Social-Based Learning and Leadership (SBL): Theory development and a qualitative case study

Department of Non formal, Social and Community Education, Gordon Academic College of Education, Haifa 357050, Israel.
Department of Human Services, The University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, Haifa 349883, Israel.
Department of Emergency and Disaster Management, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 613900, Israel.

* Corresponding author

Received: 11 September 2023 / Revised: 4 November 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023 / Published: 9 November 2023

Abstract

Social-based learning and leadership (SBL) is an innovative pedagogical approach that centers on enhancing relationships within the educational system to address 21st-century challenges. At its core, SBL aims to help teachers transform into social architects who nurture positive social processes among pupils. Emphasizing prosocial education, SBL lays the foundation for cultivating pro-environmentalism and sustainable behavior by fostering a sense of care and responsibility toward others. SBL’s prosocial education program encompasses social and emotional skills, knowledge, and dispositions to empower pupils to actively engage in and contribute to a more democratic, reciprocal, just, and sustainable society. This approach underscores the importance of education in shaping students’ mindsets and life orientations. By nurturing a sense of interconnectedness and responsibility for the well-being of others, SBL provides a promising avenue to transform education by building more sustainable educational systems, thus contributing to creating a more sustainable future. A qualitative case study, which consisted of 18 in-depth interviews and nine observations, examined the impact of an SBL-based teacher training program at an elementary school from 2020 to 2023. The results point to changes in teachers’ perceptions of their roles as social architects and, more specifically, as facilitators of social, emotional, and cognitive processes. The teachers gained recognition as meaningful adults from their students and transitioned to hold integral positions as part of a supportive and connected school community, associating with colleagues and parents. This study thus showcases patterns of socio-organizational communication that can unfold in a school influenced by the SBL approach. SBL’s emphasis on positive social relationships and empowering teachers as facilitators of holistic student development thus further reinforces its potential to transform education for a sustainable and thriving future.

Keywords: social education; educational change; soft skills; school connectedness; teachers’ wellbeing; listening

1. Development and a qualitative case study of The Social-Based Learning and Leadership (SBL) method

1.1. Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, the need for innovative pedagogical approaches that address the complex challenges of the 21st century has become increasingly essential. Education scholars often criticize the focus of schools on academic achievements over the development of soft skills, social responsibility, agency, and the prosocial behavior of pupils. Furthermore, the extensive focus on pupils’ achievements is related to teachers’ enhanced burnout, turnover, and reduced well-being.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present a novel method: social-based learning and leadership (hereafter: SBL). SBL is a transformative educational approach that places social relationships at the heart of the educational process. SBL goes beyond traditional approaches by empowering educators to become social architects dedicated to nurturing positive social dynamics. At its core, SBL promotes prosocial behavior among the school community, laying the groundwork for cultivating values of care and responsibility in order to create a flourishing educational community.

Equipping pupils with more than academic knowledge is crucial in today’s rapidly changing world. Pupils must also develop social and emotional skills that (a) shape their mindsets and life orientations, (b) emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals locally and globally, and (c) manifest behaviors that reflect responsibility and care for the well-being of others. Educational approaches and influential organizations such as the OECD and the World Bank advocate for this notion. The uniqueness of SBL lies in its focus on the group as the engine of the desired change. According to SBL, the organizational and pedagogical goals of an educational system are optimally achieved when they are constructed through the development of school connectedness. Put differently, the quality of an educational system results from the quality of the relationships among the school community.

This paper presents a qualitative case study that examines the impact of an SBL-based training program in an elementary school in Israel from 2020 to 2023. By conducting 18 in-depth interviews and nine observations, the study offers valuable insights into the transformative power of SBL. The results suggest a shift in teachers’ perceptions of their roles as social architects and facilitators of social, emotional, and cognitive growth in their pupils. In addition, the teachers gained recognition as influential figures in their pupils’ lives and formed a supportive and interconnected school community, resulting in strong bonds with colleagues and parents.

The contribution of this work to the education literature is by providing a comprehensive description and examination of a new approach. The paper highlights SBL’s capacity to enhance teachers’ well-being and facilitate a newfound meaning in their work. Furthermore, it offers practical guidance for educators and policymakers to create inclusive and sustainable educational organizations.

1.2. Theoretical Background

In recent years, the education system has faced a series of challenges related to school climate [1], school connectedness [2], selfishness [3], and the lack of cultivation of meaningful interpersonal relationships among pupils [4]. Examples include the fallout from COVID-19 [5], children and teens’ intensive use of screen media [6], and social media (mis)use [7], which some refer to as “the narcissism epidemic” [8] as well as the overall rise in extremism, which has permeated societies worldwide, leading to increased polarization between communities [9]. As these and similar troubling trends gain traction, they contribute to a growing divide that hinders open dialogue and understanding between pupils with differing perspectives. In educational settings, they create significant barriers to effective communication and cooperation among pupils as well as educators and administrators (e.g., [10,11]).

To address these challenges, there has been a growing realization that educators must actively foster inclusive and empathetic learning environments that encourage respectful communication and critical thinking [12]. There has been increased emphasis on nurturing soft skills, including social and emotional capabilities, within schools [13], which is also crucial for success in the workplace, building resilience, and fostering well-being [14] since the way the educational system operates is inextricably linked to society, and is both influenced by and influences the future citizens of a nation [15]. Its goals revolve around cultivating socialization, acculturation, and individualization, which require adapting educational approaches to a rapidly evolving reality [16,17,18].

One of the key challenges faced by the educational system today is the alarming increase in loneliness and anxiety among teachers, which results in high turnover and socio-emotional dilemmas [19]. The scope of this phenomenon has prompted educational policymakers to seek solutions to enhance educational workers’ well-being and resilience (https://mop.education/open-call/well_being/ (accessed on 29 August 2023). Polarization has penetrated the teachers’ room and extended to interactions within teams, between teachers and parents, and among teachers and pupils, leading to heightened tensions overall [20]. This points to the need for a comprehensive theory that can develop connectedness and cohesion within schools designed to cultivate a new orientation toward the world/mindset among pupils and teachers; namely, one that perceives the world through the lens of integration, social connection, caring, and love [15].

1.3. Social-Based Learning/Leadership

Social-based learning/leadership (SBL) is a pedagogical approach that focuses on improving the relationships between all partners in the educational system as a starting point for transforming teaching to meet the challenges of the 21st century. SBL emphasizes the importance of conscious design of the social environment in the teachers’ room, classroom, school, and community as a pathway to a more sustainable educational community. It derives its ideological basis from non-formal, informal, social, and community-based education [21,22,23]. By promoting high-quality listening, cooperation, inclusiveness, and participation among teachers, students, and parents, SBL aligns with the principles [24] of sustainable education, which seeks to empower teachers and students to become responsible, active social agents who contribute to the well-being of their communities [24,25].

Unlike traditional approaches that focus on addressing the individual’s emotional and social needs or rely on the teacher’s charisma, rhetoric, and personality, social based learning (SBL) theory centers on social processes among pupils. SBL prioritizes emotional, social, and cognitive needs at the group level, thus transforming teachers from broadcasters to social architects who serve as facilitators, leaving center stage for students to form meaningful groups of peers.

1.4. Foundations of SBL Theory

Drawing on the social psychology literature, the point of departure for SBL is the premise that a combination of egocentric biases drives individuals [26,27] and social influence [28]. Today’s default social environment often promotes egocentric tendencies that negatively affect society (e.g., [29,30,31]). By acknowledging the need to create an alternative, positive impact, SBL aims to establish school communities, teachers’ rooms, and classrooms as mini-societies that can harness people’s tendencies to support rather than oppose society. In other words, the SBL educational process creates a positive social influence among all the circles that influence teachers’, students’, and parents’ minds and hearts in a given educational community. From this perspective, the individual is seen as an integral part of the system, where the interconnectedness and interdependence of individuals within a larger social context is emphasized.

A key feature of SBL lies in recognizing the vital role of interpersonal relationships in shaping a person’s happiness. However, there have been few attempts to create conducive educational and social conditions that prioritize the quality of these relationships. SBL advocates a shift in focus towards realizing that individual happiness is intrinsically linked to the happiness of others, thus aligning with research on kindness, gratitude, and its impact on societal well-being [32,33,34].

The central pillar of SBL is that traditional achievement-based learning goals and processes should make way for new learning goals that are better adapted to today’s reality and incorporate a more socially oriented understanding of how relationships among students and between students and teachers are structured, how teaching and learning unfold, and how learning is assessed [35]. SBL underscores the need for teachers to become facilitators of social, emotional, and cognitive processes by emphasizing experiential learning, problem posing, and interpersonal skills rather than merely serving as knowledge providers.

SBL’s focus on the cultivation of “soft” or “essential” skills does not come at the expense of cognitive or “hard” skills. The tradeoff between hard and soft skills is crucial since knowledge and technical capabilities must also be transferred through social processes to meet the demands of an increasingly interconnected, vibrant, and fast-paced world [36]. The fourth industrial revolution necessitates different skills, demanding adaptability and centering on social interactions as the younger generation’s attention and priorities shift toward social engagement [37].

Overall, the foundations of SBL rest on the belief that education should play a key role in forming a more just, caring, and mutually responsible society. To do so, it needs to look beyond an individual student-oriented approach to cultivate a sense of responsibility and commitment in learners to work for their community and society as a whole. By building a supportive and socially appropriate educational environment and a positive school climate [1], SBL seeks to help individuals reach their fullest potential in a supportive social setting and thrive in a changing world by contributing positively to the well-being of the broader community.

1.5. Training Program

This section describes an SBL training program in a school in northern Israel. This program took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the program, the school moved to a new facility. This particular school was notorious for its severe violence, discipline problems, and disrespectful behavior on the part of pupils and parents. This disrespect manifested in arguments, complaints to the municipality, and criticism of teachers. The teachers suffered from this climate of poor relationships and trust. The school was known for its poor academic and social performance in national tests. Two students from the first and second authors’ departments (Department of Social and Community Education) conducted their SBL-based practicum in this school. The principal was impressed by the teachers’ progress and wanted to scale up the program for the entire school. This led to a three-year intervention effort to make SBL the DNA of the school. The next sections describe the main goals and processes. Note that a three-year model is not fixed, can be tailored to any school according to its needs and progress, and may be shorter or longer.

1.5.1. The First Year

The first year of SBL training focused on “conceptualization”. Conceptualization in the SBL education program refers to creating a shared socially oriented vision, goals, and organizational language in management and staff. Specifically, the education program was designed to change teachers’ mindsets from knowledge providers to social architects. Initially, the instructors worked with the staff to build the vision and organizational policy that would make school connectedness and high-quality relationships the core of the school’s philosophy. The instructors also worked with the teachers by providing them with information on the theoretical and practical aspects of entering into the change in vision and helping them formulate their aims and goals in light of the school’s goals. However, as has been shown in the literature on school reform, in addition to a committed principal, the change management process must involve an engaged staff consisting of a selected group of middle-tier leaders [38].

Management Level. For an intervention program to be successful, the school principal must be committed to it and convey this commitment to the whole staff. Principals also need to establish a “leadership group” or “middle management” that can lead the process “from the middle” [39]. This group can be formed in several ways. One way is to select teachers who have key school roles, such as the principal, assistant principal, social coordinator, pedagogical coordinator, and school psychologist. Another way is to initiate a “call for applicants” for this group by the school’s principal. This selection method operates under the assumption that staff with the highest levels of motivation but who also have an influence on the life of the school will be in the group. Another way is to create a leadership team from subject or class coordinators. The leadership group takes on several goals:

Engage in the training program one step ahead of the rest of the staff and help present it to the teachers. The leadership team is seen as the driver of social change in the school by serving as a role model, both as individuals and as a group. This group is responsible for demonstrating the importance of the SBL program to the rest of the teams and contributing to grounding the staff’s confidence in the process.
Decide on school policy and create an organizational structure/culture to help the school achieve the program goals. This is based on the well-established assumption that in addition to management support, all organizational change requires adapting the organizational culture accordingly [40,41]. Structural examples of cultural change include starting and ending the school day with a listening circle, making time for teachers to conduct a joint reflection and plan lessons together, and making time in the school program to discuss social challenges and changes. For example, this can include allowing teachers to use lesson time to discuss and use role-playing to address social issues, such as a pupil not being invited to a birthday party or dealing with violence. The change in organizational culture requires the “leadership team” to provide the resources and professional support to teachers who want to change the format of their lessons. In goal setting theory [42], one of the most influential theories in management, resources are considered to be a prerequisite to achieving targeted goals and performance [43].
The instructors and the leadership group need to determine the most important high-order goals and sub-goals. They can delegate the operationalization of these goals to the rest of the staff by asking them to define their own role and ways to contribute to the goals and sub-goals of the school.

Teacher Level. As noted above, the first step in the SBL educational intervention program is to shift teachers’ mindset from being a “broadcaster” who mainly lectures to the pupils to a social architect whose main goal is to engage pupils in personal and group scrutiny through an ongoing process of interaction and reflection on that interaction. This is achieved through a shift in awareness and in pedagogical practices. The theoretical and practical aspects of “social architecture” comprise at least seven principles:

Focusing on the social process. This reflects the shift from the teacher being the center of the educational process to the social process between the pupils taking center stage. This principle alters the dynamics of the classroom. Rather than the teacher lecturing to the pupils, the classroom activities shift to social and educational dynamics, such as collaborative work, gamification, project-based learning, mutual inquiry, and joint discussions on the lesson’s themes while listening to each other.
From problem solver to problem poser. The teacher is no longer in charge of solving the pupils’ dilemmas, questions, and challenges. Instead, the teacher’s role is to create a platform for constructive deliberation among pupils, where they can gain insights and clarity into their internal conflicts [44]. This approach also moves the pupils from a position of passive knowledge observers to active and engaged researchers. This notion is consistent with appreciative inquiry [45] and research on high-quality listening that focuses on insights from the person rather than an external solution or advice [46,47].
From a pinnacle to mutual responsibility. The role of the teacher is to create a social structure within the classroom where the class as a group feels responsible for the processes and outcomes in the classroom. For example, an adverse event, such as violence between pupils, is not “the teacher’s problem” but rather “our problem” that the whole class needs to address and scrutinize as a group. This goal is for the pupils to feel accountable for the learning and social processes that occur in the classroom.
From conveying knowledge to triggering learning. During knowledge acquisition, the role of the teacher as a “social architect” is not to feed pupils the content and the “correct” answers but rather to trigger a learning process where the pupils scrutinize and justify their answers. By doing so, teachers create interest, invoke a feeling of relevance, and ignite passion for figuring out the answers.
From product to process. In most cases, academic evaluations examine students’ success when completing an educational assignment [48]. Conversely, a social architect puts a great deal of weight on the goal of the educational process and thus stresses the evaluation of the interim processes, such as teamwork quality, conflict resolution strategies, and self-reflection throughout learning. Studies have shown that evaluation determines the teaching style. Namely, if teachers focus on outcomes and grades, they will emphasize memorizing the material or getting the job done. On the other hand, if the evaluation and its indicators focus on the process, teachers are more likely to emphasize student-centered, social, and group-based outcomes [49].
The environment as an educator. Relying on the strong influence of peers on child and adolescent behavior in the classroom and groups [50], teachers who become social architects can positively organize the social influence of a group of equals. This means that every decision or norm presented in the classroom must first be discussed and decided upon by the group of peers. Every value or behavior the teacher wants to promote in the class should not be preached (directly) but rather submitted to the group. The value of behavior should not be imposed by disciplinary measures but rather regarded as important by the pupils. Teachers instill values by going “through the environment” to promote or prevent a behavior. This applies to social behavior and learning processes [51] and is referred to in SBL as “the environment as an educator”.
The group as a laboratory. To harness the power of group dynamics, teachers are divided into small working groups, which are sometimes called “anchor groups”, in which they experience their influence firsthand and become effective social architects. The primary goal is to foster a positive emotional culture within the school, where mutual goals are set, thus emphasizing a sense of family and collective success. This is achieved through listening circles [52] with different participants, each of whom is assigned a task to promote an assignment or a social skill in the school. Another goal of creating small groups is that teachers can feel the impact of intensive group work, gradually take ownership of the process, and find their own way to implement it in their classrooms at their own pace, with no coercion but rather freedom of choice.

As part of the process and to be able to teach what they preach, teachers practice various routines that can help promote the target social climate, such as starting the day with heart-warming discussions or activities and complimenting one another so that these routines gradually become the norm at school. When motivation issues arise, a rotating group, called the “team fire”, is responsible for reinforcing the importance of the teaching profession within the team, raising the teachers’ spirits and strengthening the pride they take in the social processes they are engaged in. This is achieved by avoiding hierarchical interventions and placing responsibility for the atmosphere in the teachers’ room on the group, and not on external actors. Through this structured process of social influence, teachers take responsibility for their motivation and engagement. By using these exercises, the teachers, and later the pupils, learn valuable lessons about themselves, their colleagues and friends, and society.

