Conceptualisation of students’ school-related wellbeing: students’ and teachers’ perspectives

ABSTRACT

Background

Converging evidence points to the relevance of adolescent wellbeing as a resource for positive development and successful learning. As schools represent one of the most significant environments for adolescent development, there is increasing interest in students’ wellbeing in schools. However, the growing body of research reveals great heterogeneity regarding operationalisations of school-related wellbeing.

Purpose

The present study aims to contribute to the conceptualisation of the construct by taking a closer look at experiences within the context. In doing so, it takes a multi-informant approach and explores students’ and teachers’ perspectives.

Method

A survey was conducted among secondary school students (n = 150) and teachers (n = 197). Participants provided responses to open-ended questions, addressing their general understanding of the construct and indicators of high and low levels of school-related wellbeing. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach. The EPOCH model of Kern et al., with the dimensions Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness and Happiness, was applied as a categorisation framework. For coded segments that did not correspond to the EPOCH domains, the category system was expanded inductively.

Findings

Just over three quarters of all coded segments referred to the EPOCH domains. Three categories were inductively added: Physical health, Achievement and Framework conditions. Overall, in terms of the content addressed as well as frequencies of the themes, there was a degree of homogeneity across the responses of students and teachers, although findings suggested greater emphasis on eudaimonic aspects in the teacher sample.

Conclusions

The present study provides initial insights into students’ and teachers’ perspectives regarding the conceptualisation of school-related wellbeing and supports the approach of conceptualising it both in terms of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects. It supports the application of the EPOCH model to the school context, considers additional detailed aspects and underscores the multidimensionality of the construct. Future research is required to investigate the roles of all identified categories and whether they correspond to a statistical measurement model.

KEYWORDS:

• School-related wellbeing
• student wellbeing
• adolescents
• secondary school
• teachers
• health

Introduction

Adolescent wellbeing is considered a vital resource for positive development and a cognitive and emotional prerequisite for successful learning (Hascher and Hagenauer 2010). It has been associated with better perceived general health and less risky health behaviour (Hoyt et al. 2012), fewer absences at school (Suldo, Thalji, and Ferron 2011) and adaptive cognitive and behavioural outcomes among students (Howell 2009). There is wide agreement regarding the relevance of promoting adolescent wellbeing for fostering positive development as a whole. In this context, adolescents’ significant environments and context-related wellbeing are becoming increasingly emphasised. As schools represent one of the most significant environments for adolescent development, the call for schools to create conditions that enhance students’ wellbeing has become unmistakable (Kern et al. 2016; Seligman et al. 2009). This call for ‘twenty-first century schooling’ (Cain and Carnellor 2008; Durlak et al. 2011) goes hand in hand with the growing interest in students’ wellbeing in school.

However, when it comes to what is understood in terms of student wellbeing as a concept, the heterogeneity across studies is striking. Operationalisations range from global life satisfaction measures (e.g. OECD 2017) to recoded psychopathology measures (e.g. Karvonen, Tokola, and Rimpelä 2018) and measures of school and learning climate (e.g. Hascher and Hagenauer 2010; Niclasen, Keilow, and Obel 2018). Consequently, the growing body of research lacks comparability, making it difficult to identify consistent evidence for a common conceptualisation of school-related wellbeing

Background

Approaches to conceptualising wellbeing

Conceptualisations of wellbeing generally fall into two traditions: hedonic wellbeing (i.e. positive effect, absence of negative effect), which refers to wellbeing as an outcome, and eudaimonic wellbeing (i.e. living life in a satisfying way, actualising one’s potential), which refers to wellbeing as a process (Deci and Ryan 2008). Another difference between conceptualisations concerns a focus on the absence of psychopathological features or ill-being versus the presence of resources or wellbeing respectively (Olsson et al. 2013). The shift in focus from the absence of risk factors to a greater consideration of resources, positive development and prevention goes along with the emergence of positive psychology (e.g. Seligman 2011; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Positive psychology focuses on positive subjective experiences, positive individual traits, and positive institutions, aiming to improve quality of life and prevent pathology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). From a positive psychological perspective, wellbeing is conceptualised as a multidimensional construct, consisting of Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishment (PERMA; Seligman 2011). Applying the PERMA model to adolescents (Kern et al. 2015) led to the development of the EPOCH model of adolescent wellbeing (Kern et al. 2016), consisting of the domains Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness and Happiness. Engagement refers to the capacity to become absorbed and focused on what one is doing, and involvement and interest in tasks and activities, following the concept of flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1997). Perseverance describes the continued pursuit of one’s goals even in the face of obstacles. It is a sub-facet of the Big Five personality traits of conscientiousness and comprises the drive component of ‘grit’ (Duckworth et al. 2007). Optimism is associated with hopefulness and confidence about the future, a favourable view of things, and evaluating negative events as temporary, external, and specific to the situation. Connectedness refers to the sense that one has satisfying relationships with others, feeling valued, esteemed and cared for and providing friendship or support to others. Happiness describes steady states of positive mood and feeling content with one’s life, rather than momentary emotion (Kern et al. 2016). Hence, EPOCH addresses both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of adolescents’ general wellbeing and covers a wide range of variables associated with living and functioning well. It brings together domains that have been studied separately or linked under the umbrella term wellbeing in different constellations. EPOCH, and its corresponding measure, the EPOCH Measure of Adolescent wellbeing (Kern et al. 2016), thus allows for assessing adolescents’ general wellbeing using a multidimensional framework and has been widely applied since its publication (e.g. Gregory et al. 2019; Halliday et al. 2019; Waters, Loton, and Jach 2019).

