Efficacy of the Social-Emotional Learning Foundations Curriculum for Kindergarten and First Grade Students at Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Daunic, Ann P.; Corbett, Nancy L.; Smith, Stephen W.; Algina, James; Poling, Daniel; Worth, Megan; Boss, Delaney; Crews, Emily; Vezzoli, Jessica (2021). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED619756
-
examining1,013Students, gradesK-1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavior Rating Inventory Executive Function 2 (BRIEF2): Cognitive Regulation Index (CRI) |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
54.00 |
58.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Self-Awareness |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.90 |
14.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Internalizing subscale |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
59.90 |
56.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Self-Management |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.70 |
23.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Decision Making |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.10 |
17.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Behavior Rating Inventory Executive Function 2 (BRIEF2): Behavior Regulation Index (BRI) |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.70 |
25.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Behavior Rating Inventory Executive Function 2 (BRIEF2): Emotion Regulation Index (ERI) |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.10 |
27.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Relationship Skills |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.80 |
23.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Social Awareness |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.30 |
19.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Social Skills subscale |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
63.90 |
59.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Competence subscale |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.00 |
56.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Externalizing subscale |
Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
69.10 |
64.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
4% English language learners -
Female: 38%
Male: 62% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 20% Other or unknown 16% White 64% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Not Hispanic or Latino 90% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 82% No FRPL 18%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 51 elementary schools within 11 districts in a single southeastern state. The intervention was administered to the whole class, with individualized support for the top 3 to 4 students at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders, in general education kindergarten and first grade classrooms.
Study sample
A total of 1,013 students in kindergarten and first grade were included in the study, which included 533 students from 25 schools in the intervention group and 480 students from 26 schools in the comparison group. Approximately 38% of the students were female, 82% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 4% were English learners, and 20% had an Individualized Education Program. Approximately 64% of the students were White, 20% were Black, 6% were classified as another or unknown race, and 10% were Hispanic. These demographic characteristics are based on approximately 92 percent of the randomized sample for whom the study was able to collect information.
Intervention Group
The Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) intervention is a social emotional learning (SEL) curriculum designed to support students at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders. The curriculum is a product built on competencies identified by the Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The curriculum focuses on developing language-supported self-regulation and social-emotional competence. Lessons incorporate instructional strategies that promote children’s use of SEL-related vocabulary, self-talk, critical thinking, and application of learned concepts. The curriculum is administered to the whole classroom and then students most at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders are provided additional support in small group settings. The curriculum is broken up into 52 kindergarten and 54 first grade lessons centered around 16 story books.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual support. Approximately 16 percent of comparison group teachers reported using a formal SEL curriculum, although the study does not indicate the names of the curricula. Comparison group teachers read on average, 2 to 3 of the storybooks used in the intervention during their whole group instruction. In addition, 13 comparison group teachers reported using a storybook used in the intervention during small group instruction.
Support for implementation
All intervention teachers received two full days of training in the beginning of the school year before implementing the intervention curriculum. The first day of training covered (1) an explanation of the foundational concepts of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), (2) introduction to the different SEL competencies, and (3) review of how teachers could bridge the conceptual elements of SELF with their students' social-emotional growth and their ongoing SEL instruction. During the second day, the training focused on implementation of the curriculum. This included a review and presentation on (1) reading storybooks with corresponding prompts, (2) using the curriculum strategies and vocabulary, and (3) applying activities that connected to SEL objectives. During the study, graduate assistants visited the classrooms of intervention teachers, approximately once a week. While their primary purpose was to ensure the fidelity of implementation, graduate assistants also helped intervention teachers address any procedural challenges and offered support for dealing with those challenges.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).