In addition, as part of their pedagogical training, the teachers engage in different aspects of social pedagogy including case studies, role-playing, gamification, and listening and listening circles to introspect openly and reflect together as a group on social life and education. The teachers take on the role of promoting group dynamics which leads to collective intelligence-driven decision-making and the resolution of challenges. Through these activities, the teachers become experts in understanding social processes and empowering pupils to thrive in an inclusive and supportive learning environment. This is the essence of a social school: a school where every encounter with subject matter, teachers, pupils, and even parents becomes fertile terrain for individual and social development.

Note that the processes involving both children and parents can take place in the first year, depending on the school’s progress, or in the second and third years. However, for the sake of methodological clarity in this paper, we describe these processes as occurring in the second and third years.

1.5.2. The Second Year

The second year of an SBL intervention is characterized by the practical implementation of the method throughout the school, based on the teachers’ willingness and the pace at which it unfolds. In other words, during the second year, staff and teachers put increasingly more theoretical constructs into action, by establishing regularities, norms, and behavior patterns aligned with the SBL ideology. At the organizational level, the focus shifts towards working in groups that take the initiative and promote an idea or a pedagogical practice that the teachers would like to see in the school that year. Examples range from transforming parent–teacher communication from linear to circular, to integrating SBL into subject matter, etc. The work of the SBL instructors also changes, in that it focuses to a greater extent on practical mentoring to small teams and individual teachers and less on frontal theoretical lectures to the teaching body.

The following sections exemplify a few key topics discussed in these working groups:

Parent–school cooperation. Drawing on the premise that a social school is a place for the whole community, SBL instructors guide teachers to work with parents and their representatives on forming social groups, agreeing on mutual goals, and promoting norms that reflect SBL values outside of school as well, for the collective well-being of the students. Parents are made aware that their child’s happiness at school depends on caring for the well-being of the entire class, thus emphasizing interdependence. By creating a sense of partnership among parents, allowing them to sense the potential of a properly managed group dynamic, and achieving a broad consensus regarding the values and behaviors that parents and teachers can praise and promote together, children’s social learning processes extend beyond the classroom as they continue to practice skills such as active listening at home with their parents.
Setting social goals for every pupil. At the beginning of the year, the pupils set themselves a social goal; for example, to become a better listener, become more open and outgoing toward other children, and have more friends. In particular, the pupils come to know and support each other’s social goals. In addition, the class sets a mutual social goal, such as accepting others who might seem different (i.e., inclusion) and creating an atmosphere of help and support. During classwork, including subjects such as math and English, the teacher reminds the pupils to work on their social goals while they work in groups.
Parent–teacher conferences/parent–teacher meetings. These conferences exemplify the transition from the classic linear approach, where the teacher informs the parents about their child’s achievements or lack thereof, to a more cooperative and experiential structure. Specifically, in addition to information about academic achievement, there is a discussion about the social goals that the pupil set and the pupil’s general social progress. The pupils reflect on their goals, the goal of the class, what was undertaken to achieve them, and the plan for achieving them, as well as on challenges and opportunities ahead, as an individual and as a part of a group. The teacher and the parents are equal partners and can provide insights and suggestions.
Assessment and evaluation. In addition to the report cards, the school also grades the pupil’s social capabilities. This social report card testifies to the development of soft skills in the pupils and their contribution to the class and the school’s social fabric. This social report card includes an evaluation of each pupil by the student, the class, and the teacher on several criteria such as teamwork, conflict management, listening, including others, empathy, etc. This report card also influences teacher performance evaluation. In the teachers’ performance evaluation, they are rated on the dimensions of SBL; for example, the extent to which they conduct their lessons in groups and listening circles and how much time in the lesson is spent lecturing versus working in teams. A staff member conducts this evaluation with the teacher at least twice during the semester and takes the form of formative and summative assessments.
The teachers’ room. Teachers interact socially and professionally in the teachers’ room, or lounge [53]. The teachers’ room is used for plenums and, more importantly, for teachers’ work groups. Individual teachers and groups receive mentoring from SBL instructors. The mentoring focuses on case studies of attempts to implement the SBL method in the classroom, such as ways to make organizational changes and deal with conflicts. For example, teachers in one of the schools wanted help changing how they teach, specifically, how to switch from lecturing to listening circles. However, the teachers found it difficult to break a 20-year-old habit. The teachers’ mentor created an “SBL curriculum” that starts each lesson with a social activity and then asks a question or another trigger that promotes discussion, motivation, and curiosity about the content and the curriculum, followed by teaching using short lectures (TED-style) and leading reflective discussions about it. The mentor and the teachers adapted the SBL curriculum to fit their needs and professional requirements. Afterward, the mentor observed lessons and discussed the experience with the teachers through a reflective discourse rather than providing direct feedback. The mentor’s mindset is that the responses to the teachers’ challenges are within the teachers themselves and that the mentor’s task is to elicit it from them by leading them to reappraise the situation through a guided reflection process [54]. The aim is that the teachers will develop a similar mindset towards their pupils’ challenges.
Turning theory into practice throughtest cases. During the second year, when general training sessions occur, they are usually conducted very practically, using the methodology of test cases. To scale up from theory to practice, the teachers are given a case study that is likely to take place in the classroom. The teachers discuss this case in groups and decide on the best action. The cases are related to social, emotional, or pedagogical situations. Examples of test cases include a pupil who misbehaves toward other students (e.g., violence), social exclusion, integrating students from different ethnic backgrounds into the class, dealing with conflicts between the pupils and alternative modes of performance appraisals, and changing the teaching method.

1.5.3. The Third Year

The third year marks the teachers’ transition from listeners and executors to leaders and owners of the SBL methodology. For example, this can involve:

Identifying strengths and weaknesses. Teachers who find it difficult to implement specific parts of the method, such as teaching in small groups, listening circles, or collaborating with other teachers, receive individual mentoring from the instructors. By contrast, teachers who successfully lead the pedagogical process become instructors themselves by constructively reflecting on the practices of other teachers and supporting them in facing their challenge.
Community involvement. One of the goals of the method is to facilitate connections between different stakeholders. This takes place in two main ways in the third year. First, pupils participate in entrepreneurship projects in the community. For example, pupils in one school went to the homes of older people in their neighborhoods, listened to their stories, told them about themselves, and made a video clip of this project that was disseminated in the community to promote intergenerational ties. The parents and grandparents visited the school and contributed their knowledge and experience in various forms.
Identifying and selecting “SBL leaders” from the staff and mentoring them. In the third year, many activities, such as holding the plenums that the instructors delivered in the first year and, to a lesser extent, in the second year, are transferred to selected staff. The rationale is to prepare the school for independence. Independence is defined here as the continuation of the SBL’s implementation after the training program. This is crucial for the stability of the outcomes gained from the method. These staff members are responsible for this transition and receive personal mentoring from the instructors on ways to lead the process. They facilitate plenums, give constructive feedback, plan SBL projects throughout the year, mentor new teachers, etc. These staff members are integrated into a community that includes staff from other schools who have been chosen to lead the process. This learning community allows the staff to share challenges, initiatives, and goals and receive feedback from each other.
Parents. During the third year, the parents become an important part of the method since the parent–teacher connection is crucial to building an educational community around the school [55]. There are several goals for working with parents. This first is creating an educational continuum where the parents implement the core values at home that their children learn in school. The second is strengthening the cooperation between the school and the parents; in particular, the goal is to transition from a “consumer-provider” relationship where the parents are the consumers of the educational product, and the school is the provider of the product to a cooperative system where the parents and the school are jointly responsible for the product. The third goal is to strengthen the connection between parents and their children. For example, a pupil may be asked to conduct a listening circle at home. When pupils learn about the importance of compliments to peers, they are also given a homework assignment to do so in their families. These practices promote the relationship between parents and their children. The final goal is to build a community of parents who engage in collaborative decision-making. For example, this can involve deciding that the entire class is invited to birthday parties to avoid social rejection.
Pupil instructors. The rationale for having pupil instructors is that the best learning takes place when it is experiential and when the learners disseminate the practice to others. Younger children tend to see older children as role models more than their parents [56]. Concretely, older pupils lead listening and learning circles in lower grades, using case studies from their own experiences to teach younger pupils. Teachers who need to handle a behavioral problem in the classroom might ask an older pupil to lead the discussion instead of them.

