CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Shining the spotlight on the expertise of educators dedicated to students experiencing

underperformance resulted in interesting findings pertaining to the three research questions of

this study. As previously noted, this study adopts an asset orientation, so the findings are

specifically focused on practitioner identification of SEL factors of particular significance for the

positive development of students. Findings are organized and presented as they pertain to the

posed research questions, with themes delineated as sub-categories within each of these three

major areas:

 What, if any, social-emotional learning is noted as a target of the identified intervention

programs?

 What social-emotional factors do program educators describe as particularly significant to

the success of students in these intervention programs who had been experiencing

underperformance?

 When presented with research-identified SEL factors, which, if any, do intervention

program educators identify as impactful to the success of students experiencing

underperformance?

Findings
Research Question #1: What, if any, social-emotional learning is noted as a target of the

identified intervention programs?

For findings related to the first research query, all three data collection methods were

utilized: (a) analysis of publicly available documents coded to determine whether any SEL

factors were explicitly targeted as part of the intervention program design or implicitly included

within related program description references, (b) analysis of one of the questions on the survey
that was administered to participants which presented the modified EASEL SEL coding

framework categories and inquired of practitioners whether any of the SEL areas were

considered part of their intervention programs, and (c) analysis of interview responses from

program coordinators to a query asking them to describe their intervention program and coded to

determine if any SEL elements were targeted by the program design according to their

descriptions.

Analysis of publicly available documents--including websites, parent presentation

materials, and introductory letters--indicated SEL was not a point of emphasis in any of the

documents, whereas the academic skills and strategies that students would gain from the

programs were paramount. The implicit SEL references primarily centered on the cognitive

regulation category of the modified EASEL coding framework, such as organization and

meeting (academic) goals. Some interpersonal or emotional benefits were identified through

references to collaboration, social skills for success, and/or motivation. The most direct

references to SEL were part of background information provided on the AVID program, which

was the adopted program used as the basis for two of the intervention programs. The orientation

of all programs was development of academic skills.

Figure 9 captures some phrases with a social emotional context that emerged through

analysis of documents from the four participant programs. These phrases are sorted according to

categories from the modified EASEL coding framework. As indicated, cognitive regulation

references were present in the majority of the programs (75%), whereas half the programs had

references that could be construed as interpersonal or communalism. A bar graphic provides an

indication of the participant sources for identified qualities, with no numeral equivalency, given

this is qualitative data. The cognitive regulation references centered on the executive functioning
skill of organization. Collaboration and social skills were the focus of the two interpersonal

references, whereas the communalism references were implied within the documents, describing

aspects of the school more than the specific intervention programs. This emphasis on cognitive

Participan Interpersonal: Self-image/ Cognitive Regulation: Emotional Processes: Communalism:

t conflict resolution, Identity: attention, planning, self- emotional knowledge, bias/privilege awareness,
understanding social self-knowledge, regulation, critical thinking, empathy/perspective-taking, adapting to challenging
cues, cooperative/ growth mindset, cognitive flexibility emotional & behavioral contexts, community
prosocial behavior self-esteem, regulation connectedness, cultural
purpose responsiveness

A Collaboration Self reflection & implementing positive Motivational activities participate in extracurricular
(WICOR) actualization academic behaviors and community events
organization tools
social skills for redirect confusion, reflect service learning
success on learning
promote self-sufficiency
positive peer & work hard
group dynamics organization taught
/stressed.
condense/organize notes
B organize their approach to
studying.
organize and manage time
C address all aspects of school
community diversity
D Collaboration a structured college prep provide motivation
(WICOR) system, direct academic
support, school-wide
social skills for curriculum & rigor
success binder organization tools to
promote self-sufficiency.
an opportunity to review
material, redirect
confusion, and reflect on
learning
Work hard to set and meet
academic goals

Document Analysis: SEL in Program Design

Communalism
Emotional Processes
Cognitive Regulation
Self-Image/ Identity
Interpersonal

Participant A Participant B Participant C Participant D

regulation appears well-aligned to program document emphasis on academic skills.

FIGURE 9 CHART OF INTERVIEW RESPONSE REGARDING PROGRAM DESIGN

 Analysis of survey responses by practitioner participants to the question on program

goals also indicated a very narrow focus regarding SEL factors, with half of the program

responses noting cognitive regulation and half noting self-image/identity as aspects the

intervention programs targeted for student development. Figure 10 captures the survey question

as it was asked along with responses. It should be emphasized that respondents could have

chosen more than one response (“select all that apply”), yet none did so.

Practitioner Survey:
SEL in Program Design
Interpersonal
Cognitive Self-Image;
Values Regulation;
Perspective 50; 50% 50; 50%
Self-Image
Cognitive Regulation
Emotional Processes
Communalism

Identify the competency areas that includes aspects your intervention program targets for student development, if
any. Select all that apply.

Interpersonal: conflict resolution, understanding social cues, cooperative/prosocial behavior 0.00%/0

0.00%/0
Values: ethical, performance, civic, intellectual
0.00%/0
Perspectives: gratitude, openness, optimism, enthusiasm
50.00%/2
Self-image/ Identity: self-knowledge, growth mindset, self-esteem, purpose
50.00%/2
Cognitive Regulation: attention, planning, self-regulation, critical thinking, cognitive flexibility

Emotional Processes: emotional knowledge, empathy/perspective-taking, emotional & behavioral 0.00%/0

regulation

Communalism: bias/privilege awareness, adapting to challenging contexts, community connectedness, 0.00%/0

cultural responsiveness
0.00%/0
None of these areas or sub-areas are included in program design

FIGURE 10 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

 Interviews with program coordinator participants included a query to describe the

program. References to SEL were still muted when explaining the program design and purpose.

These descriptions emphasized the academic aspects of the program, though more SEL aspects

emerged than in the document analysis and survey responses. Participants either failed to

reference SEL as a targeted area for development or did so in a vague, broad manner which

emphasized SEL as an aspect of the program but not its primary purpose. If SEL factors

emerged within the description, cognitive regulation remained the primary area of SEL

emphasis, noting that the intervention programs were intended to help students with “how to do

school.” Figure 11 provides a sample of program descriptor excerpts from the interviews with

program coordinators, along with a graph categorizing the comments to the coding framework

categories. SEL references are highlighted. A bar graphic accompanies the descriptors to

capture responses by participants.

Practitioner Interviews: SEL in Program Design

Communalism
Emotional Processes
Cognitive Regulation
Self-Image
Perspective
Values
Interpersonal

Participant A Participant C Participant D

Program descriptions by Program Coordinators in Interviews

A We take these kids who we know have the ability to run with honors and AP classes with extra layers of support, and we
teach soft skills of how to play school because for lack of a variety of reasons, most of which are out of their control, they
just don't have those layers of support at home the way that your classic honors and AP kid would.
B Assisted is more of a preventative measure for a lot of our kids, whereas supported becomes super at-risk, major
intervention….. They're not going to self-advocate, they don't have solid executive functioning. They probably have social-
emotional needs, and they want to do well, because in the past the problem has come where the teachers are like, "Well,
they're not coming to me to ask for help." They're not going to. That's why they're in this study hall. You have to go sit with
them and force them to work with you. . . . And then the goals are: determine the area of student need. Is it academic,
executive functioning, behavioral, or social-emotional? Then set a measurable goal or goals for the kids. Execute them,
 Program descriptions by Program Coordinators in Interviews
progress monitor and keep a communication loop with the IST so that everybody can be involved. So I gave them some
sample goals, and they are smart goals. They have to say what the student is going to do, who their check-in person's going
to be, how they're going to measure it, and then how frequently. This was the hardest part to get people to see that you need
these different components.
And then the structure of the study halls is really important. So, kids are assigned to a mentor teacher and they spend the first
15 minutes with this person. While they're with that person they do a sign-my-notebook check-ins, weekly grade checks,
goal progress, mini-lessons on executive functioning, SEL check-ins, organization of materials or lockers, just that kind of
general maintenance. Then, based on the child's needs for the day, for the week, for their goals, the mentor teacher sends
them to a specific content or support teacher within that study hall. So, if they have a math test coming up, and they're having
math goals, for the 35 minutes remaining, they go and work particularly with a math teacher. . . . What we're going to do now
is the instructional support teams are going to give this per period and see, okay, so we've got kids in a period seven assisted
study hall who have areas of need in self-advocacy and these are the kids. Or, school refusal, and these are the kids. And
then, once a week, I'll push in and run groups for those particular areas of need, or if it makes more sense to do it this way,
push in and do individual check-ins with the students.
C Bubble, we consider like the ones that are like borderline, born average but could maybe use a little bump. ….Really, she's
just helping provide strategies and practice. . . . . We focus on at that time more of basic skill practice. . . . . The other thing
that we did last year was we had the bubble kids go to west for tutoring after school with the high school kids. Teachers went
too to help in oversee and maybe assist the high school students as well.
D teach to them the hidden skills of how to do school so note taking, organization, time management, public speaking, learning
how to ask good questions in class. Those soft skills that you hope some parents teach but when you are maybe the person
who is taking care of all your siblings while your parents work there's not those opportunities to learn those skills. You have
them, we just have to bring them out to you.
FIGURE 11 PROGRAM DESCRIPTORS FROM INTERVIEWS

A noteworthy point of tension involves descriptions of SEL by participants in interviews

not correlating to SEL within program descriptions from public documents. For example, the

coordinator for program B included a detailed description of how SEL was identified as an area

for targeted interventions in interviews, yet the only reference to an SEL quality in numerous

program documents was to organizing time and organizing approaches to studying. Even the

references in the interview and in materials used to orient teachers to the intervention program

(which were not publicly available documents) referenced SEL as a broad area rather than

identifying targeted skill areas within SEL. Clearly, the practitioner descriptions of SEL in the

program are not aligned to public documents that overwhelmingly emphasize academics.

The intersection of these three data tools suggests that the intervention programs only

minimally targeted SEL skills, if at all, while the primary focus of the programs was academic in

nature. The identified SEL skills being targeted were closely aligned to the cognitive regulation

area, which can include attention, planning, self-regulation, critical thinking, and cognitive
flexibility but was identified in this study as focused primarily on the executive functioning skill

of organization. Though some self-identity and emotional aspects also emerged in surveys and

interviews, they were not identified as targeted areas of the intervention program in program

descriptors. Evidence suggests intervention program designs emphasized academic skills with

an emphasis on organization and an implied benefit to collaboration and identity development.

Research Question #2: What social-emotional factors do program educators describe as

particularly significant to the success of students in these intervention programs who had

been experiencing underperformance?

Unlike program descriptions, which identified few targeted SEL factors, SEL deemed

“significant” to the positive development of students by practitioners was much more populous.

Interviews with intervention program coordinators were utilized to gather data for this essential

question. Through open-ended questioning, these coordinators of intervention programs were

asked to identify what, if any, SEL elements were particularly significant to the positive

development of students in the program, students who had been identified as experiencing

underperformance. A variety of SEL qualities emerged through these interviews, including an

emphasis on cognitive regulation which aligned well with the emphasis in program descriptions.

However, otherwise unnoted SEL aspects gained new prominence in these interviews.

Specifically, (a) relational capacity, (b) attention to student experience, and (c) student self-

confidence, advocacy, & help-seeking through questioning emerged as significant aspects of

SEL that positively impacted the development of students in the intervention programs

Relational Capacity
A We have a lot of heart to heart meeting…they know their teacher very well and there's a great level of rapport and trust ….
Building relationships. Absolutely. They would say that is important.
The ability to work with adults in a manner that would be productive for both parties.
A lot of interpersonal relationships
We become so close with our students…. Because our students feel so comfortable talking to us, we learn a lot more.
B I showed (teachers) some resources that they already have access to get to know their kids, because it's really important that
 Relational Capacity
they know the kids in their mentor group very well.
(It’s) about teacher connection.
C I feel like they have and they're very respectful, but yet they still disagree and they debate. They have good conversations
and talks and then I see them helping each other as well.
learn about conflict and different conflict situations, what you would do, how you would react, how you’d resolve things.
how to communicate with each other, the appropriate ... I think sometimes the kids don't understand boundaries very well.
D I believe the relational capacity that we build within each XX class is above and beyond what a normal student will get …
…what's the next word they use is family. ..it's a shared sense of purpose that I'm going to support you, you support me.
students really feel a familiar bond to (their teachers). It's not uncommon for (teachers) to get phone calls day and night or on
weekends. …It's a level of I know I have somebody I can talk to.
A lot of our activities involve interacting and working with peers . . . because that builds a leadership role. It also starts to
really kind of cement those kids working together and really bonding over homework and over class work . . . .
… they know it's a caring environment, they know they have friends…. We're fairly diverse in terms of what we do and to
see those friendships where there may have not been before based upon, "Well you're with that crowd and I'm with this
crowd and we don't cross paths, it's not that it's intentional but I think it happens and I think that allows for students then to
find more friends and be able to understand where you're coming from versus your culture versus my culture and stuff like
that. That's what builds family really quick.
If somebody's having a relationship problem the whole class is in helping or at least knows about it because it's that kind of
bond. They fight like cats and dogs. It's a true family but the shared celebrations when somebody succeeds or gets a college
scholarship.
. . . they're asking for the help and so if you, once again if you have a sense of family, your family's non-judgmental for the
most part so okay, everybody sitting at a table has a point of confusion, it's just not our turn yet. We're all in this together.
I think that relational piece is just, and that's what XX’s always been about is being that place where students can feel
respected and students can feel like they're heard.
One of the most emphasized attributes was relational capacity, which might be

categorized as “interpersonal” or even “communalism” on the coding framework. Coordinators

emphasized the importance of the relationship with teachers, so a sense of trust and caring was

established. The relationship with peers and conflict resolution also emerged in several program

interviews including a sense of “family” that was emphasized among the students in the

intervention program. All of the program participants included numerous comments identifying

the relational aspects of the program, most akin to the interpersonal area of the coding

framework. Figure 12 provides a sample of interview comments regarding relational aspects

identified as important aspects to students’ positive development.

FIGURE 12 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

The importance of this relational aspect was further emphasized as participants noted the

important role of additional attention students received from teachers. Some programs noted that

teachers were provided time to discuss individual students and their circumstances. Several

programs noted how really knowing the student and what might be happening in the student’s
world appeared a strong factor in promoting student success. This attention aspect, similarly

rooted in relationships, also seems most appropriate to the “interpersonal” category of the coding

framework. Figure 14 captures some of the interview comments that reflected this attention

factor:

Attention to Students
A They have to sit in the front of the class. They have to introduce themselves to their teachers. The teachers know that if
they slip for any reason, they can talk to the (intervention) teacher and (that) teacher is going to follow up with them.
They have to trust their teacher. ….But at the end of the day, that's the person that's in your corner.
B …how we document student growth and just general information about the kids in a way that the instructional support
team and the people in the study hall have access to it. We did it through Google. They share a folder on each kid.
Yeah, and during that time the teachers will have kind of a PLC-esque time to share, like, "Here's how I've been doing
my mentor group, what can I steal from you, how have you been doing yours?" Because they don't have time to ever
meet with each other….
C I just think the whole dynamic of our district is we know all the kids.
I think it's a strength because if you can teach the kids how to do this, well how to read people in general, it's helpful
when you're working as a team, how to identify certain strengths in people. Then that's how you can work most of that
together
I think they actually thrive on sometimes they need extra attention, some more than others. I feel like because of our
classes, we're able to do that for them.
D (The teachers) try to meet every month. Not that we talk about every kid but sometimes we have to because Johnny's
dad's back in jail again and mom is working three shifts and he hasn't been to school in four days because he's doing
other things. Who do we need to pick up. They have more eyes on them and when they have more eyes on them it's
easier to help to avoid conflict or find conflict that's going to happen.
I think having those students know that there's a bunch of people looking out for you or maybe they're oblivious to that
but there's always going to be a set of eyes so they don't fall through the cracks. That's what's made those students also,
it's that level of support that's made them successful.
I think right. I think when we try to work with students in school who struggle for whatever reason, more people who
can kind of look at different perspectives. Maybe you and I could talk about at home but you and somebody else can
talk about school and so it's really a team approach.
FIGURE 13 INTERPERSONAL RESULTS

