Abstract
This mixed methods study examines the relationship between different components and characteristics of individualized lesson plans and children’s social-emotional outcomes to develop a profile of effective planning. Sixty-one individualized SEL lesson plans written and implemented by 20 experienced early childhood educators from a large city in the northeastern United States are examined to understand the types and difficulty level of behavioral challenges teachers addressed, the types and specificity of SEL skills taught and the specificity of teaching strategies implemented. By quantizing qualitative data through a process of descriptive, pattern and then magnitude coding, the study then uses correlational analyses to examine the relationship between successful child outcomes following instruction and the rated components of the lesson plans. Findings reveal that lesson plan alignment is most strongly related to successful social-emotional outcomes (rho coefficient .69), followed by teaching strategy specificity (rho .51). The difficulty level of the children’s behavior being addressed by the lesson plans and the teachers’ ability to list SEL skills with specificity as learning objectives were not significantly related to later student success. Assigning individualized SEL lesson planning to in-service teachers resulted in at least partially successful child outcomes 59% of the time, showcasing how teachers need more systematic practice and training to refine this important skill.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center (ECLKC), Effective Practice Guides, Social and Emotional Development. Online: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/effective-practice-guides/social-emotional-development
SecondStep Early Learning Program. Online: https://www.secondstep.org/early-learning-curriculum
TeachingStrategies, Al’s Pals. Online: https://teachingstrategies.com/product/als-pals/
The Incredible Years training series. Online: https://incredibleyears.com/
Tools of the Mind. Online: https://toolsofthemind.org/get-tools/
Collaborative for Social, Emotional and Academic Learning (CASEL), Program Guide. Online: https://pg.casel.org/review-programs/
This compendium must be reported separately due to word count limitations.
References
Ackerman, D. J. (2004). States’ efforts in improving the qualifications of early care and education teachers. Educational Policy, 18(2), 311–337.
Aparo, M. F. (2021). General elementary teachers’ perceptions of professional development needs for social-emotional learning: A qualitative focus group study [Ed.D., Northcentral University]. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from http://www.proquest.com/docview/2546099317/abstract/A4A80B84B5844776PQ/1
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Benson, J. (2021). Improve every lesson plan with SEL. ASCD.
Boat, M. B., Dinnebeil, L. A., & Bae, Y. (2010). Individualizing instruction in preschool classrooms. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 38(1), 1–11.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boyd, W., Wong, S., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Warren, J., Lee, I.-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020). Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to work in early childhood education and care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120935997
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_01
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems and unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2021). What is the CASEL framework? Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-framework/
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge.
Drost, B. R., & Levine, A. C. (2015). An analysis of strategies for teaching standards-based lesson plan alignment to preservice teachers. Journal of Education, 195(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741519500206
Egert, F., Fukkink, R. G., & Eckhardt, A. G. (2018). Impact of in-service professional development programs for early childhood teachers on quality ratings and child outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 401–433. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751918
Epstein, A. S. (2009). Me, you, us: Social-emotional learning in preschool. HighScope Press.
Epstein, A. (2012). Social and emotional development: The HighScope preschool curriculum. High/Scope Press.
Esen-Aygun, H., & Sahin-Taskin, C. (2017). Teachers’ views of social-emotional skills and their perspectives on social-emotional learning programs. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(7), 205–215.
Ferreira, M., Reis-Jorge, J., & Batalha, S. (2021). Social and emotional learning in preschool education: A qualitative study with preschool teachers. International Journal of Emotional Education, 13(1), 51–66. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/76514
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
Gray, D. (2018). Doing research in the real world. Los Angeles: Sage.
Haslip, M. J., Allen-Handy, A., & Donaldson, L. (2018). How urban early childhood educators used positive guidance principles and improved teacher-child relationships: A social-emotional learning intervention study. Early Child Development and Care, 190(7), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1507027
Horn, E., & Banerjee, R. (2009). Understanding curriculum modifications and embedded learning opportunities in the context of supporting all children’s success. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0026)
Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Wadsworth.
Kapfer, P. G. (1975). A humanistic theory of individualized instruction. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 4(5), 5.
Katz, L., & McClellan, D. (1997). Fostering children’s social competence: The teacher’s role. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Kersey, K., & Masterson, M. (2013). 101 principles for positive guidance with young children: Creating responsive teachers. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Higher Ed.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2002). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Improving schools for African American students: A reader for educational leaders (pp. 95–102). Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.
Marais, E., Nel, C., & Dlavane, D. (2019). A tool to enhance the planning of children’s literature lessons for Setswana as home language. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 9(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.692
Masterson, M. (2021). Transforming teaching: Creating lesson plans for child-centered learning in preschool. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385030373002
McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D. W. (2006). Cultural display rules drive eye gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 717–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106292079
McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., Schmitt, S. A., & Duncan, R. (2017). SEL interventions in early childhood. Future of Children, 27(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0002
Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded form case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mondi, C. F., Giovanelli, A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2021). Fostering socio-emotional learning through early childhood intervention. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00084-8
Muñoz-Martínez, Y., & Porter, G. L. (2020). Planning for all students: Promoting inclusive instruction. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(14), 1552–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1544301
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2019). NAEYC early learning program accreditation standards and assessment items. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/accreditation/early-learning/standards_assessment_2019.pdf
Palaganas, E., Sanchez, M., Molintas, M. V., & Caricativo, R. (2017). Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. Qualitative Report, 22(2), 426. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2552
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.
Sandilos, L., Goble, P., & Schwartz, S. (2020). Burnout and teacher–child interactions: The moderating influence of SEL interventions in Head Start classrooms. Early Education and Development, 31(7), 1169–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1788331
Serret, N., & Gripton, C. (2020). Purposeful planning for learning: Shaping learning and teaching in the primary school. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489266
Smith, S. W., Poling, D. V., & Worth, M. R. (2018). Intensive intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12174
Smutny, J. F., & von Fremd, S. E. (2009). Differentiating for the young child: Teaching strategies across the content areas, PreK-3. SAGE Publications.
VanAusdal, K. (2019). Collaborative classrooms support social-emotional learning. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/collaborative-classrooms-support-social-emotional-learning
Webb-Johnson, G. (2002). Are schools ready for Joshua? Dimensions of African-American culture among students identified as having behavioral/emotional disorders. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014367
White, A., Moore, D. W., Fleer, M., & Anderson, A. (2017). A thematic and content analysis of instructional and rehearsal procedures of preschool social emotional learning programs. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(3), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.3.10
Yoder, N. (2014). Teaching the whole child: Instructional practices that support social-emotional learning in three teacher evaluation frameworks. Research-to-practice brief. Revised. Report prepared for the center on great teachers and leaders at American institutes for research. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581718
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Leona Donaldson for transcription and coding assistance.
Funding
This study was supported by Drexel University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Rating Scale Definitions
Behavioral Difficulty Level
We used dimensionalization to analyze the degree of behavioral difficulty in three levels: low, moderate, high. High difficulty challenges included high levels of negative emotion, including “being very aggressive towards peers,” “anger and crying for excessive amounts of time,” and combinations of multiple challenging behaviors all on one lesson plan, such as “hitting other children, throwing balls at other children, and snatching toys from them.” With regards to degrees of aggression, we coded “repeatedly hitting other children” as high difficulty and “occasionally hitting a child without provocation” as moderate difficulty. Moderate difficulty included moderate forms of aggression or moderate negative emotion and behavior, such as “aggressive play,” “throwing blocks,” “anger and yelling at peers,” “not talking,” and “needing constant redirection.” Low difficulty challenges presented less pronounced expressions of negative emotion (e.g. impatience with peers, being grumpy, being sad when mom leaves), and typical expressions of behavior that needed occasional redirection (e.g. not transitioning between centers, not napping, touching others too much, not cleaning up, interrupting other’s play, not listening to the teacher). The behavioral difficulty codes were quantitized (low = 1, moderate = 2, high = 3) and added to an SPSS data set for descriptive and inferential analysis.
SEL Skills and Skill Specificity
Each SEL skill was identified within all 61 lesson plans and then grouped by behavioral challenge. Three cycles of content analysis were completed to synthesize the original list of SEL skills into common categories to reduce duplication (e.g. self-regulation and sharing were mentioned repeatedly). This process reduced the number of SEL skills from 117 to 41.
Each SEL skill section on the lesson plan template was also coded for level of specificity using dimensionalization. Skills listed by teachers were labeled as unspecified, loosely specified, moderately specified and very specified. Unspecified labels were assigned to data that did not contain SEL skills (e.g., “child needs to learn how to read”). Loosely specified SEL skills contained broad ideas (e.g. “self-regulation”) without concrete actions and were somewhat clear. Moderately specified skills contained at least one concrete action (e.g., “how to ask for a turn with a toy”) and were mostly clear. Very specified skill descriptions contained multiple concrete actions, which were interrelated and very clear. The SEL skill specificity codes were quantitized (0, 1, 2, 3) and add to the data set for descriptive and inferential analysis.
Lesson Plan Specificity
We also analyzed how specifically the teaching strategies were described. We rated each lesson plan as unspecified/missing (0), loosely specified (1), moderately specified (2) and very specified (3). One lesson plan was rated “unspecified” for presenting tips to help the child with spelling and reading while not addressing any SEL skills. Loosely specified plans presented only general ideas such as modeling, using verbal reminders and providing positive reinforcement for the child, but not intervening to provide concrete coaching so that the child could practice the new skill(s). Moderately specific lesson plans contained general ideas plus at least one concrete action to intervene and coach the child (e.g. using cues with the child). It was mostly clear how the SEL skill was taught. Very specified lesson plans contained several concrete actions to teach missing SEL skills(s), presented in a coherent sequence of steps. It was very clear how the skill was taught. This qualitative rating scale was quantitized (0, 1, 2, 3) and the numeric codes were added to an SPSS data set.
Alignment Level
To evaluate the overall coherence of each lesson plan we examined the continuity of the ideas presented across each section of the template. This examination was done by coding each template for the level of alignment between teacher reported behavioral challenges, SEL skills to be taught and subsequent teaching strategies. Templates were rated as not aligned, partially aligned, and fully aligned with corresponding codes (1, 2, 3) entered in a data set for descriptive and inferential analysis.
Child Success Level
We coded the child outcomes teachers reported by degree of success (successful, partially successful, not successful), again using the dimensionalization coding technique (Gray, 2018). A successful child outcome was defined as obvious and notable progress made by the child to improve the behavioral issue and/or develop the SEL skill(s) identified on the lesson plan. Perfect mastery of the SEL skill or complete elimination of the challenging behavior was not required for a successful rating. Rather, notable progress was the key metric. A partially successful child outcome was defined as limited progress in behavior and SEL skills. The teacher clearly indicated some degree of growth in the child. Finally, a not successful outcome meant the teacher could not identify how the original target behavior or SEL skills had improved. Tangential outcomes might be provided, such as reflections on the child’s current behavior or what happened in general, but the description lacked an identifiable example of improvement tied to the original lesson plan objectives.
Appendix B
SEL Coaching Action Plan
-
1.
Think of a child who needs coaching to improve her/his social interactions. Choose a child who is functioning in the moderate range the first time you try this.
-
2.
What is the repeating pattern of behavior that is a challenge for this child?
-
3.
How do you plan to coach the child over the following days?
-
4.
Consider these elements when writing your action plan to coach the child: Child observes situation first; child does something to help the group; child uses words that facilitate participation; child asks permission to participate; child accepts role given by leader; child notices cues from others
Child____________________
Time Frame____________________
-
1.
What is the repeating pattern of behavior that is a challenge for this child?
-
2.
What does the child need to learn? What is the missing skill(s) that needs to be coached?
-
3.
Describe how you plan to coach the child over the following week.
-
What will you do and say? When, where, how?
-
What will you coach the child to do and say?
-
Are there any cues you will establish with the child to remind him to use the tips?
-
How will you have the child reflect on his/her success?
-
-
4.
How will you make sure the child practices the new skills?
-
5.
After coaching reflection: What is the child doing now? What new skill(s) does the child seem to be practicing more frequently? What are the current results?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haslip, M.J., Terry, N. A Mixed Methods Study of the Relationship Between Individualized Lesson Planning and Social-Emotional Outcomes in Young Children. Early Childhood Educ J 51, 875–888 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01347-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01347-w