Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Donna Lord Black
Читать онлайн книгу.
in implementing social emotional learning and school culture and climate initiatives at the school and district levels. The program is co‐directed by Patricia Heindel, PhD, and Maurice Elias, PhD.
Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (CRTWC), San Jose State University
The CRTWC views SEL from a systemic perspective, rather than as an add‐on program. The program seeks to transform teacher preparation by integrating SEL competencies and culturally responsive teaching practices into course content and field experiences. SEL is infused into the fifth year of the K–8 teacher certification program using a framework developed for the program called the Social, Emotional, and Cultural Anchor Competencies Framework. It focuses on a broad set of SEL competencies needed by teachers and students, along with specific strategies for teaching them, and refers to this as the Social‐Emotional Dimensions of Teaching and Learning (SEDTL). The program’s executive director is Nancy Markowitz, PhD.
Attentional Teaching Practices (ATP), University of Pittsburgh
The ATP program helps pre‐service teachers enrolled in the Master’s in Teaching program learn to focus on the psychological space for learning. Students who are getting certified to teach in middle and high school are taught mindfulness and self‐regulation strategies to increase their own self‐awareness and recognize their own emotional triggers. The program focuses on how to create a classroom environment that is optimal for implementing other pedagogical practices. While not a complete SEL program, the ATP is a yearlong program that helps teachers learn how to manage and cope with the future stresses they might experience as a teacher. The program was co‐created and is co‐taught by Tanner Wallace, PhD, and Shannon Wanless, PhD.
Source: Modified from Schonert‐Reichl, K.A., Kitil, M.J., & Hanson‐Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social and emotional learning. A report prepared for the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
What this means is that although most states don’t require teachers to have knowledge and skills in SEL, teachers are required to teach and promote student SEL competencies. This gap between what teachers are required to know about SEL and what they are required to teach students is an area where schools must prioritize their efforts in order to implement a sustainable approach to SEL.
These are but a few of the many challenges faced in implementing SEL, but these are by no means the only ones. Implementation of SEL is a comprehensive process involving many stakeholders and many aspects of a school’s or district’s operations. It is not a “one‐size‐fits‐all” model. Rather, it is a process through which a school or district must include all stakeholders and all systems involved. It requires a thorough analysis of all programs, resources, policies, procedures, operating guidelines, and other relevant data, which can then be used to inform a multistage plan for aligning all system components, allocating resources, identifying targeted areas of need, and implementing with fidelity and integrity. A detailed discussion of implementation planning will be discussed further in Chapter 14.
DEFINING SEL
One of the most difficult challenges at the outset of implementation is that of understanding and agreeing on what SEL is. The ambiguity in defining SEL has led to many terms being used to describe it. While some refer to it as soft skills, others use terms like non‐cognitive skills, emotional intelligence, or character education to describe it. Some prefer to describe SEL through programming models such as mindfulness education or through frameworks such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Not only is there a lack of common language in describing SEL, but also studies indicate there is a lack of understanding and agreement on the perceived benefits of SEL. While parents and educators understand and agree that SEL skills are critically important, there is less agreement on the exact benefits of these skills. In a study conducted by the World Economic Forum (2016), more than 2000 educators and parents from around the world were surveyed regarding the perceived benefits of SEL. Results showed that educators and parents alike believed the primary benefit of SEL was to achieve better classroom management and discipline. In a large majority of those surveyed, there was less understanding of the broad benefits of SEL, such as how it impacts academic achievement, or college and career readiness. There also was less awareness of the role SEL can play in improving general health and in mitigating the negative effects that can occur from exposure to some of life’s most difficult challenges, such as poverty, violence, trauma, abuse, and neglect.
Take, for example, the Anchorage School District in Alaska. The largest district in a state that ranks among the highest per capita in rates of child abuse and domestic violence, this district has more students exposed to violence and trauma than in most other states (Boss, 2011). Exposure to these types of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) places these students at risk for poor educational, social, health, and economic outcomes. The Anchorage School District recognized the need to combat these risk factors, and in 2006 it became one of the first school districts in the United States to adopt a set of SEL standards for both students and teachers (Education First, 2016). Since then, these standards have been implemented in kindergarten through 12th grade classes and have transformed the business of educating students in the Anchorage School District (Davis, 2018). Is it working? Educators and parents alike believe it is making a difference, but results aren’t that easy to quantify. That may be because the skills themselves aren’t easy to quantify, and without high‐quality assessment tools to help, educators won’t be able to determine which instructional strategies work and which ones are ineffective and may be wasting critical resources.
The science behind SEL recognizes the need for resources to help clarify and provide guidance in assessing and quantifying these skills, but this field is just beginning to grow, albeit rapidly. While data can and should be used to help inform and guide instruction (and, thus, ensure adequate use of resources), it’s also important to understand that the purpose for the data is not to detract from other important activities, but to enhance those activities.
Establishing the Critical Areas of Competence
Throughout the history of SEL, there have been ongoing challenges to understanding exactly what it is, despite the various definitions and descriptions provided in the literature. SEL has been described by many as a concept for which it is difficult to “wrap one’s head around.” As previously mentioned, this may partially be due to the differences in terminology being used to describe it, but it also is largely due to a lack of agreement about how it should be conceptualized, defined, and quantified. This ambiguity translates into a host of challenges, particularly in communicating the concepts and how they are connected to specific skills, but also in successfully obtaining resources and funding, and adequately translating research into practice, among others.
There are more than 100 SEL frameworks identified in the research, and each has been developed for specific purposes, but primarily to facilitate social and emotional development. Each framework employs its own language that is aligned to that framework’s goals, so terminology is often different for each framework. This makes contrasting and comparing frameworks extremely challenging and complicated. Additional frameworks continue to emerge each year, adding to the already cluttered and confusing landscape.
In an effort to add clarity and address some of these dilemmas, Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education undertook the Taxonomy Project. One of the outcomes of the project was the creation of a web‐based platform that showcases areas where SEL frameworks align and areas where they diverge (Jones, Bailey, & Nelson 2019). The project examined more than 40 SEL frameworks and the non‐academic domains covered by each framework. The frameworks were selected for inclusion in the project based on three criteria: (a) being representative of a wide range of disciplines, (b) being widely adopted, and (c) including descriptive skills, traits, competencies, strengths, mindsets, and/or attributes that were defined and could be coded (EASEL Lab, 2020).
One