ERIC EJ1144815: Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School

2017·0.24 MB·English

by  ERIC

Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School
Promoting Social and Emotional
Competencies in Elementary School
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and
Emily J. Doolittle
Summary
There’s a strong case for making social and emotional learning (SEL) skills and competencies
a central feature of elementary school. Children who master SEL skills get along better with
others, do better in school, and have more successful careers and better mental and physical
health as adults.
But evidence from the most rigorous studies of elementary-school SEL programs is ambiguous.
Some studies find few or no effects, while others find important and meaningful effects. Or
studies find effects for some groups of students but not for others. What causes such variation
isn’t clear, making it hard to interpret and act on the evidence.
What are the sources of variation in the impacts of SEL programs designed for the elementary
years? To find out, Stephanie Jones, Sophie Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily Doolittle
examine how the theories of change behind 11 widely used school-based SEL interventions
align with the way those interventions measure outcomes. Their central conclusion is that what
appears to be variation in impacts may instead stem from imprecise program targets misaligned
with too-general measures of outcomes. That is to say, program evaluations often fail to
measure whether students have mastered the precise skills the programs seek to impart.
The authors make three recommendations for policy makers, practitioners, and researchers.
The first is that we should focus more on outcomes at the teacher and classroom level, because
teachers’ own social-emotional competency and the quality of the classroom environment can
have a huge effect on students’ SEL. Second, because the elementary years span a great many
developmental and environmental transitions, SEL programs should take care to focus on the
skills appropriate to each grade and age, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Third,
they write, measurement of SEL skills among children in this age range should grow narrower
in focus but broader in context and depth.
www.futureofchildren.org
Stephanie Jones is the Marie and Max Kargman Associate Professor in Human Development and Urban Education at Harvard Graduate
School of Education. Sophie P. Barnes is research coordinator and Rebecca Bailey is research manager for the Ecological Approach
to Social Emotional Learning (EASEL) Laboratory at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Emily J. Doolittle is team lead for social
behavioral research in the National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Gretchen Brion-Meisels of Harvard University reviewed and critiqued a draft of this article.
VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2017 49
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily J. Doolittle
Research has shown that effects from interventions designed for the
during the elementary school elementary school years, and many individual
years, social and emotional studies that find important and meaningful
skills are related to positive effects.6 What causes such variation isn’t
academic, social, and mental clear, making it hard to interpret and act on
health outcomes. For example, correlational the evidence.7 This confusion allows those
studies show that classrooms function more debating the merits of incorporating social
effectively and student learning increases and emotional learning (SEL) in schools
when children can focus their attention, to cherry-pick findings and adopt the ones
manage negative emotions, navigate that suit their own arguments. Does the
relationships with peers and adults, and mixed evidence result from different ways of
persist in the face of difficulty.1 Children measuring social and emotional skills? From
who effectively manage their thinking, differences in intervention approaches and
attention, and behavior are also more
variation in implementation? From different
likely to have better grades and higher
ways of studying interventions during
standardized test scores.2 Children with
the elementary years? To answer those
strong social skills are more likely to make
questions, we examine how the theories of
and sustain friendships, initiate positive
change behind 11 widely used school-based
relationships with teachers, participate
SEL interventions align with the way those
in classroom activities, and be positively
interventions measure outcomes. In doing
engaged in learning.3 Indeed, social and
so, we hope to shed light on the mixed or
emotional skills in childhood have been tied
null findings from past evaluations of such
to important life outcomes 20 to 30 years
programs.
