CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The Genesis of this Study

“He’ll be fine in life if he can just get through school.” As an educator hearing these

words, I bristled. “Getting through school” was referenced as if it was an obstacle to be

overcome on the path to future success, and yet I knew this was not a novel sentiment. The line

implied confidence in life skills for success that were not ascertained in the school environment.

This platitude echoed in my mind as I began investigating the untapped assets of students who

were otherwise experiencing underperformance in school. Exploring how their “non-academic”

assets could be better harnessed to change their school trajectory became the impetus for this

study, with the intent to better realize their potential.

School mission statements in PK-12 schools often aspire to foster responsible,

collaborative, committed, empowered, socially developed life-long learners (Slate, et al, 2008),

yet school success is all too often measured by high-stakes standardized tests narrowly focused

on specific academic indicators. In recent years, however, renewed interest has focused on the

social emotional learning (SEL) aspects of school mission as manifested in “a rapid surge in

interest in SEL among parents, educators, and policymakers” (S. M. Jones & Doolittle, 2017).

Though research has indicated that positive student outcomes are associated with social

emotional learning (SEL) and negative outcomes are associated with a lack of SEL skills, little

research has focused on which SEL assets are particularly beneficial to the trajectory of students

who have been experiencing underperformance. This study analyzes the design of four

intervention programs regarding SEL and utilizes convergent mixed methods data collection to

assess the perceptions of intervention program personnel. Through interviews and surveys these

practitioners were able to identify particular SEL factors, if any, they found to positively impact
the development of students identified as underperforming at their schools. This examination of

SEL in relation to an under-served student population has the potential to aid student

achievement and inform program design by leveraging particular student SEL assets.

Problem Statement

Four meta-analyses of SEL programs provide significant evidence regarding the positive

impact of social-emotional learning on multiple aspects of student success, noting gains in

student achievement were supported through both short-term and long-term findings (Durlak, et

al, 2011) (Wigelsworth et al., 2016), (Sklad et al., 2012), (Taylor et al., 2017). SEL has also

been recognized as a practice for promoting improved academic outcomes for the self-

advancement of vulnerable populations such as those most at-risk of dropping out and low-SES

students (Butler et al., 2015; Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, and Whalberg, 2007). In addition to

low SES students, SEL programs were found to be at least comparably effective with student

populations of racial/ethnic minorities, English learners (EL), and urban settings, but given that

these groups are considered more “at risk” for lower competencies, the need for additional

research was identified (O’Conner et al., 2017). While research has documented associations

between student underperformance and educator perceptions of poor SEL skills (Evans &

Rosenbaum, 2008), literature is lacking regarding what SEL assets prove particularly significant

for these populations to overcome underperformance. The opportunity to harness the positive

impact of SEL for the benefit of students experiencing underperformance in traditional academic

programs is particularly intriguing, and the need for additional research regarding the impact of

SEL for such populations has been identified in previous studies (Elias & Haynes, 2008).

Additional information is needed on how social emotional learning assets can help close

the opportunity gap manifested in academic discrepancies--specifically whether any particular

students experiencing underperformance. Though the positive effect of social-emotional

learning on student achievement has been indicated (Durlak, et al, 2011) (Wigelsworth et al.,

2016), (Sklad et al., 2012), (Taylor et al., 2017), its effect on specific sub-groups, such as

students experiencing underperformance in the traditional education program, is in need of

further examination. Practitioners who have worked with students experiencing

underperformance have unique insights that can be capitalized upon to better understand the

efficacy of SEL factors in the development of these students. Ultimately, schools need to have

more information on how to better serve the needs of students experiencing underperformance;

SEL factors have promise to inform program design to better meet this need, but additional data

is needed for informed decision-making.

Statement of Purpose

This study examines the intersection of social emotional learning and intervention

programs through the perspectives of practitioners to determine what, if any, social emotional

factors are most associated with the positive development of youth experiencing

underperformance. The purpose of this study is to examine the perspectives of intervention

program personnel, in order to determine what, if any, social-emotional factors are of particular

significance to the positive development of youth experiencing underperformance. Determining

if particular social-emotional factors are targeted and of significance in these programs is

valuable information in the design of effective intervention programs. Ultimately, better

understandings of SEL skills particularly valuable to students experiencing underperformance

can inform practices in the classroom to reduce the need for such intervention programs, as the

SEL assets of these students are better capitalized on for success. A mixed method approach
allows for practitioners’ perspectives to be captured in both a deductive and inductive manner,

with intervention program personnel self-identifying impactful SEL factors, if any, via

interviews, while also choosing among provided SEL factors in an e-survey. Document analysis

of intervention program descriptions provides an additional data source regarding SEL factors of

emphasis.

