Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC EJ1162077: The Aspire Principles and Pedagogy for the Implementation of Social and Emotional Learning and the Development of Whole School Well-Being"

See other formats

Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 59 - 71 

The ASPIRE Principles and Pedagogy for the Implementation of 
Social and Emotional Learning and the Development of Whole School 

Sue Roffey 

Exeter University, South West England, UK; Western Sydney University, Sydney, 

Implementation is the process by which interventions are put into practice and is critical 
to outcomes. Issues related to implementation for social and emotional learning (SEL) 
have largely focused on fidelity to the programme, dosage, clarity of guidance and the 
characteristics of the facilitator, although attention has also been paid to multi-level 
factors within an ecological system. The primary emphasis, however, has been on ‘what’ 
should happen, rather than ‘how’. Both content and process matter for both access and 
addressing difference. This paper details the ASPIRE principles and pedagogy for SEL 
and shows how incorporating these may help address diversity across needs and cultures. 
ASPIRE is the acronym for Agency, Safety, Positivity, Inclusion, Respect and Equity. 
These principles apply not only to the classroom but to relational well-being at all levels 
of the system and as such are aspirational. Many are based in the positive psychology 
literature, and are applicable to both individualistic and collectivist cultures as the 
intention is not to impose a set of values and behaviours but to structure activities that 
enable young people to explore what works for themselves and their communities. They 
have been put into practice within the Circle Solutions framework for SEL across 
Australia with both Aboriginal and Anglo communities and further afield in the UK, 
South-East Asia and Africa. 

Keywords: ASPIRE, implementation, Circle Solutions, well-being, social and emotional 

First submission 18 th August 2017; Accepted for publication 28 th October 2017 


Corresponding author. Email address: 

ISSN 2073-7629 
©2017 CRES 

Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 




With the rise of mental health concerns and dysfunctional relationships in families, workplaces and 
communities, social and emotional learning is being adopted in education systems across the world (e.g., 
Littlefield, Cavanagh, Knapp, & O’Grady, 2017). Sometimes this takes place in sequenced curricular 
activities, sometimes, less directly, under the guise of anti-bullying initiatives, relationship and sexuality 
education, character education, or violence prevention. Sometimes it is with targeted groups and sometimes a 
universal intervention. 

Although implementation factors are relevant to the effectiveness of all curriculum subjects they are 
even more critical with any intervention/programme that touches on ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live 
together’. This paper posits that we need to go beyond content to context and values in action in order to 
maximise positive outcomes for all students with diverse needs and from diverse cultures. 

Durlak (2015) summarises research on factors affecting implementation in social and emotional 
learning and found the following to be of importance: 

• Fidelity to the programme - though some adaptation and flexibility was seen to be important in 
order to ‘fit’ a particular school context and culture 

• Dosage - how often a programme takes place 

• Quality of delivery and how well teachers engaged students 

• School leadership and support 

• Staff professional development 

He then goes on to talk about the process of getting SEL embedded in a school and outlines 14 steps 
in a ‘Quality Implementation Framework’. Planning prior to commencement of any intervention needs to 
include ‘buy-in’ from the whole school and a shared vision and expectations. A school’s amenability to 
programme implementation is correlated with best practice (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002). The process 
begins with ‘school readiness’ and ends with critical analysis and reflection on both the programme and its 
implementation so that learnings might be applied in the future. 

Durlak (2015) also mentions the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, many of whom 
may not be used to working together, but does not outline what might be involved. This was found to be a 
critical issue in the Aboriginal Girls Circle (AGC) initiative when the support of community elders and the 
involvement of Aboriginal Education Officers were critical to effective engagement of the girls (Dobia, 
Bodkin-Andrews, Parada, O’Rourke, Gilbert, & Roffey, 2014). Indigenous priorities and perspectives 
however, did not always dovetail with white Anglo expectations, norms and practices. 

