The Effects of #BOOK Training on Social-Emotional Learning: a Research in 6th Grade Children from Low Socioeconomic Status Families
Meike H. van den Bongaardt Universiteit van Amsterdam
Supervisor: Gorka Fraga González Date: April 29th, 2015
Studentnumber: 10325581 Amounts of words: 5893
2
Key words: bibliotherapy, BOOK-training, social emotional learning, socioeconomic
status, 6th grade
Abstract
This article investigates the effects of the bibliotherapeutic #BOOK training on Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in 6th grade children with a low socioeconomic status (SES). These children are at risk of developing low SEL skills, compared to children from higher SES families, which are expected to have higher initial SEL skill levels. The #BOOK training consists of reading books with a high social emotional content and discussing the main themes in peer groups. A total of 94 students were randomly assigned to the training- or control group. The SEARS-NL was completed to measure SEL. Results show no significant effects of the #BOOK training on SEL skills. However this lack of effect, a trend of higher levels of SEL skills was found in the children of the lowest SES schools compared to the children of the mean SES schools participating in this study. These findings provide an interesting look upon SEL, SES and bibliotherapy.
3
Contents
Introduction ... 4
Theory of Mind and the Social Learning Theory ... 6
Low SES and being in 6th grade ... 7
Current Research ... 9 Hypotheses ... 12 Methods... 12 Participants ... 12 Materials ... 14 Procedure ... 15 Results ... 16 Discussion ... 21 Summary ... 21 Conclusions ... 25 References ... 26
4
Introduction
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process of learning how to manage social- and emotional situations. According to the first description of SEL by Elias et al., (1997) recognizing emotions, learning to care about others, ethical awareness and
responsible behavior are part of SEL learning. The Fetzer Institute is a private foundation in the U.S. and creates programs to foster awareness of the power of social-emotional issues in society (The Fetzer Institute, 2015). In 1994 the Fetzer Institute hosted a meeting about enhancing positive child development through drug, violence, health and sex education. Relatively new topics were: character education, emotional intelligence, civic education and social emotional learning (SEL). In this meeting SEL was defined as: “a conceptual framework to address both the needs of young people and the
fragmentation that typically characterizes the response of schools to those needs” (Elias et al., 1997, cited in Greenberg et al., 2003). For the first time the usefulness of applying SEL in education was brought under full attention; the central statement of the meeting was that by supporting academic achievement, SEL might contribute in diminishing behavior problems. It was at this meeting that the organization Collaborative for
Academic, Social and Emotional Learing (CASEL) arose. In their manuscript “Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators” (Elias et al., 1997) CASEL set out the urge of educating SEL in today schools. The CASEL manuscript is describing how to implement SEL on a research-based way in today’s schools. The first meeting of the Fetzer Group, the start of CASEL in 1994 and the guidelines of CASEL’s manuscript constituted a new movement in education; the field of education expanded from a focus on only academic skills to a focus on SEL skills as well. Many things have changed for
5
SEL since; SEL has become a crucial competence in today’s society. The European Parliament values SEL as one of the core competencies for education in the 21st century. The European Parliament decided that SEL should become part of all base educational programs. A lot of research has been done on SEL in general and on SEL programs since SEL came into focus in 1994: Durlak et al., (2011) conducted a relevant meta-analysis of 213 SEL-programs and 270.000 school students. The main outcomes of this study are that SEL significantly improves general welfare. Other studies showed that SEL programs should provide connectedness to school, behavior in class and academic success to be effective (Zins et al., 2004; Durlak et al., 2011; cited in Stoop et al., 2014). SEL can be separated into five competencies: Self Awareness, Social Awareness,
Responsible Decision Making, Self-Management and Relationship Management. These competencies should be taught at todays’ schools (CASEL, 2005). SEL skills improve school performance, more positive social behavior and fewer behavioral problems (Shechtman & Yaman, 2012). The Dutch government prescribed SEL by law as an obligatory part of education in Dutch schools, still there appears to be a gap: Although schools in the Netherlands are obliged to add active citizenship and social integration to educational programs (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2006), unlike many other European countries the Netherlands reported to have no policy for assessing, nor for teaching social-emotional competences. It is expected from Dutch schools to assess SEL skills in general assessment policies instead of in specific SEL programs (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). It will be useful to have research-based SEL programs constructed and tested in the Netherlands to fill the gap.
6
Theory of Mind and the Social Learning Theory
Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability of perspective taking and understanding the mental states of others. ToM generally develops at the age of 3-4, and marks a crucial stage in children’s development. Problems in developing ToM might lead to interpersonal problems and psychopathology (Shamay-Tsoory, & Aharon-Peretz, 2007). ToM is
divided into two components; the cognitive- and the affective component. The latter is linked to empathy (positively) and antisocial behavior (negatively; Castano, 2012). ToM can be seen as a part of SEL. Understanding mental states of other people forms a crucial skill for allowing complex social relationships. ToM (affective ToM in particular) is required to develop SEL skills (Kidd & Castano, 2013). A way of developing SEL would be by reading fictional books, since it contributes to the development of ToM (Kidd & Castano, 2013). Book reading promotes ToM, which is related to SEL (Castano, 2012). By reading fictional books children are given guidance to social-emotional experiences and to learn ToM (Dodell et al., 2013).
A crucial point for effective SEL programs is learning from other people, which occurs through ‘social modeling’, an aspect of the social-learning theory of Bandura (1997). The social-learning theory states that young children will learn (e.g. reading, social emotional competences) by observing, learning and imitating the social behaviors of people around them; ‘models’. According to this theory, socio-emotional skills can be adopted through observing, learning and imitating how peers, siblings or adults read or handle socio-emotional situations. Carledge & Kiarie (2001) pose that books are also providing social models to improve SEL competences. SEL competences become habits when modeling of others is implemented in school students (Durlak et al., 2011).
7
Learning from others is a centralized approach in some of the SEL programs listed by CASEL, e.g.: 1) In the ‘Caring School Community’ training children from cross-age form buddies between pairs of older and younger students. In multiple studies the program shows to improve academic performance, positive social behavior and to reduce conduct problems and emotional distress (Battistich et al., 2000). 2) Learning from others idem is an essential part of the ‘Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP),’ in this program peer mediation groups are central and family is seen as a modeling system (Aber et al., 2003). 3) In the ‘Tribes Learning Communities’ training children form cooperative learning groups (from 3-6 students) and work together for the entire school year. The program includes ‘community circles’ in which students work together to solve problems and to build relationships (Kiger, 2000).
Low SES and being in 6th grade
Children with a low SES prove to have many problems with both reading- and social-emotional competences, being in 6th grade also forms a risk factor. SES is described as the social class of an individual or group, measured by education, income and profession. Effects of SES can be seen in inequities in access to resources and power- control issues following APA (Seagert et al., 2006) . Improving SEL skills seems
particularly important for children in families of a low socioeconomic status (SES). Socio-emotional wellbeing is lower in these children, than in children of mean or high SES families. Children with a low SES often miss the social-emotional capital; they are inherently less supported by their parents to read books, to think abstractly or to reflect about their emotions (Onderwijsraad, 2011). The difference in SEL skills between low, mean and high SES children in social-emotional wellbeing might be explained as an
8
effect of lack of access to social- and cultural resources in low SES families. For instance: parents with low SES are less likely to purchase reading and educational resources, less likely to take their children to didactic and cultural events and less likely to control the amount of screen time of their children (Bradley et al. 2001a). Children in low SES families have a greater chance to suffer from learning difficulties and
disabilities (e.g. reading problems), to get on a life track of conduct problems (e.g. socio-emotional problems) or to get lack of interest in school (e.g. early school leaving). Children from low SES families seem to fail the access to the ‘models’ and other socio-emotional resources and experiences; this lack of access can lead to an increasing risk of developing SEL difficulties (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). It is expected from these children to have a low starting capital of SEL skills (Battin-Pearson et al. 2000). Children from mean SES families on the other hand have a greater chance to learn from models as a result of the greater access to socio-emotional resources. Families with a mean SES afford their children good care, cultural facilities, and social bases. It is expected from the children in higher SES families to have a high socio-emotional starting capital (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).
The negative influence of growing up in low SES environments also occurs in academic problems. Children from low SES environments score very high on risk factors related to the social emotional skills required to adapt in school (Ayotte et al., 2003, Foster et al., 2005). Premature school dropout is higher (between 3,9% and 9,5%) than school dropout in mean or high SES neighborhoods (2.7%; Van
Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012). Children with a low SES have many problems with both reading- and social-emotional competences. An international study of PIRLS showed that the
9
Netherlands has the highest group of children who never read at home (42%) compared to the international average of 32% (Mullis, et al., 2007).
Another risk factor of developing problems in SEL skills is being in sixth grade. The socio-emotional wellbeing of children in this age group (10-12 years) comes to be of greater importance than in any other age group. Children in this age group become ‘adolescents;’ hormones will become active. Also social life starts to play a major role; peers become more relevant and more social skills are required to perform on academic level in secondary school (Christie, & Viner., 2005). Children experiences more
problems in the development of social-emotional competencies in the transition to secondary school (Durlak et al., 2011). As a result of the disadvantaged resources as described above, sixth grade adolescents from low SES families are in particular a vulnerable group to a lack of access to SEL. To intervene in the group of children in 6th grade from low SES families is therefore most useful.
