Content uploaded by Denise Quinlan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Denise Quinlan on Oct 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Happiness Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0051-7
1 3
RESEARCH PAPER
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths
Intervention are Mediated byTeacher Strengths Spotting
DeniseQuinlan1· DianneA.Vella‑Brodrick2· AndrewGray3· NicolaSwain4
© Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
There is increasing interest in students well-being at school. One useful approach to
improving school well-being is adopting strengths-based programmes. Many studies use
teachers to deliver strengths programmes. However, little is known about how teachers
influence the success of these interventions. This possible mediating effect of teachers
forms the focus of the present analysis. Ten teachers and their classrooms participated in
the study, seven in the intervention group and three in the control group, as part of a larger
study. The intervention was delivered by a trained facilitator over 6weeks and the teach-
ers acted as support during these sessions encouragement to continue between sessions.
The strengths intervention was associated with several improved student outcomes. Models
showed that the student outcomes that were mediated by changes in teacher strengths spot-
ting were: positive affect, classroom engagement, and need satisfaction (autonomy, com-
petence and relatedness). Student negative affect and strengths use were not mediated by
teacher strengths spotting. This finding suggests that programme effectiveness is influenced
by contextual variables such as teacher behaviour and attitudes to strengths. Future school
programmes might consider the influence of the people who deliver strength intervention
programmes—whoever they might be.
Keywords Strengths intervention· Teacher influence· Strengths spotting· Mediation·
Contextual variables· Well-being· Positive psychology
1 Introduction
There is increasing interest in the well-being of students at school as well as their academic
success (Swain-Campbell and Quinlan 2009). Programmes using strengths to enhance
well-being and other outcomes have grown in popularity over the past decade or more
(Norrish and Seligman 2015; Proctor etal. 2011a; Proyer etal. 2015; Quinlan etal. 2011)
and have been shown to enhance well-being, productivity, engagement and achievement
in a range of settings (Flückiger and Grosse Holtforth 2008; Linley etal. 2010b; Seligman
etal. 2009).
* Nicola Swain
nicola.swain@otago.ac.nz
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
Following results from early online research with adults (Seligman etal. 2005) strengths
research focused initially on the effects of using top or signature strengths (Louis 2008;
Proctor et al. 2011b; Seligman et al. 2009). Linley and colleagues demonstrated that
strengths use but not strengths knowledge was associated with beneficial outcomes includ-
ing well-being, goal pursuit, and intrinsic need satisfaction (Linley etal. 2010a; Wood etal.
2011). Using strengths was thought to be energising and authentic (Linley 2008; Peterson
and Seligman 2004) and the a priori theory was that strengths use would lead to mastery
experiences and an associated increase in self-efficacy and well-being (Seligman 2002).
Other pathways such as harmonious passion have been proposed (Forest etal. 2012).
Strengths research has influenced the content of strengths programmes that typically
have included identifying and using one’s strengths in new ways (Norrish and Seligman
2015; Proctor etal. 2011b; Rashid etal. 2013) or using strengths to pursue goals (Linley
etal. 2010a; Quinlan etal. 2015). Some strengths programmes, however, have encouraged
other strategies such as strengths spotting (Fox Eades 2008; Quinlan etal. 2015) where
the focus shifts from an individual’s use of their strengths to the ability and willingness
of the group around them to notice strengths in each other. Strengths spotting, defined as
‘identifying strengths in yourself or others’ (Linley etal. 2010b) has been posited as an
important skill in psychotherapy and coaching (Linley and Burns 2010) and a scale to
assess it has been developed (Linley etal. 2010b). A number of researchers and educa-
tors have questioned the view of strengths as operating through strengths use, positing that
strengths spotting may enhance relatedness and connection between people (Komazawa
and Ishimura 2016; Proctor etal. 2011a; Quinlan 2013; Quinlan etal. 2015) and thus some
of the well-being effect of using strengths may come about through relationships rather
than a mastery effect. On this view, strengths spotting could be considered as an active
constructive response to seeing strengths used and thus, like active constructive responding
to good news would enhance relationship satisfaction between those involved (for detail of
this concept see Gable etal. 2004). In addition, strengths spotting could also be construed
as process praise (Kamins and Dweck 1999), as it offers a positive appraisal of behaviour
and the process used to achieve it (i.e. the strengths displayed).
Quinlan (2013) hypothesised that strengths spotting by students and teachers would
enhance peer-to-peer and teacher-student relationships and thereby enhance class climate
(see Fig.1). A trial was conducted and reported that students had enhanced positive affect,
engagement, relatedness and class cohesion and reduced friction (Quinlan etal. 2015). As
this intervention included strengths spotting among other strategies however, this result can
not be directly attributed to strengths spotting.
Although strengths and well-being programmes are being used in schools worldwide
(Leventhal etal. 2015; Norrish etal. 2013), attention has not yet been directed to the influ-
ence of teachers on programme outcomes. Most research examining teacher well-being
does not relate this to student outcomes (e.g. Parker etal. 2012). One study reported that
teacher well-being within primary schools was related to student academic performance
and average staff well-being was found to account for 8% of the variance in academic test
results (Briner and Dewberry 2007). Also, a review concluded that teacher emotions have
significant effects on student learning (Sun and Leithwood 2017).
