More than two decades of literature document the potential for social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions to improve short- and longer-term social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes as well as overall well-being. Across the SEL intervention literature (and beyond), outcomes are more robust when interventions are implemented with the expected dosage (e.g., frequency and duration) and fidelity (i.e., quality).
Vast amounts of research underscore the importance of implementation in SEL interventions, but it is rarely the primary focus in the papers published about SEL and is typically not included in sufficient detail. However, we hypothesize that some of what is relatively equivocal in research on SEL programs can be addressed by understanding implementation with greater precision and depth. Below we raise a number of questions that we invite submissions to address:
• What approaches to conceptualizing implementation exist beyond dosage and fidelity?
• What approaches exist for capturing implementation that is feasible and increase the quality and quantity of collected implementation data and/or that have the potential for scale?
• What are the thresholds of implementation required to improve children’s outcomes? How much is needed on the low end? On the high end?
• What are the tradeoffs of implementation quality versus quantity?
• What patterns of implementation exist across the developmental stage, setting, and program type? What are predictors of the variability of implementation within and across schools?
• How do professional development opportunities (e.g., training, and coaching) influence program implementation and student outcomes?
• How do we reconcile the need to adapt interventions to meet the needs of students and classrooms with the emphasis on fidelity?
• What do cross-cutting and persistent patterns of implementation (dosage and fidelity) suggest about potential changes required to program design, delivery expectations, and pre-implementation training?
We welcome quantitative and qualitative Original Research and Methods (e.g., proposing new ways of capturing and analyzing implementation data), and may also include Systematic Reviews.
More than two decades of literature document the potential for social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions to improve short- and longer-term social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes as well as overall well-being. Across the SEL intervention literature (and beyond), outcomes are more robust when interventions are implemented with the expected dosage (e.g., frequency and duration) and fidelity (i.e., quality).
Vast amounts of research underscore the importance of implementation in SEL interventions, but it is rarely the primary focus in the papers published about SEL and is typically not included in sufficient detail. However, we hypothesize that some of what is relatively equivocal in research on SEL programs can be addressed by understanding implementation with greater precision and depth. Below we raise a number of questions that we invite submissions to address:
• What approaches to conceptualizing implementation exist beyond dosage and fidelity?
• What approaches exist for capturing implementation that is feasible and increase the quality and quantity of collected implementation data and/or that have the potential for scale?
• What are the thresholds of implementation required to improve children’s outcomes? How much is needed on the low end? On the high end?
• What are the tradeoffs of implementation quality versus quantity?
• What patterns of implementation exist across the developmental stage, setting, and program type? What are predictors of the variability of implementation within and across schools?
• How do professional development opportunities (e.g., training, and coaching) influence program implementation and student outcomes?
• How do we reconcile the need to adapt interventions to meet the needs of students and classrooms with the emphasis on fidelity?
• What do cross-cutting and persistent patterns of implementation (dosage and fidelity) suggest about potential changes required to program design, delivery expectations, and pre-implementation training?
We welcome quantitative and qualitative Original Research and Methods (e.g., proposing new ways of capturing and analyzing implementation data), and may also include Systematic Reviews.