Less fidelity, more reciprocity: Rethinking implementation values for social-emotional learning programs.

Josephine Grant
{"title":"Less fidelity, more reciprocity: Rethinking implementation values for social-emotional learning programs.","authors":"Josephine Grant","doi":"10.1037/spq0000693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Implementation values naturally operate in tension. School psychologists are called to manage the tension between evidence-based programs, the needs of their students, faculty, and leadership. One implementation value, fidelity, has emerged in schools as \"first among many\" as an indicator of a quality intervention. This conceptual article examines the risks of elevating fidelity in the implementation of social-emotional learning programs. Externally sourced content can provide useful background about stress and personal regulation, but curricula that are disconnected from cultural norms invite resistance or confusion in practice. In addition, fidelity originates from a \"delivery\" model of social learning that conflicts with evidence from developmental science and distracts from front-end collaboration. This article proposes reciprocity as a guiding value for developing and implementing social-emotional learning programs. Reciprocity aligns with a complex systems framework for learning and the growing field of improvement science in schools. It emphasizes front-end collaboration between psychologist, faculty, and administrators, a prerequisite for buy-in that is underdeveloped in practice. Protocols, rather than adherence checklists, will be a key feature of reciprocity in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74763,"journal":{"name":"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)","volume":"40 2","pages":"286-296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000693","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Implementation values naturally operate in tension. School psychologists are called to manage the tension between evidence-based programs, the needs of their students, faculty, and leadership. One implementation value, fidelity, has emerged in schools as "first among many" as an indicator of a quality intervention. This conceptual article examines the risks of elevating fidelity in the implementation of social-emotional learning programs. Externally sourced content can provide useful background about stress and personal regulation, but curricula that are disconnected from cultural norms invite resistance or confusion in practice. In addition, fidelity originates from a "delivery" model of social learning that conflicts with evidence from developmental science and distracts from front-end collaboration. This article proposes reciprocity as a guiding value for developing and implementing social-emotional learning programs. Reciprocity aligns with a complex systems framework for learning and the growing field of improvement science in schools. It emphasizes front-end collaboration between psychologist, faculty, and administrators, a prerequisite for buy-in that is underdeveloped in practice. Protocols, rather than adherence checklists, will be a key feature of reciprocity in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信