Educators’ Perspectives on the Practices and Implementation of Social Emotional Learning Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interview-based qualitative study sought educators’ perceptions of best practices for and implementation of mindfulness and social and emotional learning (SEL) programs in the classroom in order to discern how SEL programs foster student socioemotional wellbeing (e.g., self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision making). To do so, I conducted semi-structured interviews via videoconference with nine educators from public, private, and charter schools in the United States and Canada. Discussions include questions about personal experiences and implementation of SEL interventions. The recorded interviews were transcribed and coded to locate emergent themes. The present research revealed several training and implementation approaches that helped them with student discipline, academic achievement, and overall socio-emotional wellbeing. Furthermore, findings elucidated ways SEL changed educator approaches to classroom management using, tools, structures, and guidance for implementation; and illuminated practices and procedures for use in other school districts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it