In addition to these interpersonal aspects, it was also apparent that aspects of self-

identity, self-confidence, growth mindset, and help-seeking were important to the positive

development of students. The two AVID-aligned programs were particularly articulate regarding

the importance of students learning to identify what they knew and what they needed to know to

address knowledge gaps through effective questioning techniques. The ability of students to

have a strong self-identity to take on challenges and seek help were consistent with a growth

mindset perspective, another important aspect of student positive development which was

identified in a majority of programs (75%). In turn, self-advocacy was identified as an important

SEL factor across all four programs. Figure 14 reflects a sampling of interview comments that
aligned to help-seeking and self-confidence towards self-advocacy. These elements align to the

“self-image/identity” category on the coding framework, which specifically notes self-

knowledge, growth mindset, self-esteem, and purpose as indicators.

Growth mindset/ Asking questions / Seeking help

A "What is my question? What have I already done? Here are my steps. Here is where I am stuck." That bottom piece is
what we call the point of confusion.
We do a lot of questioning strategies in how to ask questions rather than just, "How did you get this?" They're much
more in depth
The ability to learn how to question in a higher level of understanding. It's more how did you come to this conclusion
rather than-
B ----
C The growth mindset
D where we practice higher order thinking and thinking questioning skills and stuff like that for the people asking the
questions but it's also then the presenter not only saying I have a confusion please help me out but it's that dialogue back
and forth.
They're asking for the help and so if you, once again if you have a sense of family, your family's non judgmental for the
most part so okay, everybody sitting at a table has a point of confusion, it's just not our turn yet. We're all in this
together.
They know how to figure out what they need to ask, they're used to asking for it.
It's not, "I just don't know," it's, "I don't know here. I know all of this," and so we always try to start with the positive.
What do you know not where do you start?

Self Confidence / Take Risks/ Self-advocate

A They know that they're not going to take the easy way out because they're sometimes also a marginalized population….
The understanding that you have to do a little bit of self-advocating in a manner wherein adults understand what you
need.
B Personal identity
Self-advocacy
C Having the opportunity to take risks would be the biggest.
To take a risk like that to have a voice, they have to feel comfortable.
D I want you to be able to practice that and practice it at an uncomfortable level because you may have never taken an
honors class before ….but you need to be able to practice that and then be able to see that oh, I'm holding my head above
water because I'm using these skills …. They’ve got to believe and that belief is in the grade. That's the affirmation of
their hard work.
It's a confidence builder kind of thing. When they have that confidence, that's a game changer for them because then they
don't sit on the sidelines any more. They ask the questions or they confront problems because they are confident in the
ability to be heard.
(Narrative of student self-advocating to go to college despite cultural/familial barriers.)
FIGURE 14 SELF-IDENTITY, CONFIDENCE & ADVOCACY

In addition to these SEL factors, academic skills continued to be identified as important

to the positive development of students and some aspects of these academic skills included SEL

elements that could be identified as “cognitive regulation.” As a reminder, within the coding

framework, cognitive regelation includes attention, planning, self-regulation, critical thinking,

and cognitive flexibility. It should be noted that “attention” in this context does not reference the

attention a student is receiving from teachers, but the student’s ability to focus attention on

learning goals/tasks. Cognitive regulation is the SEL category on the coding framework most

closely aligned to the descriptions of programs, as noted in findings related to our first research

question. Participants identified SEL factors that could be described as organization, goal-

setting, responsibility, critical thinking, and engagement as part of the interviews. A sample of

interview comments that reflected cognitive regulation are provided in Figure 15:

School Soft Skills / Executive Functioning

A teach soft skills of how to play school
I never used to teach my kids how to take notes or how to read a book. That was just something that was assumed, so now
we do that.
Organization is a really big deal…. Organization is huge for them.
B Study strategies
Note-taking/ Organization
Use of technology & etiquette
C the teachers teaching students how to set goals, how to be independent, how to reach your goals.
In order for them to be successful, they have to be responsible. They have to be able to problem solve.
Stop, think about what you're doing, reflect or making them responsible for some identifying one or two behaviors is what
we've done recently. Then just reminding or having that student, they have to take control of that or they're not going to be
able to change those types of behaviors.
D note taking, organization, time management, public speaking, learning how to ask good questions in class.
embed, focused note taking, higher level thinking questions, student engagement.
W-I-C-O-R which basically stands for writing inquiry collaboration organization and reading.
If you have to think about it, that's using your noodle and then if you can think about it and create it that's kind of the
doodle.
We put that on some of our Avid t-shirts, google, noodle, doodle.
that speaking part and that asking question part and the note taking part and all that are going to come together
Having the ability to learn how to speak I think is, that to me is another game changer right there.
FIGURE 15 SCHOOL SKILLS/ EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING

Thus, intervention program educators identified important academic-related skills within

the cognitive regulation category of SEL such as critical thinking, self-regulation pertaining to

organization and responsibility, as well as planning via goal setting. Veering from the articulated

program design, these educators also identified the importance of building student relationships

with teachers and peers, giving additional attention to student progress and circumstance, as well

as practices to promote student self-identity, confidence, and advocacy as evident in adoption of

a growth mindset, help-seeking, and effective questioning. These SEL practices were
specifically identified as having a positive impact on the development of students in the

intervention program experiencing underperformance, yet most of these areas were not a point of

emphasis in the document articulation of program design. Figure 16 provides an overview of the

participants who identified SEL factors in interviews as categorized using the coding framework.

Participant Interviews: Valuable SEL Factors

Communalism
Emotional Processes
Cognitive Regulation
Self-Image
Perspective
Values
Interpersonal

Participant A Participant B Participant C Participant D

FIGURE 16 OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEW-IDENTIFIED SEL BY PARTICIPANTS

Research Question #3: When presented with research-identified SEL factors, which, if any,

do intervention program educators identify as impactful to student success?

The third research question is focused on how intervention program educators self-

identify SEL factors that are particularly impactful to the positive development of students when

presented with a variety of SEL indicators. Certainly during an interview one might expect that

intervention program practitioners would identify prominent aspects of SEL that they consider

valuable, but it is also likely that those educators would not have an opportunity to think of the
full spectrum of SEL elements and be able to offer oratory on all of the ones they have found to

be of particular importance to the positive development of students. Therefore, following the

interviews, these practitioners were provided with the coding framework of various SEL areas in

an e-survey. First, they were allowed to identify the one(s) SEL area they found most valuable

to the positive development of students in the intervention program and thus experiencing

underperformance. Then, each area was broken down further into sub-areas and the practitioner

participants were able to identify if any of the sub-areas were considered particularly valuable to

the positive development of students experiencing underperformance.

These sub-areas were based on the sub-areas provided in the EASEL coding schema,

with the addition of the category of Communalism as that area surfaced as an area lacking in a

critique of the EASEL coding framework. As noted earlier, the EASEL framework was

developed with the intent of bridging the nomenclature divide that can exist when examining

different SEL initiatives. The examination of sub-areas in the survey was intended to provide the

practitioners with a more specific manner of identifying SEL aspects of particular importance in

the positive development of students. It should be noted that within the EASEL coding

framework, even these sub-areas are further broken down into additional sub-categories, though

the additional break-downs were not utilized for this study.

Figure 17 provides color-coding of compiled results. When provided with seven general

categories of the coding framework, half of the participants chose self-image/identity while one

chose communalism and one chose values. Interestingly, when provided with the general SEL

categories, no one chose cognitive regulation, which is most aligned to the intervention program

descriptions. It is also interesting that participants identified a much broader array of SEL areas

of importance when provided more detailed sub-areas.

 Survey Result Summary
Which, if Participant Surveys:
any, of the following Valuable
Self-image/Identity SEL Factors
competencies do you find particularly helpful to the
100% positive development of students experiencing under-performance? (Please select any/all that apply.)
80% 1. Interpersonal: conflict resolution, understanding social cues, cooperative/prosocial
0.00%/0
60% behavior
40% 25.00%/1
2. Values: ethical, performance, civic, intellectual
20%
0% 0.00%/0
3. Perspectives: gratitude, openness, optimism, enthusiasm
Interpersonal

Values

Perspective

Self-Image

Cognitive Regulation

Emotional Processes

Communalism
50.00%/2
4. Self-image/ Identity: self-knowledge, growth mindset, self-esteem, purpose

5. Cognitive Regulation: attention, planning,

General Survey Query
self-regulation, critical thinking, cognitive 0.00%/0
Sub-Area Survey Queries
flexibility

6. Emotional Processes: emotional knowledge, empathy/perspective-taking, emotional 0.00%/0

& behavioral regulation

7.
Communalism: bias/privilege awareness, adapting to challenging contexts, 25.00%/1
community connectedness, cultural responsiveness
Notes:
Overall: When participants were asked about general areas helpful to positive development of
students, the following factors emerged
 Bold in black indicates at least half of respondents identified the general area.
 Underlined indicates at least one respondent identified the general area.
Sub-Areas: However, when participants were asked about sub-areas within the general categories,
additional SEL factors emerged:
 Orange italics in bold indicates a sub-area ALL respondents identified as “particularly helpful”
when queried about elements within the sub-area.
 Orange italics indicates sub-areas the majority (75%) of respondents identified as “particularly
helpful to the development of students experiencing under-performance.”
 Black italics indicates a sub-area that garnered half of respondents.
FIGURE 17 SURVEY SUMMARY RESULTS

As evident from the Figure 17, when provided with sub-areas, a variety of interesting

SEL areas emerged as significant:

 All respondents identified conflict resolution/social problem-solving as of particular

importance to the positive development of students experiencing underperformance.

 A majority (75%) identified self-esteem and two areas in communalism—adapting to

challenging contexts and community connectedness—which have some overlaps with the

relational aspects previously identified and categorized as “interpersonal.” A majority of

 participants also identified two areas under values—ethical and performance values—when

those sub-areas were broken down into additional detail. Using the coding identifiers,

ethical values was articulated as “compassion; courage; gratitude; honesty; humility;

integrity; justice; respect,” while performance values were described as “confidence;

determination; motivation; perseverance; resilience; teamwork.” Both of these areas

resonated as particularly important to the majority of participants.

 Half of participants also identified the following SEL factors: gratitude, optimism,

enthusiasm/zest (all categorized as Perspectives), purpose and self-efficacy/growth mindset

(identified as Self-image/Identity Competencies), attention control, cognitive flexibility, and

critical thinking (categorized as Cognitive Regulation), and emotional/behavioral regulation

(categorized as Emotional Processes). This broad spectrum of SEL elements emerged as sub-

areas allowed for the drilling down to more specific SEL areas of focus.

A more detailed report on survey results may be found in the Appendix.

Though the survey tool was designed as a convergent quantitative data collection tool for

comparison with data collected qualitatively through interviews, the low number of participants

in the study (4) currently makes the results too low for statistical analysis regarding a correlation

of significance. There are, however, two clear findings statistically evident from analysis of this

study: All participants identified a broader range of significant SEL factors than self-identified

as present in their intervention program design. Survey data from this sample supported the SEL

factors identified in the interview findings (research question #2), but expanded upon those

results with additional detail and identification of additional factors.

Summary
 Data from the three data collection tools indicates that intervention programs are publicly

oriented towards academic skills with a correlating inclusion of cognitive regulation skills

associated with academic achievement such as organization. Though acknowledging the

importance of these executive functioning skills, program coordinators, through both interviews

and survey responses, strongly indicated that other SEL skills are more impactful to the positive

development of students experiencing underperformance. Interpersonal skills and closely

associated communalism represented an SEL emphasis particularly valuable to the positive

development of their students. Conflict resolution, connectedness, adapting to challenging

contexts, having a sense of family with other students, and being in relationship with their

teachers were all aspects of this relational capacity strongly represented and captured in the

category interpersonal skills. Another SEL focus strongly indicated was self-image. In narrative

from the interviews and in survey responses, it was clear that development of a strong self-

identity was an important SEL factor in positive development. Emphasis on self-confidence,

risk-taking, self-advocacy, a growth mindset, and self-advocacy were all closely aligned to the

development of a strong sense of self. Surveys presenting an explanation of specific SEL

elements also surfaced the positive impact of ethical and performance values from a majority of

program coordinators. Though not acknowledged in program design with its emphasis on

academic outcomes, interpersonal and self-identity development are indicated as powerful SEL

factors in the positive development of students experiencing underachievement. The

development of relational capacity and a strong sense of self, supported the positive development

of students from the intervention programs who then experienced “success,” which included but

was not limited to academic achievement.