Impact of SEL intervention ‘Lead Well’ on teacher SEL development: Insights from a field study

Asha B. S.  Aradhya; Subbu  Parameswaran; Nymisha  Yadati

doi:10.59400/fes2164

Impact of SEL intervention ‘Lead Well’ on teacher SEL development: Insights from a field study

Asha B. S. Aradhya Research Department, Learning Curve Life Skills Foundation, Hyderabad 500033, India
Subbu Parameswaran Co-Founder, Learning Curve Life Skills Foundation, Hyderabad 500033, India
Nymisha Yadati Department of Education, CHRIST (Deemed to be) University, Bengaluru 560029, India

Article ID: 2164

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2164

Keywords: systemic SEL approach; SEL; Lead Well; learning curve foundation; teacher well-being; teacher SEL

Abstract

Teachers’ social-emotional well-being is crucial for their quality of life. Their well-being is closely associated with the classroom practices, relationships and functioning with students. This study examines the impact of an intervention—‘Lead Well’ on the development of teacher SEL competencies. ‘Lead Well’ is a social-emotional learning (SEL) capacity-building program for teachers, developed by Learning Curve Life Skills Foundation, Hyderabad, India. The program aims to support, develop and promote social emotional well-being among teachers. A single group pretest and posttest design is adopted to conduct this study in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV). KGBV schools provide educational facilities for girl students (grades 6–10) belonging to backward classes, minority backgrounds and families below the poverty line in Educationally Backward Blocks. The study was conducted with teachers in the KGBV schools of Vikarabad district. Teachers were provided with the SEL capacity-building program for their own well-being for an academic year. The training was imparted in phases and regular support was provided. An end-line assessment was administered at the end of the academic year. Analysis reported a significant level of improvement in teachers’ SEL competencies (Emotional Intelligence, Engaging the Child, Shaping Attitudes, Mentor Mindset and Learning and Adaptability). The findings provide the empirical evidence on the impact of teacher-focused SEL interventions. It underscores the need for building teachers social-emotional competencies to improve classroom practices.

References

[1]Oliveira S, Roberto MS, Pereira NS, et al. Impacts of Social and Emotional Learning Interventions for Teachers on Teachers’ Outcomes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12(1). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677217

[2]Tolan P, Ross K, Arkin N, et al. Toward an integrated approach to positive development: Implications for intervention. Applied Developmental Science. 2016; 20(3): 214–236. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2016.1146080

[3]Durlak JA, Domitrovich CE, Weissberg RP, Gulotta TP. Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice, 1st ed. The Guilford Press; 2015.

[4]Steinhardt MA, Smith Jaggars SE, Faulk KE, Gloria CT. Chronic work stress and depressive symptoms: Assessing the mediating role of teacher burnout. Stress and Health. 2011; 27(5): 420–429. doi: 10.1002/SMI.1394

[5]Shukla A, Trivedi T. Burnout in Indian teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2008; 9: 320–334. doi: 10.1007/BF03026720

[6]Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001; 52: 397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

[7]Schwarzer R, Hallum S. Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology. 2008; 57: 152–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x

[8]Mansfield C, Beltman S, Weatherby-Fell N, Broadley T. Classroom ready? In: Brandenburg R, McDonough S, Burke J, White S (editors). Teacher Education: Innovation, Intervention, and Impact. Springer; 2016. pp. 211–229.

[9]Cipriano C, Brackett M. Teachers Are Anxious and Overwhelmed. They Need SEL Now More Than Ever. Available online: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-07-teachers-are-anxious-and-overwhelmed-they-need-sel-now-more-than-ever (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[10]Tuxford LM, Bradley GL. Emotional job demands and emotional exhaustion in teachers. Educational Psychology. 2014; 35(8): 1006–1024. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2014.912260

[11]Odak I, Marušić I, Matić Bojić J, et al. Teachers’ social and Emotional Competencies: A lever for social and emotional learning in schools. Sociology and Space. 2023. doi: 10.5673/sip.61.1.5

[12]Frenzel AC, Daniels L, Burić I. Teacher emotions in the classroom and their implications for students. Educational Psychologist. 2021; 56(4): 250–264. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1985501

[13]Lang SN, Jeon L, Sproat EB, et al. Social Emotional Learning for Teachers (SELF-T): A short-term, online intervention to increase early childhood educators’ resilience. Early Education and Development. 2020; 31(7): 1112–1132. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1749820

[14]Jones SM, Bouffard SM. Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report. 2012; 26(4): 3–22. doi: 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00073.x

[15]Goddard RD, Hoy WK, Hoy AW. Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33(3): 3–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033003003

[16]Davis HA. Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist. 2003; 38(4): 207–234. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

[17]Jennings PA, Frank JL. In-service preparation for educators. In: Durlak JA, Domitrovich CE, Weissberg RP, Gullotta TP (editors). Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning. The Guilford Press; 2015. pp. 422–437.

