What does this research mean for the field?

Universal school-based social-emotional learning (SEL) programs significantly improve overall teacher well-being, with supplementary coaching enhancing positive well-being and mindfulness practices reducing negative well-being. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to evaluate the impact of social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions on teacher well-being and identify influencing factors.

June 27, 2026Open Access

The impact of social-emotional learning interventions on teacher well-being: a meta-analysis

Key Points

This study aims to evaluate the impact of social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions on teacher well-being and identify influencing factors.
Conducted a meta-analysis of 18 studies involving 3,465 teachers
Examined effects of universal school-based SEL programs on positive and negative well-being outcomes
Utilized three-level meta-regression analyses to assess moderators like research design, coaching, and mindfulness.
Significant positive effect on overall teacher well-being (g = 0.257)
Marked improvements in positive well-being (g = 0.313) and reduction in negative well-being (g = 0.149)
Identified coaching and mindfulness as key moderators influencing SEL effectiveness.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most previous meta-analytic reviews of social-emotional learning (SEL) have primarily focused on assessing the effects of SEL on students, often overlooking the pivotal role of teachers in these programs. Teachers are the driving force behind the implementation of SEL programs, and their well-being is significantly impacted by these programs, which in turn is essential for promoting student development. METHODS: To address this gap, the current study adopts a meta-analytical approach to examine the impact of universal school-based SEL programs on teacher well-being and identify factors that may influence the effectiveness of SEL. A dual-pathway model is employed to distinguish effects on positive versus negative well-being outcomes. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 18 studies involving 3,465 teachers and indicated a significant positive effect on overall well-being (g = 0.257). Specifically, SEL programs exhibited marked improvements in teachers' positive well-being (g = 0.313) and significant alleviation of negative well-being (g = 0.149). Three-level meta-regression analyses identified research design, additional coaching, and mindfulness as significant moderators influencing SEL effectiveness, whereas duration and dosage were not found to be significant factors. CONCLUSION: The integration of supplementary coaching for educators into SEL programs has been demonstrated to result in a substantial enhancement of teachers' positive well-being. Concurrently, the incorporation of mindfulness practices has been shown to engender a significant reduction in teachers' negative well-being. The distinction between positive and negative pathways offers insights into enhancing teacher well-being through the implementation of SEL programs, with a focus on the selection of appropriate strategies that are tailored to the needs of teachers. Limitations, practical implications, and future directions are finally discussed.

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper