Concept Mapping the Perceived Benefits and Limitations of a School-Based Social Emotional Learning Program

Background and Purpose: Schools today are faced with the challenge of equipping students with the skills they need to succeed in life outside the classroom, while at the same time, teaching the academic material required. More often, teachers are called upon to establish environments in which students learn social and emotional skills alongside academics. With increased recognition that punitive models of school discipline have a negative impact on school culture as well as on student's individual growth, schools are tasked with designing positive alternatives to increasing school engagement and culture. Social Harmony teaches K-8 school communities the skills necessary to promote social emotional learning and address conflict through restorative methods, a model that is gaining traction. After three years of implementation in a small private school, this study involved 32 students, faculty, and parents in a community-based concept mapping procedure to articulate perceived impact.

Methods: A total of 32 students grades 7 and 8, alumni, (age 12+), faculty members, parents, colleagues, and administrators who had been associated with the school for at least three years ultimately offered their responses. They were asked to engage in an online concept mapping procedure, in which they would brainstorm responses to the prompt, “One specific result of Social Harmony in our school is…”. Multivariate statistical techniques (multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis) were applied, yielding a visual map representing interrelationships among the ideas. Participants were then invited to sort the statements into themes, labelling each. Finally, participants rated, on a scale of 1 to 5, the “importance” and “noticeability” of each statement; that is, how valuable and noticeable the result was.

Findings:80 statements, organized into six overarching themes, emerged in response to the focus prompt. Each participant grouped the statements uniquely, with between 5 and 19 mutually exclusive groups of statements, and created labels that best described the groupings: 1) Faculty, 2) School Climate, 3) Student Relationships, 4) Individual Students, 5) Infrastructure, 6) Parent Relations. Because the Pearson correlation coefficient for importance and noticeability ratings was low (r = 0.23), the two dimensions reflect two independent constructs; taken together, however, they may serve as a proxy for “impact”. Enhanced organizational capacity was one of the most important and noticeable outcomes as perceived by faculty and administrators. While participants reported an observable impact on faculty productivity, student well-being, peer relationships, and school climate, lessons learned include the need for strong, consistent, and sustainable leadership, as well as stronger parental inclusion, which may best be guaranteed by school social work professionals.

Conclusions and Implications: The Social Harmony program shows promise, however, given limited variability in importance ratings and few negative responses to the focus prompt, future evaluation should examine the negative and unexpected results of the intervention as well as focus on how essential each result is in bringing about the desired effects. Further comparing the results of this program with other programs with similar theoretical underpinnings would facilitate the development of theories of change that could assist with replication and scale up efforts.