1.6. SBL as a Means to Achieve Sustainable Schools

The educational intervention promoted in school by the SBL methodology can serve as a launchpad for the cultivation of pro-environmentalism and sustainable behavior. Sustainable behavior protects the natural and human environment [57,58,59]. SBL emphasizes prosocial education, namely, a sense of care and responsibility towards others [60]. Prosocial education, whose broad scope encompasses social and emotional skills, knowledge, and dispositions, aims to empower students to actively engage in and contribute to a democratic, reciprocal, just, and sustainable society [61]. SBL, as a prosocial education program, underlines the pivotal role of education’s social climate and culture in shaping pupils’ mindsets and life orientations. Given the realization that the prevailing pursuit of academic achievement often fosters an individualistic ethos within educational systems, proponents of prosocial education advocate for a more socially oriented educational approach to drive meaningful social change [62].

2. Case Study

2.1. Method

This study explored the theoretical and practical contribution of SBL training and professional development to school curricula, pedagogy, and organizational climate, and specifically how the betterment of social relationships among all parties involved in the educational process at school increases teacher perseverance, sparks change in learning and teaching practices, and better addresses the educational challenges of the 21st century.

While this study pertains predominantly to the theoretical principles underlying SBL training, we include the results of a qualitative case study that conveys what SBL looks like when rooted in an educational, organizational setting. The data collection and analysis methods used to inform the following results are described below.

For a case study of SBL training, we examined an elementary school in Northern Israel that has undergone SBL training since 2020. This school is part of the Jewish secular branch of Israel’s semi-segregated public education system and has about 550 pupils, 40 teaching staff, and 20 classes. The socioeconomic status of the school was ranked 5.68 out of 10 (https://apps.education.gov.il/tekennet/ (accessed on 30 August 2023)). The previous background section described how various elements of SBL training were practiced in the school for over three years. The following Section 2.2 complements the picture with the approaches, perceptions, and experiences of the school staff, as well as glimpses into school rituals, climate, and organizational settings. The educational staff who took part in the study included the school principal and assistant principal, the educational counselor, novice and experienced teachers, the school’s inclusion officer and immigration absorption personnel, parents, and two professional SBL trainers who led bi-weekly training sessions at the school.

2.1.1. Data Collection Methods

To gain insights into how the different components of SBL training play out on the ground, we conducted 18 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with school staff, as well as nine participant observations of school activities in and out of class, all targeted to identify the school climate, organizational structure, development of skillsets among the pupils, and teaching methods among teachers. We designed our sample to include various actors from the school community: the school principal and assistant principal, the educational counselor, the school’s inclusion officer and immigration absorption personnel, two parents, two professional SBL trainers, and nine teachers, among who were experienced as well as and novice SBL practitioners, mostly in their 30s and 40s. We observed classes across the school curriculum, from math and science to art and gym, as well as SBL training sessions and executive meetings.

Conducting 18 in-depth interviews for a qualitative case study is considered more than sufficient, as qualitative research strongly emphasizes the depth and richness of data over quantity [63]. Furthermore, we rigorously selected the interviewees.

The interview guide was formulated through discussions within the research team to capture how multiple facets of SBL training and conduct play out at school. We included a core set of questions addressing their motivation, orientation, community of practice, and experience with SBL training, as well as additional queries with slightly different foci to best capture the interviewees’ role in the system, thus bringing out how exactly SBL operates at the organizational level. For example, for the teachers, we emphasized questions that addressed their professional self-perceptions, their approaches to teaching practices at large, and their experiences in the framework of SBL training, while the school principal and assistant principal were asked to provide a bird’s-eye view of the training program and their perspectives on the ramifications of SBL training on the school climate and pedagogical practices as a whole.

We conducted the interviews between February and May 2023 using audio recordings for initial data documentation. Each interview was between 50 and 90 min long, amounting to about 20 h of audio data. All the participants in the study were interviewed in addition to being observed in classes and meetings including the school principal and assistant principal, the educational counselor, the school’s inclusion officer and immigration absorption personnel, two parents, two professional SBL trainers, and nine teachers. All participants are designated by pseudonyms to comply with IRB guidelines.

2.1.2. Participant Observations

To examine the theoretical basis of SBL, in addition to interviewing the key stakeholders about their impressions, perceptions, and experiences on the ground, this study was geared toward identifying how SBL training impacts the social climate at school as a whole: in the teachers’ room and open spaces while at recess, SBL training sessions, as well as teachers’ “real-time” implementation of SBL routines and their willingness to promote social-skill-based learning in their classrooms. To facilitate this analysis, we observed the following activities:

Morning Connection Time (an SBL ritual at the beginning of the school day);
Learning in roundtables in classes (3rd–6th grades);
Teachers’ room: discussions about social dilemmas and knowledge acquisition among teachers;
SBL training for the entire school staff;
In-class one-on-one SBL mentoring sessions;
Leadership group meetings;
“Social Parent-Teacher Conference”: individual conferences between teachers, pupils, and parents about the pupils’ social achievements at school.

We selectively applied audio recording and jotting down field notes to document these activities, depending on whether minors were present. Whereas audio recordings were used to document staff meetings, field notes were taken during the class observations to comply with IRB guidelines. All quotes from the interviews were translated from Hebrew.

2.1.3. Data Analysis Methods

We transcribed all the interview and observation data between May and July 2023, relying primarily on Word and Excel and immersing ourselves in the audio and written material. The major themes for analysis emerged as part of this process. We inductively developed an emergent coding scheme comprising 12 codes and used inter-rater reliability (IRR) tests among the research team members to adjust and validate a codebook. The initial codebook included codes that addressed multiple arenas in which SBL manifests at school, from the visions, goals, and values of school leadership through the social skills developed in SBL training in teachers to the specific language and unorthodox use of physical spaces in the classroom, leading to the relationships cultivated among school, community, and national educational administration. This case study focused primarily on the five codes that captured the most data: “teacher community”, “shifting the teacher’s role”, “from theory to practice”, “meaning”, and “achievement”.

2.2. Results

Every morning at Shalom Elementary School starts with “Connection”: Dozens of children in school uniform step into the main hall, a large open space flooded with natural light. One by one, they place their cellphones in a plastic box by the principal’s office to be collected at the end of the school day, and many stay to chat on the colorful sofas scattered throughout the lobby while others climb up a wide wooden staircase to the second floor. When the school bell rings—a popular upbeat Israeli song—everyone enters their “classrooms” behind a transparent glass wall. In each classroom, the teacher stands by the door and welcomes the pupils. They each sit by the small round tables or on the large pillows on the floor and begin “Connection”: the school’s morning ritual, envisioned and operationalized as part of its three-year SBL training program, which cultivates a special social climate daily. For Michal, the school principal, “Connection” not only comes first on the daily schedule but also is the primary goal of Shalom schooling. In fact, “Connection” is one of the many routines, pedagogies, games, and keywords that are derived from the school’s three-year SBL training program and embody Shalom’s daily educational practices.

“It did not always look this way”, said Michal, the school principal. When she was hired seven years ago, the school was decrepit: the old building was crumbling and dark, Shalom’s public reputation in the community had deteriorated for years, parents had no trust in the school, and “behavior issues” and violence among students were the social norm. The COVID-19 pandemic made students even more self-absorbed and socially isolated, and learning harder to achieve. However, over the three years of SBL training, Shalom changed considerably. The next sections address how this happens in practice by detailing how the school operationalizes language, physical space, and pedagogy to support the cultivation of this social climate. By honing in on the socio-organizational communication patterns among teachers and between teachers and students at Shalom, we depict how multiple aspects of SBL, such as the development of soft skills, shifting the role of the teacher, and restating the relationship between teacher and community are vital for increasing perseverance, cultivating a sense of meaning, achievement, and community. We divide the results into five categories to encapsulate each element of SBL practice:

Teacher community: creating a community among teachers;
Shifting the teacher’s role: redefining the role of teachers from “preaching” to a social and pedagogical architect;
From theory to practice: acquiring a practical set of tools and practices that scale up the theory to practice;
Time for meaning: the development of a sense of meaning in the workplace through a sense of belonging to a professional community;
Achievement: the development of a sense of achievement in facilitating a positive social change within the classroom.

2.2.1. Teacher Community: Creating a Community among Teachers

SBL training promotes listening, collaboration, participation, and inclusiveness through group dynamics, thus identifying the group—rather than the individual—as the driver of social processes. In teachers, group dynamics occur predominantly in the teachers’ room, whereas teaching takes place in isolation from colleagues behind closed doors. SBL training sees group dynamics among teachers as a core practice, as Zipora, Shalom’s assistant principal, stated:

I have been at this school for over 25 years, and I know what the teachers’ room looked like: narrow tables set apart where teachers sat in small groups, [now it is] a place where teachers sit together around a large round table and experience belonging, even family. It is because everything you see happening in the classrooms—the round table discussions, the discourse, even the games—we teachers experienced first as a group.

Zipora was not the only staff member at Shalom to use the word “family” to describe their relationships with other teachers. At Shalom, teachers shifted from being an individual unit within a system to an integral part of a socio-professional community. Adam (32), who teaches 4th grade at Shalom commented:

This place is family to me. If I need support after a tough day, a shoulder to cry on, anything, I get it. We talk about everything. We work on our ability to resolve conflicts. We work on the connection among teachers all the time, in [SBL] training, and just among us, in the math or the science teachers’ group. Some teachers “get” SBL more than others do, but we created an atmosphere of “us”; we are a team that works together.

The layout of the teacher’s room reflects this cohesive social structure, and the large round table in the center and a cozy sofa to the side were also where the SBL training took place. According to Noga, who has led the SBL training at Shalom since 2021, the teachers’ room is one of the primary arenas for SBL training and a resource for cultivating teachers as a community:

The teachers’ room is central to SBL because teachers are at the heart of the process. They are not alone: they are a community that unites around a joint cause, and the teacher’s room is a platform to establish that connection. Becoming a social school means setting goals for the entire educational staff, students, and parents. Our goal is to cultivate a culture of discourse. We asked ourselves, “What is education?” and realized that the essence of education is to be a person who loves people. In the end, the line at the supermarket checkout in Israel is what awaits these kids in life. They see people cutting each other off everywhere around them: in the streets, in the news. If the school wants to set an example, teachers must work together to first create a loving environment among themselves.

More than just a caring work environment, the teacher’s room is where the sparks of social change are kindled, and then spread throughout the school environment. SBL improves teacher collaboration, making the school the home of a family that studies and teaches. Principal Michal stressed what she sees as the importance of community building among teachers:

Social change is a gradual process you must approach with faith and patience. It happens everywhere, especially in the educational staff. Our work builds on mutual trust, diminishing control and surveillance as much as we can while clearly stating we are all in the same boat. We are all learning this together.

2.2.2. Shifting the Teachers’ Role: From Preacher to Social Architect

One foundational element of SBL in action at Shalom Elementary School is bringing about a change in perception of the teacher’s role in and out of the classroom from “transmitting” teachers, who are regarded as the sole authority on knowledge, to facilitators of social, emotional, and cognitive processes. We collected various approaches, impressions, and experiences of this shift from members of the school staff with varying degrees of experience with SBL.

Elinor, a 6th grade teacher who is also in charge of various social activities at school, shared what she learned from experience:

Our role as teachers is not to control the class but to observe it. Teachers need to see eye-to-eye with the kids, step down, and hear and listen to them. Kids are intelligent and curious by nature. They do not need “instructing”. They need mentoring. Changing the terminology is crucial here: the teacher is not a broadcaster but a social architect.

2.2.3. Social Pedagogy - A Focus on Social Processes

At Shalom, creating healthy social connections is the primary purpose of education. As Elinor explained:

The purpose of education in Israel, the reason the education law exists in Israel, is for kids to become people who love people. We want to educate kids to bring good to society, to be mentally healthy, happy, and fulfilled, not constantly fighting everyone all the time. What happens when everyone does what they want without sensitivity and empathy? Catastrophe! Look around! Every day, I tell them we are doing this for the society you will create.

Beyond visions of the future, social pedagogies enable teachers to change their practices in the present [64]. Oren, who began working at Shalom as an SBL trainer earlier that year, offered his insights:

Social communication is the true “ruler” of the classroom. If a kid sits outside and cries, it affects the entire classroom. As a teacher, I encounter a group in a particular social situation. Whether the material is “too hard” or just flows depends on the social and emotional state of the students. Working on creating good social connections in the classroom gives kids peace of mind to learn.

Redefining the role of the teacher as mentor and facilitator of social processes was shown to have a positive impact on pupils’ social skills, when challenged by technology and the limiting conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic [65], as assistant principal Zipora stressed:

Today’s children are egocentric and glued to their screens, but we live in groups and must learn to think about others, not just ourselves. That is why we teach social skills as a value and an everyday activity. We want kids to learn how to create relationships and build and sustain them. We teach this through group work, how to talk to each other and work together; gradually, kids “get” it, and once they get it, they guide themselves on their own.

2.2.4. From a Pinnacle to Mutual Responsibility

Letting go of the teacher’s perception as someone “in control” of the classroom invites intense social learning that elicits pupils’ ethical instincts and promotes taking on their own responsibility and decision-making. As Adam stressed:

We are not afraid of losing control, or having kids walk around freely. People used to think I was crazy, talking to kids, letting them make the decisions, and having social conversations instead of “instructing”. But this is how kids learn to be their own social leaders. If you want kids to learn to manage themselves, you must let go of the struggle over silence, order, and discipline. You must give them trust, and that stays with them forever.

2.2.5. The Environment as an Educator

As a facilitator of social processes, the teacher becomes a role model for students in terms of their social behavior. Michal terms this modeling as love: “Teachers are actively creating a social environment that conveys love and trust in the hallways as well in the classroom. I tell them to bathe kids in love, endless love, because love is contagious”.

The findings pointed to four pathways that structure the transition from theory to practice: professional development, regularities, SBL language, and physical space redesign.

2.2.6. Professional Development

One of the most challenging processes in any professional training program at schools involves changing the mindset and conduct of more experienced teachers, and having the patience to find the right pace for every teacher. Michal, the principal, elaborated on these issues:

Teachers’ professional development is gradual. Experienced and novice teachers have different paces. Many teachers who implement the systems and habits of the “earlier generation” have to change their approach to teaching. We teach in a new way that jibes with our time and society. Some teachers have to go through this change. It takes time to internalize the new approach. That is why we hold bi-weekly SBL professional development meetings regularly and also hire staff that helps integrate the system in our school: a leadership group committed to actualizing SBL on all levels at the school and two SBL professionals who help make lesson plans and new activities with teachers to implement in class, who go into the classrooms, mentor new teachers with the SBL language and skillset, and work with experienced teachers to avoid “surrendering” to old habits.

2.2.7. Regularities

The shift from SLB theory to social-organizational practice is expressed in the regular activities that Michal and her staff have institutionalized at school. These activities include routines for starting and ending the school day, using language and SBL “keywords”, and redesigning physical spaces at school to complement and enhance the school’s social curricula. Noga, an SBL instructor at the school, explained how the school’s first SBL activity came to be a tradition:

In the first year of training, we asked ourselves how we should promote the SBL pedagogy at school. Where should we start? This is how the “Connection” morning ritual came to be. The leadership group decided to start the day with the connection. Instead of just jumping into the material, each class sits with the teaching staff to create a good atmosphere in class. We created a new tradition at school that affects who we are and want to be. It became the school’s motto: connection comes first for us.

These activities help engrain SBL at school, “day by day, hour, and every pedagogy is at the service of social learning”, as Zipora explained. Often, teachers are asked to make creative connections between the school’s social agenda and their specific roles, as Oren noted:

Social dynamics happen everywhere: in class, during breaks, in teacher training lessons, and in spontaneous activities. Today, I am teaching gym. What does social dynamics look like when transitioning from “regular” class to gym class, from sitting to running?

Most teachers in Oren’s situation use the SBL lesson structure applied at the school. For less experienced teachers, learning the structure that combines frontal knowledge acquisition and flexible, interactive work is the first step toward gaining literacy in the system. Ronit (23), a novice teacher who started at Shalom this year, shared how these traditions helped her to grasp SBL and added how every month, the entire school works on one social value: in class, as a school, and through outreach to the community. “Every month, I increase my vocabulary”, she commented.

Social teachers’ conferences. This involves shifting the communication with parents from linear (i.e., the teacher informing the parents of the child’s performance and behavior at school) to circular patterns, building a social group composed of the parents of each grade, with the mutual goal of the collective well-being of the students. As Michal explained, “Teachers shifted from fear and defensiveness to open communication and mutual work to create a supportive community around the school”.

Playing with words: SBL language and games. As the teachers at Shalom discovered and successfully implemented, reinventing language and terminology to facilitate the shift from theory to practice was highly useful in making SBL an integral part of the organizational culture. Orit (27), a 2nd grade teacher who joined Shalom a few years ago, described how in her Shalom experience, “Terminology is super important. When I talk with pupils, I never call them pupils. I only say friends. The pupil is the friend. We’re all friends here”.

Gaming pedagogies. Games are an inseparable part of teaching practices at Shalom, and have proved to be an efficient instrument for cultivating social skills. As Noga stated:

Connection games create a fun, playful challenge that taps into our primary goal of getting the students to know each other better and develop a sense of unity and intimacy. These principles have the common goal of co-dependency, and group interaction. What makes a game an SBL game? The game needs a proper challenge that interests the students, and is sufficiently difficult for them to ‘sink their teeth into’. A tough challenge also requires a genuine group effort and is far more rewarding when solved.

Oren addressed the importance of not encouraging competition during these games:

There is no competition within the group in these games: we do not encourage rivalry or conflict in any way. On the contrary, these games are meant to be educational tools to craft healthy and beneficial working relationships, to strengthen their perception of the person opposite them, their empathy, and their ability to contribute to someone else who is different and separate from them.

From her vantage point as the school’s social guide, Elinor adds:

Connection gaming can and does fit all educational establishments. Its sole purpose is to create a loving person, a healthy, responsible, and happy human being who can contribute significantly to society, and who can be and feel meaningful to others.

2.2.8. Designing the Physical Space

The physical spaces at Shalom School are part of the social curriculum. The entrance hall is open with comfortable sofas. Michal explains her rationale for using space this way:

The physical space creates a visual language that complements the spoken language. How does a school become a home? We invested a great deal in designing spaces for learning and the school’s appearance. We continually educate to preserve the place. This is home for all of us. We trust kids. Kids who understand your trust do not let you down. We practiced tolerance even when kids destroyed equipment. We repeatedly renovated as a statement until the kids finally learned to respect the equipment and not damage it. Our message was that this place belongs to us all. Now, the kids are upset when something happens. Last week, a window got broken, and everyone was appalled.

Bracha, the school’s science educator makes ample use of the school’s open and flexible physical structure during her classes. Her students can choose where to sit in class every day, and she prefers not to work with too many tables.

I use the pedagogical practice “With me, by my side, out and about”—a tool developed by the Israel Ministry of Education that is very compatible with our approach at school. Every class starts with a short knowledge acquisition. Then, we move on to group tasks, where the teacher guides and mentors. Who gets to be outside is evidence-based. A strong and active group will win my trust to work “out and about” or “by my side”. However, suppose children throw a tantrum out and about. They are sent back to class, and their privilege of space is denied. In that case, they remain under my supervision until they learn to take responsibility.

2.2.9. Meaning-Making

Another important aspect of the integration of SBL into school life concerns cultivating a sense of meaning in the workplace, since one of the core ways of enabling a teacher to flourish and tackle retention is helping teachers to have a sense of belonging to a professional community and a deeper understanding of the profound role of the contemporary teacher. Thus, one of the traditions in an SBL-driven institution is making time for meaning-making since not all teachers respond to SBL similarly. Some think schools should focus more on schooling, and it takes time and effort to scrutinize and articulate as a group what a school does socially and why it is important to the children and to the teachers. Zipora stated: “I used to be in a very pedagogical place, ensuring students learn. I underwent a process in myself”.

Oren stressed how allowing things to “go wrong” also increases the meaning teachers derive from social interaction:

Even when something goes wrong, it is still a social interaction. We can still talk it through. What happened there, and why? Everything serves as the basis for social learning about the ties between us.

Being unafraid of the obstacles and pitfalls of social interactions over the years has placed the Shalom school in a much-envied place, as Michal noted:

Most schools do not have enough teachers, but every week, teachers come into my office and say, “We heard what you are doing here, and we want to be part of this”. The key is perseverance: it was practice and progression over the years. We give teachers the space to create their own thing within the school context, and when we create the conditions for social learning, it helps design inner peace and clears up spaces for learning and meaning-making for all parties.

2.2.10. A Sense of Achievement in Facilitating a Positive Social Change within the Classroom

The interview and observation data conveyed how overall, implementing SBL at Shalom created a sense of personal and communal achievement. Noga commented on how central it is for SBL training to amplify various teaching initiatives as an organizational achievement:

We reward teachers who dare to make a difference. This way, the system channels the message that innovation and inventiveness are essential to us. This is what we want and aim for on the organizational level.

The many achievements of Shalom’s teaching staff have also made the teachers’ everyday lives much easier: social exclusion incidents were frequent in the school (as in other schools in Israel) but dropped to the point that they had almost disappeared by the end of the third year of training. Parents reported that their children’s involvement in after-school violence decreased drastically. SBL training targets teachers’ sense of achievement as educational fuel, as Oren remarked:

It is important to talk with teachers about “What is in it for me”? Once teachers see the system at work and witness success, they want it to work in their classrooms. Then, the sense of achievement is everybody’s.

For Michal, that sense of achievement is intimately related to reflective discourse, which faces its own hurdles:

I believe that “round” management, such as reflective discourse, takes time, but once things open up, a new perspective emerges. Doing roundtable discussions with teachers is my way of gradually passing on the responsibility for decision-making to them. This is how we identify mentors among the staff and pupil instructors. Gradually, through language and rituals, teachers and students internalize SBL behaviors.

2.3. General Discussion

This work presented the theory and methodology of social-based learning/leadership. It provided a comprehensive overview of the method, and a case study in a school that underwent a three-year training program. As the results suggest, SBL improved the teachers’ listening skills, the collaboration between teachers, participation in the school community and activities, the inclusiveness of marginalized pupils, and, importantly, the teachers’ perseverance and sense of meaning as teachers.

The qualitative results indicated that perseverance derived from four factors: (a) the creation of a community of teachers; (b) redefining the role of teachers from “preaching” to a social and pedagogical architect; (c) acquiring a practical set of tools and practices that scale up the theory to practice; and (d) a sense of meaning in the workplace as a result of having a sense of belonging to a professional community, and deeper understanding of the profound role of the contemporary teacher; and finally, a sense of achievement in facilitating a positive social change within the classroom.

The interviews also revealed that the school’s behavioral problems had declined sharply. Specifically, physical and verbal violence (i.e., bullying) among the pupils decreased throughout the training program. As documented in the interviews with the staff, social exclusion incidents were frequent at the school (as in other schools in Israel) but had almost disappeared by the end of the third year. The teachers reported that pupils were much less involved in after-school violence. These findings are important and timely for the sustainability of tolerance [66].

We live in an era of self-entitlement, egocentrism [67], polarization, and intolerance to diversity [9]. The education system is key in forming pupils’ core values and behaviors. The SBL training program prioritizes prosocial values such as benevolence, tolerance, and mutual respect, as manifested in prosocial behavior such as cooperation, listening, and constructive conflict resolution [68]. Placing strong emphasis on the quality of relationships and making prosocial values the core of the education process is likely to facilitate a sustainable society that is less polarized, less violent, less self-centered, and more tolerant of diversity [69]. Because SBL advocates and trains for a culture of open dialogue and listening, it can lead to a more democratic society [70].

A frequent debate in the education literature and practice centers on whether schools should prioritize academic achievement or values [48]. Some suggest that schools should focus on reducing achievement gaps by allocating more resources to programs and reforms prioritizing achievement-oriented policies measured by national and international test scores [71]. Others have criticized the neo-liberal turn in education [72] and have proposed a value-centered and more humanistic approach [73]. SBL is part of the new and growing notion that an emphasis on values and soft skills does not replace or come at the expense of achievement. The results of the case study suggest that improving relationships within the school contributes to students’ achievements and values. Put differently, promoting norms of mutual respect, listening, and cooperation increases pupils’ engagement, and improves their ability to abstract and process knowledge. In turn, this results in greater achievement.

For example, in 2023, the Haifa district of Israel nominated Shalom School for a national education prize. This nomination reflects the significant improvement in rankings in the school since in 2019, the school’s academic standing and organizational climate were below the median score in the district (Israel National Authority for Research and Evaluation in Education, 2019). In 2022, a national survey on the organizational climate of Israeli schools after the COVID-19 pandemic showed that the school ranked in the upper quartile in the district.

In terms of its practical contributions, this work sheds light on the effectiveness of SBL in providing solutions to the focal challenges of the Israeli school system; namely, decreasing violence and social exclusion, and creating a positive emotional-social climate (https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/1b677fa5-a27f-ed11-8155-005056aa4246/2_1b677fa5-a27f-ed11-8155-005056aa4246_11_19888.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2023)). One of the major challenges faced by schools is the relatively high rate of teacher turnover and attrition [74], which is among the top professions worldwide in terms of turnover in the first years of service [75]. This problem threatens the sustainability of schools [76]. The SBL method, which was supported by the qualitative case study, suggests that teachers’ perseverance increased in the school. In addition, the school’s reputation in the educational community improved considerably and the school received numerous applications from teachers interested in working there. According to the school’s principal: “Teachers now stand in line to work in my school”.

2.4. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has a number of limitations. First and foremost, as in every case of organizational change, there is resistance to change [77]. One frequent challenge in implementing SBL training is changing teachers’ perceptions from their typical role of an expert who delivers knowledge in a one-sided manner to their students. This may be the dominant stance in senior teachers who have been in the system for a long time and have developed strong habits, rigid attitudes, and beliefs about a specific way of teaching. In contrast, the attitudes of new teachers are less set and, consistent with the attitude strength literature, are more susceptible to change [78].

Second, one of the major structural obstacles in implementing the method is the discrepancy between its goals and the requirements of the educational system for grade-based achievements. To date, schools are still ranked in terms of their students’ GPA on the matriculation exams. This leads to internal clashes between teachers who are worried that devoting significant time to the social activities of the method will have adverse effects on academic achievement, which will undermine their prestige and evaluation as teachers. However, this should not be a source of conflict for teachers in today’s post-pandemic and fourth industrial revolution, where ministries of education in many countries have prioritized capabilities over knowledge, soft skills, and prosocial behavior as a means toward a sustainable education system [79]. Yet, in practice, schools are still ranked based on their academic performance.

Third, this paper focuses on providing the theoretical framework for the SBL method, whereas the case study serves a secondary goal. The quantity of in-depth interviews and observations we conducted (18 and nine, respectively) is sufficient for a qualitative case study and is even larger than the number of interviews and observations of some full qualitative studies in various disciplines (e.g., [79,80,81]), including in education. However, a future full qualitative study should include more in-depth interviews from more than one school to indicate that this educational method’s effects are robust.

Furthermore, as can be seen in the method description, it takes three years for a full and comprehensive implementation of SBL. This process is much longer than most educational and organizational training programs. Nevertheless, unlike most training programs that aim to change specific behaviors directly, the goals of SBL are to (a) change the mindset of the teaching staff, (b) facilitate a new school culture, and (c) give the school the autonomy and freedom to make the changes that suit it. These changes, by definition, require much more time. However, when an organizational change occurs under such conditions, there is a greater possibility for stability, a key shortcoming of other training programs [52,80,81].

The case study results indicate that SBL contributes to many school features, such as a positive climate, well-being, teachers’ perseverance, and a sense of meaning. Indirect evidence of the method’s utility comes from a longitudinal study that found that an SBL-based training program increased teachers’ listening skills, autonomy, psychological safety, and relational climate over 12 months [82]. However, that study did not include a control group. Future studies should engage in a comprehensive examination using qualitative and quantitative methods and a comparison to other methods. For example, studies should explore whether the SBL training program contributes beyond other frequently used intervention programs at school in promoting teachers’ perseverance, well-being, positive climate, and reducing burnout.

Another critical aspect is cultural differences. To date, SBL has only been implemented in Israel. To examine the method’s generalizability, future research should test the method in other countries, especially in non-Western cultures. Teachers from different cultures have different needs and relationship norms [83]. For example, the educational system in Mexico, a non-Western culture, is characterized by high power distance, reflecting the country’s hierarchical society where power is concentrated at the top, and there is a significant power gap between the management and the teachers [84].

Finally, SBL prioritizes social connections within the school community to a greater extent than other programs implemented in schools to augment pupils’ achievement. One of the key tenets of the method is that the social side does not hinder achievement but rather complements it. Thus, future research should examine whether SBL has adverse side effects on achievement or increases achievement, as research shows that social connections predict academic performance [85].

3. Conclusions

This work presents a novel educational approach, social-based learning/leadership (SBL), and a qualitative case study on its implementation. SBL is based on the premise that schools should focus on social issues, such as the quality of the social climate and relationships in the school, without hindering academic achievements. As a result of implementing the approach, teachers shift from conveying knowledge to facilitating their pupils’ social, emotional, and cognitive development. Furthermore, SBL suggests that all processes implemented in the classroom should emerge from collaboration between teachers and that social-based processes are the foundation of sustainable schools, which in turn constitute the foundations of a sustainable society. The results of the case study of the training hint that SBL has the potential to remedy some of the most pressing challenges of educational systems today, such as enhancing teachers’ well-being and perseverance, and reducing pupil violence. We hope this paper will open an avenue to more research about SBL-based training programs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.V., A.Y. and G.I.; Methodology, M.S.M. and L.B.; Investigation, M.S.M. and L.B.; Writing—original draft, E.V., A.Y., G.I., M.S.M. and L.B.; Supervision, E.V.; Funding acquisition, G.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by grant #1235/21 from the Israel Science Foundation to Guy Itzchakov.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ministry of Education, Office of the Chief Scientist, Approval #12859.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the interviewees’ privacy in the study and following our IRB.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Thapa, A.; Cohen, J.; Guffey, S.; Higgins-D’alessandro, A. A Review of School Climate Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013, 83, 357–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cohen, J.; Mccabe, E.M.; Michelli, N.M.; Pickeral, T. School Climate: Research, Policy, Practice, and Teacher Education. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2009, 111, 180–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crocker, J.; Canevello, A.; Brown, A.A. Social Motivation: Costs and Benefits of Selfishness and Otherishness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017, 68, 299–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Roffey, S. Developing positive relationships in schools. In Positive Relationships: Evidence Based Practice across the World; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
Douglas, M.; Katikireddi, S.V.; Taulbut, M.; McKee, M.; McCartney, G. Mitigating the wider health effects of COVID-19 pandemic response. BMJ 2020, 369, m1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lawrence, D.; Hunter, S.C.; Cunneen, R.; Houghton, S.J.; Zadow, C.; Rosenberg, M.; Wood, L.; Shilton, T. Reciprocal Relationships between Trajectories of Loneliness and Screen Media Use during Adolescence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2022, 31, 1306–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Choudhury, M.; Gamon, M.; Counts, S.; Horvitz, E. Predicting depression via social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–11 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, W.K. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Iyengar, S.; Lelkes, Y.; Levendusky, M.; Malhotra, N.; Westwood, S.J. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2019, 22, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Apple, M.W.; Biesta, G.; Bright, D.; Giroux, H.A.; Heffernan, A.; McLaren, P.; Riddle, S.; Yeatman, A. Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. J. Educ. Adm. Hist. 2022, 54, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Turkle, S. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other; Hachette UK: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Sorenson, R.D. Equity, Equality, and Empathy: What Principals Can Do for the Well-Being of the Learning Community; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Aryani, F.; Wirawan, H.; Saman, A.; Samad, S.; Jufri, M. From high school to workplace: Investigating the effects of soft skills on career engagement through the role of psychological capital in different age groups. Educ. Train. 2021, 63, 1326–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schislyaeva, E.R.; Saychenko, O.A. Labor Market Soft Skills in the Context of Digitalization of the Economy. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vinokur, E. Cosmopolitan Education in Local Settings: Toward a New Civics Education for the 21st Century. Policy Futur. Educ. 2018, 16, 964–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rorty, R. Education as socialization and as individualization. In Philosophy and Social Hope; Penguin Books: London, UK, 1999; pp. 114–126. [Google Scholar]
Lamm, Z. Educational Pressure and Resistance. Educ. Philos. Theory 1972, 4, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Egan, K. The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape our Understanding; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Wilson, A.; Huynh, M. Mentor–mentee relationships as anchors for pre service teachers’ coping on professional placement. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2020, 9, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ben-Porath, S. Learning to Avoid Extremism. Educ. Theory 2023, 73, 376–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eshach, H. Bridging In-school and Out-of-school Learning: Formal, Non-Formal, and Informal Education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Driskell, D. Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A Manual for Participation; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Moss, P.; Petrie, P. Education and Social Pedagogy: What Relationship? Lond. Rev. Educ. 2019, 17, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Green, M.; Somerville, M. Sustainability education: Researching practice in primary schools. Environ. Educ. Res. 2015, 21, 832–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Huckle, J.; Sterling, S.R. Education for Sustainability; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Ross, L.; Greene, D.; House, P. The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 13, 279–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bocian, K.; Baryla, W.; Wojciszke, B. Egocentrism shapes moral judgments. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2020, 14, e12572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J. Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004, 55, 591–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schwartz, P.D.; Maynard, A.M.; Uzelac, S.M. Adolescent egocentrism: A contemporary view. Adolescence 2008, 43, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Stagner, R. Egocentrism, ethnocentrism, and altrocentrism: Factors in individual and intergroup violence. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 1977, 1, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wojcieszak, M. Internet, egocentric publics, and extremism. In New Technologies and Civic Engagement; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 103–121. [Google Scholar]
Regan, A.; Radošić, N.; Lyubomirsky, S. Experimental effects of social behavior on well-being. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2022, 26, 987–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Layous, K.; Nelson, S.K.; Oberle, E.; Schonert-Reichl, K.A.; Lyubomirsky, S. Kindness Counts: Prompting Prosocial Behavior in Preadolescents Boosts Peer Acceptance and Well-Being. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Walsh, L.C.; Armenta, C.N.; Itzchakov, G.; Fritz, M.M.; Lyubomirsky, S. More than Merely Positive: The Immediate Affective and Motivational Consequences of Gratitude. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fullan, M.; Langworthy, M. Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning; Collaborative Impact: Seattle, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Trilling, B.; Fadel, C. 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Lorenzo, N.; Gallon, R. Smart pedagogy for smart learning. In Didactics of Smart Pedagogy: Smart Pedagogy for Technology Enhanced Learning; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 41–69. [Google Scholar]
Hirsh, Å.; Segolsson, M. Enabling teacher-driven school-development and collaborative learning: An activity theory-based study of leadership as an overarching practice. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2019, 47, 400–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Nobile, J. Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2018, 38, 395–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schneider, B.; Ehrhart, M.G.; Macey, W.H. Organizational Climate and Culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schraeder, M.; Tears, R.S.; Jordan, M.H. Organizational culture in public sector organizations. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2005, 26, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. The Development of Goal Setting Theory: A Half Century Retrospective. Motiv. Sci. 2019, 5, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). N. Y. Contin. 1996, 356, 357–358. [Google Scholar]
Cooperrider, D.L.; Stavros, J.M.; Whitney, D. The Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Itzchakov, G.; Kluger, A.N. The power of listening in helping people change. Harvard Business Review, 17 May 2018; 1–7. [Google Scholar]
Kluger, A.N.; Nir, D. The feedforward interview. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biesta, G. Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 2009, 21, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Faulkner, S.A.; Cook, C.M. Testing vs. Teaching: The Perceived Impact of Assessment Demands on Middle Grades Instructional Practices. RMLE Online 2006, 29, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gifford-Smith, M.; Dodge, K.A.; Dishion, T.J.; McCord, J. Peer Influence in Children and Adolescents: Crossing the Bridge from Developmental to Intervention Science. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2005, 33, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
DeLay, D.; Zhang, L.; Hanish, L.D.; Miller, C.F.; Fabes, R.A.; Martin, C.L.; Kochel, K.P.; Updegraff, K.A. Peer Influence on Academic Performance: A Social Network Analysis of Social-Emotional Intervention Effects. Prev. Sci. 2016, 17, 903–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shapiro, S. Revisiting the teachers’ lounge: Reflections on emotional experience and teacher identity. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Osterman, K.F.; Kottkamp, R.B. Reflective Practice for Educators: Professional Development to Improve Student Learning; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Whalley, M. Involving parents in their children’s learning: A knowledge-sharing approach. In Involving Parents in Their Children’s Learning; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017; 296p. [Google Scholar]
Tomé, G.; Matos, M.; Simões, C.; Diniz, J.A.; Camacho, I. How Can Peer Group Influence the Behavior of Adolescents: Explanatory Model. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2012, 4, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Neaman, A.; Otto, S.; Vinokur, E. Toward an Integrated Approach to Environmental and Prosocial Education. Sustainability 2018, 10, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Corral-Verdugo, V.; Mireles-Acosta, J.F.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Fraijo-Sing, B. Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 18, 95–104. [Google Scholar]
Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Durón-Ramos, M.F. Assessing Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: A Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005, 36, 457–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cohen, J.; Brown, P.; Corrigan, M.; Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. School climate and culture improvement: A prosocial strategy that recognizes, educates, and supports the whole child and the whole school community. In The Handbook of Prosocial Education; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2012; pp. 227–270. [Google Scholar]
Durlak, J.A.; Weissberg, R.P.; Dymnicki, A.B.; Taylor, R.D.; Schellinger, K.B. The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child Dev. 2011, 82, 405–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lavee, E.; Itzchakov, G. Good listening: A key element in establishing quality in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 2023, 23, 614–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Petrie, P.; Cameron, C. Importing social pedagogy. In The Diversity of Social Pedagogy in Europe: Studies in Comparative Social Pedagogies and International Social Work and Social Policy; Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2009; Volume 7, pp. 145–168. [Google Scholar]
Gradišek, P.; Polak, A. Insights into learning and examination experience of higher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Contemp. Educ. Stud. 2021, 72, 286–307. [Google Scholar]
Kim, S.; Choi, N. The relationships between children’s ego function and fear of negative evaluation affecting academic failure tolerance in early school age: Analysis by grade level considering sustainability of academic motivation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wetzel, E.; Brown, A.; Hill, P.L.; Chung, J.M.; Robins, R.W.; Roberts, B.W. The Narcissism Epidemic Is Dead; Long Live the Narcissism Epidemic. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 28, 1833–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deal, T.E.; Peterson, K.D. Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, and Promises; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Itzchakov, G.; Reis, H.T. Listening and perceived responsiveness: Unveiling the significance and exploring crucial research endeavors. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2023, 53, 101662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Westheimer, J.; Kahne, J. Reconnecting Education to Democracy: Democratic Dialogues. Phi Delta Kappan 2003, 85, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mullis, I.; Martin, M.; Loveless, T. 20 Years of TIMSS; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study; Boston College: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Ball, S.J. The Education Debate; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Nussbaum, M.C. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Sutcher, L.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Carver-Thomas, D. A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the US; Learning Policy Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Kelly, N.; Cespedes, M.; Clarà, M.; Danaher, P.A. Early career teachers’ intentions to leave the profession: The complex relationships among preservice education, early career support, and job satisfaction. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 44, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
García, E.; Weiss, E. The Teacher Shortage Is Real, Large and Growing, and Worse than We Thought. The First Report in ”The Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market” Series; Economic Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Oreg, S. Resistance to change and performance: Toward a more even-handed view of dispositional resistance. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2018, 54, 88–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Petty, R.E.; Krosnick, J.A. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Co-operation, O.F.E. and Development. The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030; OECD Education Working Papers; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Itzchakov, G.; Weinstein, N.; Cheshin, A. Learning to listen: Downstream effects of listening training on employees’ relatedness, burnout, and turnover intentions. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 62, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Itzchakov, G. Can listening training empower service employees? The mediating roles of anxiety and perspective-taking. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 29, 938–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Itzchakov, G.; Kluger, A.N. Can holding a stick improve listening at work? The effect of Listening Circles on employees’ emotions and cognitions. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Itzchakov, G.; Weinstein, N.; Vinokur, E.; Yomtovian, A. Communicating for workplace connection: A longitudinal study of the outcomes of listening training on teachers’ autonomy, psychological safety, and relational climate. Psychol. Sch. 2023, 60, 1279–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Williams, A.; Prestage, S.; Bedward, J. Individualism to Collaboration: The significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers. J. Educ. Teach. 2001, 27, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hofstede, G.; Bond, M.H. Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1984, 15, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gueldner, B.A.; Feuerborn, L.L.; Merrell, K.W. Social and Emotional Learning in the Classroom: Promoting Mental Health and Academic Success; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Citation: Vinokur, E.; Yomtovian, A.; Itzchakov, G.; Shalev Marom, M.; Baron, L. Social-Based Learning and Leadership (SBL): Theory Development and a Qualitative Case Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215800

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

מאמרים באנגלית