An evaluation of the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme:

promoting positive behaviour, effective learning and well-being in primary school

children
Author(s): Susan Hallam
Source: Oxford Review of Education , June 2009, Vol. 35, No. 3, Well-being in schools
(June 2009), pp. 313-330
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784564

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Oxford Review of Education

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford Review of Education |} ROUt|edge
Vol. 35, No. 3, June 2009, pp. 313-330 & Tay,wWfawisGr01

An evaluation of the Social and

Emotional Aspects of Learning
(SEAL) programme: promoting
positive behaviour, effective
learning and well-being in primary
school children
Susan Hallam*
Institute of Education, University of London, UK

The Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning programme (SEAL), designed to develop children's
social, emotional and behavioural skills in the primary school, was part of the Primary Behaviour
and Attendance Pilot funded by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and piloted
in 25 Local Authorities in the UK. The data collected in the evaluation of the pilot programme
included pre- and post-intervention questionnaires for Key Stage (KS)1 and KS2 children in 172
schools, questionnaires for teachers, teaching assistants and head teachers in 29 schools and
interviews with school staff and pupils in 13 schools. Of the school staff, 90% agreed that the
programme had been at least relatively successful overall. All responding headteachers, 87% of
teachers and 96% of non-teaching staff agreed that the programme promoted the emotional well
being of children, while 82% of teachers agreed that it increased pupils' ability to control emotions
such as anger. Only 48% of teachers agreed that it reduced bullying, although this rose to 74% of
non-teaching staff?suggesting that there was a greater impact on playground as opposed to class
room behaviour in this respect. The interview data indicated that the programme had increased staff
understanding of the social and emotional aspects of learning and helped them to better understand
their pupils, which changed their behaviour, enhanced their confidence in their interactions with
pupils, and led them to approach behaviour incidents in a more thoughtful way. Analysis of the
responses to the children's questionnaires revealed a range of complex relationships between age,
gender, questionnaire responses made prior to the pilot, and school factors which made conclusive
interpretation of the data problematic.

Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H OAL, UK.
Email: s.hallam@ioe.ac.uk

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/09/030313-18

? 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03054980902934597

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 314 S.Hallam

Introduction

Improving behaviour and attendance at school has been a key priority for the U
government since the mid-1990s. A number of initiatives have been developed to this
end including the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot which took place fro
2003 to 2005. The programme aimed to: enable schools in the pilot Local Authorities
(LAs) to access high-quality professional development on behaviour and attendance
issues, that was sustained and collaborative; develop and test out models of LA
support where behaviour and attendance were key school improvement issues; trial
curriculum materials to develop children's social, emotional and behavioural skill
and materials for school self-review and training in improving behaviour; implement
and evaluate small group interventions for children needing additional focused help
in this area; and promote the development of a common approach across the 25
participating LAs and other Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) LAs. The
pilot had four strands: a universal element providing professional development
opportunities to all schools in the pilot authorities (the CPD strand); a targeted
element providing focused support to schools where behaviour and attendance had
been identified as key issues (the school improvement strand); a universal element
providing curriculum work focusing on the social and emotional aspects of learning
for all children in pilot schools (the curriculum materials or SEAL strand); and a
targeted element providing group work for children needing extra help in this area,
and their parents/carers (the small group interventions strand). This paper focuses on
the third strand, the introduction of the SEAL programme. Details of the outcomes
of the other strands can be found in Hallam et al. (2006).
The Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot was one element of the Every Child
Matters: Change for Children agenda which aims for every child, whatever their back
ground or their circumstances, to have the support they need to be healthy, stay safe,
enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being.
The SEAL programme is based on curriculum materials which aim to develop th
underpinning qualities and skills that help promote positive behaviour and effective
learning focusing on five social and emotional aspects of learning: self-awareness,
managing feelings, motivation, empathy and social skills. The materials are organised
into seven themes: New beginnings, Getting on and falling out, Say no to bullying,
Going for goals, Good to be me, Relationships and Changes. Each theme is designed
to be implemented at the whole-school level and includes materials for a whole school
assembly and suggested follow-up activities in all areas of the curriculum. The
resources are organised for pupils in different year groups. The curriculum operates
as a spiral, each theme being revisited at each level. This paper sets out the findings
from the evaluation of the pilot programme with particular reference to the perceived
impact on the well-being of the children in the participating schools, although this
was not the primary focus of the initial evaluation.
There have been a number of reviews of initiatives similar in nature to the SEA
programme (Maxwell et al, 2008). Durlak and Wells (1997) reviewed 17
programmes which had as their aim the prevention of behavioural and socia

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 315

problems in children and young people living in the USA. They concluded that
programmes which modified the school environment, focused specifically on
meeting the needs of individual children and young people, and attempted to help
children and young people negotiate stressful transitions could have significant posi
tive effects. Similarly, Wells et al. (2003) reviewed studies evaluating a universal
approach to promoting emotional well-being and mental health and found positive
evidence for the effectiveness of programmes that adopted a whole-school approach,
were implemented continuously for more than a year, were aimed at the promotion
of emotional well-being and mental health, and focused on changing the school
environment. Green et al (2005) in a review of systematic reviews focusing on the
effectiveness of school-based interventions concluded that a promotional rather than
preventional approach was more effective, as were initiatives aimed at changing
the school environment rather than brief classroom-based individually focused
programmes.
Focusing on school-based interventions, Rones and Hoagward (2000) outlined a
range of factors which contributed to success, including consistent programme
implementation; the inclusion of parents, teachers and peers; the use of different
types of programmes such as those focused on behaviour, emotions, cognitive
processes and the environment; the integration of programme content into general
classroom curricula; and the adoption of age and developmentally appropriate
programme components. Taken together, the evidence from these reviews suggests
that multi-component and universal school-based programmes sustained over a
period of one year through the modification of the school environment as well as the
development of adaptive cognitive and behaviour strategies among children can be
effective in enhancing well-being (Maxwell et al, 2008). The SEAL programme
was developed drawing on the findings from earlier studies. While the curriculum
materials for the SEAL programme focused on developing the skills of the children,
the process of implementation was expected to bring about change in the school
environment.
The aim of the research reported here was to evaluate the effectiveness of the
SEAL programme in practice adopting multi-methods, quantitative and qualitative,
drawing on responses from school staff and children as suggested by Weare (2004).
The terms of reference for the evaluation were defined by the then Department for
Education and Skills (DfES). The findings reported here focus only on the SEAL
programme and do not include findings from the work with children with identified
behavioural problems which was undertaken in small groups, or from the School
Improvement or Continuing Professional Development strands.

Methodology
The evaluation adopted a repeated measures design (pre- and post-assessment) for
assessing the impact on the children, while the perceptions of school staff were
assessed following the implementation of the programme. There were no formal
control schools, although changes in attendance and attainment were compared

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
316 S. Hallam

across the programme as were teacher responses to the implementation of the

SEAL and School Improvement strands. The latter will be considered in the
discussion.
The rating scale questionnaires for pupils were designed to evaluate the impact
on pupils of the curriculum materials. Separate questionnaires were developed for
children in Key Stage 1 (aged 5-7 years) and Key Stage 2 (7-11 years), the former
being shorter and with a three-point rather than a five-point rating scale. The ques
tionnaires assessed pupils' social, emotional and behavioural skills, their perceptions
of classroom and school ethos and their attitudes towards school. They included
statements relating to the ability to recognise feelings, respond appropriately to
others' emotions, set goals, examine actions, understand other's feelings, and talk
about feelings. They also assessed perceptions of the learning environment in the
classroom, pupil/pupil relationships, pupil/teacher relationships, and feelings about
school. They were adapted for use with young children from existing measures,
including those developed to assess emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996), readi
ness for reintegration into mainstream school (McSherry, 2001), school and class
room ethos (Fraser & Fisher, 1982), and attitudes towards school (Ireson & Hallam,
2005). Their construction was undertaken in consultation with participating
Local Authority (LA) co-ordinators and LA project staff to ensure that the developed
measures were appropriate and valid. This also served to give LAs a sense of
ownership of the evaluation and facilitated contact with participating LA representa
tives. LAs were encouraged to use the developed materials as part of their own self
evaluations. Details of the full questionnaires can be found in Hallam et al. (2006).
Post-intervention questionnaires, including open questions and rating scales were
developed for and administered to headteachers, teachers and support staff to explore
their perceptions of the impact of the various elements of the project. Pupil question
naire data were collected from 159 schools participating in the SEAL pilot where
staff wished to include pupil data in their self-evaluations and 13 schools selected by
LAs on the basis of their willingness to participate and the recommendations of the
LA co-ordinators. In all of these schools pupils completed pre- and post-intervention
questionnaires. Staff in 29 schools, including those from the 13 schools selected by
the local authorities, also completed questionnaires.
Questionnaire responses relating to the SEAL programme were received from 29
headteachers, 84 teachers/teaching assistants, and 19 non-teaching staff. Not all of
the school staff made responses to the rating scale statements in the questionnaire.
Some respondents restricted their responses to the open questions. Children's
responses to the programme were assessed through comparison of their pre- and post
pilot responses to the questionnaires and the interviews undertaken in 13 schools
which had been selected as exhibiting 'good practice' by the programme co
ordinators. Questionnaire data were available for 4237 children at Key Stage 1 prior
to the introduction of the pilot initiatives and 2163 following it. The children were in
the same year group throughout the period of the research. Eighty-one schools
provided KS1 data. At Key Stage 2, 5707 children completed questionnaires prior to
the pilot and 3311 following the pilot. The data were from 78 schools.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 317

In consultation with the LA co-ordinators 13 schools were selected for visits. Five
of these schools were implementing the SEAL programme alone, eight alongside
other elements of the programme including a school improvement strand and small
group work. In the 13 selected schools questionnaire data were collected and
interviews were undertaken with staff and pupils. There was a full response rate from
staff and pupils who were present at the time. Interviews were undertaken with 13
headteachers, four other senior school managers, 34 teachers/teaching assistants, 19
parents and 102 children. The children were interviewed in small groups which varied
in size according to availability. Analysis of data collected from parents can be found
in the full report (see Hallam et al., 2006).
A consultative conference was held on completion of the field-work with represen
tatives of participating LAs to facilitate the validation, clarification and interpretation
of findings.

Findings
The context of assessing the impact on pupils

In considering the impact of the programme it is important to be aware of the context.

