Children’s Perspectives on a School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Program

Abstract

Research has indicated that social and emotional learning (SEL) programs can offer benefits to students and school environments. However, students’ experiences of participation in such programs have not received as much attention. This focus group study describes elementary students’ (N = 23) experiences of and beliefs about participation in a school-based SEL program commonly used in Sweden, Life Skills Training. The results suggest questionable acceptability of the program by the students, indicating a clear belief that the school’s implementation of the program was due to their problematic behavior. Although students experienced the program content as predictable, consistent, and structured, there was great variation in their attitudes toward the program: Both strong negative and positive attitudes were revealed. The students also expressed discomfort with the personal nature of the discussions promoted by the program and uncertainty about its place in the school setting. These findings can inform SEL program implementation.

Social and emotional learning (SEL) refers to understanding, expressing, and managing one’s social and emotional experiences in a way that promotes learning, problem solving, relationships, cooperation, and self-esteem—forms of intra- and interpersonal intelligence that support children’s relationships with others (Elias, Zins, & Weissberg, 1997; Gardner, 1983; Weare, 2007). Deficits in such skills can mean an increased risk of negative outcomes in the short- and long-term around goal attainment, decision making, conflict resolution, prosocial behavior, and general well-being (Romasz, Kantor, & Elias, 2004). Increasingly, schools have implemented SEL intervention programs to develop children’s social and emotional skills with a variety of goals in mind, primarily in relation to improving academic performance and conduct: “to (a) promote positive learning environments that are supportive, engaging, and participatory and (b) foster the development of . . . cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies” (Osher et al., 2016, p. 646). These programs can vary widely in content and implementation, and can range from structured classroom curricula to after-school efforts to whole school and family and community partnerships (Osher et al., 2016). Effective programs can lead to “significant positive effects on targeted social-emotional competencies and attitudes about self, others, and school” and also enhanced prosocial behavior and academic performance (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011, p. 417). A recent meta-analysis of school-based SEL programs, conducted internationally, also lends evidence to the idea that youths’ development, behavior, and academic growth can be promoted by such programs (Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017).

As many SEL programs have been evaluated in a variety of ways, some guidance can be found on what factors make SEL programs more likely to be effective in various settings; best practices include the importance of social and emotional skill promotion, planning and design, implementation supported by professional development, and a firm basis in research (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2013). One aspect less explored has been intervention acceptability in relation to child participants’ experiences of the implementation of school-based SEL programs. Children’s voices are important in and of themselves (McLaughlin, 2015; Roche, 1999; United Nations, 1989), and child-proxy report literature shows that children do not give the same responses as adults (see, for example, Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Theunissen et al., 1998). International qualitative studies of upper elementary and middle school students’ perspectives on participation in school-based anti-bullying (Battey & Ebbeck, 2013), peer mediation (Humphries, 1999), and mindfulness programs (McCabe, Costello, & Roodenburg, 2017), for example, indicate that students can meaningfully reflect on participation in school-based interventions and program acceptability; such qualitative investigations are an important part of program evaluation (Fabiano, Chafouleas, Weist, Sumi, & Humphrey, 2014). Children’s views and experiences can and arguably should inform the design and implementation of schooling and school programs (Cook-Sather, 2002), and efforts to highlight them, by Sands, Guzman, Stephens, and Boggs (2007), who have also conducted focus groups with students to inform school efforts, have been described as the “ethical, responsible response.” And acceptability to participants of interventions—the extent to which they are felt to be “fair, reasonable, feasible, and appropriate” (Villarreal, Ponce, & Gutierrez, 2015)—has been described as an important element of implementation of interventions targeting behavioral or academic concerns, as is attention to accountability in program delivery to determine what programs accomplish and how they are experienced (Mertens, 2014).

A desire to address a relative lack in the literature of the child’s voice regarding how they experience program implementation and the acceptability of school-based interventions was the basis for this study, which aimed to explore children’s perspectives on and experiences of participation in the school-based SEL program. Although school-based SEL programs have a diversity of focus areas, aims, and implementation strategies, many implementation challenges are shared, for example, balancing and scheduling different levels of intervention and promoting participant engagement. Thus, although the circumstances specific to any individual setting and study may differ, comparison and to some extent generalizability can be possible in the consideration of program practices and student experiences, especially useful in light of research indicating that implementation quality and acceptability can be major factors in program outcomes (see review in Low, Smolkowski, & Cook, 2016).

Background

Compulsory education in Sweden included at the time of the study grades 1 through 9 (ages seven to 16). The common national curriculum has been described as standards based and as evincing “an instrumental conception of education” (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012). SEL programs as they have been conducted in Sweden have frequently been termed Life Skills Training (Livskunskap in Swedish). This is an area that has, in the last few decades, been considered as a possible subject within the regular curriculum by higher levels of Swedish government (Sevéus, 2010) as children’s social and emotional development has come to be seen as the purview of the school system. Life Skills Training in Sweden is a concretization of the push to introduce common values—värdegrund in Swedish, a broad concept covering morals, social norms, and relationship questions (Colnerud, 2004)—and has been used in the school world since the 1990s to refer to the shared values that society rests on (Ministry of Education and Science, 1994). It is essentially the basis for the modern Swedish school system’s view of its role in fostering students’ social development. School-based SEL programs, such as Life Skills Training in this study and other curricula, though not universally implemented, have been seen as effective in the Swedish setting for students from a range of grades, for example regarding self-image, well-being, and reduced aggression; positive impacts for grades 1 through 3 regarding psychological well-being in particular have been found (Kimber, Sandell, & Bremberg, 2008). The present study’s related intervention was conducted in a comparable setting, so it is possible that this study of children’s perspectives can complement such outcome evaluations.

The SEL program this study focuses on used the curriculum Life Skills Training from Kindergarten to Third Grade (Livskunskap Förskoleklass till Åk 3 in Swedish) (Alteryd & Alteryd, 2010), and its stated intent is to improve students’ psychological health, capacity for empathy, and ability to work well in groups with others to improve outcomes in school and society. The structured curriculum consists of exercises; games; and, to a large extent, stories organized under the following themes: group building, feelings, friendship, dealing with problems and conflicts, improving self-confidence, unwritten rules, and health (Alteryd & Alteryd, 2010). It is both targeted and universal in nature: targeted in that students identified as needing extra support with SEL (specifically conflict resolution and prosocial behavior) received additional attention from the staff in small groups or individually apart from the regular sessions, but universal in that all children in the grades in question participated in the group sessions because the intervention was scheduled as a regular class for that term.

This study is not on the outcomes of this program per se but rather the students’ own perspectives on their experience of it and to that extent some indications about its acceptability. This work explores the experiences of elementary school children in a school-based SEL program with interventions at the individual, small group, and half-class levels to obtain children’s voices—perceptions of, knowledge about, and experiences of participation in—to inform program design and implementation.

Method

SEL Program in Focus

The students who received this curriculum included all students in second and third grades (132 students) at an urban elementary school in southwestern Sweden; no other grades at the school participated. Students were randomly divided into half-class groups that meet once per week for one hour over the course of four months. The program was conducted in half-class groups as smaller groups were considered desirable from a group dynamic perspective. Occasionally, individual students or small groups also met with the program leaders; this was typically to address problematic behavior. The program leaders were two social workers (bachelor’s level, socionomer in Swedish) with decades of experience in leading group-based SEL programs with children and youths, although this was the first time they worked with this particular curriculum.

The social workers leading the program and the students’ regular classroom teachers together introduced the SEL program as a new subject, Life Skills Training, that the students would study during the term to learn more about life, friendship, and family. The program’s groups met during the regular school day in a separate classroom just as for other subjects; the social workers were referred to as teachers and other teachers were not present. The social workers who ran the program focused, as the curriculum dictates, primarily on prosocial behavior, that is to say, the students’ ability to take into consideration others’ needs and feelings to promote responsible social behavior (Von Tetzchner, 2005). However, active prevention and response to negative behavior, often with individuals and small groups (outside of regular sessions), was also a part of the program’s implementation practices. The intervention’s activities were structured; each session had the same format. First, students were asked to recount the “best” and “worst” things that happened to them in the previous week; next, an essentially allegorical story was read and discussion questions were posed; last, a group game was played, usually of a physical nature (for example, musical chairs).

The program’s implementation in the school was financed externally by the Public Health Agency of Sweden, and no other elements of the curriculum or school setting were changed or removed to implement the program. The local city government applied for the funding for this program’s implementation in this school to address the social environment at the school, which was considered to need extra support due to a diverse school population.

Participants

Four focus groups of five to six students each were conducted with 23 students in second and third grades (eight to 10 years old); included were 11 second graders and 12 third graders (11 girls and 12 boys) at an urban elementary school in southwestern Sweden. These focus groups were conducted at the end of the term (autumn 2014), and the students participated weekly in the SEL program. Most focus group participants were born in Sweden (85 percent), but 60 percent had one or both parents born in another country. All were fluent in Swedish; however, the home languages spoken by the focus group participants were Arabic (three students), Bosnian (one student), Lithuanian (one student), Somalian (three students), Thai (one student), and Swedish (14 students), and this demographic profile and level of diversity was representative of the SEL program participants (and the school) as a whole. All of the participants had been given written consent by their parents to be included in the study. The students were informed in child-friendly language, with concepts described clearly and concretely, how the focus groups were to be conducted and that their confidentiality was ensured. The students were informed that participation was voluntary and had the opportunity to decline to participate; none of the students declined. Students were randomly nominated by their teachers by selecting the first five to six children in each class list (in alphabetical order) to be invited to participate. The study was approved by the regional ethical review board in Gothenburg (No. 592-13).

Data Collection

Focus groups were conducted by the first author with the study participants in a classroom at the school that was neither the students’ regular classroom nor the location of the SEL program, to offer somewhat neutral ground. Data collection occurred just days after the SEL program’s last session in the hopes of enabling the students’ recollections of the program (Barlow, Jolley, & Hallam, 2011). The focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Focus groups as the data collection method were chosen to support the children’s engagement in the study and create a safe social situation (Kortesluoma, Hentinen, & Nikkonen, 2003; Spratling, Coke, & Minick, 2012).

The four focus groups began with an explanation by the researcher that there were no wrong or right answers to the questions and that the children’s help was needed to learn more about the school. This was intended to promote in the children a sense of collaboration with the researcher (Christensen, 2004; Gibson, 2012). Each group had five or six students according to the recommendations regarding children of this age (Eder & Fingerson, 2002). The groups were homogeneous with respect to the students’ grade level as common characteristics within each group have proved to be important in focus groups (Knodel, 1993). An interview guide regarding the students’ experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge was developed by both authors to address the study’s aim of eliciting children’s voices regarding participation in the school-based SEL program and was composed of the following questions: What do you do in Life Skills Training? How is Life Skills Training the same or different from other things at school? What have you learned in Life Skills Training? Why does your school have you take Life Skills Training? What effects do you think that Life Skills Training has or can have? What do you like and not like about Life Skills Training?

It was also the researchers’ intention to be reflective, flexible, and creative to take into account the level of development of child participants (Gibson, 2012). Each student was given the opportunity to answer each question about the SEL program, if they desired. Space for discussion among the participants themselves was also encouraged. The evaluator contributed structure to the focus groups with follow-up questions and verbal and physical signals (Stone & Lemanek, 1990). Each focus group lasted about 30 minutes.

Data Analysis

The transcribed focus group interviews were analyzed with thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke (2006), focusing on both latent and semantic themes regarding the students’ perceptions of the program. A spreadsheet was used to organize the data and analysis. The transcriptions were first examined repeatedly to identify patterns; next, initial codes were created for the smallest meaningful parts of the text. The codes were then combined to create themes and subthemes; these were revised after further review by both authors and note was given to frequency and intensity. The themes were then evaluated to determine which of them helped to create an understanding of children’s experiences of SEL program participation and give indications of intervention acceptability.

Results

In the following sections, we describe the themes in children’s perspectives on participation in a school-based SEL program.

Students as a Problem

It emerged very frequently and with high intensity in all the focus groups that the students believed that the reason for the school’s implementation of the SEL program was that their classes were rowdy and unruly. Nearly all students voiced this view, largely in strong terms; there were no objections offered to this perspective. Some students in third grade responded to the question “Why does your school have you take Life Skills Training?” in the following way:

Student A: “I know! Because we fight and argue so much.”

Student B: “So that we’ll be nice.”

The program’s social workers’ additional contact with selected students in small groups and individually to address behavioral issues that occurred in the classroom or SEL program further confirmed the students’ perception that contact with the program staff had its origin in undesirable social behavior and that the program staff’s function was to help students improve their behavior: “There’s arguing in class and they [the SEL program staff] get to talk to the girls. They’re enemies and then friends again,” said Student C, a boy, in third grade. The students’ accounts of what they learned in the SEL program were also in line with the theme of students as a problem. A girl in second grade, Student D, described that she learned about friendship, specifically “being kind to friends, and not hitting or teasing anymore.” A boy in the same grade, Student E, said that he had learned “not to argue and not to hit and to help others who fall down.”

A prominent part of the intervention was the instructional stories read by the SEL program staff that described social situations or issues; these were read and reviewed with the intention to, according to the curriculum, promote self-reflection and discussion. Some children explicitly made a connection between the stories and the perception of the SEL program’s aims to address the students’ behavior: “[They read the stories] so we can maybe do what they did in the story,” said a boy in third grade, Student F. The students perceived the SEL program and its activities and staff as tools for addressing and changing problematic behavior in the classroom.

Predictability

The SEL program’s similar structure each week was another theme that emerged from the focus groups; this topic was mentioned with high frequency and intensity, with the majority of students strongly expressing this view. A boy from second grade, Student G, described the SEL program as occurring in a similar way each time: “We say the best and the worst and then we also talk about something, then they [the SEL program staff] read a story, and then we answer questions. Always.” That each session of the SEL program had similar structure and activities was experienced negatively by some students: “It’s boring in Life Skills because in our other class we can do different kinds of things” (Student C). Some students also reported negative perspectives on the repetition of disliked activities. A boy from second grade, Student H, said, “You just learn to sit and listen to the stories.” However, other students reported that they liked the SEL program’s activities; as one girl in third grade, Student I, related, “I like Life Skills because we do fun things in it.” Regardless of whether the child’s view was positive or negative, a notable element of program participation was that the students knew what they could expect because of its high level of consistency in structure and activities.

Discomfort with Personal Themes in the School Setting

The focus groups revealed that students (just over half of participants, in explicit or more hedged vocalizations) experienced the themes and topics of the SEL program to be, at times, uncomfortable or puzzling to discuss in school-based group settings. Intervention themes or activities were described as “strange,” and some students seemed to question their place in what they had been told was a regular academic class. As one girl, Student J (third grade), put it, “I don’t know why we were supposed to talk about private topics so much. It wasn’t like a regular class.” Student K, a boy in second grade, noted that “Sometimes I don’t want to talk about feelings and problems; I want to learn or play or something.” Such statements indicate discomfort with the SEL’s program focus on social and emotional issues and also some questioning of its place during school, among the usual activities of the school day.

Differing Attitudes Related to Group Behavioral Patterns

The final theme that emerged relates to the interaction and different dynamics that occur in group settings and the related differing experiences to the program, resulting in two mirrored subthemes: “The SEL program as better than the regular classroom” and “The regular classroom as better than the SEL program.” The focus groups included mixes of students from different classes from the same grade (for example, 3A, 3B, and 3C students mixed together). However, the SEL program’s sessions took place according to individual classes in half-class form (for example, half of 3A only), and our results indicate that the various half-class groups had differing attitudes about the SEL program. These attitudes were either strongly positive or strongly negative; indeed, the focus groups did not reveal any neutral attitudes. The prevailing group dynamics and behavior had a relationship with students’ attitudes to the program. Two students (Students L and M) in second grade compared the environment of the Life Skills program with their regular classroom in this manner:

Student L: When we are in classroom, everybody yells really loud, but not in Life Skills.

Student M: I would say, like, the same thing. Too much talking. But in Life Skills . . . we listen to [the SEL program staff]. It’s nicer.

About half of the students, however, such as Students I, N, and O in third grade, experienced the opposite when they discussed the Life Skills sessions.

Student N: A little noisy. It’s noisy in [the SEL program].

Student I: That’s the worst. It’s not very fun to be there.

Student O: They run around and cause trouble.

When the environment of the SEL program was felt to be generally calmer or more enjoyable than other school activities because of the behavior of group members, attitudes toward it were more positive. Groups with more problematic behavior during the SEL program compared with the regular classroom had more negative attitudes toward the program. The SEL program was thus experienced quite differently as the dominant atmosphere in each group differed.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to elicit elementary students’ experiences of and perspectives on a school-based SEL program known as Life Skills Training, a common school-based program in Sweden (Alteryd & Alteryd, 2010). Taken together, the results indicate a questionable view of program acceptability in the children’s experience. Students had a clear perspective on the SEL program’s purpose—to change the problematic behavior of the students in their classes; program staff contact was seen as a result of behavioral issues. The SEL program’s consistent approach and procedure was experienced both negatively and positively, whereas the program’s weekly focus on personal topics in a school setting was often perceived as inappropriate. Attitudes were either strongly negative or strongly positive and seemed to relate to the behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics of individual groups and also to the implementation practices and curriculuar elements used in the SEL program.

That the students had such a clear perception of the program as grounded in problematic behavior is possibly related to how program staff frequently worked with individual or smaller groups of students outside regular program sessions in what was evidently an obvious response to such behavior; this was an implementation practice grounded in the curriculum to provide more targeted interventions at the individual and small group level. However, as children are affected by the attitudes they perceive adults to have about them (Harter, 1993), this perception may have had negative consequences for the students’ self-image. On a related note, many child participants reported a clear idea that the aim of the SEL program was to change their behavior, not just to teach them things. Much has been written about behavioral change among schoolchildren and how different consequences for behaviors, both negative and positive, affect children (Bacon, 1990; Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Maag, 2001; Wielkiewicz, 1995). If children perceived the program implementation essentially as a criticism, it may have affected their attitudes toward the SEL program. Notably, our study did not find that the students believed the SEL program to have much “effect” on them, whether negative or positive. This could relate to their perception of and attitude toward the program. The children described the SEL program as structured and predictable to a higher degree than other school activities (for example, classroom instruction, music class), and some students experienced this consistency—or repetitiveness—negatively, also possibly affecting engagement. A more bottom-up, collaborative approach to implementing the program (for example, responding to student feedback about experience), clarity in staff roles (for example, seeing program staff as teachers or as interventionists), and a different approach to providing targeted interventions to selected students (for example, making the program less obviously tied to instances of problematic behavior) could have more successfully affected children’s perceptions of, engagement with, and the overall acceptability of the intervention (Kielty, Gilligan, Staton, & Curtis, 2017; Low et al., 2016).

Despite implementation consistency, these children experienced the SEL program very differently. Their varied attitudes to the program—strongly negative or strongly positive—seemed to relate, at least in part, to the specific half-class groups they were in and the differing group behaviors displayed in relation to the regular classroom environment. It has been shown that children’s group behavior can differ greatly depending on the norms that dominate within the group dynamic (Nesdale & Lawson, 2011; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). This study found that behavioral norms in the SEL program groups differed greatly, and this could help to explain why the attitudes about the program varied to such a large degree between strongly positive and strongly negative. The varying responses to the program could also relate to the rather diverse student population; it has been indicated that SEL programs grounded in Western culture may not be appropriate for diverse groups such as in the present study (CASEL, 2013). The social environment during the program sessions clearly was varied, something that could also possibly be related to implementation practices or program staff professional development needs (CASEL, 2013).

The implementation of SEL programs such as Life Skills Training as a regularly scheduled school subject has increased in Swedish schools during the last decade but has also been the subject of criticism such as, for example, that the method ought to be based on research that is relevant for the school’s pedagogical practice (Löf, 2011) or that it enforces norms that diminish student expression (Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg, & Hultin, 2014). Other implementations of this and similar programs have been criticized by the Swedish National Agency for Education and the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden for both their content and their structure. The criticism has related to the programs for their being mandatory, as this one was, despite the fact that sensitive subjects such as family structure and personal feelings are brought up; this has also been noted by other work that has considered a school-based focus on therapeutically discussing emotions as potentially problematic (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2008). This concern was echoed by the children themselves in this study, especially in relation to the SEL program’s being understood as a regular school class. Furthermore, programs such as these take time from education in the regular school subjects, and evidence for positive effects of this and similar programs have not always been found (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2010). Life Skills Training in particular has been thought possibly to promote the occurrence of bullying or abusive behavior (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2011).

However, many of these criticisms have been directed toward programs that were not conducted in smaller groups under the guidance of trained social workers, which was the case of the SEL program examined in this study (although the specific curriculum was new to the staff), and therefore some of the problem areas noted by, for example, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate may have been forestalled. It is worth considering, however, that had the students’ regular teachers instructed the SEL program, perhaps the students’ perception of it as a special activity based on a special need would not have been as strong. Despite this, the study indicates that several of the criticisms about SEL programs such as this one may be mirrored in the participant children’s perspectives such as, for example, the students’ negative perception of the program’s purpose and the lack of clarity about how the SEL program related to the school setting as they were encouraged to discuss private topics in the presence of schoolmates (Löf, 2011). The children’s somewhat problematic perceptions and experiences of aspects of the SEL program’s staff, activities, and environments—and effects—seem to indicate a low level of intervention acceptability and engagement and a seeming mismatch between program intent (focus on prosocial behavior) and student experience (focus on negative behavior).

Limitations

Focus groups are a limiting method as discussions can be affected by participants’ social interactions and contexts (Hollander, 2004), which must be considered in interpreting the findings; the results are limited in their generalizability given the methodology. Themes found in data analysis were not systematically validated by independent researchers, possibly limiting the findings ( Jonsen & Jehn, 2009). Faithfulness to the SEL curriculum itself was high, but this was complicated by implementation practices intended to provide targeted support that may have given program staff efforts a negative connotation in the eyes of the children and seemed to have played a large role in the students’ overall experience of and perspective on the SEL program. This is a major limitation regarding the SEL program studied; quality implementation is key (Osher et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2017), for example, in regard to intervention planning and design and staff preparation (CASEL, 2013). Furthermore, the data suggest that the SEL program in this study, Life Skills Training, which has not been extensively validated quantitatively and is somewhat specific to the Swedish context, faced implementation challenges in balancing interventions at the individual, small group, and half-class levels, limiting the generalizability of this study’s findings.

Recommendations for Future Work

This study suggests several possible areas of further investigation regarding the implementation of school-based SEL programs and issues around taking into account children’s experiences of them to address program acceptability, such as how to achieve coherence in program focus and program activities. The study also raises questions of accountability in regard to program delivery; future work could focus further on how programs are received and what intended and unintended effects come into the picture. Program acceptability was perhaps complicated by a mismatch between program goals and program implementation; further review of effective elements of staff preparation and intervention planning is recommended, and this can also relate to addressing group dynamics. The presenting of SEL as an obligatory, regular class when it is not part of the curriculum, and including emotionally vulnerable components, leads to questions of consent and appropriateness for the school environment that are important to consider further in program planning, implementation, and greater school policy. Program developers may additionally want to consider how consistency in program delivery can be experienced negatively in that participants can find it repetitious or feel that their perspectives are not being taken into account. Finally, the child participants in the school, program, and study had very diverse backgrounds, and Western SEL practices may not be adequate in such cases (CASEL, 2013); further research is encouraged regarding how SEL programs can be implemented in various cultural contexts and with diverse groups, ideally with a focus on acceptability and participant perspectives.

Conclusion

This study illuminates aspects of elementary students’ perspectives and experiences of participation in a school-based SEL program used in Sweden. Our findings indicate issues with the acceptability of this SEL program as implemented, seemingly related to implementation practices that promoted the perception that students were made to participate in it as a consequence of problematic behavior. This may have had negative consequences for children’s self-image and attitude toward the program and demonstrates the importance of staff preparation and coherence in implementation. The study also reveals how the faithfulness in implementation of this regimented, structured SEL program was experienced as predictable and repetitive—not always in a positive way, and possibly to the detriment of student engagement. This study further gives an example of how group dynamics can affect students’ experiences of and therefore attitudes toward an SEL program. Students’ potential discomfort with private topics being discussed in the school setting in this program was also revealed by the study, an important concern with implications for the delivery of this program, and perhaps SEL programs and school practice and policy more broadly. Last, this study raises questions about the appropriateness of certain SEL program elements or practices in the school setting or as a permanent curricular element and additionally suggests that student diversity should be taken into account in the design and implementation of such programs.

Eva Medin, MA, is coordinator and Göran Jutengren, PhD, is associate professor, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden. Address correspondence to Eva Medin, Högskolan i Borås, Borås, Sweden 50190; e-mail: [email protected]. The authors thank the Public Health Agency of Sweden for funding this work under the grant Projects for New Knowledge on Support to Children 2012–2015.

References