Page 130 - 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. 130
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
(Stephan et al., 2004, p. 236). Nonetheless, evaluation seems to be omitted
from many programme implementations, especially if they are tailored to
schools vs. specialised training providers, e.g. agencies and universities
(Stephan, 2004). This practice not only leads to the inability to identi-
fy areas for programme improvement, but also carries the risk of continu-
ing the (often expensive) implementation of programmes that are ineffec-
tive, or worse, the persistence of those that might produce adverse effects.
Recent evidence corroborates the effectiveness of interventions
adopting a whole-school approach to enhancing children and young peo-
ple’s social and emotional development (Goldberg et al., 2019). A me-
ta-analysis of 45 studies demonstrated small yet significant improvements
in students’ social and emotional adjustment, behavioural adjustment and
internalising symptoms, but no improvement in their academic achieve-
ment. The interventions that involved the community resulted in higher
effect sizes compared to interventions without community involvement.
Interventions conducted in the United States also appeared to have high-
er effect sizes than those conducted outside the USA (Goldberg et al.,
2019). In their meta-analysis, Wigelsworth et al. (2016) arrived at three in-
triguing conclusions on the effectiveness of SEL: 1) studies in which the
developer has been identified as leading or being involved will show larg-
er effect sizes in relation to independent studies; 2) studies implement-
ed within the country of development will show larger effect sizes than
those adopted and implemented outside the country of origin; and 3)
studies coded as ‘efficacy’ will show larger effect sizes than those coded
as ‘effectiveness’. Namely, “whereas efficacy studies are typically conduct-
ed to demonstrate the efficacy and internal validity of a programme, ef-
fectiveness is used to test whether and how an intervention works in re-
al-world contexts (…). Thus, a programme that demonstrates success at the
efficacy stage may not yield similar results under real-world conditions”
(Wigelsworth et al., 2016, p. 349; italics added).
Having in mind the preferred characteristics of SEL programmes
(a wide range of content domains, long-term implementation, scientif-
ic evidence of effectiveness, on-site professional development to support
quality implementation, schoolwide coordination, school–family part-
nerships, and school–community partnerships), CASEL experts com-
mended three SEL programmes: Caring School Community; Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies – PATHS; and Skills, Opportunities,
and Recognition – SOAR (Weissberg et al., 2003).
Stephan et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analysis to determine if mul-
ticultural education programmes hold significant positive effects for at-
titudes and behaviours. On average, they revealed the positive effects of
128
(Stephan et al., 2004, p. 236). Nonetheless, evaluation seems to be omitted
from many programme implementations, especially if they are tailored to
schools vs. specialised training providers, e.g. agencies and universities
(Stephan, 2004). This practice not only leads to the inability to identi-
fy areas for programme improvement, but also carries the risk of continu-
ing the (often expensive) implementation of programmes that are ineffec-
tive, or worse, the persistence of those that might produce adverse effects.
Recent evidence corroborates the effectiveness of interventions
adopting a whole-school approach to enhancing children and young peo-
ple’s social and emotional development (Goldberg et al., 2019). A me-
ta-analysis of 45 studies demonstrated small yet significant improvements
in students’ social and emotional adjustment, behavioural adjustment and
internalising symptoms, but no improvement in their academic achieve-
ment. The interventions that involved the community resulted in higher
effect sizes compared to interventions without community involvement.
Interventions conducted in the United States also appeared to have high-
er effect sizes than those conducted outside the USA (Goldberg et al.,
2019). In their meta-analysis, Wigelsworth et al. (2016) arrived at three in-
triguing conclusions on the effectiveness of SEL: 1) studies in which the
developer has been identified as leading or being involved will show larg-
er effect sizes in relation to independent studies; 2) studies implement-
ed within the country of development will show larger effect sizes than
those adopted and implemented outside the country of origin; and 3)
studies coded as ‘efficacy’ will show larger effect sizes than those coded
as ‘effectiveness’. Namely, “whereas efficacy studies are typically conduct-
ed to demonstrate the efficacy and internal validity of a programme, ef-
fectiveness is used to test whether and how an intervention works in re-
al-world contexts (…). Thus, a programme that demonstrates success at the
efficacy stage may not yield similar results under real-world conditions”
(Wigelsworth et al., 2016, p. 349; italics added).
Having in mind the preferred characteristics of SEL programmes
(a wide range of content domains, long-term implementation, scientif-
ic evidence of effectiveness, on-site professional development to support
quality implementation, schoolwide coordination, school–family part-
nerships, and school–community partnerships), CASEL experts com-
mended three SEL programmes: Caring School Community; Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies – PATHS; and Skills, Opportunities,
and Recognition – SOAR (Weissberg et al., 2003).
Stephan et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analysis to determine if mul-
ticultural education programmes hold significant positive effects for at-
titudes and behaviours. On average, they revealed the positive effects of
128
