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.