This study employed a systematic review methodology to synthesize empirical and theoretical evidence on the use of technology-enabled approaches to support social-emotional learning (SEL) among university educators. The design followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and recommendations for systematic reviews (Booth et al., 2016; Gough et al., 2017; Higgins et al., 2019), ensuring a structured and transparent process for identification, selection, and synthesis of eligible studies. The review was conceptually framed using the PICOS model (Higgins et al., 2019), which defined the scope and guided the selection criteria: Population (P)–mainly university educators (including faculty, instructors, teacher educators, faculty developers, pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in university-based programs, and university students participating in SEL interventions or co-creation activities); Intervention (I)–technology-enabled approaches targeting SEL development; Comparator (C)–no comparator required, although internal contrasts (e.g., pre/post or between settings) were noted; Outcomes (O)–development or enhancement of SEL competencies and associated shifts in teaching practice, professional development, or inclusive learning environments; and Study design (S)–peer-reviewed empirical and theoretical studies, including qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, systematic mapping, scoping syntheses, and conceptual framework analyses.

Given the intersection of multiple research domains–social-emotional learning, educational technology, and faculty development–this review prioritized conceptual richness over experimental uniformity, aiming to explore how SEL is operationalized through digital means in higher education rather than assess effectiveness across standardized interventions. The review protocol was developed prior to full-text screening but was not preregistered, as the study was not clinical in nature and falls outside the scope of registries such as PROSPERO.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were derived directly from the PICOS framework and refined through an iterative reading of titles and abstracts during the screening process. Eligible studies met the following criteria:

Studies were excluded if they were not peer-reviewed (e.g., opinion pieces, non-peer-reviewed book chapters, editorials, or gray literature). Gray literature, conference proceedings, and non-peer-reviewed articles were also excluded to maintain methodological quality.

A systematic literature search was conducted across five academic databases known for their coverage of educational, psychological, and interdisciplinary research: ERIC, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, EBSCOhost, and SpringerLink. These databases were selected to ensure comprehensive coverage of the intersection between SEL, higher education, and educational technology.

Search strategies were adapted for each platform’s syntax and used Boolean logic and keyword mapping. The search strings combined terms from five conceptual pillars: SEL, higher education, educators, technology, and context/culture. For example, strings included combinations such as:

(“Social-emotional learning” OR “SEL”) AND (“higher education” OR “university”) AND (“educators” OR “faculty”) AND (“technology” OR “digital tools” OR “online platforms”) AND (“cross-cultural” OR “inclusive” OR “intercultural”).

Database-specific filters were applied to restrict results to peer-reviewed journal articles. The search was conducted in March 2024 and included articles published between January 2014 and December 2024. Only studies with available full text were considered.

The initial search identified 2,296 records across the five databases. After duplicate removal (n = 896) using Zotero, 1,400 unique studies were retained for screening. Title and abstract screening was performed independently by two reviewers using Rayyan, applying the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through team discussion.

The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1), which follows the four standard stages–identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion–recommended for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021). This diagram provides a transparent overview of how records were identified, screened, excluded, and ultimately included in the final synthesis.

This stage excluded 1,135 studies, resulting in 265 full-text articles assessed for eligibility.

During full-text screening, 243 studies were excluded for the following reasons: not focused on SEL in higher education (n = 27), no integration of technology in SEL (n = 12), populations outside higher education (n = 161), poor methodological quality (n = 41), and accessibility issues (n = 2). Studies were considered of “poor methodological quality” when they exhibited one or more of the following: absence of a clear research design or methodology; lack of valid or reliable measures for SEL outcomes; insufficient description of intervention procedures; or missing data that hindered interpretation of results. This assessment was based on adapted quality appraisal criteria from PRISMA 2020 guidelines, ensuring that only methodologically sound studies were included in the synthesis.

Ultimately, 22 studies were included in the final synthesis. The full screening and selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1).

A structured data extraction template was created using Microsoft Excel, informed by the review questions and PICOS dimensions. The following data were extracted from each study:

Studies were also organized in Zotero under thematic folders reflecting four dimensions: SEL relevance, higher education focus, technology integration, and cross-cultural adaptability. Notes on theoretical framework, practical relevance, and quality of reporting were also recorded.

While no formal risk-of-bias tool (e.g., ROBIS, CASP) was applied due to the diversity of included studies, each study was evaluated using a narrative quality framework. Criteria included clarity of aims, appropriateness of methods, richness of findings, and consistency with inclusion criteria (Gough et al., 2017). A relevance score (High, Medium, Low) was assigned based on alignment with the research objectives, particularly the study’s contribution to the design of a SEL toolkit for university educators.

Studies with lower methodological clarity were retained if they offered novel conceptual insights or addressed underrepresented contexts (e.g., Global South, refugee education, virtual learning in conflict zones), thus enhancing the review’s contextual diversity.

