The Science of Learning and Development: A Translational and Transactional Science in Service of Human Development and Well-Being

Research and Practice are Grounded in Ecological Systems

Bronfenbrenner’s classic ecological systems theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) has shaped the design, execution, and interpretation of the vast majority of research in human development since it first came formally on the scene with the publication of The Ecology of Human Development in 1979 (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In consequence, there has been parallel effort to ensure that practical application is similarly focused on and reflective of children’s unique contexts. In fact, there is now a robust body of work focused on developmental settings as central targets of research and intervention (e.g., Tseng & Seidman, 2007). Very generally, what Bronfenbrenner termed “bioecological systems theory” specifies and defines multiple levels of ecology, ranging from the proximal to the distal, in which people, relationships, institutions, and culture all influence the unique trajectories of the developing individual, and in turn, these trajectories coactively and dynamically influence the context of human development through what was proposed as a process-person-context-time dynamic model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Central to this model is the idea that the developing individual is at the center of important and influential dynamic (i.e., mutually influential) systems (e.g., Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Mascolo & Fischer, 2010). Indeed, the figure of the concentric rings representing different systems (micro, meso, exo, macro) with the child at the center is ubiquitous in our field—it is in every textbook and described or referred to in the introduction to a vast number of academic papers and articles.

In translation, what often gets into practical application is the notion that it is the child or individual who is the target of intervention and prevention efforts rather than aspects of the systems that shape developmental pathways. This idea is actually inconsistent with the original theory, which posits that the strongest influence on development are daily, recurring, bidirectional coactions and close relationships (i.e., proximal processes; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Junlei Li and colleagues defined these as “developmental relationships” (Li & Julian, 2012) and situated the relationship itself (between the developing individual and any others in their developmental orbit) at the center, describing them as the active ingredient of any effective strategy, practice, or intervention. Again, this idea is not necessarily new. What is new here and is evident in the integrated SoLD are (a) the idea that relationships, indeed systems of relationships, are the drivers of developmental pathways (e.g., Cantor et al., 2021) and should be at the center of any heuristic describing human development in context and (b) taking this idea a bit further, that in fact, there is no center in this schema but instead, a system as it appears in reality (imagine the ecology of a small pond) with influences in any part of the system rippling, or cascading, to influence any other part of the system. Mapping this idea back to human development suggests that for any strategy, practice, program, intervention, or policy to be effective, its impact would have to carry from its logical point of entry to transform human⇔human relationships (Lerner, 2021).

SEL as a field rests on a body of theory and research that reflects Bronfenbrenner’s model, emphasizing relationships and the role of influential contexts and systems (e.g., Jones & Bouffard, 2012; Jones et al., 2017; Osher et al., 2016); yet the typical modality of SEL practice is curricular (i.e., an SEL curriculum that is implemented following a traditional scope and sequence; Jones et al., 2021; Immordino-Yang et al., 2023) with the idea that adults in schools and other learning settings teach lessons in classrooms that are intended to foster children’s specific skill development (e.g., emotion knowledge, self-regulation, conflict resolution). This practice is rooted in the idea that the child is at the center and the adult is creating experiences that shape individual development. Unaddressed here is the question of whether and how such curricula shape developmental relationships and interactions in classrooms (although there are more recent calls to focus on adult skills and well-being as a pathway to fostering relationships; e.g., Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Addressing this question in practice could result in more consistently and powerfully effective practices (Cipriano et al., 2023) and provide insights into processes for more deeply integrating academic, social, and emotional learning in relationship-based instruction (e.g., Berger et al., 2019).

Research and Practice Follow Developmental Principles

SoLD is, of course, deeply rooted in long-standing developmental paradigms that integrate knowledge from scientific disciplines at multiple levels of analysis and across multiple domains, drawing together diverse findings and frameworks to best explain developmental phenomenon (Bailey & Jones, 2019). SoLD is a good recent example, but there are others (e.g., developmental psychopathology; Cicchetti & Rogosh, 2002). A central concept in these paradigms is the notion of “stage salience.” Stage salience is the principle that each developmental period includes tasks that are particularly relevant to children or youth in that stage (e.g., Aber & Jones, 1997; Sroufe, 1979). It is typically defined by internal changes in the individual but can (and as per aforementioned, should) be defined by environmental-, cultural-, or context-specific expectations that drive what types of experiences are most relevant during a particular age range. Stage salience also refers to the specific tasks that must be mastered to move to the next developmental stage. In other words, stage-salient tasks involve skills that lay the foundation for later skills. Rooted in notions of experience-expectant and experience-dependent developmental phenomena (e.g., Jones & Zigler, 2002) and more recently made explicit in SoLD (e.g., Cantor et al., 2019; Osher et al., 2020), inherent in this concept is the idea that there are skill systems (e.g., a regulatory system, a motivation system, a communication system) that are universal and relevant throughout the life course and stage-specific skills that represent distinct manifestations unique to a particular developmental period or a specific demand characteristic of a developmental context or culture (e.g., Li, 2020; Mascolo & Fischer, 2010; Mesman et al., 2018).

In SEL, skills (whether the target of interventions and programs and/or as defined in frameworks and conceptual models) tend to proliferate (e.g., Jones et al., 2016) with little to no attention to the ideas of stage salience as defined here and can in some cases be overly oriented toward task demands in particular settings (e.g., that self-control is promoted in some settings as a tool for compliance) irrespective of individual experience, phenomenological and developmental meaning, or appropriateness (e.g., Bailey et al., 2019; Lerner & Bornstein, 2021). More directly and explicitly, prioritizing and supporting a small set of developmental systems in a manner aligned to developmental stage (what I term here “pathway skills”; e.g., the specific regulatory skills that are salient in infancy vs. those relevant to the preschool period vs. those surfacing during adolescence; Bailey & Jones, 2019) is more consistent with SoLD and makes room for both efficiency and depth in practice.

Research and Practice are Driven Toward Process Rather than Product

Research in translation frequently takes the form of programs that are carefully designed and tested in a sequence of increasingly rigorous studies ultimately landing as an “evidence-based program” that might be scaled (e.g., Jones, McGarrah, & Kahn, 2019; Kellam & Langevin, 2003). In many cases, programs are deemed effective based on average effects (e.g., on average, does a program work or not?). Attending only to the average effects of programs limits our understanding of underlying processes and effective, or active, ingredients (the how and why programs work; e.g., Center on the Developing Child, 2021; Dymnicki et al., 2020). Paradoxically, underlying processes are often core ideas, drawn from research (e.g., the aforementioned developmental relationships or the three “core principles of development” defined by Center on the Developing Child, 2021), around which a program or strategy is initially built. But they are frequently embedded in a complex package of activities (lessons, posters, trainings, assessments, etc.) obscuring their central role and meaning (Pekel et al., 2018). Prioritizing processes and active ingredients is important because one approach or type of program—one brand or product or another—is unlikely to work or be meaningful and/or desired in all settings (e.g., Bailey et al., 2021; Lerner & Bornstein, 2021). In parallel, attending only to average patterns in human development and applying averages to whole groups assumes uniformity that ignores the reality and complexity of setting, culture, values, and individual experience-based variation (Rose, 2015). SoLD tells us that understanding and responding to true variation pushes beyond overly simplistic depictions of groups toward a more thoughtful and actionable understanding of processes that offer a different pathway to scaling and relatedly, to tailoring approaches to the varying needs of children, youth, and the adults who surround and support them (Cantor et al., 2019; Jones, Farrington, et al., 2019; Osher et al., 2020).

As noted previously, the typical modality of SEL practice is curricular, and there is certainly a great deal of evidence on the effectiveness of these programs. Numerous meta-analyses conducted over the last 10 to 15 years document both their average effects (e.g., Cipriano et al., 2023; Durlak et al., 2011; Humphrey, 2013), their longer-term effects (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2017), and variation by features of implementation and other characteristics of schools and individuals (e.g., Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Jones et al., 2023).

What is missing from this vast body of research and evidence? It is a systematic understanding and assessment of underlying processes. There are certainly theories of change for SEL programs that identify potential processes, and there are some efforts to document their role empirically (e.g., Jones et al., 2013; McCormick et al., 2015). In addition, there are efforts to distill common elements of effective SEL programs under the hypothesis that these may represent active ingredients (that theoretically are linked to underlying processes) that might themselves be more scalable and adaptable to local needs and contexts (e.g., Wiglesworth et al., 2022; 2023;).

Scaling Good Ideas Demands Simplifying and Localizing

Building on the idea of “scalable and adaptable” and those of ecological and developmental skill systems, translating the complex SoLD for effective practice (i.e., for strategies, practices, programs, interventions, and policies) requires the twin processes of simplifying and localizing (e.g., Bailey et al., 2021; Box, 1976). Developmental science is complex, and one of the hallmarks of SoLD is that it is integrative, drawing together and synthesizing bodies of knowledge from multiple disciplines and perspectives (Cantor et al., 2019; Osher et al., 2020).

In a sense, SoLD itself is analogous to the common elements approach to identifying active ingredients in effective programs described just previously, but for SoLD, it is about distilling common and connected bodies of knowledge about human development. Those concepts represent “simple” throughlines that can be translated for practical application in a manner that is localized (for an example of this work localizing a social and emotional learning approach, see Bailey et al., 2021), meaning it is acted on through processes of codesign or local design that aligns with the values, assets, needs, knowledge, practices, and resources of a particular setting or context. These represent types of scaling termed “adaptation” or “reinvention” by Morel and colleagues (2019) and are a fundamental feature of the dynamic sustainability framework (Chambers et al., 2013). In this way scaling is less about one particular strategy, practice, or approach and more about making use of local assets, values, and priorities to design approaches around simple science-based throughlines (developmental mechanisms as described previously) that ultimately drive more effective, sustainable, locally held practice.