A Mixed Methods Study of the Relationship Between Individualized Lesson Planning and Social-Emotional Outcomes in Young Children

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.

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?