Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Donna Lord Black
Читать онлайн книгу.
exposed to violence within the past year, either directly as victims or indirectly as witnesses. More than one‐third of all youth (37.3%) were physically assaulted in the prior year, and 51% had been assaulted during their lifetime (Finkelhor et al., 2015). While not all children experience the same degree of distress from exposure to adverse experiences, those with the vulnerabilities previously discussed are at higher risk for harmful and lasting effects.
ACEs not only place children at risk for long‐term mental health problems, but also can alter their brain development, therefore altering their social and emotional functioning. Over the past 10 years, research on the brain has demonstrated how environmental factors influence and shape the brain and how they play a central role in shaping the circuits of the brain, especially in early life. Although these brain circuits can persist throughout the adult lifespan, they are malleable and thus are adaptable to change. This insight into the brain and its influence on emotional maturation will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, along with some highlights of recent research on the brain. What is important to recognize about the brain’s influence on emotional development is that the parts of the brain devoted to understanding emotions are as important, if not more important, to learning as are the parts of the brain devoted to learning how to read, write, and perform math calculations.
Stress and emotional distress play significant roles in the brain’s overall learning process, including how it learns to manage and regulate emotions. When individuals become stressed or frazzled, they become disengaged from this learning process because the part of the brain that controls comprehension and focus is essentially disabled. This part of the brain is known as the prefrontal cortex, and it controls what are referred to as executive functions. The effects of persistently high levels of stress on these functions can be debilitating and long‐lasting. In schools and classrooms, this may be observed as problems with sustained attention, memory, planning, impulse control, decision making, and social behavior, among others. These difficulties also may manifest as one or more clinical disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression, attachment, and conduct or behavior). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to stress may result in these students being unable to differentiate between real threats and perceived threats. As a result, they may react adversely in circumstances in which there is no genuine threat. The impact of this “learned fear” is often observed in how they act and interact with others, thus providing strong support for trauma‐sensitive practices in schools.
SEL is a trauma‐sensitive practice, and staff who are well‐trained in SEL and possess strong social and emotional skills themselves are better able to recognize the emotional “triggers” with these students; thus, they are better able to respond calmly and quickly. Consequently, staff who are trained in trauma‐sensitive practices are more likely to foster relationship building between adults and students, promote empathy and understanding, and encourage the development of supportive environments where these students feel they belong and are safe. As a result, trauma‐impacted students can learn to manage and cope with environmental threats and reduce their levels of anxiety by developing and improving their social and emotional competencies.
It’s important to note that the effects of trauma and adversity will manifest differently across the age span and to different degrees. Not all trauma‐impacted students will experience the same degree of impact and for the same length of time. Individuals servicing these students will need to understand typical child development and the vulnerabilities associated with high‐risk impact for these students in order to understand these manifestations. The areas in which functioning is likely to be impacted more significantly, however, include cognition, language, learning, memory, self‐regulation, self‐concept, social skills, social relationships, and decision making, among others. Therefore, it will be important for schools and practitioners to assess those areas in which functional performance is most impacted in order to provide successful supports and interventions. There are challenges, however, in assessing trauma‐impacted youth, and those serving these individuals will need to be well informed of these challenges, particularly as they relate to school functioning.
Evidence for SEL
Given this review of recent events, it stands to reason that SEL will continue to gain momentum and, perhaps, lead to a fundamental shift in our line of attack on education. Indeed, since 2011, five separate meta‐analyses have been conducted to examine the benefits of SEL (Durlak et al., 2011; Sklad et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017; Wiglesworth et al., 2016; and Mahoney et al., 2018). Despite these studies confirming the short‐ and long‐term benefits of SEL, there remain varied levels of resistance to SEL. This resistance exists among different groups, including school and district leaders, school staff, parents, community members, and policy makers. The reasons for this vary but are likely due to misunderstandings about what SEL is and why it is a necessary component of education. These misconceptions clearly illuminate the importance of having a firm knowledge and understanding of the underpinnings of SEL. By doing so, advocates and supporters are better equipped to communicate what SEL means and the revolutionary possibilities it offers for education. The theory upon which SEL is based, therefore, is best explained from a historical perspective. The next section of this chapter will explore the influences of historical events on the emergence of SEL.
HISTORICAL INFLUENCE
Research on Emotional Intelligence
The concept of social‐emotional learning has been around for centuries, dating back to Ancient Greek times when Plato wrote The Republic. Plato believed that people’s minds weren’t the only thing needing to be educated, but also their character. He wrote that all learning had an emotional base and the education of an individual began with educating her or his soul, beginning in infancy and early childhood (Myungjood, 1994). Since his writings, the concept of emotional intelligence has been the focus of a growing body of research, which perhaps was triggered by the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Although the book focused primarily on the role of emotional intelligence in society, there was one chapter that specifically focused on emotional intelligence in schools. This chapter drew attention to the neuropsychological research showing the influence of emotional processes on cognition and learning, which was what many educators and psychologists had been asserting for years. The book shed light on the role and impact of emotions on the process of learning, and this, in turn, led to a movement in education devoted to the applications of emotional intelligence to teaching and learning. Goleman’s subsequent publication in 2006 was titled The Educator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement: Social‐Emotional Learning in the Classroom and was devoted specifically to the applications of emotional intelligence to social‐emotional leaning and character education in schools.
Emergence of CASEL
Prior to Goleman’s 1995 publication, James Comer, a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale Child Study Center, led a pilot program from which modern SEL originated. His work in the early 1960s, known as the New Haven Intervention Project, led to the piloting of the Comer School Development Program with findings that showed higher than average positive outcomes for students when compared to national norms. For a detailed description of the project and its findings, please refer to Rapid Reference 2.6.
Rapid Reference 2.6 Comer School Development Program
The Comer School Development Program (SDP) was founded in 1968 by child psychiatrist James Comer and his colleagues at the Yale Child Study Center. The program began as a collaboration between the Yale Child Study Center and the New Haven Public Schools and was originally named the New Haven Intervention Project. Its purpose was to improve the educational experiences for students attending the two poorest performing schools in New Haven, Connecticut (Panjwani, 2011).
Comer