[18]Sutton RE, Wheatley KF. Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review. 2003; 15: 327–358. doi: 10.1023/A:1026131715856

[19]Oberle E, Domitrovich CE, Meyers DC, Weissberg RP. Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2016; 46(3): 277–297. doi: 10.1080/0305764x.2015.1125450

[20]Jones SM, Bouffard SM, Weissbourd R. Educators’ social and emotional skills vital to learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 2013; 94(8): 62–65. doi: 10.1177/003172171309400815

[21]Jennings PA, Greenberg MT. The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79(1): 491–525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693

[22]Merritt EG, Wanless SB, Rimm-Kaufman SE, et al. The contribution of teachers’ emotional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade. School Psychology Review. 2012; 41: 141–159. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2012.12087517

[23]Jackson CK. What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non-test score outcomes. Journal of Political Economy. 2018; 126(5): 2072–2107. doi: 10.1086/699018

[24]Morgan L, Close S, Siller M, et al. Teachers’ experiences: Social emotional engagement–knowledge and skills. Educational Research. 2021; 64(1): 41–59. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2021.1988865

[25]Duggan EJ. Teacher stress research: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools. 1997; 7(1): 125–136. doi: 10.1017/S103729110000131X

[26]Prilleltensky I, Neff M, Bessell A. Teacher Stress: What it is, why it’s important, how it can be alleviated. Theory Into Practice. 2016; 55(2): 104–111. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148986

[27]Greenberg MT, Brown JL, Abenavoli RM. Teacher stress and health. Available online: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2016/07/teacher-stress-and-health.html (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[28]Herman KC, Hickmon-Rosa J, Reinke WM. Empirically Derived Profiles of Teacher Stress, Burnout, Self-Efficacy, and Coping and Associated Student Outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2017; 20(2): 90-100. doi: 10.1177/1098300717732066

[29]McCormick J, Barnett K. Teachers’ attributions for stress and their relationships with burnout. International Journal of Educational Management. 2011; 25(3): 278-293. doi:10.1108/09513541111120114

[30]Brady LL, McDaniel SC, Choi YJ. Teacher stress and burnout: The role of psychological work resources and implications for practitioners. Psychology in the Schools. 2022; 60(6): 1706–1726. doi: 10.1002/pits.22805

[31]Gimbert BG, Miller D, Herman E, et al. Social Emotional Learning in schools: The importance of Educator competence. Journal of Research on Leadership Education.2021; 18(1): 3–39. doi: 10.1177/19427751211014920.

[32]Wong VW, Ruble LA, Yu Y, McGrew JH. Too stressed to teach? Teaching quality, student engagement, and IEP outcomes. Exceptional Children. 2017; 83(4): 412–427. doi: 10.1177/0014402917690729

[33]Collie RJ, Shapka JD, Perry NE. School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104(4): 1189–1204. doi: 10.1037/a0029356

[34]Montgomery C, Rupp AA. A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education. 2005; 28(3): 458–486. doi: 10.2307/4126479

[35]Chang ML. An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review. 2009; 21(3): 193–218. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y

[36]Milkie MA, Warner CH. Classroom Learning Environments and the Mental Health of First Grade Children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2011; 52(1): 4–22. doi: 10.1177/0022146510394952

[37]de Schipper EJ, Riksen-Walraven JM, Geurts SAE, de Weerth C. Cortisol levels of caregivers in child care centers as related to the quality of their caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2009; 24(1): 55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.10.004

[38]Rentzou K. Examination of work environment factors relating to burnout syndrome of early childhood educators in Greece. Child Care in Practice. 2012; 18(2): 165–181. doi: 10.1080/13575279.2012.657609

[39]Zinsser KM, Bailey CS, Curby TW, et al. Exploring the predictable classroom: Preschool teacher stress, emotional supportiveness, and students’ social-emotional behavior in private and Head Start classrooms. NHSA Dialog. 2013; 16(2): 90–108.

