Date
Publisher
arXiv
As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.
Why it matters
As artificial intelligence is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount.
Key findings
- Across 65 reviewed studies on AI and social-emotional learning, nearly three-quarters did not mention policy implications at all.
- When policy implications were discussed, they often lacked specific details and clear guidance on who should take action.
- Publication venue was significantly linked to policy engagement, suggesting academic incentives may prioritize technical innovation over governance and regulation.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design