Similarly, teacher-student relationships, both positive and negative have been found
to influence school engagement and achievement (Roorda etal. 2011) and student psy-
chological and academic functioning (Suldo etal. 2014). Additionally, teacher support
whether interpersonal or academic, has been demonstrated to influence student engage-
ment in the classroom and school belonging (Allen etal. 2018; Fredricks etal. 2004;
Ryan and Patrick 2001). In particular, relatedness to teacher and students has been
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
shown to predict classroom behavioural and emotional engagement which in turn, pre-
dicts academic achievement (Furrer and Skinner 2003; Skinner etal. 2008). Strategies
that can enhance relatedness in the classroom, whether between peers or between stu-
dents and teacher, should therefore be of interest to educators.
When student well-being interventions are delivered in schools, little information is
reported on those responsible for intervention delivery and on-going implementation.
Even where well-being interventions are delivered by external providers these tend to be
brief and rely on the classroom teacher to build on the learning. Previous research has
demonstrated that a therapist’s attitude towards the strengths-based therapy they pro-
vided to patients influenced therapy effectiveness (Cox 2006). Patients in this study ben-
efitted more when they were treated by a therapist delivering a form of therapy endorsed
by the therapist, regardless of the modality. This finding could be extended to teachers
implementing well-being content in curricula; teachers constitute a powerful contextual
influence in classroom interventions.
Primary and intermediate (middle) school students often spend most of their day
with one class teacher, who influences the class climate and learning environment in
many ways (Ferrer-Caja and Weiss 2000; Opdenakker and Van Damme 2006). The
classroom therefore, can provide an excellent opportunity to study the influence of one
individual on a strengths intervention delivered to many. In the classroom environment
teachers may be expected to differ in their ability and motivation to spot strengths in
others, and in their own strengths use and well-being. Previous research on strengths
programmes delivered in-person has not examined the influence of these contextual fac-
tors on programme effectiveness for participants (Proctor etal. 2011b; Rust etal. 2009)
although the influence of facilitator training on student outcomes has been recognised in
the area of resilience programmes (Seligman etal. 2009). In addition, research has not
explored the impact on teachers of teaching programmes designed to enhance student
well-being. Classroom teachers who co-facilitate strengths programmes and are encour-
aged to lead on-going strengths spotting activities may be expected to experience some
Fig. 1 Proposed model: effects of strengths identification and strength spotting in the classroom
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
personal benefits. These could include increasing awareness of strengths, using their
own strengths more often, building strengths spotting skills, and enhanced well-being.
This study examined whether changes in teacher measures statistically explained at least
some part of the effectiveness of a strengths intervention delivered to students. The follow-
ing hypotheses were generated:
that in addition to a strengths intervention benefiting students through enhanced,
well-being, engagement, class climate, and relatedness, competence and autonomy need
satisfaction:
1. Teachers who participated in the strengths programme would experience a greater posi-
tive change in strengths spotting, strengths use and well-being than teachers who prac-
ticed teaching as usual; and
2. The change in teacher variables from baseline to follow-up would contribute to a range
of student outcomes (relatedness, autonomy, and competence need satisfaction; class-
room engagement; positive and negative affect; student life satisfaction; strengths use)
at follow-up.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
A convenience sample of nine classroom groups and their teachers from six schools in
a city of New Zealand took part in the study. Students were aged 8–12years with the
majority aged 9–10years. Students were predominantly from low- to-mid socio-economic
groups as defined by a New Zealand Ministry of Education classification system. A gen-
der-balanced group of 10 teachers participated in the study, seven in the intervention and
three in the control group, teaching 193 students in nine classrooms. All teachers had pre-
viously received introductory training in positive psychology and had completed their own
strengths inventories using the VIA, but had not conducted strengths education with their
class.
2.2 Measures
Measures were administered to students in the week prior to the strengths programme (pre-
test), in the week immediately after the programme (post-test), and in the week 3months
after the post-test (follow-up). Teachers completed their measures online during the same
periods.
Table1 sets out the measures used for students and teachers in this study. Further details
of the student measures are described in detail elsewhere (Quinlan etal. 2015).
2.2.1 Teacher Well‑Being
The 14-item Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) was used to
assess teacher well-being (Tennant etal. 2007). Items assessing emotional, social, and psy-
chological well-being were rated from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). Total
scores range from 14 to 70 with higher scores reflecting higher well-being. Cronbach’s
alpha of .91 have been reported for a UK general population sample (Tennant etal. 2007).
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
Satisfactory factor analysis and criterion validity have been demonstrated and the scale
has been found to be responsive to well-being changes at the group and individual levels
(Flynn 2010; Maheswaran etal. 2012; Tennant etal. 2007). Cronbach’s alpha for pre-test
data in this study was .72.
2.2.2 Teacher Strengths Use
The 14-item Strengths Use Scale was used to assess strengths use (Wood etal. 2011).
Items (e.g. ‘I always play to my strengths’) were rated from one (strongly disagree) to
seven (strongly agree). An item that asked about work that was modified for students was
included in its original form for teachers: Work gives me lots of opportunities to use my
strengths. Research with adults has demonstrated that the Strengths Use scale scores are
valid and reliable (Proctor etal. 2011b). Cronbach’s alpha for the pre-test data in this study
was .78.
