Page 126 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 126
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
students before and at the end of the intervention. In some cases, this is
also paralleled by before and after questionnaires filled in by the teachers.
Pupils are typically divided into control and experimental groups in or-
der to allow the testing of programme effects. When gender-mixed class-
rooms are involved, which is mostly the case, the programmes tended to
include pupils approximately evenly divided by gender. Like the pupils,
teachers selected for participation in the programmes are also usually di-
vided into two groups – one group of teachers actively participating in the
programme, and the other being the control group.
As for the school selection for a programme’s implementation, pro-
gramme leaders and researchers tend to sample schools with similar so-
cio-economic backgrounds (e.g. Berger et al., 2018) or, with a larger sam-
ple, the sample of schools tends to reflect the variety in the population
– “schools in which students were recruited were representative of a di-
verse range of socioeconomic status and were considered to be a micro-
cosm of the larger society” (Schonert-Reichl and Stewart Lawlor, 2010, p.
141).
Programmes for pupils also vary in the actors included in the pro-
gramme implementation. Programme leaders in school settings were
predominantly classroom teachers, who had usually received some kind
of programme training before implementing the programme in school
(e.g. Kelly et al., 2004; PATHS and CASEL programmes). Some pro-
grammes in schools were led by non-classroom teachers (e.g., Mendelson
et al., 2010; Napoli, Krech and Holley, 2005, in: Gueldner and Feuerborn,
2016), while others were delivered by a trained psychologist (e.g. Coelho
et al., 2017) or a visiting counsellor, often by a researcher who was the pro-
ject leader (e.g. Yamamoto, Matsumoto and Bernard, 2017). Some pro-
jects led by school teachers had support by way of periodical school vis-
its by facilitators, coach consultants or supervisors of the programme (e.g.
McCormick et al., 2015; Berry et al., 2016). Parents were also included in
programmes to various extents, with some only giving parental/guardi-
an consent for the pupils, and others engaging more intensively as they
underwent a brief education on social and emotional competencies (e.g.
INSIGHTS programme, McCormick et al., 2015).
Programmes also vary in their duration, i.e. the timespan of the
whole school intervention, intervals between interventions, and the dura-
tion of one programme lesson/intervention. Some programmes were im-
plemented over 2 academic years (e.g. Berry et al., 2016; Coelho at al., 2017;
McCormick et al., 2015), while others covered a more limited timeframe,
delivering from 5 to 25 sessions, often held weekly, rarely bi-monthly (e.g.
124
students before and at the end of the intervention. In some cases, this is
also paralleled by before and after questionnaires filled in by the teachers.
Pupils are typically divided into control and experimental groups in or-
der to allow the testing of programme effects. When gender-mixed class-
rooms are involved, which is mostly the case, the programmes tended to
include pupils approximately evenly divided by gender. Like the pupils,
teachers selected for participation in the programmes are also usually di-
vided into two groups – one group of teachers actively participating in the
programme, and the other being the control group.
As for the school selection for a programme’s implementation, pro-
gramme leaders and researchers tend to sample schools with similar so-
cio-economic backgrounds (e.g. Berger et al., 2018) or, with a larger sam-
ple, the sample of schools tends to reflect the variety in the population
– “schools in which students were recruited were representative of a di-
verse range of socioeconomic status and were considered to be a micro-
cosm of the larger society” (Schonert-Reichl and Stewart Lawlor, 2010, p.
141).
Programmes for pupils also vary in the actors included in the pro-
gramme implementation. Programme leaders in school settings were
predominantly classroom teachers, who had usually received some kind
of programme training before implementing the programme in school
(e.g. Kelly et al., 2004; PATHS and CASEL programmes). Some pro-
grammes in schools were led by non-classroom teachers (e.g., Mendelson
et al., 2010; Napoli, Krech and Holley, 2005, in: Gueldner and Feuerborn,
2016), while others were delivered by a trained psychologist (e.g. Coelho
et al., 2017) or a visiting counsellor, often by a researcher who was the pro-
ject leader (e.g. Yamamoto, Matsumoto and Bernard, 2017). Some pro-
jects led by school teachers had support by way of periodical school vis-
its by facilitators, coach consultants or supervisors of the programme (e.g.
McCormick et al., 2015; Berry et al., 2016). Parents were also included in
programmes to various extents, with some only giving parental/guardi-
an consent for the pupils, and others engaging more intensively as they
underwent a brief education on social and emotional competencies (e.g.
INSIGHTS programme, McCormick et al., 2015).
Programmes also vary in their duration, i.e. the timespan of the
whole school intervention, intervals between interventions, and the dura-
tion of one programme lesson/intervention. Some programmes were im-
plemented over 2 academic years (e.g. Berry et al., 2016; Coelho at al., 2017;
McCormick et al., 2015), while others covered a more limited timeframe,
delivering from 5 to 25 sessions, often held weekly, rarely bi-monthly (e.g.
124
