Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental
health and r...
John W Payton; Dana M Wardlaw; Patricia A Graczyk; Michelle R
Bloodworth; et al
The Journal of School Health; May 2000; 70, 5; Research Library
Social and Emotional Learning: A Framework for Promoting Mental Health and
Reducing Risk Behavior in Children and Youth
John W. Payton,
Dana M.
Wardlaw, Patricia
A.
Graczyk, Michelle
R.
Bloodworth, Carolyn J.
Roger P. Weissberg
Abstract:
Many Programs have been developed to help schools enhance student’s health and
reduce the prevalence of drug use, violence, and high-risk sexual behaviors.
How should educators choose among these? This article describes selections
criteria based on theory, research, and best educational practice that identify
key social and emotional learning (SEL) competencies and program features. The
SEL competencies for students include 17 skills and attitudes organized into
four groups; awareness of self and others; positive attitudes and values;
responsible decision making; and social interaction skills. The 11 program
features critical to the success of school-based SEL programs emphasize
curriculum design, coordination with larger systems, educator preparation and support,
and program evaluation. Developed by the Collaborative to Advance Social and
Emotional Learning (CASEL), the SEL framework can be used to guide selection of
research-based prevention programs that address health, substance abuse,
violence prevention, sexuality, character, and social skills. (J Sch Health.
2000; 70 (5): 179-185)
Both parents and educators want young
people to succeed in their academic, personal, and social lives. They want
young people to have the motivation and ability to achieve; to establish
positive relationships with their peers and adults; to adapt to the complex demands
of growth and development; to contribute to their peer group, family, school,
and community; and to make responsible decisions that enhance their health and
avoid risky behaviors. To help young people accomplish these tasks, school are
increasingly challenged to offer more than basic instruction in the traditional
academic areas. In response, many schools have adopted programs targeting one
or more categories of problems behaviors such as violence, drug use, risky
sexual behaviors, or early school withdrawal.
When schools adopt multiple programs to
address these social and health issues, they face several implementation
difficulties. Multiple programs tend to be poorly coordinated, and thus compete
among themselves and with lessons in core learning areas for scarce
instructional time and school resources. Often they are of short duration and,
because they typically remain on the margins of schools’ established routines,
they are not likely to be sustained from year to year.1Finally, these programs frequently lack the environmental supports at
home and schools, such as modeling and reinforcement of healthy norms and
behaviors by teachers and parents that enable children to maintain what they
have learned in the classroom. As a result of these weaknesses, some educators regard these programs as fads that
will soon be replaced by yet another ad hoc program to address the next
perceived crisis.2
Because the problem behaviors that these programs target often occur together in clusters, share many of
the same risk and protective factors, and can be addressed by similar
strategies,3 there is growing national support for a comprehensive,
coordinated approach to the prevention of risk and promotion of positive youth
development.4,5 Such comprehensive initiatives typically target
multiple outcomes, are multiyear in duration, coordinate school-based efforts
with those in families and the larger community, and include environmental
supports so children have opportunities to practice positive behaviors and
receive consistent reinforcement.6
Social and emotional learning (SEL)
programs provide systematic classroom instruction that enhances children’s
capacities to recognize and manage their emotions, appreciate the perspectives
of others, and establish pro-social goals and solve problems, and use a variety
of interpersonal skills to effectively and ethically handle developmentally
relevant tasks. SEL programs also establish environments that support,
reinforce, and extend this instruction so that what children learn in the
classroom. SEL programs aim to foster the development of students who are
knowledgeable, responsible, and caring,7 thereby contributing to
their academic success, healthy growth and development, ability to maintain
positive relationships, and motivation to contribute to their communities.
Hundreds of programs are available to help
educators prevent problem behaviors and promote children’s health and character
development. In order to make wise choices among this large field, educators
need assistance in identifying both the elements of quality programs and the
programs that incorporate these elements. To address this need, the
Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) has developed a framework
of key SEL competencies (skills, attitudes, and values essential to the social
and emotional development of young people) and identified program features
critical to the effective enhancement of these competencies. The primary
purpose of this paper is to describe these key elements of quality programs,
which research, theory, and best educational practice suggest are essential to
enhance children’s social and emotional learning. The paper also will describe
how CASEL is using these key elements to conduct a comprehensive SEL review of
categorical and multi target prevention and positive youth development
programs.
