1. The Impact of Enhancing Student’s Social and Emotional Learning: Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg & Schellinger Child Development, Jan/Feb 2011 Dr. Charlene Myklebust MDE May 2012

2. Key challenge for the 21st century serving culturally diverse students with varying abilities and motivations for learning ( Learning First Alliance, 2004)

3. Thoughts to ponder….. Students are less connected to school as they progress from elementary to middle school. Lack of connection adversely affects their academic performance, behavior and health (Blum & Libbey, 2004) By high school 40-60% become chronically disengaged from school (Klem & Connell, 2004)

4. What was the goal of the study? This meta-analysis examines effects of SEL programming across multiple outcomes: social and emotional skills, attitudes toward self and others, positive social behavior, conduct problems, emotional distress and academic performance First large-scale study Examined 213 school-based, universal SEL programs involving 270.034 Kindergarten - High School age students.

5. HYPOTHESIS #1. Positive mean effects across a variety of skills, attitudinal, behavioral, and academic outcomes. #2Teachers would be effective in administering these programs.

6. HYPOTHESIS #3.Interventions that combined components within and outside of the daily classroom routine would yield stronger effects than those that were only classroom based. #4. SAFE practices would be more successful than Non- SAFE implementation #5. Encountering problems during implementation would mean less success.

7. SAFE S = sequenced step-by-step training approach A = use active forms of learning F = Focus sufficient time on skill development E= Explicit learning goals

8. METHOD - Literature Search Four search strategies were used in an attempt to secure systematic, nonbiased, representative sample of published and unpublished studies. Studies eligible for review were: (a) published in English, (b) appeared in published or unpublished form by Dec, 31, 2007, (c)emphasized the development of one or more SEL skills, (d) targeted students between the ages of 5 and 18 without any identified adjustment or learning problems, (e). included a control group, and (f) reported sufficient information so the the effect size (ES) could be calculated at post and if follow-up data were collected, at least 6 months following the end of the intervention

9. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE 1. Intervention format: Class by teacher, Class by non-school personnel, Multi- component programs (parent or school- wide supplements) 2. Use of 4 recommended practices related to skill development (SAFE practices) 3. Reported implementation problems.

10. DEPENDENT VARIABLES Six different student outcomes: 1. Social and emotional skills 2. Attitudes towards self and others 3. Positive social behaviors 4. Conduct problems 5. Emotional distress 6. Academic performance

11. Results 1. SEL programs significantly improve student’s skills, attitudes and behaviors. 2. Few conduct problems and lower levels of emotional distress. 3. Academic performance was significantly improved (11 percentile gain). Follow up for at least 6 months was significant..

12. Results School staff can conduct successful SEL programs. Programs following SAFE procedures produced significant effects for all six outcomes Programs that encountered implementation problems did have less successful SEL outcomes.

13. Why these academic performance results? 1. Students who are more self-aware and confident about their learning capacities try harder and persist in the face of challenges ( Aronson, 2002)

14. Why these academic performance results? 2. Students who set high academic goals, have self-discipline, motivate themselves, manage their stress and organize their to work learn more and get better grades ( Duckworth & Seligman, 2005, Elliot and Dweck, 2005)

15. Why these academic performance results? 3. SEL programs may affect central executive cognitive functions, such as inhibitory control, planning and set shifting that are the result of building greater cognitive-affect regulation in prefrontal ares of the cortex ( Greenberg, 2006)