Page 1 of 11
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 7
Publication Date: July 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.117.17321.
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier- One Character Education Intervention
Justin D. Garwood
University of Vermont
ABSTRACT
The rise in students’ mental health struggles and declining rates of prosocial
behavior in schools has resulted in increased attention on the social, emotional, and
behavioral aspects of schooling. Within the broader category of social-emotional
learning, character education includes a focus on students’ intrinsic values and
ways of thinking related to achieving their goals and developing personal
relationships. One increasingly popular, yet under-researched, character education
program for school-aged students is the Positivity Project (P2). The P2 program is
a universal professional development intervention focused on the 24 unique
character strengths from positive psychology. The purpose of the current study was
to implement a quasi-experimental design to examine the association between
teachers’ use of P2 and changes in teacher-student relationship quality. Results
suggested significant effects, with increases in closeness and decreases in conflict,
yielding moderate effect sizes. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
The rise in students’ mental health struggles and declining rates of prosocial behavior in
schools has resulted in increased attention on the social, emotional, and behavioral aspects of
schooling (Jeynes, 2019; Jones et al., 2013). This curriculum is most often referred to as social- emotional learning (SEL) and meta-analyses have suggested positive effects for students in
both academic and non-academic (e.g., behavior, social skills) domains (see Luo et al., 2022;
Tayler et al., 2017). Within the broader category of SEL, character education (CE) includes a
focus on students’ intrinsic values and ways of thinking related to achieving their goals and
developing personal relationships (Johnson, 2020; Jones & Doolittle, 2017). Systematic reviews
of the literature indicate promising effects for CE programs. For instance, Berkowitz and Bier
(2007) reviewed 73 studies published between 1945 and 2004, concluding that CE can improve
students’ academic performance and their social-emotional functioning. A separate meta- analysis by Jeynes (2019), including literature published from 1970 to 2014, found positive
effects for students’ academic achievement (e.g., reading, mathematics, science, and social
studies), as well as their social skills.
EXAMPLES OF CE PROGRAMS
One of the most well-researched CE programs is the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP; Gillham,
Brunwasser, & Freres, 2008), which includes a cognitive-behavioral and social problem-solving
skills program. Participants are taught to detect inaccurate thoughts, to evaluate the accuracy
of those thoughts, and to challenge negative beliefs by considering alternative interpretations.
Participants also learn to be more assertive, decisive, and relaxed when faced with stressful
situations. The program has been well-researched and suggested for large-scale rollout;
however, results from systematic review and meta-analyses have been inconsistent. Whereas
Page 2 of 11
236
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 7, July-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Brunwasser et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analytic review of 17 studies and found PRP
effective in reducing depression (d = 0.11-0.21), Bastounis et al. (2016) conducted a similar
review of nine randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies and found no significant effects on
depression or anxiety. Despite mixed findings in the research on CE, targeting students’
subjective well-being through CE has been theorized as a viable and promising path forward in
the effort to improve educational outcomes for all students (Elias et al., 2014).
Another popular (i.e., being used in schools across the United States), yet under-researched
program, is the Positivity Project (P2; https://posproject.org/). Garwood (2022) conducted a
pre-post study of P2 and found a significant relationship between P2 implementation and sense
of relatedness in school for elementary and middle school students. However, the study did not
include a control group and therefore cannot be considered an experimental evaluation of P2.
The P2 program is a universal (i.e., Tier-1) professional development intervention focused on
CE. Teachers are provided web-based, pre-packed materials to deliver 15-minute, daily lessons
on 24 unique character strengths. The 24-character strengths come from positive psychology,
which is a theoretical paradigm suggesting it is more efficacious to focus one’s inherent
strengths rather than their areas of difficulty (i.e., a strengths-based approach; Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Strengths are “pre-existing qualities that arise naturally, feel
authentic, are intrinsically motivating to use, and energizing” (Brdar & Kashdan, 2010, p. 151).
In practice, positive psychology is inherently the study of optimal human functioning (Seligman
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In school-based research, rather than identifying deficits, a positive
psychology approach asks, what is right with the student (Raley et al., 2021)? Positive
psychology does not ignore the negative aspects of one’s life; rather, it suggests emphasizing
one’s strengths as the best way to overcome difficulties (Diener, 2009).
The developers of P2 (see https://posproject.org/why-relationships/) assert one of the
purposes of the program is to help students build better relationships with others. Although a
focus on helping students develop character strengths (e.g., empathy, kindness, open- mindedness, social intelligence) may indeed improve relationship quality with others, no
research is yet available to support this claim. One of the most important drivers of students’
success in the classroom is the quality of the relationship they have with their teachers, as these
relationships foster student engagement (see Quin, 2017 for a review).
TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING, AND
CHARACTER EDUCATION
The quality of relationships between students and teachers is strongly associated with
students’ academic, social, and behavioral success (Flückiger et al., 2018; Kincade et al., 2020;
Roorda et al., 2011). Early formation of high-quality relationships (i.e., low conflict, high feelings
of trust and closeness) with teachers places students on a trajectory for optimal cognitive
development and healthy behavioral functioning well into their secondary years (Hamre &
Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). On the other hand, relationship stress, or conflict, can
exacerbate behavior problems and hinder social-emotional and academic growth (Meehan et
al., 2003; Van Loan & Garwood, 2020a). Research indicates that students who exhibit
behavioral and learning difficulties often benefit from the most from high-quality teacher- student relationships (Baker, 2006; Bierman, 2011), yet these students are more likely to have
poor relationships with their teachers (Murray & Greenberg, 2001; Van Loan & Garwood,
2020b).
Page 3 of 11
237
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.117.17321
Some researchers suggest that positive teacher-student relationships are the foundation of
successful SEL programs (Gunter et al., 2012; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). As teachers buy
into the SEL curriculum and become more socially and emotionally skilled themselves (because
of uptake of the content), they are better able to build relationships with their students (CASEL,
2007; Poulou, 2017a). Another possible mechanism is that, as students experience the program,
their social-emotional skills improve, and they elicit more positive interactions from teachers
(CASEL, 2007, 2010; Voegler-Lee & Kupersmidt, 2011). For example, Gunter et al. (2012) found
delivery of the Strong Start Pre-K SEL program decreased levels of conflict and increased levels
of closeness between teachers and students. Similarly, Poulou (2017b) found a significant and
positive association between elementary teachers’ delivery of SEL and teacher-student
relationship quality. Given the promising effects of SEL on teacher-student relationship quality,
it is necessary to explore the degree to which similar effects may be found for CE programs,
such as P2.
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which implementation of a CE program
– P2 – is related to a change in the quality of the teacher-student relationship for elementary
school students. Although P2 does not directly teach relationship-buildings skills – instead
focusing on character strengths – the developers have claimed relationships as a central focus
of their intervention. The following research question guided the study:
1. What is the statistical relationship between the use of the P2 program with elementary
students and the quality of teacher-student relationships?
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Four suburban, public elementary schools in the midwestern United States served as the setting
for the study. Two schools were assigned to treatment (i.e., received the P2 intervention) by the
research team and two additional schools served as the control group. A total of 42 teachers in
grades 3-4 participated in the study, with the following demographics: 88.1% female, 9.5%
male, 2.4% gender not reported; 83.3% White, 7.2% Black, 9.5% race/ethnicity not reported;
and an average of 15.1 years teaching (SD = 9.3). Information for five students from each
classroom spanning grades 3-5 was included in the study. Teachers were asked to select the
five students whom they felt most (a) confident would not leave before the end of the school
year, and (b) able to report on their relationship quality. Overall student (N = 210)
demographics were as follows: 54.5% female, 45.5% male; 82.6% White, 10.7% Black, 4% two
or more races, 1.6% Hispanic/Latinx, 1.1% Asian. No missing data were present in the study.
Demographic data for the full sample, categorized by treatment and control group, is available
in Table 1. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups
for either teachers or students.
Table 1: Demographic and Descriptive Data for Sample by Group Assignment
Teachers (N = 42)
Item n Treatment (n = 22) n Control (n = 20)
Sex (%)
Female 19 86.36 18 90.0
Male 3 13.64 2 10.0
Race (%)
Page 4 of 11
238
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 7, July-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
White 18 81.81 17 85.0
Black 1 4.55 2 10.0
Not Reported 3 13.64 1 5.0
Years Teaching, M (SD) 22 14.5 (8.74) 20 15.85 (10.1)
Baseline Conflict, M (SD) 110 2.34 (0.63) 100 2.43 (0.68)
Baseline Closeness, M (SD) 110 3.76 (0.28) 100 3.79 (0.25)
Note. No significant differences between groups on any variables (all p-values < .05); The sample sizes for
Conflict and Closeness are greater than the total number because there were five students per teacher in each
group.
Design
In order to explore the relationship between use of the P2 program and teacher-student
relationship quality, we implemented a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-data
collection. All four included schools were using a positive behavior and intervention support
(PBIS) approach to supporting student behavior. Although the four schools were in different
school districts, their approaches to PBIS were fairly similar, as they taught their students
universal rules and expectations. They also incentivized prosocial