Cefai and Cavioni (2014) also make explicit strategies for involving all stakeholders in a school and 
steps for implementation. They are two of the few commentators who touch on the values and principles that 
need to be embedded in any program. They see a caring classroom community as not only an aspirational 
outcome of SEL but also one that facilitates effectiveness. If things go well, there should be a positive spiral 
over time that contributes to the knowledge and skills of learners and develops a positive emotional climate 
for learning. 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 60 

Hamedani and Darling-Hammond (2015) explored the process and impact of SEL in three urban high 
schools in the US where students represent a range of socio-economic, racial and ethnic diversity. These 
schools aimed to engage and empower student communities in an ‘expanded vision of social emotional 
learning that incorporates a social justice education perspective... integrating students’ social and emotional 
needs with culturally relevant, asset-based, identity-safe, and empowerment-oriented practice’ (p. 1-2). The 
researchers found that students engaged in social and emotional learning in these schools were significantly 
more likely to enjoy and engage with school more, be more resilient and have a community focused 
orientation. The researchers also commented on the importance of a ‘whole child’ approach to education 
where the social emotional and academic aspects of education were linked. Social and emotional knowledge 
and skills needed to be taught and practiced but also embedded in a congruent school culture that respected 
and responded to the diverse experiences and needs of students. 

The ASPIRE principles that follow build on the work already done by researchers on this important 
aspect of SEL (e.g. Brackett & Pattie, 2016; Cefai & Cavioni, 2014; Durlak, 2015). This overarching 
framework applies to the context, pedagogy and facilitation that addresses the ‘how’ not just the ‘what’ across 
both SEL intervention and the ecology of the whole school in which this is embedded. ASPIRE is not a 
program, it is a process. It has been developed to address the issues of safety, respect, inclusion and 
empowerment that are critical if SEL is to have positive impact on young people from diverse cultures, those 
who have diverse needs, and those who are dealing with diverse and challenging issues. 

Facilitators choose activities that are pertinent to their own context and needs and many established 
programs can be delivered within the ASPIRE pedagogy. The framework has been utilised in schools using 
Circle Solutions across Australia and in New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Egypt, the UK, China and 
Japan (Growing Great Schools, 2017). 

The Aboriginal Girls Circle (Dobia et al., 2014) is an intervention with indigenous high school girls 
auspiced by the (Australian) National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. Parental 
confidence and connection are both protective factors for children’s safety and this project was designed to 
develop these attributes to promote future child and community well-being. Aboriginal culture does not lend 
itself to many of the features that are the norm in Anglo social and emotional learning. Personal information 
is only accessed in an indirect way, silence is an acceptable part of communication, avoiding eye-contact is 
seen as respectful, joking is integral to communication practices, and non-verbal communication is 
commonplace. It is regarded as shameful to be the centre of attention or to put yourself forward or above 
your peers. ASPIRE addresses these matters by focusing primarily on shared issues rather than individual 
experiences, and promoting collaboration, inclusion and laughter. The mixed method evaluation engaged 
around fifty girls, their teachers and members of the Aboriginal community. The aims of confidence and 
connection were met for many of the participants although generalisation to the school context was more 
problematic (Dobia & Roffey, 2017). 

In another project (McCarthy and Roffey, 2013) eighteen undergraduate students were trained in 
Circle Solutions and supported implementation of this intervention in eight Greater Western Sydney primary 
schools for one school term. The students’ experiences were recorded and analysed, giving information about 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 61 

factors that made Circles a more or less successful intervention. The main facilitators/barriers were the active 
involvement of regular teachers and the way they positioned social/emotional needs and learning. 

The ASPIRE Principles and Pedagogy 

This section of the paper outlines the principles in detail, giving a rationale for each, based in research 
evidence. We also explore how each is translated in both the delivery of SEL and the context that supports 
this endeavour. The principles are given here individually, but in practice they are interconnected and inter¬ 


Rationale, theory and evidence. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 
(UNCRC) sets out the right of children and young people to express an opinion and to have that opinion taken 
into account on any matter that affects them. Agency incorporates one of the determinants of well-being - 
self-determination. Self-determination theory, initiated by Ryan and Deci (2000), is a theory of motivation 
concerned with supporting our natural or intrinsic tendencies to behave in effective and healthy ways. This 
principle refers to the amount of control someone has over actions and decision-making. 