Current Research
This research focusses on SEL skills in 6th grade children of low SES families. Nowadays education askes for an integration of both academic- and SEL programs in Dutch primary school timetables. Therefore a SEL training in which book reading is involved might deliver the two issues at once. A good SEL program includes systematic instructions to process, integrate and applies social and emotional skills in a contextually and culturally appropriate manner (Izard et al., 2002). SEL skills are also useful on long term, therefore SEL instructions should start in preschool and continue in high school (Izard, 2001). As mentioned before, books are a decent source of social models; the
10
models are able to provide adolescents with emotional coping strategies and help them to react adaptively on social-emotional situations (Cartledge and Kiarie, 2001). Positive effects for reading attitude occur when children read stories about their own lives and experiences; this personal connection between the reader and the book (McKenna et al., 1995). Managing emotions (part of SEL) can be taught through book reading and by teaching children how to name emotions (emotion vocabulary; Denham, 2003; Elias, 2003; Zins, 2001; Doyle & Bramwell, 2006). SEL programs including reading promote both academic- and social success (Ayotte et al., 2003; cited in Stoop et al., 2014).
An intervention to promote SEL through verbal interaction is dialog reading (first described by Whitehurst et al., 1988). This type of shared book reading in smalls groups contains strategic questioning and responding to and interaction with children. The books have a emotional content, which illustrates the readers how to cope with social-emotional problems. A more specified training that focusses not only on SEL, but also on enhancing reading skills is the bibliotherapeutic #BOOK training (Polleck, 2007, 2010, 2011). The #BOOK-training is a SEL-based bibliotherapeutic training program that has been developed in the U.S.A. The training provides a solution to improve
socio-emotional wellbeing. Bibliotherapy consists of reading books and discussing about characters the participants can identify themselves with (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001). The #BOOK-training is based on a ‘strength-based approach’, which means the training focusses on the positive, strong sides of the participants, instead of on the failures (Jimerson et al., 2004). The training has a total amount of 8 – 10 sessions. Continuity of the training is important for its efficacy (Fixsen et al., 2005), therefore the trainer has to be well prepared and enthusiastic. The #BOOK training enhances children’s
social-11
emotional development by stimulating children to read books with a socio-emotional content in a meaningful and approachable way. To keep the motivation for reading high, the training is not linked to schoolwork or testing. Students will learn self- and social awareness, responsible decision making, self- and relationship management (Durlak et al., 2011). The first aim of the training is improving reading skills.1
In the #BOOK-training children also learn to use literature for socio-emotional goals. Citing Stoop et al., (2014) the #BOOK training has three aims:
(1) “#BOOK-training uses literature to promote self-reflection and SEL, by reading texts that reflect the experiences and refer to their daily life, feelings, situations.
(2) #BOOK-training improves the reading attitudes and motivation, by using literature as a tool for personal growth, not considering academic learning goals, and by reading and discussing literature with peers.
(3) #BOOK-training improves reading comprehension by constructing the meaning of the text, discuss interpretations and link the text to personal experiences.”
The original #BOOK training was examined in low SES environments of New York City, and valuated as effective, although not enough qualitative control conditions were used; research was carried out through pre- and posttest interviews and written quotes of the training (Polleck, 2011). A similiar training however fits well in the, as assumed before, recommended attention points of the European Commission (2007). It
1 The effect of #BOOK-training on reading skills in 6th grade children of low SES families is investigated by a major research of the IWAL, Amsterdam (in progress). Current research to the effects of #BOOK-training on SEL in 6th grade children of low SES families is a minor component of a larger project.
12
will be interesting to examine whether this training can help children of low SES families in the Netherlands. For this reason the training is adapted for 6th, 7th and 8th grade in Dutch education by the IWAL institution for dyslexia in Amsterdam, the Netherlands by Stoop and colleagues (2014). Books were selected by the Public Library of Amsterdam and the website www.leeskr8.nl. For the 7th and 8th grade students, the effects of the #BOOK training on both reading skills and SEL were examined with the use of control groups. For the 6th graders, only the effects on reading skills were examined in the major research of the IWAL. The current study examines the effects of the #BOOK training on social emotional learning in 6th grade students of low SES families.
