UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
20 Responses to Socio-emotional Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m going to post this now….because I live in Langley and most likely won’t have power or internet for the next few days.
The Jones and Bouffard article strives to suggest social and emotional learning(SEL) strategies in the wake of a devastating elementary school shooting. The article does a good job of addressing some issues as well as listing tangible implementation strategies. I personally identified with the suggestion of professional learning communities to ensure that SEL strategies are successfully implemented in classrooms. This reminds me of the CoP’s from a few weeks ago, and I believe that it’s important to have the entire staff be a part of the CoP in order to support SEL strategies. The article also reflects this idea of SEL efforts being horizontally aligned “that is, intentionally connected and consistent across micro-contexts within schools (e.g., classrooms, playgrounds, lunchrooms). With alignment and collaboration, school staff are more likely to adopt, implement, and continuously improve reforms, and student outcomes, including academics, tend to be more positive”. Some SEL issues that we face at Fraser Heights Secondary on a daily basis are mental health, stress and perfectionism. Part of this is due to our community and school culture. Our school is situated in an affluent Asian neighborhood, where the children are expected to achieve 100% in all subjects and become doctors, engineers, and lawyers (regardless of what the students actually want to do).
Our school is labeled as a science school because our feeder schools offer IB programs, and we offer an elite Science Academy program. I feel that the first thing we need to do in our school to combat the issues of mental health, stress, and perfectionism in our students is try to change our school culture and climate. According to the article, “culture and climate are the regular and consistent patterns that characterize how actors in an organization think, feel, interact, and behave. They influence everything about a school, including how adults and students treat one another and whether adults and students understand and implement interventions effectively”. However, none of this change can happen unless the staff is on the same page, participating in a CoP working towards positive SEL. This is where our staff struggles. Our school and community have also suffered a great loss in the last two years we’ve had two students commit suicide due to overwhelming amounts of stress and the pursuit of perfectionism. According to our counselors we have at least 60 known students in our school who self harm as a way to handle stress (cutting, plucking, scratching, etc). I find these facts to be shocking and upsetting, and what’s even more upsetting is that our staff doesn’t see a need for a change in our school culture. We have tried initiating CoP’s or PLC’s to combat the SEL issues at our school, however, we can’t seem to get the entire staff on board. I suppose my biggest criticism of Jones and Bouffard’s article is how can we get our school to implement their strategies for SEL if the entire staff doesn’t see the need for change?
I love how you put this Sharissa, as these are issues faced by students in my school as well (IB expected to be high achievers, no choice for career path). I find there is an elitist attitude amongst the staff in my school and they don’t see a problem. Furthermore, referring to students in the regular program as “ministry kids” doesn’t help…rather it creates a greater divide amongst the two groups. I can go on about this topic but it gets my blood boiling so I won’t. Great way to relate this issue to the article.
agreed Cherie!
Jones and Bouffard (2012) highlight the importance for educators to embed social and emotional learning (SEL) into their daily practices and interactions with students. “Children need to not only learn academic subjects in school but also develop their ability to get along, regulate their emotions, and successfully manage social dilemmas in order to be successful in life” (p.2). Jones and Bouffard (2012) state that too many programs, like the No Child Left Behind initiative in the United States, focus on strengthening academic skills. Although these traditional programs definitely have their merit and will continue to progress, it is equally as important for policy makers, school districts, teachers, parents and students to view SEL programs in the same regard.
The problem with today’s SEL programs is that they “are rarely integrated into classrooms and schools in ways that are meaningful, sustained, and embedded in the day-to-day interactions of students, educators, and school staff” (p.2). In my position as a social studies teacher, I feel that SEL was incorporated into my daily lessons when dealing with past and present sensitive subject material. Whenever there was a student responsible for a school shooting reported in the media, my students and I would talk about mental health issues and what we could do as a school community to support one another. Our students come from a variety of backgrounds and have endured many different experiences. When I realized that a few of my students suffered from anxiety attacks, I made small changes like providing dates for exams and assignments at least three weeks prior to the due date. These small changes had a positive impact on all of my students. I think we should definitely focus on providing more SEL training for teachers and it should be mandatory in teacher education programs.
For various stakeholders to get on board with SEL development, there needs to be a consistent criteria for it’s effective implementation in our schools. Jones and Bouffard (2012) suggest “four principles of SEL development that can drive more effective school-based approaches (1) continuity and consistency are essential for SEL skill development; (2) social, emotional, and academic skills are interdependent; (3) SEL skills develop in social contexts; and (4) classrooms and schools operate as systems” (p.8).
