Page 129 - 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. 129
mornar et al. ■ students’ social, emotional and intercultural competencies ...
The following four factors were perceived to accelerate social and emo-
tional learning: adopting schoolwide SEL programming instead of using
fragmented approaches, embedding SEL in student learning standards,
building teachers’ capacity in SEL, and engaging parents and families
(Bridgeland, Bruce and Hariharan, 2013). The need to incorporate SEL
as an integral part of academics and the awareness of the ways in which
diversity provides an ever-changing context for implementation of pro-
grammes are also outlined (Elias et al., 2003). The most distinctive factors
seen as benefitting the development of intercultural competencies within
the educational context are: strong leadership, staff training and support,
effective role models, policies that promote intergroup relations, an em-
phasis on diversity across the curriculum, a diverse faculty and adminis-
tration, and sensitivity to the local community (Cushner, 2004).
Several factors are acknowledged as hindering the success of social
and emotional learning: the perpetuation of narrow and decontextual-
ised programmes, poor management of resources, and negligence of the
programme implementers’ characteristics (Elias et al., 2003). Factors that
hinder the development of intercultural competencies are: a lack of diver-
sity among teachers and students, teachers’ ethnocentrism, i.e. a lack of
effective role models, non-democratic practices within the school, com-
munities that are reluctant to change, and within-school segregation of
majority and minority groups (Cushner, 2004).
Preferably, the quality of SEI programmes and the appropriateness
of their implementation is assessed by an evaluative procedure aimed at
investigating and improving their effects. In a systematic review focused
on evaluating multicultural education programmes, i.e. programmes
seeking to develop intercultural understanding and intercultural compe-
tencies, Stephan, Renfro and Stephan (2004) put forward possible tools
and procedures for programme evaluations. We posit that these are equal-
ly useful for the evaluation of social and emotional learning programmes.
The authors distinguish between quantitative and qualitative techniques
for evaluating programmes. Quantitative designs that can be used to eval-
uate SEI programmes, going from most to least preferred, are the follow-
ing: pre-test/post-test with a control group design, post-test only with a
control group design, and pre-test/post-test with no control group design.
Qualitative designs that Stephan et al. (2004) discuss are post-programme
survey and observation, both being equally preferred, i.e. selected based
on the programme characteristics and implementation circumstances.
As the authors point out, “the better the design, the richer the inferenc-
es that can be drawn from the data. However, even the simplest evalua-
tions can provide useful information regarding the effects of the program”
127
The following four factors were perceived to accelerate social and emo-
tional learning: adopting schoolwide SEL programming instead of using
fragmented approaches, embedding SEL in student learning standards,
building teachers’ capacity in SEL, and engaging parents and families
(Bridgeland, Bruce and Hariharan, 2013). The need to incorporate SEL
as an integral part of academics and the awareness of the ways in which
diversity provides an ever-changing context for implementation of pro-
grammes are also outlined (Elias et al., 2003). The most distinctive factors
seen as benefitting the development of intercultural competencies within
the educational context are: strong leadership, staff training and support,
effective role models, policies that promote intergroup relations, an em-
phasis on diversity across the curriculum, a diverse faculty and adminis-
tration, and sensitivity to the local community (Cushner, 2004).
Several factors are acknowledged as hindering the success of social
and emotional learning: the perpetuation of narrow and decontextual-
ised programmes, poor management of resources, and negligence of the
programme implementers’ characteristics (Elias et al., 2003). Factors that
hinder the development of intercultural competencies are: a lack of diver-
sity among teachers and students, teachers’ ethnocentrism, i.e. a lack of
effective role models, non-democratic practices within the school, com-
munities that are reluctant to change, and within-school segregation of
majority and minority groups (Cushner, 2004).
Preferably, the quality of SEI programmes and the appropriateness
of their implementation is assessed by an evaluative procedure aimed at
investigating and improving their effects. In a systematic review focused
on evaluating multicultural education programmes, i.e. programmes
seeking to develop intercultural understanding and intercultural compe-
tencies, Stephan, Renfro and Stephan (2004) put forward possible tools
and procedures for programme evaluations. We posit that these are equal-
ly useful for the evaluation of social and emotional learning programmes.
The authors distinguish between quantitative and qualitative techniques
for evaluating programmes. Quantitative designs that can be used to eval-
uate SEI programmes, going from most to least preferred, are the follow-
ing: pre-test/post-test with a control group design, post-test only with a
control group design, and pre-test/post-test with no control group design.
Qualitative designs that Stephan et al. (2004) discuss are post-programme
survey and observation, both being equally preferred, i.e. selected based
on the programme characteristics and implementation circumstances.
As the authors point out, “the better the design, the richer the inferenc-
es that can be drawn from the data. However, even the simplest evalua-
tions can provide useful information regarding the effects of the program”
127
