WWC review of this study

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

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    1,013
     Students
    , grades
    K-1

Reviewed: December 2023

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Cognition outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,013 students

54.00

58.40

Yes

 
 
10
 
Intrapersonal Competencies outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,009 students

16.90

14.40

Yes

 
 
17
 

Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Internalizing subscale

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,013 students

59.90

56.00

Yes

 
 
13
 

Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Self-Management

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,009 students

26.70

23.70

Yes

 
 
13
 

Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Decision Making

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,010 students

20.10

17.80

Yes

 
 
13
 

Behavior Rating Inventory Executive Function 2 (BRIEF2): Behavior Regulation Index (BRI)

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,013 students

23.70

25.40

Yes

 
 
8
 

Behavior Rating Inventory Executive Function 2 (BRIEF2): Emotion Regulation Index (ERI)

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,013 students

26.10

27.80

Yes

 
 
8
 

Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS)

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
998 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Student Behavior outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
1,010 students

25.80

23.00

Yes

 
 
13
 

Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA): Social Awareness

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,010 students

22.30

19.80

Yes

 
 
13
 

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;
1,013 students

63.90

59.40

Yes

 
 
12
 

Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Competence subscale

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,013 students

61.00

56.50

Yes

 
 
11
 

Clinical Assessment of Behavior Teacher Rating Form (CAB-T): Externalizing subscale

Social-Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
1,013 students

69.10

64.60

Yes

 
 
9
 


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • 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%

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top