BACKGROUND
CASEL
is an international organization founded in 1994 to establish social and
emotional learning as an essential part of education from preschool through
high school. Its goals are: 1) to advance science of SEL; 2) to translate this
scientific knowledge into effective school practices; 3) educational strategies
and practices; 4) to enhance training so that educators effectively implement
high-quality SEL programs; 5) to network and collaborate with scientists,
educators, advocates, policymakers, and interested citizens to increase
coordination of SEL efforts.
To
identify the critical elements of quality SEL programs and apply them in rating
the programs included in the SEL program review, CASEL assembled an interdisciplinary
team, representing the fields of school, community, and clinical, psychology,
school social work and health education, and special education. The work of
this team builds upon CASEL’s previously developed SEL guidelines for
educators,7 which were intended to help educators reflect on what
their schools are currently doing to foster SEL, develop appropriate SEL goals
and classroom learning activities, create supportive contexts for and assure
the sustainability of SEL, and evaluate their SEL program initiatives.
The
task of describing the critical elements of quality SEL programs and determining
the extent to which they are incorporated in available prevention programs also
builds on previous reviews of prevention programs for youth.8-12 However,
the SEL program review differs from these efforts in several important
respects. First, although the SEL program review includes the results of
well-designed outcome evaluations as an element critical to successful
programming, it devotes more rigorous attention than previous efforts to
assessing each program’s SEL content (Figure 1) and to program design,
coordination, and educator preparation and support features (Figures 2).
Second, the SEL program review includes within a single review programs from a
board range of content areas including alcohol, tobacco, and other drug
prevention; violence prevention; sexuality, health, and character education,
and social skills enhancement. Its focus in reviewing this range of single and
multi-target programs is on how well they teach the key SEL competencies and
links them to the range of behaviors these programs target.
A
third difference is that this review is limited to SEL programs whose
instructional component has sequenced, well-designed lessons intended for use
in regular-education classroom. The requirement that programs have a
Figure 1
Key SEL Competencies
Awareness of Self and Others
Awareness of feelings: The
capacity to accurately perceive and label one’s feelings.
Management of feelings: The capacity to regulate one’s feelings.
Constructive sense of self: The capacities to accurately perceive one’s strengths and
weaknesses and handle everyday challenges with confidence and optimism.
Perspective taking: The
capacity to accurately perceive the perspectives of others.
Positive Attitudes and Values
Personal responsibility: The intention to engage in safe and healthy behaviors and
be honest and fair in dealing with others.
Respect for others: The
intention to accept and appreciate individual and group differences and to
value the rights of all people.
Social responsibility: The intention to contribute to the community and
project the environment.
Responsible Decision Making
Problem identification: The capacity to identify situations that require a decision
or solution and associated risks, barriers, and resources.
Social norm analysis: The
capacity to critically evaluate social, cultural, and media messages pertaining
to social norms and personal behavior.
Adaptive goal setting: The capacity to set positive and realistic goals.
Problem solving: The
capacity to develop, implement, and evaluate positive and informed solutions to
problems.
Social Interaction Skills
Active listening: The
capacity to attend to others both verbally and non-verbally to demonstrate to
them that they have been understood.
Expressive communication: The capacity to initiate and maintain conversation and to clearly
express one’s thoughts and feelings both verbally and non-verbally.
Cooperation: The
capacity to take turns and share in both pairs and group situations.
Negotiation: The
capacity to consider all perspectives involved in a conflict in order to
resolve the conflict peacefully and to the satisfaction of all involved.
Refusal: The
capacity to make and follow through with clear “NO” statements, to avoid
situations in which one might be pressured, and to delay acting in pressure
situations until adequately prepared.
Help seeking: The capacity to identify the need for
support and assistance and to access and to access available and appropriate
resources.
