The Case for SEL Assessment

Behaviors informed by social and emotional learning (SEL) factors have always been important and integral facets of the full spectrum of learning and life.  These factors are important because they speak to the heart as well as the mind and to the emotions as well as the intellect.  One can argue that behaviors informed by social and emotional learning factors are truly interdisciplinary because they influence all aspects of what it means to be human. Moreover, like any behavior they are impactful and malleable and can be learned. The most effective learning is guided by timely and expert feedback, which is in essence an assessment.

As a result, many K-12 schools are implementing programs that analyze and report on student behaviors. The goal is to help students improve their feelings of well-being. Who could argue against such an approach—assess, analyze, report, influence?

 Yet controversies are brewing.

It could be said that the old SEL movement became popularly reinvigorated from 50+ years ago when the Big Five Factor “Conscientiousness” became synonymous with “Grit”. However more than a few felt that focusing on this factor was an argument full of grit, and an ensuing debate around defining and measuring grit is driving too much of the discussion. The publication NEA Today argued against SEL assessment for a variety of reasons, including over testing, validity/reliability and usefulness of such an assessment.

This argument misses the point. 

I come from the school that believes anything worth doing is manifested in behaviors that need to be assessed (i.e. measured) so they can be improved and have the most positive impact on well-being and success.

Research and common sense can drive to consensus on what to measure, and often what not to measure. The Big Five Factor of “Agreeableness” is often cited as something good to measure and improve. Steve Jobs would probably beg to differ. “Creativity” is often seen as a measure, yet telling a student that he/she lacks it can make it worse. Alternatively, saying a student excels can suppress further growth. One key is not to measure the personality, but the behavioral skills.

The good news is there are noncontroversial measures that have metadata suggesting certain useful factors are both malleable and impactful. Further, some of these should not generate much controversy. For example, “Time Management” is well known to be an effective discipline for achieving academic and career success. This factor can be measured reliably and with validity. It can be taught effectively as well. “Collaboration”, i.e. hearing other points of view, not interrupting, respecting opinions of others can drive career success and civility. Like Time Management, it can be measured. Even in the “Neurotic” category, the factor “Test Anxiety” can be measured. A child would readily admit to having some pre-test anxiousness and helping that should be readily welcomed.

The key to measuring factors that matter is to avoid fakeability. Fortunately, protocols beyond self-report can address that – situational judgment, forced choice, teacher input and other signal sources taken together can inform the creation of a clear and personalized roadmap for student improvement.

I agree there needs to be a discussion around the use of these assessments for high stakes or low stakes in the academic environment. One argument to avoid high stakes is that barring a student from admissions to a school or college based on soft skills might be stretch, given the state of the art in assessment, and even understanding how soft skills should play into such decisions. However, those concerns are not bothering businesses who are adopting soft skill measures in recruiting and training. Life is not always fair.

It is time to move beyond the argument of whether or not a rigorous SEL assessment is required. The time is now for curriculum and assessment developers to agree on what informs academic, career, and civility improvements, how to teach and measure growth in critical SEL facets. Finally, collaboration among researchers and academic professionals are needed to take place around how to use the results to meld cognitive capabilities with non-cognitive to create actionable and personalized student profiles and learning paths. Collaboration – already we can see how important it is!

Please let me know your thoughts on this important emerging issue!