Content uploaded by Shannon M. Suldo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shannon M. Suldo on Nov 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Subjective
Well-Being: A Mixed-Methods Investigation
Shannon M. Suldo, Allison A. Friedrich, Tiffany White, Jennie Farmer,
Devon Minch, and Jessica Michalowski
University of South Florida
Abstract. Adolescents’ subjective well-being (SWB) is associated with a variety
of schooling experiences, particularly their perceptions of teacher support. This
article presents results of a mixed-methods study conducted to identify which
types of perceived social support enacted by teachers are most strongly associated
with middle school students’ SWB (quantitative component) as well as student-
reported specific teacher actions and/or comments that communicate social sup-
port (qualitative component). Four hundred and one students completed self-
report measures of SWB and social support; 50 students participated in eight
focus groups to uncover students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors that commu-
nicate support. Findings from a simultaneous regression analysis indicated that
perceived teacher support accounted for 16% of the variance in students’ SWB,
and that emotional support and instrumental support uniquely predicted SWB.
Themes that emerged during focus groups included the following: Students perceive
teachers to be supportive primarily when they attempt to connect with students on an
emotional level, use diverse and best-practice teaching strategies, acknowledge and
boost students’ academic success, demonstrate fairness during interactions with
students, and foster a classroom environment in which questions are encouraged.
Gender differences emerged in the qualitative stage of the study only.
The 2002 Future of School Psychology
Conference identified prevention and early in-
tervention as one of the most pressing issues in
educating children. The national agenda of
prioritized goals for school psychologists de-
veloped at this time specified a desired out-
come of improved social-emotional function-
ing of children through educating school pro-
fessionals about the relation between social-
emotional health and positive outcomes,
including academic success, social compe-
tence, and effective problem-solving and cop-
ing capabilities (Cummings, Harrison, Daw-
son, Short, Gorin, & Palomares, 2004). Strat-
egies identified to address this issue included
school psychologists “advocating for the in-
corporation of prevention, relationship-en-
hancing, and resiliency models (protective
factors) in school and community environ-
ments as key to achieving social-emotional
success at the classroom, school, and commu-
nity level” (Cummings et al., 2004, p. 251).
Considering the emphasis on prevention in the
field, school psychologists must understand
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Shannon Suldo, Department of Psychological
and Social Foundations, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 162, Tampa, FL,
33620; E-mail: suldo@coedu.usf.edu
Copyright 2009 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015
School Psychology Review,
2009, Volume 38, No. 1, pp. 67–85
67
the link between teacher support and students’
social-emotional wellness in order to educate
teachers regarding their specific actions that
are associated with optimal wellness in youth.
Thus, the current study aimed to clarify which
aspects of social support teachers convey to
students are most strongly linked to students’
wellness, with an eye towards application of
these findings. The focus on perceived social
support as a predictor is justified by the link
between positive teacher–student relations and
beneficial outcomes for youth (Hughes, Luo,
Kwok, & Loyd, 2008; Malecki & Demaray,
2003). Regarding student outcomes, subjec-
tive well-being (SWB) was examined in line
with calls for increased attention to the pres-
ence of positive markers of mental health.
Role of Positive Psychology in the
Schools
The National Association of School
Psychologists’ (NASP, 2006) position state-
ment on school-based mental health services
contends that facilitating social-emotional
support for students is a necessary component
of the school psychologist’s role because of
the link between social-emotional health and
academic success. It is NASP’s (2006) posi-
tion that “mental health is not simply the ab-
sence of mental illness but also encompasses
social, emotional, and behavioral health and
the ability to cope with life’s challenges” (p.
1). School psychologists are encouraged to
create a continuum of mental health services
for students rooted in prevention.
Consistent with NASP (2006), the pos-
itive psychology movement calls for a reduced
focus on deficits and pathology as well as
increased attention to strengths and general
wellness in all children. A central tenet of this
movement is the study and pursuit of happi-
ness (Diener, 2000). The term happiness is
commonly operationalized as SWB, which is
comprised of three components: frequent pos-
itive affect (pleasant feelings and moods), rel-
atively infrequent negative affect (bothersome
emotions like guilt and anger), and high life
satisfaction (cognitive, global appraisal of
one’s contentment with his or her life). There-
fore, SWB is a wellness construct that com-
municates children’s self-appraisal of their
own protective factors (e.g., positive emotion,
life satisfaction). Empirical studies have un-
covered links between students’ SWB and
their perceptions of academic competence
(Suldo & Shaffer, 2007) as well as satisfaction
with their schooling experiences (Suldo, Shaf-
fer, & Riley, 2008). Given the positive corre-
lations between students’ SWB and their atti-
tudes toward teachers and school (e.g., Hueb-
ner, Funk, & Gilman, 2000), enhancing
school-based relationships may be an essential
way to proactively increase students’ social-
emotional wellness.
Relationships Between Teacher Support
and Students’ Functioning
Psychologists and educators alike can
promote wellness in schools through fostering
a healthy academic environment. Within a
healthy environment, “school classrooms can
become resilient communities that provide es-
sential support and guidance so that vulnerable
children can learn and be successful” (Doll,
Zucker, & Brehm, 2004, p. 2). One source of
support and guidance that is relevant to stu-
dent success is the classroom teacher. Positive
teacher–student relationships have been de-
fined as the degree to which students feel
respected, supported, and valued by their
teachers (Doll et al., 2004).
Healthy relationships involve conveying
and perceiving high levels of social support
(i.e., comfort and assistance by concerned oth-
ers, such as family members, friends, and
teachers). As summarized by Tardy (1985),
social support is a multidimensional construct
in which four distinct types of support (spe-
cifically, emotional, instrumental, appraisal,
and informational) can be conveyed as appro-
priate for various situations and needs. Emo-
tional support includes perceptions of trust and
love, as well as communications of empathy
and care (e.g., “you are important to me”).
Instrumental support includes the provision of
tangible assistance such as one’s time, skills,
services, or even money in order to help some-
one in need. Appraisal support involves pro-
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
68
viding evaluative feedback on behavior—for
instance, via a critical assessment of the pos-
itive and negative aspects of one’s perfor-
mance as well as suggestions for improve-
ment. Informational support is characterized
by the provision of guidance, advice, or infor-
mation that can provide a solution to a
problem.
Despite the availability of such compre-
hensive conceptual frameworks for examining
the content of social support, most extant re-
search on social support perceived by youth
has measured support as a global, unitary con-
struct, or assessed just one type of support
(most commonly, emotional support), preclud-
ing a complete understanding of which types
of support are most highly related to adoles-
cents’ functioning. In a notable exception, Ma-
lecki and Demaray (2003) compared the
unique influences of the four aforementioned
types of support perceived from different
sources on middle school students’ social, ac-
ademic, and emotional adjustment. This study
found that although all types of support from
parents, classmates, and close friends were
associated with students’ adjustment in a com-
parable manner, emotional support from
teachers was particularly predictive of better
social skills and academic competence. Such
research demonstrates the utility of examining
the content of social support provided to youth
and is consistent with other studies (e.g.,
Brewster & Bowen, 2004; Way, Reddy, &
Rhodes, 2007) that have identified teachers as
an important source of perceived social
support.
Supportive student-teacher relationships
also predict children’s academic engagement
and subsequent reading and math skills
(Hughes et al., 2008), as well as mitigate neg-
ative academic outcomes such as adolescents’
risk for school failure (Hamre & Pianta, 2005).