Research Questions

• What, if any, social-emotional learning is noted as a target of the participant intervention

programs?

• What social-emotional factors do program educators describe as particularly significant to

the success of students who had been identified for these intervention programs due to

underperformance? (qualitative)

• When presented with research-identified SEL factors, which, if any, do intervention program

educators identify as significant to the positive development of students experiencing

underperformance? (quantitative)

Definition of Terms
Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Though the terminology for SEL skills can vary from “character education, personality,

21st century skills, soft skills, and noncognitive skills, just to name a few,” this research adopts

the SEL or social-emotional learning moniker because it is the term most referenced as inclusive

of other concepts, it has been identified in market research as a “familiar and preferred term

among policymakers, practitioners, and parents,” and it better reflects “learning and growth”

than other terms (Jones & Doolittle, 2017, p. ). Yet, the definition of social emotional learning

and its parameters remains subject to debate and a “major difficulty” to the measurement and
assessment of these skills (Wigelsworth et al., 2010, p. #). In fact, a Brookings Institute report

argued it was “premature and unhelpful” to align school mission, programs, and measures of

success to vague factors described simultaneously as “soft skills, emotional intelligence,

social and emotional learning, personal qualities, character, virtue, non-cognitive skills, 21st

century skills, and so on” (Whitehurst, 2016, p. 1). 

Despite the debates on a precise definition or the limits to what SEL encompasses, there

remain consistent refrains within various definitions. For over two decades social emotional

learning (SEL) has been defined by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning (CASEL) as “the process through which children and adults understand and manage

emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and

maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions” (CASEL, 2019). Rutgers

University’s Social Emotional & Character Development (SECD) Lab similarly defines social-

emotional and character development as involving “the capacity to recognize and manage

emotions, solve problems effectively, take others’ perspectives, and establish positive, empathic

relationships with others” (SECD Lab, 2019). Stephanie Jones, who has undertaken an

extensive study involving the nomenclature of SEL at Harvard’s Ecological Approaches to

Social Emotional Learning (EASEL) Laboratory describes SEL as involving “children’s ability

to learn about and manage their own emotions and interactions in ways that benefit themselves

and others, and that help youth succeed in schooling, the workplace, relationships, and

citizenship,” which, she notes, involves cognitive skills such as attention, problem-solving, self-

perception, social awareness, and conflict resolution (Jones & Doolittle, 2017). SEL, for the

purposes of this study is an inclusive concept, encompassing a broad taxonomy of “non-

academic” skills including, but not limited to understanding and managing self, emotions, social
interactions, relationships, decision-making, problem-solving, perspectives, and positive

dispositions.

Perhaps most noteworthy among these definitions is that social emotional learning is not

identified as fixed traits but as skills that can be learned and developed. The CASEL definition

specifically emphasizes SEL as “a process” (CASEL, 2019). Similarly, the Economic Policy

Institute (EPI) defined the domain as “socio-emotional or behavioral characteristics that are not

fixed traits of personality” but can either be nurtured during school years or contribute to

cognitive development during the same time period (Garcia, 2014). This study embraces SEL as

a process of skills that can be nurtured, developed, and learned. Moreover, this study purports

that intentional school programming and development can capitalize on student SEL assets for

positive development. Development of SEL skills can not only leverage better academic

achievement, but it also is well aligned to fulfilling goals identified consistently in school

mission statements (Slate, et al., 2008).

Deficit Student Terminology

At the same time that interest in social emotional learning has surged, educational

institutions have continued to grapple with a well-documented achievement gap, identified as the

most important issue in schools in a 2016 study of over 800 educators (Ratcliff et al., 2016).

