Positive education in daily teaching, the promotion of wellbeing, and engagement in a whole school approach: a clustered quasi-experimental trial

Figures & data

Table 1. Implementation checklist intervention schools.

Implementation activities
Establish a project team concerned with the practicalities of PEP
Implement a workshop on the topic of wellbeing and engagement
Implement a workshop on the topic of values
Implement monthly PEP talks with the entire team
All teachers conduct five engagement scans during the school year
Implement strategies to enhance wellbeing and engagement at the classroom level
Develop at least one life rule during the school year
Organise activities in the context of a life rule
Inform parents about PEP via a parent letter
Make PEP part of the yearly parent conversations
Make PEP visible in the school and on the playground
Change or update the policy of the school

Table 2. Shared values and formulated life rules of both intervention schools.

School	Value	Life rule
School A	Personal growth	No talent remains unknown
	Humour	Don’t worry be happy
	Passion
	Safety
School B	Respect	You, I and We, everybody is welcome here
	Fun	School is a party and you are invited
	Talent enhancement
	Safety
	Authenticity

Table 3. Dropouts per measurement.

Outcome (Measure)	N consented to start	N filled in Pre	N filled in Pre and Post	N dropout (%)
Wellbeing & Self Esteem (Kid-KINDL-R)	399^a	319	305	14 (4%)
Engagement (observation)	173^b	173	132	41 (23%)
Emotional problems & Prosocial behaviour (SDQ)	639	605	576	29 (5%)
Student–teacher Relationship, Conflict, Closeness & Dependence (LLRV)	639	621	600	21 (3%)
Bullying & Victimisation (Olweus)	399^a	282	275	7 (2%)

^a Only completed by pupils in Grades 4–8; ^bSamples of 10 pupils from Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7 were scanned per school.

Table 4. Means and standard deviations for PEP schools and control schools.

	PEP schools			Control schools
Outcome	N	Pre M (SD)	Post M (SD)	N	Pre M (SD)	Post M (SD)
Wellbeing	143	3.93 (0.51)	4.05 (0.46)	162	3.86 (0.47)	3.90 (0.42)
Self-esteem	143	3.95 (0.84)	4.08 (0.70)	162	3.88 (0.74)	3.92 (0.70)
Engagement	65	3.21 (0.62)	3.32 (0.69)	68	3.10 (0.73)	2.68 (0.86)
Emotional problems	207	0.31 (0.41)	0.27 (0.39)	369	0.27 (0.34)	0.25 (0.35)
Prosocial behaviour	207	1.61 (0.46)	1.61 (0.45)	369	1.54 (0.42)	1.66 (0.38)
Student–teacher relationship	223	10.60 (1.40)	10.91 (1.65)	377	10.50 (1.45)	11.06 (1.34)
Conflict	223	1.42 (0.63)	1.49 (0.76)	377	1.53 (0.76)	1.40 (0.60)
Closeness	223	3.77 (0.57)	4.16 (0.63)	377	3.81 (0.52)	4.18 (0.58)
Dependence	223	1.76 (0.77)	1.77 (0.80)	377	1.78 (0.74)	1.72 (0.78)
Bullying	126	1.40 (0.91)	1.34 (0.81)	149	1.29 (0.80)	1.36 (0.81)
Victimisation	126	1.79 (1.26)	1.89 (1.35)	149	1.84 (1.30)	1.96 (1.33)

Note: N = number of respondents; M = mean score; SD = standard deviation.

Table 5. Intervention effects per outcome.

Outcome	N	AIC	BIC	LogLik	β	SE	p value
Wellbeing	305	2333.45	2366.99	−1157.72	−1.76	1.91	.454
Self-esteem	305	1644.24	1677.78	−813.12	−0.43	0.41	.410
Engagement	132	352.15	378.10	−167.08	−0.53	0.17	.090
Emotional problems	576	2253.10	2292.30	−1117.55	0.11	0.24	.688
Prosocial behaviour	576	2452.54	2491.74	−1217.27	0.55	0.29	.199
Student–teacher relationship	600	4673.42	4712.99	−2327.71	2.73	2.56	.398
Conflict	600	3955.89	3995.46	−1968.95	−2.42	1.30	.203
Closeness	600	3857.90	3887.48	−1914.95	−0.31	1.11	.807
Dependence	600	3433.17	3472.74	−1707.59	−0.62	0.77	.509
Bullying	275	785.10	817.65	−383.55	0.14	0.16	.492
Victimisation	275	989.70	1022.25	−485.85	−0.02	0.33	.955

Note: N = number of respondents; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; LogLik = log likelihood; β = slope; SE = standard error.