Prescribed sequence of lessons contributes
to an organized and coherent curriculum similar to that used in other learning
areas in which student learning at one level builds on what has come before and
prepares for what comes later. Prescribed lessons also contribute to maximizing
the likely-hood that teachers will present all key material and that there will
be consistent implementation across classrooms.13 Well-designed
lessons plans are another important aid to program implementation with
integrity.14 Limiting the review to programs intended for use in
regular-education classes underscores CASEL’s belief that all children may
benefit from school-based SEL and that SEL should be integrated into the
regular school curriculum.15
Fourth,
the SEL program review includes only programs covering two or more consecutive
grades from pre-K to 12. This criterion is based on the considerable body of
research in prevention and positive youth development suggesting that two or
more years of programming have significantly greater impact than a single year.16-20
determining what constitutes a multiyear program, however, turned out to
be a challenge. Initially, it was assumed that programs covering a range of
grades, such as 4-6, would have lessons in a prescribed sequence for each grade
specified in the range. However, lessons in some multiyear programs are deemed
by the program developers as appropriate for any grade in the range
covered, eg, fourth, fifth, or sixth. Moreover, in many cases, a sequence for
the lessons in not even suggested. Thus, some programs first considered
multiyear in design turned out to be collections of un-sequenced activities
designated for use within any grade in the range of grades reportedly covered
by these programs. Such programs are not included in the SEL program review.
Conversely, programs that have only one year of sequenced classroom instruction
are included if they have some other structure in subsequent years to promote
maintenance of what students learned in the first year, such as ongoing peer
mediation teams or booster sessions.
Finally,
programs in the review must be available in their most recent and complete
version and have a national distribution system. This assures fairness in the
review process and also enables readers of the educator consumer’s guide, which
CASEL will publish to summarize review findings, to request programs of
interest. To facilitate program selection by educators, programs added to the
SEL program review will be posted with contact information on CASEL’s website (www.CASEL.org). When available, findings from the review also will
be posted.
CONTENT OF QUALITY SEL PROGRAMS:
KEY COMPETENCIES
A primary consideration in developing this
framework of key competencies that quality SEL programs should address was that
the language used be understandable to a broad audience of educators, parents,
policymakers, program developers, and scientists. In addition, it was essential
that key SEL competencies be based on research demonstrating connections
between social adjustment and children’s health outcomes,15,21-22 and
on relevant theories. In the development process, two groups of theoretical
models were reviewed: 1) models specific to social and emotional learning, such
as theories of emotional intelligence,23social and emotional
competence promotion,21 social developmental model,24
social information processing,22 and self-management,25 and
2) models pertaining to behavior change
Figure 2
Features of Quality Programs that Enhance
SEL Competencies
Program Design
Clarity of rationale: Program
objectives and the methods for achieving them are based on a clearly
articulated conceptual frame work.
Promotion of effective
teaching strategies: Program
includes detailed instructions to assist teachers in using a variety of
student-centered teaching strategies.
Infusion across
subject areas: Program
provides structure for the infusion and application os SEL instruction across
other subject areas within the school curriculum.
Quality of lesson plans: Program
lessons follow a consistent format that includes clear objectives and learning
activities, student assessment tools, and a rationale linking lessons to
program design.
Utility of Implementation
monitoring tools: Program
provides tools for monitoring implementation and guidance in their use,
including how to use the collected data to improve program delivery.
Program Coordination
School-wide coordination: Program
includes structures that promote the reinforcement and extension of SEL
instruction beyond the classroom and trough out the school.
School-family partnership: program
includes strategies to enhance communication between schools and families and
involve families in their children’s SEL education both at home and at school.
School-community
partnership: Program
includes strategies that involve students in the community and community
members in school-based instruction.
Educator Preparation and Support
Teacher training: Program
provides teachers with formal training to enable them to comfortably and
effectively implement the program within their classrooms and schools.
Technical support: Program
provides teachers with ongoing assistance to further build their capacity to
successfully implement the program and to facilitate the resolution of any
implementation issues.