Jones and Bouffard (2012) outline the needs and requirements that should be in place in schools for achieving positive social and emotional learning (SEL). Students spend a large amount of their time in schools and therefore schools are a huge part for where social emotional development occur. The article has done a good job of defining SEL by providing an organized framework for the implementation of SEL, limitations of existing programs, approaches taken in schools, the importance of continuity and consistency of SEL skill development, social and academic contexts, approaches to integrating SEL into daily practices, and the need for policies.
The article emphasizes the importance of embedding SEL into academic programs and the school culture and climate. This requires the teachers, staff, community, and parents to work together as a group and provide continuity in the child’s social and emotional development. A framework is provided based on research and developmental theory which incorporate emotional process, social/interpersonal skills, and cognitive regulation.
I related to the statement made in the article: “Teachers provide disruptive students with less positive feedback and instruction” (p.9). I worked with a student last year who came to my classroom for ELL (English Language Learning, formerly ESL) support in his English acquisition. He was in a group with four other students from his class but would not sit with the group or work with them. I spent the first three months of my support expressing to him, his important place in the group and how we needed him to be there, to share his ideas, to implement the activities with his peers, and to be involved in discussions. I provided positive comments and feedback in order to build his confidence and for him to see the importance of being with his group. He actually began to stay for the full ELL session and sat with his peers. By the end of the second term, he was discussing and sharing his ideas, as well as implementing tasks. I constantly provided positive comments and feedback, reinforcement, and interactive instruction. This is just one example of a student whose importance had to be highlighted in order for him to begin considering any form of academic learning. In my experience, positive feedback and continuity does make a difference in students’ confidence and overall performance. Therefore, as stated in the article, “social and emotional, and academic skills are interconnected” (p. 9)
The article does a great job of outlining the issues of SEL, the frameworks in place, research and theory, and also the types of training, policies, and culture and climate that need to be in place in order for successful embedded social and emotional learning within the school and community. However, is it even possible to get everyone on board the same ship so we can sail out to sea and have a smooth ride across the ocean? Who will provide funding and release time for training? How will a whole school community place their differences and conflicts aside and create positive embedded social and emotional learning in the culture, climate, classroom, and curriculum? Is this even possible?
Jones and Bouffard discuss their conclusions and recommendations after evaluating the impact of SEL programs implemented in K-12 schools. The authors conclude that while these programs generally have positive outcomes, the effects are “modest even for the most promising interventions”. There are greater effect sizes in high-risk student populations. The reason for the limited effectiveness is that SEL programs tend not to be integrated with the academic and routine activities of the classroom/school or with student – staff interactions.
Jones and Bouffard propose using a continuum of approaches that match the needs of each school in its context. Optimally, all schools need to make SEL, which includes emotional processes, social/interpersonal skills and cognitive regulation, an integral part of the curriculum. The authors use an organizing framework that takes a systems approach to SEL instruction in schools. The article is followed by four commentaries by educational experts, who confirm the recommendations, with various caveats.
This article had an easy to follow layout that clearly articulated the limitations of existing SEL programs. Four principles, the authors suggest, would make SEL in schools more effective, essentially by integrating the approach with academic contexts, developmental sequencing, and interpersonal connections. Some of this article, especially the part about data collection and standards, made me think of the social efficiency curriculum model.
Some SEL programs, with its acronyms (SHARP, WITS, RCCP, RSVP, SECURe) seem really only designed to be used at school. Using a “peace table”, for example, would not be a construct you would find at home or other places. So transferring this knowledge is not a given, especially if we refer to Archer’s framework, which posits learning takes place in context. The context needs to be reasonably realistic if those behaviours are to be used or transferred to another circumstance. Embedding SEL into everyday situations at school, as Jones and Bouffard suggest, would be one way to enhance the transference of such behaviours.
Lots of programs have come through my school, and none have really stuck. However, what has been consistent is the influence of the teachers who have been at the school for a long time, and newer teachers who have bought in to the school culture and student expectations. There are expectations for hallway behaviour, audience attentiveness, working in groups, accepting differences, respectful interactions, and so on. While each teacher exercises his or her autonomy in integrating and teaching SEL, there is a certain standard that persists. Students also have positive feelings for the school; they say hello to friends and teachers in the hallways and many students return to the school to visit after they have moved on to high school. There is a history of inclusiveness and collaboration among teachers and students. That is not to say that negativity and bullying does not exist; it does, and the staff does its best to address it. One size doesn’t fit all; a strategy that works for one child won’t work with another. Sometimes you need to think about where the child is coming from; what their home life is like, are they connected to school, who are their friends, and so on. Sometimes what is needed is to deal with other issues rather than the unwanted behaviour itself. This is reflected in the social contexts of learning model we looked at last week.
