ArticlePDF Available

Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following a Strengths Intervention are Mediated by Teacher Strengths Spotting

Springer Nature
Journal of Happiness Studies
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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 6 weeks and the teachers 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 spotting were: positive affect, classroom engagement, and need satisfaction (autonomy, competence 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.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Happiness Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0051-7
1 3
RESEARCH PAPER
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths
Intervention are Mediated byTeacher Strengths Spotting
DeniseQuinlan1· DianneA.Vella‑Brodrick2· AndrewGray3· NicolaSwain4
© 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 6weeks 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 etal. 2011a; Proyer etal. 2015; Quinlan etal. 2011)
and have been shown to enhance well-being, productivity, engagement and achievement
in a range of settings (Flückiger and Grosse Holtforth 2008; Linley etal. 2010b; Seligman
etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2010a; Wood etal.
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 etal. 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 etal. 2011b; Rashid etal. 2013) or using strengths to pursue goals (Linley
etal. 2010a; Quinlan etal. 2015). Some strengths programmes, however, have encouraged
other strategies such as strengths spotting (Fox Eades 2008; Quinlan etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2011a; Quinlan 2013; Quinlan etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2015; Norrish etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2011) and student psy-
chological and academic functioning (Suldo etal. 2014). Additionally, teacher support
whether interpersonal or academic, has been demonstrated to influence student engage-
ment in the classroom and school belonging (Allen etal. 2018; Fredricks etal. 2004;
Ryan and Patrick 2001). In particular, relatedness to teacher and students has been
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
1 3
shown to predict classroom behavioural and emotional engagement which in turn, pre-
dicts academic achievement (Furrer and Skinner 2003; Skinner etal. 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 etal. 2011b; Rust etal. 2009)
although the influence of facilitator training on student outcomes has been recognised in
the area of resilience programmes (Seligman etal. 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 8–12years with the
majority aged 9–10years. 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 3months
after the post-test (follow-up). Teachers completed their measures online during the same
periods.
Table1 sets out the measures used for students and teachers in this study. Further details
of the student measures are described in detail elsewhere (Quinlan etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 2007).
Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following aStrengths…
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 etal. 2012; Tennant etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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
etal. 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 etal. 2007)
(14 items)
Strengths spotting Strengthspotting Scale (Linley etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 etal. 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 90min 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
10–15min blocks. A brief description of each session for student participants is included
in Table2. 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 oftheAnalysis
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 etal. 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 aStrengths…
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 etal. (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 etal. 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 Table3 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 Table4, 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. Table5 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 aStrengths…
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 Table6, 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 aStrengths…
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 Table6).
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 significantwell-being or strengths use enhancement
forintervention 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’sday 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 aStrengths…
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 aStrengths…
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.
InHow 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., etal. (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.
Aliations
DeniseQuinlan1· DianneA.Vella‑Brodrick2· AndrewGray3· NicolaSwain4
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 aStrengths…
1 3
1 New Zealand Institute ofWellbeing andResilience, Dunedin, NewZealand
2 Centre forPositive Psychology, Graduate School ofEducation, University ofMelbourne,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3 Department ofPreventive andSocial Medicine, Dunedin School ofMedicine, University ofOtago,
Dunedin, NewZealand
4 Department ofPsychological Medicine, Dunedin School ofMedicine, University ofOtago,
Dunedin, NewZealand
... Identifying and then using one's character strengths-understood as 'positive traits/ capacities that are personally fulfilling, do not diminish others, [and are] ubiquitous and valued across cultures' [3, p. 2])-increases wellbeing and buffers the negative impact of stress and psychopathology [4]. 'Strengths spotting' [5], an active and constructive acknowledgement [6] of strengths by others, is seen as one key factor among others in strength-based interventions [7]. No research of which we are aware examined whether the benefits of these conversations are attained as a direct function of the relational climate in which they take place, in this case, relational listening. ...
... Character strengths have been extensively researched in the last decade [64] in the context of wellbeing [65,66] and as buffers for the detrimental effects of psychopathology [67] and adverse situations [68,69]. Some literature distinguishes between having an awareness of strengths and using one's strengths [7,70]. Meta-analytic findings link identifying and then using one's character strengths (i.e. through strengthsbased interventions) to happiness, decreased depression and life satisfaction [71] and reduced stress [72,73]. ...
... Yet, it is those with higher baseline levels of self-esteem and positive affect that reported the greatest benefits after writing down their strengths, suggesting the presence of moderators to this effect [70]. Other studies have suggested that relational experiences may shape the outcomes of talking about strengths [7,74], and we aimed to isolate the relational aspects from the character strengths in our study. ...
Article
Full-text available
Listening is understood to be a foundational element in practices that rely on effective conversations, but there is a gap in our understanding of what the effects of high-quality listening are on both the speaker and listener. This registered report addressed this gap by training one group of participants to listen well as speakers discuss their character strengths, allowing us to isolate the role relational listening plays in strengths-based conversations. Participants were paired and randomly assigned to a high-quality listening (experimental) or moderate-quality listening (comparison) condition manipulated through a validated video-based training. High-quality listening predicted a more constructive relational experience; specifically, positivity resonance. Intrapersonal experiences (perceived authenticity and state anxiety) were not affected. Those who engaged in high-quality listening expressed a behavioural intention to continue listening, but condition did not predict a behavioural intention for speakers to continue applying character strengths. This is the first evidence of positivity resonance as a shared outcome between both a speaker and listener when the listener conveys high-quality (as opposed to ‘everyday’) listening. These early findings merit further study with stronger listening manipulations to explore the potential role of listening within interpersonal communication, and inform the applied psychological sciences (counselling, psychotherapy, coaching, organizational, education).
... Professionals are encouraged to facilitate strength-based discussions that empower youth to recognize their abilities and how these strengths can be harnessed to address bullying-related challenges. For instance, during a counseling session, a mental health professional might use a technique called 'strengths spotting', inviting youth to recount a recent experience where they felt proud or accomplished [111]. If a patient shares a story about helping a friend in need, a counselor can highlight this as an expression of prosocial support and empathy, reinforcing the patient's ability to influence others positively [2]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bullying and cyberbullying are critical global issues that significantly affect the mental health and behavioral well-being of youth. This article explores the complex challenges posed by these forms of aggression and introduces a strength-based model for health and mental health professionals to address these issues with impacted youth holistically. Grounded within findings from a scoping review of the literature, the SHIELD framework emphasizes Strengths, Healing, Interventions, Empowerment, Learning, and Development, offering a comprehensive approach for identifying and supporting youth impacted by bullying and cyberbullying. SHIELD emphasizes collaboration among health professionals, schools, families, and communities. By integrating empirical evidence and best practices from school-based approaches to bullying prevention, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS) and Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), this framework provides a roadmap for creating safer, more inclusive environments for youth while prioritizing their mental health and overall well-being in the face of bullying and cyberbullying. A case study illustrates the framework’s practical application and future directions are proposed to guide further empirical investigation and stimulate innovative approaches to addressing the complexities of bullying and cyberbullying.
... The role of teachers in identifying and nurturing students' strengths was also explored (Quinlan et al., 2019). The research demonstrated that positive student outcomes, including happiness, were mediated by teachers' ability to spot and foster students' strengths. ...
Chapter
Managing happiness is a vital pillar that complements students' academic curricula. Therefore, this book chapter aims to describe the relationship between classroom satisfaction, communication skills acquisition, and happiness to enhance the overall happiness of the educational environment. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was employed to validate two hypotheses in our measurement model. They are related to the positive effect of satisfaction and the acquisition of communication skills for happiness. Both relationships are significant, in which happiness is explained more by satisfaction than communication skills. The effect of the specific dimensions of the variables under study is also described. Additionally, we must highlight that females are generally perceived greater rewards and more effectively designed lessons than males. In particular, some groups of students, such as German and Lithuanians, showed lower motivation levels and perceived fewer rewards and less engaging lessons.