The New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People (2007) interviewed 126 children and 
young people about what well-being meant for them. Three overarching themes were identified: 

• Agency: defined as having the power to make your own decisions in everyday life 

• Security: feeling safe and being safe - especially having people who will look out for you. 

Without this you cannot engage fully with life 

• A positive sense of self: you and the people around you see you as a good person. 

Those who see themselves as choosing to engage in a task or given some choice in a way a task is 
undertaken are more likely to see meaning in what they do. This contrasts with pressure from external non- 
negotiable demands and extrinsic rewards. Although teachers need to be in charge of proceedings they do not 
control students but empower them to come to their own understandings through a process of 
experimentation, reflection and discussion. 

Pedagogy. Many subjects in the mainstream curriculum are taught didactically. The teacher is seen to 
have a body of knowledge that is presented to students. Learners are often passive recipients of information 
with the teacher in control of instruction. This approach is not appropriate for SEL as students need to interact 
with the content at both cognitive and emotional levels in order to understand concepts and apply them to 
their own lives. The S.A.F.E. model for SEL delivery stands for Sequenced, Active, Focused and Explicit. 
(CASEL, 2015) Agency can be equated with ‘Active’, as in not a passive recipient. Crepeau and Richards 
(2003) found that teachers who enthusiastically engage learners in participatory activities are much more 
likely to elicit positive responses. Student-centred pedagogical approaches, such as project-based and inquiry- 
based learning, address diversity by incorporating different learning styles. These are more likely to promote 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 62 

interest and motivation, which may in turn promote academic effort, engagement, comprehension, and 
retention of the materials learned (Reinders, 2010; Skelton, Seevers, Dormody, & Hodnett, 2012). 

Agency is demonstrated in SEL by providing students with activities, some of which are experiential, 
that enable them to reflect on issues, discuss these with peers and sometimes take action in the classroom to 
put learning into practice. One example of this might be a small group discussing the pros and cons of 
different responses to a challenging hypothetical situation. Each small group feeds back the gist of their 
discussion to the larger group (usually in a circle) saying which option they considered had the best short¬ 
term and long-term outcomes. Rather than telling young people what to think and do they are given structured 
activities that enable them to think and decide for themselves. This is also likely to enhance a sense of 
responsibility. The freedom to make sense of their learning in this way enables students from diverse 
backgrounds and with a range of needs to engage with constructs in a way that is relevant for them. 

In the Aboriginal Girls Circle (AGC) initiative, there was a power-sharing pedagogy where girls were 
invited to be co-determiners of the processes and topics covered. They invariably chose projects relevant to 
their own culture and communities. The evaluation (Dobia et al., 2013) indicated a growing capacity within 
the girls for personal and collective agency, alongside raised confidence and leadership. 


Rationale, theory and evidence. Safety in school is physical, emotional and psychological. There is 
increasing acknowledgement that students who do not feel safe are less able to access learning, more likely to 
have poor attendance and ultimately have poor mental health. To address both overt and covert bullying, the 
Australian National Safe Schools Framework (Education Services Australia, 2010) asserts that all Australian 
schools should: 

• Affirm the rights of all members of the school community to feel safe and be safe at school 

• Acknowledge that being safe and supported at school is essential for student well-being and 
effective learning 

• Accept responsibility for developing and sustaining safe and supportive learning and teaching 
communities that also fulfil the school’s child protection responsibilities 

• Encourage the active participation of all school community members in developing and 
maintaining a safe school community where diversity is valued 

• Actively support young people to develop understanding and skills to keep themselves and others 

• Commit to developing a safe school community through a whole-school and evidence-based 

An emotionally safe school allows children to make mistakes and take risks in learning without 
feeling they may become a failure (Hirsh, 2004). No learner is belittled, punished or humiliated and their 
worth is not determined by how they measure up to others. In an emotionally safe classroom, teachers make 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 63 

mistakes. They share these mistakes with children and sometimes elicit the children’s help in solving their 
problem. In 2001, Bluestein asserted that creating an emotionally safe school is a pre-requisite for students to 
learn intra and interpersonal competencies. 

