Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). Donna Lord Black

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 of the goals of the project was to enable users to compare the skills within each framework and across the different frameworks so they could then be connected back to evidence‐based practices. Since skills may be labeled differently across the various frameworks, the project was especially mindful of the need for clarity and transparency in defining the skills so that decisions about interventions and strategies could be better informed. In other words, through the work of the project, specific skills were identified for six different non‐academic domains, and the skills were then connected to those that may be labeled differently in the various frameworks. For example, under the cognitive domain, the skill of inhibitory control is identified as self‐management under the CASEL framework, but under the Building Blocks for Learning framework, it is identified as executive functions. Categorizing skills according to the six non‐academic domains allows the skills to be connected across the frameworks and eliminates confusion created by the various terms used to describe the skills. Consequently, practices can be better aligned with the scientific evidence that supports them.

      Consensus About SEL

      While the Taxonomy Project adds clarity and helps address some of the dilemmas in the field, there are individuals who have raised questions about the efficacy, legitimacy, and appropriateness of SEL in education. To be clear, many (if not most) educators have embraced the principles and practices of SEL and believe it improves learning and performance, while removing some of the barriers to educational equity in schools. These proponents advocate for SEL as a viable means of improving student and system outcomes. However, there are those who express doubts about the claims that SEL offers. There also are those who believe it to be more than an educational initiative, and therefore not appropriate in education. In general, opposing views of SEL can be categorized into two areas: (a) those in which the efficacy and legitimacy of SEL are called into question, and (b) those in which SEL is viewed as an ideological belief system.

      Opponents of SEL who are not completely convinced of its effectiveness or its research‐supported legitimacy respectfully argue that SEL advocates have not clearly identified what it is and have oversold the research. Given the ambiguity in defining what SEL is and the confusion over terminology (as previously discussed), these arguments are valid, but not confirmatory. The existence of a vast number of SEL frameworks has not helped dismiss the argument either. Although efforts such as the Taxonomy Project might help diminish some of the confusion, a certain amount of ambiguity will continue, so long as there are more than 100 SEL frameworks from which to choose. The prominent work done over the past several decades by organizations such as CASEL (2017), the Committee for Children (2020), and the Search Institute (2020), among others, has helped increase the understanding of what SEL is, and may also be helping to propel some of these frameworks to the forefront in education. Indeed, the CASEL framework has become the most widely adopted framework in schools during the most recent years. As more schools adopt a framework for SEL, the level of transparency will continue to increase, leading to a corresponding decrease in the level of ambiguity and confusion in the field.

Opponents of SEL also argue that advocates have oversold the research and are promoting SEL as the solution for all the problems in education, including the disproportionate achievement gaps, the disproportionate disciplining of certain subgroups of students, and the overreliance on standardized test scores. These opponents further argue that disagreements in the field over how to measure and assess the outcomes of SEL make it challenging to prove effectiveness. Proponents of SEL, however, counterargue that SEL is based on a body of educational research spanning several decades. In fact, Shriver and Weissberg (2020) point out that “the evidence СКАЧАТЬ