[40]Kokkinos CM, Panayiotou G, Davazoglou AM. Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools. 2005; 42(1): 79–89. doi: 10.1002/pits.20031

[41]Ota CL, Baumgartner JJ, Berghout Austin AM. Provider stress and children’s active engagement. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2012; 27(1): 61–73. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2012.739588

[42]Siekkinen M, Pakarinen E, Lerkkanen MK, et al. Social competence among 6-year-old children and classroom instructional support and teacher stress. Early Education & Development. 2013; 24(6): 877–897. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.745183

[43]Ramberg J, Låftman SB, Åkerstedt T, Modin B. Teacher Stress and Students’ School Well-being: the Case of Upper Secondary Schools in Stockholm. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 64(6): 816–830. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2019.1623308.

[44]Oberle E, Schonert-Reichl KA. Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine. 2016; 159: 30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031

[45]Jeon L, Ardeleanu K. Work Climate in Early Care and Education and Teachers’ Stress: Indirect Associations through Emotion Regulation. Early Education and Development. 2020; 31(7): 1031–1051. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1776809

[46]Steiner ED, Doan S, Woo A, et al. Restoring Teacher and Principal Well-Being is an Essential Step for Rebuilding Schools: Findings from the State of the American Teacher and State of the American Principal Surveys. Available online: https://doi.org/10.7249/rra1108-4 (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[47]Penttinen V, Pakarinen E, Von Suchodoletz A, Lerkkanen MK. Relations between Kindergarten Teachers’ Occupational Well-being and the Quality of Teacher-child Interactions. Early Education and Development. 2020; 31(7): 994–1010. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1785265

[48]Jennings PA, Brown JL, Frank JL, et al. Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom Interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109(7): 1010–1028. doi: 10.1037/edu0000187

[49]Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Student-Teacher Relationships. In: Bear GG, Minke KM (editors). Children’s Needs III: Development, Prevention, and Intervention. National Association of School Psychologists; 2006. pp. 59–71.

[50]Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Berg JK, et al. How do school-based prevention programs impact teachers? Findings from a randomized trial of an integrated classroom management and social-emotional program. Prevention Science. 2016; 17: 325–337. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z

[51]Schonert-Reichl KA. Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of Children. 2017; 27(1): 137–155. doi: 10.1353/foc.2017.0007

[52]Domitrovich CE, Durlak JA, Staley KC, Weissberg RP. Social-Emotional Competence: An Essential Factor for Promoting Positive Adjustment and Reducing Risk in School Children. Child Development. 2017; 88(2): 408–416. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12739

[53]Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, et al. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development. 2011; 82(1): 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

[54]Sklad M, Diekstra R, de Ritter M, et al. Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in the Schools. 2012; 49(9): 892–909. doi: 10.1002/pits.21641

[55]Wigelsworth M, Lendrum A, Oldfield J, et al. The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning program outcomes: A meta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2016; 46(3): 347–376. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2016.1195791

[56]Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The CASEL guide to schoolwide social and emotional learning. Available online: https://schoolguide.casel.org/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[57]Delpit L. Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New Press; 2006.

[58]Jennings PA, Minnici A, Yoder N. Creating the working conditions to enhance teacher social and emotional well-being. In: Osher D, Mayer M, Jagers R, et al. (editors). Keeping students safe and helping them thrive: A collaborative handbook on school safety, mental health, and wellness. Praeger; 2019. pp. 210–239.

[59]Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Key insights from the collaborating districts initiative. Available online: https://drc.casel.org/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Key-Insights-from-the-Collaborating-Districts-Initiative.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[60]Greenberg MT, Weissberg RP. Social and emotional development matters: Taking action now for future generations. University Park: Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University; 2018. Available online: https://prevention.psu.edu/publication/social-and-emotional-development-matters-taking-action-now-for-future-generations/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).

[61]Hemmeter ML, Ostrosky M, Fox L. Social and emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention. School Psychology Review. 2006; 35(4): 583–601.

[62]Klassen RM, Perry NE, Frenzel AC. Teachers’ relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104(1): 150–165.

[63]Onchwari J. Early childhood in-service and preservice teachers’ perceived levels of preparedness to handle stress in their students. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2010; 37(5): 391–400.

Published

2025-04-07

How to Cite

Aradhya, A. B. S., Parameswaran, S., & Yadati, N. (2025). Impact of SEL intervention ‘Lead Well’ on teacher SEL development: Insights from a field study. Forum for Education Studies, 3(2), 2164. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2164

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.