I think what has been frustrating has been the imposition of a SEL strategy without consideration of what has been used before or even without consideration of if it is necessary with our school population. Every new administrator wants the school to fit in with the model with which they are familiar without analysing what has been working within the current school culture and climate. One year, our staff used a ProD day to talk about everything in the school that contributed to making the school a positive place. We talked about the engineer, who took a group of ESL students on a tour of the school; the greening committee, who guided the planting of trees and planter boxes, the students, who greet visitors to the school; the teachers, who take on various roles such as posting guest teacher’s names on the staffroom EOC board, and so on. It was a positive way to reflect on what was working, examine what was missing, and consider what we could do to make the school better.
Jone’s and Bouffard’s article discusses the importance of implementing and integrating SEL practices into the K-12 school environment and curriculum. They point out that integration of SEL into daily learning is much more effective that isolated lessons as it must “develop in the context of daily life” to make it meaningful and relevant to students’ lives (p.3). There is a definite push for more SEL learning in our schools with programs that have emerged such as “Zones of Regulation”, “Fun Friends”, “Mind-Up” etc. and my school has looked into all of these programs in individual classrooms, with the support of the school counsellor as well as through staff-wide initiatives. On the policy-making level, the new refreshed B.C. curriculum includes the creation of the core competencies, specifically the Social and Personal competency, which I think is working to acknowledge and address the importance of SEL not only at the primary/elementary level but across the grades.
I really related to Jone’s and Bouffard’s emphasis on both a horizontal and vertical approach to the integration of SEL teaching and learning in schools (p. 8). They point out that it isn’t realistic to think that social interactions and emotional regulation only happens in the vacuum of a classroom, but rather it happens on the playground, in the hallways, the bathrooms and learning commons as well as different times of the day (lunch, recess, before and after school etc.). Horizontal alignment is key for social and emotional teaching and practice to be effective. Two years ago I platooned Math with a colleague and we had a student with high behaviour challenges that made it very difficult to get through daily classroom activities. We both realized that without the integration of SEL practices into our lessons, nothing was going to be achieved at an academic level. We used the strategies from Zones of Regulation to help build the vocabulary and understanding of the different emotions that are felt and looked at ways to help this student feel like they were in the “green zone” and ready to learn. As well, I incorporated a soft start into the beginning of my Math lessons with community time where this student could have time to connect to their peers or have some quiet time if it was needed. This common language across classrooms as well as with the support of the administration and recess and lunch supervisors really helped to create a horizontal alignment that created consistency for SEL development in our school.
Vertical alignment is essential as well because we often only have our students for 10 months and then they move on to another classroom, grade or even a different school. If SEL practices are not continued across grade levels then it creates fragmentation and as the authors point to Jones et al. (2008) it must happen through “ongoing relational contexts” (p. 8). The last three year out of four years I taught the same students as I was their Kindergarten teacher and then I moved up to grades 2/3, so I taught them in both of those grades as well. I saw the benefits of implementing SEL practices and how as they were already familiar with the strategies and language they were able to apply it consistently and more in depth as they matured. The core competency of Personal and Social addresses the need for vertical alignment as the concentric circle graphic on the ministry website demonstrates the students’ personal development and growth over time to be able to “recognize how their decisions and actions affect their mental, physical, emotional, social, cognitive, and spiritual wellness, and take increasing responsibility for caring for themselves” (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/PersonalAwarenessResponsibilityCompetencyProfiles.pdf). Embracing SEL practices need to not only happen at the individual teacher level, but also across districts to ensure that fragmentation doesn’t occur and students can have these life-long strategies.
This week, Jones and Bouffard’s article provided programs and strategies to support children’s social and emotional learning. The programs, “broadly speaking, SEL refers to a set of skills that individuals need to succeed in schooling, the workplace, relationships, and citizenship” (p.4). Trends are also showing young children entering school without social and behavioral skills necessary to succeed.
I found this article interesting to read. It had me reflect on my own practice, on related coursework and my family. I don’t know if I have training in SEL but I do believe in taking time to go over behavior expectations for activities. Most activities require some front-loading and for myself, this includes social interactions and academic obligations. The article mentions promising approaches to integrate SEL into daily practice which I follow such as routines, interacting positively with students, communicating clear expectations for students’ behavior, and setting up supportive conditions in the class and school. Our school is implementing a PRIDE matrix (positive attitude, respect, integrity, diversity and effort). This code of conduct is an attempt to have consistency amongst staff and students on skills developed across contexts and improving school culture. We have no training for this but the rubric has clear guidelines.
While reading this article I connected its practice to social reconstruction curriculum that we had learned about in EDCP 562. By using SEL, we empower students to make social change. Additionally, I found this article associates with two theories we have seen in this class: Behaviorism and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems. Furthermore, SEL appears to focus on behavior and the influences of environmental factors and systems.