Given the methodological heterogeneity, a qualitative thematic synthesis approach was employed (Thomas and Harden, 2008; Braun and Clarke, 2006). After extraction, data were open-coded using inductive methods. Codes were grouped into themes that addressed the review’s central questions:

Synthesis was iterative and reflexive, involving constant comparison across studies. Emerging patterns were mapped onto a matrix structured around the PICOS components to support integrative interpretation and highlight areas of strength, variation, and research gaps. In addition to educator-participant studies, we retained student-focused higher-education studies whose technology features (e.g., emotion-recognition feedback, game-based practice, social robots) provide transferable design elements for faculty professional development in SEL. These studies inform design/specification choices rather than outcome frequencies and were therefore excluded from educator-outcome tallies. A brief sensitivity check indicated that thematic conclusions remained stable when excluding these transfer-focused studies.

The 22 studies synthesized in this review reflect the emerging yet increasingly diversified body of research which corresponds with prior mapping of technology-supported SEL interventions (D’Angelo, 2018; Mayer, 2018; Mayer and Schwemmle, 2023) exploring the integration of technology-enabled SEL interventions in higher education faculty development. The studies covered a range of international contexts, including North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, representing both Western and non-Western educational systems. This geographical spread allowed for the examination of both globally shared challenges and culturally specific adaptations in implementing SEL interventions.

A broad spectrum of research designs was observed. These included mixed-methods studies, qualitative designs (e.g., interviews, case studies, participatory inquiry), scoping and systematic reviews, conceptual frameworks, and quantitative designs (e.g., surveys, structural equation modeling, experimental and quasi-experimental approaches). Quantitative studies employed experimental and quasi-experimental designs, pre- and post-intervention assessments, and validated SEL measurement instruments to assess competency growth. Several studies utilized mixed methods designs that combined self-report surveys, observational data, focus groups, and reflective journals to triangulate findings. This methodological variety provided both depth and breadth to the synthesis, allowing for a richer understanding of both intervention processes and outcomes.

Participants in the included studies represented a diverse spectrum of university-based populations. These included faculty members, instructors, teacher educators, faculty developers, pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in university-affiliated training, and university students engaged in SEL interventions or co-creation activities. The participant samples reflected a range of teaching experience, disciplinary fields, and cross-cultural higher education contexts. The main characteristics of the included studies, including study design, country, sample population, and intervention type, are summarized in Table 1.

The findings of the 22 included studies were synthesized according to three core themes that emerged consistently across the literature: (1) SEL Competencies Targeted, (2) Technology-Enabled Strategies, and (3) Contextual Adaptation and Impact. These themes align directly with the research questions guiding the review and the PICOS framework used to structure the inclusion criteria.

Across the 22 studies, self-awareness was the most frequently addressed competency (9/22; S2, S3, S6, S12, S14, S15, S17, S18, S21), followed by emotional regulation (7/22; S2, S8, S12, S13, S15, S19, S20), responsible decision-making (4/22; S3, S15, S18, S20), and empathy (5/22; S1, S4, S12, S13, S19).

These competencies were commonly developed through reflective practices such as digital journaling (S12, S15, S17), self-assessment tools (S15), and structured peer feedback (S6, S18). In alignment with the CASEL framework, self-awareness and self-management (including regulation) were identified as core SEL elements. Recent comprehensive reviews (Osher et al., 2016) further underscore SEL’s relevance across educational levels. Emotional regulation emerged as a critical resilience skill for educators navigating emotionally charged student interactions, academic workload pressures, and shifting classroom dynamics (Brackett et al., 2019).

Cultural framing shaped these competencies: in collectivist contexts (S4, S15), regulation emphasized maintaining group harmony; in more individualistic contexts (S6, S10), it focused on personal resilience and self-care. A similar contextual divergence appeared for self-awareness: in collectivist higher education environments (S4, S15), Similarly, self-awareness exhibited distinct emphases across cultural contexts. In collectivist settings such as S15 and S18, self-awareness was often framed as an awareness of one’s role in maintaining group harmony, recognizing shared responsibility, and aligning personal values with collective norms. In more individualistic contexts, such as S6 and S17, self-awareness tended to focus on personal resilience, independent growth, and reflective self-improvement in teaching practice. Empathy also reflected contextual variation: in multicultural or diverse classrooms (e.g., S4, S13), empathy was operationalized through cultural humility and active listening to foster inclusivity, whereas in more homogeneous academic environments (e.g., S1, S12) it centered on perspective-taking within subject-specific or institutional communities.

Empathy and relationship skills were particularly important in multicultural teaching contexts (S4, S13), reinforcing Gay’s (2018) assertion that relational competence is central to inclusive pedagogy. Taken together, these findings suggest that emotional regulation and self-awareness may yield shorter-term gains, while empathy and relationship skills often require sustained, immersive engagement. This echoes findings from higher education research indicating that empathy–and particularly its impact on teaching presence and student support–develops most effectively through prolonged interventions. Empathy is linked to long-term relationship quality and mental health outcomes, suggesting that short bursts of training are less impactful than ongoing SEL engagement (Aldrup et al., 2022).

The reviewed studies showed that technology functioned not merely as a delivery platform, but as an active facilitator of SEL skill development, consistent with Mayer’s (2018) multimedia learning principles. Tools were deployed in ways that often mapped directly to targeted competencies:

Taken together, these patterns suggest that the choice of technology is not merely a technical matter but a pedagogical one, where alignment with institutional and cultural needs becomes central to sustained engagement.

A fit-for-purpose alignment emerged: emotion-monitoring apps (S8, S15) best supported regulation; journaling platforms (S12, S15, S17) enhanced self-awareness; scenario-based simulations embedded in LMS (S15, S20) effectively developed responsible decision-making. This aligns with broader digital equity research showing that accessibility and technological appropriateness significantly influence engagement with SEL interventions–particularly in under-resourced higher education contexts. For example, recent work emphasizes how barriers like limited broadband and device access compromise SEL uptake unless low-bandwidth, inclusive designs are prioritized (Drljić et al., 2025).

These findings resonate with the CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2022), showing how technology-mediated environments can foster cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Many interventions balanced asynchronous self-paced work with synchronous, peer-supported dialogue (S2, S6, S21), reflecting evidence that blended approaches combine the benefits of individual reflection with collaborative meaning-making (Liu et al., 2019; Mayer, 2018).

Explicit cross-cultural adaptation was evident in 5/22 studies (S2, S4, S15, S18, S21), yet contextual sensitivity was a recurring implicit factor across the corpus. Adapting Western-centric SEL models proved essential where cultural norms around emotional expression, educator–student hierarchies, and interpersonal dynamics differed substantially.

Examples include integrating linguistic diversity into activities (S2, S21), modifying case studies to reflect local socio-political realities (S4), and embedding SEL within professional ethics frameworks (S4, S15). In East Asian contexts (S15), SEL emphasized indirect emotional disclosure; in Middle Eastern settings (S4), it was tied to community-oriented values. In under-resourced environments (S8, S14), low-bandwidth tools outperformed resource-heavy simulations, illustrating how technological feasibility and cultural adaptability are interdependent. This observation echoes findings that inclusive, low-tech modalities can reduce cognitive load and enhance reach, especially for faculty in infrastructure-challenged regions. Studies suggest that scalable, accessible platforms–not high-spec solutions–are critical for equitable SEL implementation (Drljić et al., 2025; Burrus et al., 2022).

These findings affirm the need for culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995) and culturally sustaining approaches (Paris and Alim, 2017) to ensure relevance, authenticity, and emotional safety.

Comparative synthesis revealed specific synergies:

Several reviewed interventions explicitly grounded their design in established theoretical or pedagogical frameworks. For example, S4 drew on the SCARF model to address status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness in emotional engagement; S13 incorporated the Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach to facilitate critical and empathetic dialogue; S3 embedded Transformative SEL principles to link social-emotional growth with civic engagement; and S19 employed mindfulness-based SEL strategies to promote sustained emotional regulation. These frameworks informed the structure and sequencing of activities in the respective interventions, influencing both the competency emphasis and the mode of technology integration.

These patterns underscore that success depends on alignment between competency focus, technological affordances, and cultural context – not the independent selection of any single element.

The findings support a toolkit design that:

In under-resourced universities, integration might prioritize low-bandwidth, mobile-compatible SEL tools embedded within existing teaching duties, paired with peer-support communities to reduce training costs. In contrast, research-intensive institutions may leverage high-capacity infrastructure for more immersive tools (e.g., VR simulations), with integration through structured professional learning communities and research-led evaluation. Cultural context also shapes implementation–collectivist settings may embed SEL development in collaborative faculty activities and community-oriented goals, while individualist contexts might emphasize self-paced modules and personalized skill tracking.

Such a toolkit, embedded within holistic faculty development models that include interpersonal mentoring, institutional support, and culturally responsive curriculum design, can strengthen emotional competence, inclusive pedagogy, and professional resilience.

This review excluded non-English and non–peer-reviewed studies, potentially limiting cultural diversity in the synthesis. The heterogeneity of designs, intervention models, and outcome measures precluded meta-analysis, necessitating thematic synthesis and introducing subjectivity in theme identification.

Future priorities include:

This heterogeneity limits the comparability of effect sizes across studies and necessitates cautious generalization of results. Without meta-analytic aggregation, observed patterns should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive, and future research employing standardized measures could enhance cross-study comparability.