2.2.3 Teacher Strengths Spotting
Teacher attitude to using a strengths-approach in the classroom and in their wider work
lives was assessed using the Strengthspotting Scale (Linley et al. 2010b). Developed to
“assess individual differences in people’s strengths spotting capability, broadly defined”
Table 1 Student and teacher measures
Construct Student measures
Well-being International PANAS short form (I-PANAS-SF; Thompson 2007)
(10 items), and Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner 1991a,
b) (7 items)
Student classroom engagement Behavioural and emotional engagement, student reports (Skinner
etal. 2008) (20 items)
Psychological need for autonomy,
relatedness, and competence
The Children’s Intrinsic Needs Satisfaction Scale (CINSS; Koestner
and Véronneau 2001). Each scale is assessed across 3 domains:
home, at school and with friends (18 items)
Class cohesion and friction Cohesion and Friction subscales of the My Class Inventory (MCI),
Fisher and Fraser (1981) (14 items)
Strengths use Strengths Use Scale, questionnaire on frequency and range of
strengths use (Govindji and Linley 2007) (14 items)
Teacher measures
Well-being Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Tennant etal. 2007)
(14 items)
Strengths spotting Strengthspotting Scale (Linley etal. 2010a) (12 items), a question-
naire that assessed attitudes to identifying strengths in others,
frequency of practice, and motivation for noticing strengths
Strengths use Strengths Use Scale, questionnaire on frequency of strengths use
(Govindji and Linley 2007) (14 items)
Attitude to strengths programme Statements about participation and perception of the programme,
average result used (4 items)
Strengths programme implementation Two statements about ongoing programme use and future inten-
tions, average result used (2 items)
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
the scale was designed to be of use to any person with “responsibility or opportunity to
identify and develop strengths in others” (p. 167). The 20-item scale comprises five sub-
scales (ability, emotional, frequency, application and motivation) that assess an individual’s
ability to recognise strengths, the emotional satisfaction or fulfilment they might get from
doing that, the frequency with which they spot strengths in others, how they use or apply
the strengths information noticed, and their motivation to notice strengths in others. Items
(e.g. I get a real buzz from identifying strengths in people) were rated from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sub-scale scores range from 4 to 28, and total scores from
20 to 140, with higher scores reflecting a more positive attitude and frequent practice of
strengths spotting. Reliability evidence using Cronbach’s alpha has been reported at .81
to .94 for the sub-scales (Linley etal. 2010b). Principal components analysis of each of
the five sub-scales showed all of the sub-scale items loading on a single factor. Criterion
validity has been supported by evidence of significant positive correlations (ranging from
r = .31 to .55) with agreeableness, optimism, positive affect, and strengths knowledge (Lin-
ley etal. 2010b). The scale has been validated with UK, Turkish, and Japanese samples
including general public, university student, and medical staff and patients (Guney 2011;
Komazawa and Ishimura 2016; Linley etal. 2010b). Cronbach’s alpha for the pre-test data
in this study was .94.
3 Procedure
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Otago’s Ethics Com-
mittee. The six participating schools provided nine classroom groups of which 6 were
assigned, non-randomly, to intervention and three to control. The intervention was deliv-
ered to students in six weekly-sessions of 90min during normal school hours by a facilita-
tor (the first author) assisted by the classroom teacher and another teacher. Teachers acted
as support facilitators for the programme during small group and individual exercises. Each
session was clearly structured with a timetable that specified activity and discussion in
10–15min blocks. A brief description of each session for student participants is included
in Table2. In each session, students discussed current events from a strengths perspective
and the strengths they had noticed in themselves and others since the previous session.
Each class received the same programme materials and slide presentation, with teaching
stories and discussion points used in each group. Teachers received a training session prior
to the programme and were provided with brief classroom activities that they were encour-
aged to use between sessions.
3.1 Overview oftheAnalysis
The primary purpose of this paper was to examine whether changes in teacher variables
mediated student intervention outcomes (changes in student variables). In order to man-
age statistical model complexity, a decision was made to reduce the number of student
factors controlled for in the models, producing initial analyses that differ from those pre-
sented in another publication from the study (Quinlan etal. 2015), which allowed us to add
further variables to these simplified analyses that explored the potential mediating effects
of changes in teacher variables. This paper presents intervention effects for students ana-
lysed using models that controlled for baseline values, sex, school year, and relative age (a
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
student’s age subtracting the mean age of students in their school year). Changes in teacher
variables were explored as potential mediator variables.
Seven teachers were included in the intervention group as one of the six intervention
classes had two part-time teachers. The control group included three teachers.
Initially, potential teacher-level mediators of the effects from the intervention were
identified using linear regression to compare follow-up values (time 3) between inter-
vention and control teachers in terms of strengths spotting, strengths use, and well-being
while adjusting for baseline (time 1) values (so that changes in these scores were com-
pared between groups). Next, students were compared between intervention and control
classes in terms of follow-up (time 3) autonomy, competence, and relatedness need sat-
isfaction, classroom engagement, the cohesion and friction subscales of the class cli-
mate scale, positive and negative affect, student life satisfaction, and strengths use with
all models adjusting for baseline (time 1) values and also adjusting the child models for
sex, school year, and relative age. As noted above, relative age was calculated as the
mean age for the child’s school year subtracted from the child’s age so that negative val-
ues would indicate a child younger than their peers and positive values would indicate a
child older than their peers. The models for child outcomes were then rerun with further
Table 2 Overview for students of the six-session strengths programme
Session Programme components (6 sessions)
Session 1: Learning to recognise strengths in
oneself
How to spot people using strengths—we are engaged
and alive
Activity: create a Collage of “Me at My Best” and
notice where you have been using strengths
Discuss and name the Activity Strengths displayed
Session 2: Learning more about your activity
strengths
Activity: “3 Rolled Into 1”—design a new activ-
ity that uses strengths you have identified in your
favourite sport, hobby, or subject
Name the activity strengths you have used
Identify where else you could use these strengths in
your day
Session 3: How character strengths support your
activity strengths
Introduction to character strengths and how we all
use them to perform our activity strengths
Linking your activity strengths to character strengths
Identifying more of your character strengths
Session 4: Learning more about your character
strengths
Discuss your character strengths with a friend
Counting up our class character strengths
Using strengths to deal with a personal challenge
Design a strengths superhero.
Session 5: How will you use your strengths to make
a difference?
What’s the point of strengths? We use them to help
with things that matter to us
Setting goals that matter to you and sticking to them
Set a personal goal and selecting strengths to support
your goal pursuit
Create goal reminders
Session 6: Using strengths in our relationships Why friendship is important to us all
What’s good and what’s tough about friendship
Setting a friendship goal that matters to you
Create a personal strength poster/shield that shows
the strengths you most enjoy using and where you
use them
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
adjustment for all statistically significant teacher outcomes in order to identify whether
these were potential mediation of intervention effects on students using the approach
reported in Imai etal. (2010a, b. The potential mediators were defined as changes in the
teacher’s score from baseline (time 1) to follow-up (time 3). Analysis of data from fol-
low-up was selected as (a) a more conservative approach (student effects were stronger
at post-test than follow-up), and (b) if teacher strengths spotting was a factor influencing
student outcomes, this effect should develop over time as teachers had more opportu-
nity to strengths spot in their classes. Research examining the effect of skill application
has found effects can develop over time as skills are internalised and then opportuni-
ties arise for them to be used (Gillham etal. 1995). The percentage of the total effect
mediated was determined using 5000 bootstrap samples. All models used Huber-White
robust standard errors and as students were clustered within schools, errors incorporated
clustering at this level for the child models. Statistical significance was determined by
two-sided p < 0.05.
4 Results
Appropriate summary statistics (means and standard deviations or counts and percentages)
are presented in Table3 for demographic variables by schools, classrooms, and students.
Child ethnicity is presented following pr ioritisation (Māori > Pacific > Asian > European).
Mean scores and standard deviations of teacher well-being, strengths use, and
strengths spotting, for the intervention and control groups are presented in Table4, with
internal consistency reliabilities for the study sample for the Warwick Edinburgh Men-
tal Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS), the Strengths Use Scale, and the Strengthspotting
Scale. Table5 presents mean Strengthspotting subscale scores and standard deviations
for intervention and control groups.
Table 3 Student demographics
a Multiple ethnicities could be selected and so the percentages add to more than 100%
Schools (n = 6) Classrooms (n = 9) Children (n = 193)
Decile n (%) 1–3 3 (50%) 5 (56%) 100 (51.8%)
4–7 2 (33%) 2 (22%) 46 (23.8%)
8–10 1 (17%) 2 (22%) 47 (24.4%)
Sex n (%) Boy 106 (54.9%)
Girl 87 (45.1%)
Years n (%) 5/6 158 (81.9%)
7/8 25 (18.1%)
Age mean(SD) Year 5/6 9.6 (0.5)
Year 7/8 11.4 (0.7)
Ethnicity n (%)aEuropean 136 (88.3%)
Māori 25 (16.2%)
Pacific 12 (7.8%)
Asian 5 (3.2%)
Missing/not specified 39
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
Teacher data were included primarily to examine the influence of teachers on students’
outcomes. The small number of teachers in the study meant that significant results were not
anticipated between teacher intervention and control groups.
As shown in Table6, the intervention was associated with teacher strengths spotting
(p = 0.044) out of the three teacher-level measures (both other p ≥ 0.193). All mediation
analyses looked at this as the potential mediator and teacher strengths use and teacher well-
being are not further considered here.