Hypotheses
The main interest of this research is the effect of the #BOOK training on social-emotional learning of 6th graders in low SES families. To assess this research question two hypotheses are composed:
1. The #BOOK training has positive effects on SEL in 6th grade students from low SES families.
2. The #BOOK training has no effects on a high initial level of SEL.
Methods
Participants
We analyzed data from a subsample of children participating in the
bibliotherapeutic #BOOK-training from IWAL 2014-2015. In this sub study 94 pupils were participating. The children were selected as being 6th grade students in the age of
13
10-12 years (M = 11.54, Sd = 0.85) and attending primary schools in either a low SES environment (PPA neighborhoods; Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012; Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2014) or a mean SES environment. In our study 48 boys and 44 girls
participated, (information of gender was missing for two participants). Participants were randomly assigned to the training group (N=54) or control group (N=40). The
participating schools were the Pro Rege (low SES, 32 students, 15 in training group), As-Soeffah (low SES, 34 students, 23 in training groups) and Wespennest (mean SES, 28 students, 16 in training groups). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of all
participants.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Bibliotherapeutic #BOOK-training Study– Analytical Sample (N = 94). Variable M (SD) / Proportion (N) Percentage Condition (N=87) Training Control Gender (N=90) 51 36 58,6% 41,4% Female Male 43 47 47.8% 52,2% Age at posttest SES (N=87) Low High School (N=87) Wespennest Assoefah Pro Rege 11.55 (.856) 58 29 29 31 27 11.55 (.856) 66,7% 33,3% 33,3% 35,6% 31%
Note. SES = Socioeconomic Status. SES was measured by postal codes requested from and classified as PPA (poverty problem accumulation area) regions by the municipality (Gemeente Amsterdam). Missing data were not included. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation.
14
Materials
To assess SEL a translated version of the Social Emotional Assets and Resilience Scales (SEARS; Merrell, 2011) was used; the SEARS-NL (Stoop et al., 2014). The SEARS is a strength-based measure of positive social–emotional attributes and resilience. The questionnaire consists of 35 items divided into four scales: Self-Regulation (SR), Social-Competence (SC), Empathy (E) and Responsibility (R). Participants valuated on a 4 point scale if the statements were true ‘never, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ or ‘always’. The total score (max. = 140) was used for data analysis in this study. An item example is: "I try to understand how my friends feel when they are angry or sad." Although the SEARS-NL subscales were analyzed with a weak validity (items did not represent different subscales), the overall SEARS-NL was validated as strong and reliable.
Cronbachs’ Alpha was: r = .88, (Van der Haagen & Tijms, in progress). Therefore, in this study subscales will not be analyzed, only the total amount of SEL. The original SEARS test has a strong internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are between .90 and .98 for total scores and .80 to .95 for subscale scores from the four scales (Romer & Merrell, 2012).
Low or High Socioeconomic Status Low SES environments were checked following the data of the Inspectorate of Education as being ‘poverty problem
accumulation area’ (PPA; Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2014). Low SES neighborhoods are classified in terms of postal codes as PPA areas by the municipality (Gemeente Amsterdam). According to the Inspectie van het Onderwijs, in PPA areas people with a low-income, non-Western immigrants and welfare recipients form a significant part of the population.
15
Procedure
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee. All the parents and/or caretakers of the participants signed an informed consent. A total of 94 school pupils were (random) assigned to the training- or control group. The training groups consisted of 5-7 pupils. Participants of the total training group (N=44) followed the adapted #BOOK training by Stoop at al. (2014). The #BOOK training took 45 minutes a week and was planned in students’ usual school schedule. The control group received Dutch lessons in the meantime. In the training group participants weekly read books; all participants read the same books of socio-emotional content. The training was given by a well-trained trainer, who followed the training protocol from Polleck (2007). This protocol holds strict rules and norms, which were agreed on by the whole group before the start of the
training, for instance: "all participants should treat each other with respect, in order to create an open atmosphere." Participants were asked open questions by the trainer and participated in group discussions. The main themes of the books were discussed, and how these were related to their own lives and experiences. In this manner participants were encouraged to identify themselves with the characters of the story. The trainer enhanced empathic skills by stimulating the children to gain insight in the socio-emotional themes and to solve problems within the group. The children learn that other peers have similar problems and reflected on their own behavior. The SEARS-NL questionnaire was taken one week before (September 4, 2014) and one week afterwards (January 15, 2015) the #BOOK training. The SEARS-NL was completed together with questionnaires for the major IWAL research; therefore the test time took two hours for pre-test and two hours for the post-test. All tests were taken in class.
16
Results
The training was not completed for one participant. A number of five participants did not complete the pretest questionnaire and nine participants did not complete the posttest. These participants (N=15) were not included in further data- analyses.
Therefore, the total sample was 79 participants, of which 44 in the training group and 35 in the control group. The SEARS-NL was scored for the pretest (baseline) and posttest of which means and standard deviations were calculated. SPSS 17.0 was used for data analyses.