Program Evaluation
Quality of evaluation: Program provides evidence of
positive effect on SEL related student outcomes from at least one
methodologically sound study that includes program implementation data.
and learning theories, such as The Health
Belief Model,26 The Theory of Reasoned Action,27 Problem
Behavior theory,28 and Social Cognitive Theory.29
Because
no single model adequately captures all the elements that the models collectively
suggest are important for social competence, the CASEL framework of SEL
competencies (figure 1) combines elements from all these perspectives. It is
divided into four groups of closely related but distinct elements that build
upon one another within and across groups: 1) awareness of self and others; 2)
positive attitudes and values; 3) responsible decision making; and 4) social
interaction skills. The first group of competencies begins with learning to
correctly identify and regulate one’s feelings.23 And example of
such awareness is being able to correctly name and distinguish among a variety
of emotions, such as understanding how anger is different from sadness. Another
example is understanding the situations that commonly give rise to arrange of
emotions, such as the satisfaction that comes when being praised for a job well
done or the shame associated with betraying a friend. Awareness of feelings
also includes the ability to identify the physical states and thoughts
associate with feelings and to understand that contradictory feelings such as
love and hate sometimes occur together. Beyond recognizing feelings, it is
important to be able to monitor and regulate them. This includes the capacity
to moderate negative feelings so that they do not impede appropriate action,
control impulsive behavior in response
to strong feelings, and enhance pleasant feelings to comfort oneself.
Being
able to identify and regulate one’s feelings in adaptive ways also contributes
tp the promotion of a constructive sense of self, the third in this first group
of SEL competencies. Knowledge of personal feelings, strengths, and areas in
which one might want or need to improve, along with self-regulation of impulses
and actions, are critical to developing a sense of confidence and optimism that
one will be able to meet the challenges of everyday life now and in the future.
Further, social situations require that young people extend their awareness and
understanding of feelings and other personal attributes to others. The ability
to recognize the feelings and take the roles of others (perspective taking)
helps predict how one might act in a given situation and guides one’s own
behavior in response.
While
accurate awareness of self and others represents a critical step toward social
and emotional competency, awareness alone is insufficient to motivate youth to
use their knowledge and skills for pro-social ends. The second group of
competencies in the SEL framework identifies positive attitudes and values that
guide behavior. These elements focus on the intentions behind behaviors.
Personal responsibility, the first element, is the intention to behave in ways
that promote health (eg, not using drugs or engaging in risky sexual behavior)
and to treat others honestly and fairly (eg, keeping promises and appropriately
recognizing others’ contributions to shared projects). Respect for others, the
second element in this group of SEL competencies, also is fundamental to
developing good character. It encompasses avoiding stereotypes and prejudice,
valuing the strengths that come from individual differences, and respecting the
rights of all people. The third competency in this group, social
responsibility, extends the intention to behave ethically to the betterment of
one’s community and the environment. Examples might include participating in
activities to make one’s classroom a more caring place, a neighborhood service
project, or community efforts to reduce the wasteful use of natural resources.30
The
competencies in the first two group of Figure 1 provide a foundation for the
skills described in the third group. Comprehension of the feelings of those
involved in a situation and possession of the core values of responsibility and
respect for others are essential to making effective and responsible decisions,
which includes identifying situations that pose challenge or problem and
assessing the risk, barriers, and resources relevant to a solution (problem
identification). Of further importance to the development of positive and
informed solutions to problems are the capacities to identify and evaluate the
norms that influence behavior (social norm analysis) and to set adaptive goals
(competency 10). An example of their importance is the norm to conform to
peer-group pressure felt strongly by adolescents and setting a goal to resist
the pressure to use alcohol while maintaining important relationships through
suggesting alternatives. Identifying a range of possible alternative solutions
to a problem, thinking prospectively about the probable consequences of each,
and making the best choice complete the process of developing positive and
informed solutions (problem solving). The implementation and evaluation of
decisions made form a bridge from this third group of SEL competencies to the
social interaction skills described in section four of Figure 1.31
Once
problem has been identified, a goal set, and a solution developed, social
interaction skills are essential to following through with the decision that
has been made. Active listening, through which youth demonstrate to others that
they have been understood, and the capacity to use both verbal and nonverbal
means to clearly express thoughts and feelings are the bases for all social
interaction and so are listed first in this fourth group of SEL competencies.
Depending on the context, skills such as cooperating with others in a group to
accomplish a shared outcome, negotiating a peaceful resolution to a dispute so
that all concerned are satisfied, avoiding or refusing to participate in irresponsible
behaviors, and or seeking support and assistance from personal and community
resources may be appropriate applications of these communication skills.