... In order to empower students with or without SEND in inclusive settings and to improve the quality of relationships in classrooms, a focus has been made on teachers implementing strengths-based interventions themselves, which makes them more effective (Quinlan et al., 2018). Indeed, as the teacher can support empowerment and relationship quality throughout the year, it is more effective than an external professional who would not be able to offer a continuous focus on students and classroom strengths. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study evaluates the Individual Strengths, Collective Power! program in fostering students' use of strengths vocabulary and improving classroom relationships in an inclusive education setting in Switzerland, where students with and without special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) attend school together. The study involved 179 students, ages 8 to 12, divided into an experimental group that received specific training and an active control group that had access to program resources, regardless of their SEND status. The study used the Strengths Use Scale (SUS) and the Gratitude Questionnaire to measure students' awareness of their strengths and gratitude. In addition, a sociometric measure, the Peer Acceptance Index (PAI), was developed to assess classroom dynamics. Results indicate that strengths-based interventions significantly expanded students' vocabulary of strengths and increased positive discourse, particularly among girls. Time and age were the main predictors of positive peer commentary, rather than the interventions themselves, which had no significant effect on PAI scores. The study suggests that strengths-based tools, even without guided use, can positively influence students' language about strengths, although they did not change classroom relationships within the 9-week period. Further research is recommended to explore the specific effects and mechanisms of strengths-based interventions in inclusive settings.
... Research has documented that strength-based interventions that focus on strength identification and use can lead to a wide scope of positive changes in one's psychological, social, and occupational functioning, such as meaning pursuit, well-being, work performance, and education outcomes (Ghielen et al., 2017;Quinlan et al., 2019;Dolev-Amit et al., 2021;Moore et al., 2024). Existing evidence has further shown that strength use, instead of strength identification, appears to be the active ingredient attributable for the observed positive changes in various domains (e.g., Govindjee and Linley, 2007;Wood et al., 2011;Littman-Ovadia et al., 2013;Miglianico et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
In serving college students with mental disorders, on-campus mental health professionals have been lacking integrative theoretical frameworks to guide their missions of prevention, remedy, and development facilitation. In the current paper, we propose the positive clinical psychology as a theoretically and practically valuable framework for these missions by narratively reviewing the preventive, remedial, and developmental mechanisms derived from the theory and summarizing the most recent empirical evidence that supports each mechanism. We further discuss why and how these mechanisms and findings can be applied to on-campus mental health services to facilitate the resilience and optimal development of college students with mental disorders. Particularly, the use of resilience-focused and strength-based intervention strategies are promoted for services.
... Identifying and focusing on one's personal strengths is a type of self-affirmation that can lead to increased positive affect. Focusing on personal strengths is associated with better physical and psychological outcomes [106,107]. Attainable Goals: Setting small, short-term goals is correlated with subjective reports of well-being, and perceptions of progress toward goals are associated with increased positive emotion as well as greater life satisfaction [108][109][110]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s disease can be stressful, resulting in poorer emotional and physical health among family caregivers. Although supportive resources for caregivers are available, distance, caregiver health, and the daily demands of caregiving are barriers to access. Based on research demonstrating the importance of positive emotions in coping with stress, our previous trial showed that dementia caregivers who participated in facilitated, web-based delivery of a positive emotion regulation intervention called LEAF (Life Enhancing Activities for Family caregivers) experienced increased positive emotion and decreased depression and anxiety. Building on this evidence, the LEAF 2.0 study aims to test whether web-based, self-guided delivery can confer similar benefits for caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Methods This paper presents the design and methods for LEAF 2.0, a 3-arm web-based randomized controlled trial (N = 500) in which family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are randomized to (1) the LEAF intervention facilitated remotely via the web (N = 200), (2) the LEAF intervention self-guided online (N = 200), or (3) an emotion reporting control (N = 100), which then crosses over to the intervention after approximately 6 months, half to the facilitated arm and half to the self-guided arm. We aim to (1) compare the effect of the facilitated and self-guided LEAF positive emotion interventions to an emotion reporting control condition on AD caregiver well-being (positive emotion, depression, anxiety, and perceived stress) and secondary outcomes (caregiving burden, caregiving self-efficacy, positive aspects of caregiving, quality of care, and AD patient quality of life); (2) assess whether effects are mediated by improvements in positive emotion or other aspects of caregiver well-being; and (3) test whether caregiver age or gender or the care recipient’s dementia severity moderates the effects of the intervention. Discussion If demonstrated to be effective, LEAF can be widely disseminated and ultimately have a significant impact on the stress experienced by AD caregivers and the well-being of people living with Alzheimer’s disease. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03610698.
Article
Full-text available
Strengths and virtues are defined as positive characteristics that have moral value. The objective of this research was to investigate the conception of the students of Integrated Technical High School on strengths and virtues, if there is a difference between the conception between female and male students, how they understand the role of strengths and virtues in the choice and performance of the future technical profession and if the perception of the concept differs from the literature. Participated 21 students, 10 girls and 11 boys from the first year of different courses from a Brazilian public educational institution. Two focus groups were held on different dates. The results showed that conceptions brought by the students are related to characteristics responsible for promoting personal and academic goals for current and future situations to their professional career. The data obtained can contribute to actions, expanding the possibilities of applying positive psychology in the school context as a resource favorable to learning and the development of strengths and virtues. Prospective research can investigate the impact of strengths and virtues with constructions related to the concept investigated in the present study with the use of instruments that can collaborate with qualitative data presented.
Chapter
Interdisciplinary education breaks down traditional subject boundaries, fostering a holistic understanding and offering multifaceted solutions to twenty-first-century educational challenges. It equips educators with a well-rounded and interconnected knowledge base that potentially proves the relevance of their teaching and learning experiences in their careers and students’ lives. In special education and inclusion, interdisciplinary collaboration ensures comprehensive support, inclusive classrooms, and personalized educational plans, addressing academic, behavioral, and emotional needs to promote student equity and success. To that end, this chapter aims to explore the positive impact of interdisciplinarity on the experience of students with special educational needs and disabilities, specifically through integrating positive psychology and positive education in inclusive educational settings. The chapter presents literature highlighting core concepts and the significance of positive education, pinpointing major educational theories and models related to this framework. In conclusion, the chapter summarizes key factors needed to help educators transform teaching and learning and make this interdisciplinary endeavor a sustainable success, highlighting the main implications and recommendations for practice and future research.
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the strengthspotting scale and examine the relationship between strengthspotting and relationships with others, as well as factors that related to an interpersonal relationship. A Japanese version of strengthspotting scale was developed and administered with six other scales of interpersonal factors to 264 college students. The results indicate that the Japanese version of strengthspotting scale has sufficient reliability and validity. Furthermore, the results revealed a relationship between each of the five domains of strengthspotting and interpersonal factors: communication skills, affiliation motives, shyness, optimism and pessimism, and positive relationships with others. The study provides a basis for conducting further empirical research and practice on strengthspotting in Japan.
Article
Full-text available
Belonging is an essential aspect of psychological functioning. Schools offer unique opportunities to improve belonging for school-aged children. Research on school belonging, however, has been fragmented and diluted by inconsistency in the use of terminology. To resolve some of these inconsistencies, the current study uses meta-analysis of individual and social level factors that influence school belonging. These findings aim to provide guidance on the factors schools should emphasise to best support students. First, a systematic review identified 10 themes that influence school belonging at the student level during adolescence in educational settings (academic motivation, emotional stability, personal characteristics, parent support, peer support, teacher support, gender, race and ethnicity, extracurricular activities and environmental/school safety). Second, the average association between each of these themes and school belonging was meta-analytically examined across 51 studies (N = 67,378). Teacher support and positive personal characteristics were the strongest predictors of school belonging. Results varied by geographic location, with effects generally stronger in rural than in urban locations. The findings may be useful in improving perceptions of school belonging for secondary students through the design of policy, pedagogy and teacher training, by encouraging school leaders and educators to build qualities within the students and change school systems and processes.
Article
Full-text available
There is increasing pressure on schools in New Zealand to address children's social and emotional needs, together with learning needs. The present survey of 461 children and parents from mid to low decile primary schools was conducted to examine the current state of children's social and emotional well-being (as part of a wider study). Results indicate children are largely positive in the domains surveyed. The majority (92.1%) of children reported liking school and 92.4% felt safe, although 14% of children reported being teased more than five times in the previous week. Measures of classroom, social and health indicators ofwell-being were also high. Parents 'responses were low to moderately correlated to their child's, and the survey also showed moderate internal reliability. Although mostly positive, there are some areas for improvement which have been highlighted in the discussion of these results. This study adds to New Zealand data on school children's well-being.
