1

Social Skills, Relationships, and Learning: Do Social and Emotional Learning Programs

and Teacher-Student Relationships Influence Students’ Academic Achievement?

Amber S. Fuller

Department of Teaching and Learning, Bloomsburg University

EDL 590: Educational Research and Writing

Dr. Mark Bauman

May 13, 2021

 2

Abstract

This paper examined the influence of SEL programs and teacher-student relationships on

students’ academic achievement. The purpose of the review was to provide a knowledge base of

the influence on academic achievement scores and grades in reading and math, after applying

social-emotional programs and establishing relationships in a caring, classroom environment in

schools. After reviewing a limited body of research, strongly dominated yet limited by few

authors, the author of the paper found that SEL programs’ influence on academic achievement is

not widely studied as only 16% of generalized SEL programs are studied in this manner. The

research on two specific SEL programs examined in this study showed little to no influence on

academic achievement; however, the research on teacher-student relationships examined in this

study showed a positive or negative influence on academic achievement based on teacher-student

communication. Finally, the author concluded that SEL programs require further research and

analysis to confirm the effectiveness of the programs and their influence on academic

achievement. Therefore, the author presented future suggestions to educators and researchers that

involve conducting further research, challenging current SEL programs and practices, and

focusing on methods that influence teacher-student relationships.

Keywords: Academic Achievement, Social-Emotional Learning, Teacher-Student

Relationships, Second Step, INSIGHTS

 3

How Social and Emotional Learning Programs and Teacher-Student Relationships

Influence Learning

How do social and emotional learning and relationships with teachers impact student

learning? For the purposes of this paper, the terms “academic achievement” and “learning” will

be used interchangeably. Currently, schools across the nation are battling the COVID-19

pandemic. Bond (2020) reviewed the current state of education with COVID-19 precautions and

concluded that social and emotional learning (SEL) are still as important as before. However,

while students are shuttled into remote learning and in-person instruction is limited, additional

efforts must be made to ensure the practice of social and emotional learning to continue during

the pandemic (Bond). For instance, specific SEL practices like Responsive Classroom’s Morning

Meeting, where students greet each other and complete physical team-building exercises to build

relationships and practice social skills, must be adapted to accommodate for social distancing

(Bond). This paper will focus on SEL methods and teacher-student relationships (TSRs) from

pre-pandemic times, as current practices and programs may have more limitations than before

(prior to 2020). Overall, this paper aims to answer if social and emotional learning programs and

teacher-student relationships influence students’ academic achievement in reading and math.

The importance of social and emotional programs began to arise, as self-regulation,

attention-paying, and problem-solving skills were recognized as important factors to determine

student achievement (Blair, 2002). As educators and policy makers began to understand the

connection of SEL and academic achievement, SEL programs were adopted by school districts to

teach social and emotional skills through intervention (Cook et al., 2018). Certain SEL programs

implement social skills that can be learned through relationship building in supportive

environments (McCormick et al., 2015; 2020). Teacher-student relationships fostered in the

 4

classroom may have positive or negative influence on student learning. TSRs may either be

warm and nurturing, or lackluster and harmful to student success (McCormick et al., 2015). In

some settings, students may be able to learn with or without the influence of teacher-student

relationships (McCormick et al., 2015). To help foster these relationships, SEL programs like

Morning Meeting or INSIGHTS focus on building teacher-student and student relationships

(McCormick et al., 2015). As I delve into SEL programs and their influence on student learning,

I will further assess the presence of student-teacher relationships in conducted research on SEL

programs and the influence these relationships have on academic achievement.

For the purposes of this paper, I will examine two SEL programs, INSIGHTS and Second

Step, and data collected on teacher-student relationships from various studies. Reviewing these

two programs and TSR data will open the discussion to a broader perspective on whether social

and emotional learning programs and teacher-student relationships have any influence on student

learning in math and reading.

Literature Review

This section begins with the historical review of social and emotional learning.

Afterwards, I will discuss the various competencies taught through generalized SEL programs.

Next, I will examine two specific SEL programs and their aims. Following the aims of two

specific SEL programs, I will review teacher-student relationships and the relevance of TSRs on

safe classroom environments and teacher perceptions. Then, I will examine how SEL programs

and teacher-student relationships influence students’ academic achievement in reading and math.

