Educating the whole child: social-emotional learning and ethics education

Abstract

Research supporting social and emotional learning (SEL) in schools demonstrates numerous benefits for students, including increased academic achievement and social and emotional competencies. However, research supporting the adoption of SEL lacks a clear conception of ethical competence. This lack of clarity is problematic for two reasons. First, it contributes to the conflation of social, emotional, and ethical competencies. Second, as a result, insufficient attention is paid to the related, yet distinct, ends of social-emotional and ethical education. While supporting SEL we critique the assumption of uniformity between social-emotional and ethical literacy and argue for the significance of educational programming to support ethical competencies alongside or within SEL, including educating children to develop an autonomous ethical orientation. Doing so would advance the efforts of educators to provide an education for the whole child.

Keywords:

• Social and emotional learning
• ethics
• education
• ethics education

Notes

1. Social and emotional competence is generally understood as a set of abilities developed through social and emotional learning. On Cohen’s account, social and emotional competence ‘measures the ability to understand, process, manage, and express the social and emotional aspects of our lives’ (2001, 4). For related definitions, see Elias et al. (1997), 2, and Bar-On (2005).

2. In response to this problem some social and emotional learning advocates have argued for the addition of character education to social and emotional learning programs (Elias et al. 1997). The relationship between character and social-emotional education programming is varied and often unclear. Although Elias et al. describe character education and SEL as sharing ‘overlapping goals,’ they are also distinct with the latter having a broader focus on the development of ‘social decision-making and problem-solving skills’ (Elias et al. 1997, 2).

3. Although various distinctions are proposed regarding the terms ethical and moral there is no commonly or uniformly accepted division. In this paper we use the terms ethical and moral interchangeably. We primarily use the term ethical but, in some parts of this paper, adopt moral to be consistent with cited literature.

4. For related definitions see Coplan, Findlay, and Nelson (2004, 400), Dahl, Campos, and Witherington (2011, 148), Denham (2003, 1011), Elias et al. (1997, 2) and McCabe and Altamura (2011, 514).

5. The advancement of the SEL movement and its expanded conception of education and child development take inspiration from two central figures in educational theory: Howard Gardner and Daniel Goleman. In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences Gardner challenges classical views of intelligence, arguing that we must ‘expand and reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect’ (Gardner 2011, 4). Gardner critiques a monolithic conception of the human intellect as ‘general intelligence’ and instead discusses the human intellect in terms of complex non-hierarchical ‘multiple intelligences,’ a range of autonomous human intellectual competences that underlie a wide range of human activities (Gardner 1993, 135, 77, 105, 217). Building upon multiple intelligence theory Daniel Goleman popularized the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ (Goleman 1995, 40). According to Goleman, emotional intelligence includes two ‘meta-abilities’: self-awareness (the ability to recognize one’s own mental states, emotions, and feelings) and self-mastery (the ability to master one’s emotions and mental states). Goleman contends that emotions are a ‘master aptitude’ that can override or influence other abilities and, thus, must be understood and channeled for productive purposes (Goleman 1995, 79, 80). This conception of emotions and the related possibility of educating for emotional intelligence continue to inform SEL research and programming (Elias et al. 1997).

6. For an additional illustration of the potentially ‘amoral’ ends of SEL training, see Kristjánsson (2006).

7. For this reason Maurice Elias refers to social and emotional competencies as ‘participatory competencies’ (2007, 176). Social and emotional competencies are necessary conditions for ethical actions such as being honest or showing respect for others. However, by themselves, social and emotional competencies are not sufficient conditions for these and other forms of ethical action and motivation.

8. In total, Cohen devotes one footnote on the distinction between social-emotional and ethical competencies. See Cohen (2006), endnote 1. Many others do not consider the distinction at all.

9. There are three versions of the FRIENDS program, all based on SEL research. Fun FRIENDS is meant for children aged 4–7; FRIENDS for Life is meant for 8–11 year old children; and My FRIENDS Youth is meant for 12–15 year old adolescents. The letters in FRIENDS refer to the main ideas developed through the program content. The letters mean: F = Feelings, R = Remember to Relax, Have Quiet time, I = I can try my best (Inner Helpful Thoughts), E = Explore solutions and Coping Step Plans, N = Now reward yourself, D = Do it every day, S = Smile! Stay calm, and talk to support teams (Barrett and Turner 2001).

10. By contrast, the social intuitionist model of moral agency holds that moral judgments and distinctions primarily issue from moral intuitions and moral emotions (as opposed to cognitive reflection and rational decision-making). For more discussion on this point, see Haidt (2001).

11. A lengthy discussion could also be devoted to the place and practice of ethics in schools more generally, particularly given potential and, in some cases, actual controversy in this area of education. Two points are central here: first, ethics education is not monolithic; it can be taught and implemented in several ways and, as we argue, can be compatible with and a useful addition to already accepted SEL programming. Second, ethics education is not a practice intended to indoctrinate children with a particular set of ethical beliefs, but rather, to help students develop the skills needed to critically evaluate ethical beliefs as a whole and develop moral reasoning and social decision-making skills. For example, see Nucci (2001) and Oser (2014).