Such beneficial academic outcomes have been
observed in studies of youth from diverse
backgrounds, suggesting that the link between
teacher support and student success is gener-
alizable across culture and ethnicity (Close &
Solberg, 2008; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). In
addition to improved academic functioning,
supportive student-teacher relationships are
linked to beneficial social-emotional out-
comes, such as positive peer relations as well
as decreases in suicidal ideations, externaliz-
ing behaviors, emotional distress, violence,
substance abuse, and sexual activity (Hughes,
Cavell, & Wilson, 2001; Paulson & Everall,
2003; Resnick et al., 1997).
Despite calls for a greater focus on pos-
itive markers of mental health, relatively few
studies have examined the association be-
tween student–teacher relationships and stu-
dents’ SWB. Initial investigations using one-
item indicators of SWB found teacher support
was linked to increased happiness among Nor-
wegian adolescents (Natvig, Albrektsen, &
Qvarnstrom, 2003), but was a relatively weak
predictor of Chinese students’ global life sat-
isfaction (Leung & Leung, 1992). Recent stud-
ies with American youth that utilized compre-
hensive and valid measures of student–teacher
relationships and life satisfaction found that
adolescents with the highest life satisfaction
perceive the most social support from teachers
(Suldo & Huebner, 2006) and that student–
teacher relations are the aspect of school cli-
mate most strongly related to high school stu-
dents’ life satisfaction (Suldo et al., 2008). To
elucidate the general link between supportive
student–teacher relationships and SWB in
youth, additional research is needed to clarify
which types of social support (e.g., emotional,
informational) are most strongly related to op-
timal wellness in order to further guide teach-
ers’ efforts at promoting healthy classrooms.
Limitations of Extant Literature
Taken together, the body of research
demonstrating the beneficial effects of warm,
supportive, high-quality student–teacher rela-
tionships on students’ academic and psycho-
logical functioning underscores the relevance
of teacher support to prevention efforts geared
toward improving the social-emotional func-
tioning of all children. Additional research is
needed to address areas in the literature cur-
rently unanswered. As aforementioned, the as-
sociation between teacher support and adoles-
cent SWB is in need of clarification by deter-
mining which types of social support are most
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
69
influential. Second, the few empirical attempts
to identify the explicit behaviors that students
perceive as supportive have only been exam-
ined among adult learners (Reeve & Jang,
2006), urban youth (Alder, 2002), or in ele-
mentary classrooms (Bondy, Ross, Gall-
ingane, & Hambacher, 2007), thus current un-
derstandings of how social support is mani-
fested may not generalize to the broader
adolescent population. Finally, the role of stu-
dent gender in the link between perceived
teacher support and student well-being has not
been thoroughly explored. Previous studies
that examined gender as a moderator have
yielded contradictory results (Hamre & Pianta,
2001; Hughes & Kwok, 2006).
Aims of the Current Study
The current investigation endeavored to
identify which types of teacher support were
most strongly associated with adolescents’
SWB (quantitative component) and uncover
students’ perceptions of specific teacher be-
haviors and/or comments that communicate
social support (qualitative component). The
first aim was intended to identify the specific
areas of teacher support most likely to have an
effect, whereas the second aim intended to
specify effective supportive actions that could
be offered to teachers. The role of gender was
considered in all analyses to determine
whether specific teacher behaviors were more
relevant to boys or girls.
Overview of Methodology
In recent years, mixed-methods research
has been recognized as a very promising re-
search paradigm; it has been described as an
expansive form of research that draws from
the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of
both qualitative and quantitative research
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed-
methods research involves combining quanti-
tative and qualitative approaches either con-
currently or sequentially, at some stage begin-
ning with the data collection process, from
which interpretations are made either in a par-
allel, integrated, or iterative manner. Mixed-
methods research offers the potential for
deeper understandings of some education re-
search questions and provides the opportunity
to generate more meaning and enhance the
quality of data interpretation (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In the current study,
the researchers sought to enhance, elaborate,
and illustrate the results from the quantita-
tive method with results from the qualitative
method. A sequential, mixed-methodological
design using nested samples was undertaken
to collect and analyze the data. A multistage
purposeful random sampling scheme (cf.
Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007) allowed the
researchers to randomly select participants
for the quantitative component and purpose-
fully select participants for the qualitative
component.
Study 1: Quantitative Component
Method
Participants. Data were collected from
401 middle school students attending a single
school in a suburban community within a di-
verse, urban school district of a southeastern
state. Participants were enrolled in either the
gifted, advanced, or general education tract.
The majority of the sample was female (60%).
Regarding ethnicity, participants identified
themselves as Caucasian (54%), Hispanic/
Latino (14%), African American (14%), mul-
tiracial (10%), Asian (5%), or of other ethnic
background (3%). About 25% of the sample
was of low socioeconomic status, in that they
reported receiving free or reduced-cost school
lunch. Students were in Grades 6 (34%), 7
(40%), and 8 (27%); mean age was 12.92
years (SD ⫽ 0.96).
Measures. Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale (Huebner, 1991). The Students’ Life
Satisfaction Scale is a 7-item self-report mea-
sure of students’ global life satisfaction devel-
oped for use with youth between 8 and 18
years. Students rate their agreement with
global satisfaction statements (e.g., “My life is
just right,” “I have a good life”) on a scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to6
(strongly agree). After two items are reverse-
scored, all items are averaged, with higher
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
70
scores indicating higher life satisfaction. Ad-
olescent samples demonstrated adequate inter-
nal consistency with a coefficient alpha of .84
and a test–retest coefficient of .64 (Gilman &
Huebner, 1997). Validity is supported by large
correlations between the Students’ Life Satis-
faction Scale and a single-item indicator of life
satisfaction from the Andrews and Withey
scale (r ⫽ .62) and the Piers-Harris Happiness
subscale (r ⫽ .53; Huebner, 1991). In the
current study, the coefficient alpha was .89.
Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Chil-
dren (Laurent et al., 1999). The Positive and
Negative Affect Scale for Children is a 27-
item self-report measure developed for use
with children in fourth to eighth grade. It in-
cludes a Positive Affect scale (PA: 12 items
such as energetic, cheerful, and proud) and a
Negative Affect scale (NA: 15 items such as
afraid, miserable, and lonely) asking children
to rate their emotions within the last few
weeks from 1 (very slightly to not at all)to5
(extremely). Regarding psychometric proper-
ties, reliability coefficients ranged from .90
(PA) to .94 (NA; Laurent et al., 1999). Con-
vergent and discriminative validity has been
established with measures of depression (r ⫽
⫺.55 for PA; r ⫽ .60 for NA) and anxiety (r
⫽⫺.30 for PA; r ⫽ .68 for NA; Laurent et al.,
1999). In this study, coefficient alphas were
.88 (PA) and .93 (NA).
Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale
(CASSS; Malecki, Demaray, & Elliot, 2000).
The CASSS (2000) is a 60-item self-report
scale that measures participants’ perceptions
of support received from five major sources
including parents, teachers, classmates, close
friends, and school. Each source subscale
measures four types of social support includ-
ing emotional, instrumental, appraisal, and in-
formational. In the current study, only the
12-item teacher support subscale was ana-
lyzed. Scores were calculated by averaging
students’ ratings of the frequency, from 1
(never)to6(always), of items tapping each of
the four types of support within the teacher
subscale; higher scores indicate higher percep-
tions of a particular type of support.
Support for the reliability and validity of
the CASSS (2000) is provided by previous
studies with middle school students, as sum-
marized by Malecki and Demaray (2006). Re-
garding construct validity, the teacher support
scale of the CASSS (2000) has yielded mod-
erate correlations (r ⫽ .48 and .55) with
teacher scales from the Social Support Scale
for Children and the Social Support Appraisals
Scale, respectively (Malecki & Demaray,
2003). High internal consistency of the teacher
support subscale is supported by a coefficient
alpha of .92 (Malecki & Demaray, 2006). In
the current study, coefficient alphas for types
of teacher support measured by the CASSS
(2000) ranged from .83 (instrumental support)
to .89 (emotional support).
Procedures. Students participated in
the quantitative stage of the current study as
part of a larger investigation of subjective
well-being in adolescence (see Suldo & Shaf-
fer, 2008). The larger study used active parent
consent and student assent procedures that
yielded a participant response rate of 40%.
Students completed the measures in a single
class period during the spring of 2006 (Time
1). Trained research assistants administered
the measures in counterbalanced order to
groups of 20 –75 participants.
Overview of analysis plan. Relations
between types of teacher support and SWB
were examined via correlational and regres-
sion analyses. Consistent with previous re-
search (e.g., Kasser & Sheldon, 2002), an ag-
gregate SWB variable was created by stan-
dardizing and summing scores for life
satisfaction and positive affect, then subtract-
ing standardized negative affect scores.
Results
Intercorrelations among students’ per-
ceptions of the four types of social support
measured by the CASSS (2000), as well as
bivariate correlations between SWB and types
of social support, are displayed in Table 1.
With alpha set at .05, all bivariate correlations
between student SWB and types of perceived
social support from teachers reached statistical
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
71
significance, ranging from .32 (informational
support) to .38 (emotional support). Notably,
the large intercorrelations among types of sup-
port (r ⫽ .72–.81) indicate high multicol-
linearity and made it difficult to detect unique
effects of theoretically separate constructs.
To determine which types of teacher
support are most predictive of students’ SWB,
the four types of support were entered into a
simultaneous multiple regression equation.
The linear combination of teacher support
types accounted for 16% of the variance in
SWB (F[4,396] ⫽ 18.91, p ⬍ .001, R
2
⫽ .16).
A review of beta weights yielded from the
equation indicated only two of the four types
of teacher support were unique predictors
( p ⬍ .05) of SWB. In other words, after con-
trolling for the shared variance among types of
teacher support, only perceptions of emotional
support (⫽.24) and instrumental support (
⫽ .19) independently related to differences in
students’ SWB. Uniqueness indices (squared
semipartial correlation) were reviewed to de-
termine the relative contribution of each type
of teacher support after controlling for the
variance accounted for by the other types.
Perceived emotional support and instrumental
support accounted for 2% and 1% of the
unique variance, respectively, in SWB above
and beyond that explained by the other three
types. Thus, results suggest that students’ per-
ceptions of emotional support and instrumen-
tal support from teachers are the aspects of
teacher support most highly related to stu-
dents’ SWB.
To determine whether these types of
support predicted SWB similarly for boys and
girls, an additional regression analysis was
conducted using SWB as the criterion variable
and the four types of teacher support, gender,
and moderator terms, represented by interac-
tions between gender and the teacher support
types that uniquely predicted SWB (i.e., Gen-
der ⫻ Emotional Support, Gender ⫻ Instru-
mental Support), as the predictors. All contin-
uous predictor variables were centered by sub-
tracting the group mean from each predictor
variable. Although the main effects of emo-
tional and instrumental support on SWB re-
mained significant, neither interaction term
reached statistical significance, suggesting that
higher perceptions of emotional and instru-
mental support were associated with increased
SWB in both boys and girls.
Study 2: Qualitative Component
Method
Participants. Qualitative data were col-
lected from a subset of the 401 student partic-
ipants via focus groups conducted in the
spring of 2007 (Time 2). A purposeful sam-
pling approach (Patton, 1990) was utilized to
identify participants for focus groups equally
representative of students in general and gifted
education; students were recruited to partici-
pate regardless of their initial level of SWB or
perceived teacher support. A total of 50 stu-
dents in the seventh and eighth grade partici-
pated in the eight focus groups analyzed in the
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between Dimensions of Social Support From Teachers and
Students’ Subjective Well-Being (
N
ⴝ 401)
Variable MSD 1234
1. Emotional support 4.84 (1.22) —
2. Informational support 5.10 (1.04) .74* —
3. Appraisal support 4.72 (1.17) .73* .77* —
4. Instrumental support 4.56 (1.23) .72* .75* .81* —
5. Subjective well-being 0.00 (2.33) .38* .32* .33* .36*
* p ⬍ .05.
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
72
current study. The majority of participants
were female (62%), in the seventh grade
(56%), and Caucasian (50%); other partici-
pants identified their ethnicity as Hispanic/
Latino (16%), multiracial (14%), Asian
(10%), and African American (8%). Approx-
imately 18% of participants reported receiving
free or reduced-cost lunch.
Procedures. The research team secured
separate written parental consent and student
assent for student participation because of the
introduction of methods (i.e., focus groups)
not included in the original request for partic-
ipation. Based on recommendations by
Krueger and Casey (2000), focus groups were
composed of students with similar educational
experiences (i.e., gifted or advanced/general
education) and grouped by gender. Each focus
group was held during the school day and
lasted 20 to 60 minutes. The groups comprised
of boys tended to be shorter in duration be-
cause they (a) contained fewer participants
and (b) yielded more concise responses; girls
frequently provided a personal story or expe-
rience to illustrate their points. Consistent with
the findings from the regression analysis com-
pleted within the quantitative portion of the
study, a focus group protocol was developed
from the CASSS (2000) survey using the in-
strumental and emotional support questions as
the framework for the development of open-
ended questions. Specifically, participants
were asked to describe how teachers show that
they care about them, show that they treat kids
fairly, make them feel comfortable asking
questions, and make sure that they learn some-
thing well. Participants were then asked to
answer the same four questions, but based on
teacher behaviors that did not convey support
(e.g., “What do teachers do to make you feel
like they don’t care about you?”). A single
moderator led all focus groups to ensure a
standardized questioning procedure. The mod-
erator monitored the group to allow all partic-
ipants an equal chance to participate. A field-
note taker recorded each sentiment conveyed
by participants. Each focus group was re-
corded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed.
Overview of analysis plan. Tran-
scripts of focus groups were coded using
grounded theory methodology (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Data analysis progressed
through the stages of open, axial, and selective
coding; analysis was open-ended and involved
several iterations, wherein meaning of the data
were established, codes were identified and
refined, and a codebook was developed. The
method of constant comparison was utilized
inductively (i.e., codes were identified as they
emerged from the data). A team of six re-
searchers engaged in several careful readings
of initial transcripts and developed a short list
of tentative codes for each of the research
questions that matched text segments within
the transcript. The researchers then met to
reach an initial understanding regarding the
major themes and minor subthemes identified
in the transcripts and to develop a codebook
that would organize participant responses into
discrete categories.
Nine researchers applied the codebook
to all transcripts. Each transcript was analyzed
by three people; when there were differences
of opinion about the codes assigned, an addi-
tional opinion was solicited from a fourth re-
searcher. Trustworthiness of data analysis was
obtained through comparison of coding results
and discussion by the researchers until 100%
agreement was reached. Researchers then en-
tered the consensus of the coding into a qual-
itative software program (Atlas.ti), which pro-
vided a tool for organizing questions, codes,
and quotations.
Frequency counts represent the number
of times participants expressed a sentiment
(i.e., quotation) indicating the coded teacher
behavior. Sentiments ranged in length from a
few words to an entire discussion such that a
single thought presented by one participant
was assigned a code and counted only once.
Sentiments could reflect multiple ideas or
thoughts and thus be assigned more than one
code; however, no code was ever assigned
more than once within a sentiment. For in-
stance, the sentiment “Teachers show they
care about me by giving me extra credit and
bringing me candy and allowing me to
make-up work I forgot to do and then giving
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
73
me more candy” would be assigned two codes
(gives tangible objects; leniency in grading
policies) and contribute a total of two times to
frequency counts (one count toward gives tan-
gible objects and one count toward leniency in
grading policies). A total index of the fre-
quency with which the coded student-reported
teacher behaviors were described was created
by summing the total number of times a code
was mentioned by all participants in the eight
focus groups, and then broken down into total
mentions for the four groups of boys and the
four groups of girls. Because fewer boys (n ⫽
19) than girls (n ⫽ 31) were in the focus
groups, a weighting procedure was applied to
adjust gender-specific frequency counts so that
they better reflected the emphasis that boys
and girls placed on each coded teacher behav-
ior. Specifically, frequency counts within gen-
der groups were multiplied by a constant
(1.316 for boys; 0.806 for girls) to increase the
voice of boys and decrease the voice of girls
so that each gender represented approximately
half of the sample. After reflecting on theoret-
ical links between the codes generated as well
as the code frequency, researchers collapsed
codes into a final conceptualization of the-
matic families, which guided further theory
development about the teacher behaviors that
students felt conveyed support.
Results
Students’ perceptions of teacher be-
haviors that convey high social support.
Table 2 lists the 12 types of teacher behaviors
participants identified as conveying high lev-
els of support and the subthemes within each
category. For those subthemes that may not
convey specific meaning through name only,
further descriptors are provided in parenthe-
ses. Table 2 also presents the frequency with
which students mentioned a particular teacher
behavior in response to questions about high
support. Although we initially intended to an-
alyze and present results by the four questions
posed to the students during the focus group
interview, the overlap of coded teacher behav-
iors that emerged during these four sections
precluded such a clean organization. For in-
stance, student responses to the question
“How can you tell teachers care about you?”
included discussions of such recalled behav-
iors as providing them with additional aca-
demic assistance and attending to their specific
preferences for learning, actions that at face
value may seem better suited for the question
“What do teachers do or say to make sure you
learn to do something well?” Because almost
all of the coded teacher behaviors appeared
within student discussions throughout the en-
tire interview (i.e., in response to multiple
questions), the codes were applied as they
were mentioned during focus groups. Thus,
the four questions are better viewed as probes
of different aspects of the same construct—
social support.
The first three themes listed in the table
involve teachers’ interest and involvement in
students’ wellness beyond academic progress;
this concern exceeds their “required” teaching
behaviors and reflects students’ perceptions of
teachers’ attempts to connect on an emotional
level. Students felt that teachers communi-
cated care for their wellness via such means as
asking personal questions (e.g., asking a with-
drawn student if everything was okay), being
pleasant and/or respectful, allowing students
to have free time during the school day, and
giving candy.
The next three themes involve teaching
practices that most educators would regard as
best practices. Specifically, students reported
perceiving teacher support when teachers ap-
peared concerned with both the entire class’s
and individual student’s understanding of ac-
ademic material, and then provided additional
learning experiences as needed to ensure mas-
tery of content. Students also commented pos-
itively on teachers’ use of diverse strategies to
convey information and appreciated when
they selected strategies (e.g., lecture, group
projects) that students perceived were consis-
tent with their expressed preferences for learn-
ing modality.
The next three themes relate to students’
academic work. Specifically, Themes 7 and 8
pertain to teachers’ explicit interest in stu-
dents’ academic achievement, via recognizing
their accomplishments as well as helping them
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
74
Table 2
Teacher Behaviors That Convey High Levels of Social Support (
N
ⴝ 50)
Themes That Emerged From Focus Groups
Frequency Counts
a
Total Boys Girls
1. Conveys interest in student wellness 26 9.21 15.31
Communicates care about students’ emotional well-being (e.g., students’
moods, relationships, and health) 14 3.95 8.87
Communicates investment in students’ personal interests, such as sports
and weekend plans 12 5.26 6.45
2. Takes actions to improve students’ moods and emotional states 30 7.90 19.34
Creates positive emotional environment via a pleasant or humorous
teacher disposition 13 1.32 9.67
Attempts to alleviate students’ personal or academic concerns (e.g.,
reduces students’ academic stress, helps students problem solve personal
situations) 10 6.58 4.03
Shows respect for students by maintaining their privacy and being
honest with them 7 0 5.64
3. Gives students what they want, specifically things that are pleasurable 35 30.27 5.64
Provides fun activities (e.g., free time, sports, field trips) 22 22.37 4.03
Gives tangible objects/rewards (e.g., candy, food) 13 7.90 5.64
4. Is sensitive and responsive to the entire class’s understanding of
academic material 52 30.27 23.37
Checks for entire class’ understanding and arranges mastery experiences
during class (e.g., explains and clarifies concepts, provides enrichment
activities, is flexible with class agenda/schedule) 30 23.69 9.67
Provides additional academic assistance (e.g., more review of difficult
concepts during or after class) 15 3.95 9.67
Elicits student feedback about class and teaching style 7 2.63 4.03
5. Shows interest in an individual student’s progress 37 13.16 21.76
In class, checks for individual student’s understanding and provides
assistance/help 22 5.26 14.51
Outside of classroom, checks for individual student’s understanding and
provides assistance/help 15 7.90 7.25
6. Uses diverse teaching strategies 51 25.00 25.79
Uses creative teaching strategies (e.g., collaborative and/or active
learning, word searches, crosswords) 27 13.16 13.70
Uses directive instruction (e.g., provides advance organizers, concrete
examples, mnemonic devices) 11 6.58 4.84
Attends to individual student’s preferences for learning 7 0 5.64
Augments content in textbook with additional information via movies,
Internet, field trips, and personal anecdotes 6 5.26 1.61
7. Provides evaluative feedback on student performance 46 26.32 20.96
Provides rewards contingent on performance (e.g., rewards individual
student or entire class with party or treat for good performance) 17 9.21 8.06
Communicates student achievement to students and/or parents (e.g.,
provides compliments/praise) 15 9.21 6.45
Provides constructive feedback and encouragement 14 7.90 6.45
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
75
to improve their classroom grades. Students
appreciated teachers providing rewards for
good academic performance and explaining
errors made on assignments. The ninth theme
indicates that students also felt supported
when perceiving that teachers ensured the ac-
ademic workload could be completed in a
reasonable amount of time.
Themes 10 and 11 in Table 2 pertain to
the aspect of equity in teacher support. Stu-
dents primarily discussed teachers appearing
objective in their approach to selecting stu-
dents to participate in class and providing re-
wards. Students also appreciated explicit state-
ments from teachers that they intended to treat
all students similarly, regardless of gender or
educational tract. In addition, students felt
teachers conveyed support by continuing to be
fair when disciplining students via such mech-
anisms as taking the time to correctly identify
the wrongdoer (vs. punishing an entire class)
and using punishment as a last resort.
Responses captured in the twelfth and
final theme primarily arose from students’ de-
Table 2 Continued
Themes That Emerged From Focus Groups
Frequency Counts
a
Total Boys Girls
8. Helps students improve their grades 38 30.27 12.09
Leniency in grading policies (e.g., provides extra or partial credit,
helpful hints; lets students make up or redo work) 22 19.74 5.64
Increases students’ ability to prepare well for exams 11 9.21 3.22
Directs student how to self-improve (e.g., explains students’ errors,
redirects them to task) 5 1.32 3.22
9. Ensures a manageable academic workload 14 10.53 4.84
Assigns reasonable amount of homework 7 5.26 2.42
Provides sufficient time for students to complete assignments and/or
prepare for tests 7 5.26 2.42
10. Treats students similarly 19 13.16 7.25
Allows students equal chances to participate in class and assignments 11 7.90 4.03
Creates the appearance of not discriminating against specific students
due to race, ability level, etc. 5 3.95 1.61
Equally distributes positive reinforcement, such as teacher attention and
treats 3 1.32 1.61
11. Punishes in a fair manner 9 6.58 3.22
Punishes the correct student for each incident 7 5.26 2.42
Attempts to solve problems in favor of automatically punishing 2 1.32 .81
12. Creates an environment in which questions are encouraged 45 35.53 14.51
Provides explicit permission for student to ask questions aloud during
class as needed 18 13.16 6.45
Provides positive response to student questions (e.g., answers all
questions thoroughly, leads students to current answers) 8 6.58 2.42
Provides methods for students to pose questions privately and/or
anonymously 7 7.90 .81
Dedicates time in class or after class to address questions 5 2.63 2.42
Allows students to pose their questions to peers 5 2.63 2.42
Provides a physical environment that encourages questions (e.g., posters
on class walls remind students to ask questions) 2 2.63 0
a
Frequency counts presented for gender groups are weighted estimates.
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
76
scriptions of teacher behaviors that made them
feel comfortable asking questions. Specifi-
cally, students appreciated situations in which
teachers created a physical (e.g., posters on
walls), emotional, and logistical classroom en-
vironment in which questions appeared to be
encouraged. A supportive emotional environ-
ment was characterized by teachers’ provision
of positive responses to questions. Logistical
arrangements that students perceived encour-
aged questions included providing permission,
time, and diverse mechanisms for students to
pose questions.
Frequency students emphasized teacher be-
haviors. During discussions of high-support
behaviors, four themes emerged particularly
often (i.e., mentioned a total of 45 or more
times during the focus groups, for a rate of at
least approximately one time per participant):
being sensitive and responsive to the class’s
understanding of the academic material, using
diverse teaching strategies, providing feed-
back on student performance, and creating a
classroom environment in which questions are
encouraged. Conversely, relatively low-fre-
quency themes (i.e., mentioned 20 times or
less, equating to approximately 0.4 mentions
or fewer per student) included: treating all
students similarly, maintaining a manageable
workload, and punishing students in a fair
manner.
Trends in responding by gender. Table 2
also presents the weighted frequency with
which each coded behavior was mentioned by
boys and girls. Girls were at least twice as
likely to mention taking actions to improve
students’ emotional states as ways they per-
ceived that teachers communicate high levels
of social support. Boys were at least twice as
likely to mention giving students pleasurable
activities, helping students improve their
grades, creating an environment in which
questions are encouraged, assigning a man-
ageable academic workload, and using fair
punishment, as strategies students perceive
communicate social support. The remain-
ing six themes were mentioned at a relatively
similar rate by both gender groups.
Students’ perceptions of teacher be-
haviors that convey low social support.
Table 3 provides the frequency of student-
perceived teacher behaviors specified as indi-
cating low levels of support. The research
team attempted to code behaviors discussed as
evidence of low teacher support based on op-
posites of the themes that emerged for high-
support behaviors, but also allowed for the
emergence of new themes and subthemes.
Ideas in 10 of the 12 high-support themes were
represented in corresponding low-support
themes (give students what they want/things
that are pleasurable and provide evaluative
feedback were the exceptions). For instance,
during discussions of low support, students
provided examples of teachers appearing dis-
interested in students’ grasp of academic ma-
terial (Theme 4 in Table 3), whereas discus-
sions of high support included examples of
teachers expressing interest in the learning of
an individual student as well as an entire class
(Themes 5 and 4, respectively, in Table 2).
Even though the themes representing
high- and low-support behaviors largely mir-
rored each other, the frequency with which
students mentioned them did not. For instance,
students discussed instances in which teacher
behaviors contributed to their poor emotional
states 89 times, whereas teacher actions that
improved students’ moods were mentioned
only 30 times. Also, students discussed
teacher bias as indicative of low support more
often than nonbias behavior indicated high
support (69 to 19, respectively). Similarly,
punishing students incorrectly was discussed
frequently (58 times) as a means by which
teachers conveyed low support, whereas the
opposite teacher behavior (i.e., punishing in a
fair manner) was mentioned only 9 times in
terms of what communicates high support.
In addition to identifying opposite be-
haviors from high-support themes as indicat-
ing low support, a new theme—sets firm ex-
pectations, rules, and discipline procedures—
emerged during discussions of low support.
Here students discussed how perceived
teacher actions such as enforcing school and
classroom rules and policies as well as fre-
quently reminding students of the policies
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
77
Table 3
Teacher Behaviors That Convey Low Levels of Social Support (
N
ⴝ 50)
Themes That Emerged From Focus Groups
Frequency Counts
a
Total Boys Girls
1. Conveys disinterest in student wellness 27 0 21.76
Communicates lack of interest in students’ names, personal interests,
and/or emotional concerns or well-being 18 0 14.51
Verbal praise appears insincere (e.g., compliments seem perfunctory) 9 0 7.25
2. Contributes to students’ negative moods and poor emotional states 89 10.53 65.29
Creates a negative emotional environment (e.g., uses aversive voice tone,
calls students names, behaves hypocritically) 47 2.63 36.27
Violates student privacy (e.g., crosses student-teacher boundaries, tells
students’ confidential information to others) 37 3.95 27.40
Threatens students (i.e., that they will fail or be disciplined) 5 3.95 1.61
3. Sets firm expectations, rules, and discipline procedures 39 21.06 18.54
Students are disciplined for breaking a rule (e.g., teacher reduces student
conduct grade, notifies parents) 19 11.84 8.06
Students perceive overly strict or senseless classroom rules 13 6.58 6.45
Repeated reminders of school/classroom rules and schedule 7 2.63 4.03
4. Insufficient interest in, and assistance with, students’ academic
progress 57 23.69 31.43
Students required to learn concepts independently, such as seatwork
without teacher assistance 39 14.48 22.57
No concern conveyed with student level of understanding or expressed
difficulty with mastering material 10 3.95 5.64
Teacher assigns classwork irrelevant to learning objective (e.g., assigns
busywork, mismatch between classwork and tests) 8 5.26 3.22
5. Reliance on single mode of instruction 15 6.58 8.06
Does not attend to individual student’s preferences for learning style 10 2.63 6.45
Uses a lecture style of teaching only (e.g., no creative activities or
opportunities for active learning) 5 3.95 1.61
6. Does not help students improve grades 21 2.63 15.31
Strict approach to grading (e.g., low grades given on new material, tests
count for high percentage of grades, difficult tests) 13 1.32 9.67
No leniency in grading policies (e.g., no opportunities for students to
earn extra credit or make up or redo work) 8 1.32 5.64
7. Assigns an overwhelming workload 24 25.00 4.03
Assigns too much classwork or homework 13 11.84 3.22
Provides insufficient time for projects to get done and/or creates a
schedule that yields an uneven workload 11 13.16 .81
8. Treats students in a biased manner 69 28.95 37.88
Favors certain students on the apparent basis of achievement level,
gender, race, peer group 51 22.37 27.40
Student treated worse than peers for an unknown or unique reason (e.g.,
student is shy, thin, or once was a troublemaker) 9 0 7.25
Allows some students more chances to participate in class and
assignments 5 3.95 1.61
Gives positive reinforcement (e.g., teacher attention), treats, or privileges
to only some students 4 2.63 1.61
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
78
contributed to perceptions of low support, as
did the presence of too many rules or rules that
were perceived as unnecessary (e.g., not al-
lowed to talk or use the restroom).
Frequency students emphasized teacher be-
haviors. During discussions of low-support be-
haviors, five themes emerged particularly of-
ten (i.e., mentioned at least approximately one
time per participant): contributing to students’
negative moods, treating students in a biased
manner, discouraging questions, punishing in-
correctly, and demonstrating disinterest in stu-
dents’ academic progress. Four themes were
emphasized at a more moderate rate (approx-
imately 0.5 times per student): maintaining
firm expectations of rules and discipline pro-
cedures, showing a disinterest in students’
well-being, assigning an overwhelming work-
load, and not helping students improve their
grades. Relying on a single mode of instruc-
tion was discussed at a relatively low
frequency.
Trends in responding by gender. Overall,
girls provided more examples of low social
support behaviors than boys. In fact, only one
theme (assigns an overwhelming workload)
was emphasized more often by the boys. Girls
in particular mentioned teacher behaviors that
can result in hurt feelings (e.g., conveys dis-
interest in student wellness; contributes to stu-
dents’ negative moods and poor emotional
states) or poor academic achievement (i.e.,
does not help improve grades) more often than
the boys discussed such behaviors. The re-
maining six themes were mentioned at a rela-
tively similar rate by both gender groups.
Discussion
Findings from the present study under-
score the importance of teacher support for
adolescents’ social-emotional wellness. Spe-
cifically, social support from teachers ex-
plained 16% of the variance in students’ SWB,
consistent with prior research that identified
strong links between perceived teacher sup-
port and adolescents’ life satisfaction (Natvig
et al., 2003; Suldo et al., 2008). The current
study also clarified that the types of teacher
support most related to students’ life satisfac-
tion are emotional support (students’ percep-
tions of how often teachers care about them,
treat them fairly, and make it okay to ask
questions) and instrumental support (the ex-
tent to which students perceive teachers make
sure they have what they need for school, take
time to help them learn to do something well,
and spend time with them when they need
help).
Table 3 Continued
Themes That Emerged From Focus Groups
Frequency Counts
a
Total Boys Girls
9. Punishes in an incorrect manner 58 25.00 31.43
Punishes the incorrect student for an incident 30 17.11 13.70
Punishes automatically (e.g., makes inaccurate assumptions) 19 7.90 10.48
Extreme position on discipline continuum (e.g., doesn’t intervene when
should or gives punishment too harsh for offense) 9 0 7.25
10. Creates an environment in which questions are discouraged 69 26.32 39.49
Ignores students’ questions 29 15.79 13.70
Provides a negative response to questions (e.g., appears angry after
students’ questions, punishes bad questions) 28 5.26 19.34
Limits time to address questions 12 5.26 6.45
a
Frequency counts presented for gender groups are weighted estimates.
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
79
The unique influence of emotional sup-
port on wellness is consistent with earlier re-
search that has found that adolescents who
perceive more emotional support, particularly
from teachers, have greater school satisfac-
tion, academic competence, and social skills
(Malecki & Demaray, 2003; Richman, Rosen-
feld, & Bowen, 1998). Whereas instrumental
support from teachers did not uniquely predict
student outcomes in Malecki’s and Demaray’s
(2003) research, other studies have identified
links between instrumental support from a va-
riety of sources and adolescents’ levels of
depressive symptoms and time engaged in
studying (Brajsa-Zganec, 2005; Richman et
al., 1998). In part because middle school stu-
dents have previously rated informational sup-
port as the most important type of support
teachers can provide (Malecki & Demaray,
2003), it is somewhat surprising that informa-
tional support did not emerge as a unique
predictor of SWB. However, the bulk of vari-
ance (13% of 16%) in students’ SWB that was
explained by teacher support was attributed to
commonality among the four types, which
challenges the clinical utility of focusing on
specific types of support and suggests that all
types are relevant to SWB in that they con-
tribute to the general construct of teacher
support.
The present study found that emotional
and instrumental support influenced boys’ and
girls’ SWB similarly. This is consistent with
previous research demonstrating that although
gender differences may exist in mean levels of
perceived teacher support, the relations be-
tween teacher support and student outcomes,
such as depression, self-esteem, and peer ac-
ceptance, operate in similar manners for both
genders (Hughes & Kwok, 2006; Reddy,
Rhodes, & Mulhall, 2003). These studies that
failed to detect a moderator effect for gender
contrast with earlier research that yielded
some gender-specific findings (Hamre & Pi-
anta, 2001).
Because wellness is tied to perceptions
of teacher support for both boys and girls, it is
important to understand how teachers can im-
prove and sustain the quality of their class-
room conditions. Reeve and Jang (2006) pur-
port that students are motivated by an “auton-
omy-supportive” teaching style that attends to
and nurtures students’ psychological needs
and personal interests. Teacher behaviors per-
ceived to communicate support in the current
study overlap considerably with “autonomy-
supportive” behaviors identified by Reeve and
Jang (e.g., listening carefully, creating oppor-
tunities for students to work in their own way,
praising students’ improvement or mastery,
being responsive to students’ questions and
comments).
Middle school students in the current
study perceived teachers to be supportive pri-
marily when they connected with students on
an emotional level, used diverse and best-
practice teaching strategies, acknowledged
and boosted students’ academic success, dem-
onstrated fairness during interactions with stu-
dents, and fostered a classroom environment
in which questions were encouraged. In con-
trast, an earlier study found that a sample of
inner-city middle school students who were
primarily African American and economically
disadvantaged perceived the most care when
their teachers were strict, controlled disruptive
behavior, and pressured students to complete
academic work (Alder, 2002). In the current
study of middle-class, primarily Caucasian
students in a suburban community, behaviors
consistent with this authoritarian style of
teaching (i.e., using an aversive voice tone and
setting firm expectations and rules) were dis-
cussed as conveying low support. Similar to
the current sample, Alder found urban stu-
dents perceived care when teachers ensured
mastery of academic content and were respon-
sive to questions; however, these good teach-
ing practices were not emphasized as much as
firm teaching and eliciting parental involve-
ment in student discipline issues (a sentiment
not conveyed by youth in the current study).
Such results indicate that student perceptions
of caring teacher behaviors may differ across
sociocultural contexts. Bondy and colleagues
(2007) describe specific teacher behaviors
(e.g., fostering relationships by being genuine,
referencing popular culture within instruction)
that are indicative of culturally responsive
classroom management.
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
80
In contrast to the lack of gender differ-
ences in quantitative investigations of teacher
support (e.g., current study; Hughes & Kwok,
2006; Reddy et al., 2003), boys and girls in the
qualitative portion of this study often empha-
sized different teacher behaviors as conveying
low and high levels of support. This suggests
that quantitative investigations of the student
outcomes associated with student–teacher re-
lationships may mask more subtle (yet impor-
tant) gender differences in perceptions of how
the social support construct is manifested. No-
table findings in the current study include the
following: Girls were particularly likely to
perceive their teachers as supportive when
they contributed to improving students’ moods
and emotional states, by such means as creat-
ing a positive emotional environment in the
classroom and/or treating students respectfully
via honest communication and maintenance of
student privacy; they viewed teachers as un-
supportive when they did not appear con-
cerned or conveyed disinterest. Boys, on the
other hand, more often perceived teachers as
supportive when they provided access to
treats, pleasurable activities, a manageable
(vs. overwhelming) academic workload,
and/or better grades, as well as encouraged
students to ask questions in class. Girls’ focus
on interpersonal interactions and boys’ em-
phasis on achievement was previously under-
scored in Tatar’s (1998) qualitative study of
the ways in which teachers are important to
students. Specifically, adolescent girls empha-
sized the affective support and help in problem
solving that teachers can provide, whereas
boys focused more on teachers’ provision of
academic support (Tatar, 1998). Girls’ greater
attention to emotional exchanges with teachers
is also in line with the notion that females are
generally raised to be more interpersonally
focused whereas boys are socialized to be
more achievement focused and independent
(Block, 1983).
The qualitative portion of the current
study also identified specific types of teacher
behaviors (e.g., providing evaluative feedback
and access to pleasurable activities) that indi-
cated support, yet were not mirrored in stu-
dents’ ideas of what conveys a lack of support.
The reverse trend was also identified, such that
instances in which teachers exerted a negative
influence on students’ emotional states ap-
peared especially memorable relative to the
lower frequency with which students dis-
cussed teacher actions that improved their
moods. Because of adolescents’ needs for ac-
ceptance and belonging, teacher behaviors
perceived as punitive and uncaring may result
in a heightened emotional response. Such neg-
ative interactions may be recalled more
readily, in line with the phenomenon that emo-
tional memories are often recalled more viv-
idly than nonemotional memories (Phelps,
2006).
Implications for Practice
If the results from the current study are
replicated and a causal relation between
teacher behavior and students’ SWB is sup-
ported, the implications for professional prac-
tice would be significant. Specifically, NASP
(2006) contends that social-emotional support
for students is a necessary component of the
school psychologist’s role. In that vein, school
psychologists are expected to take a preventa-
tive, skill-building stance to prepare children
to meet challenges successfully. This goal can
be addressed through enhancing naturally oc-
curring supports in children’s daily lives (i.e.,
student–teacher relationships), such as by col-
laborating with school administrators and
teachers to implement preventative and well-
ness promotion strategies on a universal level
(or Tier 1 in terms of a response to interven-
tion model of service delivery). As summa-
rized in the proceedings of the 2002 Futures
Conference regarding strategies for improving
social-emotional functioning for all children,
“school psychologists are also in a unique
position to provide staff development trainings
and inservices to promote positive teacher-
student interactions” (Harrison et al., 2004, p.
32). Thus, practitioners may consider relaying
to teachers summary points from the current
study pertinent to the vital role teacher support
plays in students’ well-being, as well as what
to do and what to limit to promote a healthy
classroom. School psychologists can also fa-
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
81
cilitate regular assessments of the quality of
student–teacher relationships via school-wide
administration of instruments like the School
Climate Survey (Haynes, Emmons, & Ben-
Avie, 2001). Systematic evaluations allow
practitioners to monitor the outcomes of
school-wide relationship-enhancing strategies
implemented as well as alert them to the need
for targeted interventions within specific class-
rooms or grade levels.
At the level of the individual classroom,
school psychologists can encourage and assist
teachers to collect data on their class environ-
ment via rating scales completed by students
(e.g., CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) and teach-
ers (e.g., Student–Teacher Relationship Scale;
Pianta, 2001). Such data can be combined with
school psychologists’ classroom observations
and/or qualitative student feedback to identify
a teacher’s strengths and weaknesses and pro-
vide recommendations that are aligned with
healthy teacher behaviors described in the cur-
rent study and similar investigations (e.g., Al-
der, 2002; Bondy et al., 2007; Reeve & Jang,
2006). For instance, educators can be helped
to enhance their provision of social support
through such classroom-based strategies as
verbalizing their personal policies on how stu-
dents’ privacy and fair treatment is ensured,
implementing a reward system for student per-
formance and effort, and providing multiple
means by which students can pose questions.
These types of classroom interventions should
be monitored in part to establish efficacy for
increasing student SWB through teacher be-
havior change. Notably, these universal and
targeted prevention efforts aimed at increasing
teacher behaviors that convey support are con-
sistent with the tenets of the positive psychol-
ogy movement (Diener, 2000), in that they
entail attempts to enhance protective factors
for the promotion of general wellness in all
youth.
Limitations and Directions for Future
Research
Findings in the current study are limited
by such factors as the sample utilized, shared
variance among constructs examined, and the
retrospective design. First, although we aimed
to determine student perceptions of specific
teacher behaviors that contribute to student
SWB and convey support, there was substan-
tial overlap among types of social support.
This overlap emerged in both the quantitative
and qualitative aspects of the study in the form
of shared variance between types of social
support and same behaviors identified in re-
sponse to the four questions posed during the
focus groups. More research is needed to de-
termine the extent to which types of support
are separate constructs. Second, the current
study employed a convenience sample of stu-
dents who attended a single school in the
suburbs. Only 40% of the student body elected
to participate, and intellectually gifted and/or
high-achieving youth and Caucasian students
were oversampled. Although these demo-
graphic characteristics mirror the makeup of
the school from which the sample was drawn,
the sample does not necessarily generalize to
youth in more ethnically diverse, inner-city,
low socioeconomic status, or rural environ-
ments. Additional research is needed to verify
findings with larger, representative samples of
youth attending different schools, as well as
with students of different ages and cognitive
and academic ability levels. Third, students
were required to retroactively recall types of
positive and negative teacher behaviors, which
is inherently subject to memory effects. Ob-
served teacher behaviors should be monitored
in relation to concurrent levels of, and changes
in, students’ SWB.
Further steps in this line of research
include determining the extent to which stu-
dents’ perceptions and recollections of teacher
behaviors are consistent with actual observed
teacher actions. Pending verification that stu-
dents accurately perceive teacher behaviors,
researchers should facilitate controlled inter-
ventions in which teachers apply the high-
support behaviors and avoid the low-support
behaviors perceived by students in the current
study to their classroom settings. The effects
of such efforts should be monitored (by instru-
ments shown to provide data relevant to inter-
vention development as well as sensitivity to
student change) to determine whether increas-
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
82
ing teacher behaviors that students reported
communicate support leads to greater percep-
tions of social support and, subsequently, en-
hanced SWB. Such action research intended to
establish the effectiveness of interventions in
practice is consistent with professional roles
school psychologists are encouraged to em-
brace in order to improve students’ social-
emotional functioning (Harrison et al., 2004).
References
Alder, N. (2002). Interpretations of the meaning of care:
Creating caring relationships in urban middle school
classrooms. Urban Education, 37, 241–266.
Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from
differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjec-
tures. Child Development, 54, 1335–1354.
Bondy, E., Ross, D. D., Gallingane, C., & Hambacher, E.
(2007). Creating environments of success and resil-
ience: Culturally responsive classroom management.
Urban Education, 42, 326 –348.
Brajsa-Zganec, A. (2005). The long-term effects of war
experiences on children’s depression in the Republic of
Croatia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 31– 43.
Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support
and the school engagement of Latino middle and high
school students at risk of school failure. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 47– 67.
Close, W., % Solberg, S. (2008). Predicting achievement,
distress, and retention among lower-income Latino
youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 31– 42.
Cummings, J. A., Harrison, P. L., Dawson, M. M., Short,
R. J., Gorin, S., & Palomares, R. S. (2004). The 2002
Conference on the Future of School Psychology: Im-
plications for consultation, intervention, and preven-
tion services. Journal of Educational and Psychologi-
cal Consultation, 15, 239 –256.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of
happiness and a proposal for a national index. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 55, 34 – 43.
Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient class-
rooms: Creating healthy environments for learning.
New York: Guilford Press.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (1997). Children’s reports
of their life satisfaction: Convergence across raters,
time, and response formats. School Psychology Inter-
national, 18, 229 –243.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher– child
relationships and the trajectory of children’s school
outcomes through eighth grade. Child Develop-
ment, 72, 625– 638.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and
emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a
difference for children at risk of school failure? Child
Development, 76, 949 –967.
Harrison, P. L., Cummings, J. A., Dawson, M., Short,
R. J., Gorin, S., & Palomares, R. (2004). Responding
to the needs of children, families, and schools: The
2002 Multisite Conference on the Future of School
Psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 12–33.
Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C. L., & Ben-Avie, M. (2001).
The School Development Program Student, Staff, and
Parent School Climate Surveys. New Haven, CT: Yale
Study Center.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Stu-
dents’ Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology In-
ternational, 12, 231–240.
Huebner, E. S., Funk, B. A., & Gilman, R. (2000). Cross-
sectional and longitudinal psychosocial correlates of
adolescent life satisfaction reports. Canadian Journal
of School Psychology, 16, 53– 64.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Wilson, V. (2001). Further
support for the developmental significance of the qual-
ity of the teacher-student relationship. Journal of
School Psychology, 39, 289 –301.
Hughes, J. N., Kwok, O. (2007). Influence of student-
teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower
achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 39 –51.
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. (2006). Classroom engage-
ment mediates the effect of teacher-student support on
elementary students’ peer acceptance: A prospective
analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 465– 480.
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008).
Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and
achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 1–14.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed
methods research: A research paradigm whose time
has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14 –26.
Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2002). What makes for a
merry Christmas? Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,
313–329.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research. Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D.,
Potter, K. I., Lambert, S. et al. (1999). A measure of
positive and negative affect for children: Scale devel-
opment and preliminary validation. Psychological As-
sessment, 11, 326 –338.
Leung, J., & Leung, K. (1992). Life satisfaction, self-
concept, and relationship with parents in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 653– 665.
Malecki, C. K.,& Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of
support do they need? Investigating student adjustment
as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and
instrumental support. School Psychology Quar-
terly, 18, 231–252.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2006). Social support
as a buffer in the relationship between socioeconomic
status and academic performance. School Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 375–395.
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2000).
The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. De-
Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2006).
Social/emotional development: School-based mental
health services and school psychologists. Retrieved
August 23, 2008, from the NASP website: http://
www.nasponline.org/resources/handouts/sbmhservices.
pdf
Natvig, G. K., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstrom, U. (2003).
Associations between psychosocial factors and happi-
ness among school adolescents. International Journal
of Nursing Practice, 9, 166 –175.
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
83
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for
qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity: Inter-
national Journal of Methodology, 41, 105–121.
Paulson, B. L., & Everall, R. D. (2003). The Teen Suicide
Research Project. Alberta Journal of Educational Re-
search, 47, 91–94.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights
from studies of the human amygdale. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 27–53.
Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationship scale:
Professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR.
Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The
influence of teacher support on student adjustment in
the middle school years: A latent growth curve study.
Development and Psychopathology, 15, 119 –138.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to
support students’ autonomy during a learning activity.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209 –218.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman,
K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting
adolescents from harm: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 278, 823– 832.
Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998).
Social support for adolescents at risk of school failure.
Social Work, 43, 309 –323.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high
life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous? So-
cial Indicators Research, 78, 179 –203.
Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2007). Evaluation of the
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for children in two sam-
ples of American adolescents. Journal of Psychoedu-
cational Assessment, 25, 341–355.
Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond
psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental
health in youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 52– 68.
Suldo, S. M., Shaffer, E. J., & Riley, K. N. (2008). A
social-cognitive-behavioral model of academic predic-
tors of adolescents’ life satisfaction. School Psychol-
ogy Quarterly, 23, 56 – 69.
Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. Amer-
ican Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 187–202.
Tatar, M. (1998). Teachers as significant others: Gender
differences in secondary school pupils’ perceptions.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 217–
227.
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’
perceptions of school climate during the middle school
years: Associations with trajectories of psychological
and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 40, 194 –213.
Date Received: May 20, 2008
Date Accepted: January 2, 2009
Action Editor: Shane Jimerson 䡲
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 1
84
Shannon Suldo, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Program at the
University of South Florida. Her current research interests pertain to subjective well-being
during youth and the social-emotional functioning of adolescents in college preparatory
programs. Her applied interests pertain to school-based mental health services, including
strengths-based assessment and intervention, as well as universal strategies and targeted
interventions to improve students’ life satisfaction. She received her PhD in School
Psychology from the University of South Carolina in 2004.
Allison Friedrich, MA, is a doctoral candidate in the School Psychology Program at the
University of South Florida. Her research interests include school-based mental health,
gifted education, and positive psychology.
Tiffany White, MA, is a graduate student in the School Psychology Program at the
University of South Florida. Her broad interests surround the construct of school-based
mental health and how school psychologists can effectively develop and maintain col-
laborative relationships between home, school, and community agencies in order to
address the mental health needs and school success of children and adolescents.
Jennie Farmer, MA, is a graduate student in the Special Education and Educational
Measurement and Evaluation Programs at the University of South Florida. Her research
interests include gifted students with learning disabilities, improving academic outcomes
for students through meeting social and emotional needs, teacher education, and research
design and methodology.
Devon Minch, MA, is a graduate student in the School Psychology Program at the
University of South Florida. Her research interests include positive psychology, particu-
larly the relation between adolescent personality and life satisfaction, in addition to
systems change and program evaluation, specifically, identifying the mechanisms of
sustained and meaningful parental involvement within a systems perspective as they relate
to improved student achievement and well-being.
Jessica Michalowski, MA, is a doctoral candidate in the School Psychology Program at
the University of South Florida. She is currently completing a predoctoral internship in the
Hillsborough County Public Schools. Her research interests include the relation between
students’ subjective well-being and their academic success, as well as interventions to
promote students’ social-emotional health.
Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Well-Being
85