later, including job and financial security, as
well as physical and mental health.4 Social and Emotional Skills in
Middle Childhood
This compelling evidence suggests that
there’s a strong case for making such Middle childhood, spanning roughly 5
non-academic skills and competencies a to 11 years of age, is often treated as if it
central feature of schooling, both because were a single developmental period. But
of their intrinsic value to society and, from the span from kindergarten through fifth
a pragmatic standpoint, because they may grade and into middle school encompasses
help to reduce achievement and behavior substantial biological, social, cognitive, and
gaps and mitigate exposure to stress.5 But emotional changes. Children are exposed
what do we know about efforts designed to to an increasing number of contexts and are
improve and support social and emotional expected to develop an ever-growing set of
skills in the elementary years? The evidence diverse skills, all of which have implications
from gold-standard studies—in which for SEL interventions.8
one group is randomly assigned to receive
an intervention while another is not—is Many frameworks and organizational
ambiguous. What works, for whom it systems, from a variety of disciplines,
works, and under what conditions often describe and define social and emotional
varies. For example, we’ve seen large- skills during this period.9 These frameworks
scale national studies that find small or no may refer to the same skill or competency
50 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School
with different names, or use the same name and it encompasses skills that help children
to refer to two conceptually distinct skills.10 prioritize and sequence behavior, inhibit
They also vary in the type of construct they dominant or familiar responses in favor of a
address—from skills, behaviors, and attitudes more appropriate one (for example, raising
to traits, strengths, and abilities. their hands rather than blurting out an
answer), keep task-relevant information in
mind (for example, remembering a teacher’s
Different SEL frameworks
request to turn to a partner and talk over a
may refer to the same skill question before the group discussion begins),
resist distractions, switch between task goals
or competency with different
or even between different perspectives, use
names, or use the same name
information to make decisions, and create
to refer to two conceptually abstract rules and handle novel situations.13
Children use cognitive regulation skills
distinct skills.
whenever they face tasks that require
concentration, planning, problem-solving,
coordination, conscious choices among
To organize our discussion, we use a
alternatives, or inhibiting impulses.14
framework developed by Stephanie
Jones (a coauthor of this article).11 This Emotional processes are skills that help
framework focuses largely on intervention children recognize, express, and regulate
approaches designed for the elementary their own emotions, as well as understand
school years, based on a review of research the emotional perspectives of others.15
in developmental and prevention science They allow children to recognize how
and a scan of the major defining frameworks different situations make them feel and
and curricular approaches for SEL. It to handle those feelings in prosocial ways.
categorizes social and emotional skills Consequently, such emotional skills are often
and behaviors into three primary groups: fundamental to positive social interactions
cognitive regulation, emotional processes, and to building relationships with peers and
and social/interpersonal skills. This system adults. Without the ability to recognize and
has been reflected in other review papers, regulate your own emotions or empathize
but it doesn’t include attitudinal constructs with others’ perspectives, it’s very difficult
such as character and mindsets, which are to maintain and focus attention (cognitive
increasingly incorporated in other organizing regulation) and to interact positively with
frameworks and are gaining attention in others.16
intervention development and testing, largely
Finally, social and interpersonal skills help
with students in middle and high school.12
children and adolescents accurately interpret
In the most general sense, cognitive other people’s behavior, effectively navigate
regulation comprises the basic cognitive skills social situations, and interact positively with
required to direct behavior toward attaining peers and adults.17 Social and interpersonal
a goal. It’s closely related to the concept skills build on emotional knowledge and
of executive function, which comprises processes; children must learn to recognize,
attention, inhibition, and working memory, express, and regulate their emotions before
VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2017 51
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily J. Doolittle
they can be expected to interact with and goals with children’s sequence of skill
others. Children who use these social and development may be more successful than
interpersonal processes effectively can interventions that target the same skills,
collaborate, solve social problems, and regardless of age.
coexist peacefully with others.
Evidence from SEL Programs
What do we know about developmental
Recent interest and investment in social-
changes in cognitive regulation, emotional
processes, and social/interpersonal emotional skill development is due in large
skills during middle childhood? Basic part to the growing evidence that SEL
developmental theory indicates that some programs affect academic, behavioral,
skills act as building blocks for other, more emotional, social, and cognitive outcomes.
complex skills that emerge later on.18 This Our understanding of what works is guided
means that children must develop certain largely by two comprehensive meta-analytic
basic competencies in each of the SEL reviews (a meta-analysis is a strategy for
domains (cognitive, emotional, social/ analyzing findings across different studies
interpersonal) before they can master to reach a synthesis), which compiled and
others, and that previously acquired skills analyzed findings from a large number
support the development of new or more of studies of school-based SEL and/or
complex ones.19 Developmental theory behavioral learning programs (213 studies in
also suggests that some skills are stage- one case and 75 in the other).22
salient—that is, they help children to meet
Both reviews found that universal, school-
the demands of a particular developmental
based SEL programs produced statistically
stage and/or setting.20 In other words, some
significant positive effects on a host of
SEL skills are more important in middle
social-emotional and related outcomes.