Approaches to school-related wellbeing

School is regarded as one of the most important environments for promoting positive development and general wellbeing (Hamre and Cappella 2015; Huebner et al. 2014). The role of student wellbeing for academic outcomes such as motivation and achievement has recently received increasing attention (Bücker et al. 2018; Karvonen, Tokola, and Rimpelä 2018; OECD 2017, 2019; Tuominen-Soini, Salmela-Aro, and Niemivirta 2012; Holzer et al. 2021; Salmela-Aro 2020). However, operationalisations of student wellbeing predominantly refer to global subjective wellbeing (Bücker et al. 2018). Studies that address context-specific wellbeing at school are rather less evident (for exceptions see, for example, Lombardi et al. 2019; Sarti et al. 2019) and it is often the case that school-related wellbeing is referred to in a broader sense, including dimensions such as a positive academic self-concept, learning environment or classroom management (Morinaj and Hascher 2019; Niclasen, Keilow, and Obel 2018). Overall, there appears a lack of common ground and shared theoretical foundation when it comes to how students’ psychological school-related wellbeing is conceptualised. However, consideration of setting is unquestionably relevant to gaining a better understanding of predictors, effects and ways of promoting wellbeing in a specific environment, such as the educational context (Hascher, Salmela-Aro, and Tuominen-Soini 2021).

In order to underpin the conceptualisation of context-specific psychological school-related wellbeing adapting holistic frameworks such as the EPOCH (Kern et al. 2016) to the school context seems a viable option, requiring validation along with a closer look at the context. However, it is noteworthy that research on the conceptualisation of school-related student wellbeing has, in the main, not focused on the perspectives of actors within the educational system. Incorporating the perspectives of both students and teachers in their roles as educational practitioners could improve the quality of the associated measures and models in terms of both face validity and appropriateness (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). Such efforts are apparent, but they are not plentiful and are mostly limited to small samples (e.g. Halliday et al. 2019). To the best of our knowledge, there is only one large-scale study on this matter, exploring how wellbeing is understood within the Australian education system (Graham et al. 2017).

Overall, an important question to explore is whether existing theoretical models such as EPOCH reflect the factors that adolescents themselves regard as essential for their school-related wellbeing. The same is true in terms of the teacher perspective, although teachers play a key role in building bridges between theory and practice due to their educational expertise and practical experience (Reinke et al. 2011). Thus, including students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the conceptualisation of school-related wellbeing would be an important extension of current research. The need to incorporate both views is underscored by studies documenting discrepancies in children’s and adults’ perceptions of wellbeing (Ben-Arieh, McDonell, and Attar-Schwartz 2009; Tobia et al. 2016). Finally, the acceptance of models and measures of school-related wellbeing in practice is regarded as essential when it comes to designing interventions based on research (Fixsen et al. 2015).

Purpose

The present study aims to contribute to the conceptualisation of school-related student wellbeing by exploring, in an initial qualitative study, students’ and teachers’ perspectives regarding the conceptualisation of the construct and to what extent these are compatible with the dimensions of the EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016). Hence, the present research addressed the following research questions:

1. What do students and teachers understand under school-related student wellbeing in secondary school?

   1. What indicators for school-related student wellbeing do they identify?

   2. What indicators for the absence of school-related student wellbeing do they identify?

   3. Which themes are mentioned most frequently?

2. To what extent do students’ and teachers’ perspectives coincide?

In order to gain an understanding of participants’ personal perspectives, we employed a qualitative data collection approach and conducted a survey with open-ended questions. We hypothesised that the multidimensional EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016) would be an appropriate framework for categorising the themes brought up by participants, leading to a further research question:

1. To what extent is the multidimensional EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016) applicable for conceptualising school-related student wellbeing in secondary school?

Applying a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design (Creswell et al. 2003), we combined qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics.

Method

Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was completely voluntary and no compensation was given for participation. Only those who gave active consent took part. Additionally, for the student sample, parental consent was obtained for participation in the study as well as data usage. Both students and teachers were assured that their responses would remain confidential and only be used for scientific purposes. Full anonymity was ensured by not storing any data that would allow conclusions to be drawn about the identity of the respondents. Moreover, the study was approved and supported by the local school boards in accordance with federal law. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Participants

In total, 347 participants took part in the study. The student sample comprised 150 adolescents (51% females, 48% males, 1% non-binary; age 10 to 17 years, M = 12.7, SD = 1.5) from ten classes in three secondary schools in an Austrian city. Two of the schools were middle schools (comprehensive secondary education for pupils aged 10–14). One school was an academic-track school (higher secondary education for pupils aged 10–18). All schools were located in a larger Austrian city and none of them had specific policies, programmes or interventions in place that dealt with student wellbeing at the time of data collection. The teacher sample comprised 197 secondary school teachers from all over Austria (68% females, 32% males; age 22 to 64 years, M = 41.2, SD = 12.37). Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 41 years (M = 14.44, SD = 12.44). All secondary school subjects were represented across teachers.

Instruments

The survey was conducted in German and comprised three open-ended questions for teachers and students. The items were formulated based on the research questions and piloted with cognitive interview testing among a group of adolescents as well as secondary school teachers to check the comprehensibility of the wording and to estimate the completion time of the questionnaire. All study participants were presented with the three questions in the following order. Question 1 addressed participants’ general understanding of students’ school-related wellbeing ((questions translated into English for the purpose of this article) ‘What do you understand by the term school-related student wellbeing?’). Question 2 addressed indicators of students’ school-related wellbeing (‘What tells you that a student has high levels of school-related wellbeing?’). In order to account for discriminant validity, indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing were addressed in Question 3 (‘What tells you that a student has low levels of school-related wellbeing?’). The first question should facilitate broader associations about the definition and determinants of the construct, whereas Questions 2 and 3 honed in on concrete indicators of school-related wellbeing and its absence.

Data collection

Data collection took place from May to June 2019. In order to recruit the student sample, 10 secondary schools in an Austrian city were initially contacted by email. All schools that were contacted were known to the research group, as they had cooperated with the university in previous research projects. Three of these schools agreed to participate in the study and nominated 2 to 3 classes per school that were included in the sample. Students filled out paper-and-pencil questionnaires in their classrooms, supervised by the first and third authors. Before filling out the questionnaire, the researchers explained the study’s purpose and assured full anonymity of the data. Furthermore, the students were informed that they could stop filling out the questionnaire at any time, without any consequences. Between 10 to 15 minutes were allotted to complete the questionnaire. If individual students took a little longer, they were given an additional 3 to 5 minutes.

In order to acquire a potentially larger and more diverse sample, data from teachers were obtained through an online survey. The link to the questionnaire was broadly distributed, via email, to school principals and administrators all over Austria. Moreover, the invitation to participate in the study was posted in several online platforms for teachers, including social media groups. This wide distribution of the link enabled the acquisition of a more diverse sample than would have been the case by only including teachers from the three schools. However, it is important to note that no statements can be made about the response rate, since it is not clear how many teachers were ultimately reached by the invitation to participate. Moreover, student and teacher data were collected independently from one another and could not be matched.

Data analyses

The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2015). We retained the data structure of student and teacher data and the three questions for the coding. The multidimensional EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016) was applied as the framework for a preliminary category system, with the EPOCH domains (Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness and Happiness) applied to the school context as the main categories. The coding rules for this initial category system were formulated based on the definitions of the EPOCH dimensions according to Kern et al. (2016). All answers were then screened. The initial screening of the data revealed that it was possible to apply a common category system to both the student and teacher data. For responses that did not match the predefined categories (i.e. the EPOCH domains), we expanded the category system inductively to include three further main categories (Physical Health, Achievement, and Framework Conditions). Additional data-driven subcategories were formed in order to account for more detailed aspects. Coding rules were formulated for all main and subcategories of the final category system and anchoring examples were selected from the material. Potential overlap of categories was minimised by establishing if-then rules for some categories. As suggested by Schreier (2012), an additional residual category was created for answers that could not be interpreted clearly. This applied, for instance, to answers with insufficient specification or non-content-bearing statements such as ‘I don’t know’.

Most participants addressed several aspects of school-related wellbeing These responses were split into smaller coding units (segments), each one addressing only one thematic aspect. In other words, the data were split up, so that only one semantic element per segment remained. Segmentations were made independently by the first and third authors, before being compared, discussed and adapted. A total of 2807 segments were then transferred into software for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (MAXQDA 2018 (VERBI Software 2018)).

The first and third authors independently assigned all segments to the categories according to the established categorisation rules. Interrater reliabilities for the initial categorisations were good to very good (Altman 1991) and ranged from κ = .71 to κ = .80 (M = .74, SD = .03) for each question. Segments coded differently were discussed and a common final solution was agreed upon, according to the established categorisation rules. In a few cases, the wording of the coding rules was slightly adjusted to compensate for differences between the two raters’ perceptions. In a final step, descriptive statistics on the number and proportion of segments per category and group (students and teachers) were retrieved. The final category system with detailed information about coding rules and examples is outlined in Appendix Table A1. In addition, Appendix Table A2 provides an overview of all main and subcategories, including whether they were formed inductively or deductively, as well as descriptive statistics for the category frequencies.

Findings

Qualitative content analysis of the data led to the identification of eight main themes addressed by students and teachers when expressing their understanding of school-related wellbeing its indicators, and indicators of its absence. The dimensions of the EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016) were supplemented by three further main categories: Physical Health, Achievement and Framework Conditions of the school environment. 78% of all coded segments from the student and teacher sample combined (total n coded segments = 2807) referred to one of the EPOCH domains (Engagement 13%, Perseverance 2%, Optimism 1%, Connectedness 41%, and Happiness 20%). In terms of the additional categories, Physical Health was addressed by 1%, Achievement by 4% and Framework Conditions by 6% of all segments. Appendix Table A2 provides a quantitative summary in terms of absolute and relative frequencies of segments assigned to each main and subcategory for each question.

With a total of 1827 segments, the teacher sample provided about twice as much data as the student sample, which yielded a total of 980 segments. Therefore, aggregate descriptive statistics are supplemented by descriptive statistics reported separately for each sample. It should be noted that, due to the segmentation of the data, frequencies do not indicate how many participants named each aspect, but rather how often each aspect was addressed across participants. For instance, if a participant addressed multiple categories in their response, their response was segmented into three units and assigned to a total of three categories (see Method section).

The quantitative results that are presented in Appendix Table A2 reveal largely homogenous frequencies across both teacher and student samples. Specifically, both groups had the same rank order of five most frequently addressed categories: Connectedness, Happiness, Engagement, Framework Conditions and Achievement. However, there was a stronger emphasis on eudaimonic aspects of wellbeing in the teacher sample: Engagement, Perseverance and Achievement were mentioned more than twice as frequently in the teacher sample compared with the student sample. Physical Health was also mentioned more than twice as frequently by teachers than students. Conversely, Connectedness and Happiness were more prominent in the student sample.

In order to provide a more detailed description of the responses, the following section provides a narrative summary of the content pertinent to each main category. Where relevant, translated and anonymised quotations from the data are included.

Engagement

Within the main category Engagement, most responses addressed the subcategory Involvement, or conversely Lack of Involvement, referring to active involvement in learning processes. As indicators of school-related wellbeing students mentioned participation in lessons in terms of raising one’s hand and following lessons attentively. Teachers mentioned participation in discussions, asking questions and engagement in activities outside of regular classes. As indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing both students and teachers mentioned passive behaviour, lack of contributions in class, skipping class and the desire to change schools.

Statements addressing the subcategory Academic Interest and Motivation or conversely Lack of Interest in School and Learning mainly referred to curiosity, intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm for school and learning (‘Students can live out their urge to acquire knowledge and learn new things’). Conversely, boredom, lack of interest in school and learning and low motivation were mentioned as characterising the absence of school-related wellbeing.

A few statements referred to Focus or, conversely, Lack of Focus. Students and teachers both mentioned high levels of concentration as a determinant and indicator of school-related wellbeing. Teachers further mentioned being attentive, focused, or absorbed by topics and tasks, in the sense of flow. As indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing, both groups mentioned a lack of focus on learning and during lessons, difficulties in concentrating and being easily distracted.

Perseverance

Statements assigned to Perseverance referred to conscientiousness, willingness to achieve and ambition. As indicators of school-related wellbeing both students and teachers mentioned diligence, whereas teachers brought up persistence in the face of challenging tasks (‘Does not refuse tasks, even if they are difficult to complete’). As indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing students mentioned a lack of effort. Teachers mentioned a low willingness to perform, work avoidance and poor work ethic.

Optimism

An optimistic attitude in the face of challenges, and seeing future prospects, was mentioned by teachers as factors determining school-related wellbeing In terms of indicators, both groups mentioned self-confidence and maintaining a positive attitude in light of unfavourable events such as bad grades. Teachers further mentioned being ready to take risks when confronted with unknown tasks and considering mistakes as learning opportunities. Conversely, Pessimism regarding upcoming tasks and Anxiety in terms of fear of school and learning were mentioned as indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing.

Connectedness

Within the main category Connectedness, the largest proportion of statements addressed Social Integration. Participants mentioned a sense of belonging and feeling of being valued as a person. As indicators of school-related wellbeing, both groups mentioned getting along with classmates, maintaining friendships and having somebody who is there, who listens and understands.

The second-most prominent subcategory was Positive School and Classroom Climate. Statements mentioned a sense of community within the class, tolerance, acceptance and cohesion, that members of the community are friendly, respectful and helpful and that others’ boundaries are respected.

Among students, Non-Violence was just as prominent as Positive School and Classroom Climate. Statements mentioned not being involved in any form of violence as either a victim or perpetrator. This included ridiculing, exclusion, physical violence or systematic bullying in any form. Teachers further mentioned protection against violence.

Another frequently occurring subcategory was Positive Student-Teacher Relationship in terms of good relationship quality, mutual respect, sympathy and appreciation. Students mentioned being shown understanding, patience and support. Teachers mentioned relationships characterised by trust, goodwill and reliability (‘Students should feel that teachers always want the best for them’). According to the teachers, students with high school-related wellbeing see their teachers as supporters, not as opponents, and share both good and bad experiences with them.

Further statements mentioned behaviour towards others: Agreeableness, in terms of being friendly, respectful, helpful and cooperative, and Openness in terms of honesty, authenticity and being neither intimidated nor reserved (‘They are not afraid to show their true self and don’t pretend’).

As indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing, most segments within Connectedness referred to Introversion, i.e. withdrawing from social situations or interactions (‘The student is very quiet and withdrawn’). Further statements referred to Loneliness, Disruptive Behaviour, Violence, including bullying and a Negative Student-Teacher Relationship.

Happiness

Statements within the Happiness category most frequently addressed the subcategory of Cheerfulness, i.e. experiencing joy and fun at school, enjoying learning and attending school. Gleefulness and laughter were mentioned as indicators of school-related student wellbeing by both groups. The second most prominent subcategory was Absence of Negative Effect. The absence of fear or anxiety, stress, nervousness, sadness or pressure to achieve was mentioned as characterising school-related wellbeing in both samples. Further statements mentioned Ease in terms of emotional balance and taking a relaxed view on school, and Contentment in terms of experiencing school as meaningful and satisfactory.

Regarding indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing the most frequently addressed category was Sadness, in terms of feeling gloomy and crying often. Other statements mentioned a Bad Temper, i.e. frequent bad moods and irritability, Anger, Tension, i.e. stress or nervousness, and Frustration.

Physical health

Physical wellbeing, in terms of restful sleep, general health and a low number of sick days, was mentioned as a characteristic and indicator of school-related student wellbeing in both samples. It was noted that an atmosphere of low-performance pressure promotes physical health. Conversely, Physical Symptoms, i.e. physical pain and fatigue, were brought up as indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing. Students further mentioned stuttering, whereas teachers mentioned physical pain in terms of stomach ache, headache, frequently having to go to the toilet, a high number of sick days, addictive behaviour (alcoholism and drug use) and self-harm.

Achievement

High or Constant Performance in terms of good grades and performing well over longer periods were brought up by both groups. Teachers mentioned a personal sense of achievement, as well as being able to apply one’s knowledge and skills. It was further pointed out that achievement might not only concern good grades but also capitalising on one’s strengths and performing to the best of one’s ability.

Low or Declining Performance, also in terms of bad grades, was brought up by both groups as an indicator for the absence of school-related wellbeing. Teachers further mentioned students not realising their potential. Students noted that achievement is not suitable as an indicator if someone is having trouble learning in general. They also remarked that low achievement might be a result of low school-related wellbeing.

Framework conditions

Within the main category Framework Conditions, most answers addressed the subcategory Atmospheric and Environmental Factors. Both students and teachers brought up features such as a quiet working environment (‘Good learning environment, so that you can concentrate well and are undisturbed when working’), order, cleanliness, well-organised timetables and opportunities to spend free periods in a meaningful way. It was further noted that a pleasant atmosphere, also characterised by compliance with rules of living and working together, could be both an indicator and a prerequisite so that students feel comfortable at school. In terms of schools’ physical features, temperature regulation, enough space to learn and spaces for calm and reflection were mentioned.

Further statements mentioned Teaching Characteristics, addressing instructional methods that support interest and enjoyment of learning. Both groups stressed the importance of taking students’ individual skills and needs into account and supporting autonomy in terms of allowing students to choose parts of the learning content themselves. Teachers further mentioned participative decision-making in lesson planning. In terms of instructional methods, the importance of a diversity of methods, cooperative learning, task-oriented activities and dealing with mistakes constructively were highlighted. Teachers noted too that clear, explicit expectations, rules and goals are necessary for students to have a framework that guides their learning and actions.

Discussion

Student wellbeing is an increasingly studied research topic. Nevertheless, a common conceptualisation has not been agreed upon. The present study therefore aimed to contribute to the conceptualisation of students’ school-related wellbeing by exploring students’ and teachers’ perspectives regarding the conceptualisation of the construct. We were interested to find out to what extent their perspectives coincided and whether they were compatible with the dimensions of the EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016), adapted to the school context. To allow for an exploratory in-depth, qualitative analysis, a small-scale survey with open-ended questions was conducted. The EPOCH model with the dimensions Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness and Happiness was applied as a framework to categorise the statements.

Overall, the EPOCH model was well suited to represent the perspectives of the respondents. Nevertheless, the EPOCH domains were not addressed equally frequently. Additionally, based on the data, three inductive categories were added: Physical Health, Achievement and Framework Conditions of the school environment. The data revealed relatively homogenous results for the student and teacher samples, both in terms of the content addressed and the frequencies of the themes mentioned. The teachers and students had the same rank order in terms of the five most frequently addressed main categories: Connectedness, Happiness, Engagement, Framework Conditions and Achievement.

In terms of frequencies (see Appendix Table A2), the category most frequently mentioned was Connectedness. This resonates with the study by Graham et al. (2017) on students’ and teachers’ understanding of student wellbeing in Australia. In their study, relationships were a constant reference point for both students and teachers. It chimes with a study from Korea as well, in which high-school students were asked about the most satisfying aspects of school: good relationships with peers and teachers were most frequently mentioned (Jin and Moon 2006). Similar results were obtained in panel discussions with schoolchildren about how learning environments contribute to student wellbeing The students highlighted the importance of positive relationships with peers and teachers, whereas bullying was mentioned as negatively related to wellbeing (Engels et al. 2004), which relates to our findings for the subcategories Violence and Non-Violence. Quantitative studies highlighting the important role of social relations for wellbeing include those by Arslan (2018) and Jose, Ryan, and Pryor (2012). It should be noted, however, that while, in some studies, school or classroom climate is considered a part of school-related wellbeing (e.g. Engels et al. 2004), psychological models of wellbeing such as EPOCH have a focus on the subjective experience of one’s relations. The school or classroom climate may play a role in this subjective experience and has also been associated with student wellbeing (e.g. Lombardi et al. 2019) but is not necessarily equivalent.

Happiness was the second most frequently addressed category; positive effect in terms of the Cheerfulness subcategory was mentioned particularly often. Conceptualising wellbeing through positive affect is in line with the tradition of hedonic wellbeing (Deci and Ryan 2008), and studies revealing relations between subjective happiness and psychological wellbeing among adolescents (Datu et al. 2017; Heizomi et al. 2015). Whereas our findings acknowledge the important role of positive effects in school-related wellbeing they also indicate that it is not only hedonic aspects that are at play: students, and especially teachers, in our study also mentioned eudaimonic aspects such as Engagement, Perseverance and Achievement.

Engagement was the third most frequently addressed category. The focus was on Involvement in learning processes and school-related activities, characterised by contribution and commitment. The findings of Engels et al. (2004) suggest a positive relation between wellbeing and involvement in terms of participation in class. However, Engels et al. (2004) also discuss a possible influence of the proportion of fellow students who are actively involved as well. The relation between engagement and wellbeing is further supported by Schueller and Seligman (2010), who suggest that engagement in meaningful activities may have a stronger influence on subjective wellbeing than pursuing pleasure.

Perseverance and Optimism were mentioned less often than the other EPOCH domains. This suggests that these categories may be less present in the everyday understanding of school-related wellbeing However, it is not necessarily the case that these aspects have less relevance for the concept of school-related wellbeing. Rather, it is necessary to reflect upon the possible underlying reasons for the small proportion of mentions in our study. A possible explanation is that both Perseverance and Optimism may be less salient or clearly observable than the other domains. Thus, Perseverance might manifest itself through Achievement, a category that was inductively added. An example of this is a statement by a teacher, which referred to ‘students who achieve their personal best’, implying effort. However, since the teachers did not explicitly refer to perseverant behaviour, Achievement was assigned as a category. This notion is supported by studies confirming the relation between perseverance and academic achievement (e.g. Muenks et al. 2018). Studies indicating that Perseverance is related to wellbeing include, for example, the work of Datu et al. (2018). Similar explanations might underlie the infrequent mentioning of Optimism. Rather than mentioning this rather implicit characteristic, participants might have mentioned its observable consequences, through categories such as Cheerfulness, Ease, or Absence of Negative Effect, the last of which refers to the absence of fear in exam situations. However, since these states do not necessarily result from optimism in the face of challenges, but may also be due to indifference, we decided not to assign them to the Optimism category. Studies indicating that Optimism contributes to wellbeing include, for example, the work by Carver, Scheier, and Segerstrom (2010). Consequently, the relative infrequency of Optimism and Perseverance could be attributed to the study design, as the questions that were posed evoked responses related to directly observable behaviour. However, asking follow-up questions was not possible, given the questionnaire format used in the study. A face-to-face setting would have been necessary to ask about the sources of positive affect or the reasons underlying achievement, which were mentioned as indicators of school-related wellbeing.

Categories that were added inductively were Physical Health, Achievement and Framework Conditions. In order to draw conclusions on their roles for the conceptualisation of school-related wellbeing, the specifically mentioned content and underlying concepts must be examined more closely. The relationship between Achievement and Perseverance has already been discussed. Therefore, our findings do not necessarily speak in favour of considering Achievement as a component of school-related wellbeing, but rather as an observable consequence of perseverance. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding Physical Health. The vast majority of segments addressing this category are related to indicators for the absence of school-related wellbeing, (Question 3). In this respect, physical symptoms can be understood as a consequence of low school-related wellbeing. We therefore suggest interpreting Physical Health or Physical Symptoms, respectively, as a discriminant variable rather than a component of school-related wellbeing. This is in line with the validation study for the Danish Student wellbeing Questionnaire (Niclasen, Keilow, and Obel 2018). Items addressing psychosomatic symptoms did not load on the wellbeing scales but were kept in the questionnaire to account for symptoms of a dysfunctional school environment. Finally, Framework Conditions are the most frequently addressed inductive category. Within the subcategory Atmospheric and Environmental Factors, both students and teachers mentioned aspects of the school environment in terms of physical features of the schools’ infrastructure and the organisational structure. Relations between a pleasant school environment and student wellbeing are supported by research (Cuyvers et al. 2011; Jin and Moon 2006; Niclasen, Keilow, and Obel 2018). Nevertheless, since the features relate to the school’s physical environment, it is questionable whether these factors should be included in a psychological model intending to target school-related student wellbeing. If, however, school-related wellbeing is being evaluated in order to identify potential areas for improvement in learning conditions provided by the school, it might be reasonable to include satisfaction with the school’s physical environment in a respective measure.