The schools participating in the pilot had been encouraged or invited to become
involved. In some cases, the LA offered the programme to all schools and in one LA
all schools were participating. Invitation to participate variously depended on school
size, catchment area, awareness of this type of approach, enthusiasm and commit
ment, strong leadership and capacity to sustain the initiative. Schools varied in the
extent to which they were implementing the SEAL curriculum. In some cases it was
restricted to particular year groups, in others the whole school participated. Imple
mentation was sometimes absorbed into the existing curriculum, but elsewhere had
a particular focus. In some schools it was taught every day, in others two or three
times a week. In most cases, schools were encouraged to use the materials as they best
fitted in with current activities. The nature of the pilot programme meant that it was
impossible to control for this variation in implementation.
The way that the initiative was disseminated to schools by the LAs varied: teacher
coaches, leading teachers, educational psychologists, behaviour support teachers or
Healthy School consultants led the introduction of the materials. The psychological
concepts underlying the programme were new and difficult to assimilate for some
school programme co-ordinators which led to less than optimal dissemination to staff
within their schools. Where training for school staff was inadequate, implementation
of the materials was problematic; many staff lacked understanding of the concept of
social, emotional and behavioural skills. Some participating schools were already
engaged in work relating to improving behaviour, while others had few procedures
and practices relating to behaviour in place. Despite these difficulties, the curriculum
materials were generally seen as easy to use and linked successfully with Personal,
Social and Health Education (PSHE), Healthy Schools, and existing local initiatives
and were well received by the children.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTCTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 318 5. Hallam

The children are currently looking at the unit Changes. It is very appropriate with them
moving up to secondary school. They have loved the gossip game and links were made
with rumours about going to secondary school. (Teacher)

Where training was inadequate and insufficient support was given, teachers felt over
whelmed by the volume of material and this created stress and increased workload
leading to inappropriate implementation of the programme. Despite this, 90% of the
responding teachers indicated that the programme had been at least relatively
successful.

Perceived impact on children's well-being and social, emotional and behavioural skills

Headteachers, teachers and non-teaching staff indicated their level of agreement with
a range of statements relating to the children's well-being and social and emotional
development following implementation of the programme. All of the headteachers
who completed the rating scale section agreed that the programme had promoted the
emotional well-being of the children, and that it had engendered positive attitudes
towards school. Eleven out of 13 agreed that it had raised children's confidence, nine
out of 13 that it had improved their social skills and nine out of 12 that it had
improved their communication skills. Forty-eight percent of teachers responding to
the rating scale believed that the programme had reduced bullying, 87% that it had
promoted children's well being, 81% that it had increased pupils' ability to control
emotions such as anger, 67% that it had improved children's ability to make friends,
and 73% that it had improved children's ability to resolve conflict. Of the non
teaching staff, 74% indicated that it had reduced bullying, 95% that it had promoted
the emotional well-being of pupils and 84% that it had improved pupils' social skills
(see Table 1). It is interesting that those staff responsible for supervising the chil
dren's behaviour out of the classroom perceived a much greater impact on bullying
than the teachers. This may be because bullying behaviour is more common in the
playground than in the classroom environment.
The data from the interviews supported that from the questionnaires. The
programme appeared to be particularly successful in enhancing children's well
being. The bullying topic led schools to change their policies and made staff and
children more aware of bullying. The programme had an impact on the children's
developing awareness of their own feelings, ability to manage them, and capacity for
empathy.
There is a definite change in the children as they move around the school. The first topic
that was addressed was the bullying topic and this has stopped all the minor squabbles that
take place with children. They seem better able to sort the issues out themselves. The chil
dren will talk to the teachers. It seems to have calmed some of the children down and
provided strategies for sorting out the problems. If children are finding things difficult they
know that they can talk to a teacher. The children in the Yr 4 class are playing better with
each other. They will report that they have enjoyed their playtime. (Teacher)

The interviews revealed that the children were perceived as being more supportive of
each other as a result of the programme, and relationships between them were

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 319

Table 1. Perceived impact on children's well-being, social, emotional and behavioural skills

Don't Strongly Strongly

The SEAL programme has been successful in: know disagree Disagre

Headteachers
62%
Promoting the emotional well being of pupils (8) 38% (5)
73%
Engendering positive attitudes towards school (8) 27% (3)
Raising self confidence 15% (2) 46% (6) 38% (5)
Improving social skills 31 % (4) 46% (6) 24% (3)
Improving communication skills 25% (3) 58% (7) 17% (2)
Teachers
Reducing bullying 23% (7) 29% (9) 48% (15)
Promoting the emotional well being of pupils 7% (2) 7% (2) 65% (19) 21% (6)
Increasing pupils' ability to control emotions 7% (2) 11% (3) 75% (20) 7% (2)
such as anger
Improving pupils' ability to make and keep 10% (3) 23% (7) 57% (17) 10% (3)
friends
Improving pupils' ability to resolve conflict 14% (4) 14% (4) 58% (17) 14% (4)
Non-teaching staff
Reducing bullying 21 % (4) 5% (1) 63% (12) 11% (2)
Promoting the emotional well being of pupils 4% (1) 85% (16) 11% (2)
Improving social skills among pupils 16% (3) 68% (13) 16% (3)
Note: Figures in brackets indicate the number of respondents

strengthened. They had a growing vocabulary to talk about emotions, took more
personal responsibility for their actions and became better at sharing, taking turns and
seeing things from the point of view of others. Staff also indicated that they were more
able to play co-operatively and interact with others of varying backgrounds and
cultures. Staff noted that the children were calmer, knew and understood school
values and had greater ownership of them and were more willing to be honest. There
also seemed to be an increase in self-esteem. Teachers reported that knowing that
they had to resolve things for themselves and take responsibility had changed
children's awareness and behaviour.

Perceived impact on attendance and behaviour

In the questionnaires and interviews headteachers gave mixed responses as to

whether the programme had had an impact on attendance, punctuality and exclusions.
Only one headteacher agreed that there had been a reduction in exclusions and some
suggested that there had been an increase in fixed-term exclusions as some children had
developed or strengthened anti-social identities in response to the programme.

There has been an increased number of fixed term, 2 or 3 days exclusions. That is a bit
worrying. I think it may be an increased awareness, perhaps clarification of what we
will tolerate and what we won't tolerate, which has probably come out of the SEAL
programme and I think every one of them has been for a violent or bullying incident.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 320 5. Hallam

We are now very clear about what we do. We have very clear and very well defined
sanctions for those children who do bully or are unpleasant to other people. (Head
teacher)

Table 2 sets out staff responses to the questionnaires regarding the children's
behaviour. Ten out of 13 headteachers agreed that behaviour had improved in the
classroom and eight out of 13 that it had improved in the playground. Ten out of
12 agreed that staff/pupil relationships had improved, and that levels of respect for

Table 2. Perceived impact on children's behaviour

Headteachers

The SEAL programme has been Don't Strongly Strongly

successful in: know disagree Disagree Agree agree
Improving the behaviour of pupils 8% (1) 8% (1) 8% (1) 53%
participating in the pilot in the classroom
Improving the behaviour of pupils 23% (3) 8% (1) 8% (1) 38%
participating in the pilot in the playground
Improving the behaviour of pupils across the 8% (1) 8% (1) 8% (1) 53%
schools
Improving staff pupil relationships among 8% (1) 8% (1) 76% (9) 8% (1)
pupils participating in the pilot
Raising levels of respect for people among 8% (1) 8% (1) 67% (8) 17% (2)
pupils participating in the pilot
Changing the learning climate in the 23% (3) 8% (1) 23% (3) 23% (3) 23% (3)
classroom
Improving motivation towards school among 8% (1) 8% (1) 8% (1) 61% (8) 15% (2)
pupils participating in the pilot
Teachers
Improving the working climate 3% (1) 38% (12) 52% (16) 7% (2)
Reducing the level of anxiety in the classroom 11 % (3) 32% (9) 50% (14) 7% (2)
Improving the behaviour of pupils in the 13% (4) 23% (7) 61% (19) 3% (1)
classroom
Improving the behaviour of pupils when out 10% (3) 39% (12) 48% (15) 3% (1)
of the classroom
Improving staff pupil relationships 7% (2) 3% (1) 25% (8) 58% (18) 7% (2)
Raising levels of respect for people among 13% (4) 3% (1) 19% (6) 58% (18) 7% (2)
pupils
Non-teaching staff
Changing the working climate in the school 11 % (2) 7 8 % (14) 11 % (2)
Improving behaviour generally in the school 16% (3) 74% (14) 10% (2)
Improving the behaviour of pupils in the 16% (3) 5% (1) 74% (14) 5% (1)
playground
Improving staff pupil relationships 21 % (4) 68% (13) 11 % (2)
Engendering positive attitudes towards 6% (1) 77% (14) 17% (3)
school among pupils participating in the pilot

Note: Figures in brackets indicate the number of respondents

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 321

other people had been raised. Motivation was reported to have improved by ten out
of 13. Fifty-nine percent of teachers agreed that the working climate of the school had
improved, 57% that the level of anxiety in the classroom had reduced, 64% that
classroom behaviour had improved, 51 % that behaviour outside of the classroom had
improved, 65% that staff/pupil relationships had improved and 65% that levels of
respect had risen. Of the non-teaching staff, 89% agreed that the working climate had
changed, 85% that behaviour had improved in school, 79% that it had improved in
the playground, 79% that staff/pupil relationships had improved, and 95% that
SEAL had engendered positive attitudes towards school among pupils. As reported
earlier the non-teaching staff perceived a greater change in behaviour than the
teachers.
In the interviews staff reported that the programme impacted positively on the
behaviour of the majority of children, but for a small minority more work was needed.
Most children developed an understanding of their own emotions and strategies to
deal with them. They were reported as wanting to be good, 'because there is some
thing at the end of it and they get a reward.' Pupils indicated that 'being good makes
you feel good' and described how 'people react better in a fight. Now they walk away
instead of getting involved' and how 'loads of people used to get really stroppy and
stressed but they are not now. Some people still do get stroppy but they know how to
calm down.' The extent of change in some schools was very marked:
There have been some very positive comments about the school and the children. A
supply teacher actually said that they wanted to return to the school because it was so
nice and friendly. In the past supply teachers would refuse to come to the school.
(Headteacher)

However, for some of the older children where behaviour patterns were well
established and had been learnt at home change was particularly difficult:
Overall, there have been changes in pupils' behaviour around school. With the minority,
no. This is 3 or 4 children out of the whole school. They have rebelled against the SEAL
programme. One saw this as an opportunity to make a name for himself as the bully. We
were all talking about the problems of bullies and he saw a role for himself as being the
bully. He said to an Ofsted inspector I am the bully of the school and was quite proud of
the fact. I don't think he would have done this before SEAL. He bullies outside and the
police are involved on a daily basis, he has an awful home background. Social services are
involved, health are involved. (Headteacher)

In the interviews relationships between teachers and pupils in the classroom were
reported to be better and calmer. Problems were discussed and solved. Teachers
listened to the children more and this was reported to create a friendlier atmosphere.
In the playground, the introduction of reward systems, time out areas, and the oppor
tunities afforded by the programme to discuss playground problems led to far fewer
children having to be disciplined by senior staff.

One of our more difficult boys came across to me in the yard and said please sir, Adam is
having a bit of trouble with some lads over there. I said 'What are they doing?' He said, 'I
think they called him a name.' I then said, 'What have you done about it?' He said, 'I have
told them to stop.' He said 'I am just letting you know.' That is something he would not

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 322 5. Hallam

have done prior to the SEAL programme. I really felt quite pleased about that. I thought
if he is doing that then it is happening elsewhere. (Headteacher)

Where the programme was implemented across the school, teachers and children
focused on the same issue at the same time. The assemblies reinforced work under
taken in the classroom. This whole-school focus was reported to lead to a better
working climate in the school.
Relationships have improved, there is a more professional climate within the school. Staff
and children are now more aware of how the school climate, relationships and feelings
affect behaviour and learning. We have raised our expectations of children's social and
emotional development across the school. (Headteacher)

Perceived impact on pupilsy work

Headteachers and teachers were cautious in their assessment of the impact of the
SEAL programme on school-work. Eight out of 13 headteachers who responded to
the rating scales agreed that it had improved concentration, while 44% of teachers
agreed that it had. The pattern of headteachers being more confident of its impact in
relation to school-work was seen through all of the responses (see Table 3).
In the interviews some teachers indicated that because the children were calmer,
their learning had been enhanced. Others commented that they were able to allocate
more of their time to those who needed academic help because they were spending
less time dealing with behaviour issues. Some teachers reported a calmer atmosphere,
children better able to focus on work and complete tasks more easily, better team and
independent working, improved confidence in speaking within the whole group, and

Table 3. Perceptions of the impact on school work

Don't Strongly Strongly

SEAL has been successful in: know disagree Disagre
Headteachers
15% (2)
Improving concentration on work 8% (1)
among 15% (2) 54% (7) 8% (1)
pupils
Raising the standard of learning achieved 25% (3) 8% (1) 8% (1) 50% (6) 8% (1)
Improving teacher assessment levels 37% (4) 9% (1) 27% (3) 18% (2) 9% (1)
achieved
Teachers
Improving concentration on work among13% (4) 3% (1) 41% (13) 41% (13) 3% (1)
pupils
Raising the standard of learning achieved 38% (9) 33% (8) 25% (6) 4% (1)
by pupils participating in the pilot
Raising the assessed attainment levels of 52% (13) 20% (5) 20% (5) 8% (2)
pupils participating in the pilot
Improving listening skills among pupils 10% (3) 40% (12) 40% (12) 10% (3)
participating in the pilot

Note: Figures in brackets indicate the number of respondents

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 323

a general improvement in speaking and listening skills, motivation, persistence and

attitudes towards work.

The pilot has had an impact on pupils' learning particularly with the Going for Goals with
the 'not giving up'. It fitted in well with the class topic of being independent learners and
thinking of other ways to do things. The attitude of the children towards their work is
better. (Teacher)

The children's perspective

In order to undertake analysis of the data collected from the pupil questionnaires
responses were summed into a smaller number of categories based on Cronbach
Alpha analysis (for details see Hallam et al. 2006). At KS1 the groupings were: Self
esteem and Motivation; Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others; Social
Skills and Relationships; Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers;
and Academic Work. The same groupings were adopted at KS2 but the grouping
Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others was broken down into three
groups: Perceptions of Own Emotions; Awareness of Emotions in Others; and
Awareness of Own Emotions. An additional grouping entitled Anxiety about School
Work was also created.

Age-related changes in questionnaire responses

Prior to the analysis considering the impact of the programme it was necessary to
establish whether there were any age related differences in responses which might
confound the analysis of change as a result of the programme. For this reason the
responses to each section of the questionnaire were analysed taking account of year
group. At KS1 no clear patterns emerged in relation to change in scores over time and
age or the interactions between them. At KS2 there were age-related changes in the
pre-intervention responses in relation to Awareness of Emotions in Others (a small
increase between Year 3 and 4); Social Skills and Relationships (a positive trend
across year groups); Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers (a
negative trend across year groups); and Academic Work (variability with a broadly
negative trend). The post-programme data revealed statistically significant age differ
ences in Self-esteem and Motivation (a generally negative trend); Social Skills and
Relationships (a positive trend); Attitudes towards School and Relationships with
Teachers (a generally negative trend with an upturn in Year 6); and Academic Work
(a generally negative trend with an upturn in Year 6).
The analysis comparing pre- and post-responses to the questionnaires revealed
some statistically significant changes at KS2 including Perceptions of own Emotions
(negative change), Awareness of Emotions in Others (positive change), Social Skills
and Relationships (positive change), Attitudes towards School and Relationships with
Teachers (negative change), and Academic Work (negative change). Overall, the
changes were very small. They also overlapped with age-related changes making it
impossible to determine beyond any doubt whether they had occurred as a result of

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 324 5. Hallam

the programme or simply as part of a more general trend occurring as children

progressed through school.

Gender differences

There were gender differences in responses to the questionnaire at both KS1 and KS2
(see Table 4 for details). At KS1 there were statistically significant differences in
responses to all of the categories both before and after the implementation of the
programme. At KS2 there were statistically significant differences in all categories
before and after, except in relation to self-esteem and motivation. With regard to
social skills and relationships there was no statistically significant difference after the
implementation. The boys showed a positive change whereas the mean for the girls
remained the same.

Table 4. Gender differences in pupils' responses

Mean Mean Mean Mean

Key Stage 1 score score score score
Figures in brackets indicated
maximum possible scores Girls pre Boys pre Sig Girls pos
Self esteem and motivation
14.2 (1717) 14.0 (1752) .0001 14.3 (1034) 14.1 (1033) .004
Emotions and awareness of 14.7 (1760)
15.0 (1699) .001 15.2 (1042) 14.6 (1031) .0001
them in self and others
18.4 (1705) 18.01 (1733) .0001 18.5 (1019)
Social skills and relationships 18.0 (1012) .0001
Attitudes towards school and 13.3 (1759)
13.9 (1698) .0001 14.0 (1035) 13.3 (1030) .0001
relationships with teachers
Academic work 7.4 (1719) 7.1 (1764) .0001 7.4 (1050) 7.1 (1047) .0001
Key Stage 2
Self esteem and motivation
22.0 (2607) 21.9 (2556) NS 21.9 (1640) 22.1 (1556) NS
(25)
Perceptions of own emotions 14.4 (2596) 13.6 (2539) .0001 14.4 (1627) 13.4 (1555) .0001
(20)
Awareness of own emotions 3.7 (2654) 3.6 (2605) .006 3.7 (1673) 3.6 (1605) .0001
(5)
Awareness of emotions in 3.9 (2651) 3.8 (2601) .0001 4.0(1670) 3.9 (1607) .001
others (5)
Anxiety about school work 6.5 (2623) 5.9 (2574) .0001 6.4 (1652) 5.8 (1589) .0001
(10)
Social skills and relationships 46.7 (2452) 46.1 (2432) .001 46.7 (1572) 46.3 (1481) NS
(60)
Attitudes towards school and 24.6 (2554) 23.2 (2506) .0001 24.3 (1610) 22.8 (1546) .0001
relationships with teachers
(30)
Academic work (45) 34.7 (2476) 32.7 (2428) .0001 33.9 (1570) 32.2 (1485) .0001

Note: Figures in brackets indicate sample size

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 325

Multiple regression analyses

To attempt to establish which factors had the greatest impact on post-programme

responses to the questionnaire, age, gender, questionnaire responses prior to the
introduction of the programme, and school were entered into a series of multiple
regression analyses on the post-programme questionnaire responses.
At KS1 Self-esteem and Motivation was predicted by prior score on Self-esteem
and Motivation and year group; Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others
by prior score and gender; Social Skills and Relationships by prior score, gender and
school; Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers by prior score,
year group and gender; and Academic Work by prior score and gender. Table 5 sets
out the details.
All of the analyses were statistically significant. However, none of the regressions
accounted for substantial amounts of the variance. In all cases responses to the ques
tionnaire prior to the programme were statistically significant predictors of responses
following the programme. School was only a significant predictor for Social Skills
and Relationships. At KS1 already acquired self-knowledge and attitudes were the
best predictors of responses following the pilot along with gender. Age as assessed
through year group was a factor in relation to self-esteem and attitudes, while school
was only important in relation to social skills and the beta weighting for this was very
small.
At KS2 the Multiple Rs obtained from the regression analyses for the post-pilot
responses were greater than at KS1 for Social Skills and Relationships and Academic
Work (see Table 6). In all cases responses made prior to the programme were the
most strongly predictive of responses made following the programme. Gender was
also a predictor for all responses except Social Skills and Relationships. At KS2
school factors made a contribution to the differences in variance for several
outcomes. This may relate to the way that the programme was implemented in
individual schools or the more general ethos of the school. A series of multiple

Table 5. Findings from KS1 multiple regression analyses

Beta Beta Beta Beta Regression Adjusted

weight weight weight weight coefficent R2
Prior score Year
Post on scale group Gender School
Self-esteem and Motivation .18 .09 .2 .04
Emotions and Awareness of .08 .12 .15 .02
them in Self and Others
Social Skills and Relationships .19 .09 .06 .23 .05
Attitudes towards School and .24 .06 .09 .27 .07
Relationships with Teachers
Academic Work .23 .07 .26 .07

Note: Only statistically significant weightings

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 KJ <J . ? ? <A>i,L<A,l t L

regressions on the questionnaire responses prior to the implementation of the SEAL

programme of the KS2 children suggested that the school was a predictor
children's responses prior to the implementation of the programme in relation
all of the elements of the questionnaire except Self-esteem and Motivation (s
Table 7). This suggests that school ethos and/or the catchment area from whi
schools draw their intake play a role in a range of social behaviours and attitu
exhibited by children.