childhood than in other periods. For
That is, students who participated in
example, when children first begin formal
SEL programs had significantly better
schooling, a key task is learning how to
outcomes than students who did not. The
understand their own emotions and those
of others; they’re exposed to a wide variety average effect sizes, or the magnitude
of emotion words and an array of emotions of the difference in impacts between
expressed by their new peers. By the time groups, ranged from small in some areas to
children transition out of middle childhood, moderate-to-large in others.23 These results
they must use previously learned emotion- empirically support the widely held belief
related skills to support more sophisticated that SEL programs can produce meaningful
social problem-solving in more complex changes in students’ lives—particularly for
social interactions. Thus, there’s reason to the set of outcomes the programs target—
believe that certain SEL skills should be and have motivated continued research in
taught before others, and within specific this area. Both reviews included studies that
grades or age ranges. However, SEL didn’t use random assignment, meaning
programs and interventions frequently that something other than the SEL program
target the same skills in the same ways being evaluated could have influenced the
across multiple years.21 Elementary outcomes that were measured. Because of
interventions that align their content this, the SEL program effects documented
52 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School
in these reviews could be inflated, though and academic outcomes.26 The authors
that’s not necessarily so. For this reason, make the logical point that although this
in this article we focus on programs general framework applies overall, different
and interventions that have undergone programs and approaches prioritize
randomized trials. different outcomes and underlying
mechanisms. For example, some programs
These meta-analyses suggest that SEL
focus on executive function and self-
interventions are effective. But as we
regulation (the cognitive domain), while
noted at the outset, results from research
others prioritize basic social skills and
on the impact of specific SEL programs
behaviors (the interpersonal domain). Our
often vary. For example, the Social
point isn’t that one approach is better or
and Character Development Research
more effective than another; rather, it’s
Consortium (SACD) examined seven SEL
that to accurately understand the efficacy
programs over three years and found no
of these interventions, we need to clearly
differences between the groups receiving
understand what they target and how.
the interventions and those who did not.24
Therefore, in interpreting intervention
Ignoring such null findings could produce
programs’ effects, we focus particularly on
an inaccurate picture of the evidence
the alignment between program inputs and
behind SEL interventions. Perhaps
measured outcomes, the role of context
more important, we need to carefully
(including features of settings, place of
consider the range of evidence behind
delivery, and participant characteristics),
SEL interventions in elementary school,
and the importance of considering
including null, negative, and positive
developmental stages.
effects—essentially by mapping program
theory and targets to outcomes and Our Approach
measures to specific and concrete effects.
Otherwise, we limit our understanding of Rather than a comprehensive summary
why one study shows effects and another of SEL program evaluations, we aim
does not, or why similar programs show to provide a snapshot of the evidence
effects on different outcomes. behind 11 widely used school-based SEL
interventions. These interventions have
A chapter in the recently published
undergone randomized controlled trials
Handbook of Social and Emotional
that were published in peer-reviewed
Learning identifies the core mechanisms
journals between 2004 and 2015, with a
or “active ingredients” of evidence-based
majority published after 2009. We reviewed
SEL programs in elementary school.25 The
the following programs: Fast Track PATHS,
chapter’s broad theoretical framework,
PATHS, Positive Action, Responsive
which is consistent with others, suggests
Classroom, Second Step, RULER,
that effectively using the core components
4Rs, MindUP, Making Choices, Good
of SEL interventions can affect a set of
Behavior Game, and Positive Behavioral
immediate outcomes (classroom social
Interventions and Supports (PBIS).27
and instructional environment and student
social and emotional skills) and eventually To understand each program and represent
influence long-term social, behavioral, variation in their approaches, we reviewed
VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2017 53
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily J. Doolittle
the most recent randomized controlled trial long-term outcomes, and the mechanisms
or trials and documented four key elements: by which the program will achieve those
outcomes. For instance, some programs’
1. Setting. Where does the
theories of change emphasize the regulation
intervention take place? Categories
of thought and action (MindUP); others
included the whole school,
highlight emotional literacy and emotional
classroom, miscellaneous (for
intelligence (RULER) or social problem-
example, during recess), and among
solving and conflict resolution (Making
adults.