Finally, I find the links to preschool really interesting. Although the article did not want to “address pre-school programs here because many preschools already make the teaching of SEL skills paramount and integrated”. I can attest that my own daughter has learned valuable SEL at daycare (close enough to preschool in my opinion). She has come home saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, and plays fairly peacefully with her friends. I find daycares and preschools a valuable asset to our communities, they help lay a solid foundation for young children that parents can’t always provide.
This week I was somewhat bothered (and surprised by my own reaction) by a section of the article that looked at the interaction effects in social emotional learning (I am the type of person who typically agrees with everyone in someway). Jones and Bouffard said “teachers who were high- or moderate-quality implementers and attended more trainings or implemented more units had students with better social and emotional competence. In contrast, teachers who attended more trainings or implemented more units but were low-quality implementers had students with poorer outcomes, a finding which may have been explained by low levels of teaching efficacy among those teachers” (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). This part of the article bothered me because the authors did not share how the teachers were deemed to be low-quality implementers or have low levels of teaching efficacy. I would like to know who the judges of these particular teachers were. Who decides if a teacher has high or low levels of teaching efficacy? What measures were used to determine this? Just because a teacher attends trainings or workshops does not necessarily make them a better teacher. I feel like a teacher can learn in many other ways, for example, through collaboration with other teachers in their school or district. I do agree that as classroom teachers we need to implement social emotional learning lessons, activities or programs. For example, at my previous school (and in our district) we implemented a program known as ACT which was a series of lessons that helped students to develop emotional awareness, problem solving skills with peers, anger management etc. But how can we possibly judge individual teachers on whether they are effective in the implementation of these practices?
In Jones and Bouffard’s Social Emotional Learning in Schools they effectively summarize the definition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL), limitation to its’ implementation in schools, and solutions to these limitations. I enjoyed reading this article as I felt it directly applied to my teaching practice. The authors clearly outlined limitations to effective implementation of SEL in schools, ones that I’ve experienced myself. I’ve experienced a lot of frustration around the lack of training for SEL in the school system as I believe it directly relates to students’ ability to have a positive experience in school.
I made a direct connection with the article’s finding that “teachers and principals most frequently cite time pressure as the reason for low implementation” of SEL. This is exactly how I feel within my classroom and not just with SEL. I find that a lot of topics don’t get as much attention as they need to such as French or Health. Lately I can’t believe how much time I spend collecting forms and money.
This article also made me think of Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-ecological model of child development. A child’s development through social emotional learning is directly impacted by all of the systems (micro, meso, macro, exo, and chrono). In order for a child to develop through the three categorical processes mentioned by Jones and Bouffard (emotional, social/interpersonal, cognitive), their SEL needs to be supported by all of the systems. They learn through interactions with their parents and friends (micro), interactions with their teachers (macro), and interactions with themselves (chrono). This past week my students wrote positive affirmations such as “you are unique”. I’m hoping that by providing them with this positive language will help them have more positive interactions with themselves as many of them suffer from low self-esteem.
The key aspects of the Jones and Bouffard article can be summed up very concisely, and the rationale for their recommendations makes sense to all educators. Teachers see the need to have consistent SEL take place, not just time set aside to teach strategies.
It is common sense that learning a skill takes repetition, and that the more often that skill is positively reinforced, the more likely that skill will be repeated with a high degree of accuracy.
Jones and Bouffard promote the integration of SEL teaching within the context of the regular school day. After all, behaviour takes place during academic time and playtime.
I would add that the strategies that are implemented at school for SEL should be communicated to parents. Whether parents decide to use similar strategies is up to them, but they need to know about the school’s social emotional guidelines. This relates to the old adage that it takes a village to raise a child. That village has to have a diverse collection of people for that child to draw upon. Not every member of the community needs to have the same opinions on the goings on in the world or even in the community, but each member must share in the common goal of creating a positive and successful member of society. A community can feel proud and successful when they see one of their own go out and contribute to the wider world.
“The principles of social emotional development highlight the need for SEL approaches to be integrated and embedded in ways that are both wide and deep.” (Jones and Bouffard, 2012).
Jones and Bouffard have some solid recommendations that help take SEL education away from a segregated skill set approach to an integrated approach where the SEL teaching is part of every classroom moment.
Two key recommendations I take from the list are:
Integrate SEL into training for all staff in the school environment.
Integrate SEL into the all parts of the school day as students exhibit behaviours when they are at work and play.
