See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377160244
The role of teacher-student relationships and student-student relationships
for secondary school students' well-being in Switzerland
Article  in  International Journal of Educational Research Open · January 2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100318
CITATIONS
2
READS
654
4 authors:
Katja Saxer
Universität Bern
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Jakob Schnell
Universität Bern
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Julia Mori
Universität Bern
27 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Tina Hascher
Universität Bern
301 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Katja Saxer on 05 January 2024.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
Available online 23 December 2023
2666-3740/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The role of teacher–student relationships and student–student relationships
for secondary school students’ well-being in Switzerland
Katja Saxer *
, Jakob Schnell , Julia Mori , Tina Hascher
Department of Research in School and Instruction, Institute of Educational Science, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Student well-being
Teacher–student relationships
Student–student relationships
Mediation regression analysis
Secondary school
Switzerland
A B S T R A C T
Student well-being has gained prominence on both the scientific and political agendas, as it is recognized as a
crucial skill in addressing the economic, ecological, and social challenges of the 21st century. Relationships that
students form with teachers and peers in the classroom are important for their academic, social, and emotional
development. Building and maintaining positive relationships contributes to psychological growth and wellbeing.
This article strives for a deeper understanding of the association between student well-being and classroom
relationships from the students’ perspective. Mediation regression analysis was conducted between student
well-being, teacher–student relationships, and student–student relationships to overcome limitations of prior
studies using a unidimensional approach on student well-being and considering relationships in separate models.
This study shows that both relationships are related to student well-being, however associations differ regarding
different dimensions of student well-being and students’ individual factors such as gender, migration background,
and socio-economic status. Providing a multi-dimensional approach on student well-being as well as
taking both relationships into account adds to a profound understanding of processes in classrooms. Insights on
these relations can help educators, schools and researchers develop strategies to foster relationships in the
classroom and, in succession, enhance well-being in school.
Introduction
Adolescents are growing up in a rapidly changing world characterized
by uncertainty, information overload, and competition. This
increasing complexity and challenges may lead to anxiety disorders,
mental health conditions, depressive symptoms, and a range of psychological
and emotional disturbances (Green et al., 2012). Therefore,
student well-being (StudWB) has advanced to the scientific and political
agenda and is considered as an important skill that is crucial in facing
the mentioned 21st century economical, ecological, and social challenges
(OECD, 2018). Although recognizing the need to not only focus
on students’ academic outcomes but also taking their well-being into
account, research on StudWB is still diversified and a wide variety of
definitions are applied in academic and policy circles (Diener et al.,
2009; Dolan et al., 2008; Land et al., 2007; OECD, 2017; Seligman, 2011;
UNESCO, 2016). To comprehensively address StudWB a multidimensional
approach is needed considering both student’s subjective positive
and negative experiences in school environment, including emotional,
cognitive, and physical elements (Hascher, 2007).
Building and maintaining positive relationships fulfills a basic
human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and contributes
to psychological growth and well-being (Gunnell et al., 2013).
Considering the substantial amount of adolescents’ time spent at school,
it becomes apparent that teachers and peers assume a pivotal function in
the attainment of social relatedness. Therefore, in the recent two decades
increasing emphasis has been placed on teacher–student relationships
(TSR) and student–student relationships (SSR) in
understanding the complexity of interpersonal processes in the classroom
and their multiple outcomes (Endedijk et al., 2021). In line with
attachment theory, teachers are important attachment figures for young
people (Beam et al., 2002), especially in adolescence when critical attitudes
toward school and teaching increase (De Fraine et al., 2005;
Eccles et al., 1991). By establishing close and low conflictual relationships
with their students, teachers provide an environment for successful
learning and StudWB (Hall-Lande et al., 2007; Hascher, 2003; Koomen
& Jellesma, 2015; Roffey, 2015). Moreover, teachers can be referred to
as the invisible hand (Farmer et al., 2011) determining the quality of
SSR. The intricate dynamics of peer relationships within classroom
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: katja.saxer@unibe.ch (K. Saxer).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research Open
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100318
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
2
environments are shaped not only by the interpersonal behaviors
exhibited by students themselves but also by contextual factors set by
the teachers and by the nuanced interactions with a specific student.
Close peer relationships in a secure and fair school environment are
consistently associated with StudWB (Hall-Lande et al., 2007; Hascher,
2003; Roffey, 2015). Despite the ongoing research on TSR and SSR,
studies mainly disregard the simultaneous coexistence of both types of
relationships within the classroom as well as individual student factors,
such as gender, migration background, and socio-economic status (SES).
Therefore, our study aims to contribute to the research by providing
a mediation regression model which investigates TSR and SSR at the
same time and their relation to a multidimensional construct of StudWB
all from the students’ perspective. Examining both types of relationships
in the classroom and considering well-being in school as a multidimensional
construct not only contributes to a deeper understanding of
classroom and school experiences but also supports the development of
intervention programs aiming at fostering well-being in schools.
Literature overview
Student well-being
The inquiry into the constituents of a fulfilling life and the determinants
of individual well-being is one that does not lend itself to a
straightforward resolution. Researchers in the domain of psychology,
exemplified by Diener (1984), Ryff (1989), and Seligman (2011), have
endeavored to address this question through the utilization of constructs
such as happiness, joy, life satisfaction, and a simultaneous absence of
negative emotions and complaints. However, this pursuit has resulted in
a further proliferation of diverse perspectives and interpretations,
thereby complicating the attainment of an answer. The complexity of
the question and conceptual ambiguity seems even more pronounced
when the concept of well-being is applied to the school context. Overall
well-being and well-being in school might not be identical as evident by
differences in students’ answers (Hascher, 2004a). Nevertheless, general,
psychological terms are still applied to the school context and no
generally accepted definition of StudWB has yet emerged.
In recognition of the complexity and the multidimensional nature of
StudWB, Hascher (2003) introduced a multi-component model,
emphasizing that the complexity of the psychological construct of
well-being must also be considered for the school context. Well-being in
school was conceptualized as the dominance of positive emotions and
cognitions over negative ones toward school life and the whole school
community (Hascher, 2003). The multidimensional model of well-being
in school consists of three positive dimensions (i.e., positive attitudes
toward school, enjoyment in school, positive academic self-concept) and
three negative dimensions (i.e., worries in school, physical complaints in
school, and social problems in school) as indicators of StudWB. It seems
reasonable to assume that positive and negative dimensions coexist
simultaneously, because students at the same time may experience joy
from interactions with teachers, but also worries related to their grades.
Going beyond a single-dimensional approach to StudWB and avoiding
treating StudWB merely as the absence of students’ negative experiences
in school would enhance understanding of the construct’s complex
nature.
Based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1977), a variety
of factors contribute to the development of StudWB, which can be
classified into the student, classroom, and school/societal level. The
micro-level comprises individual factors such as student’s gender,
migration background, and SES (Livingstone & Srivastava, 2012;
Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009). For example, students with certain demographic
(male, migration background) and socio-economic factors
(low SES) have been identified as being at-risk for encountering academic
and socioemotional difficulties (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Henricsson
& Rydell, 2004) which might impede their StudWB. Male and
minority students seem to perceive school climate (i.e., the quality of the
school environment experienced by its’ members, which influences their
behaviors in school) less favorably, which may further influence their
StudWB (Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Ruus et al., 2007). Boys tend to show lower
enjoyment in school, while girls express more concerns about school.
However, systematic analyses of gender-specific differences in StudWB
are scarce and findings are heterogenous as some studies showed no
difference between female and male students regarding their StudWB (e.
g., Hascher 2004b, Hascher & Hagenauer 2011). Students with a
migration background are significantly more likely to report loneliness
at school and report more exclusionary experiences (Aldridge et al.,
2016; Zimmer & Stein, 2022). Additionally, empirical evidence suggests
that higher socioeconomic status contributes to greater well-being in
school (Martin, 2005; OECD, 2019). Being in a school environment that
does not fit students’ individual needs can lead to negative behavioral
and motivational outcomes (Eccles et al., 1991). Especially in secondary
school environments, students’ motivation, engagement, and StudWB is
likely to decrease (Drexler, 2010; Gunnell et al., 2013; Pietarinen et al.,
2014). Relationships in the classroom seem to be of particular interest in
the period of adolescence when StudWB decreases, as they can serve as a
resource in dealing with increased cognitive and emotional demands in
secondary education and with stress (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Goldstein
et al., 2005; Roorda et al., 2011). In contrast, empirical evidence suggests
that students may have lower levels of performance, engagement,
and self-efficacy when lacking positive TSR (Roorda et al., 2011;
Wentzel, 2004) or positive SSR (Bush, 2005; Fenzel, 2000). A lack of TSR
and SSR may also exacerbate behavior problems (Gazelle & Druhen,
2009; Hamre & Pianta, 2001) and ultimately decrease StudWB
(Hascher, 2010).
Teacher–student relationships
The TSR has been identified as a crucial and yet complex determinant
of successful educational processes (Cornelius-White, 2007). Supportive
and appreciative relationships seem to play a pivotal role in
fostering positive attitudes toward school and the development of
self-esteem (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Halle-Lande et al., 2007).
Along with self-determination theory (SDT) postulating the need for
relatedness as one of the three basic psychological needs essential for
facilitating an optimal motivational state for personal development
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Knierim et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017),
the attachment theory has been found to be the strongest theoretical and
empirical support regarding the development of TSR. Attachment refers
to a specific emotional bond that develops between a caregiver and a
child during the first years of life (Bowlby, 1969). Experiencing early
social interactions can not only have an immediate influence on child’s
behavior, but also appears to have an indirect and enduring impact on
the development of relationships, as they contribute to the building of
internal working models applied to a wider array of interaction partners,
including teachers and friends (Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Shaver, 2018;
Pianta et al., 2003). Although the bonds established between children
and teachers typically do not conform to the characteristics of attachment
bonds—as they are not described by enduring and intense affective
connections across time and space—teachers may provide a safe haven
particularly for children at-risk (e.g., with migration background and
low SES) (McGrath & van Bergen, 2015; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012;
Verschueren, 2015). Developmental systems theory (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998; Lerner, 1998) later laid the foundation for studying TSR
within a multi-level framework, considering both individual characteristics
and external influences. At the micro-level, individual factors such
as students’ gender, migration background, and SES are considered to
influence how a teacher perceives a particular child, e.g., teachers’
perceptions about less favorable behavior and poorer academic performance
of students may influence their internal working models of relationships
with certain groups of students (McGrath & van Bergen,
2015). The quality of TSR as a dyadic phenomenon can be assessed using
two distinct dimensions: Closeness and conflict (Birch & Ladd, 1997;
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
3
Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015; Pianta et al., 2003).
Closeness thereby refers to the warmth and security experienced in a
relationship with a teacher and the degree of comfort to reach for support
from teachers. Conflict describes the level of negativity, resistance,
and lack of rapport in the TSR. A high-quality TSR is characterized as
being high in closeness and simultaneously low in conflict (Koomen &
Jellesma, 2015; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012).
TSR can be assessed using self-report either from teachers’ or students’
perspective (Roza et al., 2021). The student perspective may provide a
more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within classroom
relationship processes, when considering not only TSR but also the influence
of peer relationships (Endedijk et al., 2021; Roza et al., 2021).
Establishing a close TSR simultaneously low in conflict, seems to play
an important role for student learning and achievement (Appiah et al.,
2023; Ruzek et al., 2016) as well as motivational (Maulana et al., 2014;
Ryan & Patrick, 2001) and emotional outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2010;
Lewis et al., 2009). Closeness and conflict in a relationship with teachers
have been linked to student development and well-being (Frijda &
Mesquita, 1994; Mainhard et al., 2018; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Wubbels
et al., 2014). Recent meta-analyses moreover provided compelling evidence
supporting the positive correlation between close, warm, and low
conflictual TSR and various outcomes, including StudWB, learning
engagement, and academic performance (Quin, 2017; Roorda et al.,
2011, 2017). Although the structure of secondary school possesses a
challenge on the development of close TSR due to an increasing number
of different teachers and a corresponding decrease in the amount of time
a student spends with a teacher (Eccles & Roeser, 2009), close relationships
with teachers appear to correlate even more strongly with
students’ learning behavior and motivation than in primary school
(Jagenow et al., 2015; Roorda et al., 2011).
Student–student relationships
While TSR are of compulsory nature, SSR are seen as more voluntary
and essentially horizontal (Bukowski et al., 2018; Laursen & Bukowski,
1997; Rubin et al., 2006). Neither party possesses the authority to
enforce the establishment of a relationship upon the other. Particularly
during the period of adolescence, when students strive for greater autonomy
from their parents, their relationships with peers assume
heightened significance (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997).
Peer relationships can be characterized by the reported cohesion in
the classroom of the students (Santos et al., 2014). According to Schiefer
and van der Noll (2017), social cohesion, as a multidimensional
construct, pertains to the quality of collective togetherness within a
group, with social relations serving as the predominant aspect. Therefore,
cohesion in the classroom refers to the degree of connectedness,
unity, and positive social interaction among students. It reflects the
overall sense of belonging, cooperation, and supportive relationships
among classmates (Osterman, 2000; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). SSR
are imbedded in multiple levels of social complexity, such as the individual,
the dyad, and the group level (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 2014;
Rubin et al., 2015). The first level encompasses factors such as gender,
migration background, and SES, which are deemed pertinent in the
formation and sustenance of high-quality relationships (Bakchich et al.,
2023; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Wanders et al., 2019). While adopting a
multilevel approach seems crucial for understanding relationships in the
classroom, concentrating solely on the individual level can offer an
opportunity to explore the impact of relationships on diverse students,
particularly those referred to be at-risk for encountering challenges in
the academic setting (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Henricsson & Rydell,
2004). In terms of gender, findings are somewhat inconsistent. Empirical
evidence suggests that girls tend to place greater emphasis on dyadic
friendships, exhibit higher levels of empathy, and demonstrate a greater
willingness to invest time and effort in nurturing social relationships
compared to boys (Bokhorst et al., 2010; Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
However, some findings indicate that boys have slightly higher quality
relationships with their classmates compared to girls (e.g., Tobia et al.
2019). Previous research on student migration background reported
lower levels of friendship quality for students with a migrant biography
(Chai, 2019; Kronig et al., 2000). Already in primary school, students
with a migrant background exhibit higher levels of social rejection and
lower levels of social acceptance (Krull et al., 2018). However, Chen
et al. (2019) have shown that students with both parents having a
migration background may engage more in peer interactions to foster a
sense of belonging and security. Concerning lower SES, empirical evidence
suggests a negative association with peer interactions in school
(Veland et al., 2015). Students with lower SES may face challenges in
establishing and maintaining peer relationships, particularly with those
from higher SES. This may be due to weaker social skills or behavioral
issues (Veland et al., 2009).
Drawing from an ecologically oriented model, children’s development
is influenced by a combination of their individual characteristics
(individual level) and the relationships (microsystem) they form within
specific contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). In the school
context, both teachers and peers contribute to students’ social relationships
and well-being.
The interplay of teacher–student relationships and student–student
relationships
The complexity of classroom processes requires research on TSR and
SSR to reexamine the associations between social relationships in the
classroom for different students, including them into one model
(Bukowski et al., 2018).
The attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) suggests that internal working
models of relationships with teachers shape students’ perceptions of
peer relationships, their ability to trust, and their overall social
competence within the peer group. Similar, social learning theory
(Bandura, 1971) posits that students acquire knowledge and skills
related to social interaction through observing and imitating their
teacher’s behavior. In this way, teachers provide a primary source of
social learning for students, shaping their understanding of interpersonal
dynamics and influencing their behaviors within SSR. However, if
the quality of TSR is low, students’ reliance on teachers as role models
might be reduced. As a result, they are less likely to observe and learn
social behaviors, communication strategies, and relationship-building
techniques from their teachers (Bandura, 1971). Furthermore, according
to social referencing theory (Feinman, 1992; Gibson & Walk, 1960),
peers acquire the ability to evaluate and form impressions of students
through their observations of interactions between those students and
their teacher. Peers use teachers’ responses and behaviors as a reference
point to understand and judge the social competence of their classmates
(Hughes et al., 2001). High-quality TSR appear to play a significant role
in fostering a positive emotional climate in which positive peer relationships
can evolve. Teachers who demonstrate sensitivity by being
responsive to students’ needs, offering help and considering their perspectives
provide successful learning environments and opportunities
for students’ engagement and interaction with each other (Pianta et al.,
2004). Despite the potential influence of various teacher characteristics
on the development of TSR, Hughes et al. (2006) were able to demonstrate
that children who had positive relationship with their teachers
exhibited greater peer acceptance, even when controlling for the influence
of individual levels of teacher support.