Finally, I will conclude the paper with recommendations for future research and provide

suggestions to educators on how to use social and emotional learning and relationships to support

students’ achievement in math and reading.

 5

Historical Review of Social and Emotional Learning

Dating back to 380 B.C., Plato believed that focusing on the complete education of a

child was the most promising way to foster children to become productive citizens in society

(Beaty, 2018). The complete education or holistic learning approach focuses on all aspects of

student learning: academic, physical, social, mental, and emotional (Mahmoudi et al., 2012). In

1994, various professionals with similar beliefs met at the Fertzer Institute to develop ways to

educate students into becoming productive citizens (Beaty). During this time, the professionals

founded an organization called Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning

(CASEL) (Beaty). Further, CASEL members coined the acronym “SEL” for social and

emotional learning by defining the need to address students’ social and emotional wellbeing, and

the need for schools to provide intervention to address social-emotional needs of students to

support learning (Greenberg et al., 2003). Thus, SEL had officially been drafted to a framework

to address students’ social-emotional needs in schools in 1994 (Greenberg et al.).

Although SEL has its importance, it is not the only important piece of a child’s education.

SEL is only one fraction of a child’s learning, accompanying math, reading, and science

instruction (Elias, 2003). Elias refers to social and emotional learning as the “missing piece” (p.

7) in education, as social and emotional learning support academic learning with skills needed to

function in relationships and the community. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

was introduced and the act imposed new factors of accountability for states and districts (Zins et

al., 2004). Alongside accountability for academic success via report cards and state testing,

schools began to employ social and emotional learning programs to support student academic

success (Zins et al.). Zins et al. reported that districts were not apt to employ any programs that

were not research-based, requiring evidence of improvement, as the need for accountability was
 6

irrefutable. Liston et al. (2007) noted that school districts’ goals were focused solely on programs

that would serve the purpose of boosting student achievement. Therefore, SEL programs only

served a purpose to school districts, if the programs would raise students’ academic achievement

(Liston et al., 2007). Once policy makers and educators began drawing parallels between SEL

programs and skills to the academic success of students, the need for SEL programs in schools

rose (Zins et al., 2004). Zins et al. (2004) and Greenberg et al. (2003) both cautioned that

introducing SEL programs in isolation, lacking a holistic learning approach, may be a serious

misstep. If school districts approach SEL with short-term, fragmented interventions, schools may

not reap the anticipated benefits. Further, Greenberg et al. suggested SEL should hold the same

importance as academic learning and be included into the school’s vision, mission, and culture,

fitting appropriately into the educational puzzle alongside math, reading, and other academic

instruction.

The concept of the missing piece is again acknowledged, as the Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA) of 2015 allowed public schools the privilege to redesign outdated goals to ensure

equitable education for students (Gayl, 2017). As states were granted the opportunity to change

their goals and policies under the ESSA Act, many students were ushered into holistic learning

(Gayl, 2017). With growing support for SEL programs under NCLB and ESSA, a need for more

SEL programs became apparent (Cook et al., 2018). Generalized, SEL programs are school-

based interventions that teach students core social and emotional skills like identifying emotions

and empathizing, setting goals, problem-solving, building and maintaining relationships, and

other various skills needed to be a successful citizen (Cook et al., 2018). As a result of SEL

program implementation, social skills were integrated into daily routines in classrooms and

schools (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). Roorda et al. (2011) explained that the integration of
 7

social skills occurred due to the refinement of SEL in the past two decades. Further, CASEL

(n.d.) outlined SEL with five basic social skill “competencies”.

Social Skill Competencies of SEL Programs Explained

This section reviews the five, refined social skill areas that are taught in classrooms in

many SEL programs and how they relate to student success. Prior to 2020’s pandemic, schools

were incorporating classroom or schoolwide SEL programs like INSIGHTS, Second Step,

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and others to help learners succeed in

CASEL’s pre-determined five skills of social and emotional learning (Gayl, 2017). The

aforementioned programs helped students learn about social and emotional skills through

modeling and practicing of learned skills in their everyday lives. Alongside practicing of SEL

competencies, many SEL programs encouraged the establishment of safe, compassionate

environments for students (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The five overarching skills taught in

classrooms, using SEL programs, are as follows: proper decision-making, relationship building

and maintaining, empathy and compassion, self-regulation, and mindfulness (CASEL, n.d.).

Students’ emotions and their ability to navigate the five social and emotional

competencies may dictate their academic success (Elias et al., 1997). When students began

learning to employ these five competencies, educators and parents hoped to see improvements in

socializing, better coping mechanisms, fewer behavioral problems, and higher achievement in

reading and math (Greenberg et al., 2003). Greenberg et al. suggested that monitoring of the

social skills practice and improvements, or lack thereof, in the five competencies was influential

in the success of students’ academic achievement. Further, students that receive monitored

intervention in the five skill areas may be set up for lifelong success, as learners and citizens

(Gayl, 2017).
 8

SEL Programs Explained

This section introduces two widely-practiced SEL programs that support SEL through the

five social skill competencies in classroom environments. While there are various SEL programs

that may be adopted by schools throughout the country, INSIGHTS and Second Step are the

programs chosen for examination in this paper. Both programs have informative findings on the

influence of SEL programs and teacher-student relationships on academic achievement in

reading and math.

The first program that is reviewed is called INSIGHTS – INSIGHTS into Children’s

Temperament (McCormick et al., 2020). INSIGHTS is a preventative social and emotional

learning program that is employed in low-income elementary schools for students that are

academically at-risk and in need of positive behavior supports (McCormick et al., 2015).

INSIGHTS is a research-based program that teachers, students, and parents use to help with

student temperaments (McCormick et al., 2015). Temperament is based on how a person reacts

to others, life events, etc. (McCormick et al., 2020). INSIGHTS aims to improve classroom

environments by matching the environment to student temperaments (McCormick et al., 2015).

McCormick et al. stated that INSIGHTS uses four temperament characters to help students relate

to the program: a shy character, a grumpy character, a friendly and persistent character, and a

character that is happy and has a suitable work ethic. Teachers and parents are given examples to

recognize these qualities in their students, review their perception of the characters, and react to

student temperaments by using certain management techniques (McCormick et al., 2015). By

using this program, educators and families hope to build more positive relationships by modeling

and encouraging empathy, which may influence the effort and motivations of students in

academic areas.
 9

The second program that will be examined is known as Second Step. Second Step is an

SEL program that was targeted toward elementary schools and developed by Committee for

Children (Cook et al., 2018). Although, Second Step has the ability to reach students from

preschool through twelfth grade, this paper will primarily focus on the program at the elementary

level (Cook et al., 2018). Cook et al. remarked that students at the elementary level are still

developing their social skills and are likely able to profit from proper intervention. Cook et al.

also recognized that Second Step is SEL-based curriculum that focuses on social skill

intervention in a whole-group setting to support students’ abilities to learn, build friendships,

manage emotions, and solve problems. Frey et al. (2000) stated that modeling and support from

peers and the classroom teacher in a whole group setting may make the program more beneficial

than when a program is implemented in a small group setting. Cook et al. (2018) reviewed

Second Step’s “logic model” (p. 2) which followed the pattern of instructing social skills,

providing practice with peers, and reinforcing skills through review means. By using this

program, educators and families aim to strengthen social and emotional skills of students to

support academic achievement (Cook et al.).

INSIGHTS and Second Step are SEL classroom interventions that focus on social skills

and classroom environments. While using these programs, students and teachers practice social

skill building through teacher and student interactions and relationships in the classroom (Frey et

al., 2000). In the following section, I will account for teacher-student relationships formed in

classroom environments.

Safe Environments and Teacher-Student Relationships

Classroom environments are managed by teachers through routines and learning occurs

thereafter. As teachers and students gather together for learning, teacher-student relationships
 10

(TSRs) are formed (Roorda et al., 2011). Roorda et al. cited that an emphasis on teacher-student

relationships has risen in the past twenty years, like Beaty (2018) noted the same increase in SEL

programs in the last two decades. Wubbels & Brekelmans (2005) focused on the linkage between

teaching and communication: instructing through an interpersonal lens by establishing

relationships. Communication as a mode of teaching is known as the “communicative systems

approach” (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005, p. 2). The inclusion or exclusion of communication

can be perceived as positive or negative, depending on the message and body language between

teachers and students (Wubbels & Brekelmans). After establishing frequent communication in

the learning environment, the perceived messages create a pattern for consistency between

teachers and students (Wubbels & Brekelmans). Therefore, Wubbels & Brekelmans noted that

the communications established over time form a relationship of either positive or negative

reactions and create a pattern of behavior. Teacher-student relationships, by definition of

repetitive communications, are analyzed via the teacher’s perceptions of the students’ behaviors,

students’ feelings towards their teachers, what students learn, and how students react (Wubbels

& Brekelmans). These formed relationships and perceptions may have direct influence on

student learning and vary between student relationships with various teachers (Wubbels &

Brekelmans). According to Ladd et al. (1999), the environment and temperaments of teachers

and students may influence perceptions about the formed relationships. The perceptions about

the relationships may have direct effects on student motivation; therefore, perceptions and

communication in TSRs may have a direct influence on academic achievement in reading and

math (Ladd et al.). In support, students that have experienced positive communication with their

teachers may have a positive influence in academic achievement; however, if their teacher-

student communication was negative, the influence on achievement may also be negative
 11

(Wubbels & Brekelmans). The following section will overview the influences, if any, of SEL

programs and TSRs on academic achievement in reading and math.

Social-Emotional Learning Programs’ and Teacher-Student Relationships’ Influence on

Academic Achievement

Do SEL programs and teacher-student relationships have a positive, negative, or neutral

influence on academic achievement in reading and math? Although the previously mentioned

authors’ hypotheses surrounding SEL programs and TSRs include assumptions of an influence

on academic achievement, the research findings were contradictory. The previously reviewed

studies revealed a lack of research on SEL programs and their influence on academic

achievement. Overall, Durlak et al. (2011) remarked that a mere sixteen percent of SEL

programs account for students’ academic achievement. Of the studies that examined academic

achievement, most focused on the immediate results produced by the SEL programs and did not

examine long-term effects (McCormick et al., 2015). Further, McCormick et al. stated that these

inconsistent findings related to student learning are potentially misleading because findings

surrounding the influence on academic achievement were small or almost nonexistent. To

support McCormick et al.’s findings, Wenz-Gross et al. (2018) asserted that Second Step is a

well-known and implemented program that was not widely studied. McCormick et al. (2015)

stated more specifically that few studies have been conducted to determine the influence of

INSIGHTS on student learning. Therefore, the search results yielded few returns on INSIGHTS or

Second Step and its relation to academic achievement.

Alongside limited research, the research available on INSIGHTS implementation and its

influence on academic achievement was primarily dominated by researchers McCormick,

O’Connor, and McClowry (2015; 2020). These three researchers conducted their first study in
 12

2015 and additional research later in 2020 to describe the long-term effects of INSIGHTS

(McCormick et al. 2020). Therefore, the subsection below will mainly examine these two studies

on INSIGHTS and academic achievement from 2015 and 2020. Similarly, Second Step research

was also lacking in ties to academic achievement. The sole study that I examined was conducted

by Cook et al. (2018). After searching extensively, any additional research mentioned will

include generalized SEL program evidence of influence on academic achievement. In contrast,

studies on TSRs and students’ academic achievement were more widely available and will be

discussed later in this section. In the following sections, I will explore the limited studies of the

two SEL programs’ and the more widely researched studies on TSRs’ influence on academic

achievement.

SEL Programs’ Influence on Academic Achievement

As previously mentioned, this examination will focus on two SEL programs and their

influence on academic achievement. To begin, how does INSIGHTS influence academic

achievement in reading and math? Accounting for the lack of long-term studies, the program’s

positive influence on students’ academic achievement have not been reported with consistency.

McCormick et al.’s (2015) two-year study of kindergarten and first grade students that

participated in INSIGHTS yielded positive results for first grade students’ academic achievement

in reading. These same first grade students did not show any significant improvement in math

scores. However, kindergarten students from the study that participated in INSIGHTS did not

show any improvement in academic achievement in reading or math (McCormick et al., 2015).

McCormick et al. hypothesized that the lack of influence on academic achievement may be due

to the pre-existing heavy demands of character building necessary for kindergarten students to be

active participants in learning. As well, McCormick et al. suggested the influence of INSIGHTS
 13

on reading achievement merely reflected that teachers are strongly focused on reading instruction

compared to mathematics instruction, spending more instructional hours on reading than math.

McCormick et al. (2015) supported the reading claim further by stating that INSIGHTS provided

more reading opportunities for students than mathematical opportunities, as the program includes

read-alouds to support the SEL curriculum.

Any growth or improvement in math scores of students may have been caused by

classroom climate, more so than reading scores (McCormick et al., 2015). When McCormick et

al. (2020) completed their second study on third to fifth graders, the claim that mathematic

achievement was not influenced by INSIGHTS was yet again supported. Reading achievement at

that time was positively influenced for third and fourth grade students but not positively or

negatively influenced for fifth or sixth grade students (McCormick et al., 2020). In summary,

McCormick et al. (2015; 2020) demonstrated that while INSIGHTS somewhat influenced reading

achievement in first, third, and fourth grades, it did not influence math achievement from

kindergarten through sixth grade and required additional studies to solidify its influence.

Shifting the focus onto another SEL program, Cook et al.’s (2018) Second Step

implementation with low-socioeconomic, elementary students did not produce any significant

relationship between the program and student learning. Cook et al. (2018) conclude in their

findings that no suggested effects on academic achievement were present. The Second Step

participants in the control group had nonsignificant findings in their reading and math scores on

the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Cook et al.). Cook et al. remarked that their

initial hypothesis, that Second Step’s SEL program would benefit students through improving

their social skills, was unfounded. Second Step’s influence could have been unfounded due to

several factors (Cook et al.). First, Cook et al. explained that the lack of influence on academic
 14

achievement may be contributed to the short-term length of the study they had conducted.

Similar to McCormick et al. (2015; 2020), Cook et al. supported the long-term implementation

of SEL programs to conduct further research on a program’s influence on academic achievement.

Further, Cook et al. discussed how Second Step’s influence might have influenced elementary

students with average or above academic achievement most, as average or above average

performing students can apply the SEL to their academic learning instead of focusing most of

their efforts on catching up to peers academically. Despite these additional hypotheses from

Cook et al., Second Step’s program did not influence students’ academic achievement in reading

or math.

Overall, as students were selected to participate in INSIGHTS and Second Step, the only

influence that these programs had on academic learning was discovered in first, third, and fourth

grade reading scores on the reading and math assessment from McCormick et al.’s INSIGHTS

studies (2015; 2020). Further, McCormick et al.’s INSIGHTS studies reflected the program had

no influence on kindergarten, fifth, or sixth grade reading achievement and no influence on math

scores in kindergarten through sixth grade (2015; 2020). Cook et al.’s (2018) Second Step study

lacked evidence to support any influence on academic achievement. Completing more research

studies, as McCormick et al. and Cook et al. suggested, may yield different results. In the past,

INSIGHTS and Second Step have not yielded enough, short-term or long-term, studies to deduce

their complete impact on student learning (McCormick et al.; Cook et al., 2018).

Teacher-Student Relationships’ Influence on Academic Achievement

Despite the minimal findings of SEL programs’ influence on academic achievement,

TSRs have yielded more positive results on academic achievement. Graziano et al. (2007) stated

that teacher-student relationships influence children’s motivation to learn. Students that

 15

communicated positively with their teachers were perceived differently by their teachers and

received better grades than students with negative TSRs, as they appear motivated and interested

in learning (Roorda et al., 2011). Positive communication and interactions between teachers and

students have influenced the learning environment and motivate students through social goals

like pleasing their teachers or parents, and getting peer approval (Urdan & Maehr, 1995).

Students with negative TSRs were inversely influenced, engaging less in academic activities and

scoring lower on tests (Ladd et al., 1999). These negative impressions of disinterest and lack of

motivation have influenced teacher perceptions of student ability and resulted in students

receiving poorer scores and grades (Ladd et al., 1999). Further, Roorda et al. also found that

negative TSRs influenced lower levels of academic achievement, reasoning that there is no

positive encouragement for students to succeed.

Focusing on one particular study, Graziano et al.’s study of 325 kindergarteners, using

the Academic Performance Rating Scale and Student-Teacher Relationship Scales, attempted to

find further influence of TSRs on academic achievement (2007). Graziano et al. found additional

evidence that students with positive TSRs and higher capacities to regulate their emotions

received higher math and reading scores on the Academic Performance Rating Scale. Students

that had positive TSRs showed more persistence with assignment completion and provided more

accurate answers to test questions (Graziano et al.). Both Graziano et al. (2007) and Roorda et al.

(2011) found that students with positive TSRs had teachers that positively pushed them to

achieve and, as a result, these students aimed to make their teachers happy.

After reviewing studies about TSRs, the findings show that TSRs can positively or

negatively influence academic achievement. If students were involved in positive TSRs, their

academic achievement was positively influenced; conversely, if students were involved in

 16

negative TSRs, their academic achievement was negatively influenced (Roorda et al., 2011).

Building a positive environment, as implemented in SEL programs, was not enough to

significantly influence students to achieve higher scores on reading or math tests (McCormick et

al., 2020). However, when students positively communicated and interacted with teachers and

peers, students’ achievement in reading and math reflected a positive influence unlike the scores

of students with negative TSRs (Graziano et al., 2007). TSRs have demonstrated the ability to

raise student achievement in reading and math, when students have a positive relationship with

their teacher (Graziano et al.). In the following section, I will review my hypothesis, make

suggestions for future research, and draw a conclusion for educators that may implement SEL

programs and encourage TSRs in their schools.

Conclusion, Future Research, and Suggestions for Educators

After examining the influence of SEL programs like Second Step and INSIGHTS on

academic achievement, my initial belief that SEL programs had a positive influence on students’

academic achievement was incorrect. In conclusion, the limited research on the influence of

academic achievement through SEL programs conducted by McCormick et al. (2015; 2020) and

Cook et al. (2018) primarily reflected a lack of influence with limited positive influence on

reading scores. Therefore, the researchers suggested further studies are necessary to determine

the influence of these two SEL programs on academic achievement. In contrast, the examination

of TSRs and their influence on academic achievement proved that the relationships built within a

safe, caring environment positively influence academic achievement in reading and math. What

do the limited findings on SEL programs’ influence on academic achievement mean?

As it was my belief that SEL programs were influencing students’ abilities to self-

regulate and focus in the classroom, lessening student behaviors, and providing strategies for
 17

students to absorb more academic information, the research on the programs has shown that

these programs have little influence on academic achievement. As the findings from the studies

contradict my belief that SEL programs that teach self-regulation consistently and positively

influence academic achievement, I have become concerned with SEL programs’ ability to

increase social-emotional competency. If students are not receiving higher scores in reading and

math as a result of improved social-emotional skills, the question now becomes: are SEL

programs increasing these competencies as they claim?

As a teacher in a low socio-economic area, where these programs are often implemented,

I have not been provided with readily available evidence. Therefore, with limited evidence from

SEL program research being thin and strongly dominated by two groups of authors, I urge

educators to assess their SEL programs by asking for data. Educators may assess the programs in

the form of reviewing yearly data collected from their students or data collected from program

researchers like McCormick et al. (2015; 2020) or Cook et al. (2018). Within the upcoming

years, I hope to see an increase in studies that surround SEL programs and their influence on

academic achievement. Without this evidence, educators must push to review the yearly data

from programs that are implemented within their schools, question the benefits and influences of

the programs, and decide what programs or methods would be most effective for their students.

Educators’ further inquiry into program outcomes could potentially save school districts’ money,

as programs like Second Step and INSIGHTS are costly. If a program is found to have a negative

or null influence, money spent on the programs should be reallocated. Similarly, when students

are provided with reading or math programs, their progress is monitored to determine usefulness

of the intervention and the program is either maintained or replaced based on its effectiveness to

influence academic achievement. I suggest educators expand accountability to include the

 18

“missing piece” of social-emotional learning and evaluate current programs and methods to

determine efficacy.

In contrast to SEL programs’ lack of influence on academic achievement, TSRs have

shown to influence academic achievement positively or negatively. Another suggestion that I

have is for future educators to shift their focus from costly SEL programs and find methods that

place emphasis on TSRs. For example, Responsive Classroom’s Morning Meeting is a free

method that school districts could implement to foster relationships in classrooms. This method

could be implemented with more frequency than both SEL programs reviewed above, providing

more opportunities to practice social-skills and academic concepts, as it is a daily classroom

routine. As well, Morning Meeting can be aligned to fit each district’s needs, as the content

discussed within the meetings is not scripted, like Second Step or INSIGHTS, but rather a

generalized method that is tailored to fit the needs of students in each classroom. Each day, the

teacher would have students greet one another, share about themselves or a concept, complete a

team-building activity, and discuss the events of the day through a written message. Within this

meeting, academic or social-emotional skills may be taught through sharing or team-building

activities. As students are participating in this routine, they are building a safe and caring

environment, solidifying relationships with teachers and their peers, and forming healthy

communication patterns, as Roorda et al. (2011) stated to be influential on academic

achievement.

Overall, the contradictory findings between SEL programs’ and TSRs’ influence on

academic achievement demand educators to assess what methods positively increase academic

achievement. As students require a holistic approach, educators must reflect on what is most

effective for their students academically, socially, emotionally, and more. Without further
 19

research or proper assessment of implemented programs, teachers are expecting SEL programs

to influence students’ capacity to learn academic content. The findings of the studies have

proven my hypothesis and the authors’ hypotheses to be unfounded. Although it is safe to say

that SEL programs do not have strong influences on academic achievement, educators should

now focus on forming and maintaining TSRs to improve student learning. The current research

shows that TSRs are worth the time and effort, as students learn and apply knowledge best when

they have positive communication and safe environments at school.

 20

References

Beaty, J. (2018). History of social and emotional learning. International Arab Journal of English

for Specific Purposes, 1(2), 67-72.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological

conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2),

111.

Bond, J. B. (2020). Social-emotional learning in a time of chaos. International Dialogues on

Education: Past and Present, 7, 87-92.

CASEL. (n.d.). SEL: What are the core competency areas and where are they promoted?.

Casel.org. https://casel.org/sel-

framework/#:~:text=The%20CASEL%205%20addresses%20five,%2C%20and%20respo

nsible%20decision%2Dmaking

Cook, C. R., Low, S., Buntain-Ricklefs, J., Whitaker, K., Pullmann, M. D., & Lally, J. (2018).

Evaluation of Second Step on early elementary students’ academic outcomes: A

randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 561.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-

processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1),

74.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, 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.

 21

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler,

R., Schwar-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional

learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD.

Elias, M. J. (2003). Academic and social-emotional learning (Vol. 11). Brussels, Belgium:

International Academy of Education.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second Step: Preventing aggression by

promoting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2),

102-112.

Gayl, C. L. (2017). How state planning for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) can promote

student academic, social, and emotional learning: An examination of five key strategies.

CASEL Brief. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion

regulation in children's early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 3-

19.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., &

Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through

coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American psychologist, 58(6-7),

466.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children's social and scholastic lives in

kindergarten: Related spheres of influence?. Child Development, 70(6), 1373-1400.

Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2007). NCLB and scientifically based research. Journal

of Teacher Education, 58(2), 99–107.

 22

Mahmoudi, S., Jafari, E., Nasrabadi, H. A., & Liaghatdar, M. J. (2012). Holistic education: An

approach for 21 century. International Education Studies, 5(2), 178-186.

McCormick, M. P., Cappella, E., O’Connor, E. E., & McClowry, S. G. (2015). Social-emotional

learning and academic achievement: Using causal methods to explore classroom-level

mechanisms. Aera Open, 1(3), 2332858415603959.

McCormick, M. P., Neuhaus, R., O’Connor, E. E., White, H. I., Horn, E. P., Harding, S., ... &

McClowry, S. (2020). Long-term effects of social-emotional learning on academic skills:

Evidence from a randomized trial of INSIGHTS. Journal of Research on Educational

Effectiveness, 1-27.

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective

teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-

analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the students, teach

the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social and emotional learning.

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

https://www.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ESSA-and-SEL-Five-Strategies-

April-2017-041717.pdf

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement:

A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213-243.

Wenz-Gross, M., Yoo, Y., Upshur, C. C., & Gambino, A. J. (2018). Pathways to kindergarten

readiness: The roles of Second Step early learning curriculum and social emotional,

executive functioning, preschool academic and task behavior skills. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9, 1886.
 23

Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student

relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1-2), 6-24.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base

linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and

Psychological Consultation, 17(2-3), 191-210.