The “achievement gap” emphasizes the significant differences in achievement measures

including standardized tests, with gaps prevalent between Whites and Latinos, Whites and

African-Americans, students in poverty and wealth, children of parents with low formal

education and greater formal education, and native English speakers and English learners (Carter

& Welner, 2013).

“opportunity gap” shifts attention to inputs—"to the deficiencies in the foundational components

of societies, schools, and communities that produce significant differences in educational—and

ultimately socioeconomic—outcomes” (Carter & Welner, 2013, p.3). This shift in terminology

is significant; as an example, a recent study noted that phrases like “racial achievement gap”

elicited lower levels of issue prioritization than phrases like “racial inequality in educational

outcomes” due to social justice connotations (Quinn et al., 2019). Deficit terminology reinforces

a false perception that students experiencing underperformance have been given equitable

experiences and opportunities and are responsible for failing to actualize these experiences for

individualized success.

Yet researchers recognize that language is not the extent of the problem but rather one

manifestation of the belief system that it represents (Harry & Klingner, 2007). Racial and

cultural variations can be too often interpreted as intrinsic deficits not complying with the

normed expectations of privilege, and this deficit viewpoint impacts outcomes (Harry &

Klingner, 2007). In this manner, students experiencing underperformance can be viewed from a

deficit perspective that is counterproductive to aiding their accomplishment of school-defined

measures of success.

Psychologist Steve Achor encourages a shift towards capitalizing on positivity and

affective mindsets for success, calling for instruction that aids students in achieving such an

emotional mindset (Achor, 2013). Multiple studies of different subjects using different methods

indicate that positivity, happiness, and well-being contribute to success and may be contributing

factors towards performance and achievement (Stamp and Thoren, 2014, p. 48). Reflecting the

need for such an orientation shift, this study is asset-focused and purposeful in avoiding an
emphasis on deficits of students experiencing underperformance. Rather it purports that

students experiencing underperformance possess SEL assets which may not have been

effectively harnessed and fortified to impact school measures of achievement.

Similarly, this study adopts the term “opportunity gap” to describe persistent inequities in

achievement, emphasizing the institutional nature of the issue rather than perpetuating the false

narrative of a student issue. This study adopts nomenclature regarding students experiencing

underperformance rather than “underperforming youth” as the former phrase more clearly

reframes the identifier from a descriptor of the student to a condition a student might find

himself/herself/themselves without a presumption of culpability. This asset orientation is also

reflected in study design which is oriented towards program success factors and identification of

student SEL assets.

Success

Since this study is focused on positively impacting students, the definition of student

success, with all its cultural and political baggage, needs to be unpacked as it pertains to this

study. A 2015 examination of academic success and student success across content fields

indicated these terms are often used interchangeably, and researchers usually define success

within G.P. Kuh’s definition (2007): “academic achievement, engagement in educationally

purposeful activities, satisfaction, acquisition of desired knowledge, skills, and competencies,

persistence, attainment of educational outcomes, and post-college performance” (York et al.,

2015). At the same time, the measure of student success is often narrowly defined as grades and

GPA (York et al., 2015). Such a confining measure of student success to quantitative barometers

fails to capture the rich value of social emotional skills. Though an extensive 2011 meta-analysis

did determine SEL program participants had an eleven percent gain in academic achievement,
this same study noted positive indicators that would not otherwise be captured through

GPA/grades, including positive attitudes, positive social behaviors, and decreased emotional

distress (Durlak et al., 2011).

Though grades, test scores, GPAs and other statistical measures of academic achievement

are the norm for most school program evaluations and this study includes these indicators of

student success, this study is not confined by these measures of student success. Rather this

study adopts the recommended “expanded” definition of academic success to include “growth of

cognitive ability and/or acquisition of skills or learning outcomes” as well as consideration of the

participant’s aspirations and goals (York et al., 2015). In addition, this study acknowledges that

other proven gains attributed to SEL programs are in fact indicators of student success including

a positive impact on behavior problems and emotional distress and the development of positive

social behaviors, attitudes, and SEL skills (Mahoney et al., 2018).

Thus, academic achievement may, in fact, be articulated as a barometer of success in this

study due to its rampant public adoption as an indicator of student success, but it would not

qualify as the only or most important indicator of student success. For the parameters of this

study, success includes positive dispositions, attitudes, and skills as important additional

indicators of “success.”

Research Design

This study adopts a constructivism paradigm, recognizing that reality is informed by

mental frameworks, including that of the researcher, and that theory and facts cannot exist

independently and unequivocally (Guba, 1990). A case study approach was adopted through a

focus on four intervention programs in four different schools in the same geographic region.
Data was triangulated through three focus areas: document analysis, interviews, and surveys.

This triangulation adopts an “emergent multimethod sequential triangulation design” that works

out of an empowerment, critical theory (Denzin, 2010) The triangulation increases the “scope,

depth, and consistency” of results rather than validating them (Flick, 2002, p. 227). The nature

of this triangulated data does not allow for generalizing results, but does provide a basis for

transferability.

A convergent/parallel mixed methods approach was adopted which emphasizes separate

parallel data collection approaches that converge to surface new understandings (Creswell,

2015). Qualitative data collection took place via interviews which provided inductive data coded

to emergent themes regarding SEL factors of significance. Quantitative data collection took

place via a questionnaire which provided deductive data with participants choosing from

provided category codes of SEL factors as to whether any were of positive significance. The

analysis of the survey took place independently from the analysis of the open-ended interview

questions, providing the convergent/parallel model.

Document analysis was conducted on any publicly available program materials for each

of the intervention programs, including website information, to determine whether social

emotional factors were explicit, implicit, or not present at all in the program design purported to

public stakeholders. Document analysis data was cross-referenced with data collected from the

interviews and surveys to gain a more complete understanding of whether SEL factors were

targeted in program design. The interview questions and surveys sought a better understanding

of which, if any, SEL factors were perceived as having a positive impact on student development

within the intervention programs. In this manner, the study was able to gain a deeper

understanding of how intervention program practitioners perceived the significance of SEL

underachievement, whether intended as a program aim or not. In addition, these tools allowed

for the identification of any specific SEL factors of particular note.

Using snowball or chain sampling, four different sites with intervention programs were

selected from the same geographic area--the suburbs of a large metropolitan area in Illinois--to

allow for comparative data. Each qualifying program for the study had to have been successfully

meeting its goals for at least one year as self-identified by the school program coordinators.

Participants also needed to have had at least one year working with youth identified as

experiencing underperformance who participated in the intervention program. Intervention

program personnel had to have been directly involved with students in the intervention programs.

Codes for the surveys and document analysis were based on the coding framework

created by The Taxonomy Project from the Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning

(EASEL) Laboratory, led by Stephanie Jones of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

(Jones, S., 2019), with the addition of a category related to communalism and culturally

responsive practice that was an area indicated as important to marginalized groups in a critique

of coding frameworks (Berg et al., 2017). After analyzing data from the document analysis,

interviews, and surveys, the results were compared across data tools to surface points of

consensus and tension.   This data across evaluation tools strengthened understanding of the

intervention program design as well as any emergent SEL elements deemed of significance to the

positive development of students.

Significance

As school sub-group data continues to point to student underperformance in

disproportionate numbers for marginalized populations, the need for effective interventions and
program redesign becomes all the more urgent. At the same time, research supports the efficacy

of building upon students’ social emotional assets to improve academic outcomes. This study

meets a gap in the literature regarding what, if any, SEL assets can best be utilized to positively

impact students experiencing underachievement as well as giving voice to educators with

experience positively impacting these students to gain their insights regarding specific SEL skills

that aided in leveraging success.

Dissemination of this research is intended to inform program design as to whether SEL

factors are worthy of consideration in intervention programming and/or to inform efforts for

addressing the opportunity gap. It is an asset-oriented approach that seeks to both build on the

capabilities of underperforming students and recognize the expertise of program personnel in

assessing impactful practice. The ultimate research goal is to identify whether SEL elements are

positively impacting students in intervention programs in order to develop a framework for

program planning that will more effectively address the needs of underserved youth.

Researcher Perspectives

As articulated by Fusch, “qualitative researchers bring their bias to the research, share

their bias with the reader, and strive to mitigate their personal bias to ensure that they are

correctly interpreting the other/participant(s)” (Fusch, 2018). As a former teacher and

administrator in schools with low SES neighborhoods and high crime rates, I have formed deep

convictions about the need to assure students in underserved communities receive a quality

education as well as a professional conviction that social emotional learning is an essential

element of a quality education. In fact, I would identify education as an invaluable tool for

breaking the cycle of poverty and unleashing unrealized potential, with social emotional

development an essential aspect of such an empowering education.

research interests captured in this study. Moreover, as a White, Caucasian, middle-class

educator, I recognize that this work with underserved populations comes from a position of

privilege. Further, my position as a female from an academic environment impacts my

interpretation of interview narratives and document analysis, and that positionality also may have

impacted the responses I received during open-ended interviews.

In an effort to minimize this bias, I constructed the face-to-face research (interviews) as

primarily inductive, allowing the practitioner participants to control the narrative through open-

ended queries which allowed the points of emphasis to emerge from their experiences. In these

interviews, I also made a pointed effort to clearly communicate my regard and respect for the

interview participants’ expertise as practitioners serving youth. By clearly articulating my

intention to better understand the valuable insights participants possessed as practitioners, I

hoped to capture what was “working” in the field on behalf of the underserved youth population

and minimize the intrusive impact of my positionaility as a researcher.

Researcher Assumptions

My experiences as an educator have shaped my convictions that curriculum and materials

may not be as compelling in the effort to impact student success as the relational context: the

connection among individuals as part of an investment in the whole child’s development. My

experiences have informed the research interests captured in this study, including the belief that

all students have capabilities which educators can further nurture and develop to optimize

potential.

Yet precautions have been taken in the design of this study to minimize the telegraphing

of convictions about the role of social emotional factors to study subjects as well as steps to
minimize the impact of my position as a researcher of societal privilege studying programs for

student populations often not afforded access to the same privilege. The interviews have been

constructed in an inductive manner that do not frame questions on whether the development of

specific SEL factors are essential, noting that such a query might, in fact, bias the interview

participant to express its importance. Rather the queries are open-ended regarding what SEL

factors might be present and whether any specific ones are considered particularly impactful.

Only after this line of questioning is pursued are the participants provided a follow-up survey

with queries about specific research-identified SEL elements and whether they might be present

in the program or perceived by the participant as significant regarding positive student

development. In all cases, the participant has been provided the opportunity to indicate that none

of the posed SEL factors are of significance.

Moreover, the study has been constructed in a manner that allows for triangulation of

data. Documents on the program are cross-referenced with open-ended interview responses, as

well as data from queries on specific SEL factors in the survey responses. This triangulation of

data provides an opportunity to examine points of tension and agreement to better determine

emergent themes and minimize the impact of bias in interpreting data.

Prior to implementation of this data collection, a pilot study was conducted with three

programs in Summer 2018. This study helped inform the design of this to study to further reduce

opportunities of bias. The pilot study also included an intervention program that did not self-

identify the importance of social emotional factors as essential to student development or

program success. This experience documenting a program that did not note social emotional

factors as impactful is an indication that this research involves a commitment to objective data
collection and does not conform data to a preconceived narrative that would more aptly serve the

purposes of the study.

I make no apology for the conviction that an examination of successful intervention

programming is important and essential work. It is my firm belief that all educators should be

dedicated to optimizing opportunities for populations experiencing underperformance in schools,

as these students deserve the tools of education and its transformative power but remain, research

consistently indicates, grossly underserved by current educational systems. I believe the assets

of these students have been underserved and need to be more conscientiously developed in order

to realize their untapped potential. However, this study relies on the schools’ identification of

students experiencing underperformance, which acknowledges different environmental settings--

accommodating their interpretations of performance indicators--but also makes an assumption

regarding the accuracy of such a determination within each environmental context. This

determination, however reflects the variability of contexts students face in identification of

performance levels and is a necessary assumption to acknowledge the students’ lived reality.

Summation

With these definitions, assumptions, and attempts to minimize bias in mind, this

study aspires to better understand how SEL assets can be utilized so students don’t have to “get

through” school to succeed but can, in fact, encounter school programming that leverages their

assets towards improved realization of their potential. Through surveys and interviews of

intervention program personnel and a study of intervention program goals, this study examines

what, if any, SEL factors are of particular significance in the positive development of students

experiencing underperformance.