Teaching
young people how to apply these SEL competencies in their lives may not in
itself ensure that they will be able to generalize them to the range of
behavioral domains commonly targeted in school-based prevention programs. For
SEL programs to successfully promote positive student outcomes in these domains
(health promotion, healthy sexual development, prevention of drug use and
violence, promotion of school achievement and citizenship), these competencies
must be specifically and intentionally applied to achieving these outcomes.
Programs intending to effect behaviors in these domains must consistently
include learning activities that apply the SEL competencies to these behaviors.
Examples of such applications include lessons that: 1) explore how students’
feelings, personal values, and conflicts among these influence decisions about
marijuana use, physical fighting, or sexual relationship; 2) identify the
possible short-term and long-term health, social, and/or legal consequences of
alcohol use, carrying weapons, or finishing school; 3) critically evaluate
social norm and media messages regarding tobacco use, dietary and exercise
habits, and gender roles; or 4) practice active listening, perspective taking,
refusal and/or negotiation skills in situations where violence, drug, use, or
risky sexual behavior is likely.
This
framework of key SEL competencies includes skills, attitudes, and values that
are critical to promoting positive behaviors across a range of contexts
important to the academic, personal, and social development of young people. As
illustrated in these examples, it is this capacity of SEL to provide a bridge
connecting categorical areas that suggests its utility as a resource for
addressing school-based prevention initiatives in a more integrated,
coordinated manner. When generalized across these contexts, the SEL
competencies promote the development of young people who are not only able to
engage in responsible and health-promoting behaviors but also have a positive
self-image, are able to develop mutually supportive relationship, are
successful in school, and are contributing and caring members of their
peer-groups, families, and communities.
FEATURES OF QUALITY SEL PROGRAMS
The
literature on best practice in health promotion, risk prevention, and education
was consulted in developing the program design, program coordination, educator
preparation and support, and program evaluation features of quality SEL
programs (Figure 2).7,21,32-35 Program design features in section
one of Figure 2 include: 1) selection of program objectives and a sequence of
learning activities based on a clearly articulated conceptual framework; 2)
instructions sufficient to enable teachers to implement a variety of learning
strategies that actively involve students, draw on their previous experience,
provide them with opportunities for skill practice and feedback, and address
their diverse learning styles; 3) structures to assist teachers infuse and
apply SEL instruction across other subject areas within the school curriculum;
4) well-organized, easy to follow lesson plans with clear objectives and learning
activities, student assessment tools, and a rationale linking individual
lessons to the overall program design; and 5) tools for monitoring program
implementation with guidance on how to use the tools and the data collected to
improve program delivery.
The
second group of program features, coordination, includes school-wide
initiatives and the development of school-family and school community
partnership that reinforce and extend SEL instruction beyond the classroom to
the entire school, home, and community.16,21,33-34Examples of
school-wide coordination efforts include joint planning by teachers using the
program, development of a school climate characterized by mutual support and
trust between teachers and students, and specifying roles in program
implementation for nonteaching personnel, especially those providing student
health and mental health services. Examples of how programs might support
development of school-family partnership include establishing regular and
varied communication channels between schools and families and building family
members’ capacity to be supportive of and involved in their children’s
education both at home and in the classroom. Promoting
school-communitypartnership depends on enhancing student understanding of and
their ability to appropriately use community to participate in classroom
instruction and provide service learning opportunities for student.
Adequate
training in effective teaching strategies and ongoing technical support are
crucial to implementing programs with integrity.17-19,36-37 Teachers
who are ill-prepared compromise the benefits that students receive even if the
content and design of a program are exemplary. Quality SEL programs provide
training that goes beyond acquainting teachers with the purpose, methods, and
materials. Training includes efforts to promote teacher acceptance of the
program, such as opportunities to explore their attitudes toward the program,
practice using program materials and receiving feedback, and develop classroom
implementation plans. Quality programs also build teachers’ capacity in program
delivery by providing on-site technical assistance, such as observation and
coaching, advanced training, and help with implementation monitoring.
