Dabag ModernSocieties

International Journal of Educational Research 94 (2019) 11–28
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy within social-

T
emotional learning interventions in urban schools: An international
systematic review
⁎
Kathleen McCallopsa, Tia Navelene Barnesa, , Isaiah Jonesb, Madison Nelsona,
Jill Fennimana, Isabel Bertea
a
College of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, United States
b
College of Arts and Sciences, University of Delaware, United States
A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT
Keywords: The authors conducted a systematic 10-year review of the international use of social-emotional
Culturally responsive practices learning (SEL) interventions in urban schools that summarizes and examines the interventions
Social-emotional learning used, the use of culturally responsive practices in each intervention, and student outcomes across
Urban 51 studies. Of these studies, five indicated the use of culturally responsive practices while none of
Schools
the studies addressed the effects of discrimination on socio-emotional development. The authors
discuss implications of these findings and make recommendations for future research on cultu-
rally responsive SEL interventions in urban schools internationally.
1. Introduction
School-based social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions have served as a tool to support student social-emotional development
and behavior in schools internationally (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Though the theoretical un-
derpinnings of SEL interventions are diverse, most support individuals in understanding and managing emotions, effectively setting
and achieving goals, gaining empathy toward others, establishing and maintaining positive relationships, and/or engaging in re-
sponsible decision making (Collaborative for Academic & Social Emotional Learning, 2016). The benefits of SEL include improved
attitudes about self and others and decreases in aggression, depression, and stress (Barnes, Smith, & Miller, 2014; Durlak et al., 2011).
Furthermore, these benefits expand beyond social-emotional outcomes to include gains in academic achievement and life outcomes
(Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2011; Durlak et al., 2011).
While SEL is widely studied and researchers have conducted analyses concerning the effectiveness and possible mediators and
moderators of intervention effectiveness, there has been a limited amount of research that examines factors of SEL implementation
that may support its sustainable use in schools. To begin this examination, we focus our paper on one community type, urban schools.
Though SEL is a skill set needed by all students regardless of geographic location, attending to the use and effectiveness of SEL within
certain demographic populations can inform future research and practice related to implementation and sustainability of SEL within
those populations.
We focus on urban schools because they often represent a diverse population of students from a variety of cultural, religious,
socio-economic class, and ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Bunar, 2011; Murrell, 2017; Li, 2010). Moreover, most SEL intervention studies
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tnbarnes@udel.edu (T.N. Barnes).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.007
Received 17 July 2018; Received in revised form 10 October 2018; Accepted 7 February 2019
0883-0355/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. McCallops, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 94 (2019) 11–28
have occurred in urban settings when compared to other geographical locations (Durlak et al., 2011). Examining the use of culturally
responsive pedagogy in SEL interventions within these settings can therefore provide rich data to support the field in future directions
to move research to practice and serve as a starting point to then explore SEL use in other school settings.
In 2014, more than half of the world’s population lived in urban settings, and this percentage is projected to continue increasing
(United Nations, Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2014). Urbanization is associated with several benefits including increases
in economic prosperity, higher levels of education, technological advances, and increased opportunities for women to enter the
workforce (Befort, Nazir, & Perri, 2012; Dye, 2008; Friel et al., 2011). Unfortunately, urban living is also associated with significant
health disparities based on race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (Center for Disease Control & Prevention, 2018; Williams,
Priest, & Anderson, 2016). A driving force in these disparities are the environmental risk factors faced by urban populations such as
neighborhood crime rates, residential mobility, a lack of resources, and institutional inequalities (i.e., racism, classism, sexism,
religion, and immigration status; Brondolo, Gallo, & Myers, 2009; Day, Ji, DuBois, Silverthorn, & Flay, 2016; Dinwiddie, Gaskin,
Chan, Norrington, & McCleary, 2013; Jackson, Knight, & Rafferty, 2010; Zetter & Deikun, 2010). In addition, these health disparities
and environmental risk factors may influence mental health and social-emotional well-being (Evans & Kim, 2013; Lederbogen et al.,
2011). There is a need internationally for school-based mental health and SEL to ameliorate outcomes for students who may face
these risk factors and disparities.
In addressing the social-emotional well-being of students globally in urban schools, researchers often focus on ways “to fix” the
student who may have been exposed to risk factors that are common in urban areas. While this deficit approach to school-based
interventions is common, it is problematic because it does not draw from students’ familial and cultural strengths to support mental
health or address the systemic inequities that underlie the negative social-emotional outcomes faced by students (Gay, 2013; Sleeter,
2012). We propose that to truly support the social-emotional well-being of urban students and to improve the long-term viability of
SEL interventions in school settings, students need to be engaged in strengths-based interventions. These interventions do not not
only meet students’ needs, but also acknowledge and build on their strengths and the strengths of their families and the urban
community. One strategy to create strengths-based supports for SEL interventions is to incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy in
SEL instruction.
1.1. Culturally responsive SEL
When teachers and school staff implement SEL interventions, participant engagement in the intervention is a major concern
because if participants are not engaged, they will not receive the positive benefits of the SEL intervention (Durlak, 2015). One way to
increase participant engagement is to incorporate culturally responsive practices into SEL programming.
Culturally responsive SEL incorporates instruction that utilizes the lived experiences and frames of reference of students to
reinforce and teach SEL competencies (Barnes & McCallops, in press). The reinforcement of students’ cultural expression of effective
social and emotional competencies is key to culturally responsive SEL as students are supported in their navigation of cultural
conflicts and expression of SEL competencies in both the school and home environments. In addition, student engagement and buy-in
is valued and encouraged through the incorporation of student interests, views, and needs into existing SEL programming and/or
developing new SEL programming with input from the student population and surrounding community (Barrera, Castro, & Steiker,
2011).
To conceptualize culturally responsive pedagogy within SEL programming, the second author created a framework that in-
corporates overlapping concepts from the SEL and cultural pedagogy literature bases (Barnes & McCallops, in press). The resulting
concepts, which are integral for facilitator success in delivering culturally responsive SEL instruction, include empathy, self-
awareness, awareness of others, self-regulation, and motivation. A brief description of the components is provided below.
Empathy refers to the facilitator’s ability to take on the perspective of students, including those from other cultures, and respond
to students from that perspective (McAllister & Irvine, 2000). In addition, it refers to the facilitator’s ability to comprehend and re-
experience student’s feelings (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). A key strategy here would be relationship building with students that includes
questioning and listening to student viewpoints to allow for better understand their viewpoints and feelings on various topics that
come up in the classroom and the SEL programming. Self-awareness refers to the SEL facilitator’s awareness of their own implicit
bias, their cultural identity, cultural points of reference and their own emotional state (Hammond, 2014; Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Reflective journaling is one strategy that can be used to build self-awareness. Awareness of others refers to the awareness of and
appreciation for the cultural backgrounds and emotional states of students (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, &
Curran, 2004). Gaining general knowledge about cultural groups and emotional states (i.e., expressions of emotions in body lan-
guage, tone, facial expressions) can support awareness of others but this knowledge must then be individualized to particular students
through relationship building. Self-regulation refers to the facilitator’s attempts to modify their thoughts, actions, and expression of
emotions, cultural perceptions, and biases (Sutton, Mudrey-Camino, & Knight, 2009). Practice engaging in intercultural interactions
and in emotion-filled interactions along with reflection on your actions and the outcome of the interaction can support in building
this self-regulation. Finally, motivation refers to the SEL facilitator’s ability to direct attention and energy to learning about and fully
participating in interactions related to emotions or those that may be with students who are culturally different (Ang & Van Dyne,
2008). To date, no reviews of SEL have examined the use of culturally responsive SEL with an international population of urban
studies.
12
1.2. Research to practice in SEL
Research suggests that SEL interventions are efficacious in supporting students’ academic, social, emotional, and behavioral
success (e.g., Durlak et al., 2011). As with other areas of prevention science, researchers have called for an expansion of focus beyond
the efficacy of SEL interventions (i.e., whether the intervention produces expected results under ideal conditions) to the effectiveness
of these interventions (i.e., whether the intervention is beneficial under “real world” conditions; Greene, Benjamin, & Goodyear,
2001). As schools move to incorporate SEL in their day-to-day practice, it is more important than ever to ensure that the field is
producing SEL interventions that are efficacious, effective, and sustainable for a globally diverse student population.
1.3. Research questions
The following research questions are examined as part of this study:
1. What are similar characteristics in SEL interventions in urban schools internationally, including the following:
a) study characteristics (study location, study design, social validity, treatment fidelity, and follow-up data);
b) intervention characteristics (interventionists and delivery methods);
c) participant characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and social-emotional student needs); and
d) mental health outcomes related to these interventions?
2. Are culturally responsive pedagogical elements used in these interventions? If so, what elements are used?
3. Are there interventions that utilize curriculum to addresses inequalities (individual or institutional) and support students’ mental
health and SEL competencies? If so, in what ways?
2. Method
2.1. Search terms
The authors used several methods to ensure a thorough and comprehensive review of the literature on SEL interventions in urban
schools internationally. First, we created a list of key terms to search for studies for the literature search. Second, we identified
appropriate databases for the literature search based on the database topics (i.e., education, social sciences, and psychology). Third,
we created a list of inclusion criteria to identify papers to be included in the literature review sample. Finally, we completed a hand
search of three journals that produced articles on school-based SEL and mental health interventions (i.e., Prevention Science, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and Journal of School Violence). Below are the processes used for this literature search.
2.2. Databases
The key terms used to find original studies included all possible combinations of the following: social and emotional learning, social
competence, OR mental health, health promotion, prevention, OR positive youth development, social skills, self-esteem, empathy, OR emo-
tional intelligence, social problem solving, conflict resolution, stress reduction, AND children, adolescents, intervention, students, AND urban
schools, culturally relevant.
2.3. Inclusion criteria
The studies included in this review were (a) peer-reviewed articles or dissertations published between 2008 and 2018; (b)
conducted in urban K-12 schools internationally; (c) available in English; and (d) included an SEL intervention that was facilitated in
a school setting during school hours (i.e., the intervention could also have a community-based component but needed to have at least
one component that occurred in schools during or after school hours). Schools were considered “urban” based on how the original
study described their location.
2.4. Procedure of article search
We began our search by including articles that were published between 1996 and 2018 and our database search and journal hand
search yielded 4167 results (see Fig. 1). Using the inclusion criteria, we reviewed each study’s title and abstract to determine
eligibility based on inclusion criteria and removed 3544 articles. We then reviewed the introduction and methods section for the
remaining articles, removing 509 studies. This review yielded 114 articles (107 journal articles and 7 dissertations) that met inclusion
criteria. Due to the volume of studies, we decided to focus on the studies published within the past 10 years, 2008–2018. Therefore,
51 articles (46 journal articles and 5 dissertations) fit all criteria.
13
Fig. 1. Database search results for literature review.
3. Results
3.1. Question 1: SEL intervention characteristics
3.1.1. Study characteristics