Using this mediation analysis for the child-level measures, by adding teacher strengths
spotting into the model, the intervention was found to be associated with the following
outcomes: each of the relatedness, autonomy, and competence sub-scales of the Child
Intrinsic Need Satisfaction Scale (CINSS), classroom engagement, positive and negative
affect, and strengths use (all p < 0.050) and not class cohesion, class friction, or student life
Table 4 Descriptive statistics—teacher variables
Int, intervention; Con, control; α, Cronbach’s alpha. Data excluded pairwise; n = 10 at pre-test and post-
test, n = 8 at +3mo. Well-being, Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; Strengths use, Strengths Use
Scale; Strengths spotting, Strengthspotting Scale
Measure Group Pre-test Post-test Follow-up
Mean (SD) α Mean (SD) α Mean (SD) α
Well-being Int 53.43 (5.00) .72 55.14 (3.34) .68 54.67 (6.09) .89
Con 56.00 (1.00) 56.67 (4.16) 47.50 (6.36)
Strengths use Int 74.71 (9.62) .78 75.29 (10.08) .90 76.33 (9.63) .92
Con 78.00 (4.58) 82.00 (5.29) 73.50 (4.95)
Strengths spotting Int 83.67 (21.39) .94 109.71 (17.45) .98 100.33 (17.42) .95
Con 82.00 (23.52) 86.33 (30.04) 90.00 (11.31)
Table 5 Means of sub-scales of
Strengthspotting Scale
Int, intervention
Pre-test Post-test Follow-up
M SD M SD M SD
Ability Int 17.67 4.84 21.43 2.94 20.00 3.03
Control 18.00 3.61 18.00 5.57 19.00 1.41
Total 17.78 4.24 20.40 3.92 19.75 2.66
Emotion Int 18.00 5.87 22.29 3.68 19.83 3.49
Control 17.67 2.08 17.67 4.51 16.50 0.71
Total 17.89 4.76 20.90 4.31 19.00 3.34
Frequency Int 14.83 5.74 20.86 4.06 19.17 4.40
Control 13.67 8.14 16.67 7.37 19.00 1.41
Total 14.44 6.13 19.60 5.21 19.13 3.76
Motivation Int 19.83 5.34 23.29 4.11 21.17 5.19
Control 20.33 3.21 18.00 7.21 20.00 2.83
Total 20.00 4.53 21.70 5.42 20.88 4.55
Application Int 13.33 4.93 21.86 3.76 20.17 2.86
Control 12.33 6.66 16.00 7.21 15.50 4.95
Total 13.00 5.15 20.10 5.38 19.00 3.74
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
Table 6 Results of mediation analyses of teacher factors on student outcomes
Bold indicate results are significant at two-sided p < 0.05
a Adjusted for child sex, school year, and relative age for school year
Group Outcome Intervention effects from teacher and adjusteda
child models
Mediation models including changes in teacher
strengths spotting
% of total
effect medi-
ated
Coefficient 95% CI p value Coefficient 95% CI p value
Teacher Teacher strengths spotting 14.17 (0.58, 27.75) 0.044
Teacher Teacher strengths use 6.56 (− 9.84, 22.96) 0.351
Teacher Teacher well-being 5.75 (− 4.08,15.6) 0.193
Child Autonomy need satisfaction 0.66 (0.04, 1.27) 0.039 − 0.03 (− 1.19, 1.13) 0.952 75.6
Child Competence need satisfaction 0.50 (0.07, 0.93) 0.028 0.12 (− 0.68, 0.91) 0.740 48.3
Child Relatedness need satisfaction 0.78 (0.27, 1.29) 0.007 0.23 (− 0.65, 1.11) 0.554 55.5
Child Strengths use 6.59 (3.51, 9.66) 0.001 7.15 (2.49,11.81) 0.008 < 0.0
Child Classroom engagement 2.98 (0.00, 5.96) 0.050 0.33 (− 3.79, 4.45) 0.854 45.7
Child Negative affect 0.80 (0.10, 1.49) 0.030 1.41 (0.28, 2.55) 0.022 < 0.0
Child Positive affect 1.52 (0.58, 2.46) 0.006 0.84 (− 0.31, 2.00) 0.128 20.4
Child Cohesion [sub-scale of class climate] 0.65 (− 1.02, 2.32) 0.397 − 0.59 (− 1.78, 0.59) 0.273 84.0
Child Friction [sub-scale of class climate] − 1.40 (− 4.08, 1.28) 0.263 0.49 (− 1.67, 2.64) 0.611 90.0
Child Student life satisfaction 0.37 (− 1.79, 2.54) 0.701 − 0.76 (− 4.90, 3.39) 0.679 15.1
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
satisfaction (all p ≥ 0.263). The variable of teacher strengths spotting was found to medi-
ate the effect of the intervention programme on the following child outcomes: autonomy
need satisfaction; competence need satisfaction; relatedness need satisfaction; classroom
engagement; and, positive affect. An estimate of the percentage of the associations medi-
ated by changes in teacher strengths spotting was between 20% and 76% (see Table6).
5 Discussion
These results provide support for the hypothesis that teachers who participated in the
strengths programme would experience a greater positive change in strengths spotting than
control group teachers. There was no significantwell-being or strengths use enhancement
forintervention group teachers when compared to those in the control group so the first
hypothesis was only partly supported. The hypothesis that the change in teacher strengths
spotting from pre-test to follow-up would contribute to student outcomes at follow-up was
supported for positive affect, engagement, and autonomy, relatedness and competence
need satisfaction. Thus, teachers were found to mediate the effects of the programme for
students.
Teachers in the intervention group reported significantly higher changes in their
strengths spotting scores than control group teachers from pre-test to post-test. The sig-
nificant group differences over the period of the strengths programme (pre- to post-test)
may be attributed to the weekly reminders presented by the programme or possibly due to
watching their students learning and talking about their strengths. The intervention group
teachers showed a larger increase in strengths spotting than the control group from pre-
test to follow-up, however this difference was not statistically significant, suggesting that
most of the changes to the teachers’ strengths spotting took place during the strengths
programme.