Choices, Good Behavior Game, 4Rs); and
still others emphasize adult practices and
2. SEL program targets. Which
strategies and/or the environment (PBIS,
domain or domains does the
Responsive Classroom). Ideally, the theory
program focus on? In alignment
of change serves as a blueprint or guide
with the framework we described
to identifying an intervention’s expected
above, SEL program targets were
outcomes and selecting appropriate measures
cognitive, social, and emotional.
to capture those outcomes. A key question we
examined was whether the program targets
3. Program components. What are
and expected outcomes aligned with the
the program’s parts, in addition
measures used and the impacts documented
to the classroom and school-
(see table 1). To underscore the differences
based elements? Categories
between SEL programs, we reviewed
included training, coaching, parent
programs individually and documented the
involvement (such as parent
SEL program target of each one.
guides, training and home links
for families), and other supports
Summary of the Evidence
(for example, toolkits and other
resources). In the following section, we summarize our
findings for our four key elements (setting,
4. Outcomes. What do the program
program target, program components, and
evaluations measure? Outcomes
outcomes).
were organized into two main
categories: (1) student-level Setting
outcomes, and (2) classroom- and
Setting refers to the context or contexts of
school-level outcomes.
program implementation. School-based
Though all the interventions fall under programs dominate SEL programming in
the SEL umbrella, they can be loosely middle childhood. Within the school, settings
organized based on their theoretical include the classroom, the whole school, and
orientations and theories of change. A other contexts like recess or adult-focused
theory of change (sometimes referred to activities. Setting can also indicate the primary
as a theory of action) is a road map that recipient of the intervention. Students are the
describes a program’s assumptions and primary focus of programs that conduct their
inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes.28 work in classrooms, the whole school, or other
It typically describes the program’s core within-school settings. By contrast, adult-
components, the expected short- and focused programs deliver material directly to
54 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School
Table 1. An Overview of Primary SEL Program Targets and Measured Outcomes
Program Targets and Measured Outcomes
    Cognitive Social Emotional Academic Behavioral
Fast Track Targets ✓ ✓ ✓    
PATHS Outcomes ✓ ✓     ✓
PATHS Targets ✓ ✓ ✓    
Outcomes   ✓    ✓ ✓
MindUP Targets ✓ ✓      
Outcomes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
RULER Targets     ✓    
Outcomes     ✓    
4Rs Targets ✓ ✓      
Outcomes ✓ ✓   ✓ ✓
Positive Targets ✓ ✓      
Action Outcomes     ✓ ✓ ✓
Second Targets ✓ ✓ ✓    
Step Outcomes ✓ ✓ ✓   ✓
Responsive Targets   ✓      
Classroom Outcomes       ✓  
Making Targets   ✓      
Choices Outcomes ✓ ✓     ✓
Good Targets   ✓      
Behavior Outcomes   ✓     ✓
Game
Note: Though we reviewed 11 programs, we didn’t include Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in this
table because it’s a different type of program—a noncurricular prevention strategy that changes the school environment
by enhancing school systems and procedures rather than a classroom-based curricular approach or a professional
development program focused on teaching strategies.
teachers and school staff, investing in adults Most programs were delivered in the
to drive student-level change. classroom, but few studies measured
classroom-level outcomes. Similarly,
Nine of the 11 programs we reviewed were although many programs invested significant
designed for and delivered in the classroom. resources in implementing aspects of the
Three of them (PATHS, Fast Track PATHS, program in multiple settings, as with those
and Positive Action) also included a whole- that include whole-school approaches, they
school component. The fact that whole- didn’t measure whole-school outcomes, such
as organizational health, teacher turnover,
school approaches in these three programs
school climate, and structural resources.
didn’t exist on their own suggests that they’re
intended to reinforce classroom-level efforts.
Although most SEL programs focus solely or
Two of the programs (Responsive Classroom,
primarily on what goes on in the classroom,
PBIS) were adult-focused; PBIS also children also need SEL skills on playgrounds,
included whole-school and miscellaneous in lunchrooms, in hallways and bathrooms,
components. and in out-of-school settings. Student
VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2017 55
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily J. Doolittle
surveys and hot-spot mapping, in which Components
students draw maps of the areas where they
Considering program components is
feel unsafe, show that children feel least
important for thinking about whether real-
secure in these unmonitored and sometimes
world program implementation is feasible
unstructured zones.29 Students need support
and for understanding the magnitude of
to navigate such spaces and to make the
impacts in light of the amount of support
entire school environment safe, positive, and
offered to schoolteachers and staff.
conducive to learning. Even when students
don’t consider them to be dangerous, these
Overall, the 11 programs involved significant
contexts offer vital opportunities for students
time commitment. This reflected not only
to practice their SEL skills. Future research
training and ongoing support, but also the
should investigate the effects of SEL
time needed to implement the curriculum in
programs on contexts outside the classroom.
the classroom and school. All the programs
required training and many also required
Target
follow-up booster sessions. Coaching was
also present in many of the programs.
SEL program target refers to the domains
Several programs specified a set number
or areas of focus that the program describes.
of coaching meetings (for example, 4Rs
Based on our organizing framework for SEL
had a minimum of 12 contacts per year).
skills in middle childhood, we summarize
Seven of the programs also encompassed
SEL program targets as cognitive, social,
parent components, including training,
and emotional. Typically, a program’s
parent guides, or home links for families.
lessons, curricula, and other approaches
Interestingly, no program’s theory of change
are organized around the SEL targets. For
considered the role of parents and the home
example, the RULER program’s SEL target
environment, and data were collected from
is, broadly, emotions, and RULER’s Feelings
parents infrequently. Like the ones we
Word Curriculum focuses on building
reviewed, SEL programs typically include
emotion skills.
multiple components (curriculum, training,
Not surprisingly, most programs target ongoing support, and family/parent and
skills in more than one domain (table community activities), but we know little
1).30 Three programs, PATHS, Fast Track about the role and relative importance of
each, making it hard to say whether schools
PATHS, and Second Step, targeted all three
can expect similar findings with different
domains (cognitive, social, and emotional).
levels of support, a different array of
Three programs targeted skills in two
components, or fewer components.
domains, most often cognitive and social
(Positive Action, MindUP, and 4Rs). Almost
Outcomes
all the programs targeted skills in the social
domain (PATHS, Fast Track PATHS, Good We divided outcomes into two groups: (1)
Behavior Game, Positive Action, Responsive student-level outcomes, which includes
Classroom, Second Step, 4Rs, MindUP, cognitive, emotional, social, behavioral, and
and Making Choices), which is logical given academic categories, and (2) classroom- and
children’s increasing interaction with peers in school-level outcomes. At the student level,
middle childhood.31 we include the set of short-term outcome
56 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
Promoting Social and Emotional Competencies in Elementary School
areas defined above (cognitive, emotional, intervention compared to girls who did not
and social), as well as the behavioral (this difference wasn’t seen among boys)
and academic outcomes that theoretical and for children who scored poorly based
frameworks often describe as being affected on pretest measures. Problem-solving was
in the longer term, but that are typically measured in the Second Step evaluation, but
measured in the evaluations along with findings were not statistically significant.
short-term outcomes. Some programs, such
SEL programs have the potential to impact
as 4Rs, specify in very concrete terms their
both foundational and more complex
expectations for short- and longer-term
cognitive skills. But studies haven’t always
changes (for example, changes in social
found statistically significant effects even for
and emotional outcomes after one year of
programs that targeted this domain, and in
exposure, and in behavior and academics
general, effect sizes have ranged from small
after two years).32
to moderate. Furthermore, most studies
Student-level outcomes: cognitive. Few included only one measure relevant to the
studies measured skills in the cognitive cognitive domain and many studies didn’t
domain. One possible explanation is measure the same skill, which limited our
that in middle childhood, students are ability to gauge the breadth and depth of
acquiring complex cognitive skills—such as the programs’ impacts. Given the crucial
organization, planning, and goal-setting— cognitive development that occurs in the
that are often categorized as academic skills elementary years and the fact that several
and that aren’t typically targeted in SEL programs target this domain specifically, it’s
programs. As a result, few studies in middle surprising that programs measured so few
childhood measure foundational cognitive cognitive outcomes. Executive function skills,
skills like executive function, which has been for example, develop rapidly in the early
linked to a host of important outcomes, school years, and they form the foundation
including academic achievement.33 for other skills in the cognitive domain, such
as planning and goal setting, as well as skills
Cognitive outcomes in the studies we
in the emotion and social domains.34
reviewed included executive function tasks,
mindfulness (generally defined as the ability Student-level outcomes: emotion. Building
to focus awareness on thoughts, feelings, emotion skills is a focal point of many
or perceptions of the present moment elementary social-emotional learning
without judgment), cognitive concentration programs. Yet the number and type
(concentration, attention, work completion), of emotion skills that programs target
and problem-solving. Only one program, are poorly aligned with the measured
MindUP, included measures of executive outcomes. Programs tend to target basic or
function skills, finding small but statistically fundamental emotion skills, such as emotion
significant effects. MindUP also generated knowledge, emotion vocabulary, and emotion
statistically significant, moderately sized expression. But they measure more complex
effects on mindfulness. Making Choices outcomes that build on or use these basic
generated small effects on cognitive emotion skills. For example, 40 percent of
concentration for the overall sample, but PATHS lessons focus on skills related to
moderate effects for girls who received the understanding and communicating emotions,
VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2017 57
Stephanie M. Jones, Sophie P. Barnes, Rebecca Bailey, and Emily J. Doolittle
and RULER targets five key emotion skills and social situations. They need a variety of
through the Feeling Words curriculum, but interpersonal skills, such as the capacity to
neither study included measures of these develop sophisticated friendships, engage
basic emotional skills. in prosocial and ethical behavior, and solve
social conflicts.35 Most of the studies we
Student-level outcomes in the emotion
reviewed measured social outcomes, and
domain were measured infrequently; those
many studies measured several of them.
that were measured included emotional
The measured outcomes included social
problems, life satisfaction, emotional
competence, peer nominations of prosocial
control, emotional management, and
behavior and peer acceptance, empathy,
positive affect. Second Step and Positive
perspective taking, and social problem-
Action showed small effects on emotional
solving.
problems and life satisfaction, while MindUP
generated moderate effects on emotional Social competence was measured frequently;
control. Second Step’s effects on emotion
effects ranged from nonsignificant in Making
management and Positive Action’s on positive
Choices to small in Fast Track PATHS.
affect weren’t statistically significant.
Effects on peer nominations—in which
students are asked to rate their peers based
on characteristics like prosocial behavior,
Overall, the 11 programs
aggression, and peer acceptance and
involved significant time
rejection—ranged from nonsignificant to
commitment. large. In Making Choices, notably, children
categorized as at-risk by their teachers at the
beginning of the study showed moderate to
In sum, SEL programs’ effects on emotion large gains. Effects on empathy ranged from
outcomes are mixed, ranging from non- nonsignificant in Second Step to moderate in
significant to moderate, and outcome MindUP; effects on perspective taking were
measures focus narrowly on a set of more also moderate in MindUP.
complex emotion outcomes rather than skills
When social problem-solving outcomes were
that the programs specifically target. This
misalignment poses a challenge; if we don’t measured, 4Rs and PATHS showed generally
understand how SEL programs affect basic small effects for hostile attribution bias (a
emotional skills, we may underestimate or form of cognitive distortion that makes it
misinterpret their potential in this domain. more likely children will respond to social
It also illustrates a larger problem—when problems with aggression); in the same
programs measure outcomes that are in a programs, effects on reducing the likelihood
certain domain but aren’t closely aligned with of using aggression to resolve social conflicts
the program targets in that domain, we may were statistically significant only during the
miss important effects. second year of implementation, with small to
moderate effect sizes. Effects on normative
Student-level outcomes: social. During
beliefs about aggression were not significant.
middle childhood, children’s social
environments become increasingly important Overall, the studies included a wide range
as they navigate more complex friendships of social outcomes and found a wide range
58 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN