How Teacher Practices Influence Elementary Students' Social Emotional Learning

• In Event: Elementary Students' Academic and Social Emotional Learning Through Project-Based Learning: Results of an Efficacy Study

Abstract

Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between teaching practices and 3rd-grade students’ social-emotional learning (SEL) during science lessons in 49 classrooms (30 treatment and 19 control) for 1,162 students. Several analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of our treatment—ML-PBL—teaching practices on students SEL. The first is a confirmatory factor analysis of our SEL constructs (Reflection, Ownership, and Collaboration) between the two conditions, the second shows the main effect of differences in SEL between them, and the third explores the mechanisms between SEL and teacher instructional practices.

Theoretical Perspective
Three-dimensional learning has been recommended as a mechanism to engage students in science; our randomized cluster trial (RCT) has designed a set of practices to accomplish this by having teachers encourage their students in “figuring out” solutions, making sense of phenomena, and supporting collaboration with peers (Shernoff et al., 2017; author). The goal of ML-PBL is to integrate science, literacy, and mathematics to support these science learning practices and others. Few studies have examined the link between ML-PBL instructional practices and their association with SEL in science classrooms. Three analyses are undertaken to determine the impact of ML-PBL on SEL and specific practices that may be influencing student SEL.

Method and Data Sources
In spring 2019, an 18-item survey that measures reflection, ownership, and collaboration was given to students in the treatment and control groups. Exploratory confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to determine the extent of variation for each of the three constructs among the two groups. A multivariate model was employed to measure differences between the responses of the treatment and controls on these three constructs. Finally, a two-level HLM was applied to isolate specific teacher practices that could be associated with SEL changes between classrooms and within students from fall to spring.

Results
Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the instrument was valid from fall to spring for both treatment and control groups (see Appendix Table 1). A main effect between the treatment and control groups was found for ownership and reflection (bottom of Table 2). Examining the mechanisms we find for reflection, teacher practices that support figuring out show a significant relationship to students’ spring reflection score and more of the variance is explained by classroom practices (Table 3). For ownership, teachers’ use of lesson features to support students in “figuring out” is significantly and positively associated with students’ ownership and even more of the variance is explained by classroom practices. For collaboration, teacher practices for figuring out were also significant but the variance was explained less well by collaboration than by the other two practices.

Significance
ML-PBL instructional practices influence student social and emotional learning. In the future, we will be exploring if these factors are mediators in academic achievement (linked to our summative assessment). The most important takeaway is that it is possible to measure SEL through observations and the effects of teacher practices can be determined.

Authors

• I-Chien Chen, Michigan State University

• Cory S MIller, Michigan State University

• Barbara Schneider, Michigan State University

• Joseph S. Krajcik, Michigan State University