection Protocol (Explanation)

The purpose of the survey linked above is to collect data regarding student’s engagement in

the classroom. The age of the participating students should be between 16 and 18, though

ideally if the survey could be run on a larger scale it would include students from years 7-12.

For the sake of comparison between students differing levels of engagement the survey

should be taken before and after the SEL program is run, or include both students who have

and have not completed the SEL programs. Due to the limitations and resources available to

conduct the data collection protocol this is not possible. Due to this a random administration

of the test from students at a school that runs SEL programs, between the ages of 16-18 with

a minimum of 10 respondents will be sought after. The reason students between the ages of

16 and 18 will be selected is that they have a higher chance to have participated in an SEL

program throughout their schooling. These students should also have the skills required to

personally reflect on their own engagement within the classroom and provide more

information in their answers.

Due to the review of literature showing a lacking supply of research into the adolescent/ high

school area that would be the idea developmental stage to focus on. The data collection

protocol is an online survey which provides easy access for students and allows for the

delivery of the survey to a range of students. The online survey also provides easy access to

the accumulation of results from the survey in an easy structured way (Efron & Ravid, 2013).

The consent form provides information about the project to the potential participants whilst

Trevor Rothery 17877419

also outlining the goals of the survey. The survey consists of 13 questions which include a

mix of structured and unstructured questions which allow students to not spend too long in

completing the survey but collect a sufficient amount of data (Efron & Ravid, 2013). Due to

the participants being between the ages of 16-18 open ended questions should not pose too

many problems for them to answer. The response choices provided to the students

accommodate a range of selections but also provide another option where available to allow

students to share an answer not provided or extra information. The questions being asked

throughout the survey are simple enough with their information avoiding double barrelled

questions and misleading information (Efron & Ravid, 2013). The survey has been developed

with the literature review in mind, it focuses on SEL that have been linked to engagement

using the same definition of engagement found in the literature.

Trevor Rothery 17877419

References
Efron, S.E. & Ravid, R. (2013). Action Research: A practical guide. Guildford Press e-book
retrieved from:
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UWSAU/reader.action?docID=1137441.

Trevor Rothery 17877419