People are excited about the potential of programs focused on children’s social and emotional learning (SEL). At the least, they can make learning a more engaging and enjoyable experience for children. But, do we know how and if SEL programs work, especially across the diverse economic, ethnic and cultural contexts that constitute low- or middle-income countries (LMICs)? The enthusiasm for SEL programs has galloped ahead of the evidence. We’re optimistic too, but believe we need to think more clearly about SEL programs and the evidence that supports them. The SEL field is still in its infancy and a recent background paper developed for the 2024 Spotlight Report, Learning Counts, helps us sharpen our thinking about it. Here are some ways the field could develop.
1. Be more specific about what SEL programs are
In program design and evidence reviews, the broad term “SEL programs” is used frequently. We can advance the field by seeking greater clarity about four aspects of SEL programs.
a. Be clearer about what SEL programs are trying to achieve
Advocates say SEL programs can improve children’s well-being, academic learning, can develop skills for a successful life and build resilience in the face of conflict and crisis. But these four sets of goals– and the approach one would take to achieve each of them– are quite different. Programs need to be clear about their main SEL goal. This is key for designing a focused program and deciding on the best approach. This first step is critical for improving coherence of a program and determining the potential approach(es) to achieve this goal. Our focus is on SEL programs to improve academic learning, which we’ll discuss in the rest of this blog.
b. Be clearer about the programmatic approach
SEL programs also vary in how they try to achieve these goals. Typically, programs focus on one of two things: improving the climate in the classroom, the school, and the community or building specific skills – either through standalone SEL lessons or integrated into regular classes. Although skills-building dominates the SEL conversation, some programs, especially those that work on creating a positive school climate, aim to meet children’s social and emotional needs (such as the need to feel safe) as much as building skills. Programs should be clear if they’re building skills, responding to needs, or doing both.
c. Specify the skills being targeted
SEL programs also differ in the skills they target. Teaching empathy is different from teaching critical thinking, but both often get grouped under “SEL programs”. As research and programs advance, we need to be clearer about the specific skills each SEL program is targeting. For example, a recent study in Kenya, which we describe in our background paper, found that specific SEL skills, like building relationships and self-confidence, are linked to academic success.
d. Specifying the mechanisms by which skills contribute to program goals
The Kenya study points to skills that might improve academic outcomes, such as self-confidence. If we understand how specific SEL skills lead to better academic results, we can refine our intervention strategy. The background paper suggests two ways (among many) that SEL might improve learning: boosting students’ confidence and creating a classroom environment that encourages participation. Specifying these mechanisms enables programs to target specific intermediate outcomes (e.g. a supportive environment) and to monitor mechanisms (e.g. greater participation in class) to develop a stronger understanding of how a program works.
2. Assess the added value of SEL programs
This brings us to our second point: when it comes to improving academic outcomes, we need a stronger evidence base that pin-points the added value of SEL programs. Many of the best programs – such as IRC’s healing classrooms – combine SEL and instructional improvements into a single intervention. This makes it hard to tell which part is driving the results. We need evaluations that separate the effects of SEL from those of traditional teaching methods.
Conclusion
Overall, the SEL field, especially in LMICs, needs more clarity and focus. A clear model showing how SEL programs work, their goals, approaches, and impact on children’s outcomes, would benefit the whole field. Our background paper includes two studies that help build this model. Such a model would allow program designers to be more intentional and make it easier to categorize evidence based on different goals and approaches, rather than just asking the generic question, ‘Do SEL programs work?’”
We need stronger evidence showing a clear link between SEL programs and academic outcomes. SEL has enjoyed a lot of optimism, but without rigorous, precise evidence to support it, that optimism might not last. To ensure SEL programs truly benefit children in low- and middle-income countries, we need more studies that pinpoint what works and how.