Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence: Links with Social and Emotional Learning and Positive Workplace Outcomes

Abstract

Social–emotional learning (SEL) involves curriculum that aims to teach students social–emotional competence (SEC) through capacities such as relationship skills and self-management skills. Although the research case for the benefits of SEL is gaining strength, this has overwhelmingly tended to focus on outcomes for students. Very little research has focused on teachers’ outcomes. The aim of this chapter is to consider the relevance of SEC and SEL implementation for teachers. To do this, a conceptual framework based on Jennings and Greenberg’s (Rev Educ Res 79:491–525, 2009) prosocial classroom model is introduced. The framework provides conceptual grounding for links between teachers’ SEC, their experiences of SEL programmes, and outcomes for teachers and students. Next, research on teachers’ SEC is discussed with reference to the impact of teachers’ SEC for teachers’ and students’ outcomes. Following this, the relevance of SEL for teachers is discussed by considering the important roles played by teachers’ beliefs about SEL, along with the impact that SEL programmes can have on teachers. To end, implications for practice, research, and theory that support the promotion of teachers’ SEC and the extension of research on SEL for teachers are discussed.

Full text

PRE-PUB VERSION
1
Collie, R.J. (2017). Teachers’ social and emotional competence: Links with social and emotional
learning and positive workplace outcomes. In E. Frydenberg., A.J. Martin., & R.J. Collie
(Eds). Social and emotional learning in Australia and the Asia Pacific. Singapore: Springer.
This chapter may not exactly replicate the authoritative document in the published book/volume.
It is not the copy of record. The exact copy of record can be accessed via the published
book/volume, Social and emotional learning in Australia and the Asia Pacific (2017).

PRE-PUB VERSION
2
Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence:
Links with Social and Emotional Learning and Positive Workplace Outcomes
Rebecca J. Collie
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Social-emotional learning (SEL) involves curriculum that aims to teach students social-
emotional competence (SEC) through capacities such as relationship skills and self-management
skills. Although the research case for the benefits of SEL is gaining strength, this has
overwhelmingly tended to focus on outcomes for students. Very little research has focused on
teachers’ outcomes. The aim of this chapter is to consider the relevance of SEC and SEL
implementation for teachers. To do this, a conceptual framework based on Jennings and
Greenberg’s (2009) prosocial classroom model is introduced. The framework provides
conceptual grounding for links between teachers’ SEC, their experiences of SEL programs, and
outcomes for teachers and students. Next, research on teachers’ SEC is discussed with reference
to the impact of teachers’ SEC for teachers’ and students’ outcomes. Following this, the
relevance of SEL for teachers is discussed by considering the important roles played by teachers’
beliefs about SEL, along with the impact that SEL programs can have on teachers. To end,
implications for practice, research, and theory that support the promotion of teachers’ SEC and
the extension of research on SEL for teachers are discussed.
Keywords: social and emotional learning, social and emotional competence, teachers, well-being,
motivation

PRE-PUB VERSION
3
Introduction
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is increasingly being recognised as an essential
component of effective schooling and positive student development (e.g., Banerjee, Weare, &
Farr, 2014; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2015). SEL involves curriculum that aims to
teach students competencies in the social and emotional domains, such as relationship skills and
self-management skills (Collaboration for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL],
2013). Evidence is mounting on the significance of SEL for students’ positive outcomes, with
researchers showing that SEL and its focus on promoting students’ social and emotional
competence (SEC) is linked with greater achievement and positive adjustment (e.g., Durlak et
al., 2011; Humphrey, 2013). At the same time, researchers are beginning to become aware of the
importance of SEL for teachers. Indeed, Humphrey (2013) argues that “SEL is for children and
adults, each and every member of the school community” (p.3). The consideration of teachers
with respect to SEL implementation is a significant issue given that teachers’ SEC plays a central
role in determining how they undertake their work, the nature of their social interactions at work,
and their social and emotional wellbeing (e.g., Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Klusmann,
Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Baumert, 2008). Moreover, teachers are often responsible for
implementing SEL in the classroom (Jennings & Frank, 2015). Thus, teachers’ experiences with
and beliefs about SEL drive their instructional practices in the area (Collie, Shapka, Perry, &
Martin, 2015; Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Further still, SEL programs also have the potential to
affect teachers—including developing their SEC and improving their wellbeing.
The aim of the current chapter is to consider SEC and SEL with respect to school
teachers. Given the limited empirical work in this area, research from several different fields
(e.g., education, psychology) is drawn together with the aim of synthesising and extending
knowledge about teachers’ SEC and the impact that SEL implementation may have on teachers.
The chapter begins by introducing the conceptual framework that guides the chapter. Next, five
key SECs elaborated by CASEL (2013), how they manifest among teachers, and their impact on
teachers’ and students’ outcomes are introduced. Following this, the relevance of SEL for
teachers is discussed by first referring to research on teachers’ beliefs about SEL and then the
direct impact of SEL programs on teachers’ outcomes. To finish, implications for practice,
research, and theory are provided.
Conceptual Framework
In one of the first frameworks to consider SEC and SEL, Jennings and Greenberg (2009;
see also Jennings & Frank, 2015) describe a model of the prosocial classroom. In the model,
teachers’ SEC and wellbeing are shown to have reciprocal relationships with four important
classroom-level factors: teacher-student relationships, classroom management, SEL
implementation, and the classroom climate. Jennings and Greenberg establish that teachers who
are higher in SEC and wellbeing (e.g., high psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with work,
low stress and burnout) are more likely to build positive relationships, expertly manage the
classroom, implement SEL effectively, and promote a safe and supportive classroom climate. At
the same time, when the four classroom-level factors are functioning well, they reciprocally
promote teachers’ SEC and wellbeing. The model also shows that teachers’ SEC and wellbeing
indirectly influence students’ academic, social, and emotional outcomes via the four classroom
levels factors. For example, when teachers are socially and emotionally competent, they create a
supportive learning environment that, in turn, promotes positive student outcomes such as

PRE-PUB VERSION
4
engagement in learning and high quality interpersonal relationships (Jennings & Greenberg,
2009). In the current chapter, attention is focused on one of the relationships described in
Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) model: the reciprocal link between teachers’ SEC and effective
SEL implementation. In addition, three further premises are proposed. It is suggested that the
impact of teachers’ SEC directly influences teachers’ outcomes such as wellbeing and motivation
(premise 1); teachers’ SEC is relevant to teachers’ broader instructional practices (not only their
effective SEL implementation; premise 2); and as per Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2012),
alongside SEC and wellbeing, teachers’ beliefs about SEL are an important determinant of their
wellbeing, motivation, attitudes towards SEL, and implementation of SEL (premise 3). In the
next sections, supporting research for the relationship from Jennings and Greenberg’s model and
the three additional premises are discussed in relation to teachers’ SEC, and then the impact of
SEL on teachers.
Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence
It is well-established that teachers’ social and emotional wellbeing is essential to their
functioning in the classroom—including their use of effective classroom management
approaches, provision of targeted learning support, and creation of supportive learning
environments (e.g., Kunter et al., 2013; McLean & Connor, 2015; Shen et al., 2015). More
recently, researchers have begun to formally consider the importance of teachers’ SEC (e.g.,
Jennings & Frank, 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Schonert-Reichl, Hanson-Peterson, &
Hymel, 2015). Although there are potentially many different ways of operationalising SEC, five
competencies suggested by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) have received significant attention in the student-focused literature and are the focus in
the current chapter. The five SECs are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,
relationship skills, and responsible decision making (CASEL, 2013). With reference to the
broader educational psychology literature, the SECs are introduced below, including how they
manifest among teachers and their impact on teachers’ and students’ outcomes.
Self-Awareness
Self-awareness involves “understanding one’s emotions, personal goals, and values”
(Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015, p. 6) including knowing one’s strengths and
limitations, possessing a sound sense of self-efficacy and optimism, and having positive mindsets
(CASEL, 2013; Weissberg et al., 2015). Among teachers, this may be evident by teachers’
awareness of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they have or need to develop, their sense of
self-efficacy about their work, and their positive states-of-mind about their own and students’
current abilities and future development. Beyond the classroom, this may be evident in teachers’
confidence and positive mindsets in interacting with colleagues and students’ parents.
To date, researchers have yet to examine teachers’ self-awareness as operationalized
above. However, it has been assessed under a variety of related constructs and approaches in the
literature. For example, there exists a sizeable body of research on the significance of self-
efficacy for teachers’ functioning at work (e.g., Collie et al., 2012; Holzberger, Philipp, &
Kunter, 2013; Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Künsting, Neuber, & Lipowsky, 2016; Ryan, Kuusinen, &
Bedoya-Skoog, 2015; H. Wang, Hall, & Rahimi, 2015). Self-efficacy refers to teachers’
confidence in their ability to bring about positive learning outcomes among students (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and has largely been examined in relation to three core
dimensions of teaching: student engagement, classroom management, and instructional

