SEL in China UNICEF China Country Office September

SEL in China UNICEF China Country Office September 2010

Social & Emotional Learning (SEL) A students survey in China UNICEF China Country Office September 2010

Context National Social and Emotional Learning Survey In 2009, Ministry of Education(MOE) together with UNICEF built a research team to jointly carry out Social and Emotional Leaning(SEL) Survey among students of primary and secondary schools, to understand the SEL status of students at primary and secondary schools This survey was integrated into the national school safety survey conducted into September 2009, supported by MOE ad UNICEF

Context Scale of the survey Considering the geographic location and disparities amongst rural and urban areas, eight provinces selected from Eastern, Mid and Western region of China. Developed: Guangdong and Shandong; Mid-level: Liaoning, Jiangxi and Hebei;

Survey tools The original tools developed by AIR were adapted in 2008 In order to ensure greater relevance for the widerange of schools in China, officers from UNICEF and MOE along with national experts again updated questionnaires based on China’s National Standards of Child Friendly Schools in June 2009. The adapted questionnaires used a four-point bipolar scale, including 5 components and a total of 74 items.

Survey tools Questionnaires for students Questionnaires for teachers Interview guideline for students Interview guideline for teachers SEL Survey Tools

Components of tools on SEL School safety Social & Emotional Learning School leadership and students’ participation Challenge Supports

Students questionnaire 4 Score Likert scale adapted 74 items for five components Component No. of items Item list School safety 14 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 55, 74 Social and emotional learning 20 9, 12, 13, 19, 27, 35, 36, 42, 53, 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 Challenges 20 Supports 12 School leadership and students’ participation 8 15, 20, 23, 37, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 71, 72 11, 17, 29, 31, 34, 45, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, 73 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 38, 66, 70

Example of student questionnaire

Sampling In each province, 12 schools were randomly selected from 1 big/middle city; 1 County/small city, and 2 Townships. Primary School Junior Secondary School 1 Big/middle City 2 schools • School A: one class in Grade IV • School B: one class Grade V 1 school • School A: one class in Grade VIII 1 County/ small city 1 school • School A: one class in Grade IV 1 school • School A: one class in Grade VIII 2 Townships 2 schools • School A: one class in Grade V • School B: one class Grade VI 1 school • School A: one class in Grade VIII Senior Secondary School 1 school • School A: one class in Grade XI

Survey implementation The questionnaire survey were conducted by the provincial education authorities in eight province, with the instruction on sampling of schools/students and distribution of questionnaires issued by MOE. 5, 438 students’ questionnaires distributed to eight provinces, covering students from primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools located at city, county and township areas, of which 5, 336 (98. 12%) identified as valid questionnaires; 4, 269 teachers’ questionnaires distributed to eight provinces, covering the same schools as the students’ survey above, of which 4, 269 (100%) identified as valid questionnaires; 96 schools from 8 provinces were covered.

Survey implementation The field survey were conducted by four expert groups in the four provinces, namely: Hebei, Liaoning, Jiangxi, and Hunan provinces. The major activities during the field survey included focus group meeting with students, teachers and principals, based on the interview guidelines.

Data Analysis Data analysis General information and status for each dimensions; Means and SD. for each items; Differences amongst groups(geographic location, gender, type of schools, family background) Correlations of each component with three key factors (academic performance, parents relationship, geographic location of schools)

Data Analysis Tool for data analysis: SPSS 16. 0(Statistics Product and Service solutions) Method for data analysis Frequency analysis(Means, Std. maximum and minimum score, percentage); X 2 (Chi-square) test for differences; Kendall W correlation analysis.

Dimensions of SEL Components used to describe the SEL status for students based on theory on Social Emotional Conditions for Development. Children are supported Children are socially capable Children are safe Children are challenged Children participate and lead

Initial findings of SEL survey

Initial findings of SEL survey Ø Schools scored high on providing a challenging environment as well as providing opportunities for school leadership and students’ participation >3; Ø School scored relatively lower on school safety and social support scored low, respectively <3

Initial findings of SEL survey Differences analysis Type of school, there are statistically significant 80 differences amongst different type of schools, with primary school students scored the highest and senior secondary school students scoring the lowest. 70 60 50 Primary school 40 Junior secondary school Senior secondary school 30 20 10 0 School safety Students acquiring supports Social and emotional learning Challenges School leadership and students’

Initial findings of SEL survey Differences analysis School location, it has statistically significant 80 difference amongst school location, in terms of city, county and townships, while urban students score highest, followed with students in rural and countylevel schools. 70 60 50 Cities 40 Counties 30 Townships 20 10 0 School safety Students acquiring supports Social and emotional learning Challenges School leadership and students’

Initial findings of SEL survey Differences analysis Gender, there are statistically significant 80 differences amongst girls and boys, with girls scoring higher than boys. 70 60 50 40 Boys Girls 30 20 10 0 School safety Students acquiring supports Social and emotional learning Challenges School leadership and students’

Initial findings of SEL survey Differences analysis Family background, it has statistically significant 80 70 difference amongst different family background, young students with “the same family background with most of other students” have much higher scores than those of with “different family background with most of other students” 60 50 40 the similar family background 30 different family background 20 10 0 School safety Students acquiring supports Social and emotional learning Challenges School leadership and students’

What influences higher SEL status –implications School location, gender, grade and family background have significant influence on the SEL for students; what does this mean for poor / ethnic minority children? Learning: the higher the achievement, the higher the SEL status that students display; what does this mean for low achieving children , children with linguistic differences The more frequent communication with parents, the higher the SEL status that students have: what does this mean for children of migrant parents and left behind children and children in boarding schools How can the results fees into the national monitoring system which plans to weight students’ academic performance along with their social emotional wellbeing status