Though SEL interventions have been studied for several decades, this review focuses on the past 10 years of research in the field.
There were 51 studies included in the review. Of these studies, 38 were conducted in the United States, four in the United Kingdom,
three in Australia, two in Spain, one in Canada, one in China, one in Vietnam, and one in Portugal.
Out of the 51 studies, 21 utilized a quasi-experimental design while 22 were experimental. The remaining seven studies were
descriptive or case studies (e.g., Arguedas, Daradoumis, & Xhafa, 2016; Bruce, Zatta, Gavin, & Stelzer, 2016) and one (Cheng, 2017),
included both a descriptive and quasi-experimental study.
Social validity was addressed in 13 of the 51 studies. Out of these, 10 studies reported positive social validity (e.g., Buote &
Berglund, 2010; Le & Trieu, 2016; McCurdy, Lannie, & Barnabas, 2009) and three studies reported mixed results (Butzer, Lorusso,
Shin, & Khalsa, 2017; Domitrovich et al., 2015; Graves et al., 2017). Social validity was examined in several ways and one common
method of measuring social validity was using a 5-point Likert scale to examine intervention satisfaction. For example, the Respectful
Relationships intervention asked participants to complete a 5-point Likert scale survey reflecting on their experiences with the
program and found that the majority of youth enjoyed the program (Buote & Berglund, 2010). Additionally, Domitrovich et al. (2015)
used the PAX Good Behavior Game (GBG) intervention and measured social validity using the Teacher Perceptions of the Intervention
Attributes measure. The authors found that teachers who thought the program was a good fit for their teaching style implemented the
program more often than teachers who did not think it was a good fit.
In addition to social validity, this study also examined treatment fidelity, which is the consistency and accuracy with which an
intervention is implemented. Examples of treatment fidelity include examining whether the intervention was delivered as intended
and whether intervention components were delivered in the same way to all participants for the entire intervention (Smith, Daunic, &
Taylor, 2007). Twenty-one studies provided information regarding treatment fidelity. In six studies, the researchers measured fidelity
based on the number of lessons from the curriculum covered by the interventionist (dosage; e.g., Cappella et al., 2012; Jones, Brown,
& Lawrence Aber, 2011; Obsuth et al., 2017). In 15 studies, interventionists reported on their adherence to the lessons as well as the
quality of implementing the curriculum (e.g., Domitrovich et al., 2015; McCurdy et al., 2009; Petras, Masyn, & Ialongo, 2011).
Studies examined and supported treatment fidelity by utilizing various methods, such as the PAX GBG intervention program which
provided weekly coaching to bolster implementer self-efficacy and ultimately produce higher quality implementation (Domitrovich
et al., 2016). In addition, the Transformative Life Skills intervention used regular supervision by program developers, as well as,
lesson observations and implementation checklists completed by participating teachers (Frank, Bose, & Schrobenhauser-Clonan,
2014). Other interventions used similar constructs, such as checklists, rating scales, and trainings to ensure and analyze treatment
implementation fidelity (e.g., Fishbein et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2017).
Eleven out of the 51 studies included follow-up data on their intervention. Of these, five reported positive findings (e.g., Andrés-
Rodríguez et al., 2017; Riggs & Pentz, 2009; Vekas & Wade, 2017), two reported negative findings (Hearon, 2017; Humphrey et al.,
2010), and four reported mixed results (Kellam et al., 2014; Liu, Lynne-Landsman, Petras, Masyn, & Ialongo, 2013; Poduska et al.,
2008; Schmidt, Shumow, & Kackar-cam, 2017). The Brainology Mindset intervention (Schmidt et al., 2017) is representative of other
included studies as this intervention utilized pre-, post-, and end-of-year surveys in order to collect their follow-up data. Whereas, the
GBG intervention (Poduska et al., 2008) held 2 hour-long individual phone interviews as each child entered young adulthood to
14
collect follow-up data.
3.1.2. Intervention characteristics

There was variation in whether program developers, researchers, or general classroom teachers served as SEL intervention fa-
cilitators. In 23 studies, the intervention was delivered by school staff (i.e., classroom teacher, school psychologist, and school
counselor) while 21 studies were administered by individuals employed outside of the school (i.e., graduate students, yoga in-
structors, and community members). Additionally, six studies were implemented by a collaborative team of school staff and in-
dividuals not employed by the school, and one study did not report who administered the intervention. Each intervention was in a
school setting, either during or after school hours. While in-school interventions are often difficult to coordinate, many methods were
used to schedule interventions into the school programming. Several studies developed intervention programs aimed at supporting
SEL at the whole school level, while others targeted small groups and individuals. The Journey of Hope intervention is a school-based
program that provided intervention at the school-level to each child in the schools in response to the community being affected by a
natural disaster (Powell & Holleran-steiker, 2017). Unlike this whole school approach, the UTalk intervention is a group-based
intervention which required three individual sessions and 10 group sessions in order to teach students about the link between their
mood and their life experiences (La Greca, Ehrenreich-May, Mufson, & Chan, 2016).
Most included studies delivered the intervention in-person. One exception was Schmidt et al. (2017) who implemented the
Brainology Mindset Intervention, a computer-based SEL curriculum. During the first half of each lesson, the study’s principal in-
vestigator led an opening activity and discussion while the second half included computer modules that students completed in-
dividually.
3.1.3. Participant characteristics

Among the studies in this review, the student participant age range was 5–21 years old and spanned grades K-12 with additional
follow-up beyond 12th grade. In a majority of the studies (n = 28), the sample consisted of primarily students from racially, eth-
nically, and linguistically diverse (RELD) backgrounds, which was determined based on race/ethnicity and the study location. For
example, Obsuth et al. (2017) conducted a study in the United Kingdom that consisted of primarily students from RELD backgrounds
as 40% of participants identified as Black African or Black Caribbean, 25% identified as European, 13% identified as Asian, 12%
mixed race, and 2% Latino-American. Ten studies did not report the participants’ race/ethnicity (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2010;
Kendziora & Osher, 2016; Le & Trieu, 2016). Across the studies, socio-economic level was measured in four ways: (1) number of
participants eligible for free and reduced lunch; (2) parent education background; (3) federal poverty level; and (4) neighborhood
socioeconomic status (SES). In 26 of the 51 studies, participants were identified as having low-SES and nine studies included par-
ticipants as having mixed SES levels (50% or less of participants met criteria for low SES; Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-
Kaufman, 2008; Fishbein et al., 2016; Henneberger, Varga, Moudy, & Tolan, 2016). In one study, the students were described as
predominantly middle class (Raimundo, Marques-Pinto, & Lima, 2013) and one study indicated participants’ SES was above average
(Vekas & Wade, 2017). Sixteen studies did not report socio-economic status. Out of the 51 studies, only 20 indicated that participants
were identified as having social-emotional needs prior to the intervention implementation.
3.1.4. Mental health outcomes

Externalized behaviors are defined as behaviors that are directed towards a person’s external environment or towards other
people. In this study, 26 studies presented externalizing behaviors. Some examples of these external behaviors are ADHD (e.g., Jones
et al., 2011; Powers, Wegmann, Blackman, & Swick, 2014; Terry, 2016), aggression (e.g., Cappella et al., 2012; Henneberger et al.,
2016; Jones, Brown, Hoglund, & Aber, 2010), substance use (e.g., Houck et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2013; Riggs & Pentz, 2009), and
conduct disorder (e.g., Lochman et al., 2009; Montañez, Berger-Jenkins, Rodriguez, McCord, & Meyer, 2015; Petras et al., 2011).
We also examined reports of internalizing behaviors which are defined as behaviors that are inwardly expressed. Eighteen of the
51 studies measured internalized behaviors as part of the intervention. Some examples of these internalized behaviors were de-
pression (e.g., Cheng, 2017; Mendelson et al., 2010; Powers et al., 2014) and anxiety (e.g., Frank et al., 2014; Hearon, 2017;
Raimundo et al., 2013).
In addition, studies also examined social-emotional competencies (e.g., Buote & Berglund, 2010; Cheng, 2017; Domitrovich et al.,
2016), social skills (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2016; Powers, Swick, Wegmann, & Watkins, 2016; Weist, Stiegler, Stephan, Cox, &
Vaughan, 2010), emotional intelligence (Brown, Jones, LaRusso, & Aber, 2010; Nicoll, 2013), emotion regulation (Butzer et al., 2017;
Fishbein et al., 2016; Houck et al., 2016), and student connectedness to peers and school (Karcher, 2008; Mendelson et al., 2010;
Terry, 2016). Furthermore, some articles also examined academic achievement (e.g., Brock et al., 2008; Obsuth et al., 2017; Powers
et al., 2014), parent measures relating to parenting styles and home environments (e.g., Henneberger et al., 2016; Lochman et al.,
2009; Pophillat et al., 2016), and teacher measures related to teaching styles and student behaviors (e.g., Hearon, 2017; Kellam et al.,
2014; Petras et al., 2011).
3.2. Question 2: use of culturally responsive SEL
We classified five of the 51 studies as being culturally responsive SEL interventions (Graves et al., 2017; Le & Trieu, 2016;
Marsiglia, Ayers, Baldwin-White, & Booth, 2016; Montañez et al., 2015; Polleck, 2011; see Table 1) because the researchers discussed
adapting the intervention to meet the needs of RELD students. All five of the studies implemented different SEL interventions. Four of
the studies were conducted in the United States and one study was conducted in Vietnam.
15
Table 1
Summary of included studies.
Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses
Responsive? Inequalities?
K. McCallops, et al.
Andrés-Rodríguez et al. 446; 8–12th Youth Program Questionnaire adapted to “What’s up!” Intervention Improved stereotypical attributions and No No
(2017) grade Catalan; Stereotype Scale; Social Acceptance intended behavior toward people with mental
Scale; The Catalan version of the Reported and disorders.
Intended Behavior Scale
Arguedas et al. (2016) 24; 12th grade A sentiment analysis tool; Problem based learning scenarios Students academic achievements improved in No No
Rhetorical Structure Theory tool; Researcher relation to self-regulation, engagement, and
designed questionnaire motivation when students were aware of their
emotions.
Brock et al. (2008) 520; 3–5th grade; The Child Demographic Questionnaire; The The Responsive Classroom (RC) Children's perceptions mediated the No No
51 teachers Classroom Practices Measure; The Social Skills Approach concurrent relation between RC practices and
Rating Scale (SSRS); The School-Related teachers' ratings of children's social skills.
Attitudes Questionnaire; The Mock Report
Card; Achievement Tests; The Degrees of
Reading Power Test; The Connecticut Mastery
Test: Math Section
Brown et al. (2010) 78; 3rd The Classroom Assessment Scoring System The 4Rs Program (4R’s) Higher levels of teachers perceived emotional No No
grade (CLASS); Maslach Burnout Inventory- ability at the beginning of the school year was
Educators Survey; Perceived Emotional related to higher observed classroom quality,
Intelligence Scale instructional support, and classroom
organization. Higher observed classroom
quality, instructional support, and emotional
16
support in intervention classes compared with
controls at the end of the first year.
Brown, Jimerson, 403; K-4th grade KASS assess knowledge in social and emotional Second Step (SS) Significant increases in student knowledge of No No
Dowdy, Gonzalez, skills; BESS identifies behavioral and social and emotional skills. However,
and Stewart, (2012) emotional strengths and weaknesses students’ emotional and behavioral risk
increased over the course of the intervention.
Bruce et al. (2016) 6 schools Observations, written documents, and field Researcher- Created Intervention Adolescents learned how to interact with No No
notes. younger students by setting goals and
problem solving.
Buote and Berglund 1748; 7–11th The Hemingway Measure of Adolescent R + R program Students made gains in all 12 social-emotional No No
(2010) grade Connectedness; Social Responsibility Scale competencies.
Butzer et al. (2017) 211; 7th grade The Brunel University Mood Scale; Perceived Yoga Intervention Students in control condition were more likely No No
Stress Scale; The UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior to smoke cigarettes, as well as, improved
Scale; Sadness Control subscale from the emotional self-control.
Children’s Sadness Management Scale; Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS); Yoga Evaluation
Questionnaire; Control Evaluation
Questionnaire
Cappella et al. (2012) 364; K-5th grade Intervention dosage using research created Bridging Mental Health and Less victimization and those with behavioral No No
measures; CLASS; The Behavioral Regulation Education in Urban Schools problems benefited more from intervention in
Index of the Behavior Rating Inventory of (BRIDGE) social relations domain.
Executive Function; Student Teacher
Relationship Scale; Self-Perception Profile for
Children; The Social Behavior and Experience
Questionnaire
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued)

Cheng (2017) Study 1 = 1146, Study 1: Basic Psychological Needs Scale; Researcher- Created Intervention Study 1: Students who participated in non- No No
Study 2= Learning Climate Questionnaire; Personal- academic activities showed less depression
26; 9–11th grade Social Development Self-Efficacy Inventory and higher personal-social development self-
(PSD-SEI); Psychological Well-Being efficacy.
Inventory; Self- Regulation Questionnaire; Study 2: Students who participated in the
Depression- Anxiety-Stress Scale (DASS) leadership program showed less negative
Study 2: Study 2: Assessment Program for emotional symptoms and higher personal
Affective and Social Outcomes; PSD-SEI; Scales social development self-efficacy.
of Psychological Well-being; DASS; Focus
Groups
Domitrovich et al. (2015) 222 teachers; Behavior Management Self-Efficacy Scale; GBG; Promoting Alternative None No No
3–5th grade Emotional Exhaustion Scale; Maslach Burnout Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
Inventory (MBL); Organizational Health
Inventory for Elementary Schools (OHI-E);
Teacher-Coach Alliance Scale; Perceptions of
Administrative Support Scale
Domitrovich et al. (2016) 350 teachers; K-5 The Behavior Management Self-Efficacy Scale; PAX version of the Good Behavior Higher levels of self-efficacy for both behavior No No
grade The Social-Emotional Learning Efficacy Scale; Game (PAX GBG); the integration of management and SEL, as well as, personal
MBL; Mindfulness in Teaching Scale; OHI-E PATHS and the PAX GBG (PATHS to accomplishment and social-emotional
PAX) competencies.
Fishbein et al. (2016) 327; K Social Competence Scale (SCS); Teacher PATHS Students who received PATHS improved in No No
Observation of Child Adaptation-Revised social competencies and behavior problems
17
(TOCA-R); ADHD Rating Scale; Student– than control students.
Teacher Relationship Scale; Peer Relations
Questionnaire; Academic Competence
Evaluation Scales; Peer Nominations; Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition; Peg-
Tapping Task; Delay of Gratification tasks;
Whack-A- Mole; FACES task
Frank et al. (2014) 49; 9–12th grade The Affect Valence Scale; The Brief Symptom Transformative Life Skills (TLS) Students in TLS experienced reductions in No No
Inventory-18; anxiety, depression, global psychological
The Responses to Stress Questionnaire; The distress, and hostility.
Transgression-Related Interpersonal
Motivations Scale
Graves et al. (2017) 61; K-2nd grade Strong Start Content Knowledge Assessment The Strong Kids Intervention Increased Strong Start content knowledge, Yes No
(SSCK); Social-Emotional Assets and Resiliency social-emotional knowledge, self regulation
Scales (SEARS); Behavioral Assessment System and self-competency.
for Children (BASC)-Second Edition
Hearon (2017) 61; 4–5th grade Student Internalizing Behavior Screener; Well-Being Promotion Program No effects on life satisfaction, social support, No No
Student Externalizing Behavior Screener; engagement, teacher-student relationships,
Engagement versus Disaffection with Learning- disaffection with learning, internalizing
Teacher Report; Teacher-Student behavior, and externalizing behavior.
Relationships Inventory; Students' Life
Satisfaction Scale; Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule for Children; Child and Adolescent
Social Support Scale; Engagement versus
Disaffection with Learning-Student Report
Table 1 (continued)

Henneberger et al. 1232; 6th grade Problem Behavior Frequency Scale; Family Guiding Responsibility Family cohesion was negatively associated No No
(2016) Relationships Scale; Pittsburgh Youth Survey and Expectations for Adolescents with physical aggression for Hispanic youth,
for Today and Tomorrow while parental monitoring was negatively
associated with physical aggression for
African American youth.
Houck et al. (2016) 420; 7th grade Youth Inventory-4, Adolescent Symptom Emotion Regulation Intervention; Risky decision making related to alcohol and No No
Inventory; Sexual Activity Frequency Survey; Health Promotion (HP) Intervention violence were greater among young people in
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey; the HP intervention.
Emotion Regulation Behaviors Scale; Self-
Efficacy Questionnaire for Children; Emotion
Regulation Checklist; Abstinence Attitudes;
HIV Knowledge Survey
Humphrey et al. (2010) 253; ages 6–11 Teacher and Parent Versions-Emotional New Beginnings Improvements in social-emotional No No
Literacy Assessment Instrument; Strengths and competencies.
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)-Teacher and
Parent Versions
Humphrey et al. (2016) 4516; ages 7–9 Social Skills Improvement System; Social and PATHS PATHS led to increases in teachers' No No
Emotional Competence Change Index; SDQ perceptions of change in children's
social–emotional competence and increases in
prosocial behavior as well as reductions in
emotional symptoms.
Jones et al. (2010) 942; 3rd grade Home Interview Questionnaire; Normative 4Rs Reduced hostile attributional biases and No No
18
Beliefs About Aggression Scale; What I Think reduced depression.
Instrument; Home Interview Questionnaire;
BASC; SCS; Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children Predictive Scales; ADHD
Symptomatology Scale; Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort of
1998–1999 3rd Grade Assessment; New York
State Standardized Assessments of Math and
Reading Achievement- 3rd grade; Attendance
rate; Household socioeconomic risk index;
Community Risks and Resources
Questionnaire; Behavioral Assessment System
for Children
Jones et al. (2011) 1184; 3–4th Adaptation of the Home Interview 4Rs After 1 year of program, decrease in No No
grade Questionnaire; Normative Beliefs about aggressive behavior, children reported
Aggression Scale; ADHD Symptomatology decreased depressive symptoms. After 2 years,
Scale; Diagnostic Interview Schedule for less hostile attribution, ADHD symptoms, and
Children Predictive Scale; What I think depression, and teachers reported lower levels
Instrument; Behavior Assessment System for of aggression.
Children; SCS; Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study 3rd Grade Assessment; Community Risk
and Resources Questionnaire

Table 1 (continued)

Karcher (2008) 516; 5–12th Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Mentoring program Increases in self-reported self-esteem, No No
grade Connectedness (5.5 version); Self-Esteem connectedness to peers, and perceived social
Questionnaire; Perceived Social Support Scale support from friends.
(PSS); SSRS; Conners’ Child Rating Scale:
Global Index; Perceived Mattering Survey;
Children’s Hope Scale
Kellam et al. (2014) Cohort 1 = 407, First graders: TOCA-R; GBG Drug abuse and risky sexual behaviors were No No
Cohort 2 = 373; Young Adults: CIDI-U < to reflect DSM-IV; related to aggressive, disruptive behavior
1 st grade Survey regarding sexual partners/patterns, rated by the teacher through elementary and
Cohort 3 = 309; high-risk sexual behavior index middle school. GBG significantly lowered
ages 19–21 drug abuse and dependence disorders and
high-risk sexual behaviors among males in the
persistent high class. Individuals with less
aggressive behavior improved less, if at all. No
significant effect for females.
Kendziora and Osher 56 schools; K- Interviews; CDI district rubric; Staff SEL survey The Collaborating Districts All of the districts made gains over time in No No
(2016) 12th grade to measure implementation of SEL activities; Initiative (CDI) students’ social-emotional competencies,
District created/used school climate survey; although not all districts improved each year.
Self-report SEL competence instrument; A majority of SEL outcomes were positive for
Educational record data pertaining to one or two of the three grade levels tested.
academic achievement, attendance, and
disciplinary referrals
19
La Greca et al. (2016) 14; 9–11th grade Clinical Global Impressions Scale; Revised UTalk Significant declines in reports of peer No No
Peer-Experiences Questionnaire; Social victimization, social anxiety, aggression, and
Anxiety Scale for Adolescents; Center for depression symptoms.
Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale;
Aggression Subscale of the Youth Self Report;
Cyber-Peer Experiences Questionnaire; IPT-
UTalk Feedback Survey; PSS; Anxiety
Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV-
Child Version; Columbia-Suicide Severity
Rating Scale
Le and Trieu (2016) 42; vocational Focus groups Mindfulness Intervention Students reported not only decreases in the Yes No
and secondary negative affect (sad, boredom) and stress, but
schools also in their inferiority complexes; they also
expressed increases in well-being, positive
mood (happy, appreciation and gratitude),
embracing life, empathy and connection with
others.
Liu et al. (2013) 678; 1–3rd and TOCA-R; Monitoring the Future National CC intervention (included GBG) and For both males and females, CC intervention No No
8–12th grade Survey (marijuana frequency in high school) Family-School Partnership was found to reduce the odds of following the
high aggression trajectory in grades 1–3. CC
intervention groups had slightly lower
probabilities of being in the high marijuana
use class compared to those in the control
group. Childhood aggression was significantly
associated with adolescent marijuana use.
Table 1 (continued)

Lochman et al. (2009) 531; 4th grade The National Youth Survey; BASC-Teacher & Coping Power Program Maintained their levels of externalizing No No
Parent Versions; Alabama Parenting behavior problems and lower rates of
Questionnaire assaultive behaviors.
Main and Whatman 2 sites; The Productive Pedagogies Reflection Tool TLC alternative schooling program TLC improved students’ social-emotional No No
(2016) 3–4th grade efficacy and re-engaged them in learning.
Marsiglia et al. (2016) 267; 7th grade Substance Use Survey; Anti-drug Norms KiR Decreased likelihood of substance use in later Yes No
Survey adolescence and into adulthood
McCurdy et al. (2009) 615; K-6th grade Observations of disruptive behavior defined The Lunchroom Behavior Game LBG was effective in reducing disruptive No No
along five categories of behavior: out of seat, (LBG) behavior in the lunchroom during each lunch
play fighting, physical contact with force, period and across all grade levels.
throwing objects, and screaming; The Implementation of the LBG in each
Children's Intervention Rating Profile consecutive lunch period resulted in an
immediate and sustained decrease in the level
of disruptive behavior.
Mendelson et al. (2010) 97; 4–5th grade The Responses to Stress Questionnaire; The Mindfulness-based yoga The intervention reduced problematic No No
Involuntary Engagement Coping Scale; The intervention involuntary engagement responses to social
Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire stress.
(SMFQ)-Child Version; The Emotion Profile
Inventory; People in My Life measure
Montañez et al. (2015) 174; 3–5th grade SDQ; Student Assessment Survey Turn 2 Us Student showed significant improvements in Yes No
social and classroom performance; greater
impact on those at highest risk.
20
Nicoll (2013) 18; ages 16-18 Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Counseling sessions Significant increase in emotional intelligence No No
Test
Obsuth et al. (2017) 606; 9–10th Young Person Questionnaire; Teacher Engage in Education- London No difference in behavioral and social- No No
grade Questionnaire; CEM aptitude tests; Official emotional outcomes, and school exclusion.
records: school exclusion; Official records:
arrests; Communication Skills Measure; Social
Behavior Questionnaire; Interpersonal
Reactivity Index; What's Happening in this
School Questionnaire; Misbehavior in School
Measure-Adolescent Version; Bullying
questions adapted from Olweus; Self-Reported
Delinquency Questions
Petras et al. (2011) 666; 1–3rd and TOCA-R; Teacher Report of Classroom CC Intervention; Family-Center Treatment participants had higher odds of No No
6–12th grades Behavior-Checklist Form (FC) Intervention being in the low aggressive/disruptive
behavior trajectory in grades 1–3. FC
participants only showed significant distal
effect for males.
Table 1 (continued)

Poduska et al. (2008) 1556; Cohort TOCA-R; The Services GBG Males rated high on aggressive, disruptive No No
1 = 689: Cohort Assessment of Children and Adolescents behavior in first grade benefited most from
2 = 867; GBG. Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 males in GBG
1–2nd grade were less likely to receive school-based
services for problems with behavior, feelings,
or drug and alcohol by young adulthood.
Cohort 1 males used less social services and
Cohort 2 males used less services from mental
or medical health professionals by young
adulthood.
Polleck (2011) 12; 9–11th grade Transcripts of book club Book clubs Book clubs promoted academic literacy Yes No
learning and social–emotional competencies.
Pophillat et al. (2016) 206; 1–3rd grade Children’s Depression Inventory; Spence The Aussie Optimism Program: Children's’ self-report levels of depression and No No
Children’s Anxiety Scale; Assessment of Feelings and Friends anxiety did not decrease; however, parents
Children’s Emotional Skills (ACES); Spence reported decreases in their children’s anxiety
Children’s Anxiety Scale-Parent Version; SDQ- levels. children did not show improvements in
Parent form; SCS-Teacher Version their emotional competence.
Powell and Holleran- 30; 3–6th grade Qualitative interviews Journey of Hope (JoH) JoH children were able to better articulate No No
steiker (2017) their feelings and regulate their emotions.
Powers et al. (2014) 61; K-5th grade Not presented School based Mental Health The majority of participants received formal No No
program mental health diagnoses.
Powers et al. (2016) 322; K-5th grade Social/behavioral items on students’ report School Based Support (SBS) Females in SBS had higher social/behavioral No No
21
card program scores than males and students who received
more SBS services had lower social-behavioral
scores.
Raimundo et al. (2013) 318; 4th grade ACES-Portuguese adaptation; Scale A of School Slowly but Steadily Program Intervention group had a small to moderate No No
Social Behavior Scale-Portuguese Adaptation; improvement in peer relations, social
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children- competence, and self-management.
Portuguese Adaptation; Aggressive Behaviors Boys made great gains than girls in social
Questionnaire; Social Problems subscale of the problems, aggressiveness, and self-
Teacher Report Form (TRF); Program management.
Satisfaction Questionnaire for Pupils and
Teachers
Riggs and Pentz (2009) 1017; 6–7th Health Behavior Survey Midwestern Prevention Project Intervention group began high school using No No
grade less marijuana per week.
Schmidt et al. (2017) 389, 7th and 9th End of Class Report Brainology Mindset Intervention Students in the intervention improved their No No
grade perceived control.
Schwartz (2016) 25; 2nd grade The Systematic Screening of Behavior Strong Start All students, in both intervention and control No No
Disorders; Critical conditions, improved their knowledge of
Events Index; Critical Frequency Index; SSCK; social and emotional constructs. No
The Problem Behavior Subscale of the Social differences in problem behaviors.
Skills Improvement System; SEARS- Teacher
Form
Table 1 (continued)

Terry (2016) 22; 6–8th grade Program Experiences and Satisfaction Footprints Increases in self-efficacy and decrease levels No No
Questionnaire; Researcher created questions; of anxiety and depression.
Group Session Rating Scale; Session Rating
Scale; Treatment as Usual Grid; Training
Satisfaction Rating Scale; School Record Data;
Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy; Perceived
School Experience Scale; Brief
Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale; SMFQ; Vanderbilt ADHD Rating Scale;
Student Pediatric Symptom Checklist;
Classroom Performance Survey; Outcome
Rating Scale
Thomas and Atkinson 30; 3rd Focus group data and teacher interviews The Paws.b Mindfulness Students experienced decreased No No
(2017) grade Programme distractibility, forgetfulness, and anxiety,
while exhibiting increased metacognition,
self-regulation, emotion regulation,
relaxation, student-teacher closeness, and
peer closeness.
Vekas and Wade (2017) 212; 5–6th grade Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale-14; Minding Young Minds Lower levels of in self-criticism and No No
The perfectionism, and higher levels of well-being.
Forms of Self-Criticizing/Attacking and Self-
Reassuring Scale; The Warwick-Edinburgh
22
Mental Well-Being Scale
Weist et al. (2010) 839; K-6th grade None PATHS to PAX; Coping Power; Increase in ability to work with others, in No No
Incredible Years friendship-making skills, and in feelings
identification.
The Strong Kids intervention (Graves et al., 2017) was delivered to African-American male students in grades K through 2nd grade
in the United States. The intervention aimed to teach students coping skills to improve their knowledge of emotions and emotion
regulation, as well as, increase positive social behavior. The intervention taught students to identify various body, facial, and si-
tuational cues to help them learn to label their own emotions as well as other’s emotions. Additional lessons focused on teaching
students strategies for effectively navigating uncomfortable and emotional situations, making and keeping friends, and solving
problems with friends. The researchers modified the intervention to fit the needs of and enhance relevance for their participants. The
researchers incorporated strategies related to culturally responsive social emotional learning programming by modifying lessons to
incorporate students’ experiences and students’ communities, encouraging tolerance among students, raising awareness of cultural
differences as part of the curriculum, and seeking feedback about the relevancy of changes from the targeted population.
Le and Trieu (2016) implemented a 3-week mindfulness-based intervention program, which has roots in Vietnam and Buddhism,
to adolescent students in Vietnam. In each class, teachers facilitated the mindfulness curriculum which included the following ten
modules: mindful breathing, mindful listening, mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of thoughts, mindfulness of emotions, balance
and choice, compassion and empathy, judgment and acceptance, impermanence, and aligning with virtue (Le & Trieu, 2016). The
intervention is culturally responsive because it was modified to include Vietnamese culture and Buddhist philosophy which was
relevant to the targeted student population. For example, the researchers created a new module to include information about im-
permanence and interconnection, which are core components of Vietnamese culture and Buddhist philosophy. Furthermore, the
researchers included the three Dharma Seals, which is a vital component of Buddhist teachings.
The Keepin’ it REAL curriculum (Marsiglia et al., 2016) was delivered to 7th grade students, primarily Latino, in the United States.
The program is a 10-week program which teaches students drug resistance strategies–refuse, explain, avoid, and leave (REAL). In
conjunction with Keepin’ it REAL, Marsiglia et al. (2016) implemented the parent component of Keepin’ it REAL called Familias
Preparando la Nueva Generación (FPNG), a culturally specific program for Latino families. The intervention supports the importance
of familial bonds within the targeted population and works to strengthen family functioning in order to help prevent substance abuse
among youth. The intervention is culturally responsive because it incorporates cultural strengths and assets into the curriculum.
Furthermore, the researchers hired bilingual facilitators to ensure all students and parents understood the curriculum and were able
to actively participate.
The T2 U initiative (Montañez et al., 2015) was delivered to 3rd through 5th grade students, primarily Latino, in the United
States. The intervention is a mental health prevention program and the objectives are to: (a) identify at-risk third through fifth grade
students and implement the intervention with the goal of improving their social and behavior skills and academic performance; and
(b) teach parents and educators about mental health as a method to identify and support at-risk students. The program provided four
tracks, based on students’ needs. In the creative arts and drama track, the curriculum is culturally responsive because it incorporates
students sharing their cultural experiences while also building student’s pride in their cultural identity and the cultures of other
students. Furthermore, the drama track utilizes culture by having students create a script that incorporates themes underlying living
in certain places and regions while also encouraging them to explore how those differences would affect solving problems. Ad-
ditionally, the researchers hired bilingual facilitators to ensure all students, especially students for whom English is their second
language, understood the curriculum and were able to actively participate
Finally, Polleck (2011) created and implemented a weekly book club intervention for adolescent females of color in 9th through
11th grade in the United States. The purpose of the book club was for students to read books and meet to discuss what they learned.
The intervention utilized bibliotherapy as a means to enhance the adolescents’ social-emotional development through text. The book
club was culturally responsive because the researcher incorporated multicultural adolescent literature, some of which were re-
commended by the students. The book club discussed the development of characters and the plot as well as overarching themes of
self-awareness, identity development, self-management, responsible decision making and relationship skills. The students also dis-
cussed how the themes related to their own lives.
While there were only five studies that implemented culturally responsive SEL interventions, a number of studies discussed
cultural issues. In Henneberger et al.’s (2016) study, they delivered their intervention to 6th grade students, primarily African-
American, in the United States. The intervention was not a culturally responsive program; however, the authors did discuss how the
results should be used to inform culturally sensitive programs. Additionally, La Greca et al. (2016) delivered their intervention to 9th
through 11th grade Hispanic students in the United States. The researchers selected Hispanic youth for their program because
minority youth are less likely to receive mental health services, but did not incorporate culture into the intervention itself. It is
promising that other interventions are thinking about culture, but there needs to be more work to create and/or modify SEL in-
terventions to be culturally responsive.
3.3. Question 3: addressing inequalities
Out of all 51 studies, we did not find any interventions that notably addressed discrimination based on inequalities (i.e., racism,
classism, sexism, religion, and immigration status; Reiss, 2013). The interventions’ lack of attention on discrimination is discouraging
as discrimination based on inequalities often leads to stress and trauma (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005). Providing an avenue to
express stories of discrimination based on inequalities is an important way to address the stress and trauma caused by discrimination;
however, as illustrated by this study, addressing inequalities is not prevalent in the context of social-emotional interventions. While it
is important for SEL interventions to incorporate culturally responsive practices, SEL interventions should also address inequalities.
23
4. Conclusion
The use of SEL interventions internationally has suggested that these interventions are promising in supporting student outcomes.
As the field continues to progress, a gap in the literature exists with regard to the examination of SEL effectiveness and sustainability,
and not just in its efficacy in varying settings. Few review studies have specifically focused on the use of SEL interventions in specific
community types nor have there been studies that have examined the use of culturally responsive strategies as part of these SEL
interventions. This review has provided some future directions in further expanding SEL interventions to be culturally responsive and
to address inequalities that may play a part in socio-emotional well-being. While we encourage researchers to continue exploration of
SEL intervention efficacy for urban students and beyond, we also call for more studies focused on the effectiveness and sustainability
of SEL interventions in the school setting.
5. Discussion
In this paper, we conducted a systematic 10-year review of the use of SEL interventions in urban schools internationally that
summarizes and examines the interventions used, the use of culturally responsive practices, and student outcomes in 51 studies. The
first research question focused on study characteristics (i.e., study location, study design, social validity, treatment fidelity, and
follow-up data), intervention characteristics (i.e., interventionists and delivery methods), participants characteristics (i.e., age, race/
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language abilities, and social-emotional student needs), and mental health outcomes (i.e., ex-
ternalizing and internalizing behaviors).
The majority of the studies (75%) were conducted in urban schools in the United States. There is a need to increase the number of
studies outside of the United States to understand the use of SEL interventions in different cultures and regions of the world.
Culturally responsive practices look differently around the world based on factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, class, religion, and
immigration status. Therefore, future research should be conducted internationally to understand what a culturally responsive SEL
intervention looks like depending on that region in the world and if and how students could benefit from a culturally responsive SEL
intervention. Moreover, future research should expand the focus on urban schools to include all community types and explore
whether large differences exist in SEL implementation within these communities.
Regarding study characteristics, this study demonstrated that the majority of studies utilized experimental or quasi-experimental
designs, which is in line with the push to use these design types in education (Gartlehner, Hansen, Nissman, Lohr, & Carey, 2006;
Imai, Keele, Tingley, & Yamamoto, 2011; Odom et al., 2005). We found that the majority of studies did not include follow-up data,
and those that did often noted the lack of follow-up data in their given field. As the field continues to grow, it is important that follow-
up data be included as findings on the long-term effects of SEL can better inform future work for SEL researchers and practitioners.
Another important study characteristic is the examination of treatment fidelity in SEL interventions (Barnes et al., 2014; Century,
Rudnick, & Freeman, 2010). Treatment fidelity is measured in five ways: (1) adherence; (2) dosage; (3) quality of program delivery;
(4) participant responsiveness; and (5) program differentiation (Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). While examining
treatment fidelity is vital to intervention delivery, less than half of the included studies examined fidelity, and then among those
studies that did examine fidelity, the majority only examined adherence and dosage (Century et al., 2010). Most of the studies in this
review were missing measures of fidelity (i.e., quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation), which is
an area of concern because researchers have cited the need to examine all measures of fidelity in order for interventions to be
effective and efficacious (Keller‐Margulis, 2012; O’Donnell, 2008). For example, Domitrovich et al. (2015) examined multiple
measures of fidelity and were able to obtain valuable insight into the SEL intervention’s effectiveness by discovering that teacher
engagement was an extremely influential component of an intervention’s effectiveness. Therefore, we encourage researchers to
include more measures of fidelity in future research on SEL interventions in urban schools internationally.
Similar to treatment fidelity, less than half of the studies examined social validity, which is the intervention’s social value and
importance of the intervention’s goals, curriculum, and outcomes among participants (Foster & Mash, 1999). Social validity needs to
be assessed more because it is an avenue toward understanding participant’s perspectives and experiences with SEL interventions and
can inform efforts to sustain SEL use in schools. For example, Graves et al. (2017) asked students and teachers about the importance
of the Strong Start intervention and how the intervention goals aligned with their experiences. The authors were able to obtain
valuable information, including ways to improve the goals of the program to be more culturally responsive and better align with their
target population.
In examining intervention characteristics, there was variation in who delivered the intervention components, which is similar to
results found in other SEL and school-based mental health interventions (e.g., Barnes et al., 2014; Durlak et al., 2011). In 23 studies,
interventions were delivered by school staff (i.e., classroom teacher, school psychologist, school counselor), while six studies included
interventions that were implemented by a collaborative team of school staff and individuals not employed by the school. It is
encouraging that over half of the interventions included school staff because training school staff to implement the intervention
program supports the sustainability of the intervention after research is completed. However, this can also present challenges for
teachers and school staff. For example, in the United States, there is a shortage of school counselors in urban schools, so it could be
difficult to implement and sustain an intervention if school counselors are already overworked and in short supply (Gagnon &
Mattingly, 2016). Additionally, there are a shortage of teachers worldwide with sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia reportedly
having the largest teacher shortages (United Nations, 2017). There is a need to increase the number of school staff and teachers
worldwide so that students may receive interventions that are sustainable long-term.
In addition to who delivered the intervention, this study also examined intervention delivery method and only one study utilized
24
an online SEL intervention (Schmidt et al., 2017). Despite the increasing access to technology, Clarke, Kuosmanen, and Barry’, (2015)
review of youth mental health promotion and prevention interventions also found that only 29 interventions were delivered online
and out of these 29 studies, none took place in K-12 urban schools internationally. We encourage future research that explores the
implementation of SEL interventions using online platforms as it may provide further opportunities to individualize SEL interventions
for student populations.
When examining mental health outcomes, it was promising that the majority of studies examined externalizing behaviors as an
outcome. Researchers examined a variety of externalizing behaviors, such as ADHD, aggression, substance use, and conduct pro-
blems. While externalizing behaviors were examined in the majority of studies, internalizing behaviors were only examined in 18
studies. This lack of focus on internalizing behaviors in SEL programming aligns with Carnevale’s (2012) review of universal pre-
vention programs for addressing depression in adolescents. Carnevale conducted the review due to the lack of universal interventions
for depression in adolescents, and the author’s review only identified 11 studies that implemented universal interventions for de-
pression from 2000 to 2010. While most SEL interventions are implemented universally, it seems that interventions for internalizing
behaviors, such as depression, are more likely implemented for a targeted group of students, rather than all students. There is a need
to continue to develop SEL interventions to target internalizing behaviors as they negatively affect students but, unlike externalizing
behaviors, internalizing behaviors are not as noticeable by school staff and often go untreated.
The second research question in this review was about the use of culturally responsive practices. Out of the 51 studies, only five
implemented culturally responsive SEL interventions (Graves et al., 2017; Le & Trieu, 2016; Marsiglia et al., 2016; Montañez et al.,
2015; Polleck, 2011). The interventions were categorized in this way because the intervention curriculum was modified or created to
address the needs of RELD students. Four of the studies were conducted in the United States and one study was conducted in Vietnam.
While the concentration of these interventions in nations that have heterogeneous cultural populations makes sense, this small
number of included countries does not represent the nations that may be able to use these interventions. There is a need for more
research on the use of culturally responsive SEL interventions internationally to support student navigation of cultural conflicts in
expressing of SEL competencies in school and home environments. In taking an international look at culturally responsive SEL
interventions, there is also a need to also explore the use of these interventions in more culturally homogenous countries to determine
how and if culturally responsive interventions may differ in these societies.
Our results indicated that none of the studies addressed inequalities (i.e., racism, classism, sexism, religion, and immigration
status; Reiss, 2013) as part of their SEL intervention curriculum. As previously mentioned, discrimination based on inequalities often
leads to stress and trauma (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005), therefore, it is discouraging that interventions are not addressing such
issues. Providing an avenue to express stories of discrimination based on inequalities is an important way to address the stress and
trauma caused by discrimination; however, as illustrated by our study, addressing inequalities is not prevalent in the context of SEL.
Discrimination based on inequalities is experienced and looks differently around the world. Therefore, future research should be
conducted internationally to understand what an inequality-based SEL intervention looks like depending on inequalities in a par-
ticular area, and how students can benefit from an inequality-based SEL intervention.
6. Limitations and future research
This review of SEL interventions in international urban schools has several limitations. First, this paper only focuses on SEL
interventions in urban settings. With the confined search of only urban schools, we excluded studies that took place in a combination
of urban, suburban, and/or rural locations and did not separate their results based on location. There may be additional SEL in-
terventions that met all additional criteria, but were excluded in this review based on location. Second, this paper focuses on studies
that were published in last 10 years. This is a limitation because this is only a portion of the research available on this topic. There
have been meta-analyses that focused on SEL from the 1970s (e.g., Barnes et al., 2014; Durlak et al., 2011), however, we felt it was
more significant to address studies from the past 10 years.
In addition, less than 30% of the studies included follow-up data. The lack of follow-up data is concerning because there is no
information on the long-term effects of the intervention. We encourage future researchers to include follow-up data to understand
whether mental health, SEL, and academic outcomes persist over time for SEL interventions in urban settings internationally. Also,
the types of outcomes that were measured also varied across the interventions and were primarily teacher-report or self-report
measures, which can be subjective. We encourage the use of more objective and balanced measures in the future, such as direct
observation of student behavior. We also did not examine how effective the interventions were at supporting students’ social and
emotional competencies within students. We urge researchers to examine SEL intervention’s effect on the population of interest
through a meta-analysis.
Jennings and Greenberg (2009) propose that teachers with high social and emotional competence will more effectively implement
SEL interventions. Teachers are often facilitating and delivering interventions when they are conducted with students in school
settings. They should be equipped with skills to effectively deliver SEL interventions and to do so in a culturally responsive manner.
Therefore, in addition to implementing SEL interventions with students in urban areas, teachers should receive additional training in
culturally responsive pedagogies, social-emotional competencies and SEL. Examples of this teacher training can include strategies for
examining bias and cultural perceptions, emotion awareness of the teacher, strategies for building strong relationships with students
and families, strategies for incorporating student perspectives into SEL lessons, and reflective teaching within the context of SEL
instruction.
25
References1
*Andrés-Rodríguez, L., Pérez-Aranda, A., Feliu-Soler, A., Rubio-Valera, M., Aznar-Lou, I., Serrano-Blanco, A., & Luciano, J. V. (2017). Effectiveness of the “what’s up!”
intervention to reduce stigma and psychometric properties of the Youth Program Questionnaire (YPQ): Results from a cluster non-randomized controlled trial
conducted in Catalan high schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01608.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and application. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
*Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students’ motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning
outcome. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19, 87–103. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.87.
Barnes, T. N. & McCallops, K. (In Press). The use of culturally responsive social emotional learning strategies in a diverse school: A case study. Journal of Multicultural
Education.
Barnes, T. N., Smith, S. W., & Miller, M. D. (2014). School-based cognitive-behavioral interventions in the treatment of aggression in the United States: A meta-analysis.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 311–321.
Barrera, M., Castro, F. G., & Steiker, L. K. H. (2011). A critical analysis of approaches to the development of preventive interventions for subcultural groups. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9422-x.
Befort, C. A., Nazir, N., & Perri, M. G. (2012). Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: Findings from NHANES
(2005–2008). The Journal of Rural Health, 28, 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2012.00411.x.
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.x.
*Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic
performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129–149.
Brondolo, E., Gallo, L. C., & Myers, H. F. (2009). Race, racism and health: Disparities, mechanisms, and interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32, 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10865-008-9190-3.
*Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4rs program. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018160.
*Brown, J. A., Jimerson, S. R., Dowdy, E., Gonzalez, V., & Stewart, K. (2012). Assessing the effects of school‐wide second step implementation in a predominately
English language learner, low SES, Latino sample. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 864–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21639.
*Bruce, S. M., Zatta, M. C., Gavin, M., & Stelzer, S. (2016). Socialization and self-determination in different-age dyads of students who are deafblind. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 110, 149–161.
Bryant-Davis, T., & Ocampo, C. (2005). The trauma of racism: Implications for counseling, research, and education. The Counseling Psychologist, 33. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0011000005276465 574–500.
Bunar, N. (2011). Multicultural urban schools in Sweden and their communities: Social predicaments, the power of stigma, and relational dilemmas. Urban Education,
46(2), 141–164.
*Buote, D., & Berglund, P. (2010). Promoting social justice through building healthy relationships: Evaluation of SWOVA’s "respectful relationships" program.
Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910382255.
*Butzer, B., Lorusso, A., Shin, S. H., & Khalsa, S. B. S. (2017). Evaluation of yoga for preventing adolescent substance use risk factors in a middle school setting: A
preliminary group-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 603–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0513-3.
*Cappella, E., Hamre, B. K., Kim, H. Y., Henry, D. B., Frazier, S. L., Atkins, M. S., ... Schoenwald, S. K. (2012). Teacher consultation and coaching within mental health
practice: Classroom and child effects in urban elementary schools. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027725.
Carnevale, T. D. (2012). Universal adolescent depression prevention programs: A review. The Journal of School Nursing, 29, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059840512469231.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). Social determinants of health: Know what affects health. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/
index.htm.
Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of
knowledge. The American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366173.
*Cheng, L. L. F. (2017). The effect of non-academic activities on the personal-social development self-efficacy, psychological well-being, and negative emotional symptoms of
Hong Kong students - A study based on self-determination theoryDoctoral thesis China: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://
search.proquest.com/openview/6d4908bb1d06f88dd81310d22316c079/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y.
Clarke, A. M., Kuosmanen, T., & Barry, M. M. (2015). A systematic review of online youth mental health promotion and prevention interventions. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 44, 90–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0165-0.
Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning (2016). What is SEL? November, Retrieved fromhttp://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/.
Day, J., Ji, P., DuBois, D. L., Silverthorn, N., & Flay, B. (2016). Cumulative social environmental adversity exposure as predictor of psychological distress and risk
behavior in urban youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0421-5.
Dinwiddie, G. Y., Gaskin, D. J., Chan, K. S., Norrington, J., & McCleary, R. (2013). Residential segregation, geographic proximity and type of services used: Evidence
for racial/ethnic disparities in mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 80, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.024.
*Domitrovich, C. E., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Becker, K. D., Keperling, J. P., Embry, D. D., ... Ialongo, N. (2015). Individual and school organizational factors that
influence implementation of the PAX good behavior game intervention. Prevention Science, 16, 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0557-8.
*Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Berg, J. K., Pas, E. T., Becker, K. D., Musci, R., ... Ialongo, N. (2016). How to do school-based prevention programs impact
teachers? Findings from a randomized trial of an integrated classroom management and social-emotional program. Prevention Science, 17, 325–337. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z.
Durlak, J. A. (2015). Studying program implementation is not easy but it is essential. Prevention Science, 16, 1123–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0606-3.
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, 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school
settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/18.2.237.
Dye, C. (2008). Health and urban living. Science, 319, 766–769. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150198.
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self‐regulation, and coping. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.
12013.
*Fishbein, D. H., Domitrovich, C., Williams, J., Gitukui, S., Guthrie, C., Shapiro, D., ... Greenberg, M. (2016). Short-term intervention effects of the PATHS curriculum
in young low-income children: Capitalizing on plasticity. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 37, 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-016-0452-5.
Foster, S. L., & Mash, E. J. (1999). Assessing social validity in clinical treatment research: Issues and procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.308.
*Frank, J. L., Bose, B., & Schrobenhauser-Clonan, A. (2014). Effectiveness of a school-based yoga program on adolescent mental health, stress coping strategies, and
attitudes toward violence: Findings from a high-risk sample. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.863259.
Friel, S., Akerman, M., Hancock, T., Kumaresan, J., Marmot, M., Melin, T., ... Vlahov, D. (2011). Addressing the social and environmental determinants of urban health
equity: Evidence for action and a research agenda. Journal of Urban Health, 88(860), -874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9606-1.
1
*Studies in the literature review.
26
Gagnon, D. J., & Mattingly, M. J. (2016). Most US school districts have low access to school counselors: Poor, diverse, and city school districts exhibit particularly high student-