In
recent years, there has been a lot of interest in evidence for the efficacy of
school-based prevention programs based on methodologically sound studies.9,10,38-39
While the effectiveness of programs in producing significant, positive
effects on SEL-related outcomes as demonstrated in well-designed evaluation
studies in an important criterion of quality programs, it is also essential to
determine whether these studies include evidence that data measuring the
integrity of program implementation were collected. The availability of such
data might suggest that a study’s failure to find significant positive effects
may be due to inadequate implementation rather than to program weakness.40
OPERATIONALIZING THE KEY ELEMENTS OF
QUALITY SEL PROGRAMS
To
determine how well school-based prevention efforts incorporate the SEL
competencies and program features, rating scales with operational definitions
of these key elements and examples characterizing each level of quality were
developed. Given space limitations, this section briefly describes two of these
scales, one for program content (SEL competencies) and the other for one of the
program features (educator preparation and support).
In
developing a rating scale for determining how well programs teach SEL
competencies, the goal was to describe a progression that, if followed, would
promote student self-efficacy and mastery of these competencies. Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT) was the primary source for developing operational
definitions of the rating in this scale. According to SCT, self-efficacy is a
primary determinant of skill mastery. It is defined as one’s confidence in
performing particular behaviors and achieving desired outcomes. Self-efficacy
is progressively promoted through verbal instruction and encouragement,
watching others model behaviors and observing the result, participating in
guided and independent practice, getting reinforcement, and celebrating
successes.29 Social-cognitive theorists also emphasize the
importance for skill mastery of promoting clear connections between the
concepts and skills being taught and students’ actual experiences in order to
make explicit the relevance to their lives of the content being addressed.41
The
rating scale developed for SEL competencies has four points (0-3), a number
that is both manageable and adequate for differentiating programs on how well
they teach the competencies. The 0-3 scale is hierarchical in that each rating
is assumed to incorporate all the characteristics of lower ratings. A “0”
rating indicates the program does not address a key SEL competency. A “1”
rating indicates a program provides information only to increase students’
knowledge about the concept or skill. Programs earning a rating of “2” promote
connections between an SEL competency and students’ lives, thus providing them with
a personalized understanding of the concept or skill. Only programs that
provide opportunities for students to practice a competency to promote its
application in their lives beyond the lesson earn a “3” rating.
The
rating scale developed for educator preparation and support is based on a
similar understanding of how teachers acquire the skills they need to implement
a program in the classroom. Programs with no formal training program for
teachers are rated “0”. Those that simply orient teachers to the program’s
objectives, methods, and materials earn a rating of “1”. To get rating of “2”,
program training workshops must promote teacher acceptance of the program
through providing them with opportunities to explore its relevance to their own
teaching and practice using the materials while receiving feedback and
reinforcement from trainers and peers. A rating of “3” on educator preparation
and support requires and opportunity for implementation planning during the
initial training workshop and the provision of on-site technical support in the
form of classroom observation and coaching or implementation trouble-shooting
after the initial workshop.
Other
program information of interest to those making program selection decisions
that will not be rated but described in CASEL’s consumer guide for educators
include: 1) contact and order information; 2) publication date and revision
schedule; 3) cost of materials and training; 4) grades and content domains
covered; 5) program duration and intensity; 6) types of materials included; and
7) whether or not the program explicitly describes how it addresses student
learning standards as developed by an appropriate professional organization.
CONCLUSION
The
key competencies and program features of quality SEL programs described provide
educators with a research and theoretically based framework for selecting
quality school-based prevention programs. CASEL encourages educators who adopt
school-based prevention programs to use this framework to systematically
evaluate program quality as part of their selection process. It is hoped that
publication of the consumers’ guide summarizing the result of the SEL program
review based on this framework will contribute to improved program selection
and thereby help young people succeed in their academic, personal, and social
lives.
In
addition, this framework is a resource for the development of more integrated,
comprehensive school-based programs intended to enhance children’s growth and
development. Ultimately, CASEL’s vision is that this work will contribute to an
understanding of educational reform that goes beyond the effective management
of schools and the standards used to measure children’s academic achievement to
include the creation of learning environments that optimize the social,
emotional, physical, intellectual, and moral development of children.
While
selecting exemplary programs that incorporate all the key elements for success
is essential to promoting children’s social and emotional development, CASEL
realizes that program implementation with integrity by educators who serve
children is also critical. Beyond identifying a framework of elements for
quality programs and selecting programs that best incorporate these elements
lay the challenges of establishing policies and training experiences to support
educators in effectively implementing and institutionalizing high quality SEL
programs.