The distribution of age was analyzed with a one way independent ANOVA. The categorical variable ‘gender’ was standardized by a chi square test. The most important of this analysis was the difference in scores on the SEARS-NL on pretest and posttest. This was tested with an ANCOVA, of which a one-side P-value of .05 was significant. The training group and the control group were compared with a one-way between subjects analysis of covariance tests (ANCOVA). Also the effect of time, the effect of only low SES schools, the effect of all schools separated and the effect of gender were tested.
To check whether gender was equal between groups, a standardization was performed for gender by making use of a Chi Square test χ2(2, N=79)=1.20, p=.550. Because p>.85 and <5. The assumption of homogeneity was controlled by the Levene’s test and was also not violated (p>.05). We assume that no significant differences were found in the distribution of sexes in the conditions. Gender was equally distributed (42 boys, 37 girls.)
17
normal distributed, t(70)=-2,07, p=.042 (two-tailed). These results suggest that there was no significant difference in variance of age between the conditions. The assumption of homogeneity was controlled by the Levene’s test and was not violated (p>.05). The two checks suggest no significant demographic differences in age or gender between
conditions.
To test whether there was an effect of time, a repeated measure analysis was conducted for the pre- and posttest of the SEARS-NL. The results show no significant effects of time, the assumption of sphericity was not violated and F(1,79)=2.68, p=.105, η2=0.3
The main analysis was performed to see if the children that followed
bibliotherapeutic #BOOK-training indeed benefit from the training on their SEL skills. We tested if the training condition had a higher score on SEL at the posttest compared to the control condition. A univariate analysis of variance tested the effects of training on pre- and posttest of the SEARS-NL. The ANCOVA was one-side tested, a description of the results can be found in Tabel 2. The assumption of homogeneity was checked by the Levene’s test and was violated (p=.025). Opposite to what was hypothesized, results indicated no significant main effect for condition on SEL, F(1, 78)=1.20, p=.139, η2=0.02. As showed in Tabel 2., those who followed the #BOOK-training did not significantly show more SEL (M=98.74, SD=13.33) compared to those who had not followed the training (M=96,02, SD=10.94). Those who received the training SEL scored higher from pretest (M=94.86, SD=11.24) to posttest (M=98.74, SD=13.33). The results (as shown in Figure 1.) show that among those who did not receive the training, SEL
18
improved over time; SEL was again higher at posttest (M=96,02, SD=10.94) than at pretest (M=94.93, SD=11.98).
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of the SEARS pre- and posttest (N = 76).
Condition: Training (N=44) Control (N=35) M SD M SD SEARS-NL Pretest 94.86 11.24 94.93 11,98 Posttest 98.74 13.33 96,02 10.94
Table 2. Mean scores (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the training group
(‘Training’) and the control group (‘Control’) on the SEARS-NL before (pretest) and after (posttest) the training.
Figure 1.
Differences between conditions and scores on the SEARS-NL at the two measurement moments (time).
Figure 1. Error bars representing the standard error show that the observed difference in the bars are not significant.‘Training’ is the training group and ‘control’ is the control group. Pretest is before the start of the training, posttest is one month after the end of the training.
When all groups were tested separated, the sole schools still showed no effects of 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Training Control S co re Condition
SEARS-NL
Pretest Posttest19
#BOOK-training as is shown in Table 3: As-Soeffah was one side tested, as being low SES school. Levene’s test of equality of error variances was violated, a trend in effect of training was found: F(1, 30)=2.62, p=.059, η2=0.09. ProRege was one side tested, as being low SES school. Levene’s test was not violated and F(1, 19)=1.39, p=.128, η2=0.08 and Wespennest was two side tested, as being mean SES school. Levene’s test was not violated and F(1,27)=0.04, p=.842, η2=0.00. Notable is that the schools of the low SES environments (As-Soeffah, Pro Rege) had a much lower p-values than the school in the mean SES environment (Wespennest). This trend could be a result of the low power (Wespennest power =.054) or a result of a mean/high SES at baseline in mean SES schools, allowing the training to have no effects in those schools (As-soeffah: M=102.44, SD=12,47; ProRege: M=91,1, SD=9,17; Wespennest; M=96,7, SD=12,17).
To see whether there was an effect of training in the low SES environment schools only, we tested the hypothesis that the #BOOK training has positive effects on SEL in 6th grade students from low SES families and reported one side p-values. An ANCOVA for the As-Soeffah and Pro Rege school (N=51) was used. According to the Levene’s test (p<.05), this test was not equally distributed and the power was very low (.201). There were still no significant effects found for training on SEL of children in low SES families, F(1,50)=1.300, p=.130, η2=0.03. M=97,99, SD=12,51, but compared to the mean SES school only F(1,27)=0.04, p=.842, η2=0.00, M=96,70, SD=12,17 a trend of training effects is shown.
20
Table 3.
Test outcomes of the Between-Subject Effects analyses: P-values of the ANCOVA analyses for all schools, per school and for low SES schools only.
Analysis Condition * Time
M (SD) F Sig. η2 Main analysis 98.74 (13.33) 1.20 .139 0.02 Per School Low SES schools As-Soeffah Pro Rege Wespennest (two -side tested) 102.44 (12.47) 91.10 (9.17) 96.70 (12.17) 97.99 (12.51) 2.62 1.39 0.04 0.07 .059 .128 .842 .200 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00 Table 3. Effects of condition * test moment on the SEARS-NL.
To see whether gender had effect on the training outcomes, we conducted an ANCOVA. Analyses showed that there were also no results for gender F(1,76)=1,85, p=.669, η2=0.00. M=96.79 SD=11.65, We analyzed whether there were effects of gender for only the low SES schools, but there were no effects found F(1,40)=0,19, p=.668, η2=0.01. M=97.44 SD=12.33. Results are shown in table 4.
Table 4.
Test outcomes of the Between-Subject Effects analyses of Gender: P-values of the ANCOVA analyses for all schools and for low SES schools only.
Analysis Gender * Time
M (SD) F Sig. η2
Main analysis
96.79 (11.65) 1.85 .669 0.00
Low SES 97.44 (12.33) 0.19 .668 0.01
Table 4. Effects of gender * test moment on the SEARS-NL. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation.
21
Discussion Summary
The main interest of this research was whether the #BOOK training would affect social emotional learning (SEL) skills in 6th graders from low socioeconomic status (SES) families. To assess this research question two hypotheses were composed. The results indicate that these cannot be accepted:
1. The #BOOK training has positive effects on SEL in 6th grade students from low SES families.
2. The #BOOK training has no effects on a high initial level of SEL
The training did not show significant effects on SEL in the children of all schools, nor in the children of low SES families only, nor in the children of all schools soley. However, this study shows a worth mentioning trend of improving SEL skills in children from low SES schools in comparison to the mean SES school. This indicates that high initial levels of SEL might have some impact on the effects of the #BOOK training.
The mean SES school showed no effect of training at all, which could be
explained as a result of the initial difference in SEL. As shown in Table 3. initial scores of SEL in the As-soeffah and ProRege schools, both low SES, were different from the mean SES school Wespennest. Children from mean SES schools did not show any effect on training, this could be explained as following: children in the training groups read books with a social-emotional context. It was expected that children from low SES environment had a different ‘starting capital’ of socio-emotional skills, compared to
22
children from a mean SES environment. The training was expected to fill this gap and provide the missing capital for the low SES environment, through reading books with socio-emotional content and discussing them. In this research Wespennest was the school of which the children were not expected to miss a starting capital of socio-emotional competences, because their parents were capable of providing SEL. Therefore, the SEL of these children could be expected to start with a higher base rate and to not be altered by the #BOOK training, which seems to be the case. Although the different
improvements of SEL skills between the two groups were not significant, it offers an interesting reference point for future research. To investigate this, more research ought to be necessary, whereby a larger sample will provide more outcomes.
Theoretical implications and limitations of the current study
The effect of time in the current study could be explained by other major events that occurred in the training period (e.g.: Christmas holidays two weeks before the posttest; other SEL trainings). To know whether the increased levels of SEL over time in this research where not due to variables as other SEL trainings (SOVA-trainings, e.g. ‘Kanjer’, or ‘Rots en Water’), future research have to gather information before the intervention, about recent given trainings at the schools. There are SOVA-trainings offered to support social skills (sociale vaardigheden; SOVA) in low SES schools, although no official protocols in Dutch primary schools are assessing SEL. Even though some of the SOVA trainings are not evidence based (Rots en Water was partly effective; Clemens, 2004; Kanjer was effective in some research and not effective in others; Vliek et al., 2010, 2013, in progress), there might be an effect or influence on SEL when the children follow these trainings simultaneously with the #BOOK training.
23
In addition, no ethnicity data of the participants was included, even though the origin of the names of children in the low SES school (e.g. Mohammed, Fatima; typical immigrant names) in comparison to the names of children in the mean SES school (e.g. Mees, Eva; typical Dutch native names) suggest that ethnicity of children might be related to the (initial) levels of SEL. It would be interesting to investigate the link
between low SES, ethnicity and levels of SEL. Native language was also not investigated, although reading and comprehending books or social situations might be more difficult in children due to a different native language or ethnicity.