In addition to the theoretical perspectives, empirical evidence supports
the possessed relation between TSR and SSR. Teachers can be
referred to as the invisible hand (Farmer et al., 2011) that promotes
students’ self-directed, autonomous, and developmentally productive
peer relationships. In this regard TSR can be perceived as a pedagogical
instrument to intervene in peer relationships, thereby generally influencing
the quality of interpersonal dynamics among students (Bierman,
2011). Teachers may influence SSR in numerous ways—both indirectly
via classroom practices and teaching and directly via network-related
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
4
teaching (Gest & Rodkin, 2011). By setting classroom rules, fostering
collaborative opportunities, or providing support for students at-risk,
teachers contribute to the broader classroom social context (Bierman,
2011; Juvonen, 2018). Further, through interacting and establishing
relationships with a particular student, teachers communicate social
norms (Bouchard & Smith, 2017; Farmer et al., 2011; Hymel et al.,
2015). Students who have lower-quality relationships with their teachers
are likely to receive less support from their classmates and are
generally evaluated more negatively by their peers (Fredricks et al.,
2018; Hern´andez et al., 2016; Le´on & Liew, 2017). The limited number
of longitudinal studies conducted in this field also provide evidence
supporting the prediction that SSR are influenced by TSR (De Laet et al.,
2014; Hughes & Chen, 2011; Kiuru et al., 2015). Moreover, an
increasing body of empirical research indicates that the correlation between
TSR and SSR may be contingent upon the presence of positive or
negative aspects within TSR. Conflict in relationships with teachers
appears to be more strongly associated with peer relationships
compared to closeness (De Laet et al. 2014; Hendrickx et al., 2017;
Huber et al., 2018; Ladd et al., 1999; McAuliffe et al., 2009; White &
Jones, 2000). However, the evidence regarding this relation has been
inconsistent thus far, as the correlation was also found to be stronger for
closeness in TSR compared to conflict (e.g., Hughes et al. 2001). This
inconsistency in findings highlights the complex nature of the connection
between relationships in the classroom and the need for further
investigation.
Despite the theoretical and empirical approaches supporting the influence
of TSR on SSR, it is worth noting that the relationship between
TSR and SSR could also be examined from the opposite direction.
Building upon the expectation that peer acceptance has an impact on
students’ engagement (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006) and academic
self-efficacy (Buhs, 2005), it could be hypothesized that both in turn
influence TSR (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hughes et al., 2008; Mercer &
DeRosier, 2008). Furthermore, empirical research provides evidence
supporting the existence of reciprocal associations between the dimensions
TSR and SSR. Hughes and Chen (2011) were able to show
reciprocal effects between TSR and peer liking in a longitudinal study
with participants from grades 1 to 5. However, peer liking was measured
in individual interviews where children had to rate their liking in regard
to every other child in the class, thus measuring the quality of the SSR. In
a recent meta-analysis conducted by Endedijk et al. (2021), it was found
that TSR seem to exert a stronger effect on peer relationships compared
to the reverse influence of peer relationships on TSR.
While acknowledging the importance of longitudinal studies investigating
reciprocal effects between TSR and SSR we are convinced that
our study can contribute to the field by linking TSR along with SSR and a
multidimensional construct of StudWB. Therefore, our study provides
insight into the relation between the dimensions of TSR and SSR, while
also examining potential associations of student at-risk factors (gender,
migration background, SES).
The present study
In this study, we strive to understand classroom relationships more
deeply and to elucidate their importance for StudWB. Little domainspecific
research has been performed to analyze the construct of
StudWB in the context of secondary school, considering both positive
and negative aspects of school life. Although relationships within the
classroom seem to play a pivotal role for StudWB, especially at the
secondary school level when StudWB tends to decline (Gunnell et al.,
2013), limited research has been conducted so far taking both types of
relationships—with teachers and students—into account. It seems
crucial to analyze the impact of TSR and SSR on multiple dimensions of
StudWB to shed light on the specific factors that contribute to StudWB
and to identify potential interventions to support and enhance the
well-being of students who are considered at-risk for low StudWB and
low relationship quality.
Therefore, we propose a mediation regression model (in Fig. 1),
based on existing literature on the associations between StudWB, TSR,
and SSR. Consequently, the following research questions are investigated
in this study:
(1) How are TSR and SSR correlated with the different dimensions of
StudWB?
We expect closeness and SSR to have a positive correlation with the
positive dimensions of StudWB (Hypothesis 1.1) and a negative correlation
with the negative dimensions of StudWB (Hypothesis 1.2). We
further expect conflict to have a negative correlation with the positive
dimensions of StudWB (Hypothesis 1.3) and a positive correlation with
the negative dimensions of StudWB (Hypothesis 1.4).
(2) How does SSR mediate the correlation between TSR and the dimensions
of StudWB?
We expect SSR to mediate the correlation between TSR and the dimensions
of StudWB (Hypothesis 2.1). Moreover, we expect a positive
correlation between closeness and SSR (Hypothesis 2.2) and a negative
correlation between conflict and SSR (Hypothesis 2.3).
(3) How are students’ gender, migration background, and SES
related to SSR and the different dimensions of StudWB?
We hypothesize that girls would have more positive relationships
with peers and more positive feelings toward school than boys (Hypothesis
3.1). Migration background is expected to have a negative
correlation with SSR, a negative correlation with the positive dimensions
of StudWB, and a positive correlation with the negative dimensions
of StudWB (Hypothesis 3.2). Finally, we hypothesize that high
SES would have a positive correlation with SSR and have a positive
correlation with the positive dimensions of StudWB and a negative
correlation with the negative dimensions of StudWB (Hypothesis 3.3).
Method
Participants
In the present study, we analyzed the first wave data from the project
“XXX” (2021–2025). Forty-four classes in 17 schools from three
German-speaking cantons in Switzerland were recruited through school
principals; interested teachers were invited to participate in the study.
The sample for this study consists of N = 709 students (51 % male) from
the lower secondary school in grade 7. Participants filled out an online
self-reported survey during regular school hours, with one member from
our research team being present in the classroom. Among other constructs,
the survey included StudWB, TSR, and SSR from a student
perspective.
Measures
Student well-being
StudWB was measured using the Student Well-being Questionnaire
(Hascher, 2007), which contains six dimensions of StudWB such as (1)
positive attitudes toward school (e.g., “I like to go to school.”), (2)
enjoyment in school (e.g., “Have you experienced joy because of
teachers’ friendliness in the past few weeks?”), (3) positive academic
self-concept (e.g., “I do not have problems mastering school tasks.”), (4)
worries in school (e.g., “Have you been worried about your school
grades in the past few weeks?”), (5) physical complaints in school (e.g.,
“Have you had a severe headache in school in the past few weeks?”), and
(6) social problems in school (e.g., “Have you had problems with your
classmates in the past few weeks?”). Each dimension consisted of 3− 4
items. Students responded to the items on a 6-point Likert-scale from 1
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
5
(never/disagree) to 6 (very often/agree). Internal consistency reliability
(McDonald’s Omega (ω)) of the different StudWB dimensions ranged
from 0.71 to 0.83.
Teacher–student relationships
TSR was measured with 18 items drawn from the Teacher-Student
Relationship Scale (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015), including both dimensions
of closeness (8 items) and conflict (10 items). The scale
measures students’ views on their closeness and conflict in the relationship
with their teacher. Students were instructed to refer to their
classroom teacher or the teacher with whom they had attended the most
lessons. Closeness in TSR included items such as “When I feel uncomfortable,
I go to my teacher for help and comfort”; “I feel relaxed with my
teacher”; and “I think I have a good relationship with my teacher.”
Conflict in TSR included items such as “My teacher treats me unfairly”;
“I feel my teacher does not trust me”; and “I can be very angry with my
teacher”. Ratings ranged from 1 (no, that is not true) to 5 (yes, that is
true). Internal consistency reliability (McDonald’s Omega (ω)) of the
Teacher-Student Relationship Scale was 0.90 for closeness and 0.94 for
conflict.
Student–student relationships
The Student–Student Relationship Scale based on the Hessian
Reference Framework for School Quality [Hessischer Referenzrahmen
Schulqualit¨at] (HRS, 2012) was used to assess SSR. This scale measured
the cohesion of SSR in class with 6 items, including “In my class, most of
the students get along very well with each other”; “In my class we make
sure that nobody is left alone with their problems”; and “In my class I
have several good friends”. Student responded on a 4-point Likert-scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). The reliability (McDonald’s
Omega (ω)) of the Student–Student Relationship Scale was 0.83.
Student individual factors
Student individual factors included gender (1 = female, 2 = male)
and migration background (1 = Switzerland, 2 = other countries),
which was determined by students’ place of birth. In addition, students’
SES was calculated by using the PISA index of economic, social, and
cultural status (ESCS). The index was created by using student reports on
parents’ education, parents’ occupations, and an index summarizing a
number of home possessions that can be taken as proxies for material
wealth or cultural capital, such as possession of a car, the number of
books, and other educational resources available at the home (Avvisati,
2020; Erreygers et al., 2012).
Data analysis
In summary our data contained 6.34 % missing values. We removed
individuals (n = 48) who lacked information on the variables of interest.
There were no outliers (±3SD) identified. As a result, our final sample
size for analysis was N = 709. Prior to running mediation regression
analyses, we estimated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of
the variables (a method used for multi-level analysis, computed in Mplus
version 8.3 using the twolevel basic option) to evaluate the cluster
structure in the data as well as the degree of dependence of observations
(Geiser, 2013).
To explore the relationship between StudWB, TSR, and SSR we
conducted two separate regression analyses for closeness and conflict of
TSR as an independent variable and for each of the six dimensions of
StudWB as dependent variables, using cohesion in SSR as a mediating
variable. Gender, migration background, and SES were included as
covariates in the models. Analyses were conducted with SPSS v.28.0
using the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2015) to conduct
mediation analysis.
Results
Preliminary analysis
The ICCs for StudWB dimensions, closeness, conflict, and cohesion
ranged from 0.04 to 0.16, indicating that there were no substantial
differences between the school classes (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979).
Descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix of variables are
Fig. 1. Hypothesized theoretical mediation regression model.
Note. Solid arrows = regression between TSR and SSR; dotted arrows = regression between individual students’ factors; SSR and dimensions of StudWB.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
6
demonstrated in Table 1. Closeness was not significantly associated with
conflict, which confirms the independence of the two main dimensions
of TSR. Cohesion in SSR was significantly positively related to closeness
and negatively to conflict, which indicates the assumed association between
TSR and SSR. The positive dimensions of StudWB were significantly
positively associated with closeness and significantly negatively
with conflict, whereas the negative dimensions of StudWB showed significant
negative associations with closeness and significant positive
relations with conflict. SSR was found to be significantly positively
correlated with the positive dimensions and significantly negatively
associated with the negative dimensions of StudWB. Regarding the six
variables of StudWB, the inter-correlations analysis showed that the
negative and positive variables are significantly positively related to the
variables of the same dimension and significantly negatively associated
with the variables of the opposite dimension.
Mediation regression models
TSR and SSR
The direct associations between the dimensions of TSR on SSR are
presented in Table 2. The separate regression analyses showed a positive
correlation for closeness in TSR with SSR (b = 0.25, 95 % CI [.21, 0.29],
p < .001, F(4, 701) = 0.43, p < .001) and a negative correlation for
conflict with the relationships between students (b = − 0.08, 95 % CI
[− 0.13, − 0.04], p < .001, F(4, 701) = 0.22, p < .001). Gender had no
significant association with SSR in both models, whereas students’
migration background was significantly negatively associated with SSR.
SES showed a significant positive correlation with SSR regardless of
being included in the model with closeness or conflict.
Closeness in TSR, SSR, and StudWB
Table 3 shows that all direct relations between closeness and the
positive dimensions of StudWB were significant and positive, with the
strongest correlation for enjoyment in school (b = 0.42, 95 % CI [.34,
0.50], p < .001, F(5, 702) = 0.44, p < .001). However, regarding the
negative dimensions of StudWB, closeness was negatively associated
only with physical complaints in school (b = − 0.12, 95 % CI [− 0.23,
− 0.01], p < .05, F(5, 700) = 0.32, p < .001). Moreover, SSR was
significantly positively associated with the positive dimensions of
StudWB and significantly negatively related to the negative dimensions
of StudWB.
Being a girl was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward
school (b = − 0.29, 95 % CI [− 0.41, − 0.16], p < .001, F(5, 700) = 0.45, p
< .001) and had a significant negative correlation with the negative
dimensions of StudWB, except for social problems in school. Students’
migration background was not significantly associated with the positive
dimensions of StudWB, but was significantly positively related to
worries in school and physical complaints in school. SES had a positive
relation with the academic self-concept of students (b = 0.17, 95 % CI
[.06, 0.26], p < .001, F(5, 700) = 0.27, p < .001). Regarding the
negative dimensions of StudWB, all relations were found to be significantly
negative, except from SES not having a significant direct association
with social problems in school.
Conflict in TSR, SSR, and StudWB
Table 4 contains the associations between conflict, the dimensions of
StudWB, and SSR. All direct relations from conflict on the positive dimensions
of StudWB were significantly negatively related to the positive
dimensions of StudWB, with the strongest correlation for positive
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlation between study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Closeness 3.28 0.90 –
2. Conflict 1.95 0.94 − 0.06 –
3. Cohesion 3.06 0.56 .39** − 0.15** –
4. Positive attitudes
toward school
4.28 1.04 .38** − 0.26** .31** –
5. Enjoyment in school 4.33 1.01 .42** − 0.20** .27** .61** –
6. Positive academic self-
concept
4.31 1.02 .18** − 0.13** .22** .34** .25** –
7. Worries in school 3.29 1.42 − 0.12** .20** − 0.16** − 0.14** − 0.09* − 0.33** –
8. Physical complaints in
school
2.15 1.25 − 0.15** .26* − 0.21* − 0.15** − 0.09** − 0.26** .53* –
9. Social problems in
school
1.67 0.97 − 0.14** .19** − 0.40** − 0.21** − 0.13** − 0.14** .27** .38** –
10. gender – – .08* .26** − 0.31 − 0.16* − 0.04 − 0.01 − 0.10** − 0.17** .02 –
11. migration background – – .02 .11** − 0.12** − 0.03 .01 − 0.05 .12** .13** .07 − 0.00 –
12. SES 0.00 0.76 .01 − 0.06 .13** .01 .01 .16** − 0.15** − 0.16** − 0.04 .02 − 0.06 –
Note. N = 709. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. Answer options: TSR: 1 = no, that is not true, 2 = that is usually not true, 3 = sometimes, 4 = that is usually true, 5
= yes, that is true; SSR: 1 = not at all true, 2 = not rather true, 3 = rather true, 4 = true; StudWB: 1 = never/disagree – 6 = very often/agree.
*
p < .05,.
**
p < .01.
Table 2
Mediation models to predict SSR from closeness or conflict in TSR.
Outcome Predictors R2
F Estimate SE 95 % CI
SSR CLOS .19 40.40*** 0.25 0.02 [0.21, 0.29]
gender − 0.06 0.03 [− 0.13, 0.00]
migration − 0.21 0.06 [¡0.33, ¡0.09]
SES 0.09 0.03 [0.04, 0.14]
SSR CONF .05 8.75*** − 0.08 0.02 [¡0.13, ¡0.04]
gender 0.00 0.04 [− 0.07, 0.08]
migration − 0.16 0.06 [¡0.29, ¡0.04]
SES 0.09 0.03 [0.03, 0.14]
Note. N = 709. All estimate values were unstandardized betas. CLOS = closeness in teacher–student relationship; CONF = conflict in teacher–student relationship; SSR
= student–student relationship; SES = students’ socio-economic status. Bolded confidence intervals do not include a zero, indicating a significant effect.
***
p < .001.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
7
attitudes toward school (b = − 0.22, 95 % CI [− 0.30, − 0.14], p < .001, F
(5, 700) = 0.39, p < .001), and significantly positively related to the
negative dimensions of StudWB. All relations between SSR and the
positive dimensions of StudWB were found to be significantly positive.
Additionally, the associations between SSR and the negative dimensions
of StudWB were significant and negative.
No significant relations, neither regarding gender nor migration
background, could be found for the model including conflict and the
positive dimensions of StudWB. However, gender showed a significant
negative association with worries in school and physical complaints in
school. Students’ migration background was only found to be positively
associated with worries in school (b = 0.35, 95 % CI [.03, 0.66], p <
.001, F(5, 700) = 0.31, p < .001). SES showed a positive association with
the academic self-concept (b = 0.15, 95 % CI [.05, 0.23], p < .001, F(5,
700) = 0.27, p < .001). Regarding the negative dimensions of StudWB
all correlations were significant and negative, except for the nonsignificant
correlation between SES and social problems in school.
Discussion
The present study emphasizes the importance of relationships in the
classroom for the well-being of students with different individual factors.
A classroom environment that does fit students’ need for relatedness
is essential for numerous motivational, behavioral, and emotional
student outcomes (Eccles et al., 1991). Despite the great amount of
literature confirming positive relations of high-quality relationships
with StudWB, studies taking both TSR and SSR as well as a multidimensional
approach on StudWB into account are still scare. The strength
of our study is to consider a multifaceted perspective allowing us to
investigate the associations between the constructs in a more nuanced
way. Furthermore, we considered students’ gender, migration background,
and SES, to contribute to a deeper understanding of the varying
role of relationships in the classroom for children at-risk. Examining
children who are considered at-risk for academic and emotional outcomes
is of utmost importance to identify and elucidate potential protective
factors that may effectively facilitate their attainment of
successful academic trajectories.
In line with prior research, our findings indicate that establishing a
warm and secure environment by teachers can be associated with a
higher quality of peer relationships within the classroom setting. It is
important to note that the correlation between conflict and SSR was not
as strong as the association between closeness and SSR. In other words,
while conflict had a negative relation with SSR, the relation was not as
pronounced as the positive association between closeness and SSR. This
suggests that fostering a sense of closeness and reducing conflict within
TSR may be particularly vital for cultivating strong and positive SSR.
Our findings were consistent with Hughes et al. (2001), as they found
teacher support to be a greater negative predictor for peer dislike when
compared to teacher conflict. This finding may be ascribed to the halo
effect, as initially described by Thorndike (1920). Students who have a
Table 3
Mediation models to predict the dimensions of StudWB from closeness and SSR.
Outcome Predictors R2
F Estimate SE 95 % CI
PAS CLOS .20 34.63*** 0.37 0.04 [0.29, 0.46]
SSR 0.34 0.07 [0.20, 0.47]
gender − 0.29 0.06 [¡0.41, ¡0.16]
migration − 0.02 0.11 [− 0.24, 0.20]
SES − 0.02 0.05 [− 0.12, 0.07]
EIS CLOS .19 33.80*** 0.42 0.04 [0.34, 0.50]
SSR 0.23 0.07 [0.09, 0.36]
gender − 0.11 0.06 [− 0.23, 0.02]
migration 0.03 0.11 [− 0.18, 0.24]
SES − 0.01 0.05 [− 0.09, 0.08]
PASC CLOS .07 11.24*** 0.14 0.05 [0.05, 0.23]
SSR 0.28 0.07 [0.13, 0.42]
gender − 0.01 0.07 [− 0.14, 0.13]
migration − 0.11 0.12 [− 0.34, 0.12]
SES 0.16 0.05 [0.06, 0.26]
WIS CLOS .06 9.58*** − 0.12 0.06 [− 0.24, 0.01]
SSR − 0.26 0.10 [¡0.46, ¡0.06]
gender − 0.23 0.10 [¡0.42, ¡0.04]
migration 0.45 0.16 [0.13, 0.77]
SES − 0.25 0.07 [¡0.38, ¡0.11]
PCS CLOS .11 16.52*** − 0.12 0.06 [¡0.23, ¡0.01]
SSR − 0.35 0.09 [¡0.53, ¡0.18]
gender − 0.35 0.08 [¡0.52, ¡0.19]
migration 0.37 0.14 [0.09, 0.65]
SES − 0.23 0.06 [¡0.35, ¡0.11]
SPS CLOS .16 26.85*** 0.01 0.04 [− 0.07, 0.09]
SSR − 0.69 0.07 [¡0.82, ¡0.56]
gender − 0.01 0.06 [− 0.13, 0.11]
migration 0.07 0.11 [− 0.14, 0.28]
SES − 0.02 0.04 [− 0.11, 0.07]
Indirect Effects
P1: CLOS → SSR → PAS 0.08 0.02 [0.04, 0.13]
P3: CLOS → SSR → EIS 0.06 0.02 [0.02, 0.09]
P5: CLOS → SSR → PASC 0.07 0.02 [0.03, 0.11]
P7: CLOS → SSR → WIS − 0.06 0.03 [¡0.12, ¡0.01]
P9: CLOS → SSR → PCS − 0.09 0.03 [¡0.14, ¡0.04]
P11: CLOS → SSR → SPS − 0.17 0.03 [¡0.23, ¡0.12]
Note. N = 709. All McDonald’s Omega ω ranged from 0.71 (EIS) to 0.90 (CLOS). All estimate values were unstandardized betas. PAS = positive attitudes toward school;
EIS = enjoyment in school; PASC = positive academic self-concept; WIS = worries in school; PCS = physical complaints in school; SPS = social problems in school;
CLOS = closeness in teacher–student relationship; SSR = student–student relationship; SES = students’ socio-economic status. Bolded confidence intervals do not
include a zero, indicating a significant effect. P1–P11 = indirect effect in the mediation model.
***
p < .001.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
8
positive relationship with their teachers, characterized by regular
acknowledgment and support, tend to be associated with a wide range of
positive qualities and attributes. Consequently, these students are likely
to be perceived more favorably by their classmates. Although further
experimental studies are required to establish causal relationships, our
findings substantiate the proposition that teachers serve as crucial role
models and as the invisible hand (Farmer et al., 2011) able to contribute
to the development of high-quality peer relationships. Targeting positive
comments and gestures of affection could be an effective method to
increase acceptance and involvement of a particular student in the
classroom.
Also, our study demonstrates the significance of a regression mediation
model which includes both TSR and SSR in relation to the different
dimensions of StudWB, suggesting taking both types of relationships
into account when examining their association with StudWB. More
specifically, conflict in TSR was significantly correlated with all dimensions
of StudWB, whereas closeness was not significantly related to
worries and social problems in school. This finding suggests that to
further investigate and foster StudWB regarding these two dimensions,
other predictors should be considered such as a pressure to perform,
which may lead to worries in school and a comparison and competitive
struggle between students. By clearly communicating the expectations,
goals, and criteria for success, teachers could enhance transparency and
provide students with a better understanding of what is required of
them. This clarity could reduce ambiguity and alleviate potential stress
or worries related to academic performance (Hascher & Hagenauer,
2011). SSR as a mediator was significantly associated with all dimensions
of StudWB, highlighting its crucial role in fulfilling the basic
need for social relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). By fostering positive
and supportive SSR, educators and schools can contribute to the satisfaction
of students’ fundamental social needs, which in turn positively
impacts their overall well-being. Furthermore, our findings also suggest
that even if a relationship with the teacher is perceived as conflictual by
a student, positive relationships with peers could serve as a protective
factor and may help to prevent a decrease in StudWB.
When considering possible at-risk factors for students, it becomes
evident that relations between StudWB, TSR, and SSR differ among
students. In line with prior research, we also found the associations
between gender and the dimensions of StudWB to be heterogenous
(Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011; Markus et al., 2022). Girls showed more
positive attitudes toward school, but also more worries and physical
complaints in school even when having a close relationship with
teachers. Two aspects should be considered regarding this finding. First,
there might be a possibility that girls express negative emotional experiences
more openly (Hascher, 2010). Secondly, positive relationships
with teachers may result in internalizing higher performance expectations,
which, in turn, may lead to increased worries and physical complaints
in school. It is conceivable that girls try to establish positive TSR
as a response to their worries and physical complaints in school
(Bokhorst et al., 2010; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Additionally, we found
Table 4
Mediation models to predict the dimensions of StudWB from conflict and SSR.
Outcome Predictors R2
F Estimate SE 95 % CI
PAS CONF .15 24.67*** − 0.22 0.04 [¡0.30, ¡0.14]
SSR 0.53 0.07 [0.40, 0.66]
gender − 0.13 0.07 [− 0.27, 0.00]
migration 0.11 0.11 [− 0.11, 0.34]
SES − 0.05 0.05 [− 0.14, 0.05]
EIS CONF .10 16.34*** − 0.19 0.04 [¡0.26, ¡0.11]
SSR 0.46 0.07 [0.33, 0.59]
gender 0.04 0.07 [− 0.09, 0.17]
migration 0.17 0.11 [− 0.05, 0.39]
SES − 0.03 0.05 [− 0.12, 0.06]
PASC CONF .07 10.69*** − 0.11 0.04 [¡0.19, ¡0.03]
SSR 0.34 0.07 [0.21, 0.48]
gender 0.06 0.07 [− 0.08, 0.20]
migration − 0.05 0.12 [− 0.28, 0.18]
SES 0.15 0.05 [0.05, 0.25]
WIS CONF .10 15.05*** 0.31 0.06 [0.20, 0.42]
SSR − 0.27 0.09 [¡0.45, ¡0.08]
gender − 0.38 0.10 [¡0.57, ¡0.19]
migration 0.35 0.16 [0.03, 0.66]
SES − 0.23 0.07 [¡0.36, ¡0.09]
PCS CONF .17 28.79*** 0.38 0.05 [0.28, 0.47]
SSR − 0.35 0.08 [¡0.50, ¡0.19]
gender − 0.54 0.08 [¡0.70, ¡0.38]
migration 0.25 0.14 [− 0.02, 0.52]
SES − 0.21 0.06 [¡0.32, ¡0.10]
SPS CONF .18 30.38*** 0.14 0.04 [0.07, 0.22]
SSR − 0.65 0.06 [¡0.77, ¡0.53]
gender − 0.07 0.06 [− 0.19, 0.06]
migration 0.04 0.10 [− 0.17, 0.24]
SES − 0.01 0.04 [− 0.10, 0.07]
Indirect Effects
P2: CONF → SSR → PAS − 0.04 0.02 [¡0.08, ¡0.01]
P4: CONF → SSR → EIS − 0.04 0.01 [¡0.07, ¡0.01]
P6: CONF → SSR → PASC − 0.03 0.01 [¡0.05, ¡0.01]
P8: CONF → SSR → WIS 0.02 0.01 [0.00, 0.05]
P10: CONF → SSR → PCS 0.03 0.01 [0.01, 0.06]
P12: CONF → SSR → SPS 0.05 0.02 [0.02, 0.10]
Note. N = 709. All McDonald’s Omega ω ranged from 0.71 (EIS) to 0.94 (CONF). All estimate values were unstandardized betas. PAS = positive attitudes toward school;
EIS = enjoyment in school; PASC = positive academic self-concept; WIS = worries in school; PCS = physical complaints in school; SPS = social problems in school;
CONF = conflict in teacher–student relationship; SSR = student–student relationship; SES = students’ socio-economic status. Bolded confidence intervals do not
include a zero, indicating a significant effect. P2–P12 = indirect effect in the mediation model.
***
p < .001.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
9
no significant correlation between gender and SSR. This indicates that
SSR seem not to be solely determined by gender, suggesting that various
other factors, such as personal dispositions might play a more substantial
role (Hughes et al., 2001; Tobia et al. 2019).
Regarding the dimensions of StudWB, students with a migration
background showed more worries in school independent from the
relationship with their teacher and were found to have more physical
complaints albeit of being close with their teacher. Students with a high
SES showed a higher academic self-concept when being close with their
teachers. Hence, for students coming from a lower SES closeness in TSR
was not significantly positively related to their worries and physical
complaints in school. Associations were pointing in the same direction
regarding having a conflictual relationship with a teacher. Students with
a migration background, as well as those with lower SES exhibited lower
levels of cohesion in SSR regardless of the quality of TSR, suggesting that
these students may face additional barriers or challenges in forming
strong and positive connections with their classmates (Leventhal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In summary, the findings of our study concerning
at-risk students with migration background and low SES revealed that a
close TSR alone might not be positively related to StudWB particularly in
relation to the negative dimensions of worries in school and physical
complaints in school.
The results of this study indicate that the relation of TSR and SSR
may not only vary among students with different individual factors but
might be further limited when considering different dimensions of
StudWB. It suggests that TSR may not have a universal association with
all aspects of StudWB and that the relations might not be the same for all
students. Therefore, there is a need to consider individual student differences
and the multifaceted nature of well-being in future studies for a
more nuanced understanding of classroom relationships, thus contributing
to a positive class and school environment as well as StudWB. This
also applies to practical implications. Teachers can have a direct impact
on students’ classroom experience, including how they feel and how
students with different individual factors perceive the environment. To
promote closeness in TSR and cohesion in SSR, teachers could integrate
certain exercises into their teaching practice such as paying each other a
compliment (Tomba et al., 2010) or sharing positive experiences (Gabel
et al., 2006). Overall insights on these relations can help educators and
schools develop strategies to foster relationships in the classroom and, in
succession, enhance well-being in school.
Limitations
There are several limitations associated with our findings. First, the
complexity of classroom relationships and their relationship with
StudWB may not be fully covered by the design of the current study. The
direction of the correlation between study variables is complex and may
also be reciprocal. Longitudinal designs could offer a deeper understanding
of the relationship between StudWB, TSR, and SSR. Second, we
tested a one-level model, thereby neglecting the protentional clustering
of students within classrooms. However, our analysis revealed a small
proportion of variance indicating that the expected associations between
predictor and outcome variables remained rather consistent across
classrooms. Multilevel modeling may be considered in future studies,
especially with a larger number of classes per school. Third, it should be
noted that our assessment of gender relied on a binary categorization,
specifically classifying individuals as either female or male. To promote
a more inclusive understanding of gender, future studies should entail
recognizing gender on a spectrum rather than as a binary construct, thus
allowing for a more comprehensive examination of how diverse gender
identities intersect with StudWB and relationship dynamics in the
classroom. Fourth, the measurement of students’ migration background
in our study utilized a dichotomous variable, classifying individuals
based on whether they grew up in Switzerland or not. Although this
approach can offer first impression on the association between migration,
StudWB and relationships, migration is a complex construct that
encompasses a range of diverse experiences and backgrounds. To
enhance the comprehensiveness of future investigations, researchers
should consider employing a more nuanced and inclusive approach to
measure students’ migration background, considering factors such as
country of origin, duration of residence, and cultural identity. By
adopting this approach, we could better capture the complexity of students’
migration experiences and their potential impact on the variables
under investigation. Fifth, students were asked to answer questions
about the relationship with the teacher in regard to their classroom
teacher. However, it was not controlled if students really did so. Future
studies should differentiate between relationships with different types of
teachers or based on the number of hours a teacher teaches the class.
Lastly, we only considered students’ perspective on relationships in the
classroom via self-report only. Results may be affected by a socialdesirability
bias and by the nature of the informant as students and
teacher may observe and value different aspects of relationships.
Considering multiple informants of relationships may provide a more
comprehensive understanding of relationships while also serving to
assess the strength and validity of our findings.
Conclusion
In the recent years, there has been a growing interest on researching
StudWB driven by the recognition of its significance as a vital skill in
addressing the 21the century challenges. Thus, investigating the interplay
of StudWB and predictors such TSR, SSR and individual student
factors holds importance in understanding StudWB and classroom processes.
To our knowledge this is the first study that has examined the
association among the three constructs by using a multidimensional
approach on StudWB as well as considering TSR, SSR and StudWB in one
mediation regression model. In conclusion, findings illustrate the
importance of social relationships in the classroom for multiple dimensions
of StudWB. Specifically, the current study contributes to the
field by highlighting, that relations between StudWB, TSR, and SSR
differ regarding different dimensions. Associations also vary regarding
students’ gender, migration background and SES. Therefore, our study
provides useful information for teachers and researchers to develop
strategies and intervention to foster relationships in the classroom and
enhancing student well-being.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Katja Saxer: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jakob
Schnell: Data curation, Project administration, Validation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Julia Mori: Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Tina Hascher: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration,
Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements and Funding
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation
(SNSF) [grant number HIECPU/2019/6].
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
10
References
Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., van der Werf, G., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Perceived social
support and early adolescents’ achievement: The mediational roles of motivational
beliefs and emotions. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-008-9367-7
Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., Fozdar, F., Ala’i, K., Earnest, J., & Afari, E. (2016). Students’
perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity.
Improving Schools, 19(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215612616
Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and
adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International
Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2018.01.012
Appiah, J. B., Arthur, Y. D., Boateng, F. O., & Akweittey, E. (2023). Teacher-student
relationship and students’ mathematics achievement: Mediating roles of students’
perception of mathematics, students’ self-efficacy, and cooperative learning
strategies. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.29333/mathsciteacher/13193
Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: A review and some
suggested improvements. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1), 1–37. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Bakchich, J., Carr´e, A., Claes, N., & Smeding, A. (2023). The moderating role of
socioeconomic status on the relationship between teacher social support and sense of
belonging to school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 153–166.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12545
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beam, M. R., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2002). The nature of adolescents’ relationships
with their “very important” nonparental adults. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014641213440
Bierman, K. L. (2011). The promise and potential of studying the “invisible hand” of
teacher influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appdev.2011.04.004
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early
school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5
Bokhorst, C. L., Sumter, S. R., & Westenberg, P. M. (2010). Social support from parents,
friends, classmates, and teachers in children and adolescents aged 9 to 18 years: Who
is perceived as most supportive? Social Development, 19(2), 417–426. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00540.x
Bouchard, K. L., & Smith, J. D. (2017). Teacher-student relationship quality and chil
dren’s bullying experiences with peers: Reflecting on the mesosystem. Educational
Forum, 81(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1243182
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume I. Attachment. Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety, and anger. Basic Books.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.53.100901.135233
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In
W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of
human development (pp. 993–1028). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B., & Rubin, K. H. (2018). Peer relations: Past, present and
promise. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.). Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Guildford Press.
Bush, E. S. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Selfconcept
and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School
Psychology, 43(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.001
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2018). Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and clinical
applications (3rd ed.). Guilford.
Chai, X., Du, H., Li, X., Su, S., & Lin, D. (2019). What really matters for loneliness among
left-behind children in rural China: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology,
10(774), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00774
Chen, Y., Wang, L., & Zhao, J. (2019). Peer relationship profiles in rural Chinese
adolescents: Longitudinal relations with subjective well-being. Journal of Health
Psychology, 26(11), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319888278
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/
10.3102/003465430298563
De Fraine, B., Van Landeghem, G., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2005). An analysis of
well-being in secondary school with multilevel growth curve models and multilevel
multi-variate models. Quality and Quantity, 39, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11135-004-5010-1
De Laet, S., Doumen, S., Vervoort, E., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., et al.
(2014). Transactional links between teacher-child relationship quality and perceived
versus sociometric popularity: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development,
85(4), 1647–1662. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12216
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., et al. (2009).
New measures of wellbeing. Social Indicators Research Series, 39, 247–266. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-412
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A
review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective wellbeing.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joep.2007.09.001
Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning
environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 26, 369–385. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1081
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The
impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education,
99, 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1086/443996
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stageenvironment
fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.). Handbook of adolescent
psychology: Individual bases of adolescent development (pp. 404–434). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x
Endedijk, H. M., Breeman, L. D., van Lissa, C. J., Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., den Boer, L., &
Mainhard, T. (2021). The teacher’s invisible hand: A meta-analysis of the relevance
of teacher–student relationship quality for peer relationships and the contribution of
student behavior. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 370–412. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543211051428
Erreygers, G., Clarke, P., & van Ourti, T. (2012). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who in this
land is fairest of all?”–Distributional sensitivity in the measurement of
socioeconomic inequality of health. Journal of Health Economics, 31(1), 257–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.10.009
Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand:
The role of teachers in children`s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychologie, 32(5), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
Feinman, S., Roberts, D., Hsieh, K. F., Sawyer, D., & Swanson, D. (1992). A critical review
of social referencing in infancy. In S. Feinman (Ed.). Social referencing and the social
construction of reality in infancy (pp. 15–54). US: Springer.
Fenzel, L. M. (2000). Prospective study of changes in global self-worth and strain during
the transition to middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(1), 93–116.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431600020001005
Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M. T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting
girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21419
Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S.
Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual
influence (pp. 51–87). American Psychological Association.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when
things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.91.5.904
Gazelle, H., & Druhen, M. J. (2009). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion predict social
helplessness, upset affect, and vagal regulation in response to behavioral rejection by
a friend. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0016165
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford Press.
Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer
ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 288–296. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004
Gibson, E. J., & Walk, R. D. (1960). The "visual cliff.". Scientific American, 202(4), 64–71.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0460-64
Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem
behavior: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship perceptions and
characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 41(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.401
Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Robinson, P. L. (2012). Positive education programs:
Integrating coaching and positive psychology in schools. In C. van Nieuwerburgh
(Ed.). Coaching in education: Getting better results for students, educators, and parents
(pp. 115–132). Karnac Books.
Gunnell, K. E., Crocker, P. R. E., Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013).
Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test of basic psychological needs
theory in physical activity contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 599–607.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.007
Hall-Lande, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E., Christenson, S. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007).
Social isolation, psychological health, and protective factors in adolescence.
Adolescence, 42(166), 265–286.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory
of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2),
625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first
grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child
Development, 76(5), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hascher, T. (2003). Well-being in school: Why students need social support. In P.
Mayring & C. von Rh¨oneck (Eds.). Learning emotions – the influence of affective factors
on classroom learning (pp. 127–142). Lang.
Hascher, T. (2004a). Schule positiv erleben. Ergebnisse und Erkenntnisse zum Wohlbefinden
von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Haupt Verlag.
Hascher, T. (2004b). Wohlbefinden in der Schule. Waxmann.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
11
Hascher, T. (2007). Exploring students’ well-being by taking a variety of looks into the
classroom. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 4, 331–349.
Hascher, T. (2010). Wellbeing. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.). International
encyclopedia of education (pp. 732–738). Elsevier.
Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2011). Wohlbefinden und Emotionen in der Schule als
zentrale Elemente des Schulerfolgs unter der Perspektive geschlechtsspezifischer
Ungleichheiten. In Hadjar, A. (Ed.). Geschlechtsspezifische bildungsungleichheiten (pp.
285–308). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. S.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683
Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Mainhard, T., Oudman, S., Boor-Klip, H. J., & Brekelmans, M.
(2017). Teacher behavior and peer liking and disliking: The teacher as a social
referent for peer status. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4), 546–558. https://
doi.org/10.1037/edu0000157
Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems:
Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0012
Hern´andez, M. M., Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., VanSchyndel, S. K., Spinrad, T. L.,
Silva, K. M., et al. (2016). Emotional expression in school context, social
relationships, and academic adjustment in kindergarten. Emotion, 16(4), 553–566.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000147
Hessischer Referenzrahmen Schulqualit¨at (HSR). (2012). Dokumentation der fragebogen
[Unver¨offentlichte interne skalendokumentation]. Institut für Qualit¨atsentwicklung.
Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (2014). A dialectical perspective. In J. F. Leckman, C.
Panter-Brick, & R. Salah (Eds.). Pathways to peace: The transformative power of
children and families (pp. 19–26). MIT Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Sage.
Huber, C., Gerullis, A., Gebhardt, M., & Schwab, S. (2018). The impact of social
referencing on social acceptance of children with disabilities and migrant
background: An experimental study in primary school settings. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 33(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08856257.2018.1424778
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental
significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Journal of School
Psychology, 39(4), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7
Hughes, J. W., Zhang, D., & Hill, C. R. (2006). Peer assessment of normative and
individual teacher-student support predict social acceptance and engagement among
low-achieving children. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 447–463. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.002
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. (2008). Teacher–student support, effortful
engagement, and achievement: A three year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
Hughes, J. N., & Chen, Q. (2011). Reciprocal effects of student-teacher and student-peer
relatedness: Effects on academic self efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(5), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.03.005
Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015). Addressing school
bullying: Insights from theories of group processes. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 37, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.008
Jagenow, D., Raufelder, D., & Eid, M. (2015). The development of socio-motivational
dependency from early to middle adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(194), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00194
Juvonen, K. (2018). The potential of schools to facilitate and constrain peer
relationships. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.). Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 491–509). Guildford Press.
Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Pakarinen, E., Poskiparta, E., Ahonen, T., et al.
(2015). Positive teacher and peer relations combine to predict primary school
students’ academic skill development. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 434–446.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038911
Knierim, B., Raufelder, D., & Wettstein, A. (2017). Die Lehrer-Schüler-Beziehung im
Spannungsfeld verschiedener Theorieans¨atze. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht,
64(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2017.art04d
Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jellesma, F. C. (2015). Can closeness, conflict, and dependency be
used to characterize students’ perceptions of the affective relationship with their
teacher? Testing a new child measure in middle childhood. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12094
Kronig, W., Haeberlin, U., & Eckhart, M. (2000). Immigrantenkinder und schulische
selektion: P¨adagogische visionen, theoretische erkl¨arungen und empirische untersuchungen
zur wirkung integrierender und separierender schulformen in den grundschuljahren.
Haupt.
Krull, J., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2018). Does social exclusion by classmates lead
to behaviour problems and learning difficulties or vice versa? A cross-lagged panel
analysis. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 235–253. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1424780
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in
kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70(6), 1373–1400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00101
Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in child
well-being: An evidence- based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 105–132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9023-0
Laursen, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). A developmental guide to the organization of
close relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(4), 747–770.
https://doi.org/10.1080/016502597384659
Le´on, J., & Liew, J. (2017). Profiles of adolescents’ peer and teacher relatedness:
Differences in well-being and academic achievement across latent groups. Learning
and Individual Differences, 54(2), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2017.01.009
Lerner, R (1998). Theories of human development: Contemporary perspectives. In W.
Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., pp. 1–24). Wiley
& Sons.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin,
126(2), 309–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309
Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Reschly, A. L., & Valois, R. F. (2009). The incremental
validity of positive emotions in predicting school functioning. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(5), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734282908330571
Livingstone, K. M., & Srivastava, S. (2012). Up-regulating positive emotions in everyday
life: Strategies, individual differences, and associations with positive emotion and
well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 504–516. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrp.2012.05.009
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An
examination of elementary and junior high. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1),
81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00031-3
Mainhard, T., Oudman, S., Hornstra, L., Bosker, R. J., & Goetz, T. (2018). Student
emotions in class: The relative importance of teachers and their interpersonal
relations with students. Learning and Instruction, 53, 109–119. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.011
Markus, S., Rieser, S., & Schwab, S. (2022). The gender-specific role of social
relationships for school well-being in primary school: Do peers and teachers matter
differently? Special Issue: How does well-being in school matter? Effects, influencing
factors, and promotion, 230(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/
a000500
Martin, P. (2005). Making people happy. The nature of happiness and its origins in childhood.
Fourth Estate.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M. C., & Bosker, R. (2014). Teacher-student interpersonal
relationships do change and affect academic motivation: A multilevel growth curve
modelling. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 459–482. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjep.12031
McAuliffe, M. D., Hubbard, J. A., & Romano, L. J. (2009). The role of teacher cognition
and behavior in children’s peer relations. Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5),
665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9305-5
McGrath, K. F., & van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at
risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational
Research Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001
Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student
aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent
contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46
(6), 661–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results volume III: Students’ well-being. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en
OECD. (2018). The future of education skills. education 2030. the future we want. OECD
Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact
/ Accessed May 15, 2023.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results volume III: What school life means for students’ lives. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543070003323
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M (2003). Relationships between teachers and
children. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.). Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7,
educational psychology (pp. 199–234). John Wiley.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2004). Classroom assessment scoring system
[CLASS]. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Unpublished measure.
Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyh¨alt¨o, K. (2014). Students’ emotional and cognitive
engagement as the determinants of well-being and achievement in school.
International Journal of Educational Research, 67(3), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2014.05.001
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student
relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational
Research, 87(2), 345–387. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669434
Roffey, S. (2015). Becoming an agent of change for school and student well-being.
Educational and Child Psychology, 32(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.53841/
bpsecp.2015.32.1.21
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of
affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0034654311421793
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Dowdy, E. (2017).
Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement:
A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School
Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0035.V46-3
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship
processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls
and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.132.1.98
Roza, J. M. G., Frenzel, A. C., & Klassen, R. M. (2021). The teacher-class relationship A
mixed-methods approach to validating a new scale. Zeitschrift für P¨adagogische
Psychologie, 36(1–2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000328
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 571–645). John Wiley.
K. Saxer et al.
International Journal of Educational Research Open 6 (2024) 100318
12
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Browker, J (2015). Children in peer groups. In R. M.
Lerner (Series Ed.) & M. Bornstein & T. Leventhal (Vol. Eds.). Handbook of child
psychology and developmental science: Vol. 4. Ecological settings and processes (7th ed.,
pp. 175–222). Wiley.
Ruus, V. R., Veisson, M., Leino, M., Ots, L., Pallas, L., Sarv, E. S., et al. (2007). Students’
well-being, coping, academic success, and school climate. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 35(7), 919–936. https://doi.org/10.2224/
sbp.2007.35.7.919
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016).
How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived
peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42(3),
95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory. The Guilford Press.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6),
1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child
relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Santos, A. J., Vaughn, B. E., Peceguina, I., Daniel, J. R., & Shin, N. (2014). Longitudinal
stability of social competence indicators in a Portuguese sample: Q-sort profiles of
social competence, measures of social engagement, and peer sociometric acceptance.
Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 968–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034344
Schiefer, D., & van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature
review. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-016-1314-5
Seligman, M. E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being.
Free Press.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.86.2.420
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663
Tobia, V., Greco, A., Steca, P., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2019). Children’s wellbeing at school:
A multi-dimensional and multi-informant approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20
(3), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9974-2
Tomba, E., Belaise, C., Ottolini, F., Ruini, C., Bravi, A., Albieri, E., et al. (2010).
Differential effects of well-being promoting and anxiety-management strategies in a
non-clinical school setting. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(3), 326–333. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.01.005
Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework
effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom
factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001
UNESCO. (2016). Happy Schools! A Framework for Learner Well-Being in the Asia
Pacific. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002441/24414
0E.pdf. Accessed Mai 20, 2023.
Veland, J., Midthassel, U. V., & Idsoe, T. (2009). Perceived socio-economic status and
social inclusion in school: Interactions of disadvantages. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 53(6), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00313830903301994
Veland, J., Bru, E., & Idsøe, T. (2015). Perceived socio-economic status and social
inclusion in school: Parental monitoring and support as mediators. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 20(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632752.2014.931018
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an
attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 205–211. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672260
Verschueren, K. (2015). Middle childhood teacher–child relationships: Insights from an
attachment perspective and remaining challenges. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2015(148), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20097
Wanders, F. H. K., Dijkstra, A. B., Maslowski, R., & van der Veen, I. (2019). The effect of
teacher-student and student-student relationships on the societal involvement of
students. Research Papers in Education, 35(3), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2019.1568529
Wentzel, K. R. (2004). Understanding classroom competence: The role of socialmotivational
and self-processes. In R. V. Kail (Ed.). In Advances in child development
and behavior, 32 pp. 213–241). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2407(04)80008-9.
White, K. J., & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of teacher feedback on the reputations and peer
perceptions of children with behavior problems. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 76(4), 302–326. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2552
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Brok, P., Wijsman, L., Mainhard, T., & Tartwijk, J. (2014).
Teacher-student relationships and classroom management. In E. T. Emmer & E. J.
Sabornie (Eds.). Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed., pp. 363–386).
Routledge.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L.
(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent
engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911–933.
Zimmer, V., & Stein, M. (2022). Schulisches Wohlbefinden und Freundschaften: Ein
Vergleich zwischen jungen Menschen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund in
Abh¨angigkeit (inter)ethnischer Freundschaften. Zeitschrift für Schul- und
Professionsentwicklung, 4(5), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.11576/pflb-5983
K. Saxer et al.
View publication stats