Evaluating the Impact of “COOL TO BE ME” on Social and Emotional Competence within a South African Primary School Setting

Judith Stevenson

June 2016

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree ofMasters in Applied Psychology

University of Liverpool

Declaration

No portion of this work has been submitted in support of an application, for degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning. Signature: Judith A Stevenson

Abstract

Social emotional learning (SEL), grounded in the field of positive psychology, is based on the premise that the best learning takes place within the context of supportive relationships; making learning challenging, interesting and meaningful (Zins & Elias, 2006). With an underlying social constructivist epistemology, SEL advocates a more holistic approach to education with theoretical underpinnings from social, behavioural and biological sciences. This study examines the impact of COOL TO BE ME (CTBM) on Social and Emotional Competencies (SEC) within a South African Primary School setting.

Employing a quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design, pre and post intervention Social Emotional Competency (SEC) scores were collected from 279 Grade 1-3 students attending a multi-cultural primary school in Western Cape, South Africa. Data were collected using the teachers’ version of Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) at two points in time (time 1: pre CTBM intervention, time 2: post CTBM intervention). The effect of age on the CTBM programme and SEC scores was also examined. The results revealed significant differences in SEC pre and post intervention for all scales as well as overall SEC scores. However, age did not have a significant effect on SEC scores after the intervention.

CTBM appears to be effective in developing social emotional competency in Grade 1-3 primary school children, both supporting and extending recent research on the positive impact of classroom-based SEL programmes on primary school students’ social emotional development. The non-significant effect of CTBM on age reflects the normal social emotional developmental trajectory as well as demonstrating the robustness of the intervention. This study has major implications for educators and curriculum developers to integrate strength-based SEL programmes into all South African primary school curricular.

Key words: social emotional competence, intervention programme, social emotional learning, primary school students, DESSA.

i

Acknowledgements

The completion of this undertaking has been made possible by the assistance of many people whose names may not all be mentioned. Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged and sincerely appreciated. However, I would like to express my deepest thanks to the following:

The tutor team at University of Liverpool, particularly my dissertation advisor, Dr. Alexandra Pentaraki.

Linda Bruce, Director of Cool To Be Me and Bettina Marais, SEL Consulting, for allowing me the use of their data as secondary data.

The staff and pupils at the school from which the data were collected.

ii

List of Abbreviations

ANCOVA: Analysis of Covariance

ANOVA: Analysis of Variance

CTBM: Cool To Be Me Programme

DESSA: Devereux Student Strengths Assessment

DV: Dependent Variable

ESL: English as a second language

IV: Independent Variable

NCS: National Curriculum Statement

SEL: Social Emotional Learning

SEC: Social Emotional Competence

iii

Table of Contents

Page number

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….iAcknowledgements…………………..……….....………………………………………...iiList of abbreviations…………………..………………………………………………….iiiTable of Contents…………..………………….………………………………………….iv

List of tables…..…………………….………………...……………………………….viiList of figures…..……..……………………………..…………………………..……viii

Chapter 1: 1.1. Introduction…………………….....……………………………………………….11.1.1 Social and Emotional Learning………………….……….………………………..11.1.2 SEL and Education………………………………………………………………..21.1.3 Education in South Africa…………………………………………………………41.1.4 Cool To Be Me (CTBM) Programme……………………………………………..51.2 Literature Review………………………….……………………………………....91.2.1 Social and Emotional Competence……………………………………………......91.2.2 Effectiveness of SEL Programmes……………....…………………………...….101.2.3 Social Emotional Competence and School Success………………..……………121.2.4 Emotions and Learning……………………………………………………….….131.2.5 Socio-political changes and socio-economic development……………………...161.26. Reducing Educational Disparities………………………………………………..181.2.7 Aims and Objectives……………………………………………………………..19

Chapter 2:Methods…………………………………………….…..…….…………………..21

2.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………….212.1.1 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria………………………………………………..……222.1.2 Sample Size………………………………………………………………………222.2 Study Design……………………………………………………………………..232.3 Procedure…………………………………………………………………...……232.4 Materials…………………………………………………………...…………….242.4.1 Intervention Programme: Cool To Be Me (CTBM)……………………………..242.4.2 Measures: Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA)………………….272.5 Ethical Consideration…………………………………………………………….332.6 Statistical Analysis…………………………………………………………….....332.6.1 Linear Regression Analysis……………………………………………………...34

iv

Table of Contents (continued)

Page number

2.6.2 Repeated Measures Factorial Design……………………………………………342.6.3 Paired Samples t-Test……………………………………………………………342.6.4 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)…………………………………………….342.6.5 Examination of the Normal Distribution of Data………………………………..36

Chapter 3: Results………………..……………………………….…..……………………...41

3.1 Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………..413.2 Overall Findings………………………………………………………………….423.3 Linear Regression………………………………………………………………..453.4 Repeated Measures………………………………………………………………463.5 Univariate Analysis of Covariance………………………………………………483.6 Paired Sample t-tests……………………………………………………………..493.7 Independent t-tests……………………………………………………………….53

Chapter 4: 4.1 Discussion…………………….………………………………………………….544.2 Clinical Significance……………………………………………………………..564.3 Evidence-based Programme……………………………………………………...574.4 Intervention Implementation and Fidelity……………………………………….584.5 Cultural Considerations………………………………………………………….584.6 Universal Implementation………………………………………………………..594.7 Recommendations to Educators………………………………………………….604.7.1 Grade Differences…………………………………………………………...…...614.8 Limitations…………………………………………………………………...…..634.9 Recommendations for Future Studies……………………………………………634.9.1 Gender Effects…………………………………………………………………...634.9.2 Academic Achievement and Cognitive Ability………………………………….644.9.3 Longitudinal Studies……………………………………………………………..654.9.4 Social Validity…………………………………………………………………...664.10 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….67

References………………………………………………………………………………..70

v

Table of Contents (continued)

Page number

Appendices:

Appendix A Letter of Permission from “Cool To Be Me”……………………………79

Appendix B UoL Ethical Approval Form……………………………………………..80

Appendix C Final Dissertation Proposal………………………………………………93

Appendix D Data Output from SPSS………………………………………………...107

vi

List of Tables

Page Number

Table 1.1 Key SEL Competencies…………………………………………………..7

Table 1.2 COOL TO BE ME Programme Objectives………………………………8

Table 2.1 Overview of COOL TO ME Curriculum Grades 1-3………………...….23

Table 2.2 DESSA Scale Names, Definitions and Sample Scale Items…………….28

Table 2.3 Descriptive Categories and Interpretation of DESSA T-Scores……...….30

Table 2.4 Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normal Data distribution………………………..43

Table 3.1 Pre and Post Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores (SEC) According to Grade Level and Gender…………………………………..44

Table 3.2 Analysis of Covariance for Post CTBM SEC Scores by Grade Level…………………………………………………………...52

Table 3.3 Results of Paired Sample t-test on subscales of Social Emotional Composite……………………………………………..53

vii

List of Figures

Page Number

Figure 2.1 Relationship of DESSA T-Scores, Percentile Scores, Normal Curve………………………………………...36

Figure 2.2(a) Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 1 with untransformed data…………………………………….40

Figure 2.2(b) Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 1 with transformed data……………………………………….40

Figure 2.3(a) Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 2 with untransformed data………………………………...…..41

Figure 2.3(b) Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 2 with transformed data……………………………………….41

Figure 2.4(a): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 3 with untransformed data…………………………………….42

Figure 2.4(b): Pre Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 3 with transformed data……………………………………….42

Figure 3.1 Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive CategoryImprovements in Grade 1………………………………………………..47

Figure 3.1 Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive CategoryImprovements in Grade 2………………………………………………..47

Figure 3.1 Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive CategoryImprovements in Grade 3………………………………………………..48

Figure 3.2(a) Graph illustrating the SEC mean score for boys according to Grade level (Time 1 – pre CTBM, Time 2 – post CTBM)…………...50

Figure 3.2(b) Graph illustrating the SEC mean score for girls according to Grade level (Time 1 – pre CTBM, Time 2 – post CTBM)…………...50

Figure 3.3(a) Grade 1 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite ……………………………………………54

viii

List of Figures

Page Number

Figure 3.3(b) Grade 2 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite…………………………………………….54

Figure 3.3(c) Grade 3 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite……………………………………………..55

Figure 4.1 Evidence-based SEL intervention programming pathways to overall success in school and across the lifespan…………………..…61

ix

Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction

Undoubtedly education is one of the top global priorities. There is increasing

recognition that preparing students for success in life entails a comprehensive, balanced

education that not only guarantees the mastering of basic academic skills, but also

prepares them to become responsible adults (Payton et al, 2008). As a social enterprise,

learning requires that students develop the skills needed to navigate interpersonal

relationships that occur during and for learning. In fact Elias (2006) asserts that in order

to encourage students to reach their full potential, schools must endeavor to meet the

social emotional developmental needs of their students.

To this effect, the past two decades have witnessed a rapid increase in school-

based social emotional learning (SEL) programmes. Empirical evidence suggests that

these programmes are effective not only with respect to mitigating problem behaviors

e.g., deliberate self-harm, substance abuse and violence, bullying and school refusal, but

also promoting social emotional competence and even enhancing academic achievement

(Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), 2013).

1.1.1 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)

The concept of SEL, grounded in the field of positive psychology, is based on the

premise that the best learning takes place within the context of supportive relationships

that make learning challenging, interesting and meaningful (Brackett & Rivers, 2014).

1

SEL is the process through which children effectively acquire and apply the knowledge,

attitudes and skills required to understand and cope with emotions, set and accomplish

positive goals, feel and demonstrate empathy for others, create and maintain positive

relationships, effectively handle interpersonal situations while developing responsible

decision-making skills (Zins & Elias, 2006). With an underlying social-constructivist

epistemology and theoretical underpinnings from social, behavioural and biological

sciences, SEL advocates for a holistic approach to education.

1.1.2 SEL and Education

Learning incorporates social, emotional as well as academic components, with

schools playing a central role in a child’s socialization while providing a safe

environment for learning and growth (Zins, Weissberg, Wang & Walberg, 2011).

Research on the benefits of school-based SEL programmes conducted by CASEL (2013)

demonstrate that students improve significantly with regard to social and emotional skills

including self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills and

responsible decision-making; attitudes towards self and others; classroom and social

behaviour; conduct issues within the classroom; managing emotional distress and

improvements in academic achievement. Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and

Schellinger (2011) conducted a meta-analysis spanning 213 schools and found that,

compared with controls, students exposed to social and emotional learning (SEL)

demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, behaviour, attitude as

2

well as improved academic performance of 11-percentile-points. Other research has

shown that Grade 8-students’ academic achievement could be predicted by their Grade 3

social emotional competence (Caprara, Barnbanelli, Pastorelli, Bandura & Zimbardo,

2000), while students consistently learning SEL techniques such as self-awareness, self-

regulation, social skills and empathy scored higher on tests that required executive

functioning of the brain i.e. working memory, coordinating, inhibitory control,

monitoring, problem solving and reasoning. Executive functioning abilities are more

strongly associated with school readiness and academic achievement throughout school,

with working memory and inhibitory control being important for reading acquisition as

well as predicting math competence in pre-schoolers (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas &

Munro, 2007). Evidence also suggests the neurological basis for social emotional

competence is as convincing as for mathematical and linguistic competencies (Bar On,

Tranel, Denberg & Bechara, 2003).

Despite this, current high-stakes testing are placing schools under increasing

pressure to improve academic performance, often to the detriment of students’ social and

emotional wellbeing. According to many researchers, this limited focus of formal

education on cognition not only undermines creativity (Kirk, Gallagher, Coleman &

Anastasiow, 2012; Zhao, 2009; Robinson, 2010) and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,

2000), but also does not adequately prepare children for the changeable future that they

are bound to encounter. With the rapid advances in technology, social media and

globalization, social emotional competencies are becoming even more important to deal

3

with life’s adversities and adapting to constantly changing circumstances (Weissberg,

Kumpfer & Seligman, 2003).

1.1.3 Education in South Africa

South Africa’s turbulent history affected not only the political, social and

economic aspects of its people, but their educational status too. During the apartheid era

(1948-1994), education was split according to race (van Alphen, 2013). Those classified

as white received the best education, Asians and ‘Coloureds’ (persons of mixed

European, African and Asian ancestry) lesser so, while the majority (96%) classified as

Black received a very poor education. Although much progress has been made in the 21

years since Apartheid ended with regard to universal access to education, inequalities in

South African education system still exist due to poverty, the social situation and teacher

development.

Van Alphen (2013) proposes that one way to resolve this issue is to restore human

values beginning with the wellbeing of children. This concept is supported by Spitzer and

Aronson’s (2015) review of social emotional interventions whereby reducing gaps in

achievement were addressed by helping students cope with threats to their identity that

were impairing intellectual performance and motivation, rather than by attempting to alter

the structural barriers, many of which are insurmountable. In 1997, the Department of

Education introduced Life Skills into the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) as a

4

sincere attempt to facilitate students’ personal development (Department of Basic

Education, 2011) However, while this provides what is required to be covered to achieve

this, many educators are insufficiently trained in how to incorporate this into their

lessons. SEL intervention programmes, such as Cool To Be Me (CTBM), can provide the

necessary training and resources to assist educators in helping develop students’ social

emotional competencies.