It is of interest that the positive change in teachers’ strengths spotting did not translate
into statistically significant increases in either their personal strengths use or well-being.
One possible explanation for this is that teachers viewed the programme as being for stu-
dents, and despite finding it useful for their classes, did not consider practising it person-
ally. Results for teacher strengths use were largely unchanged over the study period in the
intervention group while scores for the control group showed more variable responding.
This may have been due to a pattern of socially desirable responding (Paulhus 2002) at pre-
and post-test among control group teachers who knew a strengths programme was taking
place in other classes. Given the small size of the teacher sample, further investigation of
well-being changes in a larger sample is needed to cross validate findings.
Findings indicated that the positive change in teacher strengths spotting mediated a
range of student outcomes. This controlled study did not randomly assign classes to control
or intervention and so cannot determine causality. Our data are consistent, however, with
a causal model that teacher strengths spotting had a direct effect on student outcomes. The
fact that teacher strengths spotting mediated student outcomes at all is of interest. At the
population level it indicates that students overall may benefit more from strengths interven-
tions where their teachers include strengths spotting as part of their classroom practice.
In addition to frequency and skill in strengths spotting, the Strengthspotting scale
assesses how important the respondent believes this practice is (motivation), the emo-
tional impact that the practice has for the respondent, and the extent to which they
act on or apply their strengths spotting insights. A respondent who scored high on all
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
sub-scales has indicated that he/she values and is motivated to strengths spot in others,
actually carries out strengths spotting frequently and enjoys it. This favourable behav-
iour and attitude towards strengths on the part of teachers influenced their student out-
comes, and therefore the effectiveness of a strengths programme, in their classroom.
These results are consistent with the finding from Cox (2006), which demonstrated
that participant outcomes were enhanced only when therapists endorsed the strengths
approach. Teacher strengths spotting was enhanced overall in this study and contributed
positively to student outcomes. An untested corollary of this finding however, is that a
teacher’s negative attitude towards strengths during a strengths programme, could have
a detrimental effect on the programme’s effectiveness for students.
The mediation observed across student outcomes ranged from 20% for positive affect
to around 50% for engagement and relatedness and competence need satisfaction, and
76% for autonomy need satisfaction. In contrast to positive affect, student autonomy
support outcomes were strongly influenced by the classroom teacher. It is of interest,
however, that teachers noticing strengths in their students mediated autonomy need
satisfaction more than either competence or relatedness need satisfaction. One might
have expected strengths spotting in students to influence either perceived competence or
relatedness more than autonomy. One possibility may be the smaller range of autonomy
influences than for either relatedness or competence. It is noteworthy that the CINSS
measures need satisfaction across domains of home, school, and with friends. Changes
mediated by teacher strengths spotting can be expected to have occurred in the school
domain. For autonomy need satisfaction to be mediated 76% by teacher strengths spot-
ting suggests that the teacher influence was more significant over this period than either
changes at home or with friends.
Approximately half of the strengths programme’s benefits for student engagement, and
competence and relatedness need satisfaction were mediated by teacher strengths spotting.
This suggests that strengths spotting is potentially an effective strategy to build compe-
tence and relatedness need satisfaction in the classroom, both shown to support student
engagement. This result also suggests that other mediating and direct factors are at play
here. Given the range of influences on engagement and competence this is not surprising.
That more than half of the relatedness effects of the programme were mediated by teacher
strengths spotting speaks to the important role of teachers even when compared to student
peers in the classroom and relationships outside the classroom.
The mediation result for positive affect indicates that 80% of the change in student posi-
tive affect came either from other causes or from direct effects of the programme. Posi-
tive affect is influenced by a large range of variables including many outside the control
of the teacher, inside and outside the classroom. It seems reasonable to expect that the
sources of positive affect in a student’sday would include many influences external to the
programme. Neither negative affect nor student strengths use were mediated by changes
in teacher strengths spotting, suggesting that other influences play a more important role
for both these outcomes. Although overall affective well-being increased from baseline to
post-test, our model shows a small increase in negative affect that was not mediated by
teacher strengths spotting. One can imagine that frustrations or challenges in learning about
strengths, making sense of new information, or negative comparisons with some peers may
have led to some negative affect. Although this was a small increase and was outweighed
by increases in positive affect, further investigation of potential for negative outcomes of
strengths interventions can only serve to enhance our understanding of the process and
the moderating effects of contexts and individual variables. It appears that negative affect
was either a direct outcome of the programme or influenced by other factors, but was not
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
influenced by teacher strengths spotting. This finding is reassuring in that it suggests that
teacher strengths spotting is not a source of student negative affect.
The five subscales of the strengths spotting scale (ability, emotion, motivation, appli-
cation, and frequency) (Linley et al. 2010b) provide broad coverage of attitudes and
behaviours related to strengths. It could be possible for a person to increase their strength
spotting ability but not alter their use of that ability, thereby having little or no change in
influence on those around them. Teacher changes in strengths spotting scores among the
intervention group occurred consistently across each of the five sub-scales with the largest
changes in frequency and application. This suggests that in addition to their attitudes teach-
ers’ strengths spotting behaviours had also changed. The changes in teacher behaviour may
explain why these changes contributed to student outcomes at follow-up. Consistent with
these results, participating teachers reported a very favourable attitude to the programme
with all teachers indicating they planned to continue using strengths in their classes.
