Rewrite
Weissberg, R. P. (2019). Promoting the Social and Emotional Learning of Millions of School Children. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618817756 Social Emotional Learning (SEL) involves evidence-based programs, practices, and policies
through which children and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show
empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions
(Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015).
Ross, K. M., & Tolan, P. (2018). Social and Emotional Learning in Adolescence: Testing the CASEL
Model in a Normative Sample. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1177/0272431617725198
SEL emerged as findings from the emotional intelligence literature (e.g., Goleman,
1995) suggested that these “non-cognitive” skills are just as, if not more important, than
“cognitive” skills for life success (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2007). Thus,
the framework emerged to connect findings of many different studies evidencing social
and emotional skills’ relation to development and collectively thought to comprise those
essential for school and life success.
Ross, K. M., & Tolan, P. (2018). Social and Emotional Learning in Adolescence: Testing the CASEL Model in a Normative Sample. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1177/0272431617725198 The CASEL Model has become prominent in social and emotional competency studies. The five
competencies of this model are (a) self-management, or the ability to regulate thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors; (b) self-awareness, or the ability to recognize one’s emotions and
accurately assess one’s strengths and weaknesses; (c) social awareness or awareness of the
culture, beliefs, and feelings of the people and world around them; (d) relationship skills or the
ability to effectively communicate, work well with peers, and build meaningful relationships;
and (e) responsible decision-making or the ability to make plans for the future, follow
moral/ethical standards, and contribute to the well-being of others (Oberle et al., 2016; Payton et
al., 2000). The CASEL model asserts that these five competences impact major short- and
long-term outcomes including positive attitudes and social behavior, conduct problems,
emotional distress, academic success, graduation rates, mental health, criminal behavior,
substance abuse, and engaged citizenship
Ross, K. M., & Tolan, P. (2018). Social and Emotional Learning in Adolescence: Testing the CASEL Model in a Normative Sample. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(8), 1170–1199. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1177/0272431617725198 The PYD framework focuses on how aligning adolescent strengths with external resources and
opportunities can promote optimal development or “thriving.” PYD emphasizes the dynamic
nature of development, adolescents as agents of their own development, and the effects of these
in eventuating thriving functioning (Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003). The PYD framework
is comprised of “Five Cs”: (a) Competence, which refers to positive views and performance in
the social, academic, cognitive, health, and vocational domains; (b) Confidence, or an overall
sense of positive self-worth; (c) Connection, which refers to positive and reciprocal relationships
with peers, family, school, and community members; (d) Character, or acting within the moral,
societal, and cultural expectations; and (e) Caring, which refers to showing compassion toward
others (Bowers et al., 2010; Zarrett & Lerner, 2008). The Five Cs PYD model was validated with
confirmatory factor analysis and predicted youth social and emotional functioning in an early
adolescent sample (Bowers et al., 2010). For example, the five constructs positively correlated
with measures of educational and civic engagement and negatively correlated with mental illness
symptoms and delinquency (Bowers et al., 2010; Phelps et al., 2009).
Theoretically, SEL and PYD overlap substantially. Both approaches have a strengths-based
perspective and view development through the lens of opportunity, as opposed to deficit. Further,
both perspectives purport five essential elements of positive development. However, SEL and
PYD differ in their theoretical linkages and outcomes. In terms of theoretical linkages, SEL is
focused on specific skill promotion and behavior change through teaching and practicing, often
in structured classroom settings (e.g., Social-Cognitive Theory, Problem Behavior Theory,
Social Learning Theory, Health Belief Model; Payton et al., 2000). PYD, however, stresses the
alignment of external resources with existing strengths/assets in youth (social developmental
model; Hawkins & Weis, 1985), often takes place in community or afterschool settings, and is
less structured and prescribed. In terms of outcomes, SEL tends to focus on social and academic
outcomes, and PYD tends to focus on societal contribution and engagement outcomes. Perhaps
these differences have also led to differences in developmental focus, where studies of SEL are
predominantly with early childhood and elementary students, and studies of PYD are
predominantly with adolescents.
Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2019). An empirical basis for linking social and emotional learning to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 193–204. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.009 To our surprise, however, school connectedness failed to predict later academic achievement.
One must consider the possibility that the role of school connectedness, despite previous
evidence (e.g., Wang & Holcombe, 2010), is masked by the impact of mental health difficulties,
which might be a more salient domain in relation to childhood academic competence. Another
explanation lies in the ongoing challenges pertaining to the measurement of conceptually
overlapped concepts. CASEL (2003), for instance, has conceptualized school connection in
various ways, and a clear definition is currently lacking. More generally, the measurement of
school connectedness has been particularly challenging as it has been inconsistently
operationalized throughout the years (Libbey, 2004). The Kidscreen-27 school environment
domain used in the current study includes dimensions of affective (happiness at school),
cognitive (academic competency) and behavioral (perception of teacher relationships) school
connectedness, although its short structure likely prevented us from fully capturing the
multidimensional nature of the construct. Given the lack of a universal definition, school
connectedness can be defined andmeasured in diverse ways, and further work is therefore needed
towards the comprehensive conceptualization of this concept, if its measurement is to be
consistent. Until such time, researchers are encouraged to be aware of concepts suffering from a
‘jingle’ (scales with the same name that actually measure different constructs) and ‘jangle’
fallacies (scales with different names that actually measure the same construct; Marsh, 1994) and
to consider using multiple tools to fully assess each construct (as in Ross & Tolan, 2017) as this
would possibly help overcome some of the aforementioned issues, thus providing a more
comprehensive representation of the SEL logic model.