SEL and Technology: The Role of Digital Tools in Promoting Emotional and Social Skills

Abstract

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has emerged as a crucial component of education, equipping students with essential skills for personal and interpersonal success. This synthesis explores the interplay between digital tools and learning, with a focus on interactivity, emotional literacy, and the evolving nature of education. The integration of technology reshapes traditional educational paradigms by emphasizing performative and collaborative dimensions of learning. Theoretical frameworks such as social constructivism highlight the role of digital tools in fostering collective meaning-making and situated learning. Meanwhile, the transformative potential of technology in early childhood education underscores its dual role as both a challenge and a resource. Digital tools offer significant advantages in promoting SEL by providing interactive, accessible, and personalized learning experiences. The integration of AI and other advanced technologies further enhances the efficacy of these tools. Despite concerns about diminishing face-to-face interactions, intentional applications of digital tools can bolster social-emotional skills, from empathy to collaboration. Examples include interactive platforms fostering peer review, storytelling techniques, and role-play activities tailored for both graduate students and preschoolers. These innovations align with future workplace needs, emphasizing emotional intelligence, teamwork, and adaptability. This discussion advocates for a balanced integration of technology, ensuring that the human elements of education-collaboration, creativity, and social connection-remain central amidst technological advancements. This paper also explores the intersection of SEL and technology, examining how digital platforms, applications, and resources contribute to the development of emotional and social competencies.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) refers to the process through which individuals acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, and achieve personal and collective goals. SEL involves learning to feel and show empathy for others, establish, and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions. Importance of SEL in personal and academic development. The Online Learning Consortium (OLC), formerly known as the Sloan Consortium, reports that 7.1 million students took at least one online course in 2013. Given this context in higher education, instructors may find that establishing an engaging, interactive learning environment in the online classroom is a challenge. Integrating technology tools into face-to-face, hybrid, or purely online courses can become a full-time professional development task, passion, or even an obsession. Given the pressure to “keep up,” some faculty may decide that working within the online learning management system (LMS) is enough. Others keep their eyes and ears open or actively seek tools that support virtual communication, social networking, and new forms of collaborative learning.

Increasing societal complexity introduces challenges that call for a concomitant increase in school programs designed to support children’s emotional and social development. In addition, the complexities inherent in a child’s growth call for the development of social and emotional competencies (Payton et al. 2000). Social skills are related to academic performance (McLelland et al. 2000). Thus, social and emotional components are important in a context of learning (Zins et al. 2004a). Learning as an inherently social activity. Likewise, Zins et al. (2004b) argued that “schools are social places and learning is a social process” (p. 3).

The development of emotional and social competencies may be helped by social and emotional learning (SEL). However, schools are often hampered in their efforts to promote such learning by a need to focus on academics and by a lack of resources including time (Durlak et al. 2011). Not surprisingly, therefore, it is not uncommon for students to be lacking in necessary social-emotional competencies and, as a result, they may be negatively affected academically (Blum and Libbey 2004). The social and emotional context of learning may be challenged by, for example, bullying (Espelage and Swearer 2004), or by childhood and adolescent depression and anxiety (Merrell 2008). Negative emotions about learning may lead to a lack of engagement or even failure on the part of learners (Skinner et al. 2008).

The rise of technology has profoundly transformed education, reshaping traditional teaching methods and enabling innovative approaches to learning. Digital tools such as interactive whiteboards, learning management systems (LMS), and online collaborative platforms have redefined how knowledge is accessed, shared, and retained (Säljö, 2010). These technological advancements not only provide new opportunities for instruction but also offer avenues for enhancing social and emotional learning (SEL), a critical area of development in modern education. SEL integrates the cultivation of emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and ethical decision-making into the learning process, aiming to prepare students for both academic and personal success (Whitehead, 2017). The integration of technology into SEL has proven to be a valuable strategy in addressing challenges like diminishing face-to-face interactions and preparing students for future social dynamics. For instance, tools such as digital storytelling platforms and peer collaboration apps support emotional literacy and teamwork, bridging gaps created by the digital age (Moreillon, 2015). By leveraging technology, educators can create immersive, interactive experiences that foster empathy, self-awareness, and social connections in increasingly digital classrooms.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Research highlights the benefits of SEL for both students and educators. Integrating SEL into the curriculum improves academic outcomes, enhances emotional regulation, and reduces behavioral issues (Durlak et al., 2011). Effective SEL programs create environments where students feel supported, fostering positive teacher-student relationships and encouraging engagement in learning (Brackett & Rivers, 2013). Moreover, SEL helps mitigate the challenges posed by technological proliferation, which can reduce face-to-face interactions critical for developing empathy and collaboration (Whitehead, 2017).