Pedagogy. The need to ensure that both students and teachers feel safe is critical to effective 
pedagogy in SEL. There have been criticisms of the secondary SEAL programme in the UK in that lessons 
were potentially unsafe for both teachers and students (Craig, 2007; Ecclestone & Hayes, 2008). There was a 
concern that addressing emotional concerns with children would open ‘Pandora’s box’ in ways that may 
potentially distress children and leave teachers feeling incompetent and unable to offer a helpful response. 
There was also a claim that a focus on emotional well-being in school would risk developing a culture of 
‘victims’ and narcissists. 

Students do need to be able to discuss and reflect on important issues, but to maximise safety this 
needs to stay in the realm of the impersonal, with no expectation of disclosing personal circumstances or 
incidents. There are many ways to do this including using stories, video clips, role play and ‘pair shares’, 
talking with a partner about an issue and seeking commonalities. Even in personal feedback, the use of 
‘someone’ rather than ‘I’ can provide a safety barrier, e.g., “It would make someone angry if ...” Co¬ 
operative learning in most curriculum subjects is more effective that competitive (Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 
2000), but is especially valuable in SEL. Activities that take place in pairs or small groups take the focus off 
the individual who nevertheless will be reflecting on how these issues apply to them. Working together also 
enables some of the learnt skills to be put into practice. 

The right to pass and stay silent is also a safety valve for students. No-one has to say anything unless 
they choose to do so. In the AGC this proved to be a critical aspect of the pedagogy as it alleviated the risk of 
‘shame’ and enabled the girls to establish a sense of comfort and trust with each other and the facilitator 
before choosing to engage verbally. Initial reluctance to speak out applies to other cultures, such as 
Singaporean and Chinese. 


Rationale, theory and evidence. Positive psychology can be briefly defined as a focus on what is 
going well in matters of human development and endeavour. It pursues understanding of what enables people 
to flourish rather than how to identify deficit and treat disease (Gable & Haidt, 2005). There is now a vast 
literature on the various elements of positive psychology and its application in educational settings (e.g. 
Gilman, Scott Huebner, & Furlong, 2009). This includes matters as diverse as resilience, flow, growth mind 
set, positive emotions, social capital, strengths-based approaches, and more. Student and school well-being is 
beginning to be embedded in various educational jurisdictions, and there is significant interest in what this 
means and how it works (House of Commons, 2017). This section addresses just a few of these approaches. 

Pedagogy. Activities in SEL are solution rather than problem focused. This means that students are 
asked to consider what supports resilience, conflict resolution or confidence. They look to explore what is fair 
and what they and others need to thrive or learn. They may look at pictures of faces and with a partner 
consider what might have caused them to feel that way and what needs to happen now. Younger children may 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 64 

be introduced to a teddy bear or puppet who is said to be sad or upset, and the children come up with ideas to 
help. There are never right or wrong answers, just reflection and discussion. We have found that when young 
people consider what matters to them, how they want to be treated and feel, they begin to build solutions 
without having been presented directly with problems. When students are working together in a safe activity 
they consider broad issues of well-being for themselves and others with a remarkable depth of understanding. 

In the AGC girls were given collage materials and in groups of three asked to construct a collage that 
represented their ideal community - one in which they would like to live and work in the future (see Figure 
1 ). 

Figure 1. Collage representing the ideal community of AGC girls 
(Image © Emma Marshall 

Subsequent activities explored what they might do to help develop this - giving the girls agency to 
decide, with staff supporting them to take incremental steps towards their goal. One group decided that 
diabetes was a major problem in their families and wanted to raise awareness of the dangers of sugar, so 
developed a poster showing ‘The Sugar in your Snacks’ which was reproduced, laminated and distributed 
across the community. Strengths identification is also encouraged in various activities. This concerns both the 
strengths that people possess, those they would like to have, those that would be useful in given situations, 
and strengths within a family, group or class. 

Finally, this aspect of ASPIRE incorporates the promotion of positive emotions. Frederickson (2009) 
found that positive emotions promote problem-solving and creative thinking. Feeling valued, thankful and 
connected matters, but positive emotions can also be elicited by playfulness. Many activities are presented as 
games, none of which are individually competitive (Hromek & Roffey, 2009). Some are deliberately aimed to 
engage students in laughing together. This raises oxytocin levels, which helps people feel connected, which in 
turn raises resilience. In the AGC evaluation (Dobia et al., 2013) there were many comments on the value of 

ISSN 2073-7629 
©2017 CRES 

Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 



having fun together; “I was surprised how making the workshops fun, the girls were engaged and were then 
able to discuss some deep/serious issues” (Adult participant). “You can go to AGC sad and leave it like, really 
happy” (Student). 

This focus on positivity can be critiqued as having Western overtones but the option of opting out 
together with the focus on agency, respect and inclusion ensures that cultural differences in expressing 
sadness or negativity are accepted and understanding shared (Koopman-Holm & Tsai, 2014). 


Rationale, theory and evidence. A sense of connectedness is now firmly established as a factor in 
resilience and well-being (Werner, 2004). Although belonging can be experienced in many domains a major 
site is within school. School connectedness is multi-dimensional with no single definition but there is general 
agreement that it comprises a sense of feeling cared for, high expectations for learning, and support to achieve 
alongside opportunities to participate (McNeely, Nonnemaker & Blum, 2004). Research indicates that a sense 
of school connectedness enhances academic performance (Sari, 2012), psychological well-being (Nutbrown 
& Clough, 2009) and pro-social behaviour (Blum, 2005). A sense of belonging, however, can be inclusive, 
where everyone is welcome and everyone matters, or exclusive, which maintains group cohesion and 
superiority by keeping those out who do not meet certain criteria. For the well-being of all students, especially 
the most vulnerable, it is critical that schools develop a sense of inclusive belonging (Roffey, 2013). Allen, 
Vella-Brodrik and Waters (2017) investigated the relationship between social and emotional competencies 
and school belonging. In a meta-analysis of eleven studies they found that social and emotional competencies 
had a significant relationship with school belonging. This means not only that social and emotional learning is 
critical for school belonging but also that inclusion needs to be part of the implementation process for a 
universal SEL intervention. This principle in ASPIRE is particularly pertinent for addressing diversity and 
for promoting a sense of shared humanity - learning about each other as both unique individuals and what we 
have in common. 

Pedagogy. Inclusion for SEL means that every participant has an opportunity to be involved in every 
activity should they choose to do so. Inclusion is also facilitated by mixing students up for SEL activities so 
that everyone works with everyone else either with a partner or in a small group. In a photo-film on Circle 
Solutions, one young boy said: “While we are having fun we learn about each other, we play some games and 
learn about each other”. Some activities are specifically designed to inhibit pre-judgement of others on the 
basis of limited information, to explore the needs of those who might be marginalised and to ‘walk in their 
shoes’ (Roffey, 2014). 

How teachers respond to students who do not conform is also relevant to this principle. We have 
increasing numbers of students excluded from school for aberrant behaviours, and it is these students who are 
likely to be the most vulnerable and most need to feel they matter. When a student does not conform to the 
basic guidelines of respect for others, usually by talking over them, the guidelines or expectations are repeated 
to the whole group several times. If this is ineffective he or she is taken aside while others carry out a small 
group activity. The pupils are first told that they are wanted as they are part of a class. They are then given the 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 66 

choice to either show respect for others or stay or leave for a while. The door is always left open for them to 
return - but only on the basis of positive behaviours. In eight Western Sydney schools the student facilitators 
found that behaviour was rarely a problem during SEL Circles, even for those who were difficult for their 
regular teacher (McCarthy & Roffey, 2013). Improved behaviour, however was not sustainable without the 
active and positive participation of their classroom teacher. 


Rationale, theory and evidence. In the West, respect is no longer a ‘given’ that comes with authority 
or seniority. In some contexts, respect means being honoured or esteemed - thought worthy by others. This 
may depend on what is considered to be valuable by others, such as excelling in a given way. Education has 
moved towards a homogeneity of expectations that does not always credit individual differences as valuable, 
and may give little room in practice for respecting diversity. The National Framework for Values Education 
in Australian Schools outlines nine values for Australian Schooling (DEST, 2005). One of these is ‘Respect’, 
defined as ‘treat others with consideration and regard, respect another person’s point of view’. Egan (2002) 
defines a respectful interaction as one in which one person does not overwhelm the other with their own 
agenda and does not rush to judgement. Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, Sorenson, Yaegar, & Whitney, 
2001) is a way of putting respect into practice and is congruent with positive psychology approaches by 
building on strengths, focusing on an imagined ideal future, and making meaning within a collaborative 

Roffey (2005) explored the perceptions of respect with various stakeholders in the school 
environment in three qualitative studies: how it felt to be a recipient of respectful interactions and the 
difference this made to expectations of the self and others, motivations, confidence and positive emotionality. 
Respect was demonstrated by acknowledgement of presence and of the whole person, seeking and valuing the 
positive, acknowledgement of effort, feelings and competencies, and taking account of individual contexts. 
Positive communication was a critical factor, especially through active listening and not making judgements. 
Feeling safe enough to speak and participate was also mentioned, as was the willingness of others to admit 
and apologise when they had misunderstood or made a mistake. 

Respect for culture is both subtle and powerful. Indigenous students in Australia are often perceived 
as challenging in the school context. This is evidenced by a disproportionate number being excluded from 
school. Although an SEL programme may be seen as an answer to this, there is a concern that SEL programs 
based on explicit classroom teaching of formal skills that privilege non-Indigenous ways of thinking, feeling 
and behaving may reinforce rather than challenge a deficit lens (Hoffman, 2009; Humphrey, 2013). 

For working between cultures the flexible and open-ended methodology of ASPIRE enabled the girls 
in the AGC to own and lead processes that supported their sense of resilience and connectedness, encouraging 
them to take up issues that they found significant (Dobia & Roffey, 2017). Two-way learning sought the 
respectful integration of Aboriginal and non-Indigenous knowledge through a commitment to culturally 
responsive teaching and effective community partnerships. 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 67 

Pedagogy. Respect in ASPIRE is modelled, experienced, reflected upon and discussed. Students may 
be asked to identify with others what is happening when they feel respected and what feelings are associated 
with this. They may talk about who they respect and why, being given the option to choose public figures as 
well as known individuals. Respect is encapsulated in two guidelines: 

1. When you are speaking everyone else will listen, as what you have to say is important - this 
means you also need to listen to others; 

2. There are no ‘put downs’ only personal positives. 

These guidelines are stated at the beginning of a Circle session and repeated with brevity throughout 
as necessary. These guidelines apply to everyone, including the teacher/facilitator who needs to ensure that 
everyone has a turn and a voice. Students are given activities that help to develop the skills of positive 
communication so that they learn what active listening means and how jumping to conclusions about others 
can often be wrong. What has been discovered is that when these guidelines are actively followed the quieter 
children begin to find their voice and the more confident and louder pupils are quieter. At the end of one AGC 
camp one young woman stated: “I have learnt that to get respect you have to give it.” 


Rationale, theory and evidence. McCashen (2005) talks about the essence of the strengths-based 
approach as being ‘power with’, rather than ‘power over’. It is about having a high regard for uniqueness and 
diversity and also respect for the commonalities between people. The human need for fairness is hard-wired. 
The brain’s reward centre is activated when fairness and cooperation are experienced (Tabibnia & Leiderman, 
2007). Fairness does not however mean rigid sameness - it means acknowledgement of different 
circumstances and flexibility in response to these. 

Pedagogy: This final principle in ASPIRE was originally equality but that can mean valuing 
homogeneity rather than diversity. Equity, on the other hand, means ensuring equal access, participation and 
opportunity and at times may mean adaptations. These may be necessary for special needs students, those 
who are not native speakers and those who struggle with basic expectations. The principle is encapsulated in 
ensuring that everyone has a voice and has structured opportunities to participate. 

In the ASPIRE approach to SEL the teacher participates equally with all students, sits in the Circle 
and engages with activities whether these are paired, small group or everyone together. This changes 
relationships and understanding as well as skills. As teacher emotional literacy is often cited as relevant in 
teaching SEL (e.g., Brackett & Patti, 2016) in this framework all are learning together. 


ASPIRE is not intended to replace previous strategies for implementation, but to build on these so that 
teachers and students feel safe, engaged and positive about social and emotional learning. Social and 
emotional learning has been identified as one of the main pathways to student well-being (Noble, McGrath, 
Roffey & Rowling, 2008), but one of the other pathways is a safe, respectful and supportive school 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 68 

environment. We consider these as both interactive and underpinned by the ASPIRE principles. This paper 
is not the first to say that social and emotional learning is an approach to education that encompasses not only 
knowledge and skills but also a way of supporting mental health, but this must also be embedded in a 
congruent learning environment (Greenberg, Domotrovich, Weissberg, & Durlak, 2017). More research is 
needed to identify which of the principles have most impact on sustainability, and the ways in which these 
can be developed both for SEL and in establishing well-being at the heart of school ethos and practice. 


Allen, K., Vella-Brodrik, D., & Waters, L. (2017). School belonging and the role of social and emotional 
competencies in fostering an adolescent’s sense of connectedness in their school. In E. Frydenberg, 

A. J. Martin & R. Collie (Eds.), Social and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: 
Perspectives, Programs and Approaches (pp. 83-99). Dordrecht: Springer. 

Bluestein. J. (2001). Creating Emotionally Safe Schools: A Guide for Educators and Parents. Deerfield 
Beach, FL: Health Communications Inc. 

Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 62-70. 

Brackett, M. A., & Patti, J. (2016). Creating emotionally intelligent schools: Training in social and emotional 
skills begins with educators. School Administrator, 19-22. 

CASEL (2015). Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs: Middle and High School Edition. 

Retrieved on 3 rd August 2017 from: 
Cefai, C., & Cavioni, V. (2014). Social and Emotional Education in Primary School: Integrating theory and 
Research into Practice. Dordrecht: Springer. 

Cooperrider, D., Sorenson Jnr., P.F., Yaegar, T., & Whitney, D. (Eds.) (2001). Appreciative Inquiry: An 
Emerging Direction for Organizational Development. Champaign, IL: Stipes. 

Craig, C. (2007). The potential dangers of a systematic, explicit approach to teaching social and emotional 
skills. Scotland: Centre for Confidence and Wellbeing. 

Crepeau, J. M., & Richards, M. A. (2003). A Show of Hands: Using Puppets with Young Children. St Paul, 
MN: Redleaf Press. 

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2005). National framework for values education in 
Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. 

Dobia, B., & Roffey, S. (2017). Respect for culture - social and emotional learning with Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Youth. In E. Frydenberg, A. J. Martin & R. Collie (Eds.), Social and Emotional 
Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, Progams and Approaches (pp. 313-334). 
Dordrecht: Springer. 

Dobia, B., Bodkin-Andrews, G., Parada, R. H., O’Rourke, V., Gilbert, S., & Roffey, S. (2014). The 

Aboriginal Girls ’ Circle: Enhancing connectedness and promoting resilience for Aboriginal girls. 
Final Report. Penrith, NSW: University of Western Sydney. 

Durlak, J. A. (2015) What everyone should know about implementation. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, 

R. P. Weissberg & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Emotioned Learning Research and 

ISSN 2073-7629 

©2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 69 

Practice (pp. 395-405). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Ecclestone K. & Hayes, D. (2008). The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. London: Routledge 
Education Services Australia (2010). National Safe Schools Framework (revised). Carlton South, VIC: 
Commonwealth of Australia. 

Egan, G. (2002). The Skilled Helper: A Problem Management and Opportunity Development Approach to 
Helping (7 th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. 

Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity: Ground-breaking research to release your inner optimist and thrive. 
Oxford: OneWorld Publications. 

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 

9(2), 103-110. 

Gilman, R., Scott Huebner, E., & Furlong, M.J. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. 
London: Routledge. 

Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: results from a 
national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 3-35. 