1.1.4. COOL TO BE ME Programme (CTBM)

Cool To Be Me, (hereafter referred to as ‘CTBM’), a South African-developed

SEL intervention programme, was developed for children aged 6-13 (Grades 1-7) to

support the current curriculum of Life Skills taught in South African schools. A universal

manualized user-friendly early intervention programme, CTBM enables students to

develop the skills, behaviours and attitudes necessary to manage their social, emotional

and cognitive behaviour (Bruce & Cohen, 2012). CASEL (2005) suggests that five

interrelated sets of cognitive, affective and behavioural core competencies provide a

foundation for better school adjustment and academic achievement (please see Table

1.1). CTBM programme objectives are well aligned with these key competencies as

illustrated in Table 1.2. Although designed for use as a * universal intervention, CTBM

also provides home-based SEL programmes for children aged 5-10 to facilitate a child’s

social and emotional wellbeing both at home and at school.

5

* Universal interventions involve whole population groups while selective/targeted

interventions relate to those individuals who are at risk of developing psychological

disorders and indicated interventions are for those who are already displaying mild to

moderate symptoms of a disorder (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994).

6

Table 1.1: Key SEL Competencies

Core SEL Skills Descriptions

Self Awareness Identifying and recognizing emotions

Accurate self-perception

Recognizing strengths, needs and values

Self-efficacy

Social Awareness Perspective taking

Empathy

Appreciating diversity

Respect for others

Relationship

Management

Communication, social engagement and building

relationships

Working cooperatively

Negotiation, refusal and conflict management

Helping, seeking and providing

Responsible Decision

Making

Problem identification and situation analysis

Problem solving

Evaluation and reflection

Personal, moral and ethical responsibility

Source: Personal, moral, and ethical responsibility From Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M.R., Weissberg & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg., H. J. (Eds). Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning. NY: Teachers College Press

7

Table 1.2 COOL TO BE ME Programme Objectives:

Core Objective: to support teaching in covering the more challenging aspects of Life

Skills subject that guide a student to:

Develop resilient and positive self-esteem

Develop self-worth and the desire to contribute to society

Develop a respect and appreciation for diversity and the tendency towards

respectful behaviour

Develop the ability to make conscious choices by giving careful consideration

to the impact their choices will have on themselves and the people, animals

and environment around them

Develop the ability to be self-motivated

Develop the ability to be responsible and accountable

Develop the ability for creative and innovative thought and action

Develop the ability to become a productive and positive citizen

Develop the ability to harness their personal potential and thrive in a

challenging world

Source: COOL TO BE ME Facilitator’s Manual (2012) page 4/5 by Bruce and Cohen, 2012, Hout Bay, Cape Town, South Africa.

8

1.2 Literature Review

1.2.1 Social Emotional Competence

Schools play a central role in a child’s socialization while providing a safe

environment for learning and growth (Zins et al 2011). The recognition that social

emotional competence provides a foundation for better adjustment and academic success

has resulted a plethora of school-based universal, selected and indicated intervention SEL

programmes. Empirical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of SEL programmes

in a number of countries; not only with respect reducing or preventing many problem

behaviors, but also to promoting students’ social-emotional competencies and positive

attitudes - ultimately leading to improved adjustment and improved academic

performance (CASEL, 2013). Hitherto, there have been very few conducted within the

South African context, an issue which this research aims to address.

Moreover, traditionally most SEL interventions have focused on dealing with

remedial issues or reduction of risk factors. Researchers argue that this approach fails to

engage the motivations of the youth and does not address the complex personal and social

antecedents of these problem behaviours. The burgeoning field of positive psychology

demonstrates that many societal problems could be prevented with interventions focusing

on developing social and emotional competencies (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak &

Hawkins, 2002). South Africa is no exception. Of the few studies conducted in South

Africa, most interventions focus on addressing problems such as anxiety (Mostert &

Loxton, 2008), substance abuse (Resnicow et al 2008), sexual behaviour (Magnani et al,

9

2005), crime and violence (van der Merwe, 2011) as outcome measures rather than

positive strength-based measures such as social emotional competency. This study serves

to address this dearth in the literature by employing a strength-based approach in

assessing the effectiveness of CTBM (as an universal SEL intervention) on social

emotional competence.

1.2.2 Effectiveness of SEL Programmes

Internationally, research has been conducted into a number of school-based

intervention programmes e.g. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

(Greenberg, Kische & Riggs, 2004; Sheard, Ross & Cheung, 2012), The Reading,

Writing, Respect and Resolution (4R) (Jones, Brown, & Aber 2011) and more

extensively “FRIENDS for Life” (Liddle & Macmillan, 2010; Pahl & Barrett, 2010;

Rodgers & Dunsmuit, 2015; Stallard, Simpson, Anderson & Goddard, 2008). Results of

these studies indicate that social and emotional learning moderates problem behaviour as

well as helping prepare students for life’s adversities and challenges.

Payton et al (2008) conducted a review on the impact of social and emotional

learning for K-8 grade students. The review of the universal school-based studies,

involving some 277,977 students, evaluated what skills, attitudes, behavior and academic

outcomes SEL programmes achieve; whether these effects endure of over time and the

features associated with effective SEL programmes. Findings suggest that these

10

programmes were effective across racially and ethnically diverse students and the K-8

grade range (although a large proportion of the studies reviewed did not report on

participants’ race-ethnicity or socio-economic background). The programmes not only

reduced students’ conduct behavior and emotional distress but also improved social

emotional competencies, school connectedness and attitude towards self and others.

Mean effect sizes for these outcomes ranged from 0.23 (reduced contact problems,

emotional distress and improved attitudes) to 0.60 (enhanced social-emotional skills).

Programmes that used evidenced-based practices (Sequenced instruction; Active

instructional methods; Focused on SEL skills and Explicit instruction on one or more

SEL competencies – S.A.F.E.) had greater effect sizes than those not adopting these

practices. An additional practical benefit was an improvement on students’ academic

performance of 11-17 percentile points, although caution needs to be exercised when

interpreting these results as only 16% of these studies measured academic achievement

post intervention. Moreover, only 15% assessed follow-up of effects of the programme at

6 months and as such, one cannot assume the durability of these SEL interventions. These

results were, however, further supported in the oft cited meta-analysis of 213 school-

based universal SEL programmes where Durlak et al (2011) demonstrate that, when

compared with controls, students participating in these programmes developed

significantly improved social and emotional competencies, behavior and attitude as well

an 11-percentile-point increase in academic achievement. This evidence suggests that

policy makers at local and government level could contribute to the healthy development

11

of students by encouraging the implementation of well-designed evidence-based SEL

programmes into all school curricular.

1.2.3 Social Emotional Competence and School Success

Caprara et al (2000) found that Grade 8-students academic achievement could be

predicted by knowing the social and emotional competence of the student in Grade 3.

These researchers conducted a longitudinal study on 294 Italian grade 3 students testing

pro and anti-social behaviour as predictors of peer relations and academic achievement 5

years on. Pro-social behaviour including cooperation, sharing, comforting and helping

others, while verbal and physical aggression were measures of anti-social behaviour.

Using structural equation modelling, the results indicated that pro-social behaviour had a

strong (positive) effect on students’ academic achievement and social preferences in

Grade 8 (coefficients of 0.57 and 0.55 respectively). Early aggression showed no

predictive value for academic achievement or social preference as demonstrated by

statistically nonsignificant coeffecients of -.10 and -.04 respectively. Interestingly,

additional analysis revealed that, after controlling for effects of early pro-social

behaviour, early academic success did not contribute to later academic achievement.

Similarly, Duckworth & Seligman (2005) found that, when compared with intelligence

quotient (IQ), self-discipline was a better predictor of final grades, school attendance and

standardized achievement test scores. The implication of these results being that SEL

programmes like CTBM, which develop pro-social behaviour in elementary students, will

positively affect future academic achievement and social preferences.

12

1.2.4 Emotions and Learning

While emotions in education were previously considered peripheral to the learning

process, recent research suggests that emotional intelligence (EI) is a key component of

education (Elias, 2004). Elberston, Brackett and Weissberg (2010) suggest that emotions

influence learning because emotions impact students’ perception, attention and

motivation. Recent developments in neuroimaging and brain research appear to support

this notion (Albin, 2008; Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007, Yurgelun-Todd, 2007). A

number of studies reveal a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and

academic achievement (Carthy & McGilloway, 2015; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005,

Fatum, 2008), although critics argue whether in fact EI is measurable in any valid way

and whether it can predict performance (Dasborough, 2004; Murphy, 2006). Humphrey,

Curran, Morris, Farrell & Woods (2004) caution that this notion of facilitating emotional

intelligence (EI) to improve students’ academic achievement may be premature, quoting

Barchard (2003) as saying: “EI is not the panacea that some writers claim” (as cited on

pg. 249). However, other research illustrates that emotions affect how and what children

learn, with unchecked emotions raising stress levels in an individual (Medina 2008). The

brain’s response to stress is linked to amygdala functioning, essentially an information

filter regulated by our emotional state. When we are calm, the filter is wide-open

allowing information to flow to the prefrontal cortex where executive functioning takes

place. Conversely, when stressed the amygdala effectively ‘highjacks’ learning by

inhibiting the flow of information to the prefrontal cortex for executive processing

(Diamond, 2014). Therefore, without developing social emotional competencies, we are

13

in effect impeding the potential of our students’ capacity to grow and learn. Whilst still in

a nascent stage, emerging evidence suggests that positive emotions and pro-social

behaviour is fundamental to a student’s school success and social emotional competence

(Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). Socially and academically, students who learn these

skills are better equipped to deal with life’s adversities and adapt to constantly changing

circumstances (Durlak et al 2011).

Consistent with this research, Ogundokun and Adeyemo (2010) conducted an

African study on emotional intelligence and academic achievement on 1563 secondary

school students (males = 826), using moderating effects of age as well as intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation. In addition to demographic data (age, gender, school type and

class), participants completed 2 self-report measures i.e. Emotional Intelligence

Behaviour Inventory (EQBI) and Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Scale (IEMS).

Achievement was measured using Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) and English

Language Achievement Test (ELAT). Hierarchical regression analysis of data applying

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations coefficient, demonstrated that emotional

intelligence was the strongest predictor of academic achievement, accounting for 54.2%

of the variance (β=.859, t=27.491, p<0.05). Limitations of this study were that the sample

was Nigerian secondary school students thus limiting its generalizability. Furthermore,

the use of self-report measures invites social desirability bias (Fischer & Fick, 1993).

Despite this, the results do strongly indicate emotional intelligence to be a mediator in

academic achievement.

14

Within the South African context, Van der Merwe (2011, 2012) investigated the

relationship between emotional intelligence and learners’ violent behavior in school and

sought to determine whether social emotional competencies can be acquired within the

complex school environment and whether EI, as an intervention, could be used to prevent

disciplinary problems and correct students’ misbehavior. In the former action research,

the participants were four teachers of four grade 9 (age 14-15) classes (each class had 30-

45 learners) from Tshwane, northern Gauteng Province, South Africa. The objectives

here were to determine whether there was a connection between learner conduct and the

teacher’s EI teaching methods and to evaluate the impact of school management practices

on learner’s behaviour. After qualitative analysis of the data, the researcher suggested

that an EI intervention strategy was more effective than punishment in maintaining a

positive behavior culture and reducing violence. Another recommendation in

implementing programmes against violence and crime was to focus on developing inter

and intrapersonal skills i.e. social emotional competency. In the later study, recruiting

120 participants from Grade 9 students, pre and post SEL intervention evaluation of

social emotional skills were taken with results showing an increase in the learners EI

consciousness. The author concluded that a school-based social emotional intervention

programme with a focus of increasing EI in students should be used as a strategy to

prevent violence and crime in schools. The implication for educators and curriculum

developers therefore is the need to incorporate emotional intelligence into school

curricular.

15

1.2.5 Socio-political changes and socio-emotional development

Although Garner, Mahatmya, Brown and Vesely (2014) maintain that

sociocultural characteristics need to be taken into account when developing SEL

programmes, the majority of published studies have been conducted in Western countries

or using translated versions of SEL interventions developed for Western populations

(Gallegos, Ruvalcaba, Garza & Villega, 2012; Pereira, Marques, Russo & Barros, 2014).

Besides, whilst diversity has been addressed in studies included the CASEL report, these

are mainly American based (i.e. Caucasian American, African American and Latino

American), thus indicating a gap in the literature, particularly for South Africa’s

“Rainbow Nation”. CTBM, as a locally developed SEL intervention, addresses these

sociocultural issues supporting the current South African curriculum of Life Skills in

facilitating students’ personal development and developing their social emotional

competence.

South African children, growing up in post-apartheid turmoil incorporating major

political, social and economic changes, face a myriad of risk factors for developing

psychosocial problems (Poggenpoel & Myburg, 2007). Poverty, familial conflict,

exposure to high levels of community violence, coupled with educational stressors such

as inadequately trained teachers, poor resources and lack of support services, place these

children at an increased risk for emotional, social and behavioural problems (de Villiers

& van der Berg, 2012, van der Berg et al 2011). It is not surprising then that the

prevalence of childhood anxiety in South Africa is reportedly significantly higher than

16

other countries with 22-25.6% of children aged 7-13 experiencing symptoms of anxiety

(Perold, 2001). Other studies suggest that those with lower socio-economic status (SES)

have significantly more anxiety symptoms than those with higher SES, while Black and

Coloured children experienced significantly more childhood fears and anxiety symptoms

than white children (Mostert & Loxton, 2008). With this in mind, FRIENDS for Life, an

effective anxiety prevention and early intervention programme was translated into

Afrikaans for the sample of Grade 6 (12-13 year olds) Coloured students from a lower

socioeconomic background. Adopting a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent waitlist

control group design, Mostert and Loxton’s study demonstrated little statistically

significant effect on anxiety directly post-intervention (p = .08) although longer-term (4

and 6 months) the effects were significant ((p = .0). This could suggest that as the

students become more proficient at using the skills they were taught, they become more

effective in reducing their anxiety. As in many other studies, these researchers used the

standardized Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) which was has been successfully

translated into Afrikaans. Aside from the usual limitations of self-report measures, more

objective screening methods could be used and the fidelity of the study improved upon

(parental and booster sessions were excluded). Cultural norms and values, school

systems, ethnic and socioeconomic differences all contribute to the effectiveness of the

programme between countries (Kösters et al, 2012). Thus, caution needs to be exercised

when interpreting results from a convenience sample, within South Africa’s unique socio-

politico-economic context. The current study aims to address this limitation as

participants are from a multi-cultural demographic.

17

1.2.6 Reducing Educational Disparities

The wounds caused by the denial of quality education during the Apartheid era

still bear scars, which manifest in current achievement inequalities (Biko, 2012).

Although, van der Berg et al (2011) suggest that education can play a key role in

transforming structural disparity and unequal power relations, these barriers can appear

formidable and insurmountable. Perhaps, as van Alphen (2013) suggests, we can resolve

this issue by restoring human values, starting with the wellbeing of our students?

In a review of social psychological interventions, Spitzer & Aronson’s (2015)

illustrate that oftentimes, achievement gaps involve pycho-social issues such as threats to

social identity or sense of belonging. Interventions in this review, which are closely

aligned with CTBM content, included cooperative learning, growth mindsets, emotional

reappraisal, meditation, self-affirmation, belongingness, imagining possible selves and

role models. The results from this study indicated that these interventions not only

ameliorated threats to identity, but also raised achievement. Changes to students’

perceptions of how they think about themselves and others can boost their achievement

(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Whilst not denying the importance of addressing structural and

cultural issues and policy changes, SEL intervention programmes can empower teachers

and students to make the most of unequal opportunities (Fergus, Noguera & Martin,

2014). However, despite their remarkable effects, these interventions are not a panacea

but merely reflect students’ educational experience within the social context.

18

With its diverse culture and unique socio-political history, South Africa

exemplifies the ecological notion that development, including social emotional

development, does not exist in a vacuum but is rooted within a broader socioeconomic

and cultural framework across the passage of time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). While there

have been a number of intervention programmes implemented in South African schools

to mitigate problem behaviours, there remains a dearth of literature on promoting social

and emotional competence, particularly within the primary school setting. Moreover,

research on the effects of the CTBM programme is almost nonexistent. Thus the current

study is intended to evaluate the impact of CTBM programme on social emotional

competencies of students attending a multi-racial primary school in South Africa. The

significance of this research is that it not only adds to the existing research base of SEL

research but also provides a new dimension in evaluating the impact of CTBM on social

emotional competency within a South African primary school setting.

1.2.7 Aims and Objectives

While there are increasing efforts to move toward preparing South African youth

to become healthy, well-balanced citizens, empirical evidence suggesting that the basic

social and emotional needs of our students are still not being met (Brackett & Rivers,

2014). Thus, hypothesis of the study is that, after the universal intervention of CTBM

programme, social emotional competency will improve significantly for all students. The

null hypothesis being that there will be no significant improvement on social emotional

19

competencies of students following the intervention programme. In so doing, it is hoped

that this research will provide a framework for identifying and recommending the

importance of social emotional learning and to implement this into the curricular of all

primary schools in South Africa.

20

Chapter 2

Methods

2.1 Participants

Purposeful secondary archival data was collected from a total of 295 students in

Grade 1-3 (152 boys, 143 girls) attending an English-medium multicultural former model

C* primary school in Western Cape, South Africa. Although data on race and ethnicity

was not collected for each individual, the racial demographic composition of the school

was 11% black, 36% coloured, 10% Indian/Asian and 43% white with a gender

composition of 51% female and 49% male. The principal and teachers agreed implement

CTBM as a universal SEL intervention programme with relevant training given to the

teachers implementing the programme. Participants from this sample were students

enrolled in Grade 1 (52% boys, 48% girls, average age: 7 years 6 months), Grade 2 (51%

boys, 49% girls, average age: 8 years 6 months) and Grade 3 (50.5% boys, 49.5% girls,

average age: 9 years 7 months). Please see table 3.1 for overview of descriptive statistics.

* Former Model C schools are government schools, partially administrated and funded by

parents, alumni and a governing body.

21

2.1.1 Inclusion/exclusion criteria:

Data from all Grade 1-3 students were included as CTBM was implemented as a

universal approach. Students who were older than Grade 3 were excluded from the study,

as were the post intervention scores from students who had left the school. In addition,

students with diagnosed learning and/or social-emotional disabilities were excluded.

2.1.2 Sample size

Using Survey Software, (http://www.surveysystem.com) with a 95% confidence

level and confidence interval of 6, the sample size needed is 267. The following formula

was used for this calculation:

ss =

Z2 * (p) * (1-p)

c2

With:

Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)

p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal

(.5 used for sample size needed)

22

c = confidence interval, expressed as decimal

(e.g., .06 = ±6)

2.2 Study Design

Whenever situational constraints prevent the use of experimental designs for

programme evaluation, quasi-experimental designs are commonly used (Graziano &

Raulin, 2004). Since this study employed a universal application of the intervention to all

students in Grade 1-3, this meant that there was no control group. As such a quasi-

experimental, repeated-measures design was employed with data from teacher-completed

Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) at two points in time: Time 1 – pre-

CTBM intervention; Time 2 – post-CTBM intervention.

2.3 Procedure

CTBM and SEL Consulting collected data for the purposes of establishing

baseline scores on students’ social emotional competencies as well as to assess the impact

of the intervention programme on students’ competencies and offered to share their data

with the researcher for the purposes of the study. Pre-intervention data was collected

from 295 students and 279 post-intervention (4% attrition rate).

Teachers completed the DESSA at two points in time: pre and post intervention.

Teachers reported on the frequency of a student’s behaviour on items comprising eight

subscales.

23

Trained classroom teachers implemented “COOL TO BE ME”, the SEL

intervention, universally i.e. to whole year groups (Grades 1-3) over a period of seven

months. The programme for each year comprises of 4 building blocks with 6-9 lessons

per block (please see table 2.1). Lesson plans provide practical tools for teachers and

parents to help students understand and manage their emotions. Data was collected by an

educational psychologist and, with permission from the school, passed on to the me as

secondary de-identified data. At no point did I have anything to do with the intervention

or collection of data.

2.4 Materials

2.4.1 The intervention programme: Cool to Be Me (CTBM)

Cool To Be Me (hereafter referred to as ‘CTBM’, a South African-developed SEL

intervention, was developed for children aged 6-13 (Grades 1-7) to support the current

curriculum of Life Skills taught in South African schools in order to develop students’

social and emotional competencies. A universal user-friendly early intervention

programme, CTBM enables students to develop the skills, behaviours and attitudes

necessary to manage their social, emotional and cognitive behaviour (Bruce & Cohen,

2012). CTBM programme objectives are well aligned with these key competencies

outlined by Zins et al (2004) i.e. self-awareness, social awareness, responsible decision-

making, self-management and relationship skills.

Building Blocks (Grade 1-3) supplement the Life Skills national curriculum (NCS, 2011)

24

by integrating prescribed foundational content, concepts, values and skills. The primary

focus being the development of personal, social and emotional wellbeing of students in

order that they thrive as individuals while working productively within a team,

contributing to making a happy, safe and productive community. Building Blocks begins

with a focus on developmental themes of feeling safe and happy; emotions; sharing;

being kind; circles of love and support. Grade 2 then builds on these themes with a focus

on becoming confident and responsible; being truthful, confident, responsible and

bouncing back. In Grade 3, the developmental themes include discovering my inner

world; my miraculous body; my brilliant brain; my wise heart and my special gift (please

see table 3).

25

Table 2.1 Overview of COOL TO ME Curriculum Grades 1-3

Programme Developmental Theme National Curriculum Statement

Topics coveredBuilding Blocks (Red)

Grade 1

Feeling happy and safe: Feelings, Sharing, Being king, My circle of love and support

Beginning Knowledge and Personal and Social Well-being

Topics covered: Me, At school, Healthy habits, My family, Keeping my body safe, My community, Pets, Manners and responsibility

Building Blocks (Blue)

Grade 2

Becoming confident and responsible: Being truthful, Being confident, Being responsible, Bouncing back

Beginning Knowledge and Personal and Social Well-being

Topics covered: Myself and others, Everyone is special, Transport, People who help us

Building Blocks (Green)

Grade 3

Discovering my inner world: My miraculous body, My brilliant brain, My wise heart, My special gift

Beginning Knowledge and Personal and Social Well-being

Topics covered: About me, Feelings, Health protection, Keeping my body safe, Rights and responsibilities, Healthy eating

Source: page 5 COOL TO BE ME Building Blocks Educators Manual, Bruce & Cohen (2012).

26

2.4.2 Measures: The Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA)

DESSA is a simple 72-item standardized, norm-referenced strength-based rating

scale measuring behaviours related to resilience, social-emotional competence and school

success for K-G8 students (LeBuffe, Shapiro & Naglieri, 2014). The DESSA is arranged

into conceptually-derived scales providing information on the eight key social emotional

competencies identified as fundamental to a child’s success in both school and in life i.e.

personal responsibility, optimistic thinking, goal-directed behavior, social awareness,

decision making, relationship skills, self-awareness, self-management. Please refer to

table 2.2 for scale names, definitions and sample items. Each item requires the rater to

indicate on five-point scale (never to very frequently) how often the student engaged in

each behaviour over the past month. Raw score values associated with each rating are as

follows: Never = 0, Rarely = 1, Occasionally = 2, Frequently = 3, Very Frequently = 4.

Using the appropriate table in the manual, raw scores are converted to T-Scores and

percentile scores, the latter is then be used for mathematical computations. Each T-score

is a standard score with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Descriptive categories

and interpretation of DESSA T-Scores can be found in table 2.3. An overall social-

emotional composite, based on a combination of scores from all eight scales, provides an

indication of the student’s social-emotional competence with higher scores indicating

greater social-emotional competence. In examining the overall social emotional

composite as well as the eight individual DESSA scores, T-scores greater than 60

27

indicate a student’s strength, T-scores between 41-59 are characterized as typical, while

those T-score 40 suggests that the student requires instruction. Figure 2.1 shows the

relationship of DESSA T-Scores, percentiles and the normal curve. Internal reliability of

each scale using alpha coefficient was < 0.82 and < 0.91 for the overall social-emotional

composite. Test-retest reliability is high with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.86-

0.94 for teachers. Inter-rater reliabilities, with medical scale correlation coefficients of

0.735 for teachers, were also quite good. Convergent validity with BASC-2 and BERS-2

was reportedly strong (Nickerson & Fishman, 2009).

28

Table 2.2 DESSA Scale Names, Definitions and Sample Scale Items

Scale Name/Definition No. of itemsSelf- Awareness 7 itemsA student’s realistic understanding of his/her strengths and limitations and consistent desire for self-improvement.Sample scale items:

Gives an opinion when asked? Describes how he/she was feeling? Asks somebody for feedback

_____________________________________________________________________Social-Awareness 9 itemsA student’s capacity to interact with others in a way that shows respect for their ideas and behaviours, recognizes his/her impact on them, and uses cooperation and tolerance in social situations.Sample scale items:

Gets along with different types of people? Cooperates with peers? Forgives somebody that hurt or upset him/her?

_____________________________________________________________________Self-Management 11 itemsA student’s success in controlling his/her emotions and behaviours, to complete a task or success in a new or challenging situation.

Waits for his/her turn? Stays calm when faced with a challenge? Adjusts well to changes in plan?

_____________________________________________________________________Goal-directed Behaviour 10 itemsA student’s initiation of, and persistence in completing tasks of varying difficultySample scale items:

Keeps trying when unsuccessful? Seeks out additional information? Takes steps to achieve goals?

_____________________________________________________________________Relationship Skills 10 itemsA student’s consistent performance of socially acceptable actions that promote and maintain positive connections with othersSample scale items:

Compliments or congratulates somebody? Offers to help somebody? Expresses concern for another person?

_____________________________________________________________________

29

Table 2.2 (cont.) DESSA Scale Names, Definitions and Sample Scale Items

Scale Name/Definition No. of itemsPersonal Responsibility 10 itemsA student’s tendency to be careful and reliable in his/her actions and in contributing to group efforts.Sample scale items:

Remembers important information? Serves an important role at school? Handles his/her belongings with care?

_____________________________________________________________________Decision Making 8 itemsA student’s approach to problem solving that involves learning from others and from his/her own previous experiences, using values to guide action, and accepting responsibility for decisions.Sample scale items:

Follows the example of a positive role model? Accepts responsibility for what he/she did? Learns from experience?

_____________________________________________________________________Optimistic Thinking 7 itemsA student’s attitude of confidence, hopefulness, and positive thinking regarding him/herself and his/her life situations in the past, present and future.Sample scale items:

Says good things about him/herself? Looks forward to class or activities at school? Expresses high expectations for him/herself?

_____________________________________________________________________

Source: Table adapted from pages 7-9 of LeBuffe, P., Shapiro, V. & Naglieri, J. (2014) Devereux Student Strengths Assessment: A measure of social-emotional competencies of children in kindergarden through eighth grade. Apperson SEL+, Charlotte, NC.

30

Table 2.3 Descriptive Categories and Interpretation of DESSA T-Scores

____________________________________________________________________T-Score Description____________________________________________________________________60 and above Strength

41-59 Typical

40 and below Need for Instruction____________________________________________________________________

Figure 2.1 Relationship of DESSA T-Scores, Percentile Scores, Normal Curve

31

2.5 Ethical considerations

Permission was sought from CTBM to use de-identified secondary data for the

purposes of this study (appendix A). In accordance with the British Psychological

Society code of ethics with respect to anonymity and confidentiality, secondary data was

labeled with only a student number, age and gender ensuring that the participants could

not be identified. Additionally, the researcher worked respectfully, responsibly within the

limits of confidence and ensured that integrity was maintained throughout the process

(Mackintosh, 2010). The data is to be stored for 5 years in the researcher’s computer and

only the researcher will have access to them.

Full ethical approval was sought and received from the UoL ethics committee prior to

commencement of the study (Appendix B).

2.6 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Statistics programme. An

alpha level (p-value) of .05 was used for all statistical tests (Coolican, 2009). Several

statistical analyses were conducted to address the research question.

32

2.6.1 Linear Regression Analysis

Linear regression analysis is usually conducted in order to investigate the

relationships between variables Wilson & Maclean, 2011). In this case, linear regression

analysis was used to predict the causal effect of grade level, gender, age and pre

intervention SEC scores on the post intervention SEC scores.

2.6.2 Repeated Measures Factorial Design

A repeated measures 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted in principal to

examine the differences between pre CTBM intervention SEC scores and post CTBM

intervention SEC scores (within-subject) as well as the differences between gender and

grades (between-subject).

2.6.3 Paired samples t-test

Paired samples t-tests were then used to compare mean scores pre and post

intervention for each subscale of overall SEC scores i.e. personal responsibility,

optimistic thinking, goal-directed behavior, relationship skills, social awareness, decision

making, self-management and self-awareness.

2.6.4 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)

ANCOVA was employed to determine whether a statistically significant

difference in post intervention social emotional competence scores (dependent variable)

across both grade levels (fixed factor) while controlling for age (covariate). ANCOVA is

33

commonly used for pretest-posttest designs, consisting of a test given before an

intervention, followed by the same test after the intervention (de Villiers & van den Berg,

2012). The purpose for selecting ANCOVA is to increase the sensitivity of testing the

main effects and interactions by reducing the error. ANCOVA addresses the main

question: Are mean differences (when adjusted) among groups on DV likely to have

occurred by chance? By removing predicable variance, ANCOVA increases the power of

an F-test. As the dependent variable is continuous, this meets the requirements for

ANCOVA (Wilson & MacLean, 2011). Many pretest-posttest designs use the pretest as

covariate which means that if groups differ on the post-test measure, it is after adjusting

for the pre-test scores thus providing a more powerful test of the hypothesis than merely

the difference in scores (de Villiers and van den Berg, 2012). However, the assumption of

homogeneity of regression was not met as the interaction between grade and pre SEC was

found to be significant, F(1,278) = 70.723, p < .05 thus ANCOVA was not conducted

using pre SEC as a covariate. However, age of participants at post intervention was used

as a covariate.

The independent variable (CTBM as measured by grade level) included 3

levels i.e. Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3. The dependent variable was the students’ post

intervention social emotional composite (post SEC) scores and the covariate was the

students’ post intervention age in months. A preliminary analysis evaluating the

homogeneity of regression assumption (this test evaluates the interaction between the

34

covariate and the independent variable in the prediction of the dependent variable) and

homogeneity of variance assumption was conducted.

The covariate is included in the analysis to control for the differences on the

independent variable. The primary purpose of the test of the covariate is that it evaluates

the relationship between the covariate (age) and the DV (post SEC), controlling for the

factor (i.e. grade). Levene’s test of equality of error variances was used to determine that

variances were equal in the population while normality of data distribution was measured

with Shapiro-Wilk Test.

2.6.5 Examination of the Normal Distribution of Data

Pre intervention data (Pre SEC) for boys was not normally distributed (please see

table 2.4). Similarly, when data was normal data distribution was assessed according to

Grade level, pre intervention SEC scores for Grade 1 and Grade 2 were p = .046 and p

= .045 respectively. Sig. values greater than 0.05 indicate data is normally distributed,

below .05 indicates that the data significantly deviates from a normal distribution.

However, on transformation the pre intervention SEC data was even more skewed thus it

was decided to continue with non-transformed data (please see figures 2.2(a/b) – 2.4(a/b).

Levene’s test of equality of error variances for both pre and post SEC were p = .64

and .84 respectively thus providing evidence that the variances were equal in the

population.

35

Figure 2.2(a): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 1 with untransformed data

Figure 2.2(b): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 1 with transformed data

36

Figure 2.3(a): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 2 with untransformed data

Figure 2.3(b): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 2 with transformed data

37

Figure 2.4(a): Pre Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 3 with untransformed data

Figure 2.4(b): Pre Social Emotional Composite Scores for Grade 3 with transformed data

38

Table 2.4 Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normal Data distribution

Shapiro-Wilk Test of NormalityGender Statistic df Sig.

_____________________________________________________________________Pre CTBM Boy .981 143 .042SEC Score Girl .990 136 .416

Post CTBM Boy .993 142 .784SEC Score Girl .984 136 .111

39

Chapter 3

Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

Post intervention data was collected from 279 participants (4% attrition rate) with

a mean post intervention age of 7 years 11 months (SD = 11months). There were 96

Grade 1 students (50 boys, 46 girls, average age: 7 years 6 months), 90 from Grade 2 (46

boys, 44 girls, average age: 8 years 6 months) and 93 from Grade 3 (47 boys, 46 girls,

average age: 9 years 7 months).

Table 3.1

Pre and Post Intervention Social Emotional Composite Scores (SEC) According to Grade Level and Gender

Grade Gender Pre SEC Post SEC NM SD M SD

Boys 47.1 8.4 53.5 8.0 501

Girls 50.1 8.9 55.0 8.6 46

Total: 48.5 8.9 54.3 8.3 96

Boys 47.8 9.3 50.7 8.7 462

Girls 53.5 9.2 54.9 9.4 44Total 50.6 9.7 52.7 9.2 90

Boys 42.7 8.0 51.3 6.9 473

Girls 47.0 7.4 56.4 6.9 46

Total 44.8 8.0 53.8 7.3 93_____________________________________________________________________

40

3.2 Overall Findings

Overall, findings for Grade 1 showed an 11% increase in Strength area, 5%

increase in Typical area and 16% decrease in Needs Instruction area. Grade 2, with

slightly less improvement showed a 9% increase in Strength area, 3 % decrease in

Typical area and 6% decrease in Needs Instruction. Grade 3 had impressive overall

results with a 5% increase in Strength, 9 % increase in Typical and 22% decrease in

Needs Instruction (see figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

41

Figure 3.1

Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive Category Improvements in Grade 1

42

Figure 3.2

Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive Category Improvements in Grade 2

43

Figure 3.3

Pie Chart Illustrating Descriptive Category Improvements in Grade 3

3.3 Linear Regression Analysis

A linear regression analysis was performed in SPSS to used to predict the causal

effect of grade level, gender, age and pre intervention SEC scores on the post intervention

SEC scores. Pre SEC scores significantly predicted post SEC scores, = .620, t(274) =

12.661, p < .001. R2 = .399, F(1, 274) = 45. 474, p < .001. The remaining variables were

not significant in predicting post SEC scores, the results were as follows: Gender:

= .071, t(274) = 1.439, p =.151; grade level: = .045, t(274) = .421, p =.674; post

intervention age: = .039, t(274) = .371, p =.711

44

3.4 Repeated Measures

There was a significant main effect between pre intervention SEC (time 1) and

post intervention SEC (time 2), F = 175.04, p < .05. Please refer profile plots in figures

3.4(a) and 3.4(b). This indicated that there is a significant difference between pre SEC (M

= 48, SD = 9.1) and post SEC (M = 53.6, SD = 8.3). The effect between the grades was

not significant, F = 2.462, p = .087 which shows the robustness of the CTBM

intervention across grades. There was a significant interaction between pre and post SEC

and grade level, F = 21.185, p < .05. Table 3.1 provides comparable pre and post

intervention SEC scores according to grade level and gender. Noteworthy in these results

are the differences in boys and girls SEC scores both pre and post intervention.

45

Figure 3.2(a): Graph illustrating the SEC mean score for boys according to Grade level (Time 1 – pre CTBM, Time 2 – post CTBM)

Figure 3.3(b): Graph illustrating the SEC mean score for Girls according to Grade level (Time 1 – pre CTBM, Time 2 – post CTBM)

46

3.5 Univariate Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)

A one-way ANCOVA was also conducted for this study. The independent

variable, CTBM intervention as measured by grade level, included 3 levels i.e. Grade 1,

Grade 2 and Grade 3. The dependent variable was the students’ post intervention social

emotional composite (SEC) scores and the covariate was the students’ age post

intervention. Prior to conducting an ANCOVA, assumption of homogeneity of regression

needs to be tested. This evaluates the interaction between the covariate (age) and the IV

(CTBM as measured with grade level). Since the interaction was not significant, F(1,278)

= .713, p = .545, we were able to proceed with ANCOVA. The underlying assumption of

homogeneity of variance was met, as evidenced by Levene’s test of equality of error

variances where F (2, 276) = 2.460, p = .087 (p > .05). The covariate was included in the

analysis so as to control for differences on the independent variable (CTBM intervention

as measured by grade level). In so doing, this test evaluated the relationship between age

(covariate) and post SEC (DV) controlling for grade level. Results of ANCOVA,

F(1,278) = .826, p = .439 (please see table 3.2), showed that the interaction between

grade and post intervention age was not significant. As a result of this, we did not

proceed with pairwise comparison. This means that participant age did not have any

effect on the post SEC scores.

47

Table 3.2: Analysis of Covariance for Post CTBM SEC Scores by Grade LevelSource SS df MS F pPost Age 26.661 1 26.661 .385 .536

Grade 114.486 2 57.243 .826 .439

Error 19064.676 275 69.326

Total 821469.00 279_____________________________________________________________________

3.6 Paired sample t-tests: 

A paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare pre and post intervention scores

for each scale using SPSS (please refer to table 3.3 for mean and standard deviations for

each scale). SPSS provides a two-tailed probability level and as this is a one-tailed

(directional) hypothesis, the value is halved to obtain the one-tailed hypothesis. There

was a significant difference in the scores for all scales (personal responsibility: t = -

10.275, p < .05; optimistic thinking t = -10.577, p < .05; goal-directed behavior: t = -

10.595, p < .05; relationship skills: t = -12.091, p < .05; social awareness: t = -10.217, p <

.05; decision making: t = -11.237, p < .05; self-management: t = -9.861, p < .05; self-

awareness: t = -11.277, p < .05) as well as on the overall social emotional composite

score: t = -12.493, p < .005. A graphical illustration of the overall improvement of SEC

according to grade level can be seen in figure 3.3(a), 3.3(b) and 3.3(c). These results

support the hypothesis social emotional competency significantly improved for all

students after the intervention of CTBM programme.

48

49

Table 3.3Results of Paired Samples t-test on Subsets of Social Emotional Composite

_____________________________________________________________________Pre CTBM Post CTBM Gain p

T Score T Score_____________________________________________________________________

M SD M SDPersonalResponsibility 47.6 9.5 52.1 9.0 +4.5 .000Optimistic Thinking 48.4 9.2 53.5 8.6 +5.1 .000Goal DirectedBehaviour 47.4 9.9 52.6 9.0 +5.2 .000Social Awareness 48.4 9.1 53.8 9.0 +5.4 .000Decision Making 48.6 8.4 54.3 9.2 +5.7 .000Relationship Skills 49.2 8.6 55.1 8.6 +5.9 .000SelfAwareness 48.5 9.1 54.2 8.5 +5.7 .000SelfManagement 48.1 9.0 52.6 8.5 +3.6 .000_____________________________________________________________________

50

Figure 3.3(a) Grade 1 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite

Legend: Pre CTBM intervention Post CTBM Intervention

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Needs Instruction Typical Strength

No.

of S

tud

ents

Figure 3.3(b) Grade 2 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite

Legend: Pre CTBM intervention Post CTBM Intervention

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Needs Instruction Typical Strength

No.

of S

tud

ents

51

Figure 3.3(c) Grade 3 Pre and Post CTBM Intervention Social Emotional Composite

Legend: Pre CTBM intervention Post CTBM Intervention

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Needs Instruction Typical Strength

No.

of S

tud

ents

3.7 Independent t-tests

This difference in mean scores across genders piqued the interest of the

researcher, and as such an independent t-test was conducted to compare pre and post SEC

scores for boys and girls. There was a significant difference in the social emotional scores

pre intervention between boys (M = 45.86, SD = 8.78) and girls (M – 50.184, SD = 8.89)

with t (277) = -4.086, p < .05 and post intervention between boys (M=51.87, SD=

7.9655) and girls (M = 55.46, SD = 8.299) with t (277) = -3.686, p < 0.05.

52

Chapter 4

4.1 Discussion

This study is the first systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of CTBM as a

universally administered SEL intervention on students’ social emotional competencies.

The findings overall are very promising. Linear regression allowed us to make

predictions about post SEC scores based on the values of other variables. The significant

prediction with pre SEC scores needs to be considered when interpreting the results.

However, despite this prediction and as illustrated by the bar graphs in figures 3.3a-c,

there is improvement across all grades when comparing pre and post intervention scores.

In accord with previous literature, repeated measures analysis of data from teacher

ratings indicated that all Grade 1 – 3 students who received the intervention showed

significant improvements on pre- to post social emotional competency scores (CASEL,

2013). Similarly, paired sample t-tests revealed a significant difference in pre and post

intervention scores for all subscales and overall social emotional composite. These

findings are consistent with previous research. In their meta-analysis involving some

270,00 students, Durlak et al 2011, reported significant improvements in mitigating

problem behaviors as well as promoting social emotional competence and academic

achievement, with an average effect size of .31.

53

Typically, previous studies evaluating the effects of SEL interventions employed

t-tests (Merrell et al, 2008, Dracinschi, 2012) or repeated measure ANOVA for analysis

of data in order to examine the direction of change from pre to post intervention (Mostert

& Loxton, 2008; Pahl & Barrett, 2010; Rogers & Dunsmuir, 2013; Schonert-Reichl &

Lawlor, 2010). ANCOVA was selected for this study as it increases the sensitivity of

testing the main effects and interactions by reducing the error. The few studies employing

the sophisticated analysis of ANCOVA used the pre-test score as a covariate

(Domitrovich, Cortes & Greenberg, 2007; de Villiers & van den Berg, 2012, Sheard,

Ross & Cheung, 2012) in order to provide a more powerful test of the hypothesis. In this

study, homogeneity of regression was violated as the interaction between grade and pre

SEC was significant, therefore participant age was used as the covariate instead. While

socioeconomic status (SES), gender and English as a second language (ESL), verbal

ability have also been used previously as baseline covariates (Jones, Brown, Hoglund &

Aber, 2010; Domitrovich et al 2007), very few studies have used participant age as a

covariate. This research addresses this gap in the literature. The non-significant

ANCOVA results suggest that age did not have any effect on the post SEC scores. This

finding reflects the normal social emotional developmental trajectory as discussed below,

as well as demonstrating the robustness of the intervention across age groups. It also begs

the question of whether age is an appropriate covariate as is obviously strongly correlated

with grade.

To the best of my knowledge, there are very few studies exploring social

emotional competence in South African schools and no empirical studies to date

54

evaluating the effect of CTBM, thus this study addresses this dearth of literature.

Supporting the hypothesis of the study, the findings indicate that CTBM, as a universally

delivered SEL intervention programme, was effective in improving SEC in primary

school students. This clinical significance of this, as discussed below, cannot be

underestimated.

4.2 Clinical Significance

The improvement on SEC scores from pre to post intervention indicates the

effectiveness of CTBM. All subscales demonstrated a significant difference in pre and

post intervention scores (please see table 3.3) with the biggest difference in relationship

skills across all year groups. This is significant in light of previous research that suggests

relationships with peers and teachers is fundamental to school connectedness and school

success, as well as academic achievement (Howes, 2001; Wenzel, Battle, Russell &

Looney, 2010; Zins, 2004). Increases in the T-Scores across other scales particularly self

awareness and self-management are also integral to academic success (Elias et al 2003)

while the ability to interact respectfully, cooperatively and with tolerance with others

(social awareness) and personal responsibility is particularly apt for South Africa’s multi-

racial population. Decision making, that being the student’s way of solving problems,

learning from his/her own or others’ previous experience, using values to guide actions,

as well as taking responsibility for decisions is key to success both at school and in life.

Goal-directed behavior i.e. the ability to initiate and persist in difficult tasks is closely

55

linked to resilience, a key social skill that children need to learn in order to become fully

functioning members of our society. According to the Harvard Business Review (2002)

as cited in http://www.resiliencei.com : "...more than education, experience, or training,

an individuals level of resilience will determine who succeeds & who fails." 

Improvements were also seen in the optimistic thinking scale, effectively addressed by

the CTBM objectives of developing the ability to become a productive and positive

citizen and the ability to harness personal potential and thrive. CTBM, rather than

focusing on addressing problem behaviours, adopts the positive psychology approach in

developing social emotional competencies in order to prevent many societal problems

(Catalano et al 2002) including educational disparities such as those that exist in South

Africa (Spitzer & Aronson, 2015).

4.3 Evidence-based programme

Key to this study, and as advocated by CASEL, once a SEL programme has been

implemented, it is important to periodically collect data to ascertain how the students are

responding to the programme (Fleming & LeBuffe, 2014). The most effective

programmes are those that fulfill S.A.F.E. criteria. CTBM meets these requirements by

Sequenced instruction, Active instructional methods which are Focused on SEL skills

with Explicit instruction on one or more SEL competencies. This is meaningful in

relation to other studies that have shown the most effective SEL intervention programmes

were those that adopted S.A.F.E (Dulak et al, 2011, Greenberg et al, 2003).

56

4.4 Intervention Implementation and Fidelity

Key factors to the effectiveness of SEL interventions are the quality of

implementation and fidelity (Lendrum & Humphrey, 2012). This has been lacking in the

literature primarily due to challenges in measurement and implementation quality

(Domitrovich et al, 2008). Results from Durlak et al’s (2011) meta-analysis revealed a

positive association between student outcomes and implementation quality. The

prescribed lessons of CTBM contributed to the fidelity and consistency of programme

implementation, maximizing the likelihood that all teachers presented key material as

well as lessoning the work load of the teachers as all they were required to do was to

follow the prescribed lesson plans (Payton et al, 2000). Some researchers argue that

prioritizing fidelity may compromise flexibility and ‘goodness-of-fit’ for the target

audience (Liew, 2011). As CTBM was designed with this particular audience in mind, the

issue of flexibility has already been met, therefore encouraging an even higher fidelity.

This aspect is particularly important in South Africa as teachers get to grips with the Life

Skill curriculum; CTBM provides the how to Life Skills’ what, by providing the

necessary resources and training to support educators.

4.5 Cultural Considerations

A primary consideration is that quality SEL programmes ensure that the language

used be understandable to from policy makers and scientists to educators and parents.

57

Developing culturally congruent interventions include peripheral strategies such as using

culturally relevant images (Garner et al 2014). This was effectively addressed by CTBM

with stories and characters pertaining to and understood by the local population. By

effectively addressing political and cultural assumptions and connecting ideals with

practices as set out in the Life Skills curriculum, CTBM can help promote increased

achievement and equity in South African education. Our findings suggest that CTBM is a

feasible and beneficial SEL programme that addresses the diversity of South Africa’s

rainbow nation. This is important in a country where students are at an increased risk of

developing social emotional and behavior problems due to poverty, familial conflict,

exposure to high levels of community violence (de Villiers & van der Berg, 2012, van der

Berg et al 2011).

4.6 Universal Implementation

It has been argued that universal interventions such as CTBM are cost-effective

thus sustainable (Belfield, Bowden, Klapp, Levin, Shand & Zander, 2015; Wigelsworth,

Humphrey & Lendrum, 2013) and less stigmatizing (Greenberg & Rhoades, 2010),

although frequent criticism is that they are not always effective in helping those with

significant problems (Stallard et al, 2008). This criticism can be countered by offering

additional support and targeted intervention to those students deemed in “need of

instruction”. Low scores on the DESSA scale can help identify students that may be at

risk of developing behavioural issues whilst for those who may already be experiencing

58

difficulties, the DESSA reveals strengths that could be nurtured increasing the likelihood

of treatment success. Regarding cost-effectiveness, Belfield et al’s (2015) study

evaluated the cost-benefit of six prominent SEL intervention programmes and found

some considerable benefits relative to the cost. This is valuable within the South African

education system where issues such as inadequately trained teachers, poor resources and

lack of support services hinder the educational progress (de Villiers & van der Berg,

2012, van der Berg et al 2011).

4.7 Recommendations to Educators

Although this is the first study that has examined CTBM as an SEL intervention

in South African primary schools, these findings are consistent with other emerging

empirical evidence supporting the notion that school-based SEL interventions are

effective in reducing current behavior and emotional problems; enhancing students’

social emotional competence while also having a positive impact on academic

achievement. This is easily explainable when one considers the inextricable link between

social emotional competences (such as those measured by the DESSA i.e. personal

responsibility, optimistic thinking, goal-directed behavior, social awareness, decision-

making, relationship skills, self-awareness and self-management) and success in school

and throughout life (please see figure 4.1).

59

Figure 4.1: Evidence-based SEL intervention programming pathways to overall success in school and across the lifespan.

Source: (Adapted from page 197 of Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M.R., Weissberg & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg., H. J. (Eds). Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning. NY: Teachers College Press

4.7.1 Grade differences

Noteworthy is that the biggest improvement in mean SEC scores was seen in

Grade 3. This is an interesting result in that, if resources are limited, schools may opt to

focus their attention on Grade 3 students’ as they appear to gain the most from this

intervention. Although, like CTBM, SEL programmes are most effective when they are

60

sequenced as multi-year programmes that build on the skills learnt the previous year

(CASEL, 2005). Interesting to note that Grade 2’s who started off with the highest mean

SEC scores showed the least improvement post intervention. A possible explanation for

the differences in pre and post intervention SEC scores across grades, and in keeping

with the social constructivist epistemology of this study, is that of Piaget’s concept of

stages of cognitive development. Grade 1 students are still within the preoperational

period where intelligence is intuitive, having not yet acquired logical thinking. Grade 2

students (with a mean pre-intervention age of 7 years 11 months) on the other hand, are

only just moving from the preoperational period (approximately 2 – 7 years) to the

concrete operational stage (approximately 7-12 years) while Grade 3 students (9+ years)

are well within the concrete operational stage. Kohlberg (1958), influenced Piaget’s

work, adopted a similar developmental cognitive approach to moral reasoning. He

contended that moral ideas and principles, regardless of culture, are better understood as

the child develops cognitively through stages (Arnett, 2012). Preconventional reasoning,

where children’s moral reasoning is based upon perceptions of punishment or rewards;

conventional reasoning - based on others’ expectations of the individual;

postconventional reasoning - based on an individual’s independent judgement rather the

view of other’s on what constitutes right or wrong (Snarey, 1985). This research is

significant particularly when interpreting the results of the findings from this study as

these developmental approaches could also partially explain the improvements in social

emotional competence. Durlak et al’s (2011) meta-analysis includes studies where more

61

than 50% are from elementary schools although few studies actually compare the

effectiveness of interventions across ages as this study has done.

4.8 Limitations

Whilst these results are promising, there are a number of limitations to this study

that readers need to cognizant of. Firstly without a control group, caution needs to be

exercised as the reported improvements in SEC could be as a result of maturation rather

than specifically due to CTBM intervention. However, considering the positive results of

previous SEL interventions, it was deemed unethical to deny participation in the

intervention to some students and not others; hence the universal intervention to all pupils

in Grade 1 -3 attending the school. Future studies may consider a wait-list control group

as has been employed in a number of similar studies (Mostert & Loxton, 2008; Rodgers

and Dunsmuir, 2015). A second limitation is that teachers, who delivered the

intervention, provided ratings on students which may have led to some bias in reporting

the post intervention ratings. The statistical analysis was on the data collected from these

teachers’ measures, bringing into question the validity of the results. Triangulation of

data by including material from students and parents would strengthen the validity of the

study. Finally, this study was conducted at one school in the Western Cape of South

Africa, as such, the results need to be interpreted with caution when generalizing these

findings across other populations.

4.9 Recommendations for Future Studies

62

4.9.1 Gender Effects

Gender differences evident in this study are consistent with research suggesting

that social emotional development and prosocial behavior differs between boys and girls;

with girls demonstrating more positive emotions and prosocial behavior than boys

(Chaplin & Aldoa, 2013; Maguire, Niens, McCann & Connolly, 2015; Terzian, Li,

Frazer, Day & Rose, 2014). In their study, Gunkel, Schlägel & Engle (2014) found that

females scored lower on self emotional appraisal and regulation of emotion than men.

However, they scored higher in others' emotional appraisal and use of emotion. Gilligan

(1982) describes a “different voice” for men and women, women expressing an ethic of

care that differs from the ethic of justice that underpins Kohlberg’s moral hierarchy.

Gilligan believed that Kohlberg’s theory did not address gender differences in moral

development, arguing that males and females are socialized differently with females

emphasizing interpersonal relationships and assuming responsibility for the wellbeing of

others rather than the logic in decision-making found in men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). The

significant result between boys and girls pre and post intervention SEC scores in the

independent t-test analysis does support previous research suggesting that social

emotional development differs across genders and may be worth exploring in future

studies (Chaplin & Aldoa, 2013; Maguire, Niens et al, 2015; Terzian et al, 2014).

4.9.2 Academic Achievement and Cognitive Ability

Identifying factors that predict academic success is a fundamental concern for

parents, educators and policy makers interested in ensuring students’ positive

63

development and preventing school failure (Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, Hertzman &

Sumbo, 2014). A growing of body of evidence suggest that academic achievement and

students SEC are interrelated with a few studies including measures of cognitive ability

and academic achievement following SEL intervention programmes (Diamond, 2014

DeRosier & Lloyd, 2011; Durlak et al, 2011, McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor &

McClowry, 2015). As academic achievement and standardized testing remains a desirable

factor for our results driven educational systems, measurements incorporating cognitive

ability and academic achievement could be included in future studies. This in an

important aspect for South Africa where the 2015 matric pass rate of 70.7% was down

from 75.8% in 2014 (Quintal, 2016).

4.9.3 Longitudinal Studies

A number of studies have looked at whether the positive effects of SEL

interventions are sustained over time (Bernstein, Bernat, Victor & Layne, 2008; Stallard

et al, 2008). Interestingly Mostert and Loxton’s (2008) study demonstrated significant

effects of the intervention longer-term, but not directly post-intervention. The

significance of this being that proficiency in using the skills taught becomes more

effective with practice and such future studies should involve longer-term assessment. As

this study did not report any longer term results, it is unknown whether the positive

improvements made on SEC would be maintained over time. Nevertheless, SEL

Consulting and CTBM are collecting additional data from these students for this purpose

and for future studies.

64

4.9.4 Social Validity

Effective SEL programmes require the ‘buy-in’ and commitment of all

stakeholders and are only successful if the needs of educators and students are met. A few

studies have examined the social validity of SEL programmes using surveys and semi-

structured interviews (Gallegos et al, 2013, Banerjee, Weare & Farr, 2014, Liddle &

Macmillan, 2010). Future research would benefit from adding a qualitative approach

through semi-structured with students, parents and teachers in order to understand their

subjective experience and perception of the social validity of the intervention and how

this could be improved upon.

Despite these limitations, results from this study indicate the effectiveness of an

easy-to-implement universal classroom-based SEL programme in improving social

emotional competence in Grade 1-3 students. This both replicates and extends findings

from previous research that social emotional learning strategies have been shown to have

a positive impact on school performance, which could be of great importance to

educators and policy makers (Zins et al 2004).

65

4.10 Conclusion

Learning and teaching have strong social, emotional and academic elements

which influence whether a child will flourish or languish (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005).

And yet, enhancing the social emotional skills of our students remains a major challenge

in our society. Despite a recent UNESCO manifestation proposing that “the physical,

intellectual, emotional and ethical integration of the individual into a complete

man/woman is the fundamental aim of education.” (UNESCO, 2008), educating the

“whole child” is not a new concept. More than a century ago, John Dewey (1859-1952)

maintained that formal education, rather than prepare the child for a fixed goal, should

encourage children to grow and to groom them to continue this growth and development

as adults in the uncertain future they would encounter (Ryan, 2000). This is echoed in

Ryan & Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, which is fundamentally concerned with

promoting in students a desire to learn, a value of education and having the confidence in

their own capacities and abilities. These result from intrinsic motivation, and

internalizing values and regulatory processes. Research proposes that this in turn will

have the outcome of producing not only high-quality learning and conceptual

understanding but also enhanced personal growth and adjustment (Ryan & Deci, 2013).

Although enhancing the social emotional skills of our students remains a major

challenge in our society, the integration of SEL interventions into school curricular

provides a promising vehicle for effectively teaching these skills effectively from early

years through to young adulthood. That said, the extensive and continued implementation

66

of such programmes requires the ongoing commitment of researchers, legislators and

educators alike. Researchers should continue providing evidence-based SEL programmes

and help schools to adopt, execute and monitor these programmes effectively. Legislators

need to commit to establishing educational policies holding schools accountable for

developing social emotional competencies in their students. In particular, educators must

advocate the SEL cause and support efforts towards implementing ongoing SEL

programmes in their schools (Elbertson, Brackett & Weissberg, 2010).

The outcome of this research adds to the body of research demonstrating positive

impact that SEL programmes has on social emotional competence of South African

primary school students; competencies that underpin the guidelines of Life Skills

introduced into the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) by Department of Basic

Education (2011). CTBM, as a ‘home-grown’ universally administered SEL intervention,

meets the recommendations set out by CASEL as well as meeting the needs of South

African students. This manualized, user-friendly programme allows students to develop

the necessary skills, attitudes and behaviours to manage their social, emotional and

cognitive behaviour (Bruce & Cohen, 2012). CTBM provides the how to NCS Life Skills

what, providing the necessary resources and training to support educators in promoting

the development of students’ social emotional competencies.

Educators and policy makers could learn from this study. The social and

emotional wellbeing for our students is not only an important outcome in and of itself,

but has implications for public health due the associations with academic achievement,

67

employment, relationships and other important aspects of life (Wigelsworth, Lendum &

Humphrey 2013). South Africa’s tempestuous sociopolitical history has left a range of

social, political and cultural scars (Costandius & Bitzer 2014). Whilst many of these

structural barriers may appear insurmountable, one could begin with restoring human

values. What better way than, as suggested by Van Alphen (2013), to start with the

wellbeing of our children by incorporating social emotional learning into the curriculum

of all South African primary schools?

This study has evaluated the impact of “Cool To Be Me”, a universally

implemented social emotional learning programme, on the social and emotional

competence within a South African primary school setting. Although further research

within the South African context is required, this study both supports and extends

international research on the positive impact of classroom-based SEL programmes on

primary school students’ social emotional development. There is strong indication that

“Cool To Be Me” programme, integrated into the Life Skills curriculum, could make a

considerable contribution to the South African government’s overall strategy for

improving educational outcomes and social emotional wellbeing in school children.

68

References:

Ablin, J. L. (2008). Learning as problem design versus problem solving: Making the connection between cognitive neuroscience research and educational practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(2), 52–54.

Banerjee, R., Weare, K. & Farr, W. (2014) Working with ‘Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning’ (SEAL): associations with school ethos, pupil social experiences, attendance, and attainment. British Educational Research Journal. 40(4). 718-742

Bar-On, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. & Bechara, A (2003). Exploring the neurological substrate of emotional and social intelligence. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 126(8): 1790-1800.

Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R. & Zander, S. The Economic Value of Social and Emotional Learning. Centre for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education Teachers College, Columbia University accessed from http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SEL-Revised.pdf

Biko, H. (2013). The great African society: A plan for a nation gone astray. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Brackett, M. A., & Rivers, S. E. (2014). Transforming students’ lives with social and emotional learning. R. Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education, 368-388.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Bruce, L. & Cohen, L. (2012). COOL TO BE ME Facilitator’s Manual. Hout Bay, Cape Town, South Africa.

Caprara, G., Barnbanelli, C., Pastorelli, C. Bandura, A & Zimbardo, P. (2000) Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11 : 302-306

Catalano, R., Berglund, M., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H & Hawkins, J. (2002) Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591. 98-124.

69

Carthy, A. & McGilloway, S. (2015) ‘Thinking outside the box’ – Engaging students and promoting learning through emotional and social skills development. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 191. 2655-2600

Chaplin, T. & Aldao, A. (2013) Gender differences in emotion expression in children: a meta-analytic review. Pscychol. Bull. 139(4). 735-765

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Safe and Sound (2005) An Educational Leader’s Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs retrieved from http://static.squarespace.com/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/5331c141e4b0fba62007694a/1395769665836/safe-and-sound-il-edition.pdf

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning Guide (2013) Effective social and emotional learning programs – Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago, IL: Author

Dasborough MT. (2004). Review of Matthews G, Zeidner M, Roberts R. Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Personnel Psychology, 57. 246–250

Department of Basic Education, National Curriculum Statement (NCS), English Life Skills, retrieved from http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PCBnG0tzI14%3D&tabid=571&mid=1563

DeRosier, M. E., & Lloyd, S. W. (2011). The Impact of Children’s Social Adjustment on Academic Outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly : Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 27(1), 25–47. http://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2011.532710

De Villiers, M and van den Berg, H. (2012) The implementation and evaluation of a resiliency programme for children. S Afr J Psychol. 42: 93–102

Diamond, A. (2014). Want to optimize executive functions and academic outcomes? Simple, just nourish the human spirit. Minnesota Symposiumon Child Psychology, 37, 205-232

Diamond, A, Barnett, W. Thomas, J & Munro, S. (2007) Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science. 318(5855), 1387-8

70

Dracinschi, M. (2012) The development of social and emotional abilities of primary school children. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 55, 618-627

Duckworth, A. & Seligman, M. (2005) Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Performance of Adolescents. Psychological Science 16(1), 939-947

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymniki, 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(1), 405-432.

Elbertson, N, Brackett, M & Wiessberg, R. (2010) School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programmig: Current Perspectives. A. Hargreaves et al (eds.) Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer International Handbooks of Education 23. DOI10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_57

Elias, M. J. (2004) The Connection between Social-Emotional Learning and Learning Disabilities: Implications for Intervention Learning Disability Quarterly. 27: 53-63.

Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social-emotional learning. In M. J. Elias & H. Arnold (Eds.), The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence and academic achievement: Social-emotional learning in the classroom (pp. 4-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Fatum, B. (2008) The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic achievement in elementary-school children. Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 265 retrieved from http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=diss

Fergus, E., Noguera, P. & Martin, M. (2014) Schooling for Resilience: Improving the Life Trajectories of African American and Latino Males (Harvard Education Press).

Field, A. (2011). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. (3rd ed.). (pp. 15-18).Thousand Oaks,California: SAGE Publications

Fischer, D. and Fick, C. 1993. Measuring social desirability: short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Education and Psychological Measurement, 53(2). 417-423

Fleming, J. & LeBuffe, P. (2014) Measuring Outcomes with the DESSA. Charlotte, NC: Apperson. Retrieved from www.CenterForResilientChildren.org

71

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing. The American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

Gallegos, J., Ruvalcaba, N., Garxa, M & Villegas, D. (2012) Social Validity evaluation of the FRIENDS for Life Program with Mexican Children. Journal of Education and Training Studies 1(1) 158-169

Garner, P., Mahatmya, D., Brown, E. & Vesely, C. (2014). Promoting Desirable Outcomes Among Culturally and Ethnically Diverse Children in Social Emotional Learning Programs: a Multilevel Heuristic Model. Educational Psychology Review.26(1), 165-189

Graziano, A. & Raulin, M. (2004) Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry (8th Edition) Pearson Press.

Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Riggs, N. (2004). The PATHS curriculum: Theory and research on neurocognitive development and school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 170-188). New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Greenberg, M. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2009). Self-regulation and executive function: What can teachers and schools do? In C. L. Cooper, J. Field, J. U. Goswami, R. Jenkins, & B. J. Sahakian (Eds.), Mental capital and wellbeing (pp. 377–382). London: Wiley-Blackwell

Gunkel, M; Schlägel, C. & Engle, R. (2014) Culture’s Influence on Emotional Intelligence: An Empirical Study of Nine Countries Journal of International Management. 20(2). 256-274

Howes, C. (2001) Social-emotional Classroom Climate in Child Care, Child-Teacher Relationships and Children’s Second Grade Peer Relations. Social Development. 9(1). 191-204

Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P. & Woods, K. (2007) Emotional Intelligence and Education: A critical review. Educational Psychology. Vol. 27: 2 pp. 235-254

Immordino-Yang, M. H. and Damasio, A. (2007), We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The

72

Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1: 3–10.

Jones, S., Brown, J., Hoglund, W & Aber, J. (2010) A School-Randomized Clinical Trial of an Integrated Social-Emotional Learning and Literacy Intervention: Impacts after 1 school year. American Psychologist. 78(6), 829-842

Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., Coleman, M.J. & Anastasiow (2012) Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Education Exceptional Children, Wadsworth Cengage Learning

Kösters, M., Chinapaw, M., Zwaanswijk, M., van der Wal, M., Utens, E. & Koot, H (2012). Study design of‘ FRIENDS for Life’: process and effect evaluation of an indicated school-based prevention programme for childhood anxiety and depression. BMC Public Health. 12 : 86.

LeBuffe, P., Shapiro, V. & Naglieri, J. (2014) Devereux Student Strengths Assessment: A measure of social-emotional competencies of children in kindergarden through eighth grade. Apperson SEL+, Charlotte, NC.

Lendrum, A. & Humphrey, N. (2012) The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings. Oxford Review of Education. 38(5). 635-652

Liddle, I. & Macmillan, S. (2010) Evaluating the FRIENDS programme in a Scottish Setting. Educational Psychology in Practice. 26(1). 53–67

Liew, J. (2011). Effortful Control, Executive Functions, and Education: Bringing Self-Regulatory and Social-Emotional Competencies to the Table. Child Development Perspectives. 6 (2). 105-111.

Mackintosh, B. (2010), Ethics in DD303 Cognitive Psychology, Methods Companion, 1 – 25, The Open University, Milton Keynes.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Pear Press: Seattle, Washington.

Magnani R; Macintyre K; Karim AM; Brown L; Hutchinson P; Kaufman C; Rutenburg N; Hallman K; May J; Dallimore A (2005) The impact of life skills education on adolescent sexual risk behaviors in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The Journal Of Adolescent Health 36 (4). 289-304

Maguire, L. Niens, U., McCann, M. & Connolly, P. (2015) Emotional development among early school-age children: gender differences in the role of problem behaviours, Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1034090

73

McCormick, M., Cappella, E., O’Connor, E. & McClowry, S. (2015) Social-Emotional Learning and Academic Achievement Using Causal Methods to Explore Classroom-Level Mechanisms. AERA Open 1 (3) 1-26 DOI: 10.1177/2332858415603959

Mostert, J. & Loxton, H. (2008) Exploring the Effectiveness of the FRIENDS Program in Reducing Anxiety Symptoms Among South Africa Children. Bahviour Change. 25(12). 85-96

Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Murphy, K (2006) (Editor). A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: WhatAre the Problems and How Can They Be Fixed? Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Nickerson, A. B., & Fishman, C. (2013). Promoting mental health and resilience through strength-based assessment in US schools. Educational and Child Psychology, 30, 7-17.

Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K., Hertzman, C. & Zumbo, B. (2014) Social-emotional competencies make the grade: Predicting academic success in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 138-147.

Ogundokun, M. O., & Adeyemo, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and academic achievement: The moderating influence of age, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The African Symposium: An online journal of the African Educational Research Network, 10 (2), 127-141

Payton, J. W., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J.A., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., Schellinger, K.B., & Pachan, M. (2008). Positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews (Technical Report). Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Pahl, K. & Barrett (2010) Preventing Anxiety and Promoting Social and Emotional Strength in Preschool Children: A Universal Evaluation of the Fun FRIENDS Program, Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 3:3, 14-25

74

Pereira, A. I., Marques, T., Russo, V., Barros, L. and Barrett, P. (2014), Effectiveness of the FRIENDS for Life Program in Portuguese Schools: study with a sample of highly anxious children. Psychol. Schs., 51: 647–657.

Poggenpoel, M & Myburgh C. (2007), Lived-experience of aggression in secondary schools in South Africa Education. 123 (1), 161-166

Rawatlal, K. & Petersen, I. (2012) Factors Impeding School Connectedness. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 346-35

Resnicow, K., Reddy, S. P., James, S., Gabebodeen Omardien, R., Kambaran, N. S., Langner, H. G., ... Nichols, T. (2008) Comparison of two school-based smoking prevention programs among South African high school students: results of a randomized trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 36(3). 231-43.

Robinson, K. (2010). Bring on the learning revolution! [Video]. Retrieved 26th January, 2014, from http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

Rodgers, A. and Dunsmuir, S. (2015) A controlled evaluation of the ‘FRIENDS for Life’ emotional resiliency programme on overall anxiety levels, anxiety subtype levels and school adjustment. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20: 13–19.

Ryan, A. (2000). What did John Dewey Want? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 45(1), 157–173.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2013). Toward a social psychology of assimilation: Self-determination theory in cognitive development and education. In B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, U. Muller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of human conduct (pp. 191-207). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Perold, M. (2001). The prevalence of anxiety in a group of 7 to 13 year old learners in the Western Cape. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Stellenbosch.

Quintal, J. (2016.01.05) Matric pass rate drops to 70.7%. Retrieved from http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/2015-matric-pass-rate-drops-to-707-20160105

Schonert-Reichl, K. & Lawlor, M. (2010) The Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Education 75

Program on Pre- and Early Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social and Emotional Competence. Mindfulness 1(3). 137-151

Sheard, M. K., Ross, S., & Cheung, A. (2012). Educational Effectiveness of An Intervention Programme for Social-Emotional Learning. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 264-284.

Snarey, J. (1985) Cross-Cultural Universality of Social-Moral Development: A critical Review of Kohlbergian Research. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 97:2 pp. 202-232

Spitzer, B. & Aronson (2015) Minding and mending the gap: Social psychological interventions to reduce educational disparities. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1-18

Stallard, P., Simpson, N. Anderson, S & Goddard, M. (2008) The FRIENDS emotional health prevention programme: 12 month follow-up of a universal UK school based trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 17(5). 283-9.

Terzian, M., Li. J., Fraser, M., Day, S. & Rose, R. (2015) Social Information-Processing Skills and Aggression: A Quasi-Experimental Trial of the Making Choices and Making Choices Plus Programs. Research on Social Work Practice. 25(3), 358-369

Van Alphen, H.P.  (2013).   Social and Emotional Education in South Africa: Challenges of the Rainbow Nation.  [Online] Botin Foundation, Santander, Spain, 197- 241.

Van Der Berg, S., Burger, C., Burger, R., et al., (2011). Low Quality Education as a poverty trap. Social Policy Research Group in the Department of Economics at Stellenbosch University.  Retrieved from http://www.polity.org.za/article/low-quality-education-as-a-poverty-trap-april-2011-2011-04-20

van der Merwe, P. (2011) The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Adjustment of Learners’ Violent Behaviour in Schools. The International Journal of Science in Society 2(1), 2-16.

van der Merwe, P. (2012) Abstract from ’n Skoolgebaseerde sosiaal-emosionele program as strategie teen misdaad en geweld. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 52(4), 646-659

Weissberg, R., Kumpfer, K., & Seligman, M. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58 (6-7), 425- 432.

76

Wentzel, K., Battle, A., Russell, S & Looney, L. (2010) Social support from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 35 (2). 193-202

Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., & Humphrey, N. (2013). Assessing differential effects of implementation quality and risk status in a whole-school social and emotional learning programme: Secondary SEAL. Mental Health and Prevention, 1(1), 11-18. DOI:10.1016/j.mhp.2013.06.001

Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2007) Emotional and cognitive changes during adolescence. Current Opinion in Neurobiology Vol. 17 pp. 251-257

Zhao, Y., (2009), Catching Up or Leading the Way, American Education in the Age of Globalization, ASCD, Alexandria, USA

Zins, J., Bloodworh, M., Weissberg, R. & Walberg, H. (2004) The Scientific Base Linking Social and Emotional Learning to School Success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. Vol. 17(2&3) pp. 191-210

Zins, J. & Elias, M. (2006) Social and emotional learning. In G. G. Bear & K.M. Minke (Eds), Children’s needs 111: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp.1-13). Bethesda, MD. NASP Publications.

Zins, J., Weissberg, R., Wang, M. & Walberg, H (Eds.) (2004) Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press.

77

Appendix A: Letter of Permission from “Cool To Be Me”

78

79

APPENDIX B: UoL ETHICAL APPROVAL FORM

INTERNATIONAL ONLINE RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVINGHUMAN PARTICIPANTS, HUMAN DATA, OR HUMAN MATERIAL

Student applications to the online programmes’ International Online Research Ethics Committee, with the specified attachments, should be posted to the Dissertation Advisor’s classroom. If the Dissertation Advisor refers the application on the ethics committee, the DA must email the full application as a single, zipped file to liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com.

RESEARCH MUST NOT BEGIN UNTIL ETHICAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED

This form must be completed by following the guidance notes, accessible at www.liv.ac.uk/researchethics.

Please complete every section, using N/A if appropriate.

Incomplete forms will be returned to the applicant.

80

Declaration of the:

Principal Investigator       OR Supervisor and Student Investigator x(please enter an X as appropriate)

The information in this form is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I take full responsibility for it.

I have read and understand the University’s Policy on Research Ethics.

I undertake to abide by the ethical principles underlying the Declaration of Helsinki and the University’s good practice guidelines on the proper conduct of research, together with the codes of practice laid down by any relevant professional or learned society.

If the research is approved, I undertake to adhere to the study plan, the terms of the full application of which the REC has given a favourable opinion, and any conditions set out by the REC in giving its favourable opinion.

I undertake to seek an ethical opinion from the REC before implementing substantial amendments to the study plan or to the terms of the full application of which the REC has given a favourable opinion.

81

Office Use Only (for final hard copies)

Reference Number: RETH      Date final copy received:

Approval decision:

Approved – no conditions      Committee      Chairs Action      Expedited      

Approved with conditions      Committee      Chairs Action      Expedited      

     

I understand that I am responsible for monitoring the research at all times.

If there are any serious adverse events, I understand that I am responsible for immediately stopping the research and alerting the Research Ethics Committee within 24 hours of the occurrence, via ethics@liv.ac.uk.

I am aware of my responsibility to be up to date and comply with the requirements of the law and relevant guidelines relating to security and confidentiality of personal data.

I understand that research records/data may be subject to inspection for audit purposes if required in future.

I understand that personal data about me as a researcher in this application will be held by the University and that this will be managed according to the principles established in the Data Protection Act.

I understand that the information contained in this application, any supporting documentation and all correspondence with the Research Ethics Committee relating to the application, will be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. The information may be disclosed in response to requests made under the Acts except where statutory exemptions apply.

I understand that all conditions apply to any co-applicants and researchers involved in the study, and that it is my responsibility to ensure that they abide by them.

For Supervisors: I understand my responsibilities as supervisor, and will ensure, to the best of my abilities, that the student investigator abides by the University’s Policy on Research Ethics at all times.

For the Student Investigator: I understand my responsibilities to work within a set of safety, ethical and other guidelines as agreed in advance with my supervisor and understand that I must comply with the University’s regulations and any other applicable code of ethics at all times.

Signature of Principal Investigator       or Supervisor X: Dr Alexandra Pentaraki ......................................Date: (17/03/2016)Print Name:     

Signature of Student Investigator: ......................................Date: 27th February 2016Print Name:Judith Anne Stevenson

82

SECTION A - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

A1) Title of the research (PLEASE INCLUDE A SHORT LAY TITLE IN BRACKETS).

Evaluating the Impact of “COOL TO BE ME” on Social and Emotional Competencies within a South African Primary School Setting.

A2) Principal Investigator       OR Supervisor X (please check as appropriate)

Title:      Dr Staff number:      Forename/Initials: Alexandra Surname: PentarakiPost: Hon. Lecturer University

of LiverpoolDepartment: Psychology & Mental Health

     

Telephone: ++306971693870 E-mail: Alexandra.pentaraki@online.liverpool.ac.uk

A3) Co-applicants (including student investigators)

Title and Name

Post / Current programme (if student investigator)

Department/ School/Institution if not UoL

Phone Email

Mrs Judith Anne Stevenson

MSc Applied Psychology

Psychology +852 91809566

judith.stevenson@online.liverpool.ac.uk

                                                                                                                                                 

SECTION B - PROJECT DETAILS

83

B1) Proposed study dates and duration (RESEARCH MUST NOT BEGIN UNTIL ETHICAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED)

Please complete as appropriate:EITHER

a) Starting as soon as ethical approval has been obtained       (please check if applicable)

Approximate end date:      

ORb) Approximate dates:

Start date: 20th November 2015 End date: 20th April 2016

B2) Give a full lay summary of the purpose, design and methodology of the planned research.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the CTBM programme on overall social emotional competencies of students attending an independent primary school in South Africa and to examine whether efficacy of the intervention differs between genders.

Pre and post intervention social emotional competency scores will be analysed, this data will be collected using the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) checklist. The data with be collected and the intervention be delivered by trained teachers at the schools. The data provided to the researcher is secondary de-identified data.Purposeful secondary archival data collection from students attending a multi-cultural state primary school in South Africa. “COOL TO BE ME”, the SEL intervention was implemented as universal intervention i.e. to whole year groups (Grade 1-3) i.e. 300 students.

Data will analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics on participants’ age, sex, grade and ethnicity will be provided. The overall social emotional competency score for each student will be calculated, providing means, standard deviations and percentages.Independent Variable: “COOL TO BE ME” SEL Intervention ProgrammeDependent Variable: Overall social emotional competency

B3) List any research assistants, sub-contractors or other staff not named above who will be involved in the research and detail their involvement.

     The study will use secondary data that has been taken by the teachers and passed on to CTBM and for the purposes of establishing baseline scores on students’ social emotional competencies as well as to assess the impact of the intervention programme on students’ these competencies.

84

B4) List below all research sites, and their Lead Investigators, to be included in this study.

Research Site Individual Responsible Position and contact details     Cape Town South Africa

     Linda Bruce      Directorllinda@cooltobeme.comTel: +27 83 2787289

                                  

B5) Are the results of the study to be disseminated in the public domain?

YES X NO(I would like to consider the possibility of publishing this study in due course

If not, why not?

B6) Give details of the funding of the research, including funding organisation(s), amount applied for or secured, duration, and UOL reference

Funding Body Amount Duration UoL Reference     N/A                                                                

B7) Give details of any interests, commercial or otherwise, you or your co-applicants have in the funding body.

SECTION C - EXPEDITED REVIEWC1)

Yes or No?

a) Does the study involve participants who are particularly vulnerable or unable to give informed consent? (e.g. children, people with learning or communication disabilities, people in custody, people engaged in illegal activities such as drug-taking, your own students in an educational capacity) (Note: this does not include secondary data authorised for release by the data collector for research purposes.)

yes

b) Will the study require obtaining consent from a ”research participant advocate” (for definition see guidance notes) in lieu of participants who are unable to give informed consent? (e.g. for research involving children or, people with learning or communication disabilities)

no

85

     N/A

c) Will it be necessary for participants, whose consent to participate in the study will be required, to take part without their knowledge at the time? (e.g. covert observation using photography or video recording)

no

d) Does the study involve deliberately misleading the participants? no

e) Will the study require discussion of sensitive topics that may cause distress or embarrassment to the participant or potential risk of disclosure to the researcher of criminal activity or child protection issues? (e.g. sexual activity, criminal activity)

no

f) Are drugs, placebos or other substances (e.g. food substances, vitamins) to be administered to the study participants or will the study involve invasive, intrusive or potentially harmful procedures of any kind?

no

g) Will samples (e.g. blood, DNA, tissue) be obtained from participants? no

h) Is pain or more than mild discomfort likely to result from the study? no

i) Could the study induce psychological stress or anxiety or cause harm or negative consequences beyond the risks encountered in normal life? no

j) Will the study involve prolonged or repetitive testing? no

k) Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses and compensation for time) be offered to participants? no

C2)Yes or

No?a) Will the study seek written, informed consent? yes

b) Will participants be informed that their participation is voluntary? n/a

c) Will participants be informed that they are free to withdraw at any time? n/a

d) Will participants be informed of aspects relevant to their continued participation in the study?

n/a

e) Will participants’ data remain confidential? yes

f) Will participants be debriefed? n/a

If you have answered ‘no’ to all items in SECTION C1 and ‘yes’ to all questions in SECTION C2 the application will be processed through expedited review.

86

If you have answered “Yes” to one or more questions in Section C1, or “No” to one or more questions in Section C2, but wish to apply for expedited review, please make the case below. See research ethics website for an example “case for expedited review”.

C3) Case for Expedited Review – To be used if asking for expedited review despite answering YES to questions in C1 or NO to answers in C2.

SECTION D - PARTICIPANT DETAILS

D1) How many participants will be recruited?

Approximately 275

D2) How was the number of participants decided upon?

Using Survey Software, (http://www.surveysystem.com) with a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 6, the sample size needed is 267

The following formula was used for this calculation:

ss =Z 2 * (p) * (1-p)

c 2

With:

Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal(.5 used for sample size needed)c = confidence interval, expressed as decimal(e.g., .06 = ±6)

D3)a) Describe how potential participants in the study will be identified,

approached and recruited.

87

     

The primary international school (Grove Primary) in South Africa was identified by the researcher as the school was implementing the CTBM programme as part of their social and emotional learning curriculum development in Grades 1, 2 and 3. CTBM and SEL Consulting were collecting data for the purposes of establishing baseline scores on students’ social emotional competencies as well as to assess the impact of the intervention programme on students’ these competencies.Prior to the implementation of the COOL TO BE ME progamme, an Educational Psychologist (EP) collected pre-intervention data from that the teachers who had used the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) checklist. The checklists were labeled with student number, age, sex and ethnicity so as to ensure anonymity and confidentiality according to the BPS code of ethics.Trained teachers, with support from SEL Consulting EP delivered the CTBM programme teaching students cognitive-behavioural strategies corresponding to several dimensions of social-emotional learning (Bruce & Cohen, 2012). Although this is a 10-week programme, the intervention can be delivered over a longer period of time depending upon curriculum constraints.

Once the intervention programme ended, teachers collected data using the DESSA checklist applying the same system as mentioned above to ensure anonymity.

b) Inclusion criteria:

c) Exclusion criteria:

d) Are any specific groups to be excluded from this study? If so please list them and explain why:

e) Give details for cases and controls separately if appropriate:

f) Give details of any advertisements:

88

All students in year 1, 2 and 3 attending this primary school

Students who are receiving additional social or emotional interventions

n/a

n/a

D4)a) State the numbers of participants from any of the following vulnerable groups

and justify their inclusion

Children under 16 years of age: Secondary data from 275 grade 1-3 students

Adults with learning disabilities: n/aAdults with dementia:      n/aPrisoners: n/aYoung Offenders: n/aAdults who are unable to consent for themselves:

n/a

Those who could be considered to have a particularly dependent relationship with the investigator, e.g. those in care homes, students of the PI or Co-applicants:

n/a

Other vulnerable groups (please list): n/a

b) State the numbers of healthy volunteer participants:

Healthy Volunteers n/a

D5)a) Describe the arrangements for gaining informed consent from the research

participants.

b) If participants are to be recruited from any of the potentially vulnerable groups listed above, give details of extra steps taken to assure their protection, including arrangements to obtain consent from a legal, political or other appropriate representative in addition to the consent of the participant (e.g. HM Prison Service for research with young offenders, Head Teachers for research with children etc.).

c) If participants might not adequately understand verbal explanations or written information given in English, describe the arrangements for those participants (e.g. translation, use of interpreters etc.)

89

n/a

See attached letter from the programme organizers

n/a

d) Where informed consent is not to be obtained (including the deception of participants) please explain why.

D6) What is the potential for benefit to research participants, if any?

The statistical analysis could be beneficial to the school to inform parents and teachers of the effectiveness of the intervention programme implemented by the school

D7) State any fees, reimbursements for time and inconvenience, or other forms of compensation that individual research participants may receive. Include direct payments, reimbursement of expenses or any other benefits of taking part in the research?

n/a

SECTION E - RISKS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

E1) Describe in detail the potential physical or psychological adverse effects, risks or hazards (minimal, moderate, high or severe) of involvement in the research for research participants.

As the data are secondary de-identified data and the researcher will have nothing to do with the collection of data or the intervention programme, there is unlikely to be any adverse effects, risks or hazards for the research participants.

E2) Explain how the potential benefits of the research outweigh any risks to the participants.

The statistical analysis of the data will demonstrate whether the intervention programme is effective or not

E3) Describe in detail the potential adverse effects, risks or hazards (minimal, moderate, high or severe) of involvement in the research for the researchers.

The researcher does not foresee any potential adverse effects, risks or hazards for the researchers taking part in this study

90

n/a

n/a

E4) Will individual or group interviews/questionnaires discuss any topics or issues that might be sensitive, embarrassing or upsetting, or is it possible that criminal or other disclosures requiring action could take place during the study (e.g. during interviews/group discussions, or use of screening tests for drugs)?

YES NO x

If Yes, give details of procedures in place to deal with these issues.

     

E5) Describe the measures in place in the event of any unexpected outcomes or adverse events to participants arising from their involvement in the project

n/a

E6) Explain how the conduct of the project will be monitored to ensure that it conforms with the study plan and relevant University policies and guidance.

Close supervision and monitoring by the dissertation advisor will ensure the researcher conforms with the study plan and relevant University policies and guidance.

SECTION F - DATA ACCESS AND STORAGE

F1) Where the research involves any of the following activities at any stage (including identification of potential research participants), state what measures have been put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data (e.g. encryption or other anonymisation procedures will be used)

Electronic transfer of data by magnetic or optical media, e-mail or computer networks

All data will be de-identified at source

Sharing of data with other organisations

Data will not be shared with any organisation other than the university

Export of data outside the European Union

n/a

Use of personal addresses, postcodes, faxes, e-mails or telephone numbers

No personal addresses, postcodes, faxes,

91

e-mails or telephone numbers will be used

Publication of direct quotations from respondents

n/a

Publication of data that might allow identification of individuals

n/a

Use of audio/visual recording devices n/a

Storage of personal data on any of the following:

n/a

Manual files n/a

Home or other personal computers Coded de-identified data stored on password controlled personal computer only

University computers n/a

Private company computers n/a

Laptop computers Coded de-identified data stored on password controlled personal laptop computer only

F2) Who will have control of and act as the custodian for the data generated by the study?

Researcher and dissertation advisor

F3) Who will have access to the data generated by the study?

Researcher and dissertation advisor

F4) For how long will data from the study be stored?

5 years

SECTION G – PEER REVIEW

G1) 92

a) Has the project undergone peer review?

YES NO x

b) If yes, by whom was this carried out? (please enclose evidence if available)

SECTION G - CHECKLIST OF ENCLOSURES

Study Plan / Protocol xRecruitment advertisement      Participant information sheet      Participant Consent form      Research Participant Advocate Consent form      Evidence of external approvals xQuestionnaires on sensitive topics      Interview schedule      Debriefing material      Other (please specify)      

93

     

Appendix C

DISSERTATION PROPOSAL PRO FORMA

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION/APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAMMES

Student Name: Judith StevensonDissertation Advisor: Dr. Alexandra Pentaraki

94

95

TitleEvaluating the Impact of “COOL TO BE ME” on Social and Emotional Competencies within a South African Primary School Setting.

Introduction and background

Despite an appeal more than a century ago by the philosopher and educator, John Dewey (1859-1952), to educate the whole child i.e. physical, social, emotional and intellectual (Ryan, 2000), high-stakes testing appears to suggest that academic achievement is valued over and above the social and emotional wellbeing of students. Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children effectively acquire and apply the knowledge, attitudes and skills required to understand and cope with emotions, set and accomplish positive goals, feel and demonstrate empathy for others, create and maintain positive relationships and make responsible decisions (Zins & Elias, 2006). Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 270,034 students spanning 213 schools and found that compared with controls, students exposed to social and emotional learning (SEL) demonstrated not only significantly improved social and emotional skills, behaviour, attitude but also an improved academic performance of 11-percentile-points. Research on the benefits of school-based SEL programmes conducted by Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL 2016) demonstrate that students improve significantly with regard to social and emotional skills; attitudes towards self and others; classroom and social behaviour; conduct issues within the classroom; managing emotional distress and improvements in academic achievement.Education in South Africa:Education in South Africa has a unique socio-political history in that during the apartheid era (1948-1994), education was split according to race (van Alphen, 2013). Those classified as white received the best education, Asian and coloured lesser so, while the majority (96%) classified as Black received a very poor education. Although much progress has been made in the 21 years since Apartheid ended with regard to universal access to education, inequalities in South African education system still exist due to poverty, the social situation and teacher development. Van Alphen (2013) proposes that one way to resolve this issue is to restore human values beginning with the wellbeing of children. In 1997, the Department of Education introduced Life Skills into the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) as a sincere attempt to facilitate students’ personal development. However, while this provides what is required to be covered to achieve this, many educators are insufficiently trained in how to incorporate this into their lessons.COOL TO BE ME

Cool To Be Me (hereafter referred to as ‘CTBM’), a South African-developed SEL intervention, was developed for children aged 6-13 (Grades 1-7) to support the current curriculum of Life Skills taught in South African schools in order to develop students’ social and emotional competencies. A universal user-friendly early intervention programme, CTBM enables students to develop the skills, behaviours and attitudes necessary to manage their social, emotional and cognitive behaviour (Bruce & Cohen, 2012). As outlined by Zins et al (2004), these core competencies are self-awareness, social awareness, responsible decision-making, self-management and relationship skills. CTBM programme objectives are well aligned with these key competencies. Although designed for use as a universal intervention, CTBM also provides home-based SEL programmes for children aged 5-10 to facilitate a child’s social and emotional wellbeing both at home and at school.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the CTBM programme on overall social emotional competencies of students attending an independent primary school in South Africa. The significance of this research being that there is no previous published research on the impact of CTBM within this particular population and this study will increase our understanding of social emotional competencies within independent primary schools in South Africa.

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Alexandra Pentaraki

96

Appendix DSPSS OUTPUT from Linear Regression, Repeated Measures and ANCOVA

Output 1: Linear Regression

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 13.903 9.053 1.536Grade .450 1.069 .045 .421Gender 1.171 .813 .071 1.439Pre Intervention Social Emotional Competence Score

.568 .045 .620 12.661

Post Intervention Age .028 .074 .039 .371a. Dependent Variable: Post Intervention Social Emotional Competence Score

Output 2: Testing for homogeneity of regression using Pre SEC as covariate

Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsDependent Variable: Post Intervention Social Emotional Composite ScoreSource Type III Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 8364.229a 3 2788.076 70.723 .000Intercept 4992.355 1 4992.355 126.636 .000Grade * PreSEC 8364.229 3 2788.076 70.723 .000Error 10841.255 275 39.423Total 821469.000 279Corrected Total 19205.484 278a. R Squared = .436 (Adjusted R Squared = .429)

97

98

Output 3: Repeated Measures (Pre and Post SEC on grade only)

Tests of Within-Subjects EffectsMeasure: MEASURE_1Source Type III Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

Time

Sphericity Assumed 4399.207 1 4399.207 175.040 .000Greenhouse-Geisser 4399.207 1.000 4399.207 175.040 .000Huynh-Feldt 4399.207 1.000 4399.207 175.040 .000Lower-bound 4399.207 1.000 4399.207 175.040 .000

time * Grade

Sphericity Assumed 1064.891 2 532.446 21.185 .000Greenhouse-Geisser 1064.891 2.000 532.446 21.185 .000Huynh-Feldt 1064.891 2.000 532.446 21.185 .000Lower-bound 1064.891 2.000 532.446 21.185 .000

Error(time)

Sphericity Assumed 6936.593 276 25.133Greenhouse-Geisser 6936.593 276.000 25.133Huynh-Feldt 6936.593 276.000 25.133Lower-bound 6936.593 276.000 25.133

99

Output 4: Repeated Measures (gender and grade)

Tests of Within-Subjects ContrastsMeasure: MEASURE_1Source time Type III Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

Time Linear 4372.352 1 4372.352 173.668 .000time * Gender Linear 20.106 1 20.106 .799 .372time * Grade Linear 1071.176 2 535.588 21.273 .000time * Gender * Grade Linear 43.327 2 21.664 .860 .424Error(time) Linear 6873.176 273 25.176

Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsMeasure: MEASURE_1Transformed Variable: AverageSource Type III Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

Intercept 1440225.974 1 1440225.974 12635.838 .000Gender 2233.894 1 2233.894 19.599 .000Grade 612.473 2 306.236 2.687 .070Gender * Grade 212.147 2 106.074 .931 .396Error 31116.393 273 113.979

100

Output 5: UNIVARIATE ANCOVA

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

Dependent Variable: Post Intervention Social Emotional Composite Score

F df1 df2 Sig.2.460 2 276 .087

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.a. Design: Intercept + Grade * PostAge

Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsDependent Variable: Post Intervention Social Emotional Composite ScoreSource Type III Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 148.191a 3 49.397 .713 .545Intercept 2689.228 1 2689.228 38.806 .000Grade * PostAge 148.191 3 49.397 .713 .545Error 19057.293 275 69.299Total 821469.000 279Corrected Total 19205.484 278a. R Squared = .008 (Adjusted R Squared = -.003)

101

102