Social and emotional learning in primary schools: A review of the current state of evidence
Wigelsworth M, Verity L, Mason C, Qualter P, Humphrey N · 2022
grade Creviewindependentnot-applicable
Sample
33 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of SEL interventions
Population
Primary-school students.
Design
An overview of reviews that quality-assesses each synthesis on five criteria - focused question, restriction to controlled trials, transparent search and synthesis, assessment of the included literature's quality, and quantitative presentation. Part-funded by the Education Endowment Foundation.
Key findings
Rates the review literature and finds it uneven, noting that the most-cited syntheses do not differentiate whole-school components from classroom curricula. The key quantitative claim is that Goldberg et al.'s whole-school meta-analysis gives d = 0.22 for social-emotional skills, which the authors describe as at least half the prior meta-analytic estimates. They also record a novel and concerning lack of data for differentiating any subgroup effects, and note that some widely used programmes have next to nothing in the way of summative or independent evaluation.
Genetic confound
Not applicable - a review of reviews.
Replication notes
Not applicable.
DOI / URL
10.1111/bjep.12480
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-school SEL effect on social-emotional skills (Goldberg et al.) | Cohen d | 0.22 — described as at least half the prior meta-analytic estimates | researcher-designed | post-intervention | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | non-cognitive |
| Availability of subgroup-effect data across 33 reviews | assessment | a novel and concerning lack of data for differentiating any subgroup effects | mixed | not applicable | none | not-applicable | non-cognitive |
Cited by
- Should a school buy a social and emotional learning programme?mixedconf: highgc: low