NAVIGATING SEL FROM THE INSIDE OUT
NAVIGATING SEL FROM THE INSIDE OUTLOOKING INSIDE & ACROSS 25 LEADING SEL PROGRAMS:A PRACTICAL RESOURCE FOR SCHOOLS AND OST PROVIDERS(ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOCUS)MARCH 2017Stephanie Jones, Katharine Brush, Rebecca Bailey, Gretchen Brion-Meisels,Joseph McIntyre, Jennifer Kahn, Bryan Nelson, and Laura StickleHARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONWITH FUNDING FROM THE WALLACE FOUNDATION0
TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgements . 3Preface . 4What Does This Report Include? .6Introduction to the Report . 7What Makes It Unique? . 9Methodology . 10Section 1: Background on SEL Skills and Interventions . 12What is Social and Emotional Learning? . 12SEL Skills . 15Common Instructional Practices for SEL . 19Key Features & Common Implementation Challenges . 21Section 2: A Focus on Out-of-School Time . 27Alignment between SEL and OST Programs . 27Considerations for Adapting SEL Programs to OST Settings . 28Section 3: Summary Tables for Looking Across Programs . 31Table 1. Skills Targeted by Each Program . 33Table 2. Instructional Methods Used by Each Program . 35Table 3. Components of Each Program. 37Section 4: Program Profiles . 39Program Profiles: In-School, Lesson-Based Curricula . 42The 4Rs Program . 43Caring School Community . 53Character First . 63Competent Kids, Caring Communities . 73I Can Problem Solve . 83Lions Quest. 92MindUP . 102The Mutt-i-grees Curriculum . 111Open Circle . 121The PATHS Program . 131Positive Action. 141RULER . 151Second Step . 161SECURe . 171Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program . 181Too Good for Violence. 1911
We Have Skills . 201Wise Skills . 210Program Profiles: In-School, Noncurricular Approaches to SEL. 220Conscious Discipline . 221Good Behavior Game . 231Playworks . 240Responsive Classroom . 250Program Profiles: Out-of-School Time SEL Programs. 260Before the Bullying A.F.T.E.R. School Program . 261Girls on the Run . 270WINGS for Kids . 279References . 289Appendix A: Scope of Work . 297Appendix B: Methodology . 298Program Identification and Selection . 298Development of Data Collection and Coding System . 298Coding Process . 302Data Analysis . 304Appendix C: Coding Guide . 308Accompanying Tools . 334School Settings Worksheet . 335OST Settings Worksheet . 3412
AcknowledgementsOur team would like to thank everyone who made this work possible.We are extremely grateful to the Wallace Foundation, in particular Edward Pauly, for theirgenerous support and ongoing collaboration and feedback.A team of researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) produced this report.We would especially like to thank Gretchen Brion-Meisels for applying her knowledge andexpertise to the OST section of this report; Joe McIntyre for his speedy data analysis andbeautiful displays; Rebecca Bailey for her on-going guidance and support; Jennifer Kahn formaking sure the project stayed on track in its early stages and for her communication skills andeye for detail during the writing process; and Hadas Eidelman, Bryan Nelson, Laura Stickle, andMaddie Fromell for their invaluable contributions to the data collection, coding, writing, andreview process.We also want to thank the many research assistants and interns who worked on this projectover the past year and a half as coders and collaborators: Andrew Koepp, Austin Matte, CyntiaBarzelatto, Thea Corbette, Libby Doyle, Heather Lowe, and Rebecca Pyne.A special thanks to our group of reviewers who helped proofread and provide thoughtfulfeedback on the report: Clark McKown of Rush University Medical Center; David Osher ofAmerican Institutes for Research; Charles Smith of the David P. Weikart Center for YouthProgram Quality; Mirellese Vazquez of the Tauck Family Foundation; Brent Merten of TheCommunity Group in Lawrence, MA; Aaron Roberson of East Maine School District 63; and BlakeColaianne, Sarah Franzen, Eliza O’Neil, Sarah Rauenhorst, and Sophie Barnes of the EASEL Lab atHGSE.Finally, we would like to thank the developers who created the programs in this guide for theircooperation and dedication to providing children and youth with the social and emotional skillscentral to success in school and life.Program component icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com.3
PREFACEThe field of social and emotional learning (SEL) is rapidly expanding. In the past decade, SEL hasemerged as an umbrella term for a number of concepts including non-cognitive development, charactereducation, 21st century skills, and trauma-informed learning, among others.Researchers, educators, and policy-makers alike are beset by dilemmas about what exactly is included inthis broad domain. Popular press highlights skills such as grit, empathy, growth mindset, social skills, andmore. While SEL programs typically target multiple skills, very few programs target all of these skills.Furthermore, each program has its own way of building skills through specific teaching and learningactivities, and its own programmatic components that define how the program looks and feels, as wellas how skills are addressed and presented through explicit messages or implicit themes.In our work as researchers and educators, our team frequently receives questions about the content,implementation, and effectiveness of SEL programs and interventions. While good resources exist toidentify evidence-based programs (see CASEL’s guides, 2003, 2013, 2015), there are currently noavailable resources to help stakeholders look inside these programs to see how they differ from oneanother and what makes each program unique.For example, some programs are focused on “character traits” such as honesty, while others focus onskills like understanding emotions and solving problems, or a core theme like identity development.Some programs use discussions as the primary learning activity, while others are movement-based orgame-oriented. Some programs have extensive family engagement or teacher professional developmentcomponents, while others have none. Some programs are designed to be highly flexible and adaptableto context, while others are scripted and uniform.These differences matter to schools, families, out-of-school-time organizations, researchers, and policymakers because they signal differences in what gets taught and how. This report was designed toprovide information about the specific features that define SEL programs and that may be important tostakeholders who are selecting, recommending, evaluating, or reporting about different SEL programs,or to those who are aligning efforts across multiple schools, programs, or regions.This report consists of the following:Section 1: Background Information on SEL, including a framework to help stakeholders considerthe broader context and developmental issues that should be part of any SEL-building effort.Section 2: Recommendations for Adapting SEL for OST settings, including common challengesand practical steps for selecting and aligning SEL and OST efforts.Section 3: Summary Tables for Looking Across Programs, presented through a set of summarytables that illustrate which programs have the greatest or least emphasis on specific skills/skillareas, instructional strategies, and program components.Section 4: Individual Profiles for 25 Programs, describing in more detail the skill focus,instructional strategies, program components, as well as additional findings and cross-program4
similarities and differences that emerged from our analyses of each program’s curriculumand/or explicit activities.Appendices, including detailed information about the coding system and methodology used todocument, compile, and analyze information about each program.Accompanying Tools, including a Quick Reference to help stakeholders identify programs thathave the highest emphasis on a particular skill area, instructional strategy, or programcomponent; and worksheets to help stakeholders use information in the Summary Tables andProgram Profiles to make informed decisions about program selection, based on their uniquesettings and needs or objectives.Federal policy has begun to incorporate social,Important: This report is a livingemotional, and behavioral factors into educationaccountability metrics (e.g., ESSA: Every Studentdocument. Its content will growSucceeds Act), and school climate initiatives, antiand change over time as we addbullying work, positive behavior supports (e.g., PBIS),and discipline reform are increasingly influencing thenew programs and continue today-to-day practice of schools and communities. Asthese initiatives become more widespread, educators refine our coding system to provideand other child and youth service providers are seeking increased nuance and depth. In theto identify SEL programs that (1) meet their specificfuture, updated information will begoals or needs; (2) fulfill certain requirements; (3) alignavailable online at:with existing school-, district-, and state-wideregulations and initiatives; and (4) can be adapted andhttp://easel.gse.harvard.edu/implemented with success in their unique settings.While this document is not necessarily exhaustive of allSEL programs, we hope it will be a useful resource toinform these efforts. The report is intended to exist as aliving document that will grow and change over time as we add programs and continue to develop andrefine our coding system based on expert input and knowledge from the field.1Project Background:In 2015, the Wallace Foundation commissioned a report that would look inside and carefully analyzewidely-used SEL programs, in order to provide comprehensive details, transparent information, andcross-program analyses about the various in-school and out-of-school-time programs that are currentlyavailable in US contexts. This document is an adapted and expanded version of that initial report.This project builds upon and extends prior work conducted by our research team. For details about themethodology used for this project, see Appendix B. For more information about our team’s previous andongoing work in this area, visit our website: http://easel.gse.harvard.edu/.1The data used in our current analysis reflects program materials and evaluations available between Fall 2015 and Spring 2016.5
(Click to go directly to each section.)What does this report include?How can this report be used?By breaking down each program in detail, this report enables schools and OST organizations to see whetherand how well individual programs might:address their intended SEL goals or needs (e.g., bullying prevention, character education, behaviormanagement, etc.);align with a specific mission (e.g., promoting physical fitness, community service, the arts, etc.);meet the specific social-emotional or behavioral needs of their students (e.g., behaviorregulation, conflict resolution, academic motivation, etc.);fit within their schedule or programmatic structure;integrate into existing school climate and culture initiatives or positive behavior supports;complement other educational or programmatic goals outside of SEL (for example, a schoollooking to boost student literacy scores or make up for the absence of a regular art class mightconsider selecting a program that frequently incorporates books/stories or drawing/creativeprojects); andbridge OST settings and the regular school day.This type of information can be used by schools and OST organizations to: (1) select specific programs orstrategies that best meet their individual needs; (2) guide planning and goal-setting conversations withschool and district leaders, OST partners, and other stakeholders; and/or (3) re-evaluate the fit andeffectiveness of SEL programs and structures already in use.6
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORTOver the past two decades, there has emerged a consensus among those who study childdevelopment, education, and health that social and emotional skills matter for many areas ofdevelopment, including learning, health, and general wellbeing. Furthermore, recent research hasdemonstrated that high-quality, evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programsproduce positive outcomes for students, including improved behavior, attitudes, and academicperformance (e.g., Durlak et al., 2011). At the same time, however, we know very little about whatis “inside” SEL-focused interventions and programs – the specific skills, strategies, andprogrammatic features that likely drive those positive outcomes.For the purpose of this report, social and emotional learning programs were defined as those thatincludespecific“instruction inprocessing, integrating and selectivelyapplying social and emotional skills .We know SEL programs work, but we don’tin appropriate ways” (Durlak et al.,know as much about what is inside them.2011, p. 3), as well as programs whereadults model these skills and childrenThis report was designed to help schools andhave opportunities to practice usingthem in diverse situations such that program leaders look inside different programs“safe, caring learning environments”and see what makes them different from oneare established organization-wide (ibid,another, to help choose the program that bestp.3).2 There are a great number of SELsuits their needs.programs available for schools and outof-school-time organizations to choosefrom, and those programs vary widely in skill focus, teaching strategies, implementation supports,and general approach toward SEL. For example, some programs target emotion regulation andprosocial behavior, while others target executive function, mindset, character traits, or other “noncognitive”3 constructs. Some programs rely heavily on discussion as the primary teaching strategy,while others incorporate methods such as read-alouds, games, role-play, music, and more.Programs also vary substantially in their emphasis and material support for adult skill-building,community engagement, and other components beyond direct child-focused activities orcurriculum.Without access to detailed information about the specific content and approach of pre-packagedSEL programs, few schools and OST organizations are able to use data to aid them in selecting and2This is the definition of an SEL program used in this report. This definition may not be reflected in all its aspects for some SEL programs, andthe implementation of some SEL programs may vary in ways that affect some aspects of this definition.3 We occasionally use the term “non-cognitive” because it is frequently used by educators, policy makers, researchers, and journalists to referto a broad set of skills that matter to student learning yet are not typically part of content areas such as math and literacy. We believe the termis problematic because it suggests these skills are separate from cognition when in fact many skills in this domain (including those described associal-emotional) involve cognitive tasks such as focus, reflection, perspective taking, mental problem-solving, etc.7
implementing SEL programming, and they struggle to select and use programs that are best suitedto their contexts and the specific challenges they face. There is thus a need for resources thatcomprehensively describe program content in a way that enables schools, OST organizations, andother practitioners tasked with developing young people’s social and emotional skills to see insideprograms in order to make informed decisions about SEL programs or strategies.This report addresses that need by looking inside 25 leading SEL and character education programsto identify and summarize key features and attributes of SEL programming for elementary-agechildren. Schools and OST organizations vary widely in their missions, structures, pedagogies, andtarget populations, as do SEL programs. The goal of this report is to provide schools and OSTorganizations with detailed information about the specific curricular content and programmaticfeatures of each program in a way that enables them to look across varying approaches and makeinformed choices about the type of SEL programming that is best suited to their particular contextand needs.25 Programs in ReportIn-school, Lesson-basedIn-school, Non-CurricularConscious DisciplineOut-of-School TimeBefore the BullyingA.F.T.E.R. School Program4RsOpen CircleCaring SchoolCommunityPATHSGood Behavior GameGirls on the RunCharacter FirstPositive ActionPlayworksWINGS for KidsCompetent Kids,Caring CommunitiesRULERResponsive ClassroomI CanProblem SolveSecond StepLions QuestSECUReMindUpSocial DecisionMaking/Problem SolvingProgramMutt-i-greesToo Goodfor ViolenceWe Have SkillsWise Skills8
WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE?Detailed Description of Curricular ContentThis report builds upon and complements other existing tools in the field (e.g., the CASEL Guide) toprovide a more in-depth content analysis of leading SEL and character education programs. Mostother resources focus primarily on identifying evidence-based SEL programs for use in schools andsummarizing their major components. In contrast, this report offers a detailed look at the specificskills targeted, instructional methods used, and programmatic features offered by each program, andis more explicitly designed to enable schools and OST organizations to look across programs andeasily identify those that best align with their focus, needs, and goals.TOOLS FOR INFORMEDDECISION-MAKING:ANALYSIS OF:SEL Skills25Leading SELPrograms forElementarySchoolersSchool-Based and Outof-School Time SettingsCognitive, Social,Emotional, Character,MindsetProgram SnapshotsBrief individual program overviewsproviding key program information anddetailsIn-Depth Program ProfilesInstructionalMethodsStrategies and activitiesused to teach skillsA comprehensive look at each program’sevidence base, skill focus, instructionalmethods, and additional featuresTools for Looking Across ProgramsTables, graphs, and analyses to explorerelative skill focus, instructional methods,and additional features across programsProgram ComponentsKey program features, suchas training, support, andspecific topic focusPlanning ToolsWorksheets to support a data-drivendecision-making and program selection,including a guide for OST settingsThe level of detail provided in this report is intended to support schools and OST organizations tothink explicitly about which approaches to SEL are most adaptable, feasible, and available for theirparticular settings, as well as whether or not and how particular approaches meet their specific9
mission and goals. Furthermore, it provides schools and OST programs that may not be able to accessor afford pre-packaged SEL programs with a basic overview of the types of skills, strategies, trainings,and implementation supports typically offered in leading SEL programs, offering a foundation fromwhich to build their own independent approach to SEL.Attention to Out-of-School Time SettingsThis report is also distinct in the attention it gives to SEL programming in OST settings. There arefew examples of evidence-based SEL programs that have been specifically designed for OSTcontexts, yet there are many reasons to believe that a more explicit partnership between thesefields might benefit children and youth, not the least of which is that many emerging best practicesin the field of afterschool and OST programming align with the central goals of SEL. For that reason,we include program profiles for three SEL programs designed for OST settings, rate school-basedprograms on their adaptability to OST settings, and provide a set of guiding principles andconsiderations designed to assist OST programs in selecting or adapting SEL programs that bestmeet their needs.METHODOLOGYThis report is the product of a detailed content analysis of 25 leading SEL and character educationprograms commissioned by the Wallace Foundation and conducted by a research team at theHarvard Graduate School Education led by Dr. Stephanie Jones.IdentifyPrograms toInclude inAnalysisCodePrograms bySkill andInstructionalMethodCollect Dataon ProgramComponentsand Evidenceof EfficacyAnalyze andDescribeSimilaritiesandDifferencesResearch ProcessOur research process included the following:(1) Fifteen programs were initially selected for inclusion based on relevance to the project,diversity of focus and approach, and accessibility of program materials. Ten additionalprograms were added at a later date for their broader focus on character education or OSTsettings for a total of 25 programs. Program materials were made available to us either bypermission of the author or through purchase online.10
(2) To conduct the content analysis we developed and employed a rigorous coding system tocapture whether and how each program targets SEL outcomes across five domains(cognitive, social, emotional, character, and mindset) and 12 concrete skills (e.g., inhibitorycontrol, emotion knowledge/expression, conflict resolution, empathy/perspective-taking,and more) by looking inside program curricula to identify the specific skills targeted andinstructional methods (e.g., books, discussion, drawing, songs, etc.) used within eachdiscrete activity. It is important to note that our coding system was designed to code onlythe explicit or concrete activities in which a skill was directly targeted or taught, with theintention of making as few inferences as possible. It is therefore possible that programs mayalso build additional, underlying skills. For example, one might argue that any activityrequiring children to listen to others during a discussion involves practicing some form ofattention control; however, our coding system was not designed to reflect this form ofimplicit skill-building.(3) We then used a standardized process to collect and summarize information about high-levelprogram features and evidence of effectiveness.(4) Using these data, we created detailed program profiles that summarize each program’sdomain focus, instructional methods, and program features. We also conducted a crossprogram analysis to highlight key areas of overlap and variation across programs.After an initial internal review, this material was reviewed by a number of stakeholders in the field:multiple drafts were submitted to the Wallace Foundation and six external reviewers (includingexperts in social-emotional development, funders, and school leaders) for feedback on content,methodology, and presentation. In addition, each program developer was contacted and invited toreview the following information included in their Program Snapshot: (a) program description, (b)grade range, (c) duration/timing, (d) areas of focus, and (e) additional/supplementary curricula. Ofthe 25 programs, 23 responded.For a detailed description of our methodology, including the program selection criteria andcoding/data collection system, please see Appendices B and C, respectively.11
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND ON SEL SKILLS AND INTERVENTIONSAs this report may be used to make decisions about SEL programming, it is important to have abasic understanding of the field. This section offers an overview of what we mean by social andemotional learning (SEL), and is designed to provide a broad understanding of the skills,instructional methods, and program features addressed in the program profiles in Section 4.Moreover, social and emotional skills do not develop in a vacuum; this section contains importantinformation about developmental and contextual considerations that should influence how SELprogramming for a school or OST program is considered. Below is an organizing framework for SELthat takes these factors into account, as well as a description of 12 concrete social and emotionalskills that experts agree are related to positive outcomes for children and youth, 17 commoninstructional methods used to build social and emotional skills, six features of effective SELprograms, and seven common challenges faced by most SEL programs.WHAT IS SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING?Broadly speaking, social and emotional learning (SEL) refers to the process through whichindividuals learn and apply a set of social, emotional, behavioral, and character skills required tosucceed in schooling, the workplace, relationships, and citizenship. However, SEL has been definedin a variety of ways (Humphrey et al., 2011). The term has served as an umbrella for many sub-fieldsof psychology and
Stephanie Jones, Katharine Brush, Rebecca Bailey, Gretchen Brion-Meisels, Joseph McIntyre, Jennifer Kahn, Bryan Nelson, and Laura Stickle . Charles Smith of the David P. Weikart Center for Youth . 2011, p. 3), as well
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
penyembuhan tulang yang optimal. 2.1.1 Anatomi dan Histologi Tulang Komponen seluler tulang terdiri dari sel prekusor osteogenik ( sel mesenkim ), sel sel osteoblas, sel osteoklas, sel osteosit serta elemen hematopoetik lainnya dalam sumsum tulang. Sel prekursor osteogenik terdapat pada permukaan tulang yang tidak mengalami proses resorpsi, dan membentuk lapisan bagian dalam dari periosteum .
Sel sel saraf ini menginervasi terget sel seperti sel-sel otot polos, sel-sel . (Junqueira's Basic Histology Text and Atlas, Ed 13) Gambar 2.2 Lapisan Duodenum . akan memberikan reaksi perubahan fungsi atau perubahan
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