Table 6. Findings from KS2 multiple regression analyses for data collected post the programm
implementation

Beta Beta Beta Beta Adjusted

Weight weight Weight weight R
Prior score Year
Post on scale group Gender School
Self-esteem and Motivation .33 .09 .03 .06 .35 .12
Perceptions of own Emotions .42 .09 .44 .19
Awareness of own Emotions .17 .03 .08 .19 .04
Awareness of Emotions in Others .16 .06 .18 .03
Anxiety about School Work .32 .12 .05 .36 .13
Social Skills and Relationships .42 .16 .46 .21
Attitudes towards School and .38 .11 .1 .44 .19
Relationships with Teachers
Academic Work .47 .08 .08 .09 .52 .27

Note: Only statistically significant weightings are reported

Table 7. Findings from KS2 multiple regression ana

Beta Beta Beta Adjusted

weight Weight weight R R2
Year
Pre implementation Group Gender School
Self-esteem and Motivation (NS)
Perceptions of own Emotions .04 .05 .001
Awareness of own Emotions .05 .06 .003
Awareness of Emotions in Others .03 .11 .04 .13 .015
Anxiety about School Work .13 .05 .14 .02
Social Skills and Relationships .07 .04 .07 .1 .009
Attitudes towards School and . 13 .15 .07 .21 .045
Relationships with Teachers
Academic Work .12 .16 .03 .2 .039

Note: Only statistically significant weightings a

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 327

Impact on the staff

Ninety-two per cent of headteachers agreed that the programme had improved the
skills of staff in promoting positive behaviour and improved their confidence. This
was supported by the responses from the teachers where 85% agreed that their skills
had improved and 91 % their confidence, while 71 % of teaching assistants agreed that
staff confidence had improved. Overall, the majority disagreed that management
time, stress and teacher workload had been reduced; 59% of teachers agreed that the
working climate in the school had improved and 57% agreed that the level of anxiety
in the classroom had reduced; 74% of the non-teaching staff agreed that the
programme had increased staff confidence in working with children whose behaviour
was hard to manage, 97% agreed that the programme had improved management of
behaviour and 74% that it had reduced staff stress.
The data from the interviews indicated that the programme had increased staff
understanding of the importance of social, emotional and behavioural skills for chil
dren and the need to develop them through explicit teaching. The programme helped
teachers to understand their pupils better and had an impact on the way the teachers
behaved as they became aware that they were role models for the children.
It has made me think very hard about how I talk to other people ... We are all role models
whether we like it or not. (Teacher)

Staff confidence in dealing with behaviour issues in the classroom was enhanced.
They are calmer and more positive. More confident in being able to deal with these
different situations. (Headteacher)

The SEAL programme enabled teachers to have a dialogue with pupils about
behaviour and refer to the issues raised in the SEAL materials.

It's given me strategies to deal with things, behaviour and emotional issues ... Having the
whole class focus helps to refer back to when there are issues. Behaviour issues were
recorded in a book and that still happens now. What has changed is that I now also include
the emotions of the child ... I have got a fuller picture. (Teacher)

Teachers were more aware of children's circumstances and realised that:

Children can't just forget what has just gone on and they do bring their baggage with them.

And
It has helped me get to know the children more and therefore I might be more tolerant and
understanding of their behaviours or idiosyncrasies. (Teacher)

Support staff developed an understanding of anger and the way that emotions can
override logical thought and determine behaviour. This led to better management of
behaviour. They tended to shout at the children less and understood that the children
needed to calm down, have time out to talk to an adult about the incident, work
through why it happened and what the consequences of their actions would be.
Schools reported that changes in lunchtime behaviour had a major impact on
school life.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
328 S. Hallam

There has been an impact on the deputy particularly at lunch time where she is not needed
as much by lunchtime staff. (Teacher)

Discussion
There are considerable limitations to the research reported here. The evaluation
of the SEAL programme was part of the evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and
Attendance Pilot and the measures utilised were devised to assess change across
each of the four elements of this programme. The focus of the intervention was to
improve behaviour and attendance?enhancing the well-being of the children was not
the prime concern. The measures themselves were required to be developed in
conjunction with those developing, monitoring and participating in the programme
which limited the extent to which the researchers had control of content. The school
participated voluntarily and were not selected randomly. Although interviews were
carried out with school staff, observations of the teaching of the curriculum materials
were not carried out directly. The evaluation was undertaken over a relatively short
time-scale, limiting the extent to which sustainability and long term impact could be
assessed. There was no formal control group, although comparisons were made
between teachers' and headteachers' responses to the questionnaires from the SEA
and School Improvement strands. The samples for these comparisons were relatively
small as a result of which there were few statistically significant differences. However
the headteachers implementing the SEAL programme reported statistically signif
cant stronger agreement that the SEAL programme engendered positive attitude
towards school, while teachers reported the strongest agreement in comparison with
other strands of the programme that the SEAL programme raised levels of respec
amongst pupils and reduced bullying.
While school staff were generally positive about the impact of the programme, i
may not have been the introduction of the SEAL materials per se which enhance
their perceptions of the children's behaviour and well-being but simply the focu
in the school on improving behaviour. The self-report data from the children were
difficult to interpret. There were a range of complex relationships between age,
gender, prior responses on the questionnaire, and school factors which all contributed
to children's perceptions of their emotions, self-esteem, social skills, attitudes towards
school and academic work.
There were clear gender differences in response to almost all of the measures. The
girls were consistently more positive in their responses at KS1 and in relation to all
categories except self-esteem and motivation, and social skills and relationships a
KS2. There is already extensive evidence indicating that the behaviour of boys tends
to be more problematic than that of girls and that their attainment levels tend to be
lower. The evidence presented here suggests that boys have more negative self
perceptions and attitudes towards school even in KS1, although their self-esteem and
motivation, and perceptions of their social skills and relationships improve durin
KS2. These gender differences need to be taken into account when future
programmes are implemented.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An evaluation of the SEAL programme 329