Overall these results provide consistent evidence of a teacher effect on a strengths inter-
vention; they demonstrate that the attitude and strengths spotting skills of the teacher work-
ing with students to implement a strengths programme can contribute to student outcomes.
The suggest that in addition to focusing on individual strengths identification and develop-
ment, strengths interventions should pay attention to the effect of the inter-personal aspect
of strengths.
5.1 Study Limitations
This study used a convenience sample and assignment to intervention or control was not
randomised thus limiting our ability to draw conclusions. The small sample group of teach-
ers in this study limited its power. A larger study sample could more effectively examine
the effects of leading a classroom strengths programme on teachers’ well-being, strengths
use, and strengths spotting, and the influence of these teacher variables on student out-
comes. This study was based solely on student and teacher self-report surveys. Future
research could include observations of students strengths use and of teachers’ strengths
spotting practices to compare with and validate the self-report measures.
No assessment was made of teacher effectiveness in this study and due to the small num-
ber of control group classes, the possibility cannot be discounted that differences were due
to a teacher effect. In a small teacher sample, such as the control group in this study, one
very effective or ineffective teacher could have a strong influence on the group’s scores. A
larger sample with an equal number of randomly assigned intervention and control classes
would be necessary to demonstrate that the effects of a strengths programme were clearly
not a teacher effect and could be attributed to the programme.
6 Conclusion
Research to date has examined the effects of strengths interventions in schools on the stu-
dent recipients of those programmes. This is the first known study to assess strengths pro-
gramme effects on teacher outcomes and the influence of teacher attitudes to strengths on
student outcomes. The results of this study suggest that it is also important to examine
the effects of these programmes on those helping deliver them. Findings demonstrated
that teachers’ attitudes towards strengths, including how motivated they are to identify
strengths in others, mediated the effectiveness of the programme for students on a range of
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
outcomes. These findings are based on teacher self-report rather than observed behaviours
and so warrant cautious interpretation. Nonetheless, teachers are the single most impor-
tant delivery mechanism for strengths programmes in schools. We need to understand the
extent to which they may moderate or amplify the effectiveness of such programmes for
their students.
Teachers are likely to need training and support to understand the potential benefits of
a strengths programme in their classroom, and how they can influence its effectiveness.
Teacher training should include familiarity with the strengths approach and support to
identify strengths in all their students. Learning the skills of strengths spotting and expand-
ing the range of strengths a teacher habitually notices in the classroom are also skills that
could be included in teacher training. Teachers did not report well-being changes as a result
of participating in their students’ strengths programme. Teachers may need to undertake
a personal strengths programme to gain the benefits such a programme may afford them.
Such programmes could support teacher well-being, and also build teacher commitment
and support for student programmes.
Most importantly, study findings demonstrated that changes in teacher-reported
strengths spotting mediated student positive affect, engagement, autonomy, competence
and relatedness need satisfaction. This suggests that strengths do not produce their effects
in isolation; individuals and groups constitute contextual factors that can influence a
strengths intervention’s effectiveness for participants. Strengths interventions may benefit
from considering the inter-personal as well as the intra-personal effects of working with
strengths. Our findings suggest that a teacher’s favourable attitude towards a strengths
approach and their ability to implement it will influence the effectiveness of a strengths
programme for the students in their class. Moreover, it is posited that a school intending to
implement a strengths programme would do well to pay as much attention to its teachers’
attitudes towards strengths as to those of their students. Supporting teachers to learn about
and experience benefits of the strengths approach may be an important first step before
they are asked to use this approach with their students.
References
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know
about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis.Education Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34.
Briner, R., & Dewberry, C. (2007). Staff well-being is key to school success. London: Worklife Support Ltd/
Hamilton House.
Cox, K. (2006). Investigating the impact of strength-based assessment on youth with emotional or behavio-
ral disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(3), 278–292.
Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in
physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 267–279.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of the my class inventory. Science Education, 65(2),
145–156.
Flückiger, C., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2008). Focusing the therapist’s attention on the patient’s strengths:
A preliminary study to foster a mechanism of change in outpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 64(7), 876–890.
Flynn, M. (2010). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) acceptability and validation
in English and Scottish secondary school students (The WAVES project). Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh.
Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, É., Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G. L. (2012). Harmoni-
ous passion as an explanation of the relation between signature strengths’ use and well-being at work:
Test of an intervention program. Human Relations, 65(9), 1233–1252.
Fox Eades, J. M. (2008). Celebrating strengths: Building strengths-based schools. London: Capp Press.
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.
Gable, S., Reis, H., Impett, E., & Asher, E. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal
and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(2), 228–245.
Gillham, J., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Seligman, M. (1995). Prevention of depressive symptoms in school-
children: Two-year follow-up. Psychological Science, 6(6), 343–351.
Govindji, R., & Linley, P. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths
coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 143.