PRE-PUB VERSION
5
strategies. Researchers have shown that teachers’ self-efficacy in these areas is associated with
greater job satisfaction, lower burnout, fewer symptoms of illness, greater work commitment,
and lower quitting intentions (e.g., Collie et al., 2012; Klassen & Chiu, 2011; H. Wang et al.,
2015). Moreover, among US teachers, Ryan, Kuusinen, and Bedoya-Skoog (2015) showed that
teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom management is significantly associated with their teaching
quality.
Turning to another component of self-awareness, researchers are also highlighting
optimism’s relevance to teachers’ positive experiences at work. Desrumaux et al. (2015) showed
that when teachers are optimistic about life, this is associated with greater wellbeing at work and
in life generally, and lower distress at work (assessed as irritability, aggressiveness, anxiety, and
depression). More recently, interest has been growing in the impact of mindfulness on teachers’
and students’ outcomes. Mindfulness involves paying attention to thoughts, emotions, and
physical sensations in the present moment, along with self-awareness and self-compassion
(Abenavoli, Jennings, Greenberg, Harris, & Katz, 2013). When teachers are more mindful in
their daily interactions at work and beyond, they tend to report lower burnout (Abenavoli et al.,
2013) and provide more effective emotional support to students (Jennings et al., 2014).
Self-Management
The second SEC is self-management, which refers to regulating one’s thoughts, emotions,
and behaviours; managing stress; motivating oneself; and setting adaptive goals (CASEL, 2013;
Weissberg et al., 2015). In the classroom, this competency may manifest as teachers’ efforts at
regulation in order to engage respectfully with students and manage stress (e.g., minimise
frustration, model appropriate behaviour), their enthusiasm and engagement in their work, and
their ability to set clear and effective goals. This competence may be evident in similar ways
beyond the classroom in teachers’ interactions with colleagues and parents.
Once again, empirical support of the importance of this SEC for teachers may be gained
from research conducted in related domains (e.g., educational psychology). Self-regulation is one
such domain that has received attention. Researchers have shown that cognitive self-regulation is
important for lower emotional exhaustion and greater job satisfaction among teachers (Mattern &
Bauer, 2014). In other work, Klusmann and colleagues (2008) examined occupational self-
regulation, which they define as the balance between investing and conserving resources at work.
They demonstrated that teachers who exhibited a healthy self-regulatory profile tended to have
higher job satisfaction, greater wellbeing, and were rated by students as being more effective in
their instructional practices. More recently, Collie and Martin (2016) examined adaptability
among Australian teachers. Adaptability has been positioned as a specific type of self-regulation
and refers to the capacity to adjust one’s thoughts, behaviours, and emotions in response to
changing, novel, or uncertain demands (Martin, Nejad, Colmar, & Liem, 2012). Collie and
Martin showed that when teachers were able to adapt their thinking, actions, and emotions, they
tended to experience greater wellbeing. Moreover, when teachers were adaptable and
experienced wellbeing, this was associated with greater student achievement.
Additional domains of research relevant to self-management are coping skills,
motivation, and goal setting. Coping skills can help teachers to manage their challenging work
(Chang, 2009) and have been shown to be important for reducing burnout and improving
engagement and wellbeing among teachers (e.g., Chang, 2012; Parker & Martin, 2009; Parker,
Martin, Colmar, & Liem, 2012). Motivation and goal setting are central to teachers’ positive
functioning at work having been positively linked with teachers’ wellbeing, job satisfaction,

PRE-PUB VERSION
6
work commitment, effective instructional practices, and students’ perceptions of teacher support
(Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Collie, Shapka, Perry, & Martin, in press; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2015).
Once again, understanding on the role of teachers’ self-management comes from research
conducted on related psychological constructs.
Social Awareness
Social awareness is the third SEC and this involves taking the perspectives of others
(including those from diverse backgrounds), empathising and feeling compassion for others,
understanding social norms for behaviour, and recognising resources and supports from family,
school, and the community (CASEL, 2013; Weissberg et al., 2015). In teachers’ work, this may
be visible in various ways such as teachers’ efforts to acknowledge and empathise with the
perspectives of students, students’ families, and colleagues; teachers’ sense of compassion
towards students, their families, and colleagues; knowledge of social norms for appropriate
conduct in their interactions with different members of the school community (e.g., being
supportive and caring); and, knowledge of resources that may support their teaching and
students’ learning.
Researchers in different fields have identified the importance of these different
components of social awareness for effective teaching. For example, Perry and colleagues (2015)
describe the importance of perspective-taking, compassion, and knowledge of appropriate
resources for teachers who are working with at-risk youth—both for the students’ positive
outcomes, but also for the teachers’ resilience and wellbeing. Swan and Riley (2015) suggest that
empathy is essential for teachers to understand their students and, thus, provide appropriate
emotional and instructional support. In other work, Domitrovich and colleagues (2016) examined
a type of interpersonal mindfulness, which refers to awareness, openness, and compassion for
others. They found that when teachers reported greater levels of interpersonal mindfulness, they
also tended to report greater self-efficacy for behavioural management, greater self-efficacy for
teaching SEL, and lower burnout.
Relationship Skills
Turning next to relationship skills, these involve establishing and maintaining high
quality relationships by, for example, communicating clearly, listening to and cooperating with
others, negotiating conflict appropriately, and seeking and offering help (CASEL, 2013;
Weissberg et al., 2015). In the classroom, this may manifest as teachers’ abilities to interact in
caring and constructive ways with students, utilise and model appropriate conflict resolution
strategies, and seek or offer help to students as needed. Similar relationships skills are also
central for teachers’ interactions with colleagues and students’ families.
The bulk of research relevant to this SEC has involved examinations of teachers’
relationships with students and colleagues. Researchers have shown the significance of high-
quality teacher-student relationships for teachers’ wellbeing, motivation, and their provision of
high quality instructional support (e.g., Collie et al., in press; Curby, Rimm-Kaufmann, & Abry,
2013; Klassen, Perry, & Frenzel, 2012). Moreover, high quality teacher-student relationships
have been shown to have significant positive impacts on students’ current and subsequent
academic motivation and engagement, achievement, and positive adjustment (e.g., Collie,
Martin, Papworth, & Ginns, 2016; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Martin & Dowson, 2009;
Opdenakker, Maulana, & den Brok, 2012; M. Wang, Brinkworth, & Eccles, 2013). Teachers’
relationships with colleagues and school leadership—including collaborative teaching efforts and