While SEL is often emphasized during early childhood and school years, its principles apply across the lifespan. Erikson’s psychosocial development theory underscores the continuous evolution of social and emotional skills as foundational for healthy identity formation and interpersonal functioning (Erikson, 1950). For young children, SEL involves foundational skills like turn-taking and emotional recognition, which are often developed through structured play and teacher-led activities (Whitehead, 2017). Technology plays a dual role in SEL development. While excessive reliance on digital interactions can impede traditional social skill-building, intentional use of technology can enhance SEL by providing tools for collaborative learning and emotional literacy development. For example, digital platforms can simulate real-world scenarios, offering safe environments for practicing social interactions and decision-making (Säljö, 2010). Tools like scripted stories and collaborative multimedia projects have shown promise in promoting emotional intelligence and empathy among learners (Whitehead, 2017).

Activity theory suggests that human beings think through their use of tools (Vygotsky, 1980). It is with tools and actions that people demonstrate their cognitive processes and their achievements. Activity theory is supported by the theory of situated cognition, which posits that knowing is inseparable from doing. People learn through their experiences and the tools, technologies, languages, and other cultural markers they use help them ascribe shared meaning to those experiences (Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990). Taken together, social constructivism, activity theory, and situated cognition argue that knowledge is situated in activities and supported by social, cultural, and physical contexts.

Other studies have explored the potential of technology for SEL interventions but do not carry out the intervention. Donkor (2013) relied on questionnaires, interviews and focus groups with teachers and students to argue in favor of use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) to develop EI in secondary school students. However, Donkor (2013) did not actually implement use of VLEs in his study. Dormann and Biddle (2008) focused on the creation of Ba repertory of affective learning game patterns to help designers to craft and assess their games in terms of affective learning (p. 42). They analyzed existing digital games and how these can support affective learning and discussed how to design games with this goal in mind. Similarly, Dormann et al. (2013) developed a taxonomy of “affective patterns to sustain socioemotional learning” using digital games (p. 215).

Moreover, technology allows for personalized learning experiences that cater to individual emotional and social needs. Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools can assess students' emotional states and adapt content accordingly, fostering a sense of connection and understanding. A study by Kim et al. (2018) highlighted that AI-based chatbots could effectively teach emotional vocabulary and conflict resolution techniques to middle school students. Despite these benefits, there are challenges to integrating technology into SEL. Overreliance on digital tools may reduce face-to-face interactions, which are essential for developing interpersonal skills. Further, ethical concerns about data privacy and the emotional safety of students using AI-driven systems have been raised (Livingstone & Stoilova, 2019).

Additionally, equitable access remains a barrier, with disparities in technological resources potentially exacerbating existing inequalities (Greenberg et al., 2022). Thus, while technology offers promising tools for SEL, its integration must be carefully designed to address these challenges.

III. OBJECTIVES

• To find out the role of digital tools in enhancing SEL.
• To explore the benefits, opportunities, and challenges of using technology for SEL.

IV. LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LMS) ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARDS

In many online course contexts, the LMS’s discussion feature is used as a tool to enculturate learners into what Wenger (1998) calls “a community of practice.” Through online discussions, learners engage in shared meaning making through collective discussions around ideas and artifacts. As Gee (1990) notes, meaning is constructed is discourse communities. The discussion forum in the online classroom is one such community. Many researchers have studied how individual and shared meanings related to course content are achieved via LMS threaded discussions (Gilbert & Moore, 1998; Swan, 2001; Yukawa, 2010). Some have studied the importance of discussion group size (Kim, 2013) or being sensitive to how tools encourage or discourage interaction and balancing the needs of individuals and the group (Koole & Parchoma, 2012). Recent studies suggest that online anonymous group discussions generate better collaborative results than those held in the face-to-face classroom (Kim, Hong, Bonk, & Lim, 2013; Jong, Lai, Hsia, & Lin, 2013). A study by Fulton, Botticelli, and Bradley (2011) found that online discussions contain socioemotional components in which discussants exchange empathetic messages and engage in self-disclosure. Rice and Gattiker (2001) found that online communication is effective for synthesizing learning. When instructors require participation in the online discussion forum at set intervals and over a period of days, this asynchronous strategy provides students with sufficient time to reflect and extend their thinking in their responses to classmates (Moreillon, 2013) and necessitates their continual engagement with one another. While online discussions can lead students to higher levels of thinking, instructors must develop prompts or design discussions that will engender dialogue and motivate students to think critically about the information provided by the instructor or posted by classmates. My experience tells me that while the LMS discussion board is an essential feature of online learning, it can become a rote activity for students who may use this form of communication in most, if not all, of their courses.

V. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOLING AND RESEARCH ON LEARNING

It would be strange if this dynamic would not have had, and will continue to have, significant consequences for education on several levels. As we all know, this has been the case. It creates dilemmas about how to teach and what to teach, and it has material consequences by cutting into the budgets of schools and universities. In terms of the availability of technology, we find that the computers entering classrooms, schools and universities have broadband access to the Internet with all the resources that this offers, distance education has grown substantially as has online teaching in general, new learning management systems are continually launched, and so on. In recent years, we have seen governments and schools spending money on a new digital tool, the interactive whiteboard (Gillen et al. 2007; Jewitt et al. 2007). Indeed, the introduction of this device may be seen as a symbolic step in which one of the established artefacts of traditional, teacher-centered pedagogy, the blackboard, is on its way out of the classroom. Although in terms of software development dedicated for use in schools, progress is not equally obvious. Digital curriculum materials and multimedia resources have not been able to assert themselves as part of regular educational practices to the extent that some predicted they would. Digital technology, as a potential for transforming education, has been a major theme of research and development work for a long time. As early as in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were intense debates as well as some early developmental activities. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Apple and the IBM PC (and clones of the latter) began to spread to schools and universities. Even though such tools were initially used mostly for administrative purposes (documentation, scheduling, etc.), their potentials for education were visible and were intensively discussed. In response to this development of digital technology, a lively debate between techno-utopians, sceptics and those standing in between these positions emerged. So, there were visionaries who predicted that there ‘won’t be any schools in the future’ and that the ‘computer will blow up the school’, while others, for different reasons, remained much more sceptical about the revolutionary impact on schools of digital technology. Many people, including teachers, have been, and still are, asking themselves how to respond and accommodate to the changes taking place.

VI. BENEFITS OF DIGITAL TOOLS IN SEL

Digital tools inherently appeal to the digital-native generation, creating an engaging platform for SEL activities. Interactive applications, games, and virtual environments make learning more captivating compared to traditional methods. For instance, gamification in SEL apps, such as reward systems for achieving emotional milestones, motivates students to actively participate in learning (Durlak et al., 2011). Tools like ClassDojo or the Emotional ABCs platform provide immediate feedback, fostering a sense of accomplishment and encouraging consistent engagement.

One of the most significant advantages of digital tools in SEL is their ability to scale and reach diverse populations. Traditional SEL programs often require in-person resources, making them difficult to implement in underfunded schools or rural areas. Digital tools, however, can be distributed widely and accessed remotely, democratizing SEL education (Jones & Kahn, 2017).

For students with disabilities, digital tools provide features like text-to-speech, visual aids, and interactive elements, making SEL more inclusive. Additionally, apps designed for multilingual users overcome language barriers, enabling students from varied linguistic backgrounds to benefit from SEL initiatives.

Digital tools enable educators and students to monitor progress in real time. Analytics embedded in SEL platforms track emotional trends, social interactions, and skill development, providing insights that traditional methods may not easily capture (Humphrey et al., 2018). For example, apps like Mood Meter help users log their emotions daily, creating a visual representation of their emotional patterns. This data can be reviewed by educators to identify areas where students need support.

Digital platforms often include collaborative features, such as virtual classrooms, discussion forums, and team-based activities. These tools encourage peer interaction, enabling students to practice empathy, communication, and conflict resolution in a controlled digital environment. For instance, platforms like Edmodo or Seesaw allow students to share their thoughts and provide feedback to peers, simulating real-world social dynamics.

Additionally, digital tools support global collaboration by connecting students from different cultural backgrounds. This exposure broadens their perspectives and enhances cultural competence, an essential component of SEL (Zins & Elias, 2007). Such interactions foster an appreciation for diversity and teach students to navigate social situations in a multicultural world.

Digital tools in SEL also benefit educators and parents by providing resources, training, and insights. Online platforms often include professional development modules for teachers, equipping them with strategies to integrate SEL into their curricula effectively. For example, tools like Rethink SEL offer lesson plans, assessments, and instructional videos tailored to various educational settings. For parents, digital tools provide opportunities to engage with their child's emotional development. Apps with parent dashboards allow caregivers to monitor progress and participate in activities, bridging the gap between home and school environments. This collaborative approach ensures consistency in SEL reinforcement across different settings (Oberle et al., 2016).

VII. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

The integration of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) into digital platforms has amplified concerns about the digital divide and equity. The digital divide refers to the gap between individuals who have access to technology and those who do not, resulting in inequitable opportunities for engaging with SEL resources. Students from low-income families, rural areas, or marginalized communities often lack access to devices, reliable internet, or a conducive learning environment, creating barriers to digital SEL programs Equity concerns also emerge regarding the quality and cultural relevance of digital SEL tools. Many programs are designed with assumptions about students' cultural and social contexts, potentially alienating students from diverse backgrounds. Research highlights the importance of culturally responsive SEL practices to ensure inclusivity and effectiveness. Furthermore, the over-reliance on digital solutions can exclude students with disabilities who may require additional accommodations, emphasizing the need for universal design principles.

VIII. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A. Training Educators to use Digital SEL Tools Effectively

The integration of digital tools into Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) programs has shown significant promise in enhancing student engagement and skill development. However, for these tools to be effective, educators must be adequately trained to use them effectively. Proper training ensures educators can leverage these tools to foster critical SEL competencies, such as self-awareness, self-management, and interpersonal skills (Durlak et al., 2015, p. 66).

Effective training programs should focus on both the technical and pedagogical aspects of digital tools. Technical training involves familiarizing educators with the functionalities of digital SEL platforms, while pedagogical training focuses on integrating these tools into lesson plans and adapting them to diverse student needs (Jones & Kahn, 2017, p. 34). Research indicates that a blended training model, combining in-person workshops with online modules, is particularly effective in helping educators build confidence and competence in using digital SEL tools (Greenberg et al., 2017, p. 120).

Additionally, ongoing support and professional learning communities (PLCs) play a critical role in sustaining educators’ effective use of these tools. PLCs provide a platform for educators to share experiences, troubleshoot challenges, and exchange best practices (Brackett et al., 2019, p. 89). Evidence suggests that such collaborative approaches improve educators’ ability to tailor SEL interventions to their students' unique contexts (Weissberg et al., 2020, p. 143).

Conclusion

The integration of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) with technology presents a promising avenue for fostering emotional intelligence, social skills, and resilience in learners across diverse settings. Digital tools, including mobile applications, online platforms, and gamified learning environments, have demonstrated the capacity to complement traditional SEL methods by providing interactive, personalized, and scalable opportunities for skill development. These technologies not only enhance engagement but also enable learners to practice self-awareness, empathy, and collaboration in safe and controlled virtual environments. However, the effectiveness of technology in SEL is contingent upon thoughtful implementation. Educators, developers, and policymakers must work collaboratively to ensure that digital tools are evidence-based, culturally sensitive, and accessible to diverse populations. Moreover, privacy concerns and screen time management are critical considerations, necessitating transparent practices and guidelines to safeguard users\' well-being. While current research highlights the potential of digital tools in supporting SEL, gaps remain in understanding their long-term impact and the contextual factors influencing their success. Future studies should explore how technology-driven SEL interventions interact with factors such as age, cultural background, and socio-economic status to optimize outcomes. Additionally, hybrid models that blend technology with in-person instruction offer a promising approach for harnessing the strengths of both modalities. The integration of digital tools in SEL has revolutionized how emotional and social skills are taught, offering benefits that include increased engagement, accessibility, and real-time feedback. These tools support educators, parents, and students in creating a collaborative and inclusive learning environment that caters to diverse needs. As technology continues to evolve, the potential for digital tools in SEL is immense, promising innovative solutions for fostering emotional intelligence and social competence in future generations. Addressing the digital divide in SEL requires systemic interventions, including equitable funding for technology access, professional development for educators to implement inclusive SEL strategies, and the creation of culturally relevant, accessible digital tools. Such efforts can bridge the gap and ensure that all students benefit from SEL programs, irrespective of their socioeconomic or cultural backgrounds. The success of digital SEL tools depends not only on their design but also on educators’ ability to implement them effectively. By prioritizing comprehensive training and continuous support, schools can maximize the impact of these tools on students\' emotional and social development.

References

[1] Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). School connectedness-strengthening health and education outcomes for teenagers. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 229–299. [2] Brackett, M. A., & Rivers, S. E. (2013). Transforming students’ lives with social and emotional learning. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education. New York, NY: Routledge. [3] Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2019). Emotional intelligence and academic achievement. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [4] Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [5] Donkor, F. (2013). Using VLEs to support emotional intelligence: A secondary school perspective. In J. Jessel & V. Y. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 36–44). Torun, Poland: IFIP. [6] Dormann, C., & Biddle, R. (2008). Understanding game design for affective learning. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (pp. 41–48). doi:10.1145/1496984.1496992 [7] Dormann, C., Whitson, J. R., & Neuvians, M. (2013). Once more with feeling: Game design patterns for learning in the affective domain. Games and Culture, 8(4), 215–237. [8] Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [9] Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. [10] Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. [11] Fulton, B., Botticelli, P., & Bradley, J. (2011). DigIn: A hands-on approach to a digital curation curriculum for professional development. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 52(2), 95–109. [12] Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Falmer Press. [13] Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29–35. [14] Gillen, J., Kleine Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256. [15] Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2022). Challenges in implementing SEL programs in under-resourced schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 27(1), 35–51. [16] Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behaviors in children and youth. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 591–619. [17] Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Bolton, J., Lendrum, A., & Wigelsworth, M. (2018). The influence of school context on the implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning program. School Mental Health, 10(1), 30–44. [18] Jones, S. M., & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students\' social, emotional, and academic development. The Aspen Institute. [19] Jong, B., Lai, C., Hsia, Y., & Lin, T. (2013). Effects of anonymity in group discussion on peer interaction and learning achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(3), 292–299. [20] Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 62(1), 123–129. [21] Kim, S. J., Kim, H., & Lee, C. (2018). The role of AI chatbots in promoting social and emotional learning: A case study with middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 789–809. [22] Koole, M., & Parchoma, G. (2012). The ethical and practical implications of systems architecture on identity in networked learning: A constructionist perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(3), 203–215. [23] Livingstone, S., & Stoilova, M. (2019). Ethical challenges in designing technologies for social and emotional learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(3), 295–309. [24] McLelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-related skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 307–329. [25] Merrell, K. (2008). Helping students overcome depression and anxiety: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [26] Moreillon, J. (2013). Educating for school library leadership: Developing the instructional partnership role. Journal of Education in Library and Information Science, 54(1), 55–66. [27] Moreillon, J. (2015). Increasing interactivity in the online learning environment: Using digital tools to support students in socially constructed meaning-making. TechTrends, 59(3), 41–49. [28] Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297. [29] Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behavior in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 179–185. [30] Rice, R. E., & Gattiker, U. E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 544–584). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [31] Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory, and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53–64. [32] Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchland, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. [33] Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting learner satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. [34] Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [35] Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2020). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [36] Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [37] Whitehead, L. C. (2017). Social-emotional development in the digital age. Child Care Exchange, 7(4), 16–19. [38] Yukawa, J. (2010). Using evidence-based practice in LIS education: Results of a test of the communities of practice model. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(1), 104–128. [39] Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 233–255. [40] Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004a). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [41] Zins, J., Bloodworth, M., Weissberg, R., & Walberg, H. (2004b). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Dr. Bishwajit Rout, Mr. Toshabanta Bhoi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.