The regression analyses indicated a statistically significant contribution of the

school in predicting outcomes. At KS1 this was limited to a small weighting on social
skills and relationships. At KS2 the weighting was greater in relation to social skills
and relationships and school also predicted other outcomes. This was also the case
for the data prior to the implementation of the programme. There are several possible
interpretations of this which may interact with each other. It is possible that the SEAL
programme as implemented in individual schools had an impact. However, it is
equally possible that the more general ethos of the school was a factor, or indeed that
the nature of the school intake was responsible for differences in children's self
perceptions and attitudes.
A weakness of the programme was that it tended to consolidate the negative identity
of a minority of disaffected pupils. This meant that there was not a consistent reduc
tion in exclusions. It was reported that additional support would be needed to effect
change in these pupils. Some schools worked with small groups of pupils alongside
the main programme. This strand of the programme was evaluated separately and led
to some positive outcomes for these at-risk children (see Hallam et ah 2006).
The commitment of the senior management team was crucial in determining the
effectiveness with which the programme was implemented. This included allowing
sufficient time for staff training and planning, enabling staff to develop understanding
of children's social and emotional development, valuing teaching of the programme,
and facilitating the integration of the materials into schemes of work for Personal,
Social and Health Education in the long term. There were few practical barriers
to the implementation of the SEAL programme?the potential difficulty was staff
reluctance and anxiety in dealing with sensitive issues, such as bereavement.
At the time of the evaluation, the programme had been relatively unsuccessful in
engaging parents. New materials were being designed to address this issue. The find
ings demonstrated that the outcomes for the children were to a great extent predicted
by their questionnaire responses prior to implementation of the programme. While
school factors may be implicated to some extent in these responses, behaviour learnt
at home will also be important. Engaging parents early in promoting their children's
well-being would seem, therefore, to be of critical importance.
Despite these weaknesses, positive outcomes of the implementation of the
programme included the introduction of the language of emotion into schools,
increased awareness of difficult emotions and the provision of ways and materials to
consider them, and the facilitation of the development of staff social and emotional
skills. Where implemented fully, the programme promoted whole school engagement,
encouraged dialogue about behaviour, attitudes and choices, and was sustainable over
time. Overall, the SEAL programme was successful in individual schools in relation
to the extent that it reflected the key elements outlined by Maxwell et al. (2008).

Notes on contributor

Susan Hallam is Professor of Education and Dean of the Faculty of Policy and
Society at the Institute of Education, University of London. She has received

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 330 S. Hallam

extensive research funding and published widely in relation to issues relating to

disaffection from school, ability grouping, learning and behaviour, and the
psychology of music and music education.

References
Durlak, J.A. & Wells, A.M. (1997) Primary prevention mental health programs for children and
adolescents: a meta-analytic review, American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(2), 115-152.
Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. L. (1982) Evaluation studies: predictive validity of My Class Inventory,
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 129-140.
Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ (London, Bloomsbury
Publishing).
Green, J., Howes, F., Waters, E., Maher, E. & Oberklaid, F. (2005) Promoting the social and
emotional health of primary school-aged children: reviewing the evidence base for school
based interventions, International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 7(3), 30-36.
Hallam, S., Shaw, J. & Rhamie, J. (2006) Evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot
Research report 717 (London, Department for Education and Skills).
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (2005) Pupils' liking for school: ability grouping, self-concept and
perceptions of teaching, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 297-311.
Maxwell, C, Aggleton, P., Warwick, I., Yankah, E., Hill, V. & Mehmedbegivic, D. (2008)
Supporting children's emotional wellbeing and mental health in England: a review, Health
Education, 108(4), 272-286.
McSherry, J. (2001) Challenging behaviour in mainstream schools: practical strategies for effective
intervention and reintegration (London, David Fulton).
Rones, M. & Hoagwood, K. (2000) School based mental health services: a research review,
Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 4, 223-241.
Weare, K. (2004) Developing the emotionally literate school (London, Paul Chapman Publishing).
Wells, J., Barlow, J. & Stewart-Brown, S. (2003) A systematic review of universal approaches to
mental health promotion in schools, Health Education, 103(4), 197-220.

This content downloaded from

93.65.118.232 on Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:43:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms