A Consequential Partnership
The Association Between Teachers’ Well-Being and Students’ Well-Being and the Role of Teacher Support as a Mediator
Abstract
Abstract. Many studies have focused on the effects of teachers’ well-being on the development of students, in particular their academic achievement. To date, little is known about the association between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being. In the present study, we analyzed this relationship and examined the mediating role of teacher support using linked data from 2,686 students and 805 teachers from 48 schools in Germany. Multilevel regression analyses showed a relationship between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ subjective health complaints and between teachers’ psychological well-being and students’ satisfaction with school. The latter association was mediated by teacher support as perceived by students. This study extends current knowledge about the relevance of teachers’ well-being to their students’ socio-emotional development and the mechanisms that underlie this association. Implications for promoting of mental health in schools and for future research are discussed.
Teachers work in a profession that is psychologically very demanding. Compared to other professional groups, teachers suffer more frequently from mental and psychosomatic problems (De Heus & Diekstra, 1999; Scheuch et al., 2015). The ability to cope well with the challenges and strains of the teaching profession and maintain an acceptable level of well-being is seen as an essential professional competence in teachers (Baumert & Kunter, 2013).
Well-being is understood here based on the definition of Diener (1984), who emphasizes the subjective nature of well-being, saying that it consists of two main components: the cognitive component (life satisfaction) and the affective component (positive affect, which is not just the absence of negative affect). Many studies have already focused on the effects of teachers’ well-being on the development of students, especially their academic achievement (e.g., Herman et al., 2018; Klusmann et al., 2008, 2016; Kunter et al., 2013). However, building academic competencies in students is not the sole educational mission of schools. In addition to cognitive aspects, schools also shape the development of children and adolescents in other areas, such as their social and emotional development. Some of the most important developmental milestones in childhood and adolescence occur in school under the guidance of teachers (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Because of the close interactions between students and teachers in daily school life, we expect to find associations between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being. It is this association that we will investigate in this study, using linked data from teachers and their students. In addition, we will assess whether the relationship between teacher well-being and student well-being is mediated by students’ perception of how supportive their teachers are.
Teachers’ Well-Being and Its Associations With Student Outcomes
Stress and stress-related complaints are reported by a significant proportion of teachers worldwide (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998; Hakanen et al., 2006; Klusmann & Philipp, 2014; Kyriacou, 2001). Compared to other occupational groups, teachers report significantly higher levels of physical as well as psychological complaints (Johnson et al., 2005; Kidger et al., 2016; Scheuch et al., 2015; Stansfeld et al., 2011). In the general teacher competence model posited by Baumert and Kunter (2006, 2013; among others, inspired by the five core positions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002), teachers’ well-being is included as a consequence of successful self-regulation, which is defined as “the ability to responsibly manage one’s personal resources” (Baumert & Kunter, 2013, p. 40).
Being unable to cope with occupational stress leads to long-term psychological consequences for teachers (Melchior et al., 2007), it can also affect the daily lives of their students. Studies have found that teachers’ physical and psychological well-being is associated with their teaching behavior and the student–teacher relationship (Maslach & Leiter, 1999; McLean & Connor, 2015). In turn, these teacher variables can affect students’ academic performance. Many studies consequently found positive associations between teacher’s well-being and students’ academic achievement (Geving, 2007; Herman et al., 2018; Klusmann et al., 2008, 2016; Kokkinos et al., 2005; Kunter et al., 2013; Maslach & Leiter, 1999).
The Link Between Teachers’ Well-Being and Students’ Well-Being
Building academic competencies in children and adolescents is a teacher’s central task. However, teachers’ responsibilities go well beyond that. In addition to cognitive aspects, teachers also help to build students’ emotional and social skills (Hascher & Brandenberger, 2018). Students spend a lot of time at school, and several essential developmental tasks in childhood and adolescence are associated with the school and, as such, with teachers’ behavior (Bierman, 2011; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Because the accomplishment of developmental tasks is closely related to well-being in adolescence (e.g., Schulenberg et al., 2004), we would expect an association between teacher variables and aspects of students’ psychological health, including their well-being.
Compared to student academic achievement, however, much less attention has been paid to empirically examine the relationship between teachers’ and students’ well-being (Hascher & Waber, 2021). Most importantly, there are few studies that examine this relationship from the perspective of teachers and students. The few exceptions are the studies by Oberle and Schonert-Reichl (2016) and Harding and colleagues (2019). Oberle and Schonert-Reichl (2016) found an association between burnout in classroom teachers and the salivary cortisol levels of their elementary school students, which is an indicator of the physiological stress response. Using data from 8th grade students and their teachers in the United Kingdom, Harding and colleagues (2019) found a weak association between teachers’ mean well-being and mean depression and students’ well-being and distress. A mediator of this relationship in the study was teachers’ self-assessment of their presenteeism. Presenteeism describes the tendency to go to work despite illness and be less productive there.
Another aspect that may mediate the relationship between teachers’ and students’ well-being is teacher support. Teachers’ well-being is a prerequisite for creating a positive and supportive school environment (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). In particular, emotional support from teachers has been shown in studies to be important for student development (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). Furthermore, teachers suffering from stress and exhaustion tend to withdraw from social relationships with students (Burke et al., 1996) and are less responsive to their students’ problem behaviors (Pas et al., 2010). To add to this, teachers with poor psychological well-being are less likely to believe that they can effectively help students with emotional problems (Sisask et al., 2014). Students also clearly perceive this lower level of support and care from emotionally distressed teachers (Arens & Morin, 2016; Glazzard & Rose, 2019; Ramberg et al., 2020). Hence, it is reasonable to assume that teachers with impaired well-being have difficulty supporting their students and, as a result, student well-being would be impaired.
The first aim of this study is consequently to investigate the relationship between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being. Building on previous research on the importance of teacher support for student development, the second aim of the present study is to extend the current body of knowledge by examining the mediating effect of teacher support on the relationship between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being. In conclusion, the following hypotheses were proposed:
Teachers’ well-being is positively associated with students’ well-being.
Teacher support mediates the relationship between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being.
Method
Samples and Procedure
The data were taken from the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study conducted in Brandenburg, Germany, in 2018 (John & Bilz, 2020). The HBSC study is an international school-based cross-sectional survey conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The HBSC study aims to capture the health and health behavior of adolescents in grades 5, 7, and 9 (with students being approximately 11, 13, and 15 years old, respectively). The survey takes place every 4 years (Inchley et al., 2018). In Germany, the survey was first conducted in 1994. In 2018, the German federal state of Brandenburg participated in the HBSC study for the first time, with its own representative sample.
The implementation of the study was approved by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the State of Brandenburg (registration number 07/2018). The ethics commission of the Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg confirmed the study (file number: EK2018-6).
The student survey and teacher survey were conducted in 2018 as paper-pencil questionnaires. The management of the selected schools was invited in writing to participate in the survey and was informed about data protection rights and the survey procedure. Participation of schools, as well as individual students and teachers in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. The participation of students could only be approved with both their own consent and that of a parent or legal guardian. Schools, and generally teachers, picked the date on which the survey took place, basing it around activities already scheduled at their schools. Students who provided the consent of their legal guardians and wished to take part were given the questionnaire in class. In addition to the questionnaire, participants received an empty envelope into which they placed the questionnaire after completion, sealing the envelope before collection. The teacher questionnaire took about 30 min to complete and the student survey about 60 min.
The sample design (stratified cluster sample) was based on the research protocol of the international HBSC consortium (Inchley et al., 2018). The aim was to achieve a number of N = 1,200 students per grade (5, 7, and 9) which is based on the internationally recommended sample size for a region (Inchley et al., 2018). The drawing of the sample was carried out at the school level with Probability Proportional to Size Design (PPS Design; Yates & Grundy, 1953). This design allows for equal selection probabilities at the individual level regardless of school size. The sample was drawn based on two stratification characteristics: type of school (school for special education, elementary school, comprehensive school, grammar school, high school) and grade (5, 7, 9). Of the 158 schools randomly selected and contacted, 55 schools with a total of 217 classes and N = 3,068 students ultimately participated in the study. The response rate at the school level was 34.8% and 66.1% at the student level and 52.3% at the teacher level. Comparing the distribution of students in the sample with the distribution of students in the Brandenburg population shows that the sample is a good representation of the population in terms of gender, grade, school type, and community size (John & Bilz, 2020).
To connect teacher and student data within the same schools, a special coding system was used to always guarantee the anonymity of students and teachers. Data from 2,686 students and 805 teachers could be linked within 48 schools. Seven schools (three high schools, two schools for special education, one elementary school, one grammar school) were excluded because none (n = 5) or very few (less than 6 teachers at the school, n = 2) teachers participated in the study.
The gender ratio was well-balanced, with n = 1,392 girls (51.8%) and n = 1,282 boys (47.7%). Another n = 12 people did not indicate their gender. The students were between 8 and 17 years old; overall, the mean age was M = 13.0 (SD = 1.7). The students attended grades 5 (n = 929, 34.6%), 7 (n = 893, 33.2%), and 9 (n = 864, 32.2%) at various types of schools: school for special education (n = 137, 5.1%), elementary school (n = 782, 29.1%), comprehensive school (n = 268, 10.0%), grammar school (n = 919, 34.2%), and high school (n = 580, 21.6%).
The teachers were between 23 and 66 years old; overall the mean age was M = 47.9 (SD = 10.7). The teachers were predominantly female (n = 638, 79.1%) and were distributed among the different types of schools (school for special education: n = 48, 6.0%; elementary school: n = 350, 43.5%; comprehensive school: n = 59, 7.3%; grammar school: n = 165, 20.5%; high school: n = 183, 22.7%).
Measures
Teacher Data
Teachers’ well-being was assessed as a two-dimensional construct using two indicators. These indicators capture subjective psychological well-being as well as mental health limitations (emotional exhaustion):
Teachers’ Subjective Psychological Well-Being
We used the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (Bech, 2004), which examines various aspects of subjective psychological well-being by means of five items (e.g., “In the last two weeks I was happy and in a good mood”). Responses were given on a 6-point scale: 0 = at no time, 1 = some of the time, 2 = less than half of the time, 3 = more than half of the time, 4 = most of the time, and 5 = all the time. The internal consistency in the present study was α = .89.
Emotional Exhaustion
We used a subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996) from the COACTIV research program (Baumert et al., 2009), with four items (e.g., “I feel generally overwhelmed”). The opening question was: “To what extent do the following statements apply to you as a teacher?” and responses were given on a 4-point scale: 1 = applies fully, 2 = generally applies, 3 = does not generally apply, and 4 = does not apply. The internal consistency in the present study was α = .85.
Student Data
Students’ well-being was assessed independently from one another using three dimensions: students’ general life satisfaction, students’ satisfaction with school, and students’ subjective health complaints. The items used for these dimensions as well as the guidelines for their coding were taken from the HBSC study (Inchley et al., 2018).
Students’ General Life Satisfaction
The Cantril Ladder (Cantril, 1965) was used to measure general life satisfaction. It is a visual 1-item scale (“In general, where on the ladder do you feel you stand at the moment?”) using an image of a ladder. Responses were given on a 10-point scale from 0 = worst possible life to 10 = best possible life. For the analyses, the score was dichotomized at value 6 (low general life satisfaction: values 0–5/high general life satisfaction: values 6–10).
Students’ Satisfaction With the School
Satisfaction with the school was measured by a single item (“How do you feel about school at present?”), which captures students’ emotional and psychological connectedness to school regarding whether they liked it (Inchley et al., 2018). This item has been used in the HBSC study since 1985 and reflects the affective component of school satisfaction, which is indicated by the immediate emotional response. Responses were given on a 4-point scale: 1 = I like it a lot, 2 = I like it a bit, 3 = I don’t like it very much, and 4 = I don’t like it at all. For the analyses, the values were dichotomized. High satisfaction with the school was rated for students who reported that they liked their school a lot (highest value). All other answers were grouped as low satisfaction with school.
Students’ Subjective Health Complaints
Health complaints were recorded using the HBSC Symptom Checklist, covering eight types of complaints: headache, stomach ache, backache, low mood, irritability or bad temper, nervousness, difficulties in getting to sleep, and dizziness (Haugland & Wold, 2001; Inchley et al., 2018). Symptoms were rated according to their frequency in the past 6 months with the following response options: 1 = rarely or never, 2 = about every month, 3 = about every week, 4 = more than once a week, and 5 = about every day. If students reported having had at least two of the eight presented single health complaints at least more than once a week, we assumed high subjective health complaints. The internal consistency in the present study was α = .79.
Students’ Perceived Teacher Support
Teacher support from the students’ perspective was recorded using a three-item scale from the HBSC network (Currie et al., 2014; Torsheim et al., 2000). The authors of the scale refer to the concept of perceived support and define this as “perceived satisfaction with, and the helpfulness and availability of support” (Torsheim et al., 2000, p. 197). Based on Malecki and Demaray’s (2003) distinction, we can say that the items particularly aim to capture emotional aspects of teacher support. The response options for the three items (“I feel that my teachers accept me as I am”; “I feel that my teachers care about me as a person”; “I feel a lot of trust in my teachers”) were: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. The total value for teacher support was created by summarizing the values of the three items. The internal consistency in the present study was α = .73.
