Social-Emotional Learning programs
Joseph A. Durlak Loyola University Chicago
Abstract
A meta-analysis was conducted on the outcomes from 213 school-based, universal social and emo-tional learning (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students. Com-pared to controls, SEL participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, as well as improved academic performance that reflected an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement. As predicted, the use of four recommended practices for developing skills and programs not reporting any major implementation problems were associated with better outcomes in several areas. The findings offer further empirical support for the ability of SEL programs to enhance several aspects of students’ lives. Policymakers, ed-ucators, and the public should support the incor-poration of evidence-based SEL programming into standard educational practice.
There is growing recognition in the field of education that students’ cognitive, emotional and social development are related (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). For instance, there is broad agreement among educators, policymakers and the general public that schools should gradu-ate students who are not only proficient in core ac-ademic subjects, but also who are able to work ef-fectively with others in socially and emotionally skillful ways, practice healthy behaviors, and behave responsibly and respectfully (Association for Su-pervision and Curriculum Development, 2007;
Greenberg et al., 2003). These combined qualities should place students on a positive path toward later life success. Yet, at the same time, there is growing pressure on schools to prioritize academic achievement, particularly in the United States as na-tional analyses of students’ test scores have sug-gested that many students are not performing at ex-pected grade levels and relatively few are excelling.
Therefore, schools must make wise decisions about which types of programs they adopt in order to of-fer their students interventions that can achieve
benefits in multiple areas that span social, emotional and cognitive development.
The purpose of our research review was to as-sess the extent to which universal school-based so-cial-emotional learning (SEL) programs can suc-cessfully promote students’ development in multiple areas. We were also interested in identify-ing factors that are associated with more effective in-terventions. Based on prior research (Durlak, Weiss-berg & Pachan, in press; Durlak & Dupre, 2008) we hypothesized that programs that followed four recommended practices in developing skills and those that were free of major implementation prob-lems would obtain better results than interventions not having these features.
What is Social and Emotional Learning?
SEL refers to the process by which youth acquire the necessary knowledge, attitudes and skills to ac-complish five main tasks: (1) recognize and man-age emotions; (2) set and achieve positive goals;
(3) demonstrate care and concern for others; (4) establish and maintain positive relationships; and, (5) handle interpersonal situations effectively (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emo-tional Learning, 2005). Achieving success in these areas typically involves a combination of cognitive, emotional and social skills related to such things as self-awareness, critical thinking and various in-formational processing abilities, communication and negotiation with others, and self-regulation and self-monitoring of one’s thoughts, emotions and behavior.
Prior Research
Several narrative and meta-analytic reviews have appeared to indicate that development of one or more SEL-related skills can enhance young people’s adjustment and well-being, including their aca-demic development (e.g., Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak & Hawkins, 2002; Durlak & Wells, 1997; Greenberg et al., 2003; Lösel, & Beelman, 2003; Tobler et al., 2000; Wang, Haertel, & Wal-berg, 1997; Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001;
Wilson & Lipsey, 2007; Zins et al., 2004). How-ever, these reviews differ either by evaluating SEL programs along with an array of other types of in-terventions or by focusing on specific types of out-comes, age groups, or settings for intervention. In contrast, this project was a systematic meta-analytic
review that focused exclusively on universal school-based SEL interventions in order to examine their impact across diverse outcomes for students in grades K through 12. This paper provides a brief summary of our methodology and findings, and more complete details can be found in our Child Development publication (Durlak, Weissberg, Dym-nicki, Taylor & Schellinger, in press).
Method
We used multiple search strategies to locate a repre-sentative sample of published and unpublished stud-ies of universal SEL interventions conducted around the world for K-12 students that contained a control group, used at least one quantitative outcome of child adjustment, and appeared in English by the end of 2007. Data were obtained for 213 interventions involving 270,034 students and are presented as standardized mean effects (i.e., Hedges’ g values) af-ter following recommended meta-analytic techniques for calculating and analyzing effects using a random effects statistical model (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Results
Table 1 presents the mean effects and 95% confi-dence intervals obtained in six outcome categories at post. Results were uniformly positive. Compared to control students, participants in SEL programs demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills (mean ES = 0.57) attitudes (mean ES = 0.23) and prosocial behaviors (e.g., social skills, cooperation, mean ES = 0.24) lower levels of conduct problems (e.g., aggression, noncompli-ance, 0.22) and emotional distress (e.g., depres-sion, anxiety, mean ES = 0.24) and better academic performance (mean ES = 0.27) that corresponded to an 11-percentile gain in achievement. Further-more, programs were successful for students at all grade levels and from different racial and ethnic groups, and for schools located in urban, suburban and rural areas. At first glance, the post mean ESs might seem small to modest in magnitude; how-ever, they are actually comparable to or higher than those obtained in many previous reviews of psy-chosocial interventions for school-aged youth (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Lösel, & Beelman, 2003;
Tobler et al., 2000; Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007).
Although a limited number of studies col-lected any follow-up, in those studies that
con-tained > six month follow-up information (15% of the studies with a median follow-up period of 52 weeks) student gains remained significant at follow-up for all outcome categories. Because of the smaller study sample at follow-up, the remaining text dis-cusses only the findings at post.
Features Associated with Better Outcomes As predicted, two factors were related to more suc-cessful interventions. Programs that followed four recommended practices for developing skills and that did not encounter any major implementation problems obtained better results than programs not having these features. For example, several au-thors have noted that successful efforts at develop-ing skills contain at least four common elements.
Successful programs: (1) use a carefully sequenced series of sessions to develop skills in a step-by-step fashion (which is usually accomplished by lesson plans or intervention manuals); (2) emphasize ac-tive forms of learning whereby students are asked to practice their new skills and they receive feedback on their performance; (3) devote (i.e., focus) ex-clusive and sufficient time and attention to skill training; and, (4) target specific skills for training so students know what is expected of them. These four features form the acronym SAFE (for Se-quential, Active, Focused, and Specific).
SAFE programs (i.e., those that contained all four recommended features) obtained significant mean ESs at post in each of the six outcome cate-gories whereas interventions not having all four features were successful in only three outcome ar-eas (for attitudes, conduct problems and academic achievement). Three of the more commonly re-ported implementation problems consisted of a lack of fidelity while trying to deliver the program, a high turnover of teaching staff such that their sub-stitute were less adequately trained and prepared for the intervention, or problems in coordinating or otherwise administering the intervention. Inter-ventions with implementation programs obtained significant results at post for only two outcome categories (attitudes and conduct problems) while programs without any implementation problems yielded significant mean effects in all six outcomes.
Conclusions and Implications
Why are current findings important? Our data lend empirical support for the value of universal SEL A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Universal School-based Social-Emotional Learning programs
programs in enhancing multiple aspects of youths’
adjustment, including their academic achievement.
Such results confirm that students’ social, emo-tional and academic development are related and there is considerable value in focusing on youths’ so-cial and emotional development.
Current data also suggest that carefully exe-cuted programs are associated with more benefits for students than programs lacking these characteristics.
Therefore, it is critical that SEL interventions follow recommended practices for promoting skills and monitor program implementation to insure the in-tervention is carefully conducted. Finally, current findings should encourage policymakers, educators, and the public to support the incorporation of evi-dence-based SEL programming into schools.
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum De-velopment. (2007). The learning compact redefined: A call to action – A report of the Commission on the Whole Child. A l e x a n -dria, VA: Author.
Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D.
(2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 15. Retrieved August, 1, 2002, from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/vol-ume5/pre0050015a.html.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL]. (2005). Safe and sound:
An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs – Illi-nois edition. Chicago, IL: Author.
Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E .P. (2008). Implemen-tation matters: A review of research on the in-fluence of implementation on program out-comes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 41, 327-350.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (in press).
The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-analysis of School-based Universal Interventions. Child Development,
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (in press). A meta-analysis of after-school pro-grams that seek to promote personal and so-cial skills in children and adolescents. Amer-ican Journal of Community Psychology.
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary pre-vention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic re-view. American Journal of Community Psy-chology, 25, 115-152.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P.
(1997). Promoting social and emotional learn-ing: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., &
Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based Table 1. Mean effects and .05 confidence intervals at post for six outcome categories.
Outcomes
SEL Attitudes Positive Conduct Emotional Academic
Skills Social Problems Distress Performance
Behavior
Effect Size 0.57* 0.23* 0.24* 0.22* 0.24* 0.27*
95% Confidence .48-.67 .16-.30 .16-.32 .16-.29 .14-.35 .15-.39
Intervals
N 68 106 86 112 49 35
* denotes mean effect is significantly different from zero at the .05 level
prevention and youth d e v e l o p m e n t through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-474.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lösel, F., & Beelman, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial be-havior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84-109.
Tobler, N.S., Roona, M.R., Ochshorn, P., Mar-shall, D.G., Streke, A.V., & Stackpole, M.
(2000). School-based adolescent drug pre-vention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 275-336.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.
(1997). Learning influences. In H. J. Walberg
& G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and edu-cational practice (pp. 199-211). Berkeley, CA:
McCatchan Publishing Corporation.
Wilson, D., B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S.
S. (2001). School-based prevention of prob-lem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247-272.
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analy-sis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (Suppl. 2S), 130-143.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Wal-berg. H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.
Author Note
This article is based on a grant from the William T.
Grant Foundation (grant #2212).
A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Universal School-based Social-Emotional Learning programs