What can we learn from Social and Emotional Learning programs for young children in low-resource settings?
A pragmatic review of evidence-based SEL programs for young children in low-resource contexts
By Zezhen Wu and Lucero Ramirez-Varela
Over the last 15 years, school-based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs – broadly defined as “programs that help children develop cognitive, social, and emotional skills in school settings” – have become more popular in low-resource contexts and many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), expanding beyond their initial impact on learning outcomes (e.g., literacy and numeracy) in higher-income countries. Children in such contexts often face environmental challenges like poverty and conflict, so it seems plausible that SEL programs – which also aim to foster safe and supportive learning environments – should improve their ability to succeed in school and navigate life effectively.
However, SEL programs comprise an incredibly broad range of approaches. According to a 2019 tally by Harvard’s Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning (EASEL) Lab, at least 40 comprehensive SEL frameworks exist globally, and this number continues to grow as governments and organizations develop their own “contextualized” frameworks. This poses enormous challenges for understanding “what SEL programs work” for improving learning outcomes in low-resource contexts. While evidence from wealthier settings shows consistent positive impacts, studies in low-resource contexts often produce inconclusive or conflicting results, hindered by limited data, implementation challenges, and low uptake. Even in studies that do find promising signs of effectiveness on learning outcomes, there are still huge uncertainties about which SEL approaches and frameworks work best in which contexts, for whom, and under what conditions.
For policymakers and practitioners working on SEL programming in low-resource contexts, this pressing question remains: Which SEL program should I implement, particularly if I want to improve learning outcomes like literacy and numeracy? To help answer this question, we conducted a pragmatic review of the evidence generated by exemplar programs that demonstrate promising outcomes across diverse low-resource contexts. Our aim is to identify and analyze their commonalities and differences, offering actionable recommendations for designing future SEL programs in challenging settings.
Methodology & Key Findings
We focus on identifying SEL programs that have been rigorously tested through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We intentionally use a flexible definition of SEL programs to capture any initiative that could contribute to children’s SEL development. Rather than attempting to cover every available SEL program in detail, we focus on practical and promising solutions – or “quick wins” – that we believe can realistically be integrated into basic education programs with rapid experimentation. The diagram below documents our review process.
Our review located the following exemplar programs, which fall under three broad categories: 1) SEL programs that target the classroom or school environment, 2) those that target SEL skill-building with individual students, and 3) an approach related to SEL called “wise interventions.” Each of these programs, and the associated randomized evaluations, assess impacts on conventional academic outcomes (e.g., literacy, numeracy, school grades) in addition to SEL outcomes.
1. Climate-targeted SEL programs
These programs focus on improving the school and classroom environment by providing resources and teacher training. Specifically, we identified climate-targeted SEL programs developed by the International Rescue Committee (IRC), such as the in-school Learning in a Healing Classroom (LIHC) program and after-school Healing Classroom Tutoring (HCT) program, which offer in-service teacher training and curricular materials to support basic literacy and numeracy instruction within safe and supportive formal and non-formal school settings. This approach has been implemented and rigorously tested in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Niger, and Lebanon. Example elements of these programs include:
Safe learning spaces: Creating secure, inclusive, and supportive classrooms for crisis-affected children.
Teacher empowerment: Training and supporting teachers to manage classrooms and address emotional needs.
Psychosocial healing: Using play, art, and storytelling to promote emotional recovery and resilience.
Child-centered approach: Implementing active, inclusive teaching methods that foster learning and social connection.
Costs: $249–$263 per child per half year.
2. Skill-targeted SEL programs
These programs focus on enhancing individual students’ SEL skills. In particular, we examined brief, adaptable, teacher-led activities such as Brain Games and Mindfulness, designed by the Harvard EASEL Lab and the IRC. These activities aim to develop key SEL competencies, including executive function and behavioral and emotion regulation. This approach has been implemented and rigorously tested in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Niger, and Lebanon. Example elements include:
Five-Component SEL (5CSEL) curriculum: Teacher-led games targeting children’s executive function, emotion regulation, positive social skills, conflict resolution, and perseverance.
Brain Games: Brief teacher-led games targeting children’s executive function.
Mindfulness: Brief teacher-led games targeting children’s stress management and emotion regulation.
Costs: Skill-targeted SEL programs have an additional cost of $16.50–$66 per child per half year on top of the climate-targeted program, depending on the components.
Key findings for climate- and skill-targeted SEL programs:
Many SEL programs by the IRC combine climate- and skill-targeted elements, so it is useful to review the evidence from both categories together. Looking at programs implemented in primary schools only, our pragmatic review identified several instances of positive effects from climate- and skill-targeted programs as well as more mixed evidence.
In DRC, for instance, the IRC’s LIHC program seems to be improving some academic outcomes with relatively promising short-term evidence:
In the RCT’s first year, the LIHC program had marginally significant positive impacts on reading and geometry scores, but not on addition/subtraction scores, as compared to business-as-usual schooling.
With a second-year cohort, the program had positive impacts on addition and subtraction scores for one subgroup, but no overall impact on literacy and numeracy competencies.
In Lebanon, by contrast, the majority of the evidence does not seem to strongly support the impact of the IRC’s HCT program or its combination with the Mindfulness activity on academic outcomes:
In the RCT’s first year, neither HCT nor HCT + Mindfulness had an impact on overall literacy and numeracy competencies, and there was no additional impact of Mindfulness on top of HCT, as compared to public school alone. However, HCT + Mindfulness did have a positive impact on some discrete literacy and numeracy subtask skills.
In a second cycle during the first year, 26-week HCT (vs. 10-week HCT) had a marginally significant positive impact on literacy competency, but no impact on numeracy competency. When combined with Mindfulness and Brain Games activities, the 26-week HCT had no impact on literacy or numeracy competencies.
With a second-year cohort, adding the 5CSEL program on top of HCT had no impact on literacy or numeracy competencies.
In Niger, there is promising evidence of the effectiveness of HCT + Mindfulness + Brain Games, though the addition of these skill-targeted activities did not seem to provide many additional benefits beyond the HCT program.
In the RCT’s first year (full sample), HCT + Mindfulness + Brain Games had positive impacts on literacy, numeracy, and school grades as compared to public school only. There was a positive impact of Mindfulness + Brain Games added on top of HCT on school grades, but no impact on literacy and numeracy competencies.
For a first-year sub-sample, adding Mindfulness or Mindfulness + Brain Games on top of HCT had no impact on literacy and numeracy competencies.
This evidence suggests that climate-targeted interventions are effective on learning outcomes in some settings, notably Niger and DRC, but may not generalize to all contexts (e.g., Syrian refugee children in Lebanon). It also suggests that the addition of teacher-led SEL games does not always outperform the base training provided to teachers as part of school climate interventions. However, skills-targeted games are still considered cost-effective on their own and can potentially boost students’ grades, as shown in the Niger study.
3. Wise Interventions
Wise interventions are a class of interventions that “focus on (are ‘wise to’) the meanings and inferences people draw about themselves, other people, or a situation they are in and use precise, theory- and research-based techniques to alter these meanings.” In educational settings, these programs aim to help students derive new and positive meaning from the classroom setting. A well-known example of this approach is helping children foster a growth mindset, rather than believing their capabilities to be fixed. By changing the classroom environment or how students perceive themselves within it, wise interventions seek to alter students’ subjective meaning-making in the classroom, which could lead to a positive cycle of adaptive behavior and self-enhancement.
According to our review, there is very little evidence of wise interventions in LMICs below the secondary school level. To address this gap, we expanded our search to include primary-school evidence from low-resource settings in middle- and upper-income countries. We also included secondary-school evidence from LMICs, since we believe that the psychological processes that wise interventions target (see below) are relevant at younger ages. For instance, psychological studies suggest that students can develop a growth mindset at a young age, especially when guided by parents or teachers.
We identified three types of wise interventions:
Growth mindset interventions: Informational, teacher-led, or self-administered sessions emphasizing brain plasticity and the idea that student’s abilities can be developed through effort and perseverance.
Values affirmation interventions: Student reflections on the significance of their personal values, often through writing. This approach can be adapted to other formats (e.g., sign language for deaf students).
Grit interventions: Animated videos, case studies, and classroom activities focused on goal-setting and perseverance – often incorporating elements from growth mindset interventions.
Costs: Wise interventions have a very low cost, typically under $5 per student, with some as low as $0.20.
Key findings (wise interventions (evidence from primary and secondary schools):
As explained above, our review included evidence from both primary and secondary schools in low-resource contexts from countries of varying income levels. We identified some promising instances of positive effects from wise interventions, although the overall evidence is mixed.
Looking at four RCTs at the primary school level, growth mindset interventions had positive effects on academic outcomes in two studies in China but null effects in India and South Africa.
Looking at two RCTs of primary-level grit interventions in Turkey and North Macedonia, there is strong evidence that they have positive effects on academic outcomes.
At the secondary school level, growth mindset interventions in Peru, Bangladesh, and South Africa and values affirmation interventions in Nepal have had positive effects on academic outcomes.
While past systematic reviews indicate that wise interventions can have heterogeneous treatment effects (i.e., there are stronger effects for students facing academic difficulties when their environments offer greater “affordances”), the studies we reviewed did not identify adequate and consistent evidence of these dynamics.
Recommendations
While much of the evidence we reviewed is mixed, the notable positive findings – combined with the broader evidence base about SEL programming and wise interventions – allow us to make two key recommendations.
1. Combine climate- and skill-targeted practices in SEL programming
Why
An SEL-infused classroom, as implemented in climate-targeted interventions, can create supportive learning environments that improve literacy and numeracy competencies. Moreover, SEL activities can target the development of specific SEL skills that have been developmentally linked to academic growth (Aber et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2017).
How
While there is mixed evidence on how LIHC/HCT and skill-targeted SEL programs move academic outcomes, one promising “quick win” is the paradigm through which the IRC designs its programs:
Climate-targeted components: Rigorously train teachers to infuse SEL-related principles into their daily teaching of literacy and numeracy skills (e.g., through intensive initial training, monthly teacher learning circles, and ongoing classroom coaching).
Skill-targeted components: Provide additional field-feasible, adaptable, and teacher-led activities targeting students’ context-specific social and emotional needs (e.g., through bite-sized SEL kernels that target specific domains of SEL skills, such as Brain Games for executive functions and Mindfulness for stress alleviation).
Skill-targeted interventions do not always increase the impact of climate-targeted interventions on learning outcomes. However, the relatively low cost of skill-targeted games makes them versatile and easy to integrate into more intensive teacher training programs.
2. Experiment with wise interventions by replicating successful approaches in comparable contexts
Why
Wise interventions are extremely low-cost and “psychologically precise.” They have high potential with diverse student populations that share similar underlying psychological processes of motivation and learning.
How
Given the mixed findings across different settings, future wise intervention programs should be designed on a case-by-case basis, drawing on a reproducible theory of change and implemented with a careful adaptation of successful examples from comparable contexts (e.g., the examples highlighted above).
Two other considerations are important when designing wise interventions in new contexts:
Conduct pilots: Rather than designing large-scale wise interventions in new contexts, pilot studies should be conducted first. Pilots can be used to identify which groups (if any) should be targeted, since mixed evidence suggests that certain groups might benefit more from wise interventions (specifically, evidence suggests that students who are at risk for poor outcomes and more susceptible to psychological threats in learning settings are more likely to benefit). Pilots can also explore how vulnerability to psychological threats emerges within a specific context for a certain age group.
Consider the context: Wise interventions should always seek to assess whether a given context or school environment is conducive to generating positive impacts. The evidence suggests the presence of “affordances” is critical to supporting the effectiveness of wise interventions. As noted by Seidman & Cappella (2017), assessing affordances involves defining and measuring constructs related to social processes (i.e., norms, relationships, participation in activities); resources (i.e., human resources, physical resources, economic resources, temporal resources); and organization of resources (i.e., social organization, physical organization, organization of economic resources, organization of time).
At The Agency Fund, we are working with a range of organizations that help governments implement SEL interventions around the world. We are hopeful that – with additional adaptation and experimentation – the social sector will continue to explore how SEL programs can contribute to the next generation’s learning, flourishing, and sense of agency.
For more information, see the appendices to The Agency Fund’s Pragmatic Review for climate- and skill-targeted SEL interventions and wise interventions.
References
Aber, J. L., Tubbs Dolan, C., Kim, H. Y., & Brown, L. (2021). Children’s learning and development in conflict- and crisis-affected countries: Building a science for action. Development and Psychopathology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001789
Cipriano, C., Strambler, M. J., Naples, L. H., Ha, C., Kirk, M., Wood, M., Sehgal, K., Zieher, A. K., Eveleigh, A., McCarthy, M., Funaro, M., Ponnock, A., Chow, J. C., & Durlak, J. (2023). The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions. Child Development, 94(5), 1181–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13968
Deitz, R., Lahmann, H., & Thompson, T. (2021). Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Systematic Review. Dexis Consulting Group. https://www.edu-links.org/resources/social-and-emotional-learning-sel-systematic-review
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent Praise to 1- to 3-Year-Olds Predicts Children’s Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12064
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The Origins of Children’s Growth and Fixed Mindsets: New Research and a New Proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955
Jones, S. M., Barnes, S. P., Bailey, R., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Promoting social and emotional competencies in elementary school. The future of children, 49-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44219021
Seidman, E., & Cappella, E. (2017). Social settings as loci of intervention. In APA handbook of community psychology: Methods for community research and action for diverse groups and issues, Vol. 2 (pp. 235–254). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14954-014
Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115