References
1. Adelman HS, Taylor L. moving prevention
from the fringes into the fabric of school improvement. J EducPsychol
Consult. In Press.
2. Shiver TP, Weissberg RP. No new wars! Educ
Week. 1996;15(34):33,37.
3. Dryfoos JG. The prevalence of problem
behaviors: Implications for programs. In: Weissberg RP, Gullotta TP, Hampton
RL, Ryan BA, Adams GR, eds. Healthy Children 2010: Enhancing Children’s
Wellness. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications: 1997:17-46.
4. Kolbe LJ, Collins J, Cortese P. building
the capacity for schools to improve the health of the nations: a call for
assistance from psycologists. Am Psycol. 1997;52:256-265.
5. Marx E, Wooley SF, Northop D, eds. Health
is Academic. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1998.
6. Graczy PA, Weissberg RP, Payton JW, Elias
MJ, Greenberg MT, Zins JP. Criteria for evaluating the quality of school-based
social and emotional learning programs. In: Bar-On R, Parker JDA, eds. The
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Jossey-Bass. In press.
7. Elias MJ, Zins JE, Weissberg RP, et al. Promoting
Social and Emotional Learning: Guidesfor Educators. Alexandria, Va:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1997.
8. Greenberg MT, Domitrovich C, Bumbarger B. Preventing
Mental Disorders in School-aged Children: A Review of the Effectiveness of
Prevention Programs. Washington, DC: US Dept Health and Human Services,
Center for Mental Health Services; 1999.
9. School Health: Findings from Evaluated
Programs. 2nd
ed. Washington, DC: US Dept Health and Human services; 1998.
10. Preventing Drug Use Among Children and
Adolescents. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on
Drug Abuse; 1997. Publication No. 97-4212.
11. Safe Schools, Safe Students: A Guide to
violence Prevention Strategies. Washington, DC: Drug Strategies; 1999.
12. Making the Grade: A Guide to School Drug
Prevention Programs. Washington, DC: drug Strategies; 1996.
13. Lohrmann DK, Wooley SF. Comprehensive
school health education. In: Marx E, Wooley SF, Northrop D., eds. Health is
Academic. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 1998;43-66.
14. Roe BD, Ross EP. Student Teaching and
Field Experiences Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc;
1998.
15. Weissberg RP, Greenberg MT. social and
community competence-enhancement and prevention programs. In: Damon W (series
ed.) and Sigel IE, Renninhger KA (vol. eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology:
Vol. 5, Child Psychology in Practice. 5th ed. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 1998;877-954.
16. WeissbergRP,Caplan MZ. Sivo PJ. A new
conceptual framework for establishing school-based social competence promotion
programs. In: Bond LA, Compas BE, eds. Primary Prevention and Promoting in
the Schools. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1989;255-296.
17. Botvin GJ, Barker E, Dusenbury L, Tortu S,
Botvin EM. Preventing adolescent drug abuse through a multimodal
cognitive-behavioral approach: result of a 3-year study. J Consult Clin
Psychol. 1990:58:437-446.
18. Errecart MT, Walberg HJ, Ross JG, Gold RS,
Fiedler JL, Kolbe LJ. Effectiveness of teenage health teaching modules. J
Sch Health. 1991:61(1):26-30.
19. Connel DB, Turner RT, Mason EF. Summary of
findings of the School Health Education Evaluation: health promotion
effectiveness, implementation, and costs. J Sch Health. 1985:55:316-323.
20. Perry CL, Klepp K, Siller C. community-wide
strategies for cardiovascular health: the Minnesota Heart Health Program youth
program. Health Educ Res. 1989;4:87-101.
21. Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of
Social Competence. The school-based promotion of social competence: theory,
practice, and policy, In: Haggerty RJ, Sherrod LR, Garmezy N, Rutter M, eds. Stress,
Risk, and Resilience in Children and Adolescents: Processes, Mechanisms, and
Interventions. New York, NY: Cambrigde University Press; 1994;268-316.
22. Crick NR, Dodge KA. A review and
reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(1):74-101.
23. Mayer JD, SAlovey P. what is emotional
intelligence? In: Salovey P, Sluyter DJ, eds. Emotional Development and
Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Basic Books. 1997;3-31.
24. Hawkins JD. Academic performance and school
success: sources and consequences, In: Weissberg RP, Gullota TP, Hampton RL,
Ryan BA, Adams GR, eds. Healthy Children 2010: enhancing Children’s
Wellness. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publication; 1997;278-305.
25. Kanfer FH, Goldstein AP,eds. Helping
People Change: A Textbook of Methods. New York, NY: Pergamon Press; 1991.
26. Becker MH, ed. The Health Belief Model and
ersonal Health Behaviors. Health Educ Mon. 1974;2:324-473.
27. Azjen I, Fishein M. understanding
Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Clitfs, NJ: Prentice
Hall; 1980.
28. Jessor R. rosk behavior in adolescence: a
psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Dev Rev. 1992;12(4):374-390.
29. Bandura A. personal and collective efficacy
in human adaptation and chane. In: Adair JG, Belanger D, et al. advances in
Psychological Science, Vol 1:Social, Personal, and Cultural Aspects. Hove,
England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum: 1998:51-71.
30. Likona T. educating for Character: How
Our Schools An Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York, NY: Mantam
Books; 1991.
31. Elias MJ, Tobias SE. Problem
Solving/Decision Making for Social and Academic Success. Washington, D:
National Education Association; 1990.
32. Hawkins JD, Weis JG. The social development
model: an integrated approach to delinquency prevention. J Prim Prev. 1985;6:73-97.
33. Dusenbury L, Falco M. Eleven components of
effective drug abuse prevention curricula. J Sch Health. 1995;65(10):420-425.
34. Desenbury L, Falco M, Lake A, Brannigan R,
Bosworth K. nine critical elements of promising violence prevention programs. J
Sch Health. 1997;67(10):409-414.
35. Kirby D, Short L, Collins J, et al.
school-based programs to reduce sexual risk behaviors: A review of effectiveness.
Public Health Rep. 1994;109(3):339-360.
36. Ross JG<Luepker RV, Nelson GD, Saavedra
P, Hubbard B. Teenage Health Teaching Modules: impact of teacher training on
implementation and students. J Sch Health. 1991;61(1):31-34.
37. Smith DW, Mcormick LK, Steckler AS, McLeroy
KR. Teachers’ use of health curricula: implementation of Growing Healthy,
Project SMART, and the Teenage Health Teaching Modules. J Sch Health. 1993;63:349-354.
38. Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined, and
Drug-free School. Guidelines and Materials for Submitting. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/programs.html. May 1999.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Research to Classroom: Program that Work. Atlanta, Ga: Author. Available
at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/rtc/.
40. Durlak JA. Why program implementation is
important. Co-published simultaneously J Prev&Interv in the Com. 1998;17(2):5-18.
In: Durlak JA, Ferrari JR, eds. Program Implementation in Preventive Trials.
The Haworth Press, Inc; 1998;5-18.
41. Ladd GW, Mize J. a cognitive-social
learning model of social skill training. Psychol Rev. 1982;90:127-157.
ASHA PARTNERS
These instructions and corporations have
expressed their commitment to and support of coordinated school health programs
by joining with the American School Health Association as an ASHA Partner.
Platinum Endowment Partner
·
Glaxo Dermatology, 53 Leonard St., 5th floor, New York, NY
10013
·
Kansas Health Foundation, 1845 Fairmount, Box 16, Wichita, KS 67260-0016
·
Merck & Co., Inc., 770 Sumneytown Pike, P.O. Box, West Point, PA
19486-0004
·
McGovern Fund for the Behavioral Sciences, 2211 Norfolk, Suite 900,
Houston, TX 77098-4044
Gold Endowment Partner
·
Consumer Health Care Division of Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY 10017
·
Tampax Health Education, 1500 Front St., Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Silver Endowment Partner
·
Center for Mental Health in Schools, University of California, Loa
Angeles, Box 951563, Los Angeles, A 90095-1563
·
Dept. of Health Science Education, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611
·
Midland Dairy Council, 10901 Lowell, #135, Overland Park, KS 66210
·
School Health Corporation, 865 Muirfield Drive, Hanover Park, IL 60103
Century Partner
·
Health Wave, Inc. 1084 St., Stamford, CT 06907
·
William V. MacGill& Co., 720 Annoreno Drive, Box 369, Addison, IL
60101
