The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta‐analysis of universal school‐based SEL interventions

Abstract

This article provides a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the current evidence for universal school‐based (USB) social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions for students in kindergarten through 12th grade available from 2008 through 2020. The sample includes 424 studies from 53 countries, reflecting 252 discrete USB SEL interventions, involving 575,361 students. Results endorsed that, compared to control conditions, students who participate in USB SEL interventions experienced significantly improved skills, attitudes, behaviors, school climate and safety, peer relationships, school functioning, and academic achievement. Significant heterogeneity in USB SEL content, intervention features, context, and implementation quality moderated student experiences and outcomes. Strengths and limitations of this evidence and implications for future USB SEL research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Evaluating Program Enhancement Strategies for Remedial Tutoring: A Cluster-Randomized Control Trial With Syrian Refugee Students in Lebanon

“…It’s also possible that the impacts generated by different activities targeting different skills neutralized one another or the activities were not optimally sequenced to produce impact. While activities were sequenced to build skills for physiological down-regulation of emotions prior to addressing more cognitive skills such as working memory and inhibition (Jones et al, 2017), there is little empirical research—even from high-income contexts—to inform whether or how to best sequence SEL skill acquisition (Cipriano et al, 2023; Lawson et al, 2019). Last, it’s also possible that the treatment contrast was not sufficiently large—particularly given the climate-targeted SEL provided in the HCT condition, which is designed to provide safe, supportive, and predictable learning environments, or that implementation factors such as low attendance and short duration of the second cycle attenuated any possible impacts.…”

Registered Reports in Child Development: Introduction to the Special Section

“…Neither of the two articles found unequivocal support for the utility of the interventions they tested, which are the kinds of results we should be observing more often in an unbiased literature (Scheel et al, 2021). Cipriano et al (2023) also examined the efficacy of interventions but did so via meta-analysis. Their analysis of the impacts of social-emotional learning interventions examined a wide variety of intervention contexts, modifications, and outcomes, which means that there is a high degree of potential for flexible analysis and flexible reporting.…”

“…The Special Section consists of eight articles that strikingly represent the breadth and depth of developmental research in substantive topic, methodological approach, and target population. The articles include experimental studies with young children (Fish et al, 2023;Stengelin et al, 2023) and chimpanzees (Engelmann et al, 2023), assessments of the efficacy of interventions with children and adolescents (Ceccon et al, 2023;Cipriano et al, 2023;Gilligan-Lee et al, 2023), work focused on underrepresented populations (Ceccon et al, 2023;Cimpian et al, 2023;Leer et al, 2023), a study consisting of national public data (Cimpian et al, 2023), a natural experiment (Leer et al, 2023), and a metaanalysis (Cipriano et al, 2023). A major goal of the Special Section was to demonstrate the broad applicability of RRs for developmental research-that they are not solely for laboratory experiments-and the eight articles collectively met that goal beyond what we could have hoped for.…”

The incremental association of implementation leadership and school personnel burnout beyond transformational leadership.

“…Evidence-based school-wide interventions (referred to hereafter as school-wide interventions) can positively impact students’ academic achievement and psychosocial development (Cipriano et al, 2023; Durlak et al, 2011). We define evidence-based practices and programs (EBP)—inclusive of school-wide interventions—as those that have independent evidence of efficacy (e.g., from a randomized control trial).…”

“…We define evidence-based practices and programs (EBP)—inclusive of school-wide interventions—as those that have independent evidence of efficacy (e.g., from a randomized control trial). Because of their demonstrated efficacy, EBPs are critical to promoting desired student outcomes (Cipriano et al, 2023; Durlak et al, 2011). Yet, little is known about burnout among school personnel responsible for the effective implementation of these interventions.…”