University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING DRIVEN
INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE

by

Ananya Mukhopadhyay

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

August 2017

Page 2 of 152

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................5
Abstract ....................................................................................................................6
Chapter 1 - Background ...........................................................................................7
Research Problem………………………………………………………...10
Research Purpose .......................................................................................13
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ................................................................................14
Theoretical Frameworks for Teacher Learning…….…………………….31
Chapter 3 – Methods ..............................................................................................40
Research Questions……………………………………………………...40
Research Design…………………………………………………………41
Chapter 4 - Findings ...............................................................................................54
Knowledge for Practice: Program-level Findings……….………………54
Knowledge of and in Practice: Student-level Outcomes…………….…..81
Summary of Findings…………………………………,………………...97
Chapter 5 – Discussion …………………………………………………………..99
Interpretations of Main Findings……...…………………………………99
Implications………………………………………………….................102
Limitations……………………………………………………………...106
Future Research………………………………………………………...109
Conclusions………......………………………………………………...112
Page 3 of 152

References..............................................................................................................114
Appendices…………………………………….………………....……………....130
A: Conceptual Framework………………..……………………………...133

B: Data Source Table…………………………………………………….134

C: Information Sheet……………..………………………………………135

D: Program Leadership Interview Protocol……………………..……….139

E: Program Faculty Interview Protocol……………………………….…140

F: Teacher Candidate Interview Protocol…………………………..……141

G: Teacher Candidate Survey…………………………………………....143

H: Document Analysis Tool…………………………………………..…147

I: Coding Guide…………………...…………………………………..…148

Page 4 of 152

DEDICATION

I dedicate my work to my mother, Barnali, who gave up her own opportunities and
aspirations in order to raise her family in an unknown world, to ensure the brightest future for my
sister and I. I grew up watching her face countless obstacles, experience hardships that I can
hardly imagine taking on myself, and still mainting her own grace. Every step I take, I owe to
her and her tremendous sacrifices. It is her dreams and fierce hope for me that have always
illuminated the way forward, and it is her heart that has countless times guided me to persist even
when I have lost my way.
I also dedicate my work to my father Dev and sister, Dhriti who have both encouraged,
supported, and stood by me throughout my entire life. My father continually inspires me to be
steady, calm, and unafraid of anything. I am always trying to follow in his footsteps. My sister
Dhriti holds me together even when I come unraveled with her creativity, optimism, and special
brand of humor. I also dedicate my work to my grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins in India,
all of whom I miss every day.
Finally, I dedicate my work to my best friend and husband, Senay. You are my light at
the end of every tunnel. There are not many people in this world who have shown the type of
loyalty and love that you have shown me. It is with your partnership and hand in mine that I
have taken this journey of scholarship and endurance.

Page 5 of 152

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first and foremost like to acknowledge my advisors Dr. Gale Sinatra and Dr.
Marleen Pugach. Both of you have truly gone above and beyond time and time again, and I am
so grateful for your patience and guidance every step of the way. Thank you for putting your
faith in me despite all the bumps along the way. I am inspired by your work and I aspire to
accomplish just a fraction of what you have both done in your respective fields. I am lucky to
have not just one but two exceptional mentors as my co-chairs.
I would also like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Julie Marsh, who took me under her wing
even though she has a whole nest of other students. Thank you for your constant guidance,
support, and mentorship. I hope to one day reach your standard of excellence by continuing to
work as hard as I possibly can. I am honored for the time you have spent on my committee.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Tom Valente, who’s class on social networks was
so interesting that I could not wait to try a project of my own as soon as I could. Thank you for
the time, effort and contributions you put into being on my committee.
Finally I would like to acknowledge my lab mates in the Motivated Change Research Lab
– particularly Ann and Stephen for your advice and mentorship, and Vanessa and Robert for your
tireless quantitative methods lessons with me. I would also like to acknowledge the constant
support of our program director Laura Romero.

Page 6 of 152

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine how teacher education programs may or
may not be instructing preservice teachers to learn about and teach for social emotional learning
and development for students. I conducted a mixed methods study in which I interviewed
program faculty and administrators, analyzed program documents such as syllabi and
assignments, and interviewed and surveyed students regarding the ways in which social
emotional learning (SEL) constructs were present in the coursework or fieldwork opportunities
throughout the program. I also examined student networks in the program to see whether
students were forming peer learning groups around SEL related topics, such as classroom
management, student behaviors, or child development. I found that SEL was not introduced with
any formalized framework or theory, yet elements of SEL were embedded into the program in
various contexts. Students emerged with higher levels of SEL knowledge by their second year,
but appeared to have less confidence than first years in terms of implementation in the
classroom.

Page 7 of 152

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING DRIVEN
INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
The best classrooms appear to function on their own, seamlessly transitioning from
lesson activities to group work and back. Students seem to know their roles and tasks, and are
able to communicate calmly with one another. In these classrooms, although it may seem the
teacher is saying less, and doing less, the reality more often is, these teachers have put into
practice their integrated knowledge of child development and classroom management. These
teachers are able to teach beyond subject matter knowledge and have taught their students to
navigate skills to regulate their own emotions as well as their interactions with others. These
valuable concepts fall under the research domains in psychology and education known as social-
emotional learning (SEL) (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003).
SEL, as defined by Elias (1997), includes the ability to identify and regulate emotions, set
goals for achievement, recognize and respect the perspectives of others, build positive
relationships, make thoughtful decisions, and navigate interpersonal contexts. Ultimately, SEL
programs support the interrelated development of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
competencies (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). The Collaborative
for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2015) developed a widely implemented
SEL framework that outlines five related core competencies: self-awareness, self-management,
social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. SEL is the critical link
between academic knowledge and the specific set of skills important to whole child development
(Elias et al., 2003).
Page 8 of 152

Research on SEL is rooted in theories of child development (Cohen, 2001), however SEL
concepts are often tied to Goleman’s (1995) unifying theory of emotional intelligence, which
multiple researchers have criticized as lacking empirical evidence (Lopes, Salovey, Côté, &
Beers, 2005; Murphy, 2006; Rosete, & Ciarrochi, 2005; Waterhouse, 2006). Too often
conversations about SEL are conflated and integrated with discussions of emotional intelligence,
a topic that remains controversial in the field of psychology. However, multiple social emotional
skills have been substantiated with empirical evidence from biology research on emotions and
affect, and psychology research (Pekrun, 1992; Waterhouse, 2006). In the field of mind brain
education, cognitive neuroscience perspectives further illustrate the value of SEL in the
classroom (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). Emotional responses, relate to brain body
circuits of processing across various physiological domains ranging from, visual recognition
processing, to language processing. SEL, when viewed in terms of child development, remains
an essential set of skills teachers need to build with their students.
The scope of SEL research may have profound connections to and impact on many other
areas of teaching and education – including social justice, multicultural education, arts-based and
creative instruction, special education, and school/classroom environment issues such as bullying
(Merrell & Gueldner, 2010; Pasi, 2001; Elias et al., 2003). Furthermore, SEL is an area of
research wherein teacher, student, and school level outcomes are salient to the wellbeing of the
classroom context. Teaching practices that address students’ social emotional needs impact
children’s psychosocial adjustment and development.
SEL programs have been tied to positive gains in school climate outcomes (Cohen,
McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). School-wide implementation of SEL programs help to
create sustainable, positive school climate, and ensures the development and learning necessary
Page 9 of 152

to help students contribute to a democratic society. This climate is inclusive of the actions,
values, and expectations that allow participants in the school community to feel socially,
emotionally, and physically safe.
Extant literature has shown that SEL serves as the foundation for improved student
adjustment and academic performance. Research into SEL practices in the classroom has
demonstrated an increase in positive social behaviors, fewer conduct issues, minimization of
emotional distress, and improved grades and test results (Benson, 2006; Catalano, Berglund,
Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008; Weissberg, Kumpfer, &
Seligman, 2003). In addition, understanding one’s own emotions, identifying the emotions of
others, and emotion regulation are predictors of academic achievement (Trentacosta & Izard,
2007; Izard, Fine, Schulz, Mostow, Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001).
Students’ affective states impact how present, engaged, and motivated they will be for
learning (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Trentacosta & Izard, 2007). When children feel
supported and affirmed, they are less likely to be apprehensive about taking academic risks, and
more able to focus on cognitive tasks (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Hamre & Pianta 2005). Students
of all ages function better when they are provided with emotionally stable and supportive
environments, work with teachers who understand how to foster student motivation, and are
confident in a secure base to which they can turn to for support if needed.
In regards to teacher outcomes, preventing burnout and improving teacher retention is a
key issue in policy efforts (Ingersoll, 2001). A leading cause of teacher burnout is reportedly
from ongoing behavioral disciplinary issues in the classroom, negative interaction with families,
and disruptive pressure from administrators to implement policy at the classroom level (Grayson
& Alvarez, 2008). In theory, SEL and instruction efforts may support better managed
Page 10 of 152

classrooms, lower instances of student removal from classrooms, and may contribute to positive
relationships between teachers, students, families, and administrators. One study showed that
when school based prevention programs have a social emotional component, teachers reported
having higher levels of efficacy with behavior management and reduced experience of burnout
(Domitrovich et al., 2016).
Since teachers are an essential component of fostering an SEL-driven classroom
environment, districts ultimately hold teachers accountable for teaching students SEL skills,
particularly to improve student behavioral outcomes such as suspension rates. An example of
larger district level policy initiatives impacting school SEL outcomes is the California Office to
Reform Education (CORE) School Quality Improvement System (a multi-district waiver from
the government during No Child Left Behind) which includes social emotional domains of
assessment (CORE Districts, 2014). As of now the assessments are self-reported by teachers and
students, however, performance-based measures were being piloted in the 2014-15 school year.
As part of this initiative, the CORE districts are attempting a holistic approach to school
improvement and accountability, wherein academic, school climate, and student social emotional
outcomes are all aligned through programming.
Research Problem
Regardless of the demand from schools and districts, colleges of education rarely appear
to provide formal SEL instruction for teacher candidates within their programs (Elias et al. 2003;
Cohen, 2006; NIHCD, 2006). Despite the abundant research demonstrating the valuable
outcomes for students, which SEL provides, much less is known about preparing teachers to
teach for SEL (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). While most
programs provide foundational child development courses, formal SEL exposure is often absent
Page 11 of 152

until entry into the classroom. Even when teachers are provided with learning opportunities,
there is limited consistency across curriculums and programs, with some teachers encountering
SEL topics as early as pre-service education, whereas other teachers learn through school-based
professional development (Elias et al., 2003; Hemmeter, Santos, & Ostrosky, 2008; NIHCD,
2006).
The lackluster presence of SEL teacher preparation at the pre-service level may be rooted
in a long history of educators considering social emotional work to be an out of school domain,
developed between the student and their family and community (Elias et al., 2003). Theoretical
delineations around what constituted academic learning established which areas of instruction
were more suitable for school. Some scholars may argue that SEL is tacitly developed through
life experience, and does not explicitly need to be taught in the classroom given that teachers are
required to meet the demands of numerous other academic standards (Zins, 2004).
A closer examination of various state teacher education standards reveals that there is
potential for alignment with present standards while still preparing teachers for SEL
competencies (Zins, 2004). What is absent from teacher education programs is targeted focus on
SEL topics, thus little commitment from teacher educators to develop shared language,
understanding and goals related to the preparation of teachers. This creates inconsistency both
within and across teacher preparation programs. Even if pre-service programs do provide formal
knowledge, key content related to social emotional development and challenging behavior may
be spread across multiple courses such as child development, curriculum and methods, and
behavior management (Hemmeter et al., 2008). Not only does this mean SEL content is taught
by different instructors, but the discontinuity of this approach means relevant and cohesive
conceptual frameworks do not span across courses in a meaningful way.
Page 12 of 152

Furthermore, school districts are increasingly favoring teachers equipped for SEL
instruction, so more professional development (PD) opportunities are provided at the inservice
level, which means that the lack of continuum of SEL instruction from program to practice is not
only inconsistent but also inefficient (CORE, 2014; Elias et al., 2003; NIHCD, 2006). One
aspect of this inefficiency is revealed by the present lack of teacher evaluation around SEL.
When is it appropriate to evaluate teachers on their SEL competencies? Should districts be
hiring teachers without those competencies established, at least theoretically? While CORE
district initiatives are tackling these assessment challenges at the district-consortium level, pre-
service teacher education may need to consider next steps as well (CORE, 2014).
SEL is not a new area of research. In fact, much of SEL is the foundational core of child
development that is essential and embedded into the work of classroom teachers. While the
literature confirms the impact and value of SEL instruction, knowledge of how to best prepare
teachers to teach those skills remains limited. The fact that there is no authoritative clarity on
this subject implies the need for further research to develop a better understanding and process
for programs to implement. Implications of SEL research primarily affects shifting the nature of
teacher preparation. In a recent survey of teacher education programs (Schonert-Reichl, 2013),
Deans reported that in order for a comprehensive overhaul of how teachers are prepared for SEL,
the following need to be in place:
1) National and state level policy to clearly establish social emotional competencies that
teachers need to learn during their pre-service preparation.
2) Empirical research that provides support for the inclusion of SEL in teacher
preparation.
Page 13 of 152

3) Faculty recommendations and advocacy for the inclusion of SEL content in teacher
preparation courses and field placements.
Research Purpose
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the ways SEL is conceptualized and taken
up in preservice teacher education. First, I provide a background literature review of SEL to
identify core concepts that are established in the field. I consider three frameworks and discuss
theoretical overlaps among all three. Next, I examine, based on research, to what extent teacher
candidates are prepared for SEL instruction within the current context of teacher education
programs. Finally, I discuss my mixed methods study design which positioned my dissertation
to examine a program of teacher preparation and how they currently integrate SEL topics into
their existing program model. I surveyed and interviewed teacher candidates within the program
to understand their learning experience and outcomes. By documenting what is already
established, researchers are poised to better understand what aspects of SEL remain missing in
programmatic efforts, and how educators can build on existing initiatives to promote a better
continuum of learning for teacher candidates. This study is a step towards developing an
empirical base of research to support the formal inclusion of SEL preparation in teacher
education.

Page 14 of 152

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptualizing Social Emotional Learning
Scholars in the field share frustration that despite the long history of research and
theoretical roots of social emotional constructs, there continues to be lack of consensus on the
broader name for the field and its focus. Beyond SEL (CASEL, 2012), various other terms
include: intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies (Stecher & Hamilton, 2014); 21st century
skills (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006) non-cognitive factors (Farrington et al., 2012); and
personal qualities (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015) among many others. The term “non-cognitive”
is particularly misleading since many social emotional constructs involve cognition and
information processing (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Farrington et al., 2012). Part of what
makes the process of researching SEL particularly challenging is consideration of what is
included in the conversation and what is not. For example, a school focused on mindsets may
not be as focused on social awareness or relationship building from the CASEL framework. I
briefly elaborate on both the CASEL framework for SEL, then the CORE framework for SEL
(CORE Districts, n.d.), and finally unpack the non-cognitive factors framework (Farrington et
al., 2012). In examining all three, I was able to identify clear conceptual overlaps, as well as
constructs that may be pertinent to only one or two of the frameworks, which implies that there
may be conceptual gaps in the field depending on which framework is applied. For the purpose
of consistency, I continue to refer to the term social emotional learning (SEL) throughout the rest
of this dissertation.
As previously discussed the CASEL (2015) framework consists of five different areas for
SEL: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship-building, and responsible
Page 15 of 152

decision-making. Each of these constructs categorically entail various other skills and
constructs. Competency in self-awareness involves: identifying emotions, self-perception,
recognizing strengths, self-confidence, and self-efficacy. Self-management includes: impulse
control, stress-management, self-discipline, goal-setting, organizational skills. Social awareness
entails: perspective-taking, empathy, appreciating diversity, respect for others. Relationship
building involves learning about communication, social engagement, and teamwork. Finally,
responsible decision-making is a combined skillset of: identifying problems, analyzing
situations, solving problems, evaluating, reflecting, and ethical responsibility. CASEL has
essentially thematically categorized well-established psychological constructs and social skill-
sets into a single applied framework to be used in schools, community programming, and homes.
Many of the sub-constructs have vast landscapes of literature supporting their empirical value.
For example, the literature on empathy is now a well-established construct both in psychology
and in neuroscience (Immordino-Yang, McColl, Damasio, & Damasio, 2009). Similarly,
diversity is entirely its own field of knowledge at this point.
Similarly, the CORE districts’ accountability system focuses on four psychological
constructs that they refer to as SEL as well, which include: growth mindsets, self-efficacy, self-
management and social awareness (CORE Districts, n.d.). What is worth noting is that CORE
identifies self-efficacy as one of the main constructs rather than self-awareness, suggesting a
narrower, more specific focus. Growth mindset, is the belief that intelligence and other attributes
are malleable, and can be changed through effort. Research suggests that educators can
intervene and encourage students to develop a growth mindset, which has shown positive
outcomes in academic achievement and improved social relationships (Blackwell, Trzesniewski
& Dweck, 2007; Dweck, 2012; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Self-efficacy is similarly a belief, in
Page 16 of 152

this case, the belief in one’s own ability to succeed in a given task. Educators can increase a
student’s self-efficacy for a particular task through modifying and scaffolding instruction to
provide students opportunities to be successful at tasks set at appropriate levels of increasing
challenge (Bandura, 1997, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000).
The overlap of the other two CORE constructs with CASEL - self-management and
social awareness is intentional, as CORE integrated these two aspects of the CASEL framework
into its own. Self-management is a unifying construct stemming from several well-established
constructs in psychology including metacognition and self-regulated learning (Schunk, 2008;
Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman, 1990), delayed gratification (Mischel et al., 2011; Mischel &
Ebbesen, 1970), grit (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), and self-control (Duckworth, Gendler, &
Gross, 2014). Research has found that instructional intervention has little effect on students’self-
management outcomes including: delayed gratification, grit, and self-control (Farrington et al.,
2012). CORE and CASEL’s fourth construct, social awareness involves the ability to empathize
with others from diverse backgrounds. This is one construct that does not have a clear path of
origin from the research base to the application in the CORE or CASEL frameworks. The
diversity and inclusion, as well as multicultural research base may be the source or it may may
relate to psychological instruments designed to measure empathy (e.g., Bryant, 1982).
Non-cognitive factors framework. The non-cognitive factors framework proposed by
Farrington et al. (2012) consists of five areas of SEL as well that move students towards
academic performance. This framework is organized slightly differently from CASEL and
CORE but include many overlapping concepts. The components of this framework include:
academic mindsets, academic perseverance, academic behaviors, social skills and learning
strategies. The first domain, academic behaviors include regularly attending class, arriving
Page 17 of 152

prepared to work (with necessary resources), paying attention, active participation in class, and
studying and completing homework out of school consistently. For example, spending time on
homework is one academic behavior shown to have a positive effect on students’ grades in
secondary school levels (Cooper, 1989; Keith et al., 1993; Peng & Wright, 1994). Using path
analysis, Keith (1982) found that time spent on homework had a significant positive effect on
grades controlling for background, race/ethnicity, ability, and field of study.
Academic perseverance describes a student’s tendency persist in the completion of tasks
and assignments despite obstacles and distraction. Concepts aligned with this include grit,
delayed gratification, self-discipline, self control. The concept of “academic tenacity” has gained
traction more recently, and entails a student’s ability to look past short-term concerns to longer-
term or higher-order goals, and to withstand challenges and setbacks to persevere toward these
goals” (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2011, p. 5). The more controversial idea of “grit,” implies a
character trait or disposition to work hard for a long sustained period of time towards one goal
despite any plateaus or adversity, akin to running a marathon. Grit was intended to be an
explanation for how people reach the top of their fields, however, application of grit in the
context of marginalized groups have proven to constrained, limited, and inconclusive. In
connecting to the CASEL and CORE framework, there is overlap in the domain of self-
management.
Academic mindsets are the psychosocial motivational beliefs and attitudes students have
about their themselves in relation to their work. Concepts such as goal theory theory (Dweck,
1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), expectancy value theory (Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff,
Kaczala, Meece, & Midgley, 1983), locus of control (Rotter, 1954), and self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986) fall under this realm. Belongingness is one type of mindset based out of sociocultural
Page 18 of 152

theory, where students need to feel as though they belong to a community of learners and that
their academic self is a “true” or authentic self (Harvey & Schroder, 1963; Oyserman, Bybee, &
Terry, 2006). For example, Steele’s work (1997) shows how minority students receive
unintentional messages of academic inferiority in schools, which causes stereotype threat, and
negatively impacts minority students’ self -perceptions and attitudes towards school and
learning. In connecting to the rest of the framework, positive academic mindsets motivate
students to persist at schoolwork, which manifests itself through better academic behaviors,
which lead to improved academic performance. In relation to CASEL and CORE, there is an
overlap with self-awareness, self-management, growth mindset and self-efficacy all fall within
this domain of the non-cognitive framework. This means that three of CORE’s four domains fall
under this one domain in a different framework.
The fourth domain, learning strategies are the cognitive processes and strategies one
employs to aid in the cognitive and informational processes work of learning, recalling, and
applying what was learned. Learning strategies can also encompass processes such as
metacognition, self-regulated learning, time management, and goal setting, which have broad
base in the literature and overlap with other areas in both the non-cognitive framework, but also
CASEL and CORE. What remains problematic about the non-cognitive factors framework is
most evident under this domain, as learning strategies are all reliant on cognitive processes, thus
invalidating the name of the entire framework.
The final domain of the non-cognitive framework, social skills, is closely aligned to
CASEL’s relationship-skills, social awareness, and responsible-decision making constructs.
Social skills involves interpersonal interaction, empathy, cooperation, assertion, and
responsibility. The outcomes of school-based social skills research will be discussed more in
Page 19 of 152

depth below. However, what is clear is that regardless of which framework and which name,
there are established, research-based constructs that have impact on how students learn.
Preparing teachers for best practices and competencies along these areas is important.
Context for Teacher Learning
There is consensus among scholars on the established best practices for optimal teacher
learning at any given point of a teacher’s education (Darling-Hammond, 2006). It is essential to
briefly contextualize future formalized SEL instruction for teachers within the scope of these
known best practices. This way future integration efforts for programmatic and curriculum shifts
for SEL are developed with a holistic and informed view of researched based teacher learning.
Teacher preparation models that are research-based strive to help teachers become adaptive
experts in their craft (Hatano, 2005; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Through adaptive expertise,
teachers are able to trade in some of the efficiency of their routines, to expand and adapt their
core competencies, ideas, and beliefs as the context of their practice shifts. As we know,
teaching contexts can shift at the micro level even by getting a new student with a diverse set of
needs, to the macro level of policy changes. Adaptive expertise prepares teachers to solve
problems through any new situation.
Multiple researchers have discussed the importance of helping teachers develop into
reflexive practitioners, which eventually guides teachers into inquiry as stance, in their own
future practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Zeichner & Liston, 2013). Given that SEL is so
interconnected within the various types of knowledge teachers are expected to enact, there is a
rich source of reflection opportunities for teachers during both theory and practice. For example,
teachers could be asked to personally reflect on their SEL development during their own time in
graduate school, as a model for future reflective practice in their own classrooms.
Page 20 of 152

A long standing theory defended by many scholars indicates that learning is situated and
context-based (Korthagen, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 2001), so rather than preparing teachers with
only generalized theories, it is better for teachers to learn from a problem-solving based
approach. Field based case studies, and reading case studies with rich context and issues, allows
teachers to engage in problem solving to draw from their various knowledge bases to improve
the situation.
A final teacher learning principle that has been studied and established across the
continuum of teacher education is that teachers learn well within communities of inquiry and
practice (Wenger, 1998). Shared co-construction of knowledge and meaning within learning
communities builds on what teachers know as they learn from each other, as well as pushes
teachers to question their own beliefs and practices.
Teacher learning networks. Teacher learning communities and networks furthermore
encompass added opportunities for both problem solving and reflection (Leiberman, 2000). At
the inservice level professional learning communities (PLCs) are a popular way to facilitate
ongoing teacher learning in communities of practice (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, &
Thomas, 2006). Through meeting in these communities, teachers often draw from experience
with students they are struggling with the most as the core topics of discussion. Teachers in
many cases are concerned about their inability to connect with particular students, and a
reflexive, community driven problem solving approach is integral in creating shared learning for
all members of that community. Since SEL has a clear connection to developing student
relationships, it is reasonable to assume that learning communities are a primary environment for
teachers to expand their SEL competencies.
Much of teacher learning network research has been conducted within schools, as sites
Page 21 of 152

for reform implementation, and school and teacher improvement initiatives (Lieberman, 2000).
Principles of teacher learning networks however could be applied to peer learning communities
at the pre-service level similarly if they are grounded in practice, and mediated through problem
based, and reflective learning activities. In an early teacher network study Lieberman (2000)
found that teacher learning networks began small, based on the needs, desires, and goals of
participants, and grew slowly. Since networks are needs based and goal driven, they are better
formed organically through peer professional learning relationships. These peer learning
networks are ideal to discuss topics that may not be explicitly in the coursework, but relevant to
field work and future practice. Teacher education programs in which field experiences are
concurrent with coursework are ideally suited for the formation of peer learning networks. SEL
in particular is a topic that pre-service teachers may be engaging around in a problem-based,
reflective way.
Online teacher learning. Online teacher education platforms are one of the more
complex areas of teacher education, converging best practices from both research areas in
teacher learning as previously discussed, as well as computer facilitated instruction (Bain,
McNaught, Mills, & Lueckenhausen, 1998). During the 2002-2003 academic year, 81% of all
universities offered at least one online or blended course (combining both face-to-face and online
instruction) (Online Learning Consortium, 2014). Training programs online for the most part
consist of asynchronous learning environments (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997), which is a student
centered teaching method where information is shared outside the constraints of time and place
within a network of participants.
The increasing presence of online programs at the pre-service level primarily for graduate
certification in teaching suggests that they are a disruptive innovation (Christensen & Eyring,
Page 22 of 152

2011) to the traditional narrative of teacher education. The ability to complete educational
requirements on independent schedules makes online education very attractive to potential
students with campus access issues. This element of accessibility disrupts the traditional model
of campus coursework.
Online platforms are also used in various inservice professional development courses,
and blended learning programs (King, 2002). Furthermore, online programs often have
embedded field components, wherein teachers have both graduate level peer networks, as well as
situated practice networks to learn within. Thus, online teacher education has the potential to
create a bridge of networks between pre-service and inservice, and moving teacher education
research, theory, and practice towards embracing a more connected learning continuum.
As of now, no formal research exists on the topic of how teachers are prepared for SEL
instruction within online programs. This is an important consideration due to the increased
popularity of online teacher education. Furthermore, given the nature of SEL being such an
interactive topic, would anything short of face-to-face interaction support teacher preparation?
SEL Pre-Service Teacher Preparation
Multiple scholars have noted that SEL topics are not coherently, or formally introduced
to teacher candidates, particularly in terms of practice (Elias et al., 2003; Schonert-Reichl, 2013).
Accordingly, researchers have not often attempted to study a topic that appears to not exist yet
formally within schools of education. This dearth of research may be explained by a historical
lack of mandated programming across the country. In 2011, however, the Interstate Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) developed the Model Core Teaching Standards,
which have since been adopted by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
Page 23 of 152

(CAEP) standards
1
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). Over 700 institutions
connected to CAEP are expected to uphold these standards for accreditation purposes, so schools
of teacher education should be by now (5 years later) beginning to reflect these standards in more
explicit ways. The first three InTASC standards in particular on the learner and learning
reinforce the importance of SEL and knowledge of child development. For example, Standard 1
on learner development includes that:
The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of
learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic,
social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally
appropriate and challenging learning experiences. (p. 8)
Similarly Standard 3 on developing the learning environment states that:
The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and
collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement
in learning, and self-motivation. (p. 8)
These standards demonstrate that social emotional learning is often interrelated to other aspects
of learning and development, and these standards specifically align with components of widely
accepted and research-based SEL constructs such as the CASEL framework. For example in
Standard 3 above, “positive social interaction,” and “self-motivation” are two primary examples
related to self-management, social-awareness, and relationship skills from the CASEL
framework. Given the national reach of the INTASC standards it appears that this is an
opportune moment to investigate more deeply how teacher education programs may be meeting
these standards and preparing teachers for SEL instruction.

1
CAEP is the Council of Chief State School Officers formerly known as the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) (CAEP.org, 2016)
Page 24 of 152

Much of what is known empirically about pre-service teacher preparation in SEL is
limited to a few broad survey oriented studies. Schonert-Reichl and colleagues (2013) conducted
a state-level scan and found that across the country, very little emphasis is given to promotion of
the social and emotional competencies of teachers in teacher certification requirements. The
scan found not one state or territory that required all five SEL competencies of teachers for
teacher certification. Nine states did focus on promoting some dimensions of social emotional
instructional competency of teachers including California, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The scan did find that
almost every state requires teachers to have knowledge or coursework on learning contexts for
teacher certification.
As discussed previously, SEL language is often integrated or embedded within child
development and classroom management preparation. Therefore, given the sparse empirical
record on SEL particularly within teacher education, I draw on research and practice efforts from
these other areas to inform my inquiry.
Child development knowledge as theoretical grounding for SEL in teacher
education. Research on child and adolescent development is one step of many towards
promoting a better understanding of SEL. Furthermore, research in the area of teacher
preparation on child development serves as a viable exemplar for future research in pre-service
teacher education on the topic of SEL. In serving this research, NCATE (2006) conducted a
survey to determine how teacher education programs are preparing teachers on the subject of
child and adolescent development. The survey indicated that 80% of responding colleges of
education offer courses in child and adolescent development, and 70% responded that these
development courses were also available in other departments, such as psychology.
Page 25 of 152

Approximately 90% of the institutions require teacher candidates to take at least one child and
adolescent development course. Institutions primarily reported assessing knowledge through
field based projects, exams, and case studies. Respectively, 75% and 61% of early
childhood/elementary preparation programs and middle level adolescent programs said that their
program’s child development knowledge base is codified in professional standards.
Results from the NCATE (2006) survey indicated that teacher education programs
needed to demonstrate a clearer connection between knowledge of development and classroom
practice. Yet, respondents also indicated that teacher education programs are constrained by
state laws and policies that restrict additional coursework and issues of limited program carrying
capacities. Another obstacle reported by 65% of the respondents was the lack of time during the
course of the program. Finally, around a quarter of the respondents cite a lack of consensus
among teacher educators about how to apply knowledge of child and adolescent development to
teacher preparation.
The empirical record highlights decades of intervention/outcomes-oriented research to
solidify the developmental science knowledge base to the point of informing best instructional
practices (Daniels & Shumow, 2003; Pianta, 2007). However, classroom observation studies for
early language literacy and math reveal that few early education classrooms optimize these
developmentally appropriate interventions, and even when used, they do not affect student
outcomes when the quality and effectiveness of implementation is low (Dickinson & Brady,
2005; Howes et al., 2008). Observation studies of teachers have shown a lack of a basic
knowledge base, and teachers seem to be unprepared to implement instructional activities for
literacy and math using developmentally appropriate best practices (Clements & Sarama, 2008;
Justice & Ezell, 1999; Morrison & Connor, 2002). Thus, despite the tremendous advancements
Page 26 of 152

in the field of developmental sciences and learning, teacher education still needs to take strides to
prepare teachers to apply this knowledge base into practice. SEL, a core facet of child
development, is a primary example of this lack of translation between theory and practice, thus
an essential area for further investigation and future research.
To address this issue of translating theory into practice in teacher preparation, a panel of
experts
2
were brought together to develop a framework for six practice principles in order to
inform developmental teacher preparation (Snyder & Lit, 2010). The task force constructed the
following principles to guide teacher preparation programs: (a) Teacher candidates should be
considered as developing adult learners; (b) Programs should provide a formal knowledge base
of child and adolescent development; (c) Programs should organize opportunities to apply this
knowledge base within communities, schools, and classrooms, (d) Programs should be designed
as cohesive and consistent in their child/adolescent development emphasis; (e) Faculty within
programs need to model teaching practices; (f) Programs should undergo continual renewal.
These recommendations by leaders in the field indicate a growing shift in how programs will be
structured over time.
A small number of pre-service programs of teacher education have been identified within
the research that embody elements of these principles, and are indicative of the shifting tides in
the field (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Snyder, & Lit 2010). These programs could potentially
serve as models of renewal for other programs as they embody one or many of the above task-
force recommendations. These exemplar programs were examined largely through survey
methods, and additionally serve as a methodological model, and a starting point for similar
studies on SEL in the future. However, this highlights the fact that other types of empirical

2
Panel experts included invited faculty with established research record in the fields of developmental sciences and
educator preparation, leaders of teacher education programs, and leaders of NICHD, NCATE, and the Foundation
for Child Development.
Page 27 of 152

research on this topic are fairly sparse in the field. Furthermore, survey research alone is unable
to capture in-depth phenomena around teaching and learning within the programs in the way
qualitative empirical studies may be able to do.
Bank Street College of Education is a teacher preparation program using the
“Developmental-Interaction” perspective in which development is the foundational and central
focus of all theoretical and practical knowledge (Cuffaro & Nager, 2008). Through this
perspective, the program views the adult learning process to be fundamentally similar to how
children ideally learn. This teacher education program attempts to continually supplement book
learning with first-hand experiences within studios, laboratories, and field work.
The University of California at Berkeley’s Developmental Teacher Education (DTE) is a
two-year post baccalaureate program that includes four-course series on human development
along with thoughtfully aligned clinical experiences throughout the program (Snyder, 2000).
Each seminar course is also simultaneously connected to pedagogy and methods courses within
the appropriate subject matter domains. Further strengthening a teacher candidate’s child
development knowledge base is the use of systematic observation of children in the field and the
use of child case studies. Teacher candidates are expected to use clinical methods to assess
various levels of cognitive development from their case samples.
An exemplar of a pre-service program providing application of child development as a
knowledge base, is at the teacher education program at University of California Santa Barbara
(UCSB). UCSB has scaffolded year-long field placements where teacher candidates move
through a process of “gradual induction” in order to make direct connections from theory to
practice (Snyder & Lit, 2010).
Page 28 of 152

The Yale School Development Program (SDP) serves as a model for the impact of program
cohesion between teacher education programs and schools (School Development Program, 2008). SDP’s
program is established on the foundation of a developmental framework, and builds connection to the
school contexts in which teaching candidates develop their practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
As the research indicates, teacher education programs are inconsistent across the board
regarding the types of developmental knowledge base they will provide their pre-service
students, and whether or not that knowledge base will include explicit and applied opportunities
for teacher candidates to develop social emotional instructional competencies. However,
exemplary programs exist that can serve as models for any programs that want to undergo
program renewal and re-evaluate how to integrate developmental frameworks, and perhaps even
include SEL.
Classroom management as applied learning context for SEL preparation. Classroom
management can be defined as teacher choices and practices related to creating an environment
conducive to academic and social emotional learning (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). The
empirical record of classroom management research serves as a parallel model for shifting the
focus towards specifically examining SEL driven instructional practices for teacher preparation.
Classroom management models span a wide range of beliefs and practices regarding the
roles of teachers and students (Piwowar, 2012). Some classroom management models may have
a direct focus on discipline; providing a combination of proactive and reactive teacher actions
designed to maintain order and control over student behaviors (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011).
Other programs focus more on relationship-building between teachers and students to encourage
self-discipline.
Most pre-service programs offer entire courses on classroom management methods, and
if not a whole course, then at least several units on behavior management (Banks, 2003; O’Neill
Page 29 of 152

& Stephenson, 2011). One model that has been introduced to teachers is called Assertive
Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976), in which teachers decide on and enforce the rules in the
classroom, utilizing negative consequences if necessary. Another contrasting but popular model
is Reality Therapy (Glasser,1986), where teachers and students develop mutual trust in a warm
and nurturing classroom environment. Applied Behavior Analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1987;
Banks, 2003) is a common behavior management approach utilized often within special
education, particularly to analyze ongoing behavior issues, and to understand the antecedent
stimuli of certain behaviors.
While much of classroom management is taught through field experience and school
sites, the value of coursework is not to be overlooked. Ideally, classroom management strategies
would be presented conjointly with child development theories, as well SEL outcomes, however,
the consistency of these efforts remain largely under-studied. O’Neill and Stephenson (2011)
conducted a study which found that across a cohort of final year teacher education students,
completing classroom management coursework increased preparedness, familiarity, and
confidence in using strategies and models of behavior management.
In terms of effective teaching strategies for both in pre-service and inservice teachers,
video-based analysis of classroom scenarios has been shown to enhance development of
competencies in classroom management by enabling discussion of contextual conditions and
varying approaches (Brophy, 2004; Fukkink, Trienekens, & Kramer, 2010; Hylton, 2000). Video
analysis particularly in collaborative formats can invite new and alternative perspectives from
peers, encouraging reflection and improved practice (Santagata & Guarino, 2011).
Microteaching, is another teaching tool used to help reduce and break down the
complexity of a real classroom scenario. This technique allows teacher candidates to study
Page 30 of 152

particular interventions in depth and contextually, while simultaneously participating in
discussion and questioning (Grossman, 2005).
SEL Inservice Teacher Preparation
Much of the growing body of research on SEL within classroom education is outcomes
oriented, particularly for school climate shifts, behavior improvements, correlations with student
academic performances, and relationships (Greenberg et al., 2003; Weissberg & Shriver, 1996).
For example, a recent review of over 200 studies looked at the impact of school-based
interventions focused on student social and emotional learning, and found significant positive
outcomes in terms of reducing problem behaviors, promoting positive adjustment, and higher
academic performance (Payton, 2008). Studies across multiple program implementations
indicate these highly positive outcomes (Durlak et al., 2011).
Currently many implementation programs exist, but there are few unified efforts within
teacher education to create a shared preparation process. Historically, school based interventions
that could have been aligned with SEL such as initiatives against bullying and substance abuse,
and promoting character development, and community service, have been disjointed, singular
efforts (Elbertson et al., 2009). Effective programming at the professional level should provide
ongoing support and knowledge for teachers. Teachers benefit most from teacher manuals,
lesson plans, in-person training sessions prior to implementation, and ongoing
mentoring/coaching from experts (Graczyk et al. 2000). For example, watching videos of
themselves teaching SEL lessons can support teachers to develop a reflective practice (Hafen et
al., 2012), facilitate student relationships with peers, and reduce disciplinary actions (Hafen,
Ruzek, Gregory, Allen, & Mikami, 2015; Mikami, Gregory, Allen, Pianta, & Lun, 2011).
Ensuring annual training and follow up sessions accounts for teacher turnover issues (Elias,
Page 31 of 152

Bruene-Bulter, Blum & Schuyler, 2000). Some examples of SEL programs serve as models for
moving towards a more unified, cohesive direction of school wide initiatives, such as: Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS), The Child Development Project, Responsive
Classroom, and Emotional Literacy in the Classroom (Elbertson et al., 2009).
Out of the many classroom-based interventions, Responsive Classroom stands out as one
that focuses on teaching teachers how to instruct for SEL outcomes, rather than what to teach
(Rimm-Kaufman, Larsen, & Baroody, 2014). The program trains teachers to model prosocial
behavior and CASEL aligned competencies such as collaboration and self-control within existing
instructional curriculums, rather than introducing new content with an SEL focus. One
longitudinal randomized control trial for the effects of the Responsive Classroom approach found
treatment group students had improved reading achievement, formed greater closeness with their
teachers, demonstrated better pro-social skills, and more assertiveness (Rimm-Kaufman & Chiu,
2007).
Due to research recommendations by the US Department of Education for quasi-
experimental and randomized control trials, few research studies provide the process-based field
research of teacher learning for SEL. Most of the studies are focused on outcomes for both
students and teachers (Durlak et al., 2011). This highlights the tremendous value of qualitative
and mixed methods empirical studies, which can provide research-based documentation for
various implementation efforts, which when paired with outcomes-based research moves the
field forward (Maxwell, 2012).
Theoretical Frameworks of Teacher Learning
While there are multiple approaches to learning, a substantial part of the discourse on
teacher learning has been framed around social and constructivist theories of learning (Cochran-
Page 32 of 152

Smith & Lytle, 1999; Grossman et al., 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Two prominent theoretical
frameworks guide my inquiry on SEL preparation in pre-service teacher education: sociocultural
theory and social network theory. Both theories have a common conceptual thread in that
meaningful learning primarily occurs within communities of learners with shared intent, however
the theories differ in that they position researchers for two separate sets of research
methodologies, leading to two sets of varying units of analysis. However, the combined use of
sociocultural and social network theories draws focus on integral elements of the teacher
learning process, and each accounts for limitations within the other theory, filling in conceptual
and methodological gaps.
In perhaps the most prominent perspective of social learning, sociocultural theory shifts
the view of learning away from an individual’s cognitive progress, towards a view that learning
occurs in a shared network of relationships between students, teachers, and the curriculum
(Vygotsky, 1978). Participation in social interactions, dialogue, and culturally organized
activities influence learning, thus all participants are considered learners. I considered teacher
candidates as learners, learning through interacting with teacher educators and peers to examine
how network development may facilitate implicit learning around SEL topics.
Proponents of sociocultural theory have suggested that the social interaction, shared
language, and dialogue between members of a community are at the root of meaning making and
learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The pre-service teacher classroom-community is a valuable
representation of how people learn through interacting with their environment and social
relationships, and by constructing new ideas through each other’s shared understandings and
experiences (Lemke, 2001).
Page 33 of 152

Three primary sociocultural concepts are relevant to how teachers learn. The first
concept is zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). This concept suggests that
learning happens in the zone between a person’s independent level of problem solving, and
where he/or she would need guidance to solve the problem. The second concept is situated
learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which means that learning occurs through the activities,
context, and culture through which the community of practice forms. An important concept in
situated learning is the notion of legitimate peripheral participation, which conceptualizes
learning as an apprenticeship process in which the individual gradually moves from peripheral to
full participation in scholarly activities and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Finally, the concept of distributed cognition (Cole & Engestrom, 1993) indicates that thinking
and learning are socially distributed amongst individuals with the tools and artifacts of a culture.
Although individual cognitions need not be ignored, thinking and learning is best conceptualized
and studied as distributed, with joint, socially mediated learning activities in cultural contexts as
the unit of analysis.
Sociocultural theory is useful in informing the process of documenting and analyzing
knowledge content gained from social interactions, whereas social network theory is used to
identify and map the social relationships that may facilitate the learning, and inform how and
why these learning networks formed. As we know from sociocultural theory, learning occurs
within dyadic and group interactions, and within social network theory, the base unit of analysis
is a single dyad (Valente, 2010). More specifically, I useed social network analysis to analyze
how peer learning networks are formed naturally around problem solving and advice seeking at
the pre-service level particularly in relation to SEL topics.
Social Network Analysis
Page 34 of 152

Social network theory allows scholars to map out relationships between actors within
groups as a way to analyze the implications and outcomes of social capital for group members.
Social network theorists and researchers examine the influence of networks on social capital
across various phenomena and contexts (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). Social network studies consist
of data on: a) dyads, b) ego networks, which are essentially the personal networks of individual
actors and their direct ties with other actors, and c) whole-networks which maps out system-wide
ties between all actors in a particular setting (Valente, 2010). Social network data is collected
primarily through interviews or surveys in which individuals report who they talk to, their
preferences for types of interactions, and even reasons for interacting (such as advice seeking)
(Valente, 2010).
Social network theory is a particularly useful framework for characterizing the nested
relationships common to education settings such as: relationships between administration and
faculty in a teacher education programs, relationships between pairs of teacher candidates, and
even mixed networks across differential levels (Moolenaar, 2012). In this way, social network
researchers can gather data on formal organizational structures, as well as the informal
relationships and ties within those structures, which is particularly useful in studying teacher
education programs (Parise & Spillane, 2010; Spillane, Healey, & Min Kim, 2010).
Social network theory provides several theoretical constructs that challenge the notion
that individual characteristics and attributions are the primary function for variation across
outcomes (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010; Freeman, 2004; Valente, 2010). Since resources such as
information or knowledge are not always available in a consistent or predictable way within
organizations, relationships and social structures are often better determinants to how individuals
attain resources necessary for successful outcomes (Daly, 2010a). As such, framed within
Page 35 of 152

teacher education, program coursework is not the only source of knowledge, as teacher
candidates are gaining informational resources from their peer networks, field-work networks,
and other informal sources to increase learning outcomes. Thus, simply because SEL is not a
formal part of programming, does not mean teachers are not learning about SEL topics even at
the pre-service level.
As discussed previously, the individual relationships between pairs of actors are called
dyads (Valente, 2010). Dyad relationships connect together to form paths that allow actors to
indirectly influence one another within networks. These relationships eventually form the
network structure in which actors hold structural positions, which ultimately influence the
opportunities or constraints (in this case, related to learning) that actors would encounter, thus
determining both individual and network outcomes (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010) and purpose
(Borgatti & Ofem, 2010; Moolenaar, 2012; Valente, 2010).
Relevant properties of social network theory. Social network theory provides a
valuable description of the learning communities within pre-service programs that may be
supporting how teacher candidates are learning about SEL. Furthermore, researchers can
robustly examine properties of these relationships and networks to understand the resources
available to teachers for implementing SEL instruction, and how actors may be supported or
constrained within their networks. Relevant to this study of teacher learning are the following
properties of social network analysis: 1) homophily, 2) tie strength, 3) access to expertise, 4)
density, and 5) and centrality.
Homophily. Homophily indicates if actors form relationships with others who are similar
to them through dyads or ego-networks (Valente, 2010). Homophily is explained in part by the
self-categorization hypothesis, which suggests that people categorize themselves by descriptive
Page 36 of 152

attributes such as race and gender to either identify with or distinguish themselves from others
(Turner, 1987). The similarity-attraction hypothesis (Bryne, 1971) further explains homophily by
predicting that people are more likely to connect and interact with others who share similar
attributes. Higher rates of homophily within networks can be an indicator of networks with
higher perceived sense of trust and reliability, and support among members. However, this can
also limit information sharing and knowledge construction to only between cliques, thus
reducing opportunities for learning from diverse others that may have a different but valuable
knowledge base (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Ibarra, 1993).
Tie strength. Tie strength is a dyad or ego-network property indicating the frequency or
closeness of contact between an actor and his or her connections. Research has found that strong
ties have been associated with transfers of tacit knowledge (Reagans & McEvily, 2003), and
problem solving (Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003), both valuable elements of teacher learning.
Access to expertise. This is an ego-network property that indicates a teacher’s access or
connection contacts with relevant pedagogical, content, and contextual knowledge in the ego
network (Coburn et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2011).
Density. Density is measured by the proportion of ties that exist between actors in a
network, wherein dense networks indicate greater resource flows among people (Daly et al.,
2010).
Centrality. Centrality specifies various ways in which certain actors control the flow of
information in their environment (Moolenaar et al., 2010; Valente, 2010). In-degree centrality
measures the total number of ties (nominations) that an actor receives in the network, which is
how opinion leaders who direct the flow of information in their network are identified (Valente,
2010). Out-degree centrality measures the total number of nominations an actor identifies in
Page 37 of 152

their personal network, which could for example indicate a teacher candidate who one turns to
for advice, or information (Valente, 2010).
Knowledge and Practice as a Guiding Analytic Framework
At the heart of my research is the investigation of how teachers gain knowledge of SEL
from their pre-service program, and how teachers can learn to use that knowledge in practice.
One useful framework is the knowledge and practice framework (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999),
which serves as a guiding tool to determine a useful schema for organizing the various types of
knowledge teachers need stemming from program to practice. The knowledge and practice
framework has the concepts of ZPD, situated learning, and distributed cognition embedded into
the framework, applying the principle of teachers learning within their academic contexts and
professional communities.
The knowledge and practice framework situates the study of teacher learning from both a
programmatic level, as well as from an individual level. The organizational context is
particularly important to examine because, prior to even integrating a formal SEL curriculum, it
is valuable to consider which knowledge domains are taught/prioritized in the program at
present, and where SEL topics or a formal SEL curriculum might fit conceptually in the future.
The three parts of the framework are: "knowledge-for-practice," “knowledge-in-
practice,” and “knowledge-of-practice,” The knowledge and practice framework also
acknowledges and accounts for the dualistic view of either transmission based learning (direct
instruction) and the transactional (social participatory) nature of how knowledge is acquired by
learners.
Knowledge-for-practice consists of the formal knowledge and theory that teachers can
refer to and use to improve their practice. The long standing focus of teacher education has been
Page 38 of 152

to provide candidates with this formal set of knowledge to be used in practice, from experts
(teacher educators) to novices (teacher candidates) (Shulman, 1986). State and national standards
reflect the scholarly consensus of what pre-service teachers ought to be prepared to know.
Formal concepts include subject matter knowledge (Shulman, 1986), pedagogical content
knowledge (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Shulman, 1986), topics related to social justice
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2009), multiculturalism and diversity (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ladson-
Billings, 1995), and child social and developmental contexts (Cohen, 2006). Knowledge for
practice provides a useful framework for collecting qualitative data on program level
infrastructure, such as program mission, coursework and syllabi, program structure, faculty
expertise and decision making. Knowledge-for-practice accounts for the transmission of
knowledge from experts to novices.
Knowledge-in-practice refers to the practical and essential knowledge for teaching that is
embedded in the enactment of actual teaching. This type of knowledge is contextually situated
and developed through practice and reflection. Gaining the experience of decision making, and
observing student reactions and responses is an ongoing learning experience for teachers, further
establishing previous theories during knowledge-for-practice. Student teaching and guided
practice are examples of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and knowledge-in-practice.
Knowledge-of-practice is a grasp of the theoretical relationship between knowledge and
practice, and that through systematic inquiry of practice can teachers continue to gain more
knowledge of teaching. Teachers learn when they have opportunities to examine, and critically
analyze and evaluate the practices of their own teaching, and that of expert teachers, to form
judgments and reflect. According to Schon (1983) teachers striving for expertise are always
gaining knowledge in practice and of practice in an iterative pattern. Furthermore, these
Page 39 of 152

reflective inquiries should be done both independently and within peer learning networks
(Lieberman, 2000), and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). Knowledge-of-practice moves
beyond the division of formal knowledge and practical knowledge, and refocuses on the role of
the teacher as an investigator, and the classroom as the site for ongoing inquiry and reflection.
Furthermore, “teachers learn when they generate local knowledge of practice by working within
the contexts of inquiry communities to theorize and construct their work and to connect it to
larger social, cultural, and political issues” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 250).
While it may be that pre-service programs primarily provide knowledge-for-practice, a
carefully designed program will include elements of each type of practice. Through field work
experiences teachers can get an early start towards gaining knowledge-in-practice. Furthermore,
peer learning groups could potentially begin to help teachers develop inquiry as stance, and
develop teachers knowledge-of-practice. These inquiry based learning experiences account for
the social participatory transactional nature of knowledge development. While these may not
happen sequentially as the framework would imply, a pre-service program is an opportunity for
teachers to gain knowledge for, in, and of practice iteratively throughout.

Page 40 of 152

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 highlights that there is very little formal SEL
curriculum in pre-service teacher education. While efforts have been conducted to determine the
role of SEL content and practice within teacher preparation through the use of survey research,
in-depth exploratory or process-oriented studies have been limited in the empirical landscape.
However, what may appear to be a complete absence of SEL in teacher preparation
programs may in fact be an unfocused, decontextualized approach to providing SEL content. For
example, we know that teachers learn within communities and learning networks (Lave &
Wenger, 1991). These relationships may provide opportunities for discussion or inquiry around
SEL concepts, providing a tacit opportunity for pre-service teachers to gain competence in SEL
even if programs do not formally include SEL in the curriculum. This gap provides an excellent
opportunity to consider where SEL might be implicitly integrated within teacher learning and
areas where SEL may need to be more formally integrated into teacher preparation.
Research Questions
In this study I answered the following research questions:
1) How does one teacher education program provide and facilitate instruction around SEL?
2) What are teacher candidates explicitly and implicitly learning about SEL and how to
teach it during the course of their pre-service teacher education program?
3) To what extent are teacher candidate collaborative networks forming and facilitating
teacher learning around SEL instruction?
To integrate and depict the various components of this study, I designed a working
conceptual framework (Figure 1). (Glesne, 2011; Maxwell, 2012) informed by Cochran-Smith
Page 41 of 152

and Lytle’s (1999) knowledge and practice framework and social network theory. The
knowledge-for-practice data sources include program level actors and content as shown at the
top of Figure 1 (See Appendix A) (e.g. administrators and faculty members) who determine the
formal knowledge included in the program by choosing missions, policies, and coursework. At
the bottom I delineated field experiences and student teaching as relevant constructs that provide
opportunities for student learning through gaining knowledge-in-practice. The middle of the
framework indicates potential informal learning networks that may be formed within the cohort
and classes to mediate needs arising from coursework and fieldwork experiences. These
informal peer networks theoretically indicate where knowledge-of-practice develops for teacher
candidates: at the intersection of theory and practice. Next, I describe the research design, and
data collection and analysis more in depth.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of SEL Teacher Preparation

Page 42 of 152

Research Design

This study is best identified as a general mixed methods study bounded by a single
teacher education program. A mixed methods study design is philosophically informed by a
pragmatic epistemological paradigm (Crotty, 1998). Pragmatism is an approach to research in
which the problem is the main issue, and thus, multiple methods can be employed to reach an
answer (Creswell, 2003). Pragmatism focuses on solving a research problem, which can entail
the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to inquiry depending on “what works” to
answer the question (Creswell, 2009). The methodological choices made in this study were
based primarily on their utility in answering the research questions rather than on strict
paradigmatic conventions that often guide qualitative and quantitative inquiry (Small, 2011;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; 2003).
The design employs a sequential data collection process in that qualitative data were
collected (program-level informative interviews and document analyses), followed by
quantitative data (social network surveys and maps), followed by another round of qualitative
interviews (student experiences and learning) (Creswell, 2003) (See Appendix B). The
qualitative data provided a broad, contextual picture of the SEL programming offered at
University of Teacher Education (UTE)
3
. It also offered a means of examining student learning.
Nested within the broader program context is a nuanced examination of teacher-candidate
learning that may be occurring through peer networks.
The purpose of the interviews (See Appendix C-F) was to gain personal perspective from
relevant participants in order to shed light on their role and experience with either the
development of programming, or the learning experienced during the program (Merriam, 2009).

3
A pseudonym used to protect the program identity, and all names of individuals and courses have been altered to protect
anonymity.
Page 43 of 152

The survey data results allowed me to determine whether pre-service teachers formed peer
learning networks, and more specifically, whether SEL was a focus of those networks. A
knowledge assessment was administered to determine learning outcomes around SEL concepts
within the survey (See Appendix G). The documents provided documentation of formal
programming content, which I systematically examined for alignment with the CASEL/CORE
framework (See Appendix H for Document Table and Appendix I for Coding Schema).
To answer Research Question 1, How does the teacher education program provide and
facilitate instruction around SEL, I analyzed qualitative interview data of program leaders and
student participants to determine what SEL content students were exposed to through their
coursework and student teaching experiences.
To answer Research Question 2, What are teacher candidates explicitly and implicitly
learning about SEL and how to teach it during the course of their pre-service teacher education
program? and Research Question 3, To what extent are teacher candidate collaborative
networks forming and facilitating teacher learning around SEL instruction? I administered a
survey with both network and knowledge measures to all students in the teacher education
program. Through the survey, I identified student peer networks and measured learning on SEL
topics through the knowledge measure. I then sought out students to interview based on their
survey responses and analyzed their interview data to determine their own learning experiences
around SEL.
Site Selection and Program Context
I utilized both convenience and purposive sampling to identify participants within the
UTE MAT program as the focus of this investigation (Glesne, 2011). I selected UTE for a
number of reasons. First, the program was sufficiently large, with cohort sizes of 50 or more
Page 44 of 152

students each year. Second, I was seeking a program that had an ongoing field experience
component to their requirements. Third, UTE offers a range of online, blended, and on campus
programs within the MAT program. This full range of program contexts provided the
opportunity to expand the scholarly literature on SEL teacher preparation, but also add to the
literature base for online and blended learning environments.
The UTE MAT program requires a minimum of 32 units and the program offers both
full-time and part-time options, which means program completion ranges from one to three
years. Students are placed in local classrooms at the beginning of the program as part of ongoing
field work experience to learn practical applications of theories and instructional methods from
experienced teachers. This served as an opportunity to study a pre-service program that
integrates practices of situated learning. This also affords student teachers the opportunity to
encounter real world contexts and problems to work through with students, which may provide
additional impetus for implicit SEL related inquiry in collaborative groups. At the end of
coursework students also complete 20 weeks of student teaching, also known as Guided Practice.
Sample
I interviewed administrators/leaders, faculty/instructors, as well as students. The faculty
participants were identified through snowball sampling beginning with the director of the
program. He recommended I try to interview the instructors for each of the courses I was
examining for the document analyses of the syllabi [Social Context, Learning, Human
Differences, and Guided Practice]. I interviewed 2 program leaders and 3 faculty/instructors. All
the program leaders and faculty I interviewed identified as White, and only one identified as
male.
Page 45 of 152

In the Fall of 2016 I administered the teacher candidate survey to 739 MAT candidates in
the online cohort and 42 on campus candidates, across first and second year students, including
all five K12 MAT concentrations: Elementary Multiple Subjects, Secondary ELA, Secondary
Social Science, Secondary Science, and Secondary Math. Of those students surveyed, 103
completed the survey, for a 14% response rate; 55% were in their first year and 45% were in
their second year or beyond. Fifty percent of students identified as white, 14% as Asian
American, 8% as African American, and 13% as Latinx. The rest of the students racially
identified themselves as other (see Table 2 for demographics). Even though the response rate
represented a small sample from the program, the distribution of race/ethnicity is similar to the
national distribution
4
of Masters students in Education, as reported by the US Department of
Education (2012). As recently as 2012, the national distribution was 71% White, 14% Black,
10% Latinx, and 5% other. There have been trends towards increasing diversity in teacher
education enrollment for the last three decades, but the field still remains predominantly White.
My survey participant distribution is reasonably representative of the larger population of teacher
candidates given that it includes a much higher percentage of White students as compared to
students of color.
The selected participants for the teacher candidate interviews all intended to become
classroom teachers following their time in the MAT program. This was indicated by their
selection of “teacher education” concentration area in their survey responses. Within this
category of student, I selected a wide range of participants to interview based on factors the
literature suggests may be important for teacher preparation and learning. I chose an equal
number of first year teacher candidates as second year teacher candidates in order to have a

4
Whole program data was not available for demographic breakdown, so utilized national data for comparison with sample.
Page 46 of 152

balanced cross-sectional sample. I also selected a diverse range of interviewees based on
demographic characteristics such as race and gender to gain multiple perspectives. I also chose
interviewees across a range of network out-degree centrality. That is, some students were
selected because they had a low number of network members, and others because they were well
connected. Finally, I chose to interview those with high, medium, and low levels of SEL
knowledge, evenly distributed between first and second year candidates. For example, I
interviewed a second year student that had no peers in her network, nor any knowledge of SEL,
based on the survey results. Her experiences provided opportunities to contrast the outcomes of
fellow second year students with both high network centrality and knowledge scores. Sampling a
diverse and distributed range of candidates allowed me to examine outcomes and experiences
relevant to more than just one type of student in order to identify common themes throughout the
program. At the same time, I was able to identify disconfirming evidence of those themes and
represent more specifically the deeper experiences of first year versus second year students.
Table 1 below reflects the full sample of interview participants.
Table 1

Interview Participant Sampling Table

Student survey participants were entered into a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card and
student interviewees were provided a $30 Amazon gift card. To provide reciprocity to the
Year Race/Ethnicity Out-Degree Knowledge
Amanda 1 Asian 0 0
Brinda 2 South Asian 5 4
Caroline 2 Asian 5 5
David 1 White 0 0
Emily 2 Latina 0 0
Frank 2 Asian 5 3
Gina 1 Latina 2 0
Hannah 2 White 5 3
Ian 1 African American 4 2
Page 47 of 152

program, the findings of this study are to be written up as a report and presented to the program
leaders, and copies of the written report provided to all interested program faculty.
Data Collection
To address Research Question 1 and examine knowledge for practice of SEL as offered
by the program, I examined the teacher education program as an organizational whole and
explored programming decisions around SEL instruction. To understand course decisions and
instructional choices, I conducted semi-structured interviews with the sample of program leaders
and faculty members.
I collected data on program content, including course syllabi and course materials (such
as readings and major assignments), from several relevant courses. I initially chose the
following courses for their potential to include SEL content within the elementary and secondary
cohorts including: “Social Context,” “Learning,” “Human Differences,” and “Guided Practice.”
I chose these courses for their potential to address social emotional needs and development of
children compared to the other courses offered in the program. Furthermore, “Guided Practice”
provided the opportunity to study “knowledge-in-practice” for the student participants.
However, upon interviewing faculty members, one offered her syllabus for another course she
taught as well, so I also examined that in addition to the others I had previously identified.
To address Research Question 3 and determine whether informal collaborative learning
networks were formed and indidate whether knowledge of practice was occuring, I used
Qualtrics to administer an ego-centric network survey. I used the network analysis method of
name generating (Burt, 1984) to create students’ ego information networks in the program.
Survey respondents were asked to nominate peers based on specific prompts such as advice
seeking, and friendship. I administered the survey to all students in the program, to examine
Page 48 of 152

network characteristics, differences, and development across the entire scope of the teacher
education program. I also collected demographic data to assign attributional properties to each
node. The survey also included items related to classroom behavior management, and social
emotional learning as probes to determine if those issues were driving any network formations.
I collected this data once in the Fall semester in order to capture student experiences ranging
from first semester cohorts to students who have already began their field placements at the end
of their programs.
Finally, to measure learning and directly address Research Question 2, I collected data in
two ways; knowledge assessment survey questions and interviews. The social network survey
administered to all the students ended with a few open-ended short answer questions related to
SEL knowledge. The first question asked students to explain what SEL is in their own words to
the best of their understanding. The second question asked which SEL competencies students
should be taught. The survey also included self-report measures for familiarity to indicate
whether SEL was theoretically introduced to teacher candidates during their time in the program.
To better classify knowledge in practice, two follow up questions asked respondents to indicate
whether that familiarity was due to coursework or classroom field work in order to distinguish if
that familiarity was conceptual only, or had been used in practice. I also included a survey
question asking students how confident they felt about implementing SEL in their own
classroom for the future, which would indicate whether they had experience translating their
theoretical knowledge into teaching methods.
I interviewed teacher candidates using using semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) as well as
narrative interviewing processes (Riessman, 2008). I began with a series of semi-structured
interview questions to guide the conversation, and establish rapport and trust with the
Page 49 of 152

participants (Merriam, 2009). Then, through narrative interviewing techniques, which are more
unstructured and conversational, I uncovered what students were able to learn about SEL during
their coursework and fieldwork experiences. As Connelly and Clandinin (1990) observe,
narratives have increasingly become relevant to the scope of educational research, as scholars are
recognizing that learners, teachers and ultimately researchers are storied people, and the
interpretive experience of people are often ideally related in narrative form. The nature of
narrative interviews is conducive to the topic of SEL, as it provides valuable depth in teacher
candidate experiences, emotions, and meaning making, which would ultimately be revealing of
the type of learning taking place.
I also was able to collect three student-level documents. One student offered me her
portfolio for the program, and two other students offered me specific assigments they felt
addressed their learning of SEL during the program. These assignments provided expanded
understanding of those individual student’s knowledge outcomes of SEL beyond program level
findings.
Data Analysis Strategy
Program-Level. The goal of the program level analysis was to develop context and
background information, and to identify areas of similarity and contention around programmatic
elements across stakeholders. The interview data from program leaders and faculty was
transcribed; I also wrote field notes and information sheets about each participant, and prepared
analytic memos throughout data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Ochs, 1979; Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
I also conducted document analyses on program content to uncover what knowledge-for-
practice existed within formal programming in teacher education. I uploaded all the data into
Page 50 of 152

NVIVO software for purposes of data analysis. I then analyzed all the program level data
through open and descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2013, p. 87), summarizing basic topics in the data
using single words or short phrases. Following that, I used “provisional coding” (Saldaña, 2013,
p. 144), to apply SEL content codes (see coding schema). I then categorized all sets of codes
until I was able to identify several patterns and themes that revealed program level decision-
making and processes (Saldaña, 2003). Each source of data was analyzed for SEL aligned
language and content from the CASEL framework, discussed in the literature review, to
determine to what extent actual SEL topics may be covered.
To analyze student-level learning, I first used UCINet to construct basic network maps of
the ego networks. One’s centrality in a network can help determine their access to informational
and social support (Lin, 2001). Centrality was assessed through peer out-degree which allowed
me to determine where knowledge was distributed across the program. Student survey
respondents were asked to name up to 5 peers from whom they received information or advice,
or discussed topics of concern related to classroom management, or with whom they wanted to
share exciting information. The total number of unique peers listed across each of these prompts
was then used as a measure of that teacher candidate’s out-degree centrality.
I then scored the knowledge measure based on adherence to CASEL and CORE
frameworks in my coding schema. The knowledge question on SEL competencies was scored to
measure proficiency on SEL topics, and reflects cohort level knowledge trends. Responses were
calculated by students receiving 1 point per correct answer, to receive a sum score for their total
knowledge score. The highest score a student could receive was 5 and the lowest was 0. The
points were established by whether teacher candidates provided a response that included any of
the terms across either of the two SEL frameworks. For example, if there was a term that aligned
Page 51 of 152

with an existing framework term, but was not the exact terminology – for example the term
“self-esteem,” I still alotted the point, as long as it could justifiably be categorized under one of
the framework terms. Self-esteem, for example, is theoretically related to self-concept, which is
classified under self-awareness, an SEL concept. I also coded the open-ended question on
defining SEL qualitatively to identify which candidates I wanted to interview. The range of
alignment to either CASEL or CORE frameworks helped me to determine which students knew
something about the concept of SEL and which ones did not have a working conceptual
understanding.
I conducted several statistical tests including one-way ANOVAs to determine if there
were mean differences between students in year one of the program versus year two, based on
SEL knowledge, familiarity with SEL, and confidence teaching with SEL. I also ran a two-tailed
t-test to see if out-degree centrality was associated with knowledge outcomes. Finally, I ran a
hierarchical linear model of teacher candidates nested within years to see if familiarity was a
predictor of confidence or knowledge outcomes (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
To triangulate these findings, I also analyzed student level interview data as collected
through the surveys. I used a similar coding and categorization process that I conducted with the
faculty interview data as described above. Through open coding I was able to identify several
new codes that led to a new range of themes for the student outcomes. I similarly coded the
student assignment documents as I had done the rest of the program level analyses of the
documents.
Thematic Analysis. There were multiple sources of data feeding into each research
question, therefore, sorting and organizing the data was essential. The eventual analytic process
was both deductive and inductive, since I had existing SEL frameworks to align with
Page 52 of 152

conceptually, but also I had to inductively uncover other issues affecting the way in which SEL
is included in the program or conceptualized by the participants. Cross-case data displays and
conceptual maps allowed me to compare and contrast participants, categorize document and
program level findings, and identify disconfirming evidence and connect related codes
(Maxwell, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). These processes allowed me to identify relevant
patterns or themes that informed my findings. These themes represent the outcomes or findings
to the research questions.
As an example of the deductive approach, when faculty discussed their conceptions of
SEL, the language they used became a set of codes, which were then organized into a matrix to
determine whether and how they aligned with established SEL frameworks (CASEL/CORE). I
then added in relevant codes from the documents into the matrix that potentially aligned with the
framework. Eventually, the matrix allowed me to answer the first research question; I could
identify all the concepts that aligned with SEL concepts that are embedded within the program. I
then wrote a memo summarizing the ways in which faculty conceptualized SEL. In this memo I
paid particular attention to the codes that did not align within any existing SEL framework and
from them a second theme emerged around how faculty misconceptions of SEL impacted their
instruction.
For the student interview analysis, I began with a deductive approach, but very few of the
student codes aligned with the existing CASEL/CORE framework. I then used an inductive
approach to see how students were conceptualizing SEL using their own words and language.
For example, terms such as: “honesty,” “caring,” “authenticity,” and “trust,” were part of student
conversations about practicing SEL. These were clearly terms most of the students associated
with SEL concepts, even if they did not have a clear connection to any formal SEL framework.
Page 53 of 152

These then led to a new set of themes apart from the original SEL frameworks, focused on
students’ experience-based SEL conceptualizations.
The purpose of qualitative analysis is not to generalize experiences from individuals to
populations, but rather to uncover experiences of individuals that may reveal meanings and
functions that lead to eventual theoretical propositions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). While the
experiences discussed may not be common to everyone, they may be understood by readers to be
authentic and true. In some cases several of the same codes were drawn from multiple sources.
In other cases, one person may have identified a deeper concept or experience that spoke to a
more complex understanding of how SEL was included in the program, and thus served as
equally valuable evidence. The value of the pragmatic approach was being able to move
seamlessly between deductive and inductive analytic approaches to best capture and organize all
the relevant data.

Page 54 of 152

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

In this chapter I discuss the results of my inquiry by structuring the findings based on my
conceptual framework. I discuss how SEL is included in the program as evidenced by findings
from the program leader and faculty interviews and document analyses. These program level
findings indicate the type of knowledge for practice teacher candidates received during the
course of their studies. I then address the knowledge in and of practice by the teacher candidates
to discuss what they learned about SEL both from program and guided practice, and their ability
to form peer learning networks to learn from one another.
Knowledge for Practice: Program-Level Findings
Overall the findings create a complex picture of how social emotional concepts are taught
within the MAT program at UTE. To answer Research Question 1, How does the teacher
education program provide and facilitate instruction around social-emotional learning? I
elaborate on findings from the document analyses of the program materials, as well as faculty
and leadership interviews. From the document analyses, limited and fractured instances of
language around SEL were apparent. Interview data similarly affirmed multiple definitions and
terminology around SEL. Instances of theoretical alignment did show up, however, suggesting
implicit, embedded opportunities for social emotional instruction, however without consistency
or coherence to any explicit framework.
Additionally, there was discussion among the faculty regarding the external and internal
challenges of implementing a teacher education program, much of which directly impacts how
SEL is included at present or will get taken up in the future. External challenges include issues
of accreditation and meeting state defined standards through programming decisions. Internal
Page 55 of 152

challenges include the leadership and group decision-making processes around interpreting and
translating the standards into actual programming and coursework, along with the undergoing
program improvement process as a leadership team, and navigating competing conceptual
priorities among group members.
Program Faculty and Leadership Conceptualization of SEL Instruction

Part of answering the research question of what the program provides in terms of SEL
instruction is reliant on what faculty members and program leaders themselves know about SEL
instruction, and how they conceptualize it individually. Almost all of the faculty members and
program leaders had heard of the term social emotional learning, but certainly some had much
more familiarity than others. None of the definitions provided by faculty and leaders explicitly
involved an established SEL framework, although most had knowledge in a broader sense of the
type of learning involved. As one teacher educator with an advanced understanding of SEL
elaborated:
When teachers have a more nuanced understanding of the learning interaction that’s
occurring, they are better informed in their approach to teaching and facilitating. I think
socio-emotional learning is the framework, and the theory, the principal components of it
are super important to the teachers, particularly those teachers who are not attuned to
understanding the emotions connected to learning, and the science behind it.
Another faculty member connected SEL to the biological sciences. She enthused about
the work of her colleague in neuroscience, a related field, to discuss evidence of SEL being
supported in the research.
I think it’s particularly fascinating what [colleague’s] research is showing, neurologically,
that the same place in our brain that houses our anxiety and emotional reactions, is the
Page 56 of 152

same place that we have the brain that we use to solve a mathematical equation. If our
emotions shuts us down, as a result of us feeling anxiety or fear about our math efficacy,
then our math teachers need to be socio-emotionally aware, and to, and apply strategies to
re-engage us, and combat that fear and anxiety.
Terms that came up more than once included non-cognitive, affective, emotions and
motivation, and sociocultural approaches to learning. An example of one faculty definition
illustrated that the faculty member had awareness, but no apparent framework to operate within:
It’s the affective and interpersonal aspects of being a learner – and often non-cognitive or
assumed to be non-cognitive. Some of what’s defined of as non-cognitive, I’m not sure I
agree with.
This definition also highlights the inconsistency in conceptual aspects of what SEL
instruction entails due to existing confusion of terminologies in the field. The issue of non-
cognitive factors as a misleading term was discussed in the review of the literature, and plays out
in the results in the conceptualization process for faculty. Additionally, terms that came up in
several faculty definitions included: “hard vs. soft skills,” “emotional intelligence,” and
“character education.” These terms similarly carry varying misconceptions because they imply
that SEL is still theoretically undefined and unresolved, when at this point the field is somewhat
established theoretically. When faculty did bring up terms such as “self-efficacy,” or “self-
regulation,” “goal-setting,” or “growth mindset,” as constructs they have focused on, they did not
demonstrate awareness of the direct connection to SEL frameworks as well, only that these
psychological constructs have a rich and established history in motivation research and “belong
in the curriculum.”
Page 57 of 152

The mixed nomenclature of concepts can lead to the apparent absence of trust in the field
as well, which may only serve to further omit SEL topics in the coursework. One program
leader aptly discussed this issue and raised many of the questions that other faculty members
echoed in various ways, as they determine what should get included in the program:
I think that would depend on how SEL gets taken up in the broader field, you know
research field. Generally, I would say that people have some tacit knowledge of it. If you
surveyed the entire faculty, you might ask these same questions and get an impression
from them, but I think people generally want … Does this have traction? Does it have
empirical base? What can we rely on as reliable evidence, that this is something of merit
and value that would be useful for preparing, in this case it’s for preparing future new
teachers. Again, I would just emphasize the fact that it really has not been taken up, I
would say by teacher education, but I mean, you probably saw that already in your
literature, I’m imagining.
One faculty member discussed, as an example, how character education, which has often been
applied to SEL domains of learning, weakens the empirical value of SEL topics, and how she
simply removed it from her curriculum based on her own judgement:
They used to have character curriculums when I first came here. Not only is it
unscientific, it was based around values. And I didn’t want some teacher in a school
teaching my kids what they thought their values should be. That’s my job as a parent, and
I don’t want anybody stepping on my toes about that. Uh-huh. It was called character
curriculums. Way back, because I had an article like that in my class a long time ago and
I took it out because I hated it so much, but that was my bias.
Explicit versus Implicit SEL Instruction
Page 58 of 152

Across program faculty and leadership there was a lack of consensus regarding whether
or not SEL should be an explicit area of instruction in the program or remain a somewhat
integrated, embedded feature across various courses. Two faculty members discussed the idea
that SEL should be explicitly addressed, which could cut down on much of the confusion around
it as a topic. One faculty member explained, “I actually think that it should be explicit, because
it sometimes falls into so many domains, … the ideas get lost, and becomes too much a part of
pretty much anything. There ends up no takeaway, or framework.”
Two other faculty members and several program leaders felt that having SEL be
integrated or embedded in the existing curriculum ensured that at least many of the topics would
get addressed. One program leader stated:
I don’t think it [SEL] is controversial to be included or anything, it just doesn’t cover
everything. There’s nothing less non-cognitive than SEL. It’s just so important. But I
think it’s too important to be pulled out as like a standalone SEL curriculum.
There were two clear instances of faculty who did not think SEL was being taught in the
program at all that stood out, both related to the way they were conceptualizing SEL. In one case
the faculty member was explicitly versed in the CASEL framework, and the absence of a clear
and established framework for SEL instruction meant that SEL was neither a priority nor a topic
that was officially included in the program. This faculty member was also an established scholar
in the area of child development, and therefore had stronger background and expertise in the area
and higher standards for what inclusion meant.
In contrast, the other faculty member who also thought SEL was not included at all was
at the other end of the spectrum of conceptualization, in which she had such little familiarity with
SEL that she was unable to identify what would fall under the domain. In this regard, this
Page 59 of 152

faculty member felt that SEL had no practical value as it was so challenging to conceptualize,
and thus rightfully, in her view, not included as a core area of teacher education.
Although some faculty thought that there was no SEL in the program at all, they
remained in the minority of those interviewed. Most faculty and program leaders described
instances of SEL topics being covered across the coursework, and many SEL-aligned topics did
emerge. These statements were also affirmed by document analysis of program materials and
syllabi. One faculty, while hesitant regarding how SEL was included was certain that the topics
were definitely covered in various ways across the program:
It’s definitely going to implicitly cover it. I can’t speak to whether or not it’s going to
explicitly cover it because I don’t teach those courses. I can tell you that it’s still going to
be there implicitly. Although, there is an amount of variability within guided practice, for
example, because a lot of that depends on the master teacher that the student is assigned
to.
Embedded Inclusion of SEL Instruction
Upon examination, the data showed that SEL was embedded into the coursework of the
teacher education program and integrated with various other constructs that were mandated
through standards or which happened to be conceptual priorities to the program leaders and
faculty, rather than explicitly depicted as its own curricular topic in any one course. As one
instructor aptly said: “I don’t call it that [SEL], though. It’s not singled out as social emotional
learning. It’s really integrated into everything we do.” A fellow faculty member elaborated:
At the very beginning of the program when we think about the different learning theories,
one of the things that we do is we go through the term and they learn about all of the
different big names of the different learning theories. They learn about self-regulation,
Page 60 of 152

which ties to that idea of self-management and being able to engage in the classroom in
that way. They learn about the importance of relationships in the process of teaching and
learning. They’d learn about sociocultural learning theory and this idea of engaging with
each other and engaging with students in the capacity of building a relationship. There’s
ways where you can make a connection to social and emotional learning and we’re
building skills that are going to be useful, but we’re not explicitly always stating this is
connected to social and emotional learning to our students.
Even in this statement, the faculty member demonstrated knowledge of SEL by including two
constructs of SEL directly (self-management, relationship building).
In another example a faculty member made the connection between SEL and
sociocultural theory (which most of the faculty did at some point), drawing on the aligning
concept of social interaction and relationship building as a core aspect of SEL:
Pretty much all of our classes are going to have this embedded implicitly because we
have a very strong sociocultural foundation for everything that we do on our program and
because so much of social emotional learning really has a strong connection to
sociocultural learning theory. Some courses are going to have it more than others. You’re
probably going to see this more intensely in the Social Context in Urban Schools class
than you would see in the Learning Theories class, but you still see it in both.
A fellow faculty member reiterated a similar idea:
What I would say is one of the things that we, like I said sociocultural theory is the
foundation for the program, one of the things that we require them to do is when they do
a major project throughout the course of the term, they record themselves teaching to
someone before the course starts. As we go through the term, they work on modifying it
Page 61 of 152

and at the end of the term they redesign, or they actually reteach the lesson. We require
them to incorporate sociocultural theory into that redesign of the lesson, but because
they’re still at the very beginning stages we allow them to incorporate one element of
sociocultural theory. Sometimes, that’s something that’s very strongly linked with social
and emotional learning theory. Other times, it’s something that’s just really not.
One program leader likewise indicated:
I think that SEL is so inherent in everything we do, that I don’t think they should be
taught it separately. I think it should be part of everything. I mean, when I taught, I was a
special education teacher, I taught EBD kids. But a lot of teachers don’t come in with
that. A lot of teachers are good human beings that just understand it, but I don’t think we
can just let that go to coincidence. So I think what we do well in our particular program,
which is the only program I can really speak to. … is that we come from a socio-cultural
approach. And in that, we say that teaching is both a social and academic endeavor. So
therefore, we can’t just lop off one half of that.
Several other faculty members discussed the idea of modeling SEL practices and competencies
rather than explicitly teaching them as constructs. One faculty member explained how she
teaches about self-awareness and how that relates to relationship building skills, two essential
components of SEL:
As a way to remind them how you can manage your own behaviors and your emotions
and be aware of yourself. Then I’ll do modeling for them of having healthy relationships
with each other and talking about the kind of relationships you want to have with your
students. Making sure that you have that warm demander relationship with your students
where you’re developing a relationship, you’re being caring. You’re projecting that care
Page 62 of 152

to your students, but you’re also having really high standards for their work. Again, not
an explicit statement of social emotional learning, but a lot of connections with social
emotional learning.
In fact, the relationship building aspect of SEL emerged as a standalone concept
frequently among faculty in the program. The idea that modeling relationship building begins in
the teacher education program distinctly spoke to a central aspect of the CASEL framework.
One faculty member noted:
So, at least in my class, and I know my colleagues do this too, we talk about the
relationship you have to build with students. And why it’s so important. And why the
relationship really has to support the learning.
Even a program leader drew on a sociocultural approach as well as other theoretical
approaches as a stand-in for SEL concepts:
I’m going to say to you it needs to be part of everything we do. So, I can’t pick out SEL
as a separate set of strategies. Because they’re so integrated in everything, in a socio-
cultural approach. In a humanistic approach, a developmental approach. So, SEL is
integrated in those approaches much more. If you go into a more didactic approach,
you’re not going to have … I mean, it becomes a one way conversation.
In some cases program participants were able to identify specific courses in which SEL was
more directly embedded. One faculty discussed the various courses in which SEL gets taken up:
Ostensibly [SEL is] in both coursework and fieldwork. Ostensibly it happens in 519 –
Yeah, no it’s Human Differences. Right now it’s embedded in a … it’ll live in what’s
going to be called Seminar A. What it has been is I would say Class A is actively thinks
it’s doing this. But we in Class C absolutely take up elements of this through the content.
Page 63 of 152

And so from that perspective, we’re doing it without naming it as that. So we’re asking
students to be introduced to these ideas. I cannot say that what we leave them with is the
ability to go do it. I think we think that guided practice will be actually the place students
will learn to do it.
In terms of enacting SEL, one program leader explained that the edTPA for teacher
candidates was in fact a unique opportunity to be introduced to enacting SEL instructional
competencies even if teacher education students had never experienced it in the course of the
program. The faculty member explained, “they have to assess themselves and they have to look
at the context and they have to look at the conditions, the climate in the classroom and all of
those things would speak to dimensions of socio-emotional learning, but I don’t think it’s called
out in those terms.”
Inclusion of SEL concepts or language in coursework. The document analyses
indicated few instances of the explicit inclusion of SEL terms. Certainly no course utilized any
overarching research-based framework for SEL; however specific SEL terms and aligned
concepts were present in the data. Table 2 depicts, from the course syllabi, each of the coded
references to SEL and the framework to which each code was most closely aligned. For example,
the learning course, as expected, provided several references and opportunities to learn about
certain SEL concepts. In fact, each week of the learning syllabus was structured around how
specific theories could be “applied to student assessment, motivation, self-regulation, and
environment.” “Self-regulation” as previously established, is from the psychology and
motivation literature, and is closely aligned to concepts within self-management from multiple
SEL frameworks. However, to clarify, inclusion of a specific term did not mean that the full
scope of the SEL construct was taught or examined. For example, self-management also
Page 64 of 152

includes concepts such as goal setting, emotional regulation, and even organizational skills
depending on the framework. Yet, not all those concepts may be covered simply by discussing
self-regulation during the course.
Table 2

SEL Language in Documents
Course # of Unique
Coded Items
Coded Terms SEL Framework
Alignment
Social Context
of High Needs
Schools

6 - Funds of knowledge
- Observing teacher student interaction
- Third space
- Culturally relevant pedagogy
- Reflexive cycles of teaching
- “All students have opportunity to be
intellectually active learners”

- Social
awareness
- Classroom
climate
- Growth
mindset
Theories of
Learning

5 - Self-regulation (7)
- Metacognition
- Problem/solving – critical thinking
- “role of reflection in the process of
developing as an educator”
- syllabus objective: “what extent do
students’ social relationships and
motives influence their participation
in classroom processes?

- Self-
management
- Self-awareness
- Relationship
building
- Responsible
decision
making

Human
Differences

8 - Differentiating instruction
- Virtual tours of Various musuems of
oppressed groups
- Autoethnography
- Critical reflection
- Inclusion strategies/IEP/special
education
- Student-to-student/teacher-to-student
interactions
- Developmental theories
- Biases and stereotypes
- Exmining poverty, social class, and
capital

- Social
awareness
- Growth
mindset
- Self-awareness
- Relationship
skills
Guided Practice
A

7 - Setting high expectations
- Democratic distribution of power and
authority
- Growth
mindset
- Relationship
Page 65 of 152

Specific examples of materials, strategies and coursework supporting SEL instruction.
SEL was embedded within multiple areas of the program through theoretical courses, methods
courses, as well as during experiential opportunities such as guided practice, but without being
directly named. By triangulating the data across multiple sources, there was evidence of a range
of assignments and course opportunities taking on SEL indirectly. Further, by utilizing both
interview and coursework materials, I was able to interpret some of these opportunities as
connected to SEL. In Table 3 below – I include some relevant examples collected, their sources,
as well as which SEL construct or competency area is being addressed.
Table 3
- Routines to encourage pro-social
behaviors and sociocultural learning
- Critical reflection
- Examining privilege, balance, and/or
marginalize particular voices and
perspectives
- Reflection question: How do you
build relationships within the
classroom, school, and local
community so all members of the
learning community feel welcome
and have a voice in your classroom?
- Educational advocacy and leadership

building skills
- Self-awareness
- Social
awareness
Guided Practice
B

5 - Critically analyze the politics, policy,
and content of curriculum, including
content and performance standards—
whether state-specific or common
core standards; and
- Meeting mission of equity and access
- enabling purposeful and meaningful
interaction among classroom
community members
- Nurturing students’ identities as
learners
- Culturally responsive procedures,
routines and norms
- Social
awareness
- Growth
mindset
Page 66 of 152

Examples of Embedded Social Emotional Learning Constructs
Evidence of SEL Source SEL Construct
So, I have this article in the beginning of my class. You
might want to read it actually. It’s the Finnan article, have
you read that? About the Roger Harker story? So. It’s from
2013. And she goes back 50 years to a white male who is in
the teacher education program at Stanford. And I can’t
remember who he was working with, but somebody. And he
thought that he had kind of a good handle on the needs of his
diverse students and he was doing what he needed to do for
them. So, his professor came out and observed him. And so,
to kind of make a long story short, he did not connect with
students of color or students who were different than him.
Whether is was SCS, whether it was gender or color- So this
is an article we start out with in my class. So you know, the
whole thing around we might think we’re doing it, but let’s
really look at how comfortable we feel with kids that are
different from us. And in fact, we have to really know that
because our connections to students really empowers their
learning.

Faculty
Interview
Class
Syllabus
Self-awareness
Social awareness
Relationship
building
We use auto-ethnography. The Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade
approach- Actually it’s Patrick’s article. We do some story
telling in class and talk about times when we were
marginalized or when we marginalized other people and
what that means for us as a teacher. The whole idea first is
that teachers have to know who they are.
Faculty
Interview
Class
Syllabus
Self-awareness
Self-concept
Social
Awareness
Empathy

For instance, Geoffrey Borman’s article about self-
affirmation. What was it called, there’s another word for it.
Stereotypic Threat. So we did the experiment that you talk
to kids about what’s important to them and the control group
is what’s important to other people. So anyway, it was a
way for teachers to engage in a conversation with kids about
what they valued. And over eight weeks to see, and Geoffrey
Borman did it twice a year. And he was able to mitigate the
drop in GPA in middle school. That’s really good. So
anyway, that teaches pre-service teachers about the
importance of the relationship. Because I looked at it in my
class a little bit different. He was just looking at the rise or
fall of GPA. I was looking at the connection with the
Faculty
Interview

Social awareness
Relationship
building
Communication

Page 67 of 152

students and how that’s really important. And that’s the
social emotional part.

So, we watch a movie called “The Class”. It’s a French
movie from 2003. And we discuss a lot about how the
exchange between the teachers and the students is so teacher
based, and not student based. And how the relationships
matter so much.
Faculty
Interview
Class
syllabus

Relationship
building
And then we look at another movie called “I learn America”.
So there’s a real deficit model in that first one. He’s not
prepared to have a child centered curriculum. He’s not
prepared to invest in his students emotionally. And in fact
they call him out on it, and he can’t handle it.

Faculty
Interview
Class
Syllabus
Social awareness
Maybe the reflective teaching approach that we take, to 516,
when we are teaching about reflective teaching and the use
of Carol Rodgers’ reflective teaching framework, we teach
our candidates to be more present to the learned notions of
presence, and attending the student voice, that for a socio-
emotional learning framework, or lens, or application to
teaching.
Faculty
Interview
Self-awareness
Social-awareness
Relationship
building /
communication

I think skills that bring the emotion down. I mean, people
generally don’t say what they mean when they’re really
agitated. So we also use, sometimes, we’re not using it right
now so you won’t see it in the syllabus, but in the past we’ve
taught meditation skills. How do I exhale? In my classroom
I used to have a couch that kids could go sit on. Or I would
let them go to the computer, I’d let them go read a book. And
we would deep breathing. What do I want to see they’ve …
And when they calm down you give them a book, a
notebook and you say, okay write to me, write to me.

Faculty
Interview
Self-
management
Emotional
Regulation
I’ll say an example of an assignment … I’ll start with an
example of a reading. I’m going to say, if I’m going to push
this that I would say that Massimo, Slater, and Kroesen who
talk about the relationship between classroom climate and
rigor, academic rigor. That half of that article is about the
way that a climate has to function in order for students to
learn. And therefore what has to be present, safety, respect,
Faculty
Interview
Class
Syllabus
Broader context
of classroom and
school climate,
but closely tied
to SEL in the
literature
particularly in
Page 68 of 152

the absence of sarcasm, Low competition, all of those things
that we know about climate. And then it matches that with
how you have to create tasks and use discourse to promote
learning in that context. And ultimately what the article,
where they land in their research is you have a great climate
but no learning, you can’t have a negative climate and
learning. So that that’s what their evidence shows. So that is
one of the readings we do that specially speaks to the way
that we’re going to treat each other and develop a skillset
that allows us to treat each other in ways that support
learning.

terms of
outcomes based
research
One thing that I do explicitly in my sections of the course
that is related, I think although I don’t call it social and
emotional learning skills, is I talk to my students every
single week about taking time for self care and being aware
of what you are able to do within the program and setting
goals for yourself and so on. I end my class sessions
reminding them to do that.

Faculty
Interview
Self-
management
Emotional
Regulation
Self-Care
Without calling it socio-emotional learning. That is then
extended into every assignment that they write because from
the first, and every subsequent assignment, from the first real
assignment that they do which is a reflection, they go into a
classroom. They come out of that classroom with hopefully
descriptive field notes and then they examine that through
the lens of climate. That’s the first thing that they’re asked
do is to break down, cause climate is more accessible,
Because we also ask them to look at ideology and we ask
them to look at pedagogy and ideology is the hardest, And
pedagogy, they don’t really know what that is. So we start
with climate cause it’s low hanging. We all can get around
the idea. That we can see safety even if we have no idea. Or
that we can see respect. So we ask them to examine the
classroom for that and then we build on that. And so in every
subsequent assignment we ask them to look at climate as a
dimension of what exists and how it’s being demonstrated
through the interaction between the teacher and the student.
Faculty
Interview
School climate –
related SEL
aligned construct
*Noted class syllabus when interview and syllabus aligned
Outside of theoretically based SEL instruction within the coursework identified through
program interviews and document analysis, both faculty and students noted additional constructs
Page 69 of 152

aligned to SEL, but around the language of building teacher skills and competency. Faculty
focused on skills such as communication skills, relationship building, and emotional regulation
as skills they taught teacher candidates in terms of preparing them for SEL instruction in their
future practice. In Table 4 below, I highlight some of the SEL-aligned concepts that faculty
interepreted as their own evidence of SEL occurring in the program.
Table 4
SEL-Aligned Skills
Evidence of SEL-Aligned Skill Building Source Skill Area
And I’m not saying that kids don’t come to school with a
serious mental illness, they do. But I think that if you’re
talking about the general education kids, teaching them to
relax, get on top of their thoughts, write them down, and
then communicate them. That is a good process.

Faculty
Interview
Emotional
Regulation
I think communication is a big one. So, learning to not be
intimidated by students. And maybe pull them aside and
have a one on one to really listen to kids and what they have
to say. We don’t want to hear what kids have to say. It
takes too much time, it’s off topic. But it’s so foundational
to everything that we do as a teacher. So listening is a really
important skill. Caring to listen is a really important skill.
Communication, when you set kids up to do things make
sure that they really understand and do it.

Faculty
Interview
Communication,
social awareness
Clarity. I don’t mean multimedia, I mean multisensory. So
directions are up on the board, and you say them and you
give them a piece of paper so they can see it right in front of
them.

Program
Leader
Interview
Communication
Increasing the quality of the two way conversation…
Because generally kids get all bent out of shape because
they don’t feel you’re listening to them.
Faculty
interview
Listening and
communication

Page 70 of 152

As evidenced above, teacher candidates are exposed to SEL across the program, but the
consistency of faculty knowing they are providing it is limited, which also indicates that students
may or may not be aware of learning it explicitly or officially.
Competing Conceptual Priorities in MAT Program Beyond SEL
Based on pressure from standards and other program improvement initiatives, several
other constructs are competing for precedence over SEL. The following findings illustrate what
these competing priorities may be, as well as how they may align with social emotional
instruction.
One program leader discussed how the greater conceptual priority in teacher education
and education at the moment was a focus on issues of “equity, access, inclusion, and diversity.”
Cultural competency and multicultural education were the underlying focus of many of the
classes even if the content areas varied. Yet, she went on to discuss how all of those topics meld
and integrate with SEL as well, around the concept of empathy:
Okay, let me just say that I think that it [SEL] is not on the top rung of priority in teacher
education programs. Except that I’m hopeful, that’s why I was telling you about standard
four, which is about having to teach all diverse learners. Now, it’s being written into the
standard. So we have to show how we are teaching teachers to address empathize and
teach through kids’ social emotional problems.
Another faculty member expanded on the idea of focusing on teaching diverse learners and the
various constructs of learning that brings forward, and where SEL may fit:
I do think it [SEL] is necessary. I think it has to be very purposefully integrated in the
introduction of curriculum, methods, pedagogy, and the social context of schooling. I
think that students have to really, when they’re learning about individual human learning
Page 71 of 152

differences, abilities, styles of learning, and the funds of knowledge that this brings, that
they also need to be considering and learning the socio-emotional learning framework,
that informs the understanding of those learning differences, in a classroom and in
individualized instruction, interactions, that the teacher plans.
One faculty member discussed relationship building more deeply in the context of students with
the greatest behavioral challenges, and brought up the concept of dispositions.
One of the things I’ve been really focusing on is disposition. Because if a teacher doesn’t
like a student, they’re not going to the end for that student. So, these are kids that really
find themselves in the achievement gap. The dispositionally different. Maybe they’ve got
an attitude, or maybe their values are different from the teacher, or maybe maybe maybe
maybe. I don’t know. So, we’re really looking at teachers, we give teachers strategies to
bring kids closer, rather than to push them away. But when you have kids in your
classroom that befuddle you, and make you feel helpless, and make you look stupid in
front of the whole class. The biggest thing you want to do is send them to the principal’s
office, right? Get rid of them, push them away. The best strategy is to bring them closer.
Give them some high prestige jobs. Groups them carefully, call on them. Let them know
you have high expectations. Work to their expertise and their strengths.
Another program leader discussed how SEL should be introduced just as other competing
theories are introduced:
It’s just like we teach learning theories, even though we tend to favor sociocultural
learning theory over the other learning theories, we still introduce the other theoretical
frameworks, behaviorism, constructivism, social cognitivism, and so on, not necessarily
Page 72 of 152

as the ones to use … Like I said, with the exception of socio-cultural approaches, which
we know is informed by the other theoretical frames.
A fellow faculty member echoed similar sentiments regarding competing theories in learning and
raised the question of whether SEL theories were as established on par with other educational
theories:
It’s just like the people who dominate learning theories are like Maslow, and Vygotsky,
and several of these other … If we look at like constructivism, social cognitivism … If
you pick up any educational psychology book, I guess the question is, is it [SEL] in
there? You know, how familiar are teacher educators, with that particular framework and
theory?
One program leader expressed interest in expanding coursework, but in a direction
unrelated to SEL. This conversation was particularly salient because she did not bring up SEL as
an area of interest in future development for the program even knowing that the conversation
was about SEL, and instead brought up this new area of learning. This alluded to perhaps the
low priority of SEL topics with some program leadership.
So with digital media and learning, there’s a huge push towards instructional technology,
and better equipping our student teachers to be more savvy with the use of instructional
technology, to create blended learning experiences for their students, in high need sort of
areas, as well as low needs.
When probed to elaborate how digital media and instructional technology connected with SEL
constructs, the response was:
I think about this one researcher [left blank for anonymity], who incorporated this
framework into looking at digital learning experiences of her students, because, her work
Page 73 of 152

really focused and emphasized how emotions were so linked to what the kids were doing
in these digital learning environments.
In summary, several theories and constructs had greater credibility and value for faculty
members in a way that SEL theories have not. Sociocultural theory is one that all the faculty
members and leaders felt comfortable turning to as a marker of not only an established concept
in their mind, but one that was the closest vehicle for addressing SEL topics in the program.
This leads to the next point regarding faculty and leadership perspectives, namely, the challenges
around teacher education to account for why SEL is in its current state of passive inclusion in the
program.
External Challenges to the Scope of the Teacher Education Curriculum
Across all the program-level interview participants, the discussion program decisions
around SEL inclusion would invariably turn to the challenges of implementing a teacher
education program, which directly impacts how SEL is included at present or will get taken up in
the future. In order to meet the primary focus of preparing new teachers, teacher education
programs are to keep accreditation and meet the standards set by the state. In the state of
California the CTC/CAEP promulgated new standards that started in 2015. Many programming
decisions are determined with meeting accreditation requirements and teacher education
standards in mind, which are externally determined to the program. External bodies can be the
deciding factor in the program undergoing improvement or even what remains relevant in terms
of instruction. One administrator discussed the role of standards in shaping program interests
and planning:
Teacher education answers to two gods. They answer to the University for their masters
degree and they answer to the commission on teacher credentialing for their credentials.
Page 74 of 152

But, more important than that, if you can believe it, is that we have to make sure that our
program meets all the standards.
One administrator referenced the shifting model towards inclusion classrooms across the state.
She discussed, “the big thing in California is, there’s a huge crossover now, if you think of a
Venn diagram, of special education and general education. So, general education teachers are
expected to teach all students on the first day.” Teachers including special education teachers
require adequate training and support around meeting the needs of diverse learners particularly to
support students that may have various disabilities. She continues on to raise several dilemmas
based on ensuring standards are met. One major dilemma occurs when standards are updated,
priorities of instruction are forced to shift, and new generations of teacher candidates come out
with potential expertise that long time veteran teachers may not have content or pedagogical
expertise around. This makes matching field experiences quite challenging in terms of
identifying new master teachers in schools, and creating those opportunities in preservice
education. She explained:
Standard four is around the inclusion of students who have had trauma, homelessness,
incarceration, have dispositional issues. Teachers who have been in this field for a while,
we’re not prepared in programs that prepared them to teach in inclusive settings. They
were prepared to teach general education, and they think they teach their subject and not
their students. And we know that the relationship is so important. The other dilemma is
that people who are in the field now weren’t really taught to teach common core
standards approach. So critical thinking and all that. It doesn’t seem like there’s been
enough PD to help veteran teachers who we really rely on-… to be able to be masters
teachers and role models in inclusive settings or places that are adopting common core
Page 75 of 152

standards. So we send our new teachers out, we place them in master teacher’s
classrooms except that sometimes the new teachers know more.
Although from the above comment it may appear the field placement model might be
unhelpful should teacher candidates know more coming in than master teachers, however, this
administrator goes on to clarify: “I will say that sometimes the teacher candidates may know
more than master teachers do in certain areas, but there’s always this tacit knowledge the veteran
teachers have around emotions and emotional intelligence. And they help new teachers grow.”
Most of the faculty discussed the fact that the clinical experience is the most influential in the
development of a teacher. However, several of the faculty also noted how challenging the
placement process. One discussed, “So I went to this meeting last week called Deans of Impact
in Austin. That’s all everybody talks about is how we find the right placements, how we find the
quality teachers, how we have the teachers that are invested in the learning of the pre-service
teachers.”
A second dilemma brought forth by multiple administrators and faculty includes the idea
of program capacity. Capacity is determined by external pressures of what is included in the
standards, thus programming will be prioritized according to the standards, thus impacting
available time for other opportunities around coursework and instruction for preservice teachers.
One faculty member explains why SEL does not appear to be explicitly present in the courses
through any formalized framework:
I think, what happens a lot in programs like this where we’re preparing pre-service
teachers to get a credential and a masters degree in 13 months. A lot of times they’re
coming in with no prior education or experience in the field of education, not formally.
We have a lot of content to put in, in a really short period of time. There’s, I think
Page 76 of 152

sometimes, it is a victim to just the small amount of time we have to teach relative to the
vast amount of skills and knowledge that we need to impart to those students.
Given how challenging fitting coursework is given the increasingly restricted timeline of teacher
education programs, it follows then that the program expects “tacit” skills such as SEL to be
learned in the field. A fellow faculty member seemed equally uncertain about the capacity of the
program to formally introduce topics in SEL:
My answer to that question is we will probably try hard to introduce students to the
relevant content. I don’t think we will change unless something pretty dramatic happens,
I don’t think we will be successful in translating that [SEL] in a way that will build
teacher candidates capacity to do that well.
Internal Challenges in Teacher Education
Challenges internal to teacher education programs appeared to be related to issues of
organizational change and improvement, as well as issues with decision making and
prioritization. One faculty member optimistically described the program change process as
simply: “We try to keep some of the stuff that we decided we liked, and we threw out other
stuff.” Conversely, a fellow faculty member discussed the enormous challenge of organizational
change and why the process is strenuous, time-consuming, and sometimes unproductive.
I mean, I just left a two-hour long meeting talking about the redesign of this program and
we talked for two hours about one very small set of classes. We made no decisions
because when you get a bunch of academics, or a bunch of professors into a meeting
room we all have really strong opinions about the way things should be done.
When probed about how consensus was usually reached, she explained that sometimes the big
picture of education provided enough commonalities in terms philosophy. However, it was the
Page 77 of 152

details that took the most time. She explained, “there’s a lot of fine points on these things and
there’s a lot of points for contention. You would probably find a lot of people who would say,
‘Yes, we absolutely need to explicitly teach the social emotional learning and we need to have it
right from the beginning and integrate it into all the classes.’ Then you have other people who
would feel differently. Put us into a room together and we would argue about it for hours.”
Another faculty member echoed a similar sentiment by sharing the emotional burden of being
part of the challenging organizational change process:
We’ve made progress but almost, it’s been incremental, painful and I used to say and I
will say probably for the rest of my life, I feel like Sisyphus. So pushing a rock until the
rock rolls over me and then deciding I’m going to get back up and push the rock again.
That change is so hard.
A fellow colleague and administrative leader clarified part of the unique challenge in
being an academic organization that makes change and decision-making particularly difficult.
“There are these fiefdoms and there are these silos and there’s this territorialness [sic] and there’s
desire to keep differentiation in place.” This faculty member went on to explain how high levels
of expertise in concentrated areas often means, less ability to communicate with one another.
Furthermore, decision-making becomes a more stagnating process, because it becomes more
difficult to choose or affirm one person’s area of expertise over another to make decisions on
topics more than one person could speak to. The faculty respondent shared as an example, “I
mean we might have difference of perspective and be well amenable, and we may have very big
differences about what good pedagogies should look like, therefore it should be okay if your
syllabus and my syllabus don’t align with each other.
Page 78 of 152

There was also discussion by both faculty and administrators around the internal
challenges of creating boundaries and roles around authority and responsibility for individual
faculty and leaders in the program regarding large decisions. One faculty described fruitlessness
of their own expertise given the confusion in authority, “We’ve got no leadership that would help
us do our work. It’s just like a school system. Just like any organization. We lack direction, and
even though I studied … it doesn’t matter what I studied.”
The issue of roles, leadership and expertise fed into multiple conversations regarding
coherence and program vision. Part of what was the present and pressing focus were discussions
around evaluation, assessment, and choosing what to keep, discard, and improve in the program.
Particularly insightful was one faculty member discussing where the program as a whole was
attempting to create cohesion, or follow through of ideas, and a possible area for social
emotional learning to be implemented:
Cohesion is a really big deal with me. I’m practically never satisfied with the level of
cohesion. So let me tell you what we’re doing in the new program. What’s important for
you to know is that we’re not doing this haphazardly. We’ve been in a five year, we’re in
the sixth year of a six year longitudinal study with west ed. And every year we design, or
just revise a tool that goes out to employers, principles, current grads, and current
students. Master teachers. And we’re doing it based on the data that we have.
At the time of this discussion and data collection, many of the program leaders and faculty were
in the process of a program redesign. In part due to the redesign, conversations about program
cohesion naturally opened up the discussion to the future possibility of SEL instruction more
explicitly. One faculty leader was not optimistic about the possibility however saying, “I’m
hoping that it [SEL] is going to be part of this iteration of the program redesign. We’re still at an
Page 79 of 152

early stage with it. I haven’t heard people talking explicitly about it. If people get hung up on all
of the other million things that have to be sorted out, it doesn’t always get pushed to the top of
the pile.”
Many constructs were reviewed in this redesign process as described by the program
director and other faculty leaders, and some were more aligned to SEL than others. One program
leader described the ambitious goal of re-integrating various theories of learning to offer a
different, perhaps more cohesive flow. In this regard, one faculty member seemed optimistic
about SEL being more intentionally integrated and conceptualized similar to how other theories
of learning are being redistributed more thoughtfully.
We just went through this discussion, today, around learning theories more generally, in
the program. In the new design of the program, we’ve taken out the learning theories
course, altogether, with the ambitious goal of attempting to fully integrate learning
theories into the introduction of curriculum, teaching, and assessing students. We are
challenged to do that effectively in the program, so my answer is yes, and I think it
requires smart and deliberate integration, as student teachers are learning how to, learn
about learning, and secondly, learn in their first attempts at teaching practices, methods.
However, one faculty member also identified a familiar issue of capacity (though, in this
context internal, not external) in that programs usually stick to one expert in a given academic
area, so thoughtful reflection around change becomes challenging, as it would require faculty
members to admit to a previous lack of success, or something not working in the present. As the
faculty member explained:
We attempted to partner class A with class B into a two-part seminar, for the purpose of
that was for what happens in that class A to then be taken up again through class B
Page 80 of 152

through a different lens which would account for things like socio-emotional learning.
The dilemma is that, my opinion, that the person who’s been on point for the
development of class A is the same person who teaches class B. And so we’re primarily
coming at this from what already exists, rather than let’s design a syllabus that’s more
reflective of what is and what should be.
Another challenging area identified was meeting teacher education students where their
needs are upon entry into the program. Part of an online program is the sheer diversity of
students and range of knowledge they bring. One faculty member described these students and
the challenges of instructing them more deeply, “So online we have a little bit of an older
population, they’ve got more life experiences. Sometimes they understand this stuff, although
sometimes they don’t. They’re just in the opposite direction. So it all depends on what a student
comes in with. And we try to shape that and develop that. I mean, with some students you really
have to pay a lot of catch up.”
Several faculty mentioned wanting to take a “developmental approach.” When probed
further about how to get to know these students better, one faculty member discussed having
students do assignments such as auto-ethnographies to share their own experiences. Another
faculty discussed how learning outcomes for such diverse students may become harder to predict
particularly when it comes to student teaching and field experiences, mostly because master
teachers each have varying approaches. One professor stated, “Some people learn an amazing
amount from their master teachers. Some aren’t ready to learn. Some don’t have a master teacher
that’s focused on standards. So you know there’s just so many variables.”
Page 81 of 152

One final area that posed a consistent challenge for teacher educators and the program
involved measurement and assessment of program outcomes. One program leader described to
me many of the ways in which assessment is vital to the success of the program:
For example, what would be the indicators that our student teachers are actually doing
what they learned in their coursework? To what extent do we see evidence in our
observations of their student teaching? To what extent do we see in their approach with
individualized interactions, and their approach to assessment? Where would be the areas,
and how would we document those practices? I think teacher education, writ large, is
struggling to figure out ways to do those things, and ways to do them beyond the
program, right? Right now, we rely on survey data, and the students’ perception, self-
perception and perception of the program, in terms of its preparation.
However, as another administrator pointed out, “Even after the graduation we don’t see the
immediate impact of teacher education programs from our students, until our teacher candidates
get past that sort of novice phase, and become more and more confident in their practice, that
they begin to take.” This suggests that teacher education programs are often left without hard
data confirming how effective they were in preparing their teachers. This means that any areas
of change are not necessarily informed or driven by student outcomes but rather by faculty
priorities and external policy demands.
Knowledge of and in Practice: Student-Level Outcomes
As the literature indicates from the knowledge and practice framework, knowledge of and
in practice are derived in an iterative way by students as they participate in field experiences as
well as reflect and connect theories with practice. I next discuss the student outcomes of SEL-
related learning extended from knowledge for practice gained from the program, as well as
Page 82 of 152

guided practice experiences and reflective conversations with peers and faculty in the program.
In response to Research Question 2: What are teacher candidates explicitly and implicitly
learning about SEL and how to teach it during the course of their pre-service teacher education
program? overall student outcomes reflected the fact that the program is not providing a clear
theoretical path to learn about SEL. There was limited alignment to SEL language and theory
based on student interview outcomes and survey results. There was, however, practitioner driven
language that emerged, that student teachers likely picked up in the classroom, that did not show
up in the faculty explanations of SEL. Examples of such student concepts included theories of
“caring,” “honesty,” “trust-building,” and “authenticity.” These concepts are further elaborated
below.
Before delving into the learning outcomes, I briefly describe the context in which the
teacher candidates experienced their education. Only approximately 10% of the student body
attended courses on campus, and while those courses are based on the same syllabi, the delivery
options for online students were different. I discuss the online experience in particular as that is
the program for the majority of students that participated in this study. The online class was
conducted through a combination of real time and asynchronous modules, with 70% of the
course being asynchronous, where teacher candidates can at any time utilize class resources that
are posted and contribute their own work and participation also at any time. All candidates were
required to complete assignments on-line and in the field.
Candidates required basic technological comfort and skills to work on the internet in the
online program. They are required to have an account on at least one social site that allows others
to interact with them (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Skype, etc.). Tasks included emails, viewing
online videos, answering questions through discussion board, uploading assignments, and
Page 83 of 152

participating in live class sessions. Candidates had access to the instructor and fellow classmates
throughout the term through the Course Wall, e-mails, and class discussions.
Student Knowledge, Familiarity, and Confidence

Student results were predominantly for online students, as only 3 on-campus students
responded to the survey. There were mean differences from the cross-sectional survey of first
and second year MAT students. Second year students showed on average nearly twice the
knowledge score as first year students (Year 1 M = 0.9, Year 2 M= 1.8, see Figure 2). Second
year students also reported they had less familiarity with SEL, as well as lower confidence with
SEL implementation in their own classrooms. ANOVA single factor results showed that being
in a higher year in the program had an effect on knowledge that was significant, F(1, 89) = 8.49,
p = 0.004. A hierarchichal linear model showed that higher year level in the program predicted
higher levels of knowledge, lower familiarity with SEL (p <.05), and lower confidence levels.
Going into second year was associated with a decrease of .13 in familiarity, and .34 in
confidence (p < .05). Additionally, in this model, familiarity with SEL also was a significant
predictor of lower confidence (p < .05).

0.9
1.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2
Average Knowledge Scores of 1st and 2nd Year
MAT Students
Page 84 of 152

Figure 2. ANOVA Results for Knowledge

One way to interpret the survey results is that as students learned more they became
increasingly aware of what they still did not yet know or understand. Yet, the survey also
showed that students knew more about SEL than they thought they did. Through the interviews,
students demonstrated a thoughtful range of knowledge around SEL and SEL-aligned constructs
that illustrates some of the knowledge they did gain throughout the course of their education.
Even without the precise language of SEL frameworks, several themes emerged in the way
students chose to describe the skills and constructs that best reflected an SEL-oriented practice.
Interviewees from the first year of the MAT program were often limited to describing goals for
the future classroom, but advanced MAT students that had gone through guided practice had
more concrete examples of their learning by describing interactions with students.
Teacher Learning Through Online Class Networks
In response to Research Question 3, To what extent are teacher candidate collaborative
networks forming and facilitating teacher learning around SEL instruction? first year online
networks were limited. As Table 5 depicts, only 15 out of 50 first year students listed any other
program students in their network. In comparison, 32 out 51 students reported members in their
network with whom they discussed topics around classroom management or SEL.
Table 5
Social Network Out-Degree
Out Degree 0 1 2 3 4 5

Year 1 29 0 5 5 4 6
Year 2 15 2 5 8 5 10

Page 85 of 152

T-test results showed showed higher out-degree centrality positively correlated with
higher knowledge (p < .05). This suggests that connecting with more people in one’s ego
network was associated with knowing more about SEL topics.
Representative of pre-service teachers without program peer relationships, one teacher
candidate responded that the cyber environment was not suitable for forming connections with
her cohort mates:
I have a feeling that up to a certain point I haven't really been able to get that type of feel
for my classmates. No talking outside of class, not really. I think that's very common. I
have a feeling that it has to do with how we're only there virtually, and it's hard to meet
other people. So far I've only met one of my classmates physically because we live sort of
close, and now that we don't share class together we have kind of gone like our own ways
and lost somewhat of communication. Every now and then we say hi, but we really don't
talk about classroom studies or the program.
Another student explained: “I honestly have no go-to person. I haven't even spoken to professors
about them being a go-to person when it comes to classroom management. At the same time, I
don't think I've seen as big of an issue too when it comes to probably not knowing what to do
with a specific student.”
However, pre-service teachers who were able to form connections with their peers in the
program discussed how managing student behaviors was a common topic, as it remained an area
that even more advanced MAT students did not have a lot of confidence around. One teacher
candidate said:
So, we talk about our daily struggles in the classroom. But when it comes to that sort of
learning, I'm pretty sure we haven't talked about that specifically, emotional learning.
Page 86 of 152

Classroom behavior and management, absolutely, we kind of like talk to each other about
our struggles. One person is saying, "Wow, man I wish I was in a high school, middle
school is like 80% classroom management.”
Relationship-Building as Forming Connections with Students
This theme highlights the many ways in which teacher candidates used social emotional
practices to connect with their students. Often this involved relationship building, self-
awareness, self-management and other SEL skills. However, as many of the students personal
accounts revealed, their language is not always explicitly based on a particular SEL framework.
As part of relationship building one teacher discussed focusing on listening skills in order to
communicate better and to learn more about her students:
Oh, one that I learned and I remember applying this, and I continue to apply it every day,
is listening to students. Me being the one that's talking up front but also asking the
questions, for example, the "why" question. Always "why?" How higher level of answers
when it comes to making questions.
A different teacher candidate discussed getting to know the various aspects of her students’
backgrounds as a way to connect and relate to them, as well as help her students to relate better
to their work. Much of this work can be found in the cultural competency literature in teacher
education, which is beyond the scope of this study, but aspects of it align well to SEL in that the
teacher is engaging in social awareness and students are engaging in self-awareness, and both are
improving relationship-building skills. This teacher broke down her process:
I start by getting to know their cultural background. I also take time to ask them about
what is it that they like, what is it that they don't like. Then I can also tweak what I say or
also apply things that they do in their daily life, for example when describing math
Page 87 of 152

problems, I don't go ahead and just say "x" and "y," I go ahead and talk about things that
relate to what they do in real life.
Another teacher described an activity that helped both her students and her connect with one
another, “First thing that I usually do is kind of like a scavenger hunt. I have students find
somebody who can speak a different language, or other prompts. You know, let's students
discover each other.”
One concept that emerged along the same lines of relationship building was teacher
candidates processing and describing the type of relationships they hoped to build with their own
students. Many described that they hoped to take on the role of a friend in order to facilitate
more communication and trust. As one student said: “I'm more of a friend than just being the
teacher. That way they are also not being shy about saying ‘oh I didn't understand. Can you
explain this to me a different way?’ Or ‘this is going on with my studies, how can I improve, I
need more time?’” The hope is the friendship style of teaching would foster added relatability
and encourage help-seeking behaviors in students, which in fact relates to developing students’
self-management skills. One teacher candidate elaborated:
If a student sees me as a friend, they come say, “there's something going on in my family
that is impeding me from finishing the assignment," and there's much more of a trust
bond between student and teacher. That's what I've totally felt, just becoming more open
with them, not just being strict.
Another teacher described how building trust with students is the way to build relationships with
them.
I envision a powerful and intimate connection with my students. I want to provide a
classroom environment, and space, that feels motivating, and inspiring. If I want to create
Page 88 of 152

that, I would want students to trust me. So, I need to build a relationship between my
students, to build that trust. Once that trust is built, it creates a feeding ground for
effective learning.
The concept of trust building showed up frequently among the teacher candidates, and it
was not necessarily a term that was common among the faculty discussions. This may have been
a term or concept that emerged from being in the classroom directly either through field
experiences or classroom jobs (e.g. subsitute teaching, or educational assistantships). When
probed more closely on how teachers built trust there were a range of ideas. One teacher
describes the value of showing caring as way to build trust.
Building trust, knowing that ... I'm interested in their lives. I am building trust, that I'm
not just there to teach this material that the state gave me, or that the school gave me, or
that the textbook gave me. But, I'm teaching, because there's a why behind it. I'm
teaching, because there's a reason this child is alive, and breathing, on this earth, at this
very day, in this very moment, and whatever city he or she is in. That's the trust building.
They just want to know that you care.
A fellow teacher candidate also described their process and rationale of developing trust over
time, and how trust is essential to relationship building, and better classroom interactions overall:
Building connections through trust, sort of a day to day..., asking how they're doing and
why are they doing this? And then, imparting in them that their thoughts, their voice,
their opinions, their life matters. Because those things matter, we as a class and as the
relationship between me and that student, there gets to be participation, because their
voice matters. There gets to be critical thinking, because their opinion matters. And then
their life matters. I need you there every day in class. If you're late because I've had
Page 89 of 152

students that are just chronically late or just not present, because they might think I don't
care about them, but I do.
Overall, the concept of trust as a focal point for relationship building was an identifiable strategy
that appeared to come from teacher candidates’ own time spent in the classroom for field
experiences or volunteering. They frequently mentioned the idea of “authenticity” alongside
trust as a marker for creating genuine connections with their students.
Creating Classroom Culture and Norms
Just as teacher candidates had formulated ideals for the types of relationships they would
work toward building with their students, they also had established goals and vision around how
they wanted their classroom to be set up, and to operate day-to-day. Although the survey
reflected that teachers increasingly lost confidence towards implementing SEL in the classroom,
several of the teacher candidates seemed to have ideas for how to implement classroom
management overall. Within these conversations, more detailed descriptions emerged of the
various ways SEL constructs were present in teacher candidate repertoire as aspects of the
anticipated classroom culture and norms. One teacher candidate explained her own rationale for
SEL in the classroom:
At least from what I took from the courses and my experiences is how those social and
emotional factors overlap and affect each other, especially for K through 12, and
ultimately affect the students' learning. Personally, I believe one of the hugest, if not the
hugest factor, in their learning, just taking from my experience, if a student has a positive
social environment with their peers, home life, parents, community, and they've got
positive emotional supports, then they're more likely to have more effective instruction,
do better in school, and learn and retain the information more and better.
Page 90 of 152

Classroom culture incorporating caring, fun, and friendship. One teacher candidate
envisioned a classroom environment that seemed fun in order to create a culture in which
students would interact with each other in positive ways. One teacher candidate explains, “So
the first thing I would say about this is the sort of environment I want to have in my classroom,
the first word I think of is, fun. So that students want to be friends, and enjoy actually spending
time together, like they're not dreading to come to my class and not liking the person.” A fellow
teacher candidate had a similar idea, and discussed how she planned to implement this
environment more directly.
My role in this is to establish that kind of fun environment, where they like spending
time. I feel like the quickest and best way to connect people is to find things in common
between people. So having certain icebreaker activities are helpful. Doing one a month
super helpful. And they learn a lot and they remember because these little icebreaker
activities they remember because it's all about relatability, so once they relate to one
another they're invested.
Closely related to social emotional driven environment in the classroom was discussion
of how to limit bullying activity. Bullying was a concern for almost every teacher candidate.
Indeed, concerns about out-of-school and social media bullying were high priorities each teacher
candidate mentioned. Several teacher candidates mentioned that fostering a classroom
environment where students could care and relate to each other was the best way to prevent
bullying, as it could allow students more opportunities to take each other’s perspective (social
awareness). One teacher candidate summed up these ideas:
This is definitely not uncommon, where students are completely discouraged from
learning because they don't feel comfortable with their peers either. Whatever
Page 91 of 152

environment they're in, they need to be completely comfortable. With bullying and all
these things, especially cyberbullying, different ways to affect each other and hurt each
other. They also need to learn in the classroom different ways to support each other. it's
not just their perspective that they're caring about, it's about another person's perspective.
One way that teacher candidates expressed managing classroom conflict and bullying was by
modeling dialogues of disagreement. One candidate described a scenario conversation with
students, "Hey, I have a perspective, and you have a perspective." Most likely it's not going to be
100% the same, so let's hear it, let's challenge each other and do it from a place of friendship not
rivalry.” Another teacher described similar strategies of talking through conflict with the
students and various other ways of bringing students together again:
I think it's very important, first of all, to feel out the student in terms of, what are they
comfortable with resolving? What types of interactions are they comfortable with in and
out of the classroom? If they are comfortable with out of classroom interactions, then,
you know, you can push them to join a club together, or, ‘Oh, here's a group project that
you'll have to exchange information.’ I'm not gonna let you choose your partners. Things
like that. Or just talking to them individually and saying, hey, what's going on with you
and this person? Is there something I can do to help? Is it something you guys need to
settle with each other that maybe I can provide some advice? Maybe you guys should go
grab some boba or something.
Classroom culture of academic rigor. Seemingly in contrast to the environment of
creating fun and friendship, all the teacher candidates described the value of setting high
expectations for their students, as it creates a classroom environment of rigor and scholarship.
Page 92 of 152

One teacher explained how the first 14 days were the most important in establishing the norms
for expectation from teacher to student:
The first 14 days, is just really setting the tone for the classroom. Because, as a single
subject teacher, I do not have these students for the whole day, every day. Students, I've
noticed, if they can get away with something, in terms of not doing as much work, they
will. Being able to set high standards and expectations, and high rigor in my classroom,
so, how I'll do that is setting guidelines, telling them there's a structure, and a schedule, in
which they need to follow.
However, other teacher candidates mentioned the caution of approaching a classroom with only
rigor and expectations in mind. This environment could quickly become toxic and stress-
induced for students if they feel they can not succeed. Students could shift from mastery to
performance orientation in that they only want to get the best grades in the class and forget about
learning the subject. One teacher discussed these ideas further and how to negate some of those
concerns by changing the approach of what it means to be successful in the class:
I envision them being helpful to each other, resourceful and not beating themselves by
competing with each other, because every single one of them, they can earn the A, it's not
... I see my classroom is not being scored based on a bell shape curve where just the top
10 percent will get in A, but everyone being capable of getting an A, and them working
together, them being resourceful. That's how I envision the classroom.
In several cases teacher candidates spoke about how to balance the high expectations of
the classroom by modeling various skills for self-management. One candidate discussed how
she would model organization habits. “When it comes to academic life, being responsible, being
organized, those are interpersonal skills that they have to build upon, and as the teacher, I would
Page 93 of 152

want to show them examples of how I want the material to be organized in order for them to also
be able to adopt those skills in their personal lives, and also being able to take those skills into
other classrooms.”
Helping students process and express emotions. Almost all of the teacher candidates
discussed the role that emotions play in student academics, and helping students to mange those
emotions was a definite responsibility of the job. One candidate drew the connection between
how the teacher builds with relationships with students a model to help students process and
regulate their own emotions. This teacher candidate in fact also briefly spoke of a concept
earlier discussed by a faculty member regarding bringing emotionally and behaviorally
struggling students into closer proximity, and establishing more of a presence with them. The
teacher candidate goes on to describe their strategies for emotional regulation:
I know I teach math, so I can't much do of the social circle where they can express their
emotions, but definitely I would try to integrate more of their feelings into ... how do you
call them, quick writes, if you want to write something and show it to me, definitely I
would be able to do that, and would like to do that in the classroom if I were to see
extreme emotions like those, not just go ahead and leave it to the counselor because I
think many teachers they just go ahead and get rid of the students, but I said this before,
let them see that I'm, before being a teacher, I'm mostly a friend. I'm also a person and a
human being that understands and can grab their emotions and share them, so they don't
feel much of the burden.
Another teacher candidate discussed strategies that had worked before to calm down students, “It
takes a while to figure out what exactly the student's triggers are and what calming mechanisms
work, but some strategies. Just breathing. Some students like the joke series. So maybe cracking
Page 94 of 152

a few jokes would help them out. Just showing them that you're there to support them.” In
contrast, a different teacher candidate discussed the value of a separate space for students
struggling with their emotions. This space could offer privacy and distance from an emotionally
triggering situation such as an ongoing conflict with a fellow student.
I want to say that there's times and there's days when students sometimes really have
outbursts and for them to be probably separated from the rest of the students I like to do
that when I feel or I see that there's a student that needs that type of help and whenever I
can I would go ahead and speak to them and if there's anything that I can do from my end
in the classroom that would allow them to express themselves more.
In another example, a teacher candidate describes working around challenging student
emotions, and the diverse needs of her students.
Well, I have run into a couple of students that do have special needs when it comes to
emotions, when it comes to also learning needs, and when it comes to that I try to modify
lessons for them to feel more comfortable, feel as though they are at home. They can see
that they can communicate to the teacher, that I'm accessible, be friendly about that. Give
more students some time for explain it differently, have them work in groups, groups or
partners, so they can also get a different explanation when it comes to certain subjects.
Not all students learn the same. They're not the same.
Finally, a teacher’s emotions are largely what shape the emotional dynamic of a
classroom, and serve as the primary model for how students are expected to regulate their own
emotions. One teacher candidate revealed, “I've also realized I don't have to scream in the
classroom. Many students have come up to me and say, "Oh you know Miss, we've never seen
you get mad," or "We never have heard you scream at us." That to me is very self satisfying
Page 95 of 152

because it shows that I don't have to be the typical type of teacher that screams to the students.”
In terms of not screaming – this is an example of a teacher modeling the SEL competency of
emotional regulation within self-management. Another teacher candidate described how she
physically regulates her own emotions when she gets frustrated, particularly when students
misbehave, and how she models calmness in order to maintain classroom focus on school work,
and not fellow students. She explained, “First of all, I breathe in breathe out. See what's going
on with the student questions about what's going on. Also not make a big deal about it in front of
students, because then all attention, all the focus gets lost and then it's the focus on the one
student that probably is not behaving right.”
Another teacher candidate discussed having fellow students teach and model for their
peers in order to support social emotional development in the classroom. She described her
strategy of creating opportunities for shared learning. “Students can definitely affect each other
in that sense. And support each other. So maybe pairing them up with another student who I trust
to be able to positively influence a student who's not so emotionally stable or is having trouble,
and things like that.”
Faculty and Student Misconceptions
One idea that surfaced multiple times in interviews with faculty and students was the
term sociocultural theory. I initially assumed sociocultural theory was simply the interviewee
calling SEL by the wrong name. Most of the time, however, the participants tended to attribute
sociocultural theory as a relevant stand-in for SEL. Perhaps, the assumption arises that since
sociocultural theory espouses how culture is relevant to learning, as well as focuses on social
interactions as the vehicle for learning, that it is just another approach to SEL. However,
Page 96 of 152

focusing on the social processes of SEL alone leaves out the essential psychological domains of
emotions and motivation in learning.
“Building relationships” also came up often as a standalone concept to replace SEL, and
this too was a misconception because building relationships is one of five SEL constructs, and
yet it was frequently viewed as the end goal of SEL. The end goal of SEL is much more broadly
to have school-based success both academically and beyond. Making friends with peers is one
small part of the broader picture of achievement and personal growth.
Another misconception was viewing SEL to be the same as emotional intelligence. Both
a program leader and a faculty member, as well as several of the teacher candidates referred to
SEL as emotional intelligence, and emotional IQ. As discussed in the literature review, this term
remains popular, yet unscientific. The issue with this misnomer is that there are already so many
variations of SEL, adding additional labels that do not have a scientific basis (such as emotional
education or character education) creates confusion. These multiple labels can also erode trust in
the field and diminish its value. Recall that one faculty member did not know a lot about
education, but found character education curriculum to be personally troubling enough to remove
it altogether from the course syllabus. Her concerns was that arbitrary values were pushed and
potentially interfering with other established concepts such as cultural competency and
relevancy.
One term that was often used as a descriptor by both students and faculty was “non-
cognitive factors.” Although non-cognitive factors of education has been used in the literature
and exists as a detailed and clear framework, it is a misleading term for novice educators. The
term “non-cognitive” promotes the assumption that these factors do not involve thinking,
Page 97 of 152

therefore are not related to school outcomes. They may be perceived to be “soft skills” that have
less currency for student achievement.
Summary of Findings
To answer the first research question, I addressed how the UTE program provides
knowledge for practice around SEL to preservice teachers. The program does not have a formal
record of SEL in its coursework, and there is no consensus on behalf of the faculty or program
leaders regarding a clear focus on or definition of SEL. Instead, there is passive inclusion of
SEL topics through embedding fragmented concepts from various theories in psychology.
The second research question focused on what teacher candidates learned about SEL
during the span of their MAT program. Almost all the teacher candidates appeared to gain the
most knowledge about SEL from their own practice (knowledge in practice), whether it was in
their field placements, guided practice classrooms, or volunteering experiences. They learned
about SEL by responding to student needs and enacting SEL related practices to manage student
emotions and behavior, in order to create a positive classroom climate. Concepts of trust,
authenticity, and relationships were the focus of teacher candidate learning related to SEL, but
once again, there was no framework to theoretically support their knowledge.
The third research question sought to examine whether teacher learning networks formed,
and whether they facilitated any learning around SEL topics (knowledge of practice). The
networks that formed were limited, in that for first year teacher candidates, 60% reported no
networks, and even into second year, 33% still did not have a peer network in their program.
Even so, those who did have networks, the higher the number of people in one’s network was
associated with greater gains in knowledge about SEL. Peer networks did help teacher
candidates talk through classroom management issues by connecting theory and practice through
Page 98 of 152

dialogue and inquiry with one another and impacting SEL knowledge, thus signifying some
knowledge of practice occurring.
Based on the findings I present three main thematic understandings:
1) The teacher education program I examined is presently in a state of passive inclusion
towards providing knowledge for practice around SEL.
2) Teacher candidates in the program learned about SEL by developing knowledge in
practice, through responsive enactment of SEL based on interacting with students
and determining their needs, however they are lacking a connecting framework for
their knowledge.
3) Peer networks in the teacher education program optimized opportunities for
knowledge of practice due to reflective processing around relevant topics linking
theory and practice – such as classroom management, but there are challenges in
transforming the social interactions in online classrooms into peer relationships
beyond class sessions.

Page 99 of 152

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Social emotional learning is rooted in psychological sciences, pertaining primarily to
motivation and child development. Research has consistently shown that when implemented in
schools, SEL has positive outcomes for student academics, emotions, behavior, and
development. Yet, despite these outcomes, pre-service teacher education does not appear to have
a clear focus of preparing teachers for SEL instruction. In this exploratory case study, I presented
how SEL was included in one teacher education pre-service program and what teacher
candidates learned about SEL prior to entering their own classroom. I next discuss my
interpretation of the findings and offer implications of these findings related to policy and
practice in teacher education. In the following section, I discuss the limitations of the study, and
then reflect on the future research necessary to expand understanding of the topic of SEL
instruction in pre-service teacher education. I conclude with a brief statement of how the findings
from this study potentially impact the field of teacher education.
Interpretations of Main Findings
Passive Inclusion of SEL in Teacher Education
In response to Research Question 1 on what the program provides in regards to SEL, I
found that the program does not have any formal objective around instructing teacher candidates
for SEL, thus it does not provide an explicit structure for instructing teacher candidates about
SEL. Instead, there is passive inclusion of fragmented theories and terms related to SEL
embedded in the courses. This means that decisions around SEL inclusion are reliant on
individual faculty conception of SEL, which is problematic when faculty have no real consensus
for conceptualization. For example, due to a sociocultural theoretical focus in the program,
Page 100 of 152

relationship building was a topic that emerged in the coursework, but this is passive because
there was no deliberate intentional inclusion of SEL in the curriculum. Some instructors may
choose to highlight aspects of SEL in their lectures, while others may forgo SEL entirely without
any real consequence. Although value is high for SEL concepts among the faculty and program
leaders, bringing SEL topics in cohesively, is low on a very full list of priorities for most of the
program planning leaders. Some faculty suggested that SEL was not necessary because concepts
of SEL are covered in courses such as Learning, and Social Contexts, so the CAEP teacher
education standards (InTasc Standards 1 and 3) related to SEL are being met.
For program faculty, the lack of an operational framework for SEL meant that there was
little knowledge cohesion or depth around ideas relating to SEL constructs. In some cases,
faculty were using terminology for SEL that reflected limited conceptualization and in some
cases misconceptions. These terms included: “affective processes,” “soft-skills,” “emotional
intelligence,” and “non-cognitive factors of learning.” Many of these terms serve to reiterate the
underlying assumption and misconception that SEL is somehow unrelated to the academic
processes of learning, and therefore, potentially less essential during instruction.
Learning Through Responsive Enactment of SEL
In answering Research Question 2 on what preservice teachers learned about SEL, it
appears teacher candidates are learning very little about SEL from their coursework, most likely
because it is not a direct objective of the program. Misconceptions of SEL from the program and
faculty translated directly to the teacher candidates. This included limited definitions for SEL, or
focusing on one or two aspects of SEL and missing others. For example, narrowing in on
relationship skills, and not attending to the four other CASEL areas (self management, self
awareness, social awareness, and responsible decision-making). As teacher candidates continued
Page 101 of 152

to learn more about what they needed to know as they entered the classroom, their own lack of
cohesion and depth of knowledge on the topic prompted even less confidence. Guided practice
particularly was an opportunity in which teacher candidates entered the classroom and quickly
saw how much more they needed to learn in terms of classroom management. This
interpretation perhaps explains the phenomena of teacher candidates in their second year having
increased knowledge, but lower perceived familiarity and confidence. They quickly discovered
how much they knew of what they did not yet know how to implement.
In many cases it appeared that teacher candidates were working backwards in that they
knew the types of outcomes they wanted in their classroom, and in processing how to achieve
those outcomes, they turned to social emotional skills and learning in their classroom
environment, without having specific frameworks or theories to guide them. Teacher candidates
relied far more on common-sense knowledge of what worked and what did not work in their
guided practice classrooms by responding to students. Teacher candidates included concepts
such as caring, trust, honesty, and authenticity that were not theoretically driven by any SEL
framework, but experienced in the interaction with students. This is not to say there is no value
in their responses. In fact, perhaps all of these factors should be considered in SEL frameworks.
However, there was also indication that teacher candidate knowledge was in many cases not
driven by any theoretical concepts related to SEL, instead drawn purely in response to
knowledge from personal experience.
One area where teacher candidates were well versed was developing classroom culture.
Classroom culture does draw on several SEL constructs. So, even without knowing an explicit
framework, there were several teacher candidates that had already developed language and knew
aspects of how to foster certain aspects of SEL such as self-management, emotional regulation,
Page 102 of 152

and organization skills. Others discussed at length about how to facilitate communication with
students for relationship building skills, and incorporate appreciation for diverse others to foster
social awareness and empathy.
Transforming the Social Interactions in Online Classrooms into Peer Relationships
To answer Research Question 3, I found that collaborative learning networks were
challenging to form in an online program according to participants who reported not having a
peer network. These students described connecting with others online and outside of class as
challenging. Yet, the data also showed that students with more out-degree centrality tended to
know more about SEL, suggesting that peer networks did indeed facilitate some of the learning
around SEL. Teacher candidates reflected that for the most part, their cohort networks (if they
had them) were useful in processing classroom management and behavior issues, under the
umbrella of which SEL topics likely were discussed informally. Despite the positive outcomes
for those with networks, it is worth noting that even for advanced teacher candidates, one-third
reported no peer network in their program at all, thus limiting opportunities for learning to those
teacher candidates that were able to connect with others online.
Implications
Implications for Practice
Given that most teacher educations programs may more likely be passively rather than
deliberately including SEL, is creating an explicit focus on SEL necessary? The complexity of
SEL extends from the various pre-established psychological constructs meshed together into
multiple conceptual frameworks. Yet, is it just as reasonable to learn about concepts such as
self-efficacy and self-regulation separately in the learning or motivation courses in teacher
education programs? Is there really a need to combine these different theories into a single
Page 103 of 152

framework for learning purposes? Perhaps the reason SEL is a framework only in applied
contexts like schools is that there is no real theoretical need to learn about SEL in preservice
teacher education.
However, based on the findings seen here, using one of the established frameworks
would be an asset for multiple reasons. First, as the program-level findings demonstrate, the use
of a framework alleviates many of the decision-making questions raised such as: “What should
be included in the curriculum, what should be left out, and who decides?” Second, one of the
established SEL frameworks alleviates much of the issues of cohesiveness and coherency that
concerned program leaders. Finally, if the framework were used to create a syllabus organized
the topics, that would be an improvement over no systematic inclusion of SEL in the teacher
preparation curriculum.
Cohesiveness and coherency are particularly relevant due to my survey outcomes for the
teacher candidates. Teacher candidates feel less confident about their own knowledge regarding
SEL as they progress in their program year, despite showing greater gains in knowledge.
Learning SEL as a framework is particularly useful as an instructional strategy for teacher
candidates to be able to understand how various social emotional processes are theoretically
connected. For example, if a teacher is helping a student with self-management in terms of
emotional regulation, the teacher might also be able to see how helping a student manage their
organizational ability, or set goals could support coping with stress, and managing emotions
long-term. It is essential for teachers to understand how students’ social emotional development
is interrelated across cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes. It may be true that in a
different educational setting, such as a psychology program, there may not be an inherent value
to an SEL framework, as many of the SEL concepts fit into other broader theories. However, in
Page 104 of 152

teacher preparation programs, a cohesive and coherent SEL framework included in their program
from its inception may help future teachers apply their SEL knowledge. Otherwise, teacher
candidates are left with the challenge of pulling together pieces of SEL knowledge after they are
in the classroom. This is not optimal because first year teachers often lack confidence and
struggle with management issues and potential early burnout. Deliberate integration of SEL into
pre-service teacher preparation could limit the burden on districts to provide costly professional
development to incoming cohorts of new teachers.
As the proliferation of online programs continues in teacher education, this study
identified a potential roadblock. Given that so many teacher candidates struggled to form
relationships with their peers in online classrooms, many teacher candidates that are opting for
the online route due to convenience may be missing out on an essential element of the learning
process. As research has shown, teachers ideally learn within peer communities, as that is an
intellectual space to reflect and grow (Lieberman, 2000). If online classrooms prevent these
networks from developing, teacher education programs need to consider the implications for
social networks. For example, they may need to scaffold networking opportunities and provide
explicit guidance around establishing a professional community of practice. In addition,
program leaders may need to consider program capacity in implementing SEL. Are the faculty
and leaders aligned in their vision of how to facilitate SEL for their teacher candidates?
Furthermore, how does a topic that is so reliant on modeling and interaction translate into a
teacher education classroom, and particularly in the challenging paradigm of an online space?
Teacher education programs may need to consider that the absence of an SEL focus also
means that teachers are not receiving methods or skills related to teaching SEL in their own
classrooms. What does preparing a teacher for SEL instruction look like? Due to the limited
Page 105 of 152

amount of SEL in this particular program, I was not able to clearly take stock of SEL related
teaching methods. In addition, it is not enough to just discuss SEL in theory, but the theories
must be translated into accessible teaching strategies. It can be expected that teacher candidate
confidence would increase if there were teaching strategies in place.
Finally, it is notable that the expecation for SEL competency begins Day One in the
classroom for all teachers. There is a transition gap between lack of SEL instructional
background in preservice teacher preparation to the classroom experience of a first year teacher.
There are many professional development courses related to SEL for inservice teachers (e.g.
Responsive Classroom), however first year teachers often struggle with many SEL related
competencies. It seems that beyond providing SEL instruction and methods, pre-service
programs need a transition support process for first year teachers to more clearly connect SEL
theory learned in their programs to classroom practice. This transition support process could be
implemented into mentoring programs that may already be in place.
Implications for Policy
As of now, the teacher education standards related to SEL are limited and not explicit.
However, teacher education programs technically have a responsibility to ensure that teacher
candidates have an understanding of SEL once leaving the program. The field would benefit
from clearer aims for teacher competencies and practices in regards to SEL. Standards should
more clearly articulate SEL using existing frameworks and terminology so that there is greater
clarity. As of now, SEL is not required through explicit standards. The tone of the faculty
discussions around SEL implied that they viewed SEL as more of a passing trend than as an
essential feature of teacher preparation. The passive inclusion of SEL may be further
problematic because it allows program leaders to operate under the assumption that they are
Page 106 of 152

meeting standards related to SEL, but in the absence of evaluation or accountability around this
topic. Based on the findings of this study, the evidence suggests there is very limited inclusion of
SEL content. So much so that it may not be particularly useful to teacher candidates.
As of now, there are no evaluation measures or assessments for SEL instruction at the
preservice level. There are instances of some measures of evaluation in schools, for example, the
CORE districts are the first to move towards formally evaluating teachers and students for social
emotional factors, however, as of now it is all self-reported data. The CORE accountability
measure while not perfect, provides a working framework that is theory driven and could serve
as a starting point for how to evaluate teacher candidates for SEL instructional capacity. Beyond
CORE districts, teachers are observed and evaluated in their schools for many student outcomes
related to SEL (student behavior, emotional regulation, group work, interactions with students).
Along with clearer standards for SEL, a working assessment for teacher candidates would also
allow for formative evaluation of SEL competencies ahead of entering the classroom. This way,
teacher candidates can learn about areas to improve and develop skills while still in their
preservice program. However, without clearer methods and objectives around preparing teachers
for SEL at the preservice level, creating an assessment may be premature.
Limitations
Although this study utilized a mixed methods approach, the intent and outcomes were not
to predict causality or generalize the findings. In this sense the findings may not be replicable, or
provide a sequence of recommended outcomes. Both the interpretive and social network
analyses ultimately provided a descriptive, process-oriented account of learning. Given the
particular scope of my intent, I employed rigorous research methods each step of the way to
paint a comprehensive, multi-layered picture of how teachers are prepared for SEL instruction at
Page 107 of 152

the pre-service level in the program I examined.
Access
Due to limited access, I was not be able to examine in full depth and detail the entire
MAT program content and scope. Nor was I be able to capture the individual learning
experiences of all students in a cohort, nor trace any of the cohorts from start to finish. I also did
not have access to observe the courses online, which may have served to triangulate some of the
findings around the challenges of students forming networks. Finally, I was not provided student
identified information such as names and emails. The program emailed all recruitment emails to
a listserv, thus, I was not able to directly connect with students or utilize rosters for network
identification. Students volunteered their own email address during the survey to indicate interest
in participating in the interview.
Data Collection
Attaining survey responses was the most challenging limitation in terms of data
collection. In the first pilot survey implementation during the Summer of 2016, only 30 students
out of 150 attempted the survey, and only 1 student completed the survey all the way through.
The concept map was too challenging for students to complete, both logistically and perhaps
conceptually as well. Familiarity with the term social emotional learning was low, therefore the
creation of a conceptual product around SEL was probably unrealistic for many students
attempting this survey.
In the second attempt at data collection, I again struggled to get respondents, this time
only 8 participated. I then amended the IRB to include monetary incentives for student
participation and 110 participants responded, of which 80 volunteered to be interviewed. While,
participation was still lower than optimal, I did have enough participants to analyze their
Page 108 of 152

responses. There is a strong likelihood of self-selection bias in the results, where the respondants
may not be representative of the entire student population in the program. However, as
discussed, I did ensure the racial and gender breakdown was comparable to the national average
for a somewhat representative sample in terms of demographics. Interviewing had to be limited
to only those participants that planned to be classroom teachers, which also narrowed the pool
considerably.
Another methodological limitation was collecting the network data. Participants were
very uncomfortable naming their peers. Many of the respondents resorted to providing as little
information as possible such as first names only, or initials, or even descriptors such as “girl in
my learning class, or the professor.” Furthermore, with such low participation, I had very limited
whole-network data, and very little in the way of reciprocity and in-degree measures. This
meant that my network measures and analysis were limited, and not as rich as I had hoped.
Through the teacher candidate interview process however, I still was able to capture some of
what happened in the program between peers, but more data is needed.
Rather than surveying the whole program at once, it may have been more productive to
survey each course individually through the professor. I found that professors of the courses and
even program administrative leaders were more than willing to support the data collection
process, and many were quite interested to know about the findings. Surveying twenty closed
classroom networks as nested in a larger whole network would also have provided much more
meaningful data analysis regarding density, tie-strength, in-degree centrality and even
homophily. For example, I would have a better idea of nominated individual’s identities in a
closed network and reciprocity of ties. To look at whole network centralization and find key
influencers, one easy way to extend out to the rest of the program would be to include
Page 109 of 152

nomination questions for peers outside of the course. Ultimately, there is no way to ensure full
or accurate participation, however, based on my interactions with classroom instructors, I found
it more likely that they would have helped to recruit students from their own classes.
Design and Analysis
One limitation of the survey is that it was cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal. Using
a longitudinal survey over time may have allowed comparisions of knowledge growth of first
year candidates from the beginning of the year to the end of year. Likewise, it would have been
optimal to compare second year candidates from the start of their year to the end of the year.
However, due to low participation initially, data collection was delayed, thus minimizing the
time for a second survey administration.
Additionally, there was no existing SEL knowledge measure, so I had to construct a way
to measure SEL for teacher candidates. There were several possible approaches including
multiple-choice questions, a concept map, and finally open answer approach. The multiple
choice questions were not optimal. A survey or questionnaire would have allowed the possibility
of using item response theory or factor analysis to ensure that the survey was truly measuring
SEL knowledge for teacher candidates in a valid and reliable way. I utilized the qualitative
responses and quantified them based on the coding schema from the SEL frameworks. However,
this left room for added subjectivity in the coding process of the data, and thus the resulting
numeric values were not completely objective. Furthermore, I was not able to measure the depth
of knowledge I would have had the concept map been successful. Instead, my qualitative coding
process measured recognition of SEL terms, not knowledge of how to enact those terms, or
implement SEL in practice.
Future Research

Page 110 of 152

Despite the long history of social emotional concepts in the literature, in many ways it
feels like a nascent field due to how much confusion still exists regarding the term. There is still
so much to understand in terms of translating theory into practice and preparing teachers. One
direction for research would be to investigate the process of program change towards more
explicit inclusion of SEL instruction. The decision making and transition process would be worth
examining and could serve as a model for other programs. As more teacher education programs
create explicit instruction around SEL, there will need to be research evaluating the effectiveness
of the teaching strategies in regards to the preservice teachers learning, the transition process
from teacher preparation program into schools, as well as implemention of those practices while
teachers are navigating new professional development directives.
One of the useful outcomes of this research is the broader conceptual framework I
developed for coding purposes. The framework is inclusive of three different SEL frameworks
and encompasses a broad range of scientifically established psychological constructs. This
coding framework is useful across a range of program and curriculum evaluation studies to
ascertain to what degreee SEL is addressed in teacher preparation programs. This larger SEL
framework could serve as a practical checklist for program evaluators who wish to prepare
teachers in SEL. They framework could help them determined the degree to which SEL is
implemented effectively within their programs.
Another research area is to develop a measure of teacher candidate SEL knowledge.
Developing a social emotional knowledge measure is vital both for program teaching purposes as
well as research and evaluation purposes. Ideally there would be research to support the
development of a criterion-referenced assessment to ensure transferability and standardization of
Page 111 of 152

SEL concepts. This may also help towards establishing terminology and language around SEL in
the field.
As this study illustrated, teacher education, particularly with its shift towards online
platforms, is positioned to make use of network analysis to better understand how knowledge is
distributed in the program. One valuable direction of research would be to study how a teacher
education program uses network data to change policies and practices to better support their
teacher candidates. For example, network maps would allow an online program to identify and
better support students who feel isolated and connect them with fellow peers, since we know
teachers learn better in collaborative learning groups. Second, network maps can also help to
identify key players in the program such as influential faculty members or students, who can then
be positioned more effectively to benefit the program. For example, students identified with
both high degrees of in and out centrality are well-positioned to serve as potential mentors and
future teaching assistants. A better network map would also have indicated flow of information
through tie strength and density.
Moving beyond the preservice setting, another direction for future research is to conduct
qualitative case studies with individual teacher candidates and follow them directly into the
classroom to see the transition of learning, particularly around SEL as it presents such a
tremendous shift in focus from preservice to inservice. Quantitative findings from the present
study create even more of an impetus to do so considering preservice teachers are entering the
classroom less confident around at least topics of SEL and classroom management. Were I to
complete such a study I would also attempt to analyze teacher emotions as well, to better learn
what teachers go through in the transition process from being a student to a teacher. How do
Page 112 of 152

they navigate and cope with their own emotion regulation as they navigate all their students’
social and emotional competencies?
There remain more specific questions regarding the teacher learning process of
implementing SEL curriculums. Which practices are teachers more comfortable implementing
right away? Which practices and theories do teachers find more challenging to incorporate into
their classrooms and why? It would be particularly interesting to do a case study of a teacher
PLC focused on SEL to see first hand how teachers learn and process information around SEL.
Are classroom teachers open to ideas around SEL as they might improve their classroom
dynamics, or are they resistant in terms of adding one more “thing” to what they have to do? It
would also be valuable to measure how teacher attitudes and beliefs towards SEL impact their
learning and implementation of SEL. A survey study would also indicate whether teachers who
reported learning about SEL in their preservice years fare better with student classroom
management in their inservice years than those who did not have any prior SEL training.
Conclusions
As it appears, SEL is useful in practice as many schools and programs are utilizing the
principles, but there is no unified formal approach for teacher preparation. This is of particular
concern since in many school districts, teachers are expected to implement SEL strategies. After
examining a pre-service teacher preparation program in depth from a process-based exploratory
standpoint, I found that SEL is a topic that is passively included into the program, embedded
occassionally, but in an inconsistent and ultimately incoherent way. By not incorporating a
formalized model of SEL, teacher candidates had less depth of knowledge in this area, and
reported feeling less familiar and confident with the topic despite gaining more knowledge of
SEL after two years in the program. This suggests that coherency matters, as teachers are not
Page 113 of 152

realizing how the knowledge they are acquiring about SEL is connected. Providing the
cohesiveness of formalized introduction aligned to a well-established SEL framework would
likely inspire a greater degree of confidence in preservice teachers as they go on to apply their
knowledge in the classroom. What teacher candidates did learn was based on field experiences
that allowed them to respond to students directly and enact practices that supported student social
emotional needs. Finally, this study showed that teacher candidates do learn more when they
have peer networks in the program, yet, in this online program, many students struggled to form
these connections, even as they progressed in their cohort years. Thus, this teacher education
program illustrates a broader challenge of how online programs can support the development of
teacher peer networks for learning. This exploratory study was an essential step towards
establishing a baseline of SEL preparation in the context of teacher education programs, and
provides direction for future empirical research on teacher learning about SEL instruction.

Page 114 of 152

REFERENCES

Baer, D., Wolf, M., & Risley, R. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313 - 327.
Bain, J. D., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Describing computer-
facilitated learning environments in higher education. Learning Environments
Research, 1(2), 163-180.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it
special?. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Banks, M. K. (2003). Classroom management preparation in Texas colleges and
universities. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 22, 48-51.
Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and
responsible children and adolescents . Jossey-Bass.
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International journal
of educational research, 35(5), 463-482.
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., & Snyder, J. (2008). Urban Teacher Residency Models and
Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preparation. Center for Teaching
Quality.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78( 1), 246–263.
Page 115 of 152

Blum, M. H. (1994). The preservice teacher’s educational training in classroom discipline:
A national survey of teacher education programs. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education. Wellington,(2000)
Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Research, London:
Continuum.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A
review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A. J. Daly
(Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 17-30). Cambridge, MA:
Havard Education Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of social capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Brophy, J. (Ed.), (2004). Using video in teacher education. Oxford: Elsevier.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Bryant, B.K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development,
53(2), 413–425.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). Academic Pr.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior,
22, 345-423.
California Office to Reform Education. (2014). Overview of the CORE SEL pilot. Retrieved
from: http://coredistricts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CORE-SEL-Pilot-
Overview.pdf
Page 116 of 152

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach for today’s
educators. Canter & Associates, Seal Beach, CA.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work?: Employers’
Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st
Century U.S. Workforce. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2015). What is social and
emotional learning? Retrieved from: http://www.casel.org/social-and-emotional-
learning/
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment. Theory, research and clinical
applications, 1.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive
youth development in the United States: research findings on evaluations of positive
youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment,5(1), 15a.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based
preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–
494.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.
Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability:
Teachers' advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of
Education, 119(1), 137-182.
Page 117 of 152

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:

Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 249-305.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009).
Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American
Journal of Education, 115(3), 347-377.
Cohen, J. (2001). Caring Classrooms/Intelligent Schools: The Social Emotional Education of
Young Children. Series on Social Emotional Learning. Williston, VT: Teachers College
Press.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for
learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational
Review, 76(2), 201-237.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 1-46.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Comer, J. (2001). Schools that develop children. The American Prospect, 12(7).

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative

Page 118 of 152

inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.

Cooper, H. (1989) Homework. New York: Longman.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A
resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research, 209-240.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research

process. Sage.

Cuffaro, H., & Nager, N. (2008). The developmental-interaction approach at Bank Street College
of Education. In J. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood
education (5th ed., pp 150-267). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Daly, A. J. (2010a). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A. J.
Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Daly, A. J. (2010b). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Daly, A. J. (2010c). Surveying the terrain ahead: Social network theory and educational change.
In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 259-274).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Page 119 of 152

Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Bolivar, J. M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The
role of teachers' social networks. Journal of Education Administration, 48(3), 359-391.
Daniels, D. H., & Shumow, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of

the literature and implications for educating teachers. Applied Development Psychology,

23, 495–526.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing

world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dickinson, D. K., & Brady, J. (2005). Toward effective support for language and literacy
through professional development: A decade of experiences and data. In M. Zaslow & I.
Martinez-Beck (Eds.). Critical issues in early childhood professional development (p.
141–170). Baltimore: Brookes.
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Berg, J. K., Pas, E. T., Becker, K. D., Muteii, R., ... &
Ialongo, N. (2016). How do school-based prevention programs impact teachers? Findings
from a randomized trial of an integrated classroom management and social-emotional
program. Prevention Science, 1-13.
Duckworth, A. L., Gendler, T. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control in school-age children.
Educational Psychologist, 49(3), 199–217.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale
(Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities
other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4),
237–251.
Page 120 of 152

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B.
(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-
analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child development,82(1), 405-432.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: promoting change in the Middle East, the
schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. The American Psychologist, 67( 8), 614–
622.
Dweck, C.S., and Leggett, E.L. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills
that promote long-term learning. Gates Foundation. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Eccles J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Go , S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., and Midgley, C.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Elbertson, N. A., Brackett, M. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2009). School-based social and

emotional learning (SEL) programming: Current perspectives. InSecond

international handbook of educational change (pp. 1017-1032). Springer

Netherlands.

Elias, M.J., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., & Schuyler, T. (2000). Voices from the field:

Identifying and overcoming roadblocks to carrying out social and emotional

learning/emotional intelligence. Journal of Educational and Psychological

Page 121 of 152

Consultation, 11, 253 – 272.

Elias, M. J. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators.

ASCD.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation,

sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in

public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303-319.

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management.

Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., &
Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners the role of
noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. The
University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to

strengthen and sustain teaching. The Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Frank, K. A., Penuel, W. R., & Krause, A. (2015). What is a "good" social network for policy
implementation? The flow of know-how for organizational change. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 34(2), 378-402.
Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of
science. Vancouver, British Columbia: Empirical Press.
Fukkink, R. G., Trienekens, N., & Kramer, L. J. C. (2010). Video feedback in education

and training: putting learning in the picture. Educational Psychology Review,

23(1), 45-63.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

Page 122 of 152

qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publications.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. Perennial Library/Harper & Row

Publishers.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence. Bantam.
Graczyk, P. A., Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., &
Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting
mental health and reducing risk behavior in children and youth.Journal of school
health, 70(5), 179-185.
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1349-1363.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., &
Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through
coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning.American psychologist, 58(6-7),
466.
Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In
M. Cochran-Smith,&K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grossman, P., Smagorinksy, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English:
A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108, 1-29.
Page 123 of 152

Guerra, N. G., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2008). Linking the prevention of problem behaviors and
positive youth development: Core competencies for positive youth development and risk
prevention. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2008(122), 1-17.
Harvey, O.J., and Schroder, H.M. (1963). Cognitive aspects of self and motivation. In O. J.
Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction-cognitive determi- nants. (pp. 95-133).
New York: Ronald Press.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M.,
McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, 1.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?. Child
development, 76(5), 949-967.
Hatano, G. (2005, April). Adaptive expertise. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H.
Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in
Japan (pp. 262-272). NY: Freeman.
Hemmeter, M. L., Santos, R., & Ostrosky, M. (2008). A national survey of higher education
programs: Preparing early childhood educators to address social emotional development
and challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(4), 321-340.
Hiltz, S. R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual
classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44-49.
Page 124 of 152

Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008).
Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50.
Hylton, I. E. (2000). Classroom management skills: Can video-modeling make a difference?
New York University: School of Education.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The

relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and

education, 1(1), 3-10.

Immordino-Yang, M. H., McColl, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates of

admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19),

8021-8026.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational

analysis. American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001).

Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in

children at risk. Psychological science, 12(1), 18-23.

Jackson, M. O. (2014). Networks in the understanding of economic behaviors. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 28(4), 3-22.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (1999). Vygotskian theory and its application to assessment: An
overview for speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communication
Science and Disorders, 26, 111–118.
Page 125 of 152

Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Keith, T.Z., Keith, P.B., Troutman, G.C., Bickley, P.G., Trivette, P.S., and Singh, K.
(1993) Does parental involvement a ect eighth grade student achievement? Structural
analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22, 472-494.
King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional
development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246.
Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:
Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and
teacher education, 26(1), 98-106.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science
education. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities shaping the future of teacher
development. Journal of teacher education, 51(3), 221-227.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and

the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological inquiry. Chicago: University of
Page 126 of 152

Chicago Press.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41).

Merrell, K. W., & Gueldner, B. A. (2010). Social and emotional learning in the

classroom: Promoting mental health and academic success. Guilford Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., ... Shoda, Y.
(2011). “Willpower” over the life span: decomposing self-regulation. S ocial Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience, 6 ( 2), 252–256.
Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools:
Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7-39.
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position:
Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position,
and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.
Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2011). Teaming up: Linking collaboration
networks, collective efficacy and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(2), 251-262.
Morrison, F., & Connor, C. M. (2002). Understanding schooling effects on early literacy.

Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 493-500.

Murphy, K. (Ed.). (2006). Critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and

how can they be fixed? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Page 127 of 152

Nager, N. (1987). Becoming a teacher: The development of thinking about knowledge,

learning, and the self. Thought and Practice, 1, 27–32.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, (2006). Child

and adolescent development research and teacher Education: Evidence-based

pedagogy, policy, and practice. Summary of Roundtable Meetings.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius lungens orientation, and involvement in
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100-130.
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-

service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence?. Teaching and teacher

education, 28(8), 1131-1143.

Online Learning Consortium. (2014). Grade level: Tracking online learning in the United

States. http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports/

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., and Terry, K. (2006) Possible selves and academic outcomes: How
and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
188-204.
Pasi, R. J. (2001). Higher expectations: Promoting social emotional learning and

academic achievement in your school. Teachers College Press.

Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal
and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers'
practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346.
Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive

conceptions of learning, motivation, and instruction: The role of motivational and

Page 128 of 152

epistemological beliefs. Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student

and teacher learning, 117-143.

Payton, J., Weissberg, R.P., Durlak, J.A., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., Schellinger,

K.B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning

for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews.

Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning

Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of
cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 359-376.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions:
Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of
educational Psychology, 101(1), 115.
Peng S.S., and Wright, D. (1994) Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American
students. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 346-352.
Pianta, R. C. (2007). Developmental science and education: The NICHD study of early child
care and youth development findings from elementary school. In R. V. Kail
(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 253-296). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Piwowar, V., Thiel, F., & Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers' competencies in
classroom management. A quasi-experimental study with teachers of secondary
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 1-12.
Pohlman, C. (2008). Revealing minds: Assessing to understand and support struggling learners.
John Wiley & Sons.
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Form, 15(1), 1-12.
Page 129 of 152

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of
cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Chiu, Y. J. I. (2007). Promoting social and academic competence in

the classroom: An intervention study examining the contribution of the Responsive

Classroom approach. Psychology in the Schools, 44(4), 397-413.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A., Baroody, A. E., Curby, T. W., Ko, M., Thomas, J. B., ... &

DeCoster, J. (2014). Efficacy of the responsive classroom approach results from a 3-year,

longitudinal randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal.

Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to

workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 26, 388–399

Rotter, J.B. (1954) Social learning and clinical psychology. NY: Prentice-Hall.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

SAGE.

Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from

teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(1), 133-145.

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined

improvisation. Educational researcher, 33(2), 12-20.

School Development Program (2008). School Development Program.

http://www.med.yale.edu/comer. New Haven: Yale University.

Schonert-Reichl, 2013. Social and emotional learning (SEL) in teacher education:
Page 130 of 152

A scan of SEL content in teacher preparation. Executive Summary Report.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol.

5126). Basic books.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in

teaching.Educational researcher, 4-14.

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-Regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research
recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 2 0( 4), 463–467.
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing
literature. Sociology, 37(1), 57.
Snyder, J. (2000). Knowing Children, Understanding Teaching. The Developmental

Teacher Education Program at the University of California-Berkeley. Studies of

excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level, 97-172.

Snyder, J., & Lit, I. (2010). Principles and exemplars for integrating developmental

sciences knowledge into educator preparation. Washington, DC: National Council

for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Stecher, B. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2014). Measuring Hard-to-Measure Student Competencies.
Rand Corporation.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional

learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational

change, 7(4), 221-258.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
Page 131 of 152

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trentacosta, C. J., & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kindergarten children's emotion competence as

a predictor of their academic competence in first grade. Emotion, 7(1), 77.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Redsicovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Davis, D. E. (2007). Approaches to diversifying the teaching force:

Attending to issues of recruitment, preparation, and retention. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 137-147.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the

development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waterhouse, L. (2006). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and

emotional intelligence theories. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247-255.

Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2003). Prevention that works for

children and youth: An introduction (Vol. 58, No. 6-7, p. 425). American

Psychological Association.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of
Page 132 of 152

self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38( 4), 189–205.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students
believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(
4), 302–314.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Routledge.

Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher

education "washed out" by school experience? Journal of teacher

education, 32(3), 7-11.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential ootive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25( 1), 82–91.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 2 5( 1), 3–17.
Zins, J. E. (Ed.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional

learning: What does the research say?. Teachers College Press.

Page 133 of 152

APPENDIX A

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Page 134 of 152

APPENDIX B

DATA SOURCE TABLE

Participant/Source Type of Data Date
Collected
Date
Analyzed
Program Level –
Administration
Interviews November
2016
Dec - Jan
2017

Program Level - Faculty Interviews Aug-Sep 2016 Dec - Feb
2017

Program Level - Documents Mission statement, syllabi,
assignments, student work
Aug-Sep 2016 Oct 2016
Students in All Cohorts Teacher Candidate Survey Fall 2016
(multiple times
attempted)
Ongoing

Sampling of Students Interviews Jan-March
2016
Ongoing

Page 135 of 152

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California
Education Department

Teacher Preparation for Social Emotional Learning – Teacher Candidates

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ananya Mukhopadhyay and Dr.
Gale Sinatra at the University of Southern California, because you are a student in the MAT
program at USC. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and
ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study is designed to answer questions about whether and how teacher education programs
are facilitating teacher preparation around social emotional learning and instruction.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a 15 minute social
network survey and a 15 minute knowledge assessment once at the beginning of your field
placement and once more towards the end of your guided practice.

You may also be invited to participate in an audio-recorded interview expected to last 30 minutes
to an hour, either in person, or over phone. Interviews are intended to provide information about
the teacher education course programming and not to evaluate individuals or the organization. If
you don’t want to be audio recorded, you can still participate, and handwritten notes will be
taken. The interview will follow a semi-structured format; you may request to see the questions
ahead of time.

You may also be asked to share with the researcher relevant class assignments and your student
teaching video portfolio.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks in participating in this study.

In the social network survey, you will be asked to name your peers, and your peers may name
you. The names will be immediately coded by the researcher following data collection period,
and original surveys will be deleted. If you are not comfortable naming your peers, you should
not participate. Please note, though, that even if you do not participate in this study, your
participating peers may name you in their social network surveys.

You will be identifiable to the researcher should you provide portfolio materials (documents and
videos), but following data collection and analysis, your materials will not be stored. No students
will be individually identifiable following data analysis.
Page 136 of 152

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit directly from your participation in this study. The researchers hope the
findings of this study may contribute to an understanding of how social emotional learning and
instruction is addressed in teacher education preservice coursework. The information you share
may help shape teacher education programming and curriculum beyond your own program.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
All survey participants will be entered into a $100 prize drawing for an Amazon gift card at the
end of the survey period. If you are invited to participate in the follow up interview and
complete the interview, you will receive a $30 Amazon gift card.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately.
Recordings will be kept on a secure server and will be deleted upon completion of the study. The
data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researchers’ offices. At the
completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and de-identified data will be
maintained for future research use. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you
should not participate.

As part of the study, the researchers will only share aggregate findings (no individuals will be
identified) in research papers and a dissertation. The results of the study will be summarized at
the project level and will not identify particular actors or organizations without advance
permission.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will involve no
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent
at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims,
rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact

Ananya Mukhopadhyay at
amukhopa@usc.edu
PhD Student
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Waite Phillips Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4036

Gale Sinatra at gale.sinatra@usc.edu
Professor of Education and Psychology
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Waite Phillips Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4036
Office: 213-740-1622
Page 138 of 152

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

Running head: PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION

APPENDIX D

PROGRAM LEADERSHIP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Procedure
• Audio Recording Equipment
• Email consent form (Appendix C) prior to interview
• Procedures for obtaining informed consent
For Telephone: Participant will be sent an informed consent form before the interview.
At the start of the interview, interviewer will ask if participant has any questions about
the consent form and if he or she agrees to be interviewed and recorded. A waiver of
signed informed consent will be included in file.
In person: Participant will have opportunity to read the consent form and sign

Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to do this interview. As you know, this interview is part of my
dissertation in which I am hoping to study how teacher education programs may or may not be
preparing teacher candidates with knowledge of social emotional learning and instruction.
Everything you say in this interview will be confidential. To protect your privacy, I will
not connect your name with anything you say. At anytime in our conversation, please feel free
to let me know if you have any questions or if you would rather not answer any specific
question. You can also stop the interview at any time for any reason.
I will begin recording our conversation from this point on.

Interview Questions
I’d like to begin by asking you some questions about your current position.
a. What is your position at UTE?
b. How long have you been at your current position?
c. What are your major responsibilities?
d. What has your role been thus far in creating programming for the Teacher
education MAT program?
e. What do you feel are your major accomplishments towards the program? Can
you share any anecdotes of your success?
f. What is the biggest challenge for program design for such a large program? Do
you have any anecdotes you can share? (Probe: communication, decision
making)
g. You may have noticed the push for social emotional competencies across K-12
schools for both students and their teachers. What are your thoughts on preparing
teachers for SEL? Is it necessary? Is it too specific?
h. How does UTE prepare teachers SEL instruction? (coursework? Field
experience?)
i. In what ways could UTE address SEL instruction further for teachers?
j. Do you think SEL is a topic that UTE plans to address more in depth as
programming changes are considered? Why or why not. If yes, what changes are
being thought about?
k. What is the program evaluation and improvement process like at UTE?
l. What is your role, if any, in that institutional change process?
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 140
APPENDIX E

PROGRAM FACULTY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

• Audio Recording Equipment
• Email consent form (Appendix C) prior to interview
• Procedures for obtaining informed consent
For Telephone: Participant will be sent an informed consent form before the interview.
At the start of the interview, interviewer will ask if participant has any questions about
the consent form and if he or she agrees to be interviewed and recorded. A waiver of
signed informed consent will be included in file.
In person: Participant will have opportunity to read the consent form and sign

Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to do this interview. As you know, this interview is part of my
dissertation in which I am hoping to study how teacher education programs may or may not be
preparing teacher candidates with knowledge of social emotional learning and instruction.
Everything you say in this interview will be confidential. To protect your privacy, I will
not connect your name with anything you say. At anytime in our conversation, please feel free
to let me know if you have any questions or if you would rather not answer any specific
question. You can also stop the interview at any time for any reason.
I will begin recording our conversation from this point on.

Interview Questions
I’d like to begin by asking you some questions about your current position.
m. What is your position at UTE?
n. How long have you been at your current position?
o. What are your major responsibilities?
p. What has your role been thus far in creating programming for the Teacher
education MAT program? (Course design?) Any anecdotes of successes or
challenges in that process?
q. You may have noticed the push for social emotional competencies across K-12
schools for both students and their teachers. What are your thoughts on preparing
teachers candidates for SEL at the pre-service level vs. inservice level?
r. How does UTE in general prepare teachers SEL instruction? (coursework? Field
experience?)
s. In what ways could UTE address SEL instruction further for teachers?
t. Do you think SEL is a topic that UTE plans to address more in depth as
programming changes are considered? Why or why not. If yes, what changes are
being thought about?
u. How does your course specifically address and teach about SEL topics? Would
you be willing to share your course materials/syllabus with me?
v. Do you plan on increasing or decreasing SEL instruction topics in your course? If
so, why?
w. What is the program evaluation and improvement process like at UTE?
x. What is your role, if any in that institutional change process?
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 141
APPENDIX F

TEACHER CANDIDATE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

• Audio Recording Equipment
• Email consent form (Appendix C) prior to interview
• Procedures for obtaining informed consent
For Telephone: Participant will be sent an informed consent form before the interview.
At the start of the interview, interviewer will ask if participant has any questions about
the consent form and if he or she agrees to be interviewed and recorded. A waiver of
signed informed consent will be included in file.
In person: Participant will have opportunity to read the consent form and sign

Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to do this interview. As you know, this interview is part of my
dissertation in which I am hoping to study how teacher education programs may or may not be
preparing teacher candidates with knowledge of social emotional learning and instruction.
Everything you say in this interview will be confidential. To protect your privacy, I will
not connect your name with anything you say. At anytime in our conversation, please feel free
to let me know if you have any questions or if you would rather not answer any specific
question. You can also stop the interview at any time for any reason.
I will begin recording our conversation from this point on.

Interview Questions
1) What is your approach, or plan for approach to classroom management? What are some
major theoretical concepts you have learned that you plan to, or do apply in your
practice?
a. For Group A: What are you most concerned about in regards to classroom
management?
b. For Group B, C: Do you have any anecdotes of successes or challenges in your
approach to classroom management thus far? What have you found works? Why
do you think that approach works?
c. Who do you discuss your concerns regarding classroom management, and student
behavior?
d. How prepared at this moment do you feel to manage your own classroom?
e. Who do you talk to or plan on talking to regarding classroom management
concerns?

2) How do you envision your relationship with your students in your own classroom?

3) How do you envision your students relationships with one another in your own
classroom?

4) In what ways can you support student interactions with one another?

5) In what ways can you help students manage their own emotions in the classroom?
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 142

6) What do you expect your students to be able to do daily with minimal guidance from
you?

7) What role do you see emotions having in the instructional process?

8) How familiar are you to SEL?

9) Follow up to Q8*: When were you introduced to the concept of Social Emotional
Learning? (Through your teacher education program? Through your peers? Through
your field experience?)

10) Follow up to Q8 and Q9*: Does your teacher education program provide you with
opportunities to learn about SEL instruction? If so, how, when, and what have you
learned?

11) What is your opinion regarding the usefulness of SEL within classroom instruction and
management?

12) How prepared do you feel to incorporate SEL instruction methods in your own practice?
13) What are some resources that you use to learn about SEL instructional practices?

14) Do you ever discuss classroom management or SEL topics with your cohort peers? If
so, can you give me an example of a conversation?

15) Do you find yourself learning anything from your cohort or class mates about classroom
management, or student development, or social emotional learning based on each other’s
experiences?

a. How do you most often communicate with one another?
b. How often do you talk to your classmates?
c. Can you give me an example of something you might have learned from a
classmate, if anything at all? (Could be on any topic)
d. What types of information from your classmates do you find the most useful in
your own learning and development? (Ex., stories of their experiences, advice,
questions, resources, disagreements)?
e. Do you often find yourself talking to the same people, or do you find yourself
learning things from a variety of people in your classes?
f. Proportionally, how much of what you learn about classroom instruction and
management do you think you learn from your coursework/professors, your peers,
and your field site?

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 143
APPENDIX G

TEACHER CANDIDATE SURVEY

Thank you for taking this survey. Your data will be treated confidentially. Any names you
provide will be coded during data analysis. If you have any questions or concerns about this
survey or how the data will be used, please contact Ananya Mukhopadhyay via email
(amukhopa@usc.edu) or via phone (507-202-3632).

1. Name __________

2. Age: ______ years

[For the next 9 questions, please indicate your response with an X.]

3. MAT Concentration
__ K-12 Leadership in Urban School Settings
__ Higher Education Administration
__ Teacher Education in Multicultural Societies
__ Educational Psychology
__ Other: _______________________

4. Methodology
__ Qualitative
__ Quantitative
__ Mixed Methods

5. Career Plans
__ K-12 or Higher Ed. Administration
__ Tenure-track faculty at Research University
__ Tenure-track faculty at Teaching University
__ PK – K Teacher
__ Unsure
__ Other; Please specify: _________________________

6. Current Employment Role:

7. At what institution did you earn your undergraduate degree?

8. What was your major?

9. In what year did you receive your undergraduate degree?

10. Do you have any other graduate degrees?

11. If yes,
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 144
a. what is/are your graduate degree(s)

b. where did you earn your degree(s)?

c. in what year did you receive your graduate degree(s)?

12. List up to 5 people in the class whose opinions on classroom instruction knowledge and
information you would seek out, if any at this point.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

13. If you found out an exciting piece of information about your field, who in your class
would you be likely to share that information with, if any? List up to 5 people (can be
fewer).

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

14. List up to 5 people in your program you discuss issues regarding your classroom
management practice.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

15. List up to 5 people that share their concerns and issues regarding classroom
mangagement with you.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 145
16) Do you ever discuss topics regarding student social emotional learning with your
classmates?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Unsure

17) If yes, name up to 5 people you are likely to have this discussion with
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

18) In this section, you are asked to identify students in your cohort that you interact with
both inside and outside of school. Please select as many colleagues as you like.

Of the colleagues listed below, who … ? (Please mark X for the category that applies.)

Have you
socialized
with 1-
on-1
outside of
class

Have you
socialized
with in a
group
outside of
class
Have you
received
feedback
from
regarding
papers for
class
Have you
provided
feedback to
regarding
papers for
class

Would you
turn to for
advice on
developing
a research
idea or
project
Do you
consider a
friend who
you speak to
about
personal
matters

Classmate
1

Classmate
2…

19. How familiar are you with the topic of social emotional learning
a. Extremely familiar
b. Very familiar
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 146
c. Moderately familiar
d. Slightly familiar
e. What is it

20. Please provide a brief explanation of your present understanding of SEL

21. Has your MAT coursework ever provided you with SEL instruction?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Unsure

22. How often do you encounter SEL in your school site?
-Frequently
-Sometimes
-Not at all

23. List 3 social emotional competencies you know of.

24. Gender __ Female
__ Male

25. Race/Ethnicity
__ African American / Black
__ American Indian / Alaska Native
__ Asian American / Asian/ Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
__ Latino/a
__ White / Caucasian
__ Other (including bi- or multi-racial); Please specify:

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 147
APPENDIX H

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS TOOL

Program Level
(Program Document,
Course Syllabi,
Assignment)
Coded
Items
Researcher Notes
EDUC 516: Framing the
Social Context of High
Needs Schools

6 Classroom climate, identifying teacher
emotions, social awareness
EDUC 518 – The
Application of Theories of
Learning to Classroom
Practice

5 Related to creating a positive social
environment, self regulation and
motivation contructs came up
EDUC 519: Human
Differences

8
EDUC 568A: Guided
Practice A

7
EDUC 568B: Guided
Practice B

5
Contexts for Educational
Equity, Access and
Agency

5
EDUC 674 – Identifying
and Teaching to Student
Differences
2
Student assignment from
social context course

Student reflection
Student entire guided
practice portfolio

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 148
APPENDIX I

CODING GUIDE

Framework
Social Emotional Area Description Key Codes
CASEL
Self-Awareness • Teaching
students to
recognize one’s
own emotions
and thoughts and
their influence on
behavior.
• Preparing
students to assess
personal
strengths and
limitations and
• Helping students
develop a well-
grounded sense
of confidence
and optimism.

- Identity/Self
Concept
- Self-evaluation
- Confidence,
- Identifying
emotions
- Recognizing and
appraising
personal
strengths and
weaknesses
- Self - efficacy
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 149
CASEL
CORE
Self-Management • Preparing
students to
develop the
ability to regulate
one’s emotions,
thoughts, and
behaviors
effectively in
different
situations.
• Practicing stress
management,
impulse control,
motivating
oneself, and
setting and
working toward
achieving
personal and
academic goals.

-self regulation
-self control
- self discipline
- emotional regulation
-goal theory/goal setting
-stress management
-coping
- impulse control
- organizational
skills
CASEL
CORE
Social Awareness • Helping students
take perspectives
and empathize
with others from
diverse
backgrounds and
cultures, to
understand social
and ethical norms
for behavior
• Recognizing
family, school,
and community
resources and
supports.

- Empathy
- Appreciating
Diversity/multicutlural
knowledge
- Perspective taking
- Respect for others
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 150
CASEL
Relationship Skills • Teaching
students the
ability to
establish and
maintain healthy
and rewarding
relationships
with diverse
individuals and
groups.
• Working towards
communicating
clearly, listening
actively,
cooperating,
resisting
inappropriate
social pressure,
negotiating
conflict
constructively,
and seeking and
offering help
when needed.

-positive interactions
- communication
- social engagement
- teamwork
- maintaining and
developing
relationships
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 151
CASEL
Responsible Decision Making • Teaching
students the
ability to make
constructive and
respectful
choices about
personal
behavior and
social
interactions
based on
consideration of
ethical standards,
safety concerns,
social norms, the
realistic
evaluation of
consequences of
various actions,
and the well-
being of self and
others.

- Identifying
problems
- Analyzing
solutions
- Solving problems
- Evaluating
- Reflecting
- Ethical
responsibility
CORE
Growth Mindset • Everyone can
learn and
improve at their
own progress
- Progress
- Improvement
- Change
- Learning
CORE
Self-Efficacy • Belief in one’s
own capability to
complete a task
- Belief in oneself
- Confidence
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR SEL INSTRUCTION 152
Open Codes/inVIVO codes
• Development/developmenta
l theories
• Social interaction
• Groupwork
• Positive climate
• Emotional safety
• Supporting students
• Classroom environment
• Behavior management
• Conflict
• Competetion
• Choices
• Honesty
• Caring
• Trust
• Authenticity
• Fun
• Friendship
•

• Reflection
• Authoethnography
• Critcal reflection
• Reflexive cycle
• Blind spots
• Being present in
teaching
• Monitor progress
• identify,
distinguish, and
differentiate
individuals based
on social and
cultural
experiences
• perceptions and
reactions to human
• student funds of
knowledge and
experiences out of
school
• advocate
• racial
microgressions
• culturally relevant
teaching
• racial boundaries
• interaction of
culture, langauge
and identity
• sociocultural
approaches
• relationship building
• standards
• inclusion
• cohesion
• capacity
• integration of concepts

(CASEL, 2015; CORE, 2012)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this dissertation was to examine how teacher education programs may or may not be instructing preservice teachers to learn about and teach for social emotional learning and development for students. I conducted a mixed methods study in which I interviewed program faculty and administrators, analyzed program documents such as syllabi and assignments, and interviewed and surveyed students regarding the ways in which social emotional learning (SEL) constructs were present in the coursework or fieldwork opportunities throughout one program. I also examined student networks in the program to see whether students were forming peer learning groups around SEL related topics, such as classroom management, student behaviors, or child development. I found that SEL was not introduced with any formalized framework or theory, yet elements of SEL were embedded into the program in various contexts. Students emerged with higher levels of SEL knowledge by their second year, but appeared to have less confidence than first years in terms of implementation in the classroom.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance

PDF

Building networks for change: how ed-tech coaches broker information to lead instructional reform

PDF

Exploring classroom strategies used by child development student-teachers working with children at risk for reactive attachment disorder

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Using cognitive task analysis to capture how expert secondary teachers build classroom community based on trust, care, and high expectations in ethnically and culturally diverse urban high school...

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school

PDF

Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

PDF

Cogenerative dialogues as spaces for teacher, student, and public learning: a design investigation into two instantiations

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Promising practices in the prevention of bullying: using social and emotional skills to prevent bullying

Asset Metadata

Creator Mukhopadhyay, Ananya (author)

Core Title Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Publication Date 07/21/2017

Defense Date 07/14/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,preservice teacher education,social emotional learning (SEL),teacher education program,teacher learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pugach, Marleen C. (committee chair), Sinatra, Gale M. (committee chair), Marsh, Julie A. (committee member), Valente, Thomas W. (committee member)

Creator Email a.mukhop@gmail.com,amukhopa@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-408155

Unique identifier UC11265271

Identifier etd-Mukhopadhy-5584.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-408155 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mukhopadhy-5584.pdf

Dmrecord 408155

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mukhopadhyay, Ananya

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA