TPC Journal V7, Issue 1-FULL ISSUE

34 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 1 are encouraged to follow the sequencing, format and language provided in order to ensure fidelity of treatment. If practitioners go “off-script” or change the recommended delivery of the lessons, it may result in less favorable outcomes that might not meet the same levels as have been found in past research. That being said, the SSS program comes with detailed manuals that include recommended verbiage, descriptive diagrams and supplemental handouts (Brigman & Webb, 2012). During each lesson, students learn and practice strategies in five distinct areas: (a) goal setting, progress monitoring and success sharing; (b) creating a caring, supportive and encouraging classroom environment; (c) cognitive and memory skills; (d) calming skills; and (e) building healthy optimism. Specific strategies are taught and practiced each week and are reviewed and reinforced during subsequent lessons. Between lessons, students are encouraged to apply the new strategies that were taught and to work on the academic and personal goals that they set for themselves during the SSS session. Teachers also are expected to cue students to use the strategies during regular classroom lesson time. Research has established the effectiveness of SSS in several quasi-experimental and experimental studies. SSS implementation has resulted in enhanced academic achievement as measured by standardized achievement tests (Brigman & Campbell, 2003; Brigman, Webb, & Campbell, 2007; C. Campbell & Brigman, 2005; Webb, Brigman, & Campbell, 2005) and district math and reading achievement measures (Lemberger, Selig, Bowers, & Rogers, 2015). Two studies have suggested that the effects of SSS on academic achievement are at least partially mediated by changes in students’ metacognitive functioning (Lemberger & Clemens, 2012; Lemberger et al., 2015). Lemberger and Clemens (2012) found that participation in SSS small groups was associated with improvements in students’ executive functions (as measured by the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function [BRIEF]; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) and increased metacognitive activity (as measured by the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory [Jr. MAI]; Sperling, Howard, Miller, & Murphy, 2002). Lemberger et al. (2015) found that participation in the classroom version of SSS was associated with improvement in executive functions (as measured by the BRIEF-SR; Guy, Isquith, & Gioia, 2004). While researchers have established the efficacy of SSS in well-controlled research environments, little is known about its effectiveness when delivered in naturalistic settings. The purpose of the present study was to measure the effectiveness of the SSS curriculum when delivered in a naturalistic setting within regularly functioning schools. In this study, SSS was implemented in five schools in a district in Kentucky as part of a school counseling improvement project funded by an Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Demonstration Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. The five middle and high schools collaborated together through a regional educational cooperative to apply for the grant. Demographic information for each school can be found in the Setting section below. The grant funded all necessary SSS curriculum materials and provided support for school counselors in evaluating the impact of the program. However, funding was not available to hire national trainers. National trainers are not a requirement when purchasing a manualized school intervention and many schools do not possess the funds needed to hire national trainers. Thus, this funded project provided an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of SSS in a naturalistic school setting. The primary evaluation question was: When implemented in a naturalistic setting, does SSS impact students’ metacognitive functioning, as determined by (1) knowledge and regulation of cognition as measured by the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Jr. MAI; Sperling et al., 2002) and (2) use of skills related to self-direction of learning, support of classmates’ learning, and self-regulation of arousal as measured by the Student Engagement in School Success Skills survey (SESSS; Carey, Brigman, Webb, Villares, & Harrington, 2013)? The secondary question was: Does the magnitude of any changes in metacognitive functioning depend on the degree to which SSS was implemented with fidelity?