Guney, S. (2011). The Strength Spotting Scale: Reliability and validity study in Turkish population. Proce-
dia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 126–132.
Huebner, E. S. (1991a). Further validation of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale: The independence of
satisfaction and affect ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9(4), 363–368.
Huebner, E. S. (1991b). Initial development of the Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology
International, 12(3), 231.
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010a). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological
Methods, 15(4), 309.
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010b). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal
mediation effects. Statistical Science, 6, 51–71.
Kamins, M., & Dweck, C. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent
self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835–847.
Koestner, R., & Véronneau, M. (2001). Children’s Intrinsic Needs Satisfaction Scale. Unpublished question-
naire, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Komazawa, A., & Ishimura, I. (2016). Strength spotting and interpersonal relationships: Development of the
Japanese version of the Strengthspotting Scale. GSTF Journal of Psychology (JPsych), 2(2), 40.
Leventhal, K. S., DeMaria, L. M., Gillham, J., Andrew, G., Peabody, J. W., & Leventhal, S. (2015). Foster-
ing emotional, social, physical and educational wellbeing in rural India: The methods of a multi-arm
randomized controlled trial of girls first. Trials, 16(1), 1.
Linley, P. (2008). Average to A+: Coventry. London: CAPP Press.
Linley, P. A., & Burns, G. W. (2010). Strengthspotting: Finding and developing client resources in the man-
agement of intense anger. Happiness, Healing, Enhancement: Your Casebook Collection for Applying
Positive Psychology in Therapy, 28, 1–14.
Linley, P. A., Garcea, N., Hill, J., Minhas, G., Trenier, E., & Willars, J. (2010a). Strengthspotting in coach-
ing: Conceptualisation and development of the Strengthspotting Scale. International Coaching Psy-
chology Review, 5(2), 165–176.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Wood, A. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010b). Using signature
strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implica-
tions for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 8–17.
Louis, M. C. (2008). A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of strengths-based curricula in promoting
first-year college student success. Azusa: Azusa Pacific University.
Maheswaran, H., Weich, S., Powell, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2012). Evaluating the responsiveness of the
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Group and individual level analysis.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(1), 1.
Norrish, J. M., & Seligman, M. E. (2015). Positive education: The geelong grammar school journey.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norrish, J. M., Williams, P., O’Connor, M., & Robinson, J. (2013). An applied framework for positive edu-
cation. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 12.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness
enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 1–21.
Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., & 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(4), 503–513.
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. The Role of Constructs
in Psychological and Educational Measurement, 2, 49–69.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011a). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related
quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 153–169.
D.Quinlan et al.
1 3
Proctor, C., Tsukayama, E., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Eades, J. F., & Linley, P. A. (2011b). Strengths gym:
The impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of adoles-
cents. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(5), 377–388.
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive psychology inter-
ventions: A randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths vs
a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 456.
Quinlan, D. M. (2013). Awesome us: The individual, group and contextual effects of a strengths intervention
in the classroom. Dunedin: University of Otago.
Quinlan, D. M., Swain, N., Cameron, C., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2015). How ‘other people matter’ in a
classroom-based strengths intervention: Exploring interpersonal strategies and classroom outcomes.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 77–89.
Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2011). Character strengths interventions: Building on
what we know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 1–19.
Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Lennox, C., Quinlan, D., Niemiec, R. M., Mayerson, D., & Kazemi, F. (2013).
Assessment of character strengths in children and adolescents. In Research, applications, and interven-
tions for children and adolescents (pp. 81–115), Springer.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student
relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement a meta-analytic approach. Review of
Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motiva-
tion and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential
for lasting fulfillment. New Pork: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Posi-
tive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
Seligman, M., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress. American Psycholo-
gist, 60(5), 410–421.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the class-
room: Part of a larger motivational dynamic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.
Suldo, S. M., Frank, M. J., Chappel, A. M., Albers, M. M., & Bateman, L. P. (2014). American high school
students’ perceptions of determinants of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 485–514.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1120 5-013-0436-2.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2017). Leadership effects on student learning mediated by teacher emotions.
InHow school leaders contribute to student success(pp. 137–152). Springer International Publishing.
Swain-Campbell, N., & Quinlan, D. M. (2009). Children’s school, classroom, social well-being and health
in New Zealand mid to low decile primary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,
44(2), 79–92.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., etal. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh
Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 5(1), 63.
Thompson, E. R. (2017). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the posi-
tive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psycho-
logical strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development
of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15–19.
Aliations
DeniseQuinlan1· DianneA.Vella‑Brodrick2· AndrewGray3· NicolaSwain4
Denise Quinlan
denise@nziwr.co.nz
Dianne A. Vella-Brodrick
dianne.Vella-Brodrick@unimelb.edu.au
Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@otago.ac.nz
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
1 New Zealand Institute ofWellbeing andResilience, Dunedin, NewZealand
2 Centre forPositive Psychology, Graduate School ofEducation, University ofMelbourne,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3 Department ofPreventive andSocial Medicine, Dunedin School ofMedicine, University ofOtago,
Dunedin, NewZealand
4 Department ofPsychological Medicine, Dunedin School ofMedicine, University ofOtago,
Dunedin, NewZealand
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Happiness Studies
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.