In a ten year systematic review of the international use of social emotional learning programs in urban schools, research concluded that SEL interventions are “promising in supporting student outcomes” (McCallops et al., 2019, p. 24). These positive outcomes have led to independent studies of various SEL curricula and their effectiveness in regard to prosocial behaviors, bullying, grades, attendance, office referrals, and other effects.

Critics agree that social emotional learning skills are vital for developing self-aware and productive citizens; however, they argue that it is not the school’s role to teach these soft skills. Those who are against SEL in the classroom believe that SEL is a guise to push “anti-family, anti-logic, and anti-reason philosophies and leftist political ideologies” (KFOR.com Oklahoma City, 2022). Proponents counter that SEL is an ideal place for teaching these skills because school is typically the first time a child is exposed to people with varying behaviors, lifestyles, and capabilities different from their own; therefore, children need to learn and practice how to socialize with others starting at a young age (National University, 2022). Schools have always taught what constitutes “proper” behavior and values in typical classroom management strategies, which leaves the questions: What are the “proper” behaviors? Whose values are being reinforced or punished?

In addition to SEL curriculum, the potential of technology’s use in social emotional learning has just begun to be realized. Companies have noticed the underdevelopment of this industry and with the aid of federal funding, products and resources are hitting the markets. Technology for social emotional learning can include games, machine learning, virtual reality, and mixed reality. There are those who criticize the use of technology to teach intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. They argue that it is counterintuitive, are concerned with screen time, and making certain that students’ data is kept private. Proponents counter that by utilizing technology to teach social emotional skills, this can actually provide more opportunities for students to connect to communities outside of their own neighborhoods, and it creates a safe space for them to try and fail in these low-stakes simulations (Herold, 2016).

One example of technology utilized for SEL is mixed reality. Mixed reality immerses users into a simulation that is actively programmed by a simulation specialist concurrently as the user is participating in the simulation. The user interacts with avatars and receives feedback from the simulation specialist to actively practice role-playing scenarios in an environment that does not have real world consequences and is private from the user’s peers. Mixed reality has been used in a variety of fields in addition to SEL in education including pilot training to help them practice challenging maneuvers and for surgeons to practice medical procedures before doing so in the operating room.

One mixed reality SEL software educators use is TeachLivE. It uses both artificial intelligence and human decision making. The simulation specialist controls the avatars’ movement and dialogue, and the artificial intelligence controls other avatar behaviors. The user cannot see the simulation specialist but the specialist can see the user. This is advantageous because the specialist can program the avatars to react in real time to the user’s actions and speech which makes the scenario more realistic than a simulation with fully automated characters and preprogrammed environments. The simulation lasts for about seven to ten minutes and can be repeated for additional attempts or reset to change variables in the scenario to make it easier or harder. The simulation can be paused to allow for the user to ask the specialist questions or receive hints.

Below is a graphic illustrating how the participant interacts in the mixed reality simulation and how the simulation specialist coordinates the events occurring.

Mixed Reality for SEL, 2021

References:

Herold, B. (2016, March 23). Social-Emotional Learning Would Benefit From Tech Innovations, Report Says. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/social-emotional-learning-would-benefit-from-tech-innovations-report-says/2016/03

KFOR.com Oklahoma City. (2022, February 15). Senator proposes bill that would prohibit social-emotional learning in Oklahoma schools. KFOR.com Oklahoma City. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://kfor.com/news/local/senator-proposes-bill-that-would-prohibit-social-emotional-learning-in-oklahoma-schools/

McCallops, K., Barnes, T. N., Berte, I., Fenniman, J., Jones, I., Navon, R., & Nelson, M. (2019). Incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy within social-emotional learning interventions in urban schools: An International Systematic Review. International Journal of Educational Research, 94, 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.007

Murphy, K. M., Cook, A. L., & Fallon, L. M. (2021). Mixed reality simulations for social-emotional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721721998152

National University. (2022, August 17). What is social emotional learning (SEL): Why it matters. National University. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://www.nu.edu/blog/social-emotional-learning-sel-why-it-matters-for-educators/