ENSAYOS DE CAÍDA

The second objective of the study was to examine whether any positive effects of the parent and teacher social–emotional programs were evident six months later, into the next school grade for children. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the programs would have an ongoing maintenance effect following the intervention phase, with all groups maintaining their relative positions from that point. However, the findings across both teacher and parent ratings showed that all groups unexpectedly declined between the intervention and the follow-up phase. This did not support the second hypothesis. However, support was achieved for part of the hypothesis that predicted the final order of groups at the follow-up phase for both teacher and parent ratings (i.e., combined group, teacher group, parent group and control group). The unexpected skill decay at the follow-up phase will now be discussed, followed by consideration of the final order of experimental groups at the conclusion of the study.

The first reason for the decline in ratings observed at the follow-up phase may be due to a lack of skill practice and consolidation for children over the relatively short, fixed intervention time frame (nine months to complete the school program and 15 weeks to complete the home parent program). This may have led to a lack of maintenance of children’s acquired social–emotional skills over the six-month follow-up time phase. Had children continued with both programs over subsequent academic years, it is possible that social– emotional skill gains would have been cumulative and improvements clearly visible at further follow-up time points. This also supports Durlak et al.’s (2011) view that younger students may need more time to acquire more complex skills. A longer intervention time frame was unfortunately not possible in this study. The importance of the relationship between the number of social-emotional program lessons and outcome effects in the development of social–

101 emotional skills with children is emphasised by Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry and Samples (1998). These authors report that among social-emotional programs in which the primary goal is to improve students’ social–emotional skills and engagement in learning, the actual number of social–emotional lessons delivered is proportional to the positive student outcomes overall. In the context of the current study, this suggests that had more PATHS and parent lessons been applied to children over time, a greater consolidation of these skills may have been acquired.

Greenberg et al. (2003) further suggested that multi-component, multi-year time frame interventions are more likely to foster enduring effects on skills over time compared to short- term preventative interventions, which often produce short-lived results. A review of positive youth development programs by Catalano et al. (2002) concurred with this recommendation. That is, when these authors examined 25 programs that focused on school-age children and included social–emotional skill building components, programs that lasted for more than nine months were revealed to produce better outcomes for skill building than shorter interventions. Likewise, a multi-year, universal social-emotional program conducted by Bierman et al. (2010) examined the effect of PATHS over a three-year period. The findings demonstrated that well- implemented, multi-year social-emotional learning programs had significant and meaningful effects on the population rates of aggression, social competence and academic engagement in the primary school years. Similar results for the PATHS program were achieved in a study by Kam, Greenberg and Kusché (2004), in which long-term effects were sustained over three successive years following an initial 12-month intervention with primary school aged children. These authors findings demonstrate modest positive effects of sustained program exposure over time and additionally suggest that it is feasible to expect schools to complete all six PATHS modules with children over successive years.

A second reason for the decline in ratings at the follow-up-phase may be due to the children’s exposure to new teaching styles and academic expectations in their following school

102 year. Combined with new social challenges, this may have resulted in some uncertainty and therefore, a temporary regression in social–emotional skills as children adjusted. In response to their adjustment, new teachers in this academic year may have perceived these children’s social–emotional skills to be lower than they were. The new teachers also had a comparatively shorter time frame than teachers in the previous year in which to develop relationships with the children before being asked to rate their social–emotional skills (i.e., nine months for pre- primary teachers and four months for year one teachers). As such, year one teachers were likely to have less knowledge of each child’s existing social–emotional abilities and as such, may have rated children’s abilities lower. This illustrates Birch and Ladd’s (1997) claim that there is an important link between the quality of children’s relationships with their teachers and their subsequently assessed behaviours within the class environment. It should be noted that teachers’ levels of classroom experience overall in the study was not considered to be systematically different and therefore could not account for any differences or declines between the experimental groups.

Nonetheless, support was achieved for part of the second hypothesis, which predicted the final order of the groups at the follow-up phase. Combined and teacher groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements compared with other groups which may suggest a possible influence of school culture in School One. However, less decay was demonstrated in the combined group at the follow-up phase. This suggests the added value of environmental and family supports to classroom social–emotional programs, the possibility of skill generalisability and transfer between the home and class environments or the double dose benefits for children receiving two social–emotional programs. Ratings for children in the teacher group were the next highest, suggesting the effectiveness of teachers’ implementation skills for their class programs followed by ratings for children in the parent group. Ratings for

103 the control group were lowest, highlighting the effectiveness of a social–emotional program for children when compared with no program offered at all (van Lier et al., 2005).