I feel strongly about SEL and yet I don’t. I’ll tell you why. When I was in High School, I wasn’t doing so well. I was facing two realities: First, being a LGBTQ student prior to “Pink Shirt days” era (We will talk more about how I feel about this during our Diversity unit). Second, I had difficulty understanding concepts, especially in Science & Math. I was put in a situation as a student where I had teachers who were either conformable around me, uncomfortable with me because of who I was/am but who would accept to help me (layer of awkwardness #1), teachers who would flat our refuse to help me ( I had a teacher who actually told me: There are people who are good in Math and some who aren’t. You aren’t. I won’t waste my time on you… – layer of awkwardness #3), and there were teachers who would internationally get out of their way to emotionally arm me (level of awkwardness #4). So, as a teacher, social-emotional is one of my priorities because on a personal level, it is something I have struggled with as a child. Also, as a second-language teacher, to foster an environment of trust and positivity is essential as our students put themselves in a vulnerable place every day.
There are great programs out there about social-emotional. Mind Up is a great example of a program that a lot of BC teachers use to work on anxiety, focus and also social-emotional education. Fin’s friends is also another one. Like Jones and Bouffard mention in their article, the SEL programs are rarely integrated into classrooms and schools in ways that are meaningful, sustained, and embedded in the day-to-day interactions of students, educators, and school staff. The programs are divided into lessons and blocs that you can do weekly, which is great! Like academic skills, social and emotional skills develop over time and in a continuously staged fashion so they must be continuously developed.(Jones & Bouffard)
Here is the acronym used by the authors regarding effective SEL programs. They, in my opinion, ironically call it SAFE.
1- sequenced activities that led in a coordinated and connected way to skills
2- active forms of learning
3- focused on developing one or more social skills
4- explicit about targeting specific skills.
Where does the teacher fit into this? On the Figure 1 graph, Teacher Background, Social-emotional competences, and pedagogical skills are at the top. But it is written nowhere how the SAFE environment starts with the attitude of the teacher. I will not go on about the benefits of social emotional learning on children because I agree 100% and I don’t want to repeat the article, and don’t get me wrong, I adore this topic and it is what my focus is on for my master’s project. But, the only thing mentioned about the teachers is that there isn’t enough training to make this work, and that not enough time is implemented in class for SEL. SEL, like the article says, should go beyond the classroom and why? Because it’s life. We carry our social-emotional learning everywhere we go. It’s something we learn in society, in our homes and at school. They are behaviours and values that are within ourselves. So, if they are in the student’s minds, they are also in the teacher’s minds and here is the real problem that is hidden of most studies: A teacher can implement any SEL programs, but if he/she doesn’t act on it as a human being the students will feel it because emotions go sometimes beyond actions. It’s a feeling.
Would the child in me take seriously a class on SEL learning from a teacher who has bullied me? No. Of course not and that’s the problem. In my class I am Oli. Not Mr Oli. Not Mr Salvas. I am Oli because I am a human being and as a human being I am a teacher. The two go together and the entities are not separate ( and I am using things a metaphor – not as a debate of how we should call teachers). If we have a wall as humans, students will feel it. No matter how many chimes we will play to keep students mindful, that wall will still be there. We are often trapped in school with rules, regulations and the politically correct that dehumanize our profession, which is a shame. Yet we have to create new textbook lessons to try to humanize it. Ironic, don’t you think?
In this weeks article Jones and Bouffard outline the importance of incorporating social emotional learning (SEL) into the day to day workings of the school community. They do not dismiss the concept of isolated lessons focused on SEL but rather argue that for SEL to have a significant impact and be meaningful, greater attention needs to be given to daily integration. “SEL programs are rarely integrated into classrooms and schools in ways that are meaningful, sustained, and embedded in the day-to-day interactions of students, educators, and school staff” (Jones and Bouffard, p. 3). Jones and Bouffard highlight some obstacles that schools face when implementing authentic and effective SEL programs throughout the K-12 system. However, I see my school and district addressing many of the problematic issues that the Jones and Bouffard article raise.
For example, over the last four years one of our school goals has been social responsibility and our staff has attended numerous workshops and spent many professional development days working on improving the overall social emotional well being of not only our students but staff as well. Furthermore, over the last two years our school has adopted the “Mind Up” program that can be integrated into the daily routines of a classroom without adding more work for teachers. According to Jones and Bouffard, SEL must develop in the context of daily life as social challenges and other teaching opportunities arise (p. 3). I see this as part of the hidden curriculum that we often need to address as teachers and is just as important as the mandated curriculum. From my experience, our staff and school implement many of the approaches outlined by Jones and Bouffard but I still see certain areas that need to be addressed. For instance, one of the limitations to implementing authentic SEL is that of limited staff training. I agree with Jones and Bouffard that many SEL learning moments occur outside of the classroom like on the playground at recess and lunch. Our noon hour supervisors have to deal with many social problems everyday and as far as I know they receive little to know official training.
As Jones and Bouffard state many times throughout their article, SEL must be integrated into the school culture and all participants need to be involved. I believe that there is more awareness and understanding around the importance of SEL and the role it plays in schools.
The article by Jones and Bouffard this week was a very enjoyable and pragmatic read on the issues of implementing social-emotional learning programs and strategies in schools.
There were so many aspects of my school culture that I could relate to in this article. The authors start by describing the efficacy of including these types of programs in
schools in relation to academic outcomes. The first quote that spoke to me was “Frameworks for soical innovation, such as disruptive innovations and eviden-based kernels
suggest that integrated, everyday approached coud add value to or even be more efficient than full-scale, comprehensive programs that teach SEL (pgs 2-3)”. Schools are
bureaucratic boons that take years to make changes that take place much more quickly in industry settings. At PMSS the common purpose and visioning for the school is the bedrock of graduation attributes that we want students to acquire before they leave high school. Many of these attributes are in the social emotional (affective) domain. In my
opinion, the instructional time used to deliver the programs and the relationship between topics are sometimes glossed over by the teachers implementing the lesson plans that
day. This relates directly to page 7 of the article where JOnes and Bouffard describe the limitations of the existing programmtic approaches to SEL: “insufficient dosage,
duration and effectiveness; fragmentation and marginalization; sole focus in classrooms; and limited staff training” (Pg. 7-8). There was a staff based committee that put
together the common purpose and vision, however many staff members openly mock this process and the ends of the SEL program the school intended to implement. There is a lack
of buy in from the people that need to buy into it the most: the teachers. If teachers are unwilling to entertain the lessons that are provided and teach students the soft
skills they will need to succeed in life and work, how can we expect students to even attempt to implement these ideas?
Further to Sharissa’s post, my school is also an IB school. Although students feel the overwhelming pressure of doing well in this program and the insane expectations of
their parents, it also needs to be mentioned that there is a clear divide in the school between the IB program students and non-IB students, referred to as “the ministry
kids”. I truly believe this divide starts with the admin and the teachers of this program. Culture filters down from admin to the staff. The elitist attitude of some staff members is to the point of patronizing people like myself who teach elective areas. My courses are traditionally “dumping grounds”: marketing, business education, math AW 11. But you know what, these are the most polite, helpful, well behaved classes I see. Where I see IB students openly competitive with each other and employing that competitive nature to basically take each other down, the students in my classes, while not high achievers academically have the wearwithall to know how to take the westcoast express downtown or follow basic directions to get back on a bus for a field trip. It’s to the point where this year, the IB 9s were pulled out in block 5 to attend a meeting, but about 9 students in my class remained behind because they were not IB students. The social emotional effects on these students will no doubt leave a scar. They asked, “why are the IB students treated so specially? I thought you were in IB? OH I’m not smart enough to be in IB, I didn’t make it…” and other similar comments. It literally broke my heart and made me upset. Here are well meaning “ministry kids” who have just been made to feel inferior to the majority of the rest of the students in the class. That comes directly from a lack of empathy and understanding that maybe these kinds of meetings need to happen at lunch or after school so as not to affect elective classes in this way. I was really shocked that the program coordinator did not consider this when planning this meeting. It bothers me as well because I am a ministry kid, and I feel the education I received was just fine and I’ve become a fully functional, respectful, successful adult.
Another piece that I found interesting about this article was the idea of an integrated, everyday approach at school, going back to the first quote I mentioned. I work very
hard to build the Tribes program in my own classes, meaning building the relationships between students so that they become accountable to not only me but each other. I have IB and non-IB students, so I am keenly aware that they need to be able to work together. In business education, we do so much project work and group work that students must be able to interact with each other regardless of their class in the school. I find the time to build in the SEL part of my program because I know it is integral to learning in my classroom.
I also related to what Oli and Carrie talked about above and I look forward to a robust discussion on Wednesday.
Sorry something weird happened to the formatting for mine, because I’m using notepad…
Hi
It is interesting to read about how the decision of one teacher, to hold a meeting during school hours, has unintended results. This is a reminder that as teachers we need to always be mindful that their may be a reaction to every action.
This week, Jones & Bouffard discussed in their article about the importance of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) in the school environment, some obstacles to promoting SEL that are encountered by educators, as well as strategies that educators can use to integrate SEL into their practice. For me, I could especially relate to the topic since my school district has put SEL as one of its primary focus in the past couple of years, and I had been lucky enough to teach at one of the schools that was sort of a pilot for the initiative.
Over the past two years, our middle school implemented a number of things that promote SEL, from the introduction of the CASEL framework that help students develop self-management, self-awareness, responsible decision-making, relationship, and social awareness skills to the conducting of regular class meetings to encourage students to connect with one another as well as set up a platform to solve conflicts in a peaceful manner, to integrating SEL lessons into academics such as carefully choosing appropriate books for school-wide reads and novel studies. Unfortunately, while the effort was there, I was not able to see significant effects of SEL learning in our students in general. In fact, in my opinion, student behaviours and our school culture seemed to have worsen in the past couple of years compared to when I first joined the school six years ago.
Why were our efforts not fruitful? I think there were a number of interconnected reasons, and they pretty much match Jones & Bouffard’s claims. First, there was not a complete buy-in from all teachers. Just as Jones & Bouffard mention, academic content was given a higher priority in classrooms and thus SEL was thrown into the back burner most of the time. When SEL activities were done in the classroom, it was often fragmented and didn’t connect to students’ learning at that moment in a meaningful way. For example, every once in a while the whole school would have DEAR – Drop Everything and Reflect – where students write in their SEL journals, but there were rarely any followups to these. Moreover, there weren’t any transfer of learning from within the classroom to outside contexts, as students indicated in a district SEL survey that they feel unsafe in certain areas of the school such as washrooms and change rooms.
However, there’s one factor that I think Jones and Bouffard failed to take into consideration. It’s the fact that there’s a lack of SEL education from the home front. Ultimately, students spend more time at home than at school, and while we as teachers do our best to teach students these SEL skills, it is tough when parents don’t take the time to teach their children at home or even model for them. Just like how Jones and Bouffard argued referencing Bronfenbrenner’s social context framework, the different micro contexts (school and home) must work together to ensure a higher chance of success in our students’ learning.
Jones & Bouffard (2012) examine the need for a new approach to be taken in regards to social and emotional learning (SEL) programs in schools. They recognize that schools play a significant role in shaping the social and emotional development of children. However, an integrative approach with programs that are embedded within daily school life needs to be implemented to successfully foster the development of SEL skills. Students and all staff need to participate in these programs in order for them to be successfully effective.
In this article, SEL skills are divided into three conceptual categories: emotional processes (emotional knowledge and expression, regulation, empathy and perspective-taking), social/interpersonal skills (understanding social cues, navigating social situations, prosocial behavior), and cognitive regulation (attention control, working memory). The article examines schools as one context among many that influence the development of an individual’s SEL skills. It relates it to the “developmental-contextual models” where development is seen as taking place simultaneously within many systems. This model relates to our discussion of Bronfenbrenner and the systems he identified as ranging from the microsystem to the chronosystem.
SEL programs are needed in schools because SEL skills are connected to academic skills. They are connected through “work-related” skills (listening and following directions, participating cooperatively in groups, working independently), and “interpersonal” skills (aspects of self-regulation and social competence that are needed for compliance, cooperation, and positive, effective relationships). As discussed in the article, teachers may have a positive influence on students in the development of SEL skills by effectively integrating SEL programs into their practice. Teachers need to have a good rapport with their students and a positive relationship with them in order to make a positive contribution. However, it was also noted that teachers need to focus on their own SEL skills as well in order to ensure they are modeling positive behavior for their students. Furthermore, integration of SEL programs has to be welcomed and practiced by all staff in all “microcontexts” in the school in order to make it a part of the school culture (a school’s set of norms, beliefs, practices and driven by values and expectations) and school climate (perceptions of of the environment’s impact on academic achievement, mental health and well-being).
As a secondary public school teacher, I am increasingly noticing the amount of students who do not know how to strengthen their SEL skills. I have already had numerous students pulled out of classes in order for them to seek assistance with their anxiety and mental wellness. As a teacher, I am often the first point of contact for students in the school. I am not only shaping their academic career, but I am also influencing their SEL skills. They are observing everything I am doing and saying. It is important for me to be aware of my SEL skills and ensure that I am a positive model of these skills. The school district in which I work in is now increasingly focusing on the mental wellness of staff members. They are regularly offering wellness workshops on topics such as finding a work and life balance, stress relief, and stress management. The motto of these workshops is to take care of yourself first and then be able to help students and others. A colleague of mine is proposing holding mindfulness workshops for our school’s staff and students. She is currently completing her Masters in Contemplative Inquiry and has successfully implemented mindfulness activities into her classroom culture. Her and I have had many conversations about taking a few moments in our day to stop, take a deep breath, and be aware of what is happening within you and around you. I realized that I seldom stopped to reflect on myself. I have now incorporated this mental break and check into my daily routine. I have even tried it with my students to have them become present in the here and now.
This week’s reading by Jones and Bouffard provides a detailed and well supported summary of both the current landscape of how socio-emotional learning (SEL) is taught and supported in class, as well as a set of goals and ideals for improving SEL in schools. They suggest an approach that enriches specific lessons focused on SEL with integrated SEL approaches applied consistently throughout schools and at all times.
I enjoyed the connection between this week’s reading and last week’s reading. The connection I particularly noticed was that the Authors this week speak about the importance of recognizing that SEL skills do not develop in a vacuum; they develop within social contexts, that are affected by both in school and out of school factors. In-school factors affecting students’ SEL include other students, teachers, consistency among adults, and curriculum design. Out of school factors affecting students’ SEL include family life (i.e. the nature of the home environment, the consistency between home and school) and education policy that may or may not be supportive of SEL programming in schools.
I particularly appreciated the point that SEL approaches will be ineffective without the support of policy makers for funding, time allocation, and other support. It often feels that as an educator we are pushed to integrate more and more into our teaching practice, and this is often not supported with adequate funding or training. Specifically considering the current situation here in BC, our new curriculum clearly states support for SEL through both core and curricular competencies (i.e. communication, personal awareness and responsibility, and critical thinking as both a core competency and skill included in many curricular competencies). However, many teachers, including myself, don’t feel that this is actually adequately supported with funding or support for adequate professional development, sufficiently small class sizes for effective implementation, or guidance for assessment and reporting. Until these supports are in place, implementing this new curriculum is challenging and has limited effectiveness.
In addition to calling for support from policy makers, the article stressed the importance of effective teacher implementation of integrated SEL approaches. Several problems with current trends in SEL were identified. One that particularly resonated with me was that often our daily habits to support SEL are unconscious, and therefore not made explicit for students to learn from. I found this to be a problem I can relate to. I often worry about how I can make sure I am effectively modeling and teaching all the steps involved in any learning activity. Reading this, I wondered about what I as a teacher can do to bring more awareness and therefore attention to my daily SEL practices. Some possibilities I have considered include daily reflection to raise my own awareness; setting aside class time for class reflection in which I participate as both a facilitator and a learner who is reflecting; and lesson and day planning ahead of time to give myself time to think of what SEL skills I will use and teach throughout the day and how to make them conscious and explicit. I would love to discuss other possibilities in class.
The Jones and Bouffard article (2012) discusses the importance of integrating Social Emotional Learning (SEL) into regular classroom practice as well as other school based interactions and routines. Further, they argue the importance of having training for all staff so that the message is consistently applied among staff (in various contexts) as well as from one year to the next.
To me, many of the ideas proposed in this article fall in line with best practice strategies. Obviously teaching SEL authentically and integrated into classroom practice makes more sense than teaching one stand alone block per week. When I think about technology, we no longer take a “trip” to the computer lab to teach technology skills in isolation. Rather, we integrate technology skills into our teaching to achieve best practice and just in time authentic application of skills. SEL is no different. To teach it in isolation doesn’t make sense. It should be an integral part of how we teach.
This year at my school we have spearheaded two different initiatives. One, we created “shared values” that help to guide and focus our direction and goals for the year. They are broad enough in scope that they fall under many umbrellas and can be applied to a variety of contexts. We have 5 shared values, each with an accompanying “I statement”. They are (in no particular order):
– Communicate – I listen to others and share ideas respectfully
– Inquire – I ask questions and work to find the answers
– Persevere – I keep trying when things get challenging
– Engage – I am focused and actively participate
– Care – I care about the well-being of myself, others, and the world
These shared values are explicitly taught to students and incorporated into regular lessons. They are reinforced continuously throughout the school day both in the classroom, as well as other shared school spaces (ie. hallways, playground, library, music room, gym, etc.) All staff created these values together, and took part in collaborative (shared) teaching to students. Therefore the message is reinforced continuously, regardless of location, and all staff share the same understanding. Secondly, we adopted a universal behaviour discipline approach. When conflict arises, students are asked to engage in restorative justice practices. Again, all staff worked together to receive training and be on the same page with how to work through the process.
Each of these practices work not only within the realm of SEL, but they also illustrate the principles of best practice outlined in the article. These values are explicitly taught on an ongoing basis, in many different contexts, to ensure student success.
To be critical of the article, these shared values and restorative practices are taught and reinforced by all staff, regardless of the quality of their implementation. Will some staff be able to present the message more effectively to students, absolutely, but I think this speaks more to their relationship with the student as well as their individual confidence delivering and executing the message. Students may respond to the staff member delivering the message differently, and they may need to hear the message in a specific way. Just as each staff member will teach and reinforce these values a bit differently, students may also need to hear the message differently in order for it to be effective.