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovitch C. E., Weissberg, R. P. & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social-emotional learning as 
a public health approach to education. Future of Children, 27(1), 13-32. 

Growing Great Schools (2017). List of Registered Circle Solutions Schools. Retrieved on 7 th November 2017 
Hamedani. M.G., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Social and Emotional Learning in High School: How 

Three Urban High Schools, Engage, Educate and Empower Youth. Stanford Centre for Opportunity 
Policy in Education 

Hirsh, R. A. (2004). Early Childhood Curriculum: Incorporating Multiple Intelligences, Developmentally 
Appropriate Practice and Play. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. 

Hoffman, D. M. (2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: a critical perspective on trends in the United 
States. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 533-556. 

House of Commons (2017). Children and Young Peoples Mental Health: The Role of Education. Retrieved 
on 1 st August 2017 from: 
Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Games as a pedagogy to promote social and emotional learning: ‘It's fun 
and we learn things’. Simulation and Gaming, 40(1), 626 -644. 

Humphrey, N. (2013). Social and Emotioned Learning: a critical appraised. London: Sage Education. 
Johnson, D. W. Johnson, R. T., & Shane, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-analysis 
University of Minnesota. Retrieved on 1 st July 2017 from: 
Koopman-Holm, B., & Tsai, J. L. (2014). Focusing on the negative: cultural differences in expressing 
sympathy. Journal of Personality einel Socied Psychology, 707(6), 1092-1115. 

Littlefield, L., Cavanagh, S., Knapp, R., & O’Grady, L. (2017). KidsMatter: Building the capacity of 

Australian primary schools and early childhood services to foster children’s social and emotional 

ISSN 2073-7629 

© 2017 CRES Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017 pp 70 

skills and promote children’s mental health. In E. Frydenberg, A. J. Martin & R. Collie (Eds.), Social 
and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, Progams and Approaches 
(pp 293-311). Dordrecht: Springer. 

McCarthy, F., & Roffey.S. (2013). Circle Solutions: a philosophy and pedagogy for learning positive 

relationships. What promotes and inhibits sustainable outcomes? International Journal for Emotioned 
Education, 5(1), 36-55. 

McCashen, W. (2005). The Strengths Approach: A strengths based resource for sharing power and creating 
change. Bendigo, VIC: St Luke’s Innovative Resources. 

McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum. R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness. Evidence from 
the National Longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146. 

Noble, T., McGrath, H., Roffey, S., & Rowling, L. (2008). Scoping Study into Approaches to Student 
Wellbeing. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 
Commonwealth of Australia 

NSW Commission for Children and Young People (2007). Ask the children: overview of children's 

understandings of wellbeing. Surry Hills, N.S.W.: NSW Commission for Children & Young People, 
Retrieved on 1 st August 2017 from: 

Nutbrown, C., & Clough, P. (2009). Citizenship and inclusion in the early years. Understanding and 

responding to children’s perspectives of belonging. International Journal of Early Years Education, 
77(3), 91-206. 

Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent 
language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 40-55. 

Roffey, S. (2005). Respect in practice: The challenge of emotional literacy in education. Australian 
Association for Research in Education conference papers. Retrieved on 1 st August 2017 from: 

Roffey, S. (2013). Inclusive and Exclusive Belonging: The impact on individual and community wellbeing. 
Educational and Child Psychology, 30(1), 38-49. 

Roffey. S. (2014). Circle Solutions for Student Wellbeing. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, 
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. 

Sari, M. (2012). Sense of school belonging amongst elementary school students. Cukurova University Faculty 
of Education Journal, 47(1), 1-11. 

Skelton, P., Seevers, B., Dormody, T., & Hodnett, F. (2012). A conceptual process model for improving 
youth science comprehension. Journal of Extension, 50(3), Article 3IAW1. 

Tabibnia, G., & Leiderman, M. D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding: Evidence from social 
cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 90-101. 

Werner, E. E. (2004). What can we learn about resilience from large scale longitudinal studies? In S. 

Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children (pp. 91-105). New York, NY: 
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

ISSN 2073-7629 
©2017 CRES 

Special Issue Volume 9, Number 2, November 2017