This section will examine key research studies which have investigated the
effectiveness of the SEAL programme. As part of their evaluation of the Behaviour and Attendance Pilot, Hallam et al (2006) undertook some qualitative research
through interviews and questionnaires with Local Authority (LA) co-ordinators, staff in schools, parents and pupils in 16 good practice schools to investigate the impact of the SEAL programme. Hallam et al (2006) found that children showed improvements in social skills, relationships and awareness of emotion in others after the SEAL programme had been implemented, but they suggested that increasing age could have also contributed to these improvements. In the absence of a control group it is not clear whether other factors may have also impacted upon these findings.
However, children in Key Stage 2 were found to show less positive attitudes towards school and towards their relationships with teachers, and also had less positive perceptions of academic work after the SEAL programme had been implemented. Hallam et al (2006) question whether the increasing age of the children might have been underlying this change in attitude rather than the SEAL programme, because they found age-related differences generally with pupils becoming more negative in their attitude with age. They also found that girls showed more positive responses than boys in most of the measures.
Hallam et al (2006) also found that the SEAL programme had helped staff to understand their pupils, led to a better understanding of the importance of social,
emotional and behavioural skills for children, and therefore changed the way in which staff members dealt with incidents and listened to pupils. Their findings suggested that the programme had changed staffs’ behaviour (such as becoming more aware that they are role models for pupils), and had improved feelings of confidence in managing behavioural difficulties in pupils. For example, approaching issues in a calmer and a more positive manner, and raising the profile of staff members dealing with these issues such as teaching assistants (TAs) and lunchtime supervisors who were viewed as part of the team. Staff members felt that there had been a positive impact upon children’s behaviour and wellbeing, and that classrooms and
playgrounds were calmer.
However, some schools experienced difficulties convincing staff that the programme would work, and understanding of social, emotional and behavioural skills was found to be lacking in some instances. There were also some children with more significant needs and difficult home circumstances that had not benefitted from the programme and in some cases had ‘rebelled’ against SEAL, for example by making a name for themselves as the school ‘bully.’
Hallam et al’s (2006) study has been criticised for its lack of a control group, and potential bias in selection of teaching staff as the criteria are largely unspecified as to how the teachers were selected (Craig, 2009). The finding that pupils’ attitudes were less positive after the intervention, particularly for boys, does not support the success of the intervention. In the absence of a control group it is impossible to clarify
(2009) argues therefore that this study did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the roll-out of SEAL nationally.
Hallam et al’s (2006) evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot also highlighted that there was a high degree of variability in the way in which SEAL was being implemented in the 16 good practice schools in which they conducted the evaluation. For example; in some schools the SEAL programme was being delivered with particular year groups, whereas in other schools SEAL was delivered across the whole school. The degree to which SEAL was incorporated into the existing
curriculum, or given a specific focus within the school, and the frequency with which SEAL was being taught also differed significantly across schools. These kinds of variations in the implementation of SEAL make evaluating the programme across settings very difficult.
From analysis of this data, Hallam et al (2006) were able to identify factors which were perceived to be contributing to the success of the SEAL programme. These are described in Table 2.
Table 2: Factors contributing to the success of the SEAL programme
Factors identified which contribute to the success of the SEAL Programme (Hallam et al, 2006)
1. The commitment of the senior management team.
2. Allowing sufficient time for quality staff training, and for staff to plan how SEAL is to be implemented.
3. Appointing a designated coordinator in school.
4. Funding to enable staff to visit other schools where SEAL is working well and to pay for support from the LA in the initial stages of implementation.
4. The focus on topics over a period of time such as a term or half term within a spiral curriculum so that children could really engage with the issues.
5. The adoption of a whole-school approach, everyone in the school working together (all staff, not just the teachers), consistency in language and approach to behaviour, and everyone in the school doing the same thing so that they can all relate to the issue being discussed.
6. The importance of Assemblies in reinforcing work in the classroom, motivating children, engaging parents, and showing the commitment and participation of head teachers.
7. Building on and integrating SEAL with existing work (for example, fitting in with existing PHSE work or Circle Time, and linking with national policies and
frameworks).
8. Involvement of parents in SEAL.
9. Signposting staff to other services to meet their own emotional needs as well as children’s emotional needs (the SEAL programme may highlight the emotional and social problems of some children that need additional support).
Humphrey et al (2009) highlighted the dearth of research investigating the practices, processes and the factors which are characteristic of the SEAL small-group
interventions (Wave 2 interventions). Through case studies in five primary schools identified as ‘lead practice’ by their Local Authorities, Humphrey et al (2009) were
able to develop a tentative model summarising the processes which are involved in the implementation of primary SEAL group interventions (represented in Figure 4). The model proposes linear and recursive processes involved in implementation of the small groups. For example; ground work and staff involvement are identified as important foundations which need to be in place in order for schools to be ready to implement the intervention. However, effective implementation and delivery
processes such as the experience and skills of the group facilitator, and the provision of rewards and reinforcement, can support the forming of robust foundations for future interventions.
Research conducted since SEAL programmes have been rolled-out across the country has tended to examine whether or not the desired outcomes have been achieved by taking measures before and after SEAL is introduced. Research has not been engaged to the same extent in investigating whether the important elements recommended by researchers such as Weare and Gray (2003) have actually been put into practise as part of the SEAL programme, and if so how.
Figure 4: An implementation process model for primary SEAL small group work (Humphrey et al, 2009; p. 225).
Research in the area of SEL interventions has primarily focused upon quantifiable outcomes, and whether the intervention leads to improved social skills or reductions in difficult behaviours (Humphrey et al, 2009; Shucksmith et al, 2007). Humphrey et al (2009) emphasise the importance of this kind of research in establishing whether or not the intervention is scientifically credible, in order for educators to be able to make evidence-based decisions about whether or not the desired outcomes are likely to be achieved through particular interventions. For example; the recently published Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project (2008) offers evidence about ‘what works’ for schools to decide upon interventions in response to a range of mental health needs. However, what is often missed in these studies is an exploration of what it is
about the intervention, the context in which it takes place and how the intervention is delivered in a real-life context, that leads to the outcomes measured.
Hallam et al (2006) have provided a fruitful starting point for theory development but have not attempted to develop the theory base further regarding the processes and mechanisms involved and how these interact in implementation in the same way as Humphrey et al (2009) have succeeded in doing with their analysis of small-group implementation processes. The Wave 1 intervention of SEAL involves far more complex processes than those analysed by Humphrey et al at Wave 2, which all interact at different organisational levels within a whole-school system, and across a range of individuals and contexts. As recognised by Hallam et al (2006), there are a range of differing models of implementation of SEAL, and it is unclear what it is about these models that is contributing to the outcomes measured. It is of limited use knowing that SEAL is effective if it is not known why it is effective, and what the mechanisms are that schools are using in order to effectively implement SEAL. The next section will describe research which has investigated more generally the factors impacting upon implementation of programmes targeting social and emotional skills, which therefore might also be relevant in the implementation of SEAL.