Implementing Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) in Secondary Schools in England: Issues and Implications

Abstract

Act (1988) as amended and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.iii. The ownership of certain Copyright patents, designs, trade marks and other Intellectual property (the "Intellectual Property") and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables ("Reproductions"), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties, Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings

“…Kam et al's (2003) study of the implementation of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) programme identified that although outcomes of improved emotional competence and reduced aggression were found in schools that supported the intervention, effects were only significant in schools where both principal support and teacher implementation had been high. Similar findings have also been seen in the UK, for example the recent evaluation of the implementation of the SEAL programme in secondary schools found multiple interactions of factors across levels (Humphrey et al, 2010) including that of headteacher support (Lendrum, 2010).…”

“…This may be particularly relevant in the UK context, where school practitioners welcome flexibility and adaptability (Smith et al, 2007;Humphrey et al, 2010). Too much flexibility may come at a cost, however (Lendrum, 2010), and to avoid over-modification and a resulting lack of impact, the emphasis should now be on finding the right balance between fidelity and adaptation. At a programme-specific level, this will require a more clearly articulated theory of change that not only specifies the theoretically critical and non-essential components of interventions, but also how they can be put into practice (Dusenbury et al, 2003) in real-life, rather than controlled conditions.…”

“…This has resulted in 'initiative overload' (OFSTED, 2010), cynicism about the longevity and sustainability of interventions and a reluctance to invest limited time, resources and personal effort into new initiatives that are likely to be short-lived and quickly replaced (Lendrum, 2010). Furthermore, in response to practitioner demands for greater flexibility (Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), 2007; Smith et al, 2007;Keating et al 2009;Lendrum, 2010;OFSTED, 2010), recent schoolbased interventions, such as the social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) programme, have emphasised a 'bottom-up' approach to implementation that encourages flexibility, experimentation and local ownership, as opposed to the more prescribed, 'top-down' approach embodied in many US-based interventions (Weare, 2010). These factors suggest that although the US literature--which has been developed over a period of 30 years--may provide a useful foundation for the understanding of implementation, it should not be seen as a permanent substitute for either national or broader, international evidence bases.…”

“…Programme ineffectiveness may be attributed to a failure to implement interventions with fidelity, that is as prescribed by the programme developers (Elliott & Mihalic, 2004;Raudenbush, 2008); this can be due either to barriers to implementation or to intentional local adaptations. Increasingly, however, researchers are suggesting that it is a complex mix of both fidelity and adaptation that contributes to the effectiveness of an intervention rather than fidelity alone, and that this 'mix' is influenced by the interaction of multiple factors at programme, implementer and organisational level (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;Humphrey et al, 2010;Lendrum, 2010).…”

Implementation strategy for the school-based sex education program Long Live Love

“…The implementation process is influenced by factors at the program, the implementer and the organisational level (Humphrey, Lendrum, & Wigelsworth, 2010;Lendrum, 2010;Durlak & DuPre, 2008;Lendrum & Humphrey, 2012). Theories for implementation and related determinants are explained below.…”