A large number of participants did not complete the pretest and did not complete the posttest. This increases the large number of excluded subjects in this study (N=15, of which 60% was in the training group). For these children, the effects of the training could not be included in analyses. Possible reasons for this; test moments were only hold at one day, or maybe the children thought the training was not challenging enoughAll
participants complete the pre- and posttest, to maintain the sample and to get most powerful analyses. If necessary, the #BOOK training must be adapted in the future.
Our first hypothesis expected: ‘children with high initial levels of SEL would experience no training effects’. Children from high SES families were expected to have a life time of social-emotional experiences in ‘training’ SEL skills and therefore achieve high initial levels of SEL. In this research no high SES school, but only one mean SES school was included. Including high SES schools would be a next step for research to gain significant effects.
24
initial levels of SEL and the sensitivity for the effect of the training is possible influenced by gender. Girls are mostly faster in the transition to adolescents than boys; their
hormonal offspring to puberty starts about two years earlier (Marshall & Tanner, 1986). Girls are as well more social-emotional skilled from evolution, because they are more focused on others Guerrero, & Reiter (1998) and they will invest more in conflict
resolution (Parker & Asher, 1993). Furthermore, Dutch girls in low SES families have an earlier offspring of puberty, than girls in mean SES families (Keizer‐Schrama & Mul, 2001). Unclear is whether early onset of puberty causes a bigger or a smaller amount of problems in SEL. It nevertheless can be expected that girls in sixth grade schools will react different on SEL interventions than boys. Cohn et al., (2009) found gender effects in the SEARS assessment, however this cannot explain the lack of positive results, since no gender effects were found in our date.
Future research should discover whether the SEARS-NL is merely measuring Theory of Mind (understanding mental states of others, as well as emotions) as a
component of SEL, instead of SEL as a complete concept. ToM might as well be acting as a mediator; the training effects might pass through ToM in to SEL. Different concepts of ToM might represent different aspects of SEL skills in children as indicated by earlier research (Cutting & Dunn, 1999). ToM is linked to empathy (positively) and antisocial behavior (negatively; Castano, 2012), ToM therefore might be a component of SEL. Finally, ‘age’ could be a factor of consideration; SEL skills are at first required and explicit asked in secondary school (Durlak et al., 2011). The lack of effect of the SEL training in 6th grade could be that the children have had no chances to demonstrate or practice their new skills until secondary school. SEL skills could be taught in primary
25
schools, but expressed afterwards (as potentially latent variable). Future research should add more test moments, such as a six months follow ups.
Conclusions
Children being from low SES families and in 6th grade of primary schools are more vulnerable to develop both academic and social-emotional learning difficulties. In this group of children we investigated the influence of the bibliotherapeutic #BOOK training, which consists of book reading and hold discussions in small groups. Also, it was expected from children in higher SES families, to have a higher initial level of SEL skills. Therefore, it was expected that these children would react less on the #BOOK training, compared to the children with lower initial levels of SEL skills, which were expected to be children of lower SES families. Our research indicates that participating in the #BOOK training does not result in higher levels of SEL skills for children being of low SES families and in 6th grade in comparison to children from mean SES families. However this lack of effect, a trend of higher levels of SEL skills is found in the children of the lowest SES schools participating in this study, compared to the children from mean SES schools participating. The trend indicates that children in 6th grade from low SES families might in fact benefit from bibliotherapeutic #BOOK training, as the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1997) pointed out. Further research is required to make a statement about the effects of #BOOK training on social emotional learning in 6th grade children from low SES families.
26
References
Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental trajectories toward violence in middle childhood: Course, demographic differences, and response to school-based intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39, 324-348.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD countries. Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) – New Millennium Learners.
Ayotte, V., Saucier, J. F., Bowen, F., Laurendeau, M. C., Fournier, M., & Blais, J. G. (2003). Teaching multiethnic urban adolescents how to enhance their
competencies: Effects of a middle school primary prevention program on adaptation. Journal of Primary Education, 24, 7-23.
Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, 2012. VSV-Atlas. Totaaloverzicht Nederland. Aanval op schooluitval. Convenantjaar 2010-2012: Nieuwe voortijdige schoolverlaters. Definitieve cijfers. Den Haag. Ministerie van Onderwijs.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 568.
Battistich, V. (2000). Effects of a school-based program to enhance prosocial development on children’s peer relations and social adjustment. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1, 1-17.
27
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & García Coll, C. (2001). The home environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child development,72(6), 1868-1886.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children, 55-71.
Cartledge, G,. & Kiarie, M. W. (2001). Learning social skills through literature for children and adolescents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 40-47.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs. Chicago: CASEL.
Castano, E. (2012). Antisocial behavior in individuals and groups: an empathy-focused approach. The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, 419-445.
Christie, D., & Viner, R. (2005). Adolescent development. Bmj, 330(7486), 301-304.
Clemens, J. (2004). Scriptie Evaluatie Rots en Waterinterventie. Pedagogische Wetenschappen Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language, and family background: Individual differences and interrelations. Child
28
Denham, S.A., Blair, K.A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256.
Dodell, L. (2013). Revisiting Biblical Games in a Bayesian Framework, Doctoral dissertation, Emory University.
Doyle, B. G., & Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social–emotional learning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 554-564.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.
Elias, M. J. (Ed.). (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD.
Elias, M.J. (2003s). Academic and social-emotional learning. Educational Practices, 11, 1–31.
European Commission. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning-European reference framework. Bruxels: European Commission.
European Parliament (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, 30 (12), 2006.
29
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: The National Implementation Research Network.
Foster, M. A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F., & Franze, S. (2005). A model of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to children's emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20(1), 13-36.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth
development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American psychologist, 58(6-7), 466.
Haagen, van der & Tijms, in progress
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2006). De Staat van het Onderwijs. Onderwijsverslag 2004/2005. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2014). De staat van het onderwijs: Onderwijsverslag 2012/2013. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Izard, C. E. (2001). Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion, 1, 249–257
Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions. Psychological bulletin, 128(5), 796.
30
assessment and school psychology: A summary and synthesis. The California School Psychologist, 9(1), 9-19.
Keizer‐Schrama, S. M. P. F., & Mul, D. (2001). Trends in pubertal development in Europe. Apmis, 109(S103), S164-S170.
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377-380.
Kiger, D. (2000). The Tribes process TLC: A preliminary evaluation of classroom implementation & impact on student achievement. Education, 120, 586-592. Marshall, W. A., & Tanner, J. M. (1986). Puberty. In Postnatal Growth
Neurobiology (pp. 171-209). Springer US.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 934-956.
Merrell, K. W. (2011). Social and emotional assets and resilience scales (SEARS). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2012). Do Poor Readers Feel Angry, Sad, and Unpopular?. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(4), 360-381.
Mullis, I. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 Countries. Chestnut Hill: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
Onderwijsraad. (2011). Een stevige basis voor iedere leerling. Den Haag: Uitgave van de Onderwijsraad.
31
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental psychology, 29(4), 611.
Polleck, J. N. (2007). Constructing identity, constructing community: Book clubs with adolescent females. Dissertation, New York University.
Polleck, J. N. (2010). Using book clubs to enhance social-emotional and academic learning with urban adolescent females of colors. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27, 101-128.
Polleck, J. N. (2011). Adolescent literature book clubs. The ALAN Review, 76-94.
Romer, N., & Merrell, K. W. (2012). Temporal Stability of Strength-Based Assessments: Test–Retest Reliability of Student and Teacher Reports.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 1534508412444955.
Saegert, S. C., Adler, N. E., Bullock, H. E., Cauce, A. M., Liu, W. M., & Wyche, K. F. (2006). APA Task Force on socioeconomic status (SES).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved November,30(2009), 179-183.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2007). Dissociable prefrontal networks for cognitive and affective theory of mind: a lesion study. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3054-3067.
Shechtman, Z., & Yaman, M. A. (2012). SEL as a Component of a Literature Class to Improve Relationships, Behavior, Motivation, and Content Knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 546-567.
32
Stoop, M., Stoop, M., Carter, C. R. S. & Tijms, J. (2014). #BOOK: Een
onderzoeksverslag voor bibliotherapie voor jongeren tussen de 12 en 14 jaar. Amsterdam: Stichting Lezen.
Twist, L., Gnaldi, M., Schagen, I., & Morrison, J. (2004). Good readers but at a cost? Attitudes to reading in England. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 387-400.
Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 81-101.
Vliek, L. & Orobio de Castro, B. (2010). Stimulating positive social interaction: What can we learn from TIGER (Kanjertraining)? In B. Doll, J. Baker, B. Pfohl en J. Yoon (red.). Handbook of Youth Prevention Science. New York: Routledge.
Vliek, L., Overbeek, G., & Orobio de Castro, B. (2013). "I want to behave prosocially and I can choose to do so": Effectiveness of TIGER (Kanjertraining) in 8 to 11 year-olds. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/17405629.2013.811405
Vliek, L., Overbeek, G., & Orobio de Castro, B. (in review). Improving Classroom Climate: Effectiveness of TIGER (Kanjertraining) in Primary School Classes.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 105-124.
33
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552.
Zins, J.E. (2001). Examining opportunities and challenges for school-based prevention and promotion: Social and emotional learning as an exemplar. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 441–446.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). (2004). Building cademic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press.