Sociodemographics
Data on gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and age were collected for both students and teachers. For the statistical analyses, age (in years) and gender of teachers (as the proportion of male teachers at school expressed as a percentage) were used as the mean value at the school level. Furthermore, students’ grades (5, 7, 9) and type of school (school for special education, elementary school, comprehensive school, grammar school, high school) were dummy-coded and included as control variables in the calculations.
Statistical Analyses
To test the hypotheses, we calculated multilevel logistic regression analyses and multilevel logistic mediation analyses (including students’ perceived teacher support as a mediator). Group differences within the assessed dimensions of students’ well-being (students’ general life satisfaction, satisfaction with school, subjective health complaints) regarding gender, grade, and school type were assessed using cross-tables with Pearson’s χ2 tests and post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction.
All multilevel analyses (both logistic regression and logistic mediation analyses) were conducted as random-intercept fixed-slope models with two levels (level 1: students/level 2: school) and maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). Continuous data at level 2 (teachers’ well-being, teachers’ emotional exhaustion, teachers’ mean age at school, and the proportion of male teachers at school) were grand-mean centered. Data from 48 schools were included. The sample size at level 1 is reported for each model in the results section. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the three dimensions of students’ well-being are also reported in the Results section (formula from Muthén & Muthén, 2011, slide 66).
All multilevel analyses were performed with control variables. In both the regression and mediation analyses, students’ gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and grade (dummy-coded) were added as control variables at level 1. The proportion of male teachers at the school (expressed as a percentage) and teachers’ aggregated age at school (expressed in years) were included as control variables at level 2. In the multilevel logistic regression analyses, school type (dummy-coded) was also added as control variables at level 2. In the more complex multilevel logistic mediation analyses, the inclusion of all school types was not possible due to the nonidentification of the model. There was a particular problem with the variable indicating comprehensive schools. We included attending a school for special education (vs. all other school types) as the only variable that controlled for school type in the mediation analyses. This was due to the special relationship one might expect between teachers and students at schools for special education, which, we hypothesized, might impact how students perceive how supportive their teachers are.
All analyses were performed with SPSS 26 and Mplus 8.6. All mediation analyses were calculated with Monte Carlo integration. The Mplus-code for the mediation analyses was taken from Stride and colleagues (2015) and adapted for multilevel analyses by the second author.
Results
Descriptive Analyses
All correlations between the variables used in the analyses are presented in Table 1. We also present here the group sizes of the dichotomous student variables as well as the mean and standard deviation of the aggregated teacher variables.
The three variables of students’ well-being correlated significantly but at low levels (see Table 1), leading us to conduct independent analyses for the three dimensions.
Group differences for students’ well-being showed that male students reported higher general life satisfaction (χ2(1) = 5.34, p = .021) and lower subjective health complaints (χ2(1) = 30.14, p < .001) but not more or less satisfaction with school than girls (χ2(1) = 0.58, p = .445). In comparison to students in 9th grade, more students in 5th grade reported high general life satisfaction (χ2(2) = 14.91, p = .001; post hoc test p < .017) and low subjective health complaints (χ2(2) = 13.52, p = .001; post hoc test p < .017). A high level of satisfaction with school was most often reported by students in 7th grade (post hoc test p < .017). High general life satisfaction was most often reported by students at grammar schools and least often by students at schools for special education (χ2(4) = 83.18, p < .001; post hoc test p < .005). Students at grammar schools also most often reported a high level of satisfaction with school, although this was not always significantly different from other school types (χ2(4) = 33.76, p < .001; post hoc test p < .005). In addition, students at grammar school and elementary school most often reported low levels of subjective health complaints (χ2(4) = 55.56, p < .001; post hoc test p < .005). Because of these group differences, students’ gender, grade, and school type were included as control variables in the following analyses.
Associations Between Teachers’ Well-Being and Students’ Well-Being
We conducted multilevel logistic regression analyses to analyze whether or not students’ general life satisfaction, satisfaction with school, and subjective health complaints were associated with teachers’ well-being. The two variables that measured teachers’ well-being were aggregated at the school level and were included at level 2 (school level) in the analyses. In addition, students’ gender and grade (dummy-coded) were included as control variables at level 1 (individual level) in the analyses. The proportion of male teachers at school (teachers’ gender aggregated at the school level expressed as a percentage of male teachers at the school), the mean age of teachers at the school (teachers’ age aggregated at the school level measured in years), and school type (dummy-coded) were included as control variables at level 2. Separate analyses were conducted for the three dimensions of students’ well-being. Students’ dichotomized general life satisfaction had a variance at the school level of 0.13, resulting in an ICC of .04. Students’ dichotomized satisfaction with the school had an ICC of .01 (variance: 0.04), and students’ dichotomized subjective health complaints had an ICC of .03 (variance: 0.11). The results of the multilevel regression analyses are presented in Table 2. Teachers’ well-being was not associated with students’ general life satisfaction, but it was associated with students’ satisfaction with school and students’ subjective health complaints. Students whose school teachers reported higher levels of psychological well-being also reported higher levels of satisfaction with school. In addition, students at schools with higher mean emotional exhaustion among teachers reported higher levels of subjective health complaints.
Mediation Analyses
To test for mediation effects, we calculated indirect effects between teachers’ well-being (teachers’ subjective psychological well-being, and teachers’ emotional exhaustion, both aggregated at the school level and modeled at level 2) and students’ well-being (general life satisfaction, satisfaction with the school, and subjective health complaints, all modeled at level 1) via students’ perceived teacher support (level 1). Students’ gender and grade (level 1), attending a school for special education, teachers’ mean age in the school, and the proportion of male teachers at the school (level 2) were included as control variables for both students’ perceived teacher support and students’ well-being. The assumed mediation is presented in Figure 1. For each indicator of students’ well-being (general life satisfaction, satisfaction with school, and subjective health complaints), we conducted separate mediation analyses.
Results showed that teachers’ subjective psychological well-being was significantly associated with students’ perceived teacher support as the mediator in all three analyses (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.05; 1.19–1.20], SE = 0.03, p = .001) (path a; significant associations between variables are printed in bold in Figure 1). In contrast, teachers’ emotional exhaustion was not associated with the mediator (OR = 0.57–0.58, 95% CI [0.00; 1.47–1.50], SE = 0.48, p = .245–.263) (path a). Control variables showed that students’ perceived teacher support was not associated with students’ gender (p = .154–.161), the proportion of male teachers at school (p = .430–.515), or if the student attended a school for special education or another school type (p = .109–.124). However, students’ perceived teacher support was higher in 5th grade than in 7th grade (OR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.28–0.29; 0.69–.0.72], SE = 0.21–0.23, p = .001) or in 9th grade (OR = 0.16, 95% CI [0.11; 0.25], SE = 0.21–0.23, p < .001), and higher in schools with a higher mean age of teachers (OR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.01; 1.12], SE = 0.03, p = .012–.023) (significant control variables are printed in bold in Figure 1).
Students’ perceived teacher support (mediator) was a relevant variable for students’ general life satisfaction (OR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.19; 1.36], SE = 0.03, p < .001), students’ satisfaction with school (OR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.39; 1.53], SE = 0.03, p < .001), and students’ subjective health complaints (OR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.79; 0.87], SE = 0.02, p < .001) (path b). In other words, the more students felt supported by their teachers, the more they reported satisfaction in their life on the whole and with the school, and the less often they reported subjective health complaints.
Small but significant indirect effects were found between teachers’ subjective psychological well-being and students’ well-being via students’ perceived teacher support (indirect effect on students’ general life satisfaction: OR = 1.03, 95% CI [1.01; 1.05], SE = 0.01, p = .004; indirect effect on students’ satisfaction with the school: OR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.02; 1.07], SE = 0.01, p = .001; indirect effect on students’ subjective health complaints: OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.97; 0.99], SE = 0.01, p = .005). Due to the missing relevant association between mediator and independent variable (path a in Figure 1), significant indirect effects were not found via teachers’ emotional exhaustion (p = .250–2.74; all 95% CI of Odds Ratio cross 1).
Although significant indirect effects were found for all aspects of students’ well-being and teachers’ subjective psychological well-being, the direct effects found between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being must be considered when looking for total effects (see Table 2 and path c in Figure 1). Both students’ general life satisfaction and students’ subjective health complaints were not associated with teachers’ subjective psychological well-being when taking all control variables into account (see Table 2). A full mediation of the effects between teachers’ subjective psychological well-being and students’ general life satisfaction or students’ subjective health complaints via students’ perceived teacher support was not found as the total effects were not significant in the mediation analyses (students’ general life satisfaction: OR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.92; 1.15], SE = 0.06, p = .635; students’ subjective health complaints: OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.91; 1.03], SE = 0.03, p = .420). For students’ satisfaction with the school, both direct and indirect effects exist for teachers’ psychological well-being, resulting in a significant total effect (OR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.13; 1.31], SE = 0.04, p < .001).
In summary, mediation analyses showed that students’ perceived teacher support was associated with students’ well-being, and that students perceived higher teacher support when teachers reported higher subjective psychological well-being at school. However, only the association between teachers’ subjective psychological well-being and students’ satisfaction with the school was partly mediated by students’ perceived teacher support. Therefore, these variables are printed in bold in Figure 1. Associations between teachers’ subjective psychological well-being and students’ general life satisfaction or students’ subjective health complaints could not be mediated by students’ perceived teacher support as no direct associations were found (see Table 2). An existing direct effect between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ subjective health complaints was not mediated by students’ perceived teacher support as there was no association between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ perceived teacher support.
Discussion
The aim of this paper was twofold: to examine the relationship between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being and determine whether this relationship was mediated by teacher support. Based on our analyses of linked data from 2,686 students and 805 teachers, we found support for H1 that teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being are positively associated with each other. However, these results must be read with caution because we were only able to identify links to two of the three dimensions of students’ well-being under investigation here.
After controlling for students’ gender, grade, type of school, mean age, and mean gender of schoolteachers (via the proportion of male teachers at school), an association could be identified between teachers’ mean psychological well-being and students’ satisfaction with the school. The second link was found between teachers’ mean emotional exhaustion and students’ subjective health complaints. These findings show a domain-specific link between teacher and student well-being that relates to both dimensions of well-being: positive emotions and cognitions, as well as negative emotions and cognitions.
From a developmental psychology perspective, this finding can be explained by the major contribution of school in dealing with key developmental tasks of adolescence (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Alongside classmates, teachers are the central contact persons of students in school settings, and their behavior can shape the climate in classrooms and schools. This finding is in line with previous research on the association between teachers’ mental health and students’ stress and well-being (Harding et al., 2019; Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016). The association between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ health complaints aligns with Oberle and Schonert-Reichl (2016) that teacher burnout correlates with the salivary cortisol levels of their students. In addition to this, the relationship established between teachers’ psychological well-being and students’ satisfaction with school is in line with the results of a study by Harding and colleagues (2019) that found that this association was mediated by the teachers being present without being productive. Teachers who feel emotionally exhausted may have problems creating a positive learning climate, which may also reduce students’ health. In contrast, teachers who feel well (i.e., have high levels of subjective psychological well-being) may be able to create positive classroom climates, teach more enthusiastically, and support students’ satisfaction with their schools.
Our analyses suggested that teacher support may be a mediator for the relationship between teacher well-being and student well-being. Students of teachers with higher subjective well-being perceive more support from their teachers. Consequently, this higher level of perceived teacher support is associated with higher school satisfaction. Therefore, H2 of this study was partly confirmed. While the relationship between teachers’ well-being and student-perceived teacher support has been confirmed in other studies (Arens & Morin, 2016; Ramberg et al., 2020), the mediation effect found in this study extends the existing body of research. This mediation effect partially supports the explanation that teachers’ well-being impacts students’ school-related well-being because teachers with low levels of well-being struggle to provide their students with the support they need to feel well in school. However, the reported associations between teachers’ well-being and students’ satisfaction with school and students’ subjective health complaints could be mediated by many other variables. This is also true because the mediation effect found in this study is small and could not be established for teachers’ emotional exhaustion.
Low perception of teacher support by students could also be an indicator of a disturbed teacher–student relationship. Thus, the teacher–student relationship could also be considered a mediator. When considering the teacher–student relationship as a mediator, it becomes apparent that there can be effects in both directions. Oberle and Schonert-Reichl (2016) call these “cyclical relationships” (p. 35). Applied to the present context, this would mean that students who do not feel comfortable at school also have a poorer relationship with their teachers. This could, in turn, constitute a more stressful work environment for teachers. Their interactions with students could be more stressful and could thus contribute to lower levels of teachers’ well-being (Aldrup et al., 2018). Because the data analyzed in this study were cross-sectional, causality cannot be inferred, but it seems plausible that there are reciprocal effects between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being, especially when considering the quality of the teacher–student relationship as a possible mediator.
In a previous study, Harding and colleagues (2019) examined the teacher–student relationship, teacher presenteeism, and teacher absence as possible mediators for the associations between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being. However, they only found empirical support for presenteeism being a mediator in this regard. These findings also have implications for the interpretation of our study. It can be assumed that, in teaching contexts, different mediators are connected with each other. This is not limited to the teacher–student relationship mentioned above. For example, teachers’ tendency to be present at school without being productive (presenteeism) may also lead to lower levels of support by teachers. Furthermore, it is possible that teachers with lower levels of well-being or higher levels of emotional exhaustion teach lessons that are of lower quality, that they are less able to support students’ learning, and that they are less successful in supporting students who have learning delays. Again, this can also be linked to variables, such as teachers’ presenteeism. Thus, further variables, such as indicators of teaching quality, should be examined as possible explanations for the associations between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being.
Beyond this, there are also factors that influence both teacher well-being and student well-being. Studies show, for instance, that the school and classroom climate could represent precisely the kinds of factors worth investigating further in this context, as they have been shown to be connected to both student well-being (e.g., Bilz, 2013) and teacher well-being (e.g., Grayson & Alvarez, 2008).
Our results also indicate that it would be worth examining what kind of behaviors of teachers in particular increase students’ perception of how supportive their teachers are. Knowledge of this could help to support teachers in increasing their students’ satisfaction with school and possibly also their students’ health. This is based on the fact that perceived teacher support was not only associated with students’ satisfaction with school but also with lower levels of students’ health complaints and even higher levels of general life satisfaction.
Despite the positive association between students’ perceived teacher support and students’ general life satisfaction, teachers’ well-being (the positive indicator subjective well-being and the negative indicator emotional exhaustion) was neither directly nor indirectly associated with students’ general life satisfaction. These findings indicate that teachers are important contact persons for students and that teachers’ behaviors, such as supporting students, can affect students’ well-being. However, students’ general life satisfaction appears to be influenced by many other factors. These factors may also be found outside school, for example, in the home environment or students’ friendship groups. Assessing the school context and the extracurricular context may help us better understand students’ well-being. This has the potential to be a particularly fruitful area of investigation because we would expect there to be interactions between these contexts. For example, cooperation between teachers and parents (which would also likely be linked to teachers’ well-being) may also be important for students’ well-being.
Strengths and Limitations
This study adds to the body of research on the importance of teachers’ well-being for their students’ development. It shows that there are links to several indicators of student well-being and that student-perceived teacher support mediates some of this relationship. A strength of this study is that perceptions of teachers and students were analyzed together. Nevertheless, some important limitations should also be noted. One drawback of the study design is that teachers’ well-being could only be included as an aggregated school-level characteristic. It has not been possible to track in detail whether all teachers whose data were aggregated are relevant contact persons of the students surveyed for this study. If future studies examine only teachers who have particularly close or frequent interactions with students (e.g., homeroom teachers), higher correlations between teachers’ and students’ well-being might be identified, and other mediators might also play a role.
Most studies of teacher and student well-being, including this one, suffer from the lack of a standard operationalization of well-being. As a result, there are various indicators and survey instruments used in the research, making it difficult to compare results. This study used multiple indicators for teachers and students and aimed to capture both positive and negative dimensions of well-being.
Due to the regional focus on teachers and students in the German state of Brandenburg, this study allows only limited conclusions to be drawn for other countries. Furthermore, self-selection effects cannot be ruled out due to the voluntary nature of the study participation, such that teachers and students with a particular connection to the topics of health and well-being may well have been more likely to participate.
The biggest challenge and opportunity for future studies, however, will be to go beyond the current cross-sectional design and capture the reciprocal relationships between teachers’ and students’ well-being by using more than one measurement point. In particular, modern data collection methods, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) with multiple measurements in one day, could provide new insights into the processes by which teachers and students influence each other.
Practical Implications
Limitations aside, a number of initial implications for school practice can already be drawn from the present results. They highlight the importance of teachers’ well-being and teacher support for the development of students, not only academically but also psychologically. Effective early identification, prevention, and intervention measures are needed for both teachers and students to address impairments in well-being. When it comes to teacher well-being, a recent review indicates that some interventions exist, but their effectiveness needs to be further examined using more rigorous methods (Dreer & Gouasé, 2021). Furthermore, the findings of this study emphasize that, in accordance with the setting approach to school health promotion, teacher and student health should be considered together.
Conclusion
In this study, cross-sectional associations were identified between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being on several dimensions of well-being. These associations are mediated, at least in part, by students’ perceived teacher support. Therefore, future school health promotion interventions should address teacher and student health together. Further studies using longitudinal designs and modern data collection methods (e.g., EMA) are needed to better understand the reciprocal influences of teachers’ and students’ well-being on each other.
References
(2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.006
(2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000105
(2009). Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente
[Teachers’ professional knowledge, cognitively activating mathematics teaching, and the development of mathematical competence (COACTIV): Documentation of survey instruments] . Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung.(2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften
[Keyword: Professional teacher competence] . Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2(2013).
The COACTIV Model of teachers’ professional competence . In M. KunterJ. BaumertW. BlumU. KlusmannS. KraussM. NeubrandEds., Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (pp. 25–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_2(2004). Measuring the dimension of psychological general well-being by the WHO-5. Quality of Life Newsletter, 32, 15–16.
(2011). The promise and potential of studying the “invisible hand” of teacher influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.004
(2013). Die Bedeutung des Klassenklimas für internalisierende Auffälligkeiten von 11- bis 15-Jährigen: Selbstkognitionen als Vermittlungsvariablen
[The relevance of class climate for internalizing problems in youth aged 11 to 15: Self-cognitions as mediators] . Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 60(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2013.art06d(1996). Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and its consequences. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 9(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809608249406
(1965). The pattern of human concern. Rutgers University Press.
(2014). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study protocol: Background, methodology and mandatory items for the 2013/14 survey. University of St. Andrews/CAHRU.
(1999).
Do teachers burn out more easily? A comparison of teachers with other social professions on works tress and burnout symptoms . In R. VandenbergheA. M. HubermanEds., Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 269–284). Cambridge University Press.(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
(2021). Interventions fostering well-being of schoolteachers: A review of research. Oxford Review of Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.2002290
(2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.006
(2019). The impact of teacher well-being and mental health on pupil progress in primary schools. Journal of Public Mental Health, 19(4), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-02-2019-0023
(2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
(1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 61–99. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068001061
(2001). Subjective health complaints in adolescence – Reliability and validity of survey methods. Journal of Adolescence, 24(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0393
(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
(2019). Is teachers’ mental health and wellbeing associated with students’ mental health and wellbeing? Journal of Affective Disorders, 242, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.080
(2018).
Emotionen und Lernen im Unterricht [Emotions and learning in teaching] . In M. HuberS. KrauseEds., Bildung und Emotion. Springer VS, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18589-3_16(2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, Article 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
(2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100). https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717732066
(2018). Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study protocol: Background, methodology and mandatory items for the 2017/18 survey. World Health Organization.
(2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
(2020). Kinder- und Jugendgesundheit in Brandenburg: Ergebnisse der HBSC-Gesundheitsstudie 2018 im Auftrag der WHO
[Child and adolescent health in Brandenburg: Results of the 2018 HBSC health survey commissioned by WHO] . Pabst Science.(2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803
(2016). Teachers’ wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A large cross sectional study in English secondary schools. Journal of Affective Disorders, 192, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.054
(2008). Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702
(2014).
Belastung und Beanspruchung im Lehrerberuf: Zum Stand der empirischen Forschung [Stress and strain in the teaching profession: On the state of empirical research] . In E. TerhartH. BennewitzM. RothlandEds., Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 1014–1022). Waxmann.(2016). Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to students’ achievement: Evidence from a large-scale assessment study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000125
(2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20031
(2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
(2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628
(2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.152/scpq.18.3.231.22576
(1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.
(1999).
Teacher burnout: A research agenda . In R. VandenbergheA. M. HubermanEds., Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 295–303). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527784.021(2015). Depressive symptoms in third grade teachers: Relations to classroom quality and student achievement. Child Development, 86, 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12344
(2007). Work stress precipitates depression and anxiety in young, working women and men. Psychological Medicine, 37(8), 1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707000414
(2011). Multilevel modelling with latent variables using Mplus: Cross-sectional analysis. Course 7. http://www.statmodel.com/topic7.shtml
. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Airlington. https://www.accomplishedteacher.org/_files/ugd/0ac8c7_25be1413beb24c14ab8f6e78a20aa98f.pdf
(2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031
(2010). A multilevel exploration of the influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018576
(2020). Teacher stress and students’ school well-being: The case of upper secondary schools in Stockholm. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1623308
(2015). Teachers’ health. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 112(20), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0347
(2004). Taking hold of some kind of life: How developmental tasks relate to trajectories of well-being during the transition to adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 1119–1140. https://doi.org/10.10170S0954579404040167
(2014). Teacher satisfaction with school and psychological well-being affects their readiness to help children with mental health problems. Health Education Journal, 73(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896913485742
(2011). Occupation and mental health in a national UK survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0173-7
(2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83
(2015). Mplus Code for mediation, moderation and moderated mediation models. http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/models_and_index.pdf
(2000). The teacher and classmate support scale: Factor structure, test-retest reliability and validity in samples of 13- and 15-year-old adolescents. School Psychology International, 21(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300212006
(1953). Selection without replacement from within strata with probability proportional to size. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 15(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983772