Article
Full-text available
Background: There are 600 million girls in low and middle income countries (LMICs), many of whom are at great risk for poor health and education. There is thus great need for programs that can effectively improve wellbeing for these girls. Although many interventions have been developed to address these issues, most focus on health and education without integrating attention to social and emotional factors. This omission is unfortunate, as nascent evidence indicates that these factors are closely related to health and education. This paper describes the methods of a 4-arm randomized controlled trial among 3,560 adolescent girls in rural Bihar, India that tested whether adding an intervention targeting social-emotional issues (based on a "resilience framework") to an adolescent health intervention would improve emotional, social, physical, and educational wellbeing to a greater extent than its components and a control group. Study arms were: (1) Girls First, a combination of the Girls First Resilience Curriculum (RC) and the Girls First Health Curriculum (HC); (2) Girls First Resilience Curriculum (RC) alone; (3) Girls First Health Curriculum (HC) alone; and (4) a school-as-usual control group (SC). Methods: Seventy-six schools were randomized (19 per condition) and 74 local women with a tenth grade education were trained and monitored to facilitate the program. Quantitative data were collected from 3,560 girls over 4 assessment points with very low rates of participant attrition. Qualitative assessments were conducted with a subset of 99 girls and 27 facilitators. Results and conclusions: In this article, we discuss guiding principles that facilitated trial implementation, including integrating diverse local and non-local sources of knowledge, focusing on flexibility of planning and implementation, prioritizing systematic measurement selection, and striking a balance between scientific rigor and real-world feasibility. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02429661 . Registered 24 April 2015.
Article
Full-text available
Positive psychology urges psychologists to ask a deeper and loftier question, what is right with children and adolescents, in addition to exploring their weaknesses. This chapter discusses a strength-based assessment approach in detail, arguing that that such an approach yields useful information above and beyond the information produced by traditional measures of psychopathology. Some salient measures of strengths are listed, and in particular the VIA Youth Survey, which is used to determine an individual’s signature strengths, is discussed in detail. Previous findings have suggested that the frequent use of signature strengths is associated with greater well-being. This assertion has not been tested widely with children and adolescents. The chapter presents results of three intervention studies including one that has demonstrated that a multi-informant approach (i.e., strengths identified by teacher, parent, and a peer) of assessing signature strengths that boosts well-being and social skills. The chapter concludes with practical strategies for professionals to incorporate various ways to assess and develop strengths of children and adolescents.
Article
Objectives: Many coaching psychologists use strengths approaches in their practice. The current study set out to develop a conceptualisation of what is meant by strengthspotting, as well as to identify different domains of strengthspotting. The aim was to develop and validate a Strengthspotting Scale that could be used by researchers for future inquiry, and by practitioners for the self-assessment of their own strengthspotting preferences and capabilities. Design: A Strengthspotting Scale item pool of 50 items was developed by six strengths experts and used for initial data collection. An online survey was used to collect data on the newly-developed Strengthspotting Scale, together with measures of personality, optimism, positive and negative affect, and strengths knowledge for concurrent validation. Method: Data were collected from 456 respondents. Analyses used included exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation, correlation analysis and multivariate analysis of variance. Results: A 20-item Strengthspotting Scale with five subscales assessing the Ability, Emotional, Frequency, Application and Motivation domains of strengthspotting was developed and validated. All subscales demonstrated very good internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity with extraversion, agreeableness, optimism, positive affect and strengths knowledge. There were no gender differences, but small positive associations between strengthspotting and age. Conclusions: A reliable and valid Strengthspotting Scale was developed, which will now be able to support future research in this area. It will also enable coaching practitioners to assess more readily their own preferences and capabilities in relation to strengthspotting.
Article
This article describes the development of a brief research instrument to measure global life satisfaction in children, the Student's Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS). A preliminary version of the SLSS was administered to a sample of 254 children age 7-14 from the Midwestern United States. The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and a unidimensional factor structure. Satisfaction scores did not differ as a function of age, grade or gender. Analyses of individual items as well as total scale scores indicated a high degree of overall life satisfaction, which is consistent with findings reported for adults. A cross-validation study with a more heterogeneous sample of 329 children age 8-14 from the Midwest yielded similar results, including adequate temporal stability. A revised version correlated predictably with criterion measures. The revised SLSS appears useful for research purposes with students as early as age 8. Implications for future research are discussed.
Chapter
School leaders’ influence on student achievement is largely indirect. Using systematic review techniques, this chapter assesses the impact that leaders have on their students when they focus their improvement efforts on those teacher emotions or dispositions known to have direct effects on teaching and learning in the classroom. Building on an earlier conceptions of how leadership influences student learning and based on a review of research over the last 25 years, this chapter identifies four distinct teacher emotions which have significant effects on student learning – collective teacher efficacy, teacher commitment, teacher trust in others, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. This chapters also describes leadership practices likely to foster productive teacher emotions, most such practices reflecting a transformational approach to leadership.