PRE-PUB VERSION
7
informal interactions—also play significant roles with respect to teachers’ wellbeing, motivation,
and effective instruction (e.g., Collie et al., in press; Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom,
2015; Van Droogenbroeck, Spruyt, & Vanroelen, 2014). Finally, researchers have highlighted
the significance of help-seeking behaviour for teachers’ resilience and effective goal setting (e.g.,
Butler, 2007; Castro, Kelly, & Shih, 2010; Mansfield, Beltman, & Price, 2014). For example,
when teachers are able to ask questions, seek support, and observe more experienced teachers,
this is a known determinant of their wellbeing and work commitment (e.g., Castro et al., 2010;
De Neve, Devos, and Tuytens, 2015; Mansfield, Beltman, & Price, 2014).
Responsible Decision Making
Responsible decision making, the final SEC, refers to the capacity to make constructive
and respectful choices regarding one’s behaviour and social interactions by, for example,
considering ethical, safety, social, and wellbeing concerns for oneself and others (CASEL, 2013;
Weissberg et al., 2015). In teachers’ work, this involves responsible decision making with
respect to students, their families, and colleagues; using pedagogy that is respectful to students;
and, considering the wellbeing of students and colleagues (e.g., by adjusting activities if students
are struggling or if a student is unwell). Evidence of teachers’ responsible decision making is
largely recognisable via their actions. In this section, attention is focused on two manifestations
of this: the strategies teachers employ to make effective decisions in their work, and their
provision of support for students—which may (or may not) reflect responsible and supportive
teaching decisions.
Teachers are required to make decisions in their work on a continuous basis (Emmer &
Stough, 2004). Decision making is a process through which teachers make judgements and
decisions with the aim of optimising students’ outcomes (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Decision
making is inherent in all aspects of teachers’ work, including classroom management,
instructional approaches, timing, or even problem solving issues that arise. In that sense, it is
employed before (e.g., planning the order of learning activities to best engage students), during
(e.g., adjusting lesson pacing), and after (e.g., planning changes for the next lesson) events occur
(Westerman, 1991).
Researchers have shown that expert teachers tend to be more effective at decision
making—with respect to classroom management, for example, expert teachers spend
significantly greater amounts of time establishing and instructing students on classroom routines
and norms than beginning teachers (Emmer & Stough, 2004). Researchers have also shown that
the types of decision making approaches utilised by teachers impact teachers’ and students’
outcomes differently. For example, teachers’ use of preventative classroom management
strategies (e.g., describing expectations to students before class) rather than reactive strategies
(e.g., using rewards and punishments) has been associated with lower teacher stress and
increased on-task behaviour by students (Clunies-Ross, Little, Kienhuis, 2008). Moreover,
beginning teachers who are able to employ problem solving strategies—such as trial and error,
consulting others, researching alternative solutions—tend to exhibit greater resilience and
wellbeing (e.g., Castro et al., 2010; see also Mansfield et al., 2014).
Turning next to teachers’ provision of support, autonomy supportive teaching and
controlling teaching are two contrasting approaches by which teachers can offer support in the
classroom. Stemming from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), autonomy supportive
teaching involves teaching in ways that support students’ self-determination and empowerment
as learners—such as offering encouragement and hints to help students solve problems on their

PRE-PUB VERSION
8
own and being responsive to student questioning (Reeve & Jang, 2006). In contrast, controlling
teaching involves pressuring students into thinking, feeling, and/or acting in certain ways—such
as ordering and shaming students, using destructive criticism, or rejecting students’ input (De
Meyer et al., 2014). As these definitions suggest, autonomy supportive teaching involves making
constructive and respectful decisions. Researchers have shown that autonomy supportive
teaching is a determinant of more self-determined motivation among students, whereas
controlling teaching is predictive of the opposite (e.g., Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste,
Soenens, & Van Petegem, 2015). Moreover, teachers tend to report lower burnout when they are
more autonomy supportive in the classroom (Shen et al., 2015).
Summarising the Importance of Teachers’ SEC. Taken together, there is a sizeable
research literature that has examined constructs relevant to the five SECs identified by CASEL
(2013). Moreover, researchers have provided evidence of the relevance of these constructs for
teachers’ wellbeing, motivation, and instructional practices, and also for students’ social,
emotional, and academic outcomes. Referring back to the conceptual model, therefore, the
literature affirms Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) link between teachers’ SEC and students’
outcomes. Additionally, it provides support for two of the further premises involving the
relationships that teachers’ SEC has with teachers’ outcomes (premise 1) and teachers’
instructional practices across the curriculum (not only SEL specific; premise 2). In the next
section, SEL programming is considered more directly with a focus on how it is relevant to
teachers.
Relevance of SEL for Teachers
In the bulk of extant literature, SEL has been examined with respect to students.
However, considering SEL in relation to teachers is also important. As noted above, teachers are
often responsible for implementing SEL in the classroom (Jennings & Frank, 2015). Thus, the
extent to which teachers feel comfortable teaching SEL or “buy-in” to SEL programs—that is,
their beliefs about SEL—are critical (Collie et al., 2015; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Frank &
Jennings, 2015). Moreover, SEL programs may impact teachers—either directly through teacher-
focused curriculum/activities or indirectly via teaching SEL to students. Research examining
SEL with respect to teachers is largely in its infancy. However, there are important messages
emerging. Below, the significance of teachers’ beliefs about SEL are discussed, followed by a
discussion of the direct impact that SEL programs can have on teachers.
Teachers’ Beliefs about SEL
Beliefs are a central influence in teachers’ work (Bandura, 2001; Gill & Fives, 2015).
They are intertwined with teachers’ practices and experiences at work (Holzberger, Philipp, &
Kunter, 2014) and they play a significant role in determining student outcomes (Archambault,
Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012). With respect to SEL, teachers’ beliefs have been found to be
centrally implicated in their attitudes towards SEL programs and their psychological functioning
at work. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs about SEL appear to influence their implementation of SEL
(e.g., Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small, & Jacobson, 2009).
Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, and Salovey (2012) examined three beliefs about
SEL: SEL comfort, which refers to teachers’ confidence in implementing SEL; SEL commitment,
which refers to teachers’ commitment to improving their skills in the area of SEL; and SEL
culture, which refers to teachers’ perceptions of principal and school support for SEL (Brackett

PRE-PUB VERSION
9
et al., 2012). Brackett and colleagues showed that when teachers hold positive beliefs about an
SEL program, they report enjoying the SEL program more, greater “buy-in” to the value of the
program, and higher ratings of program effectiveness. Moreover, they report lower burnout and
greater self-efficacy for teaching. Affirming and extending these findings, Collie and colleagues
(Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2011, 2012; Collie et al., 2015) showed that SEL culture is important
for teachers’ commitment to their school of employment and experiences of lower stress, and
that SEL comfort plays a significant role in higher self-efficacy and lower stress. An interesting
finding in Collie et al.’s (2012) study was that SEL commitment was linked with heightened
teacher stress, but also greater job satisfaction. They explain that while SEL commitment might
reflect a desire for professional growth (which is a key determinant of job satisfaction), it also
indicates that the teachers lack confidence in their current abilities—which can be stressful.
Researchers have also considered other beliefs. For example, in Zinsser, Shewark,
Denham, and Curby’s (2014) research, teachers who felt more strongly that SEL is a valuable
part of schooling, tended to embed SEL more holistically—both through formal learning
activities, and also in their general interactions with students by modelling, coaching, and
scaffolding SEL. Moreover, beliefs about self-efficacy for teaching in general, teaching SEL
specifically, and behaviour management are aligned with outcomes such as greater
implementation of SEL content (Ransford et al., 2009), lower burnout, and greater mindfulness
(Domitrovich et al., 2016). Taken together, therefore, there is a growing body of literature
highlighting the importance of teachers’ beliefs about SEL for teachers’ attitudes towards SEL
programs, their wellbeing and motivation, and their SEL instructional practices.
The Impact of SEL on Teachers
Although the bulk of work considering teachers with respect to SEL has involved
examining teachers’ beliefs, researchers are also beginning to examine the direct impact of SEL
programs on teachers. This research tends to fall into two groups: the incidental impacts of
student-focused SEL on teachers, and the impact of teacher-focused SEL programs on teachers.
Turning first to the incidental teacher-related impacts of student-focused SEL programs,
researchers have shown that increased implementation of SEL programs by teachers is associated
with lower burnout and greater self-efficacy (Han & Weiss, 2005; Ransford et al., 2009; Rimm-
Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004). Moreover, Rimm-Kaufmann and Sawyer (2004) found that US
teachers at schools implementing an SEL program held more positive attitudes towards teaching,
and prioritised adaptive teaching practices relative to teachers in schools not implementing the
same SEL program. In an Australian study, Cain and Carnellor (2008) showed that after
implementing an SEL program, teachers described an improvement in relationships with
students, colleagues, and parents. In other research, Domitrovich and colleagues (2016) showed
that US teachers’ involvement in a comprehensive, student-focused SEL program was associated
with greater inclines in self-efficacy and mindfulness over the course of a school year. Together,
the impacts of student-focused SEL on teachers are not surprising given that teachers are
influenced by their work environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Collie et al., 2015; Vadeboncoeur
& Collie, 2013), and given that promoting a supportive and caring environment is a core aim of
SEL (Weissberg et al., 2015).
Turning to programs specifically targeting teachers, promising evidence is emerging. For
example, Jennings, Frank, Snowberg, Coccia, and Greenberg (2013) examined the influence of
mindfulness-based professional development on teachers. The program involved training in
emotional skills (e.g., role plays to help teachers to recognise and be aware of their emotions),

PRE-PUB VERSION
10
mindfulness (e.g., deliberate practice of present moment awareness), and caring and compassion
(e.g., mindful listening to others without judgement). The researchers found that teachers who
participated in the program reported greater wellbeing, lower stress, greater mindfulness, and
greater self-efficacy for teaching compared with a control group. In a related study, Roeser et al.
(2013) also examined the impact of mindfulness training on teachers. Teachers were asked to
complete training on monitoring internal reactions to situations (e.g., knowing when one is in the
midst of an emotional reaction and to calm down before responding) and practicing self-
compassion (i.e., cultivating an attitude of kindness and compassion towards oneself). Results
showed that compared with a control group, teachers in the experimental group exhibited lower
stress and burnout post-program and in a three-month follow-up test.
Summary
Examinations of SEL with respect to teachers are emerging and these highlight the
importance of teachers’ beliefs about SEL, as well as the influence of SEL programs for
teachers’ outcomes. Referring back to the conceptual framework, the research discussed above
indicates support for two of the premises: Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) statement of a link
between effective SEL implementation and teachers’ SEC, and the proposed link between
teachers’ SEL beliefs in influencing teachers’ wellbeing, motivation, attitudes about SEL, and
implementation practices (premise 3). In the next sections, implications for the key premises are
discussed with respect to practice, research, and theory.
Practical Implications for Principals and Teachers
The findings from research described in the current chapter suggest several implications
for practice. Here, the focus is placed on two such implications: efforts to promote (a) teachers’
SEC and (b) teachers’ positive beliefs about SEL. These two foci are important because not only
do they impact teachers’ personal outcomes, they also hold implications for how teachers
implement SEL in the classroom.
With respect to the first focus, one approach for promoting teachers’ SEC is via teacher-
focused professional development (Jennings & Frank, 2015). The investigations on mindfulness-
based professional development described above have shown that this can be an effective way of
promoting teachers’ skills relevant to the SECs of self-awareness and self-management (Jennings
et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2013). Approaches for promoting teachers’ relationship skills and
social awareness have also shown potential (Williford & Sanger Wolcott, 2015). For example,
Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, and Justice (2008) examined the impact of an online
professional development program that involved one-on-one consultation and targeted feedback
to individual teachers based on a video-taped segment of teaching from their classroom. The
findings showed that teachers who engaged in the consultation and feedback process showed
significant increases in teacher-student interaction quality as assessed by independent observers.
For the final SEC of responsible decision making, several researchers have provided evidence
that classroom management and autonomy supportive teaching strategies can be promoted via
professional development (e.g., Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2009; Cheon & Reeve, 2013; Cheon,
Reeve, & Moon, 2012; Dicke, Elling, Schmeck, & Leutner, 2015). As one example, Cheon,
Reeve, and Moon (2012) examined a program where teachers were taught the value of
autonomy-supportive teaching, reflected on their use of autonomy-supportive teaching strategies,
and were provided with information about implementing autonomy supportive strategies. Results
showed that the teachers who received this training were rated by trained observers as displaying

PRE-PUB VERSION
11
significantly more autonomy-supportive strategies in their teaching than a control group.
Moreover, their students reported significantly greater motivation, engagement, and
achievement.
Another potential avenue to promote teachers’ SEC concerns principal support. In Collie
and Martin’s (2016) study introduced above, teachers’ adaptability was found to be important for
teachers’ wellbeing and, in turn, students’ achievement. As noted earlier, adaptability refers to a
particular form of self-regulation (of thoughts, behaviours, and emotions) applicable in novel,
changing, or uncertain circumstances. Of relevance to practice, Collie and Martin’s study found
that principal support (specifically principals’ autonomy supportive leadership) played an
important role. More precisely, when teachers felt supported by their principals, they tended to
report higher levels of adaptability. Collie and Martin suggest that principal support is, therefore,
one avenue for potentially promoting adaptability. Principal support is also important for
teachers’ motivation, goal setting, and self-efficacy (e.g., Butler, 2007; Collie et al., in press;
Fernet, Guay, Senécal, Austin, 2012)—constructs relevant to SEC as described above.
The second implication to be discussed concerns how teachers’ positive beliefs about
SEL might be promoted. Collie, Shapka, Perry, and Martin (2015) suggest that high quality and
on-going professional learning in SEL is important for building teachers’ confidence in teaching
SEL and their perceptions of the school-wide support for SEL. It is also important for reducing
teachers’ stress and burnout that can result from implementing educational innovations (e.g.,
Collie, Perry, & Martin, 2016; Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2014), which has ramifications for
teacher retention and effectiveness (e.g., Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Klusmann et al.,
2008). Professional development that highlights the student-related outcomes of SEL may also
help to promote teachers’ “buy-in” to the value of SEL. Of note, such professional development
likely has implications not only for teachers’ implementation of SEL, but also their own SEC and
wellbeing (e.g., Brackett et al., 2012; Jennings & Frank, 2015). Alternative avenues for
promoting teachers’ positive SEL beliefs involve making SEL a priority in schools—principal
support plays a key role in this, as does professional development—and acknowledging barriers
to SEL implementation (e.g., time and funding limitations; Oberle, Domitrovich, Meyers, &
Weissberg, 2016). Given that teachers’ beliefs drive their actions (Gill & Fives, 2015), these
implications may have carry-on effects to effective SEL implementation.
Implications for Research and Theory
There is clearly an emerging research base on the topics of teachers’ SEC and the
teacher-related outcomes of SEL. Nonetheless, more work is needed. In particular, research that
extends current knowledge on the role that teachers’ SEL beliefs play in impacting their SEL
practices (e.g., Durlak & DuPre, 2008), along with work examining the link between teachers’
SEC and effective teaching will help to affirm the value of attending to teachers’ social and
emotional experiences in teaching. Although studies are emerging where teacher-focused SEL
programs and interventions are examined (e.g., Jennings et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2013; Spilt et
al., 2011), further research is important. Moreover, efforts by researchers and program
developers to consider the impact of SEL curriculum on teachers is a necessary development as
the field advances (Collie et al., 2012, 2016).
Turning to theory and as discussed at the beginning of the chapter, Jennings and
Greenberg’s (2009) model was applied as a relevant conceptual framework. Several additional
premises to those described in the model were discussed: the impact of teachers’ SEC is not only
limited to students’ outcomes, but also includes teachers’ outcomes (premise 1); teachers’ SEC is

PRE-PUB VERSION
12
relevant to teachers’ broader instructional practices (not only their effective SEL
implementation; premise 2); and, teachers’ beliefs about SEL are an important determinant of
their wellbeing, motivation, attitudes towards SEL, and implementation of SEL (premise 3). The
research described in this chapter offers support for the three premises as well as the original
relationship between teachers’ SEC and effective SEL implementation as suggested by Jennings
and Greenberg. Thus, the current chapter has provided understanding that helps to extend
conceptual knowledge of SEL by proposing and supporting additional relationships between
teachers’ SEC, their beliefs about SEL, their instructional practices, and students’ and teachers’
outcomes. Such understanding is important for informing future research, theory, and practice.
Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to consider the relevance of SEC and SEL for teachers. To do
this, a conceptual framework based on Jennings and Greenberg (2009) was introduced. Along
with several additional premises, the framework presented a model of links between teachers’
SEC, their experiences of SEL programs, and outcomes for teachers and students. Following
this, research involving constructs relevant to the five SECs described by CASEL (2013) was
reviewed. From this, it is clear that when teachers have greater SEC, they tend to experience
greater wellbeing and motivation, implement SEL more effectively, and promote positive
academic, social, and emotional outcomes among their students. Next, the relevance of SEL for
teachers was discussed. The cited studies indicated that teachers’ beliefs about SEL and their
involvement in student-focused and teacher-focused SEL programs can play an important role in
influencing teachers’ SEC, psychological functioning, and instructional practices. In sum,
teachers’ SEC and the impact of SEL programs on teachers are areas worth considering given
their clear links to teachers’ and students’ outcomes, implementation effectiveness, and for the
promotion of positive outcomes throughout schooling systems.

PRE-PUB VERSION
13
References
Abenavoli, R. M., Jennings, P. A., Greenberg, M. T., Harris, A. R., & Katz, D. A. (2013). The
protective effects of mindfulness against burnout among educators. The Psychology of
Education Review, 37, 57-69.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of
adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of
Educational Research, 105, 319-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629694
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Banerjee, R., Weare, K., & Farr, W. (2014). Working with "social and emotional aspects of
learning" (SEAL): Associations with school ethos, pupil social experiences, attendance,
and attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 40, 718-742.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3114
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). Assessing
teachers’ beliefs about social and emotional learning. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 30, 219-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911424879
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help
seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 241-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students'
perceptions of instructional practices and students' help seeking and cheating. Learning
and Instruction, 18, 453-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.004
Cain, G., & Carnellor, Y. (2008). ‘Roots of Empathy’: A research study on its impact on teachers
in Western Australia. Journal of Student Well-being, 2, 52–73.
Castro, A. J., Kelly, J., & Shih, M. (2010). Resilience strategies for new teachers in high-needs
areas. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 622-629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.010
Chang, M. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work
of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 193-218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2009). Effects of an intervention based on self-
determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation.
Psychology & Health, 24, 29-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440701809533
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2013). Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training
programs endure? A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 14, 508-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.02.002
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed,
teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy
supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 365-396.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and
reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and
student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410802206700

PRE-PUB VERSION
14
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2013). 2013 CASEL guide:
Effective social and emotional learning programs—Preschool and elementary school
edition. Chicago, IL: Author.
Collie, R.J., & Martin, A.J. (2016). Teachers' adaptability: A construct central to positive
teacher and student outcomes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., & Ginns, P. (2016). Students' interpersonal
relationships, personal best (PB) goals, and academic engagement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 45, 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.002
Collie, R.J., Perry, N.E., & Martin, A.J. (in press). School context and educational system factors
impacting educator stress. In T.M. McIntyre, S.E. McIntyre, & D.J. Francis (Eds.), Stress
in educators: An occupational health perspective. New York, NY: Springer.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of
school climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools,48, 1034-1048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20611
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1189-1204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., Perry, N. E., & Martin, A. J. (2015). Teachers' beliefs about social-
emotional learning: Identifying teacher profiles and their relations with job stress and
satisfaction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 148-157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.06.002
Collie, R.J., Shapka, J.D., Perry, N.E., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Teachers’ psychological
functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction,
and personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000088
Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Abry, T. (2013). Do emotional support and classroom
organization earlier in the year set the stage for higher quality instruction? Journal of
School Psychology, 51, 557-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.06.001
De Meyer, J., Tallir, I. B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van, d. B., . . .
Haerens, L. (2014). Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’
motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 541-554.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034399
De Neve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and self-
efficacy for beginning teachers' professional learning in differentiated instruction.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.003
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded
social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The
oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-110). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Desrumaux, P., Lapointe, D., Ntsame Sima, M., Boudrias, J. -., Savoie, A., & Brunet, L. (2015).
The impact of job demands, climate, and optimism on well-being and distress at work:
What are the mediating effects of basic psychological need satisfaction? Revue
Européenne De Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 65,
179-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2015.06.003

PRE-PUB VERSION
15
Dicke, T., Elling, J., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of
classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 48, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Berg, J. K., Pas, E. T., Becker, K. D., Musci, R., . . .
Ialongo, N. (2016). How do school-based prevention programs impact teachers? Findings
from a randomized trial of an integrated classroom management and social-emotional
program. Prevention Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational
psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist,36, 103-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in
teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational
factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 514-525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
Gill, M.,G., & Fives, H. (2015). Introduction. In H. Fives, & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International
handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: Routledge.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do
perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education
students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the
bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.
Han, S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental
health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665-679.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(3),
774-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032198
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2014). Predicting teachers’ instructional behaviors:
The interplay between self-efficacy and intrinsic needs. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39, 100-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.001
Humphrey, N. (2013). Social and emotional learning: A critical appraisal. London, UK: Sage

PRE-PUB VERSION
16
Jennings, P. A., & Frank, J. L. (2015). Inservice preparation for educators. In J. A. Durlak, C. E.
Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional
learning: Research and practice (pp. 422-437). New York, NY: Guilford.
Jennings, P. A., Frank, J. L., Snowberg, K. E., Coccia, M. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2013).
Improving classroom learning environments by cultivating awareness and resilience in
education (CARE): Results of a randomized controlled trial. School Psychology
Quarterly, 28, 374-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000035
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of
practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching
context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114-129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and
emotional exhaustion in teachers: Does the school context make a difference? Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 127-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2008.00358.x
Künsting, J., Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor
of instructional quality in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013).
Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 805-820.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
Mansfield, C., Beltman, S., & Price, A. (2014). ‘I’m coming back again!’ the resilience process
of early career teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 20, 547-567.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.937958
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 327-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2012). Adaptability: Conceptual and
empirical perspectives on responses to change, novelty and uncertainty. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 58-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.8
Mattern, J., & Bauer, J. (2014). Does teachers' cognitive self-regulation increase their
occupational well-being? the structure and role of self-regulation in the teaching
context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 58-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.004
McLean, L., & Connor, C. M. (2015). Depressive symptoms in third-grade teachers: Relations to
classroom quality and student achievement. Child Development, 86, 945-954.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12344
Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C.E., Meyers, D.C., Weissberg, R.P. (2016). Establishing systemic
social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide
implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1125450

PRE-PUB VERSION
17
Opdenakker, M., Maulana, R., & den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher–student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes
and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 95-119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.619198
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2015). Skills for Social
Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en
Parker, P. D., & Martin, A. J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding
their effects on teachers' work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 68-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.009
Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., & Liem, G. A. (2012). Teachers’ workplace well-
being: Exploring a process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and
burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 503-513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.001
Perry, N.E., Brenner, C.A., Collie, R.J., & Hofer, G. (2015). Thriving on challenge: Examining
teachers’ views on sources of support for motivation and wellbeing. Exceptionality
Education International, 25, 6-34. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol25/iss1/2
Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of
web-mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-
kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431-451.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.02.001
Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M., & Jacobson, L. (2009). The
role of teachers' psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the
implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. School Psychology
Review, 38, 510-532.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy beliefs,
attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the
"responsive classroom" approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 321-341.
Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., . . . Harrison,
J. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from
two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105,
787-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032093
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 52, 475-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
Ryan, A. M., Kuusinen, C. M., & Bedoya-Skoog, A. (2015). Managing peer relations: A
dimension of teacher self-efficacy that varies between elementary and middle school
teachers and is associated with observed classroom quality. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 41, 147-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.002
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as
predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 42, 159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.005
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Hanson-Peterson, J. L., & Hymel, S. (2015). SEL and preservice teacher
education. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social
and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 406-421). New York, NY: Guilford.

PRE-PUB VERSION
18
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543051004455
Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A., Kulik, N., & Fahlman, M. (2015). The
relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 519-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12089
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Thijs, J. T., & van der Leij, A. (2012). Supporting teachers’
relationships with disruptive children: The potential of relationship-focused
reflection. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 305-318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672286
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Vadeboncoeur, J.A., & Collie, R.J. (2013). Locating social and emotional learning in schooled
environments: A Vygotskian perspective on learning as unified. Mind, Culture, and Activity,
20, 201-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.755205
Van Droogenbroeck, F., Spruyt, B., & Vanroelen, C. (2014). Burnout among senior teachers:
Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 43, 99-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.005
Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers:
Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 47, 120-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.005
Wang, M., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student
relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 690-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027916
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and
emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, R. P. Weissberg & T. P.
Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp.
3-19). New York, NY: Guilford.
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher
Education, 42, 292-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200407
Williford, A. P., & Sanger Wolcott, C. (2015). SEL and student-teacher relationships. In J. A.
Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and
emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 229-243). New York, NY: Guilford.
Zinsser, K. M., Shewark, E. A., Denham, S. A., & Curby, T. W. (2014). A mixed-method
examination of preschool teacher beliefs about social-emotional learning and relations to
observed emotional support. Infant and Child Development, 23, 471-493.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.1843