Fundamental Themes in Social–Emotional Learning: A Theoretical Framework for Inclusivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting read.

The objectives are not adequately specified. The stated objectives are not clearly reflected in the methodology used. It is difficult to relate the results presented to the stated objectives. The discussion is disconnected from the results section. The conclusions have no obvious relationship to the research objectives.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful feedback. Below are he 5 main concerns you raised and a description of changes we have made in response:

• The objectives are not adequately specified.

In particular you identified areas of ambiguity around how our aims/objectives mapped onto our methods and overall summaries (“results”).  We have, throughout the paper, clarified all of our aim/objectives and also made sure they are sequenced to be in alignment with sections of the paper. 

We noted the areas of ambiguity regarding our objectives and clarified them to be aligned appropriately with the manuscript. 

(Changes found: line 80-95, line 636-641, line 804-809)

• The stated objectives are not clearly reflected in the methodology used.

Along with our clarified objectives, we have revised our methods to provide a much more detailed discussion of search techniques and inclusion and exclusion criteria that align better with our objectives.  You provided some very helpful points about the importance of reliability assurances, which we agree are important for some types of systematic reviews and most certainly necessary for meta analyses.  We feel that the methods section now includes detail that is  typical of a theoretically oriented narrative review.  

(Changes found: line 159-190) 

•  It is difficult to relate the results presented to the stated objectives & The conclusions have no obvious relationship to the research objectives

In order to relate the objective to the results and conclusions our objectives needed to be revised for clarity. We have done so, and further revised the conclusion section to better reflect the objectives that were met.

(Changes found: line 80-95, line 636-641, line 804-809)

• The discussion is disconnected from the results section. 

An introductory paragraph was created for the discussion to clarify that the comparisons are an example of the framework's usefulness. Furthermore, we expanded the discussion section to explain relevant ideas from the results section in detail.

(Changes found: line 724 - 802)

Thank you for your consideration and suggestions, we appreciate your time.

Reviewer 2 Report

A conceptual framework of SEL is necessary to work in any academic field, with greater emphasis on education. This article presents a tour of the dimensions of SEL. This is a non-systematic theoretical study. To give it greater scope, please include the number of articles found, the review model carried out and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It needs reinforcement in the method section. Try to brainstorm the review workflow. I relied on other reviews already carried out that should be included in this work. Include some results table of the categories you have worked with and the dataset file. I think it is a great contribution and advancement of knowledge but it should be more systematic in the method. Congratulations to the authors, it seems to me a work that should be published with the indicated modifications.

Author Response

 Thank you for your very positive overall review taking the time to give us suggestions and feedback on our manuscript. 

Two suggestions were given:

• Changing the title

Our title had an unexplained abbreviation which was ill fitting. Also, as you mentioned, our study leans theoretical. Our new title Fundamental Themes in Social-Emotional Learning: A Theoretical Framework for Inclusivity changes our title from conceptual to theoretical.

 (Changes found: line 1-3, line 193, line 634) 

• Clarity in methods 

As requested, our revision included detailed discussion of search techniques and inclusion and exclusion criteria, which are typical of a theoretically oriented narrative review. 

(Changes found: line 159-190) 

Thank you for your kind words

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for sharing your results. The manuscript aims to deconstruct and clarify the concept of Social-Emotional Learning by providing a new framework that consolidates various aspects of SEL into a unified model. The authors attempted to bridge gaps among different SEL approaches, create a taxonomy of SEL skills, and propose a hierarchy of social-emotional competencies, drawing from a wide array of interdisciplinary literature. As such, the manuscript addresses a significant need for conceptual clarity in the SEL field. By proposing a hierarchical framework, it potentially could offers a new lens for researchers, educators, and policymakers to understand and implement SEL. Also, the authors' interdisciplinary review is commendable, integrating insights from psychology, education, and sociology, which enriches the theoretical underpinnings of the proposed framework.

The paper currently also has some deficiencies. Let me share some of my theoretical concerns:

First, the authors argue for a hierarchical model of SEL competencies, drawing parallels to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Drawing a parallel between Maslow’s hierarchy and SEL competencies risks oversimplifying the complexity of social-emotional skills, which cannot strictly follow a hierarchical order. Human emotions and social interactions are highly complex and dynamic, often developing in a non-linear fashion that may not fit neatly into a hierarchical model. Additionally, Maslow's hierarchy itself has been critiqued for its ethnocentric perspective, mainly reflecting Western values. Applying a similar hierarchy to SEL could inadvertently exclude non-Western perspectives on social and emotional development.

Second, the authors mentioned bidirectionality of influence among SEL abilities. I can recognize bidirectionality as insightful, but their manuscript must further elaborate on the mechanisms of these influences. Without a clear understanding of how these competencies influence each other, the concept remains heavily theoretical. The authors should also consider that bidirectionality might vary significantly across different cultural, social, and individual contexts, which can complicate the implementation of a standardized SEL program. The complexity of measuring and fostering this bidirectionality in educational settings if not addressed in detail, could be a significant omission.

Third, regarding contextual sensitivity of SEL Skills. Their emphasis makes sense however, the manuscript might underestimate the challenges of creating universally adaptable SEL programs. There are immense variations in cultural norms, values, and expectations that shape emotional expression and social behavior. The framework could be flagged by other scholars for potentially promoting a one-size-fits-all approach to SEL, which may not be effective or appropriate in all settings. The authors thus should  strengthen their argument by providing specific strategies for adapting SEL competencies to various cultural contexts, along with examples of how this has been successfully achieved in the past.

Other issues/comments:

The authors seek to clarify the SEL concept, but the proposed framework's competencies seem to overlap significantly, which continues to perpetuate the conceptual ambiguity they intend to resolve.

The manuscript could benefit from a clearer operationalization of the competencies within the hierarchy. It remains somewhat abstract how educators and practitioners might practically assess or develop these competencies in individuals. Also, the authors seem to present their framework as universally applicable, there is insufficient discussion on how it accounts for cultural differences in the expression and valuation of SEL skills., But importantly (another my big concern) is that the paper presents a conceptual analysis that lacks empirical testing (!). I wonder what authors have to say about these issues.

To sum up, the manuscript offers some interesting ideas on SEL, these concepts need further refinement and empirical support (!!) to ensure their applicability and effectiveness across diverse educational and cultural landscapes. The complexity of emotions and social behaviors, the cultural context of SEL skills, and the practical implementation of these concepts in real-world settings ALL require more nuanced discussion and evidence-based strategies. 

P.S. The paper is titled 'SEL Simplified...', but is it? 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 3, thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript, we very much appreciate your thorough and thoughtful suggestions. 

You raised three very thoughtful, theoretical concerns:

• Malsow’s Hierarchy is ethnocentric and not an ideal parallel to draw.

We have removed the section comparing our framework to Maslow’s hierarchy completely. Thank you for catching that it can be seen as ethnocentric. While we would have liked for a familiar example which readers could identify with, particularly because of the hierarchical quality of each model (albeit superficial), cultural context is a key theme in our paper.

 (Changes found: deleted from manuscript) 

• Bidirectionality needs further explanation.

The second recommendation, to further explain bidirectionality makes very good sense; and further, that bidirectionality can vary across cultural, social, and individual contexts. However, we do not think that it would make an SEL program hard to implement. Bidirectionality for “basic” (lower-tier) social-emotional skills is not necessary for functioning. In our framework one must have Self-Regulation fulfilled to a basic level before one can use Critical Thinking skills. However, Critical Thinking skills such as mindfulness can be used to further cope, creating a loop back down into Self-Regulation. One may do this because they have knowledge that they will or are becoming dysregulated with the activities they have planned, so they strengthen their base to continue using social-emotional skills at a higher level emphasizing the importance of the base of the hierarchy. It does not have to happen that way though, conscious regulation is not necessary for a person to regulate. So an SEL organization does not necessarily have to focus on bidirectionality, although it may want to recognize that it is a phenomena as it explains some of the ambiguity that exists within social-emotional skills. As far as SEL program implementation is concerned, our framework is meant to explain the acquisition of social-emotional skills and the connections between them. While through the lens of our framework we can look at the social-emotional competencies an SEL program prioritizes, how an SEL program operates or is created is not within the scope of this paper. We were careful to clarify our objectives as they relate to these issues in the revised manuscript.

(Changes found: line 80-95, line 636-641, line 804-809)

A discussion of  underlying mechanisms of bidirectionality were added, as you suggested, to help readers interested in understanding from a neurocognitive perspective.

(Changes found: line 330 - 355, line 451-465) 

• Our framework needs examples of cultural interventions.

The third recommendation mentioned is an issue our paper has stressed, that many SEL programs are treated as a one-size-fits-all. In the literature review, we did not find any examples of programs which culturally adapted their programs, and no recommendations that could be made with reliability because of this. Part of the problem with SEL programming is often it focuses on the classroom as a whole and the school as an environment, ignoring everything outside of that. All of that being said, our framework is not meant to recommend any specific type of SEL programming or interventions, only explain the connections between social skills. The example of how our framework can be used  to compare SEL programming for educators and practitioners is only one example of the usefulness of a framework which does not have implementation requirements. The framework gives more clarity and organization for a parent or school to make their own decision in what type of SEL they would like their child to participate in. Our framework may expand current abilities to choose programming more fitting of the environment, but is nowhere near perfect.

(Changes found: line 724 - 802)

Lastly, the name of the paper was changed, as suggested. Our framework does not make the complex topic of SEL simpler, only more structured and organized.

 (Changes found: line 1-3, line 193, line 634)

Thank you so much for your time and efforts.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presented here still has some relevant problems. The problems indicated in the previous revision have not been solved.

It is a work with an interesting content, but it is very difficult to review. It requires methodological coherence.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer 1 mentions 3 issues:

1. That the study is not replicable.
2. That there is no proof that we generated a representative sample of SEL information. 
3. That the objective to create a taxonomy of SEL skills and the critical characteristics of the physical, social, and cognitive functions that support them is a purpose, but it is difficult to consider it as a research objective.

To us, it sounds like reviewer 1 may be equating systematic review with higher scientific importance than narrative review. In response to that, I will rely on two quotes from the widely cited Greenhalgh et. al.

“The conflation of the quality of a review with the assiduousness of such tasks as searching, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, creating tables of extracted data and mathematically summing effect sizes (rather than, for example, with the level of critical analysis of the papers’ unstated assumptions and discussion sections) has, we believe, led to a proliferation of systematic reviews that represent aggregations of findings within the narrow body of work that has met the authors’ eligibility criteria.”  (Greenhalgh et al., 2018) 

“The narrative review, in contrast, deals in plausible truth. Its goal is an authoritative argument, based on informed wisdom that is convincing to an audience of fellow experts. To that end, the author of a narrative review must authentically represent in the written product both the underpinning evidence (including but not limited to primary research) and how this evidence has been drawn upon and drawn together to inform the review's conclusions.” (Greenhalgh et al., 2018)

Theoretical, synthesizing frameworks in social-emotional research are often not “replicable” in the same way that empirical, data-driven studies can be. The actual purpose of the paper is to have an adaptable framework which works to translate these scientific conclusions about SEL to the general public. Some parents are rejecting SEL for their children in fear of indoctrination, some educators judge students who cannot adapt “proper” SEL skills while teaching in inefficient ways, some practitioners pathologize these behaviors as inappropriate when they may be for survival and appropriate to the home they live in. With SEL being a World Health Organization focus, as well as something increasingly implemented in schools, having a framework to generally explain these complex ideas would be helpful and we do not have one which is popular yet. Our framework can be used in smaller increments for ease of understanding, by just the general competencies for easy understanding, more complexly by the primary skills, or incredibly specific by aspect skills.  

Our objective “to create a taxonomy of SEL skills and the critical characteristics of the physical, social, and cognitive functions that support them” is the research objective because it explains what we are studying (critical characteristics, or overarching themes) where we are studying it (of all fields which have social-emotional information) and what we will do with it (create a taxonomy and framework from it) and it is based off our general aim/purpose. It is not extremely specific in the way of quantitative research, but it is an objective. 

At this time, we feel what is being requested methodologically by reviewer 1 is not applicable to our objective, nor is it the standard for narrative review in the field of developmental/educational psychology.

Thank you for your time and suggestions,

Mickayla Dussault &

Dr. Bruce Thompson

Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising the paper and addressing my comments.

Minor

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to help us revise!