The second subcategory of Framework Conditions was Teaching Characteristics. This subcategory focused on instructional processes supporting autonomous learning, interest and accounting for individual needs. While it needs to be acknowledged that, in some publications, these aspects are referred to under the umbrella term wellbeing (Niclasen, Keilow, and Obel 2018), these may be regarded as teacher-directed processes. It is therefore questionable, as it is for the category Atmospheric and Environmental Factors, to what extent teaching characteristics can be a component of a psychological model of school-related wellbeing Moreover, these teaching characteristics directly relate to the promotion of Engagement, which arises from autonomy-supportive teaching (Olivier et al. 2020) and tasks that match learners’ skills and interests (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi 2014). In this respect, the Teaching Characteristics mentioned should not be regarded as a domain of school-related wellbeing. Rather, the content assigned to this category provides information about instructional processes that promote school-related wellbeing.

Overall, the participants’ statements strongly focused on interactions within the school context. Recurring topics were mutual respect and esteem in both student-teacher and peer relationships. Non-violence was an issue that was particularly often addressed in the student sample. This expresses students’ desire to be treated decently at school and not be exposed to uncertainty in this regard. Furthermore, both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of school-related wellbeing were cited by both students and teachers. The fact that students and teachers mentioned these features suggests their relevance for the conceptualisation of school-related student wellbeing.

Limitations and future directions

The present study was small scale and exploratory; generalisation is not intended. A first step was taken to examine the extent to which the perspectives of individuals in the educational context of school-related student wellbeing align with a theoretical conceptualisation of the construct. However, it cannot be assumed that the study participants are a representative sample of the population of secondary school students and teachers. Rather, the study provides clues as to which components need to be considered in a proposed model of school-related wellbeing from the perspective of teachers and students. This, in turn, can be the starting point for quantitative validation studies. In terms of methodological limitations, we have already pointed out that the questionnaire format did not allow us to ask participants follow-up questions about their statements. Hence, responses that could not be interpreted clearly had to be assigned to the residual category. Moreover, student and teacher data were not collected in the same mode and setting. Whereas students filled out paper-and-pencil questionnaires in their classrooms, the teacher data were obtained with an online survey. Hence, the teacher data were acquired from a self-selected sample that was not observed during data collection. It must also be borne in mind that the students come from only three schools. This could have resulted in some common patterns in their responses: that is, students from the same school may provide similar responses. Additionally, regarding the findings, it should be noted that the frequency with which categories were addressed does not necessarily indicate the relevance of the components for the construct. These are some of the issues that would need to be addressed in further studies by employing different research designs. It would be important to conduct statistical analyses of data from larger, representative samples. This is true for all identified components in this study – the EPOCH dimensions, as well as the inductively added categories. In particular, it would be necessary to investigate which factors are part of a psychological model of school-related wellbeing in order to more clearly distinguish individual-centred models and wider approaches that include, for example, environmental characteristics of the school. Thus, our study offers implications for further research. As a next step, we plan to develop and validate a measure of school-related student wellbeing based on the identified themes that students and teachers associate with it. In this way, we aim to investigate whether the items developed from the identified themes correspond to a statistical measurement model with school-related student wellbeing as a general factor.

Conclusion

Applying a multi-informant approach, our study allowed us to glean some initial insights into students’ and teachers’ perspectives regarding the conceptualisation of school-related student wellbeing Acknowledging its strengths in terms of depth of analysis, as well as limitations in terms of its small scale, this study’s findings suggest support for the approach of conceptualising school-related wellbeing in terms of hedonic as well as eudaimonic aspects and draw attention to the role of students’ social connectedness. Accordingly, the perspectives of the students and teachers surveyed in this study indicate that several components need to be considered when it comes to conceptualising students’ school-related wellbeing. Based on the findings, the multidimensional EPOCH model (Kern et al. 2016) can be seen as a valuable starting point for conceptualising school-related wellbeing whereas including characteristics of the school environment could be a useful supplement. Future research is required to investigate whether items developed from the identified themes correspond to a statistical measurement model with school-related student wellbeing as a general factor and to examine the relative contributions of each of these dimensions to a general school-related wellbeing factor. Given the significance of student wellbeing our study highlights the need to better understand its conceptualisation, in order to better support young people in education.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

We have no funding to declare for this study.

Appendix

Table A1. The final category system used in the analysis

Categories	Coding rules	Examples from the data
I. Engagement^1
I.I Focus^1	States of concentration, focus, being absorbed in what one is doing, experiencing flow	‘Students can concentrate on the learning phases’
I.II Involvement^1	Involvement in learning processes, i.e. contributing in class, participating in school-related activities Involvement is coded if related to task- or learning-oriented actions but not to social activities (→ Social Integration)	‘If he or she actively participates in class’
I.III Academic Interest and Motivation^1	Interest in learning, curiosity, motivation to engage in school- or learning-related activities Academic Interest and Motivation is coded if a high value is attributed to learning; motivation to stick to a task is assigned to the category Perseverance	‘That students can live out their urge to acquire knowledge and learn new things’
I.IV Lack of Focus^2,3	Lack of focus on learning and in lessons, difficulties concentrating	‘Is unfocused’
I.V Lack of Involvement^2,3	Passive behaviour, lack of contributions in class and school-related activities	‘Seems distracted, is occupied with other things (than learning)”
I.VI Lack of Interest in School and Learning^2,3	Lack of interest in school and learning	‘When there is hardly any interest’
II. Perseverance^1
II.I Perseverance^1	Pursuing goals until completion, conscientiousness regarding task fulfilment, persistence in the face of obstacles, strong work ethic	‘Does not refuse tasks, even if they are difficult to complete’
II.II Lack of Perseverance^2,3	Low willingness to perform, work avoidance, poor work ethic	‘Students who don’t have the will to work and the willingness to perform often feel uncomfortable at school’
III. Optimism^1
III.I Optimism^1	Optimistic attitude even in difficult situations, optimism regarding one’s own abilities and future prospects	‘Stays cool-headed when facing tests or problems coming up’
III.II Pessimism^2,3	Pessimistic attitude regarding challenges, lack of confidence in one’s own abilities	‘Is not very confident about his (or her) school performance’
III.III Anxiety^2,3	Anxiety regarding school-related issues, insecure behaviour in school	‘Afraid to speak out’
IV. Connectedness^1
IV.I Social Integration^1	Satisfying relationships within the school context, involvement in the class or school community (i.e. participation in group activities), feeling of belonging, enjoying spending time with others, maintaining friendships In contrast to Positive School and Classroom Climate, Social Integration refers to socially integrated individuals	‘When someone has friends who are with him or her in bad times’
IV.II Positive School and Classroom Climate^2	Sense of community within the class, benevolent and trusting atmosphere, mutual respect, handling conflicts constructively The category Positive School and Classroom Climate refers to characteristics of the group as a whole	‘Harmonious atmosphere in the classroom’
IV.III Positive Student-Teacher Relationships^2	Good quality relationship between students and teachers, mutual respect and appreciation, good communication basis, confidence in the teacher as a supporter Positive Student-Teacher Relationship is coded when the content explicitly refers to the relationship between students and teachers and not to peer-to-peer relationships (→ Social Integration) or the general school and classroom climate (→ Positive School and Classroom Climate)	‘Confidence in the teacher and in being treated fairly’
IV.IV Behaviour Towards Others^2
IV.IV.a Agreeableness^2	Agreeable behaviour towards others, constructive behaviour when resolving conflicts, willingness to cooperate Agreeableness refers to the individual approaching others, but not to relationship quality (→ Social Integration or Positive Student-Teacher Relationship) or to general school and classroom climate (→ Positive School and Classroom Climate)	‘Treats others appreciatively’
IV.IV.b Openness^2	Openness towards others, authenticity, unreserved behaviour	‘Shows feelings, speaks openly’
IV.V Non-Violence^2	Not being involved in any violence as a victim or perpetrator, including relational or physical violence as well as systematic bullying	‘No one laughs at them, bullies or excludes them’
IV.VI Loneliness^2,3	Little contact with classmates, feeling lonely or not cared about, being an outsider	‘If no one talks to him (or her)’
IV.VII Negative Student-Teacher Relationship^2,3	Problems in the relationship between students and teachers, lack of respect, lack of trust	‘Lack of trust in the teachers’
IV.IV Behaviour Towards Others^2,3
IV.IV.c Introversion^2,3	Withdrawal from social situations, avoidance of interactions, distance from others	‘During the break they move wherever they can be alone’
IV.IIX Disruptive Behavior^2,3	Violations of rules, refusal to cooperate, destructive or deviant behaviour	‘May show destructive or provocative behaviour’
IV.IX Violence^2,3	Involvement in violence as a victim or perpetrator, including relational or physical violence as well as systematic bullying	‘Students who are mocked and laughed at’
V. Happiness^1
V.I Cheerfulness^1	Steady states of positive mood, experiencing positive feelings such as joy and fun at school Cheerfulness refers to an individual’s positive mood, but not enjoying spending time with others (→ Social Integration)	‘They are happy and have more fun at school’
V.II Ease^2	State of lightness when in school, emotional balance	‘Calm behaviour despite stressful environment’
V.III Contentment^1	Feeling content and satisfied with school and associated circumstances	‘Radiates contentment’
V.IV Absence of Negative Affect^2	Absence of negative affect regarding school, school-related situations and learning	‘No negative emotions when thinking about school’
V.V Anger^2,3	States of anger or rage when in school	‘They are angry’
V.VI Sadness^2,3	States of sadness or feeling gloomy when in school	‘When someone looks very sad’
V.VII Tension^2.3	Experiences of stress, nervousness or pressure	‘He or she behaves nervously’
V.IIX Frustration^2,3	Frustration with school-related challenges	‘Shows common signs of frustration’
V.IX Bad Temper^2,3	Bad mood in school Bad Temper explicitly refers to emotions but not to interest or motivation (→ Engagement).	‘Bad mood over long periods’
VI. Physical Health^2
VI.I Physical Well-being^2	Good health, absence of physical discomfort	‘Low number of sick days’
VI.II Physical Symptoms^2,3	Physical pain, fatigue, high number of sick days	‘When they often have a stomach ache’
VII. Achievement^2
VII.I High or Constant Performance^2	Performing well, good grades, achieving one’s personal best, maintaining one’s level of achievement	‘If someone has good grades’
VII.II Low or Declining Performance^2,3	Low or declining academic performance	‘Decline in performance’
IIX. Framework Conditions^2
IIX.I Teaching Characteristics^2	Appealing and educational lessons, considering individual needs e.g. in terms of pace and challenge, motivating feedback and autonomy-supportive teaching Teaching Characteristics explicitly refers to the design of the learning environment by the teacher	‘The right amount of challenge, no over- or under- strain’
IIX.II Atmospheric and environmental Factors^2	Environmental factors, i.e. calmness, cleanliness or school’s physical features	‘Well-equipped workplaces and classrooms’
IX. Residual Category^2	Non-content-bearing statements, non-topic-related answers, answers with insufficient specification	‘You can tell from the behaviour of the person’

This table presents the final category system we used in the analysis, with detailed information about coding rules and examples. ¹ Categories built based on EPOCH (Kern et al. 2016); ² Categories built based on the data; ³ Categories accounting for discriminant validity.

Table A2. An overview of all main and subcategories, with descriptive statistics for the frequencies of coded segments

Categories	Student sample					Teacher sample					Total
	Q1	Q2	Q3	sum	rel. %	Q1	Q2	Q3	sum	rel. %	sum	rel. %
I. Engagement^1				71	7.2%				305	16.7%	376	13.4%
I.I Focus^1	1	2	-	3	0.3%	3	5	-	8	0.4%	11	0.4%
I.II Involvement^1	4	16	-	20	2.0%	7	94	-	101	5.5%	121	4.3%
I.III Academic Interest and Motivation^1	1	6	-	7	0.7%	21	29	-	50	2.7%	57	2.0%
I.IV Lack of Focus^2,3	-	-	3	3	0.3%	-	-	5	5	0.3%	8	0.3%
I.V Lack of Involvement^2,3	-	-	23	23	2.3%	-	-	111	111	6.1%	134	4.8%
I.VI Lack of Interest in School and Learning^2,3	-	-	15	15	1.5%	-	-	30	30	1.6%	45	1.6%
II. Perseverance^1				4	0.4%				40	2.2%	44	1.6%
II.I Perseverance^1	1	2	-	3	0.3%	7	18	-	25	1.4%	28	1.0%
II.II Lack of Perseverance^2,3	-	-	1	1	0.1%	-	-	15	15	0.8%	16	0.6%
III. Optimism^1				12	1.2%				26	1.4%	38	1.4%
III.I Optimism^1	-	4	-	4	0.4%	3	11	-	14	0.8%	18	0.6%
III.II Pessimism^2,3	-	-	-	-	0.0%	-	-	2	2	0.1%	2	0.1%
III.III Anxiety^2,3	-	-	8	8	0.8%	-	-	10	10	0.5%	18	0.6%
IV. Connectedness^1				495	50.5%				666	36.5%	1161	41.4%
IV.I Social Integration^1	43	52	-	95	9.7%	102	80	-	182	10.0%	277	9.9%
IV.II Positive School and Classroom Climate^2	83	1	-	84	8.6%	64	8	-	72	3.9%	156	5.6%
IV.III Positive Student-Teacher Relationship^2	45	2	-	47	4.8%	68	37	-	105	5.7%	152	5.4%
IV.IV Behaviour Towards Others^2
IV.IV.a Agreeableness^2	11	20	-	31	3.2%	12	16	-	28	1.5%	59	2.1%
IV.IV.b Openness^2	2	16	-	18	1.8%	11	22	-	33	1.8%	51	1.8%
IV.V Non-Violence^2	74	10	-	84	8.6%	13	2	-	15	0.8%	99	3.5%
IV.VI Loneliness^2,3	-	-	33	33	3.4%	-	-	44	44	2.4%	77	2.7%
IV.VII Negative Student-Teacher Relationship^2,3	-	-	1	1	0.1%	-	-	15	15	0.8%	16	0.6%
IV.IV Behaviour Towards Others^2
IV.IV.c Introversion^2,3	-	-	51	51	5.2%	-	-	118	118	6.5%	169	6.0%
IV.IIX Disruptive Behaviour^2,3	-	-	21	21	2.1%	-	-	43	43	2.4%	64	2.3%
IV.IX Violence^2,3	-	-	30	30	3.1%	-	-	11	11	0.6%	41	1.5%
V. Happiness^1				246	25.1%				319	17.5%	565	20.1%
V.I Cheerfulness^1	14	103	-	117	11.9%	76	77	-	153	8.4%	270	9.6%
V.II Ease^2	-	5	-	5	0.5%	8	12	-	20	1.1%	25	0.9%
V.III Contentment^1	-	-	-	-	0.0%	6	4	-	10	0.5%	10	0.4%
V.IV Absence of Negative Affect^2	13	9	-	22	2.2%	50	5	-	55	3.0%	77	2.7%
V.V Anger^2,3	-	-	7	7	0.7%	-	-	22	22	1.2%	29	1.0%
V.VI Sadness^2,3	-	-	57	57	5.8%	-	-	19	19	1.0%	76	2.7%
V.VII Tension^2,3	-	-	7	7	0.7%	-	-	12	12	0.7%	19	0.7%
V.IIX Frustration^2,3	-	-	-	-	0.0%	-	-	10	10	0.5%	10	0.4%
V.IX Bad Temper^2,3	-	-	31	31	3.2%	-	-	18	18	1.0%	49	1.7%
VI. Physical Health^2				6	0.6%				28	1.5%	34	1.2%
VI.I Physical Well-being^2	1	1	-	2	0.2%	3	4	-	7	0.4%	9	0.3%
VI.II Physical Symptoms^2,3	-	-	4	4	0.4%	-	-	21	21	1.1%	25	0.9%
VII. Achievement^2				21	2.1%				90	4.9%	111	4.0%
VII.I High or Constant Performance^2	4	8	-	12	1.2%	14	29	-	43	2.4%	55	2.0%
VII.II Low or Declining Performance^2,3	-	-	9	9	0.9%	-	-	47	47	2.6%	56	2.0%
IIX. Framework Conditions^2				52	5.3%				126	6.9%	178	6.3%
IIX.I Teaching Characteristics^2	10	-	-	10	1.0%	66	-	-	66	3.6%	76	2.7%
IIX.II Atmospheric and Environmental Factors^2	42	-	-	42	4.3%	60	-	-	60	3.3%	102	3.6%
IX. Residual Category^2	4	37	32	73	7.4%	24	100	103	227	12.4%	300	10.7%
Total	353	294	333	980	100.0%	618	553	656	1827	100.0%	2807	100.0%

This table presents descriptive statistics on the category frequencies. Numbers relate to the number of segments addressing the respective categories. Percentages relate to the proportion of assigned segments in relation to the total of segments in the respective group (student sample, teacher sample). Moreover, this table provides an overview of all main and subcategories, including whether they were formed inductively or deductively (i.e. ¹ Categories built based on EPOCH (Kern et al. 2016); ² Categories built based on the data; ³ Categories accounting for discriminant validity).