to-counselor ratios (Report No. 108)Retrieved from University of New Hampshire websitehttps://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=
carsey.
Gartlehner, G., Hansen, R. A., Nissman, D., Lohr, K. N., & Carey, T. S. (2006). Criteria for distinguishing effectiveness from efficacy trials in systematic reviews (Report No.
12)Retrieved from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality websitehttps://www.ahrq.gov/.
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 48–70.
*Graves, S. L., Herndon-Sobalvarro, A., Nichols, K., Aston, C., Ryan, A., Blefari, A., & Prier, D. (2017). Examining the effectiveness of a culturally adapted social-
emotional intervention for African American males in an urban setting. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000145.
Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation, 7, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890122209504.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin
Press.
*Hearon, B. V. (2017). Promoting happiness in elementary schoolchildren: Evaluation of a multitarget, multicomponent classwide positive psychology intervention. Doctoral
dissertation University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/840f91ab3a06e860a6b9f84d188fca1f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&
cbl=18750&diss=y.
*Henneberger, A. K., Varga, S. M., Moudy, A., & Tolan, P. H. (2016). Family functioning and high risk adolescents’ aggressive behavior: Examining effects by ethnicity.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0222-8.
*Houck, C. D., Hadley, W., Barker, D., Brown, L. K., Hancock, E., & Almy, B. (2016). An emotion regulation intervention to reduce risk behaviors among at-risk early
adolescents. Prevention Science, 17, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0597-0.
*Humphrey, N., Barlow, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Pert, K., Joyce, C., & Turner, A. (2016). A cluster randomized controlled trial of the promoting alternative
thinking strategies (PATHS) curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 58, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.07.002.
*Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Lennie, C., & Farrell, P. (2010). New Beginnings: Evaluation of a short social–Emotional intervention
for primary‐aged children. Educational Psychology, 30, 513–532.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational
studies. The American Political Science Review, 105, 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000414.
Jackson, J. S., Knight, K. M., & Rafferty, J. A. (2010). Race and unhealthy behaviors: Chronic stress, the HPA axis, and physical and mental health disparities over the
life course. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 933–939. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143446.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review
of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.
*Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Hoglund, W. L. G., & Aber, J. L. (2010). A school-randomized clinical trial of an integrated social–emotional learning and literacy
intervention: Impacts after 1 school year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002138.
*Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Lawrence Aber, J. (2011). Two‐year impacts of a universal school‐based social‐emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in
translational developmental research. Child Development, 82, 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01560.x.
*Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring.
Prevention Science, 9, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0083-z.
*Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F., ... Windham, A. (2014). The impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-
based preventive intervention in first and second grades, on high-risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders into young adulthood. Prevention
Science, 15, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0296-z.
Keller‐Margulis, M. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 342–352.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21602.
*Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2016). Promoting children’s and adolescents’ social and emotional development: District adaptations of a theory of action. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45, 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1197834.
*La Greca, A. M., Ehrenreich-May, J., Mufson, L., & Chan, S. (2016). Preventing adolescent social anxiety and depression and reducing peer victimization: Intervention
development and open trial. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45, 905–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9363-0.
*Le, T. N., & Trieu, D. T. (2016). Feasibility of a mindfulness-based intervention to address youth issues in vietnam. Health Promotion International, 31, 470–479.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau101.
Lederbogen, F., Kirsch, P., Haddad, L., Streit, F., Tost, H., Schuch, P., ... Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2011). City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress
processing in humans. Nature, 474, 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10190.
Li, G. (2010). Culturally contested literacies: America’s" rainbow underclass" and urban schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
*Liu, W., Lynne-Landsman, S. D., Petras, H., Masyn, K., & Ialongo, N. (2013). The evaluation of two first-grade preventive interventions on childhood aggression and
adolescent marijuana use: A latent transition longitudinal mixture model. Prevention Science, 14, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0375-9.
*Lochman, J. E., Powell, N. P., Boxmeyer, C. L., Qu, L., Wells, K. C., & Windle, M. (2009). Implementation of a school-based prevention program: Effects of counselor
and school characteristics. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015013.
*Main, K., & Whatman, S. (2016). Building social and emotional efficacy to (re)engage young adolescents: Capitalising on the "window of opportunity". International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1054–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145265.
*Marsiglia, F. F., Ayers, S. L., Baldwin-White, A., & Booth, J. (2016). Changing Latino adolescents’ substance use norms and behaviors: The effects of synchronized
youth and parent drug use prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 17, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0574-7.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications. New York, NY: Basic Books.
McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 3–24.
*McCurdy, B. L., Lannie, A. L., & Barnabas, E. (2009). Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafeteria: An extension of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of
School Psychology, 47, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003.
*Mendelson, T., Greenberg, M. T., Dariotis, J. K., Gould, L. F., Rhoades, B. L., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a school-based mindfulness
intervention for urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 985–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9418-x.
*Montañez, E., Berger-Jenkins, E., Rodriguez, J., McCord, M., & Meyer, D. (2015). Turn 2 us: Outcomes of an urban elementary school-based mental health promotion
and prevention program serving ethnic minority youths. Children & Schools, 37, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdv004.
Murrell, P. C., Jr. (2017). Race, culture, and schooling: Identities of achievement in multicultural urban schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
*Nicoll, M. (2013). The development of emotional intelligence in at-risk female adolescents. Doctoral dissertation Florida Atlantic University. Retrieved from http://search.
proquest.com/docview/1461743125?accountid=10457.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention
research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793.
*Obsuth, I., Sutherland, A., Cope, A., Pilbeam, L., Murray, A. L., & Eisner, M. (2017). London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Results from a cluster-randomized
controlled trial of an intervention to reduce school exclusion and antisocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 538–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-016-0468-4.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based
practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201.
*Petras, H., Masyn, K., & Ialongo, N. (2011). The developmental impact of two first grade preventive interventions on aggressive/disruptive behavior in childhood and
adolescence: An application of latent transition growth mixture modeling. Prevention Science, 12, 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0216-7.
*Poduska, J. M., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Brown, C. H., Ialongo, N. S., & Toyinbo, P. (2008). Impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-based behavior
intervention, on young adult service use for problems with emotions, behavior, or drugs or alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S29–S44. https://doi.org/10.
27
1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.10.009.
*Polleck, J. N. (2011). Using book clubs to enhance social-emotional and academic learning with urban adolescent females of color. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 27,
101–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2011.532717.
*Pophillat, E., Rooney, R. M., Nesa, M., Davis, M. C., Baughman, N., Hassan, S., ... Kane, R. T. (2016). Preventing internalizing problems in 6–8 year old children: A
universal school-based program. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01928.
*Powell, T., & Holleran-steiker, L. K. (2017). Supporting children after a disaster: A case study of a psychosocial school-based intervention. Clinical Social Work Journal,
45, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0557-y.
*Powers, J. D., Wegmann, K. M., Blackman, K. F., & Swick, D. C. (2014). Increasing access to mental health services in schools through community-engaged research:
Results from a one-year pilot project. School Social Work Journal, 39, 73–89.
*Powers, J. D., Swick, D. C., Wegmann, K. M., & Watkins, C. S. (2016). Supporting prosocial development through school-based mental health services: A multisite
evaluation of social and behavioral outcomes across one academic year. Social Work in Mental Health, 14, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2015.
1048842.
*Raimundo, R., Marques-Pinto, A., & Lima, M. L. (2013). The effects of a social-emotional learning program on elementary school children: The role of pupils’
characteristics. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21667.
Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 24–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026.
*Riggs, N. R., & Pentz, M. A. (2009). Long term effects of adolescent marijuana use prevention on adult mental health services utilization: The midwestern prevention
project. Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080902809691.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG.
*Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-cam, H. Z. (2017). Does mindset intervention predict students’ daily experience in classrooms? A comparison of seventh and
ninth graders’ trajectories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 582–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0489-z.
*Schwartz, M. C. (2016). The implementation of a social-emotional learning curriculum for targeted students: Evaluating "strong start" as a tier II intervention (Ph.D.). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (1844445151).
Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042085911431472.
Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007). Treatment fidelity in applied educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure
evidence-based practice. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0033.
Sutton, R. E., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Knight, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation and classroom management. Theory into Practice, 48(2), 130–137. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00405840902776418.
*Terry, J. (2016). Preliminary evaluation of "footprints:" Motivational interviewing to promote cognitive-behavioral skills, academic outcomes, and academic protective factors in
middle school students (Ph.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (1845018089).
*Thomas, G., & Atkinson, C. (2017). Perspectives on a whole class mindfulness programme. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02667363.2017.1292396.
United Nations (2017). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments: Global education monitoring reportParis, France: UNESCO Publishing.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. New York: Author.
*Vekas, E. J., & Wade, T. D. (2017). The impact of a universal intervention targeting perfectionism in children: An exploratory controlled trial. The British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 56, 458–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12152.
Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1),
25–38.
*Weist, M. D., Stiegler, K., Stephan, S., Cox, J., & Vaughan, C. (2010). School mental health and prevention science in the baltimore city schools. Psychology in the
Schools, 47, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20453.
Williams, D. R., Priest, N., & Anderson, N. B. (2016). Understanding associations among race, socioeconomic status, and health: Patterns and prospects. Health
Psychology, 35, 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000242.
Zetter, R., & Deikun, G. (2010). Meeting humanitarian challenges in urban areas. Forced Migration Review, (34), 5–7. Retrieved from http://www.fmreview.org/
urbandisplacement/zetter-deikun.html.
28

Dabag ModernSocieties

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dabag ModernSocieties

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Educational Research 94 (2019) 11–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

Incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy within social-

1.1. Culturally responsive SEL

1.2. Research to practice in SEL

1.3. Research questions

The following research questions are examined as part of this study:

2.1. Search terms

2.3. Inclusion criteria

2.4. Procedure of article search

Fig. 1. Database search results for literature review.

3.1. Question 1: SEL intervention characteristics

3.1.1. Study characteristics

collect follow-up data.

3.1.2. Intervention characteristics

3.1.3. Participant characteristics

3.1.4. Mental health outcomes

3.2. Question 2: use of culturally responsive SEL

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

(continued on next page)

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

Study Sample Measures Intervention Mental Health/SEL Outcomes Culturally Addresses

3.3. Question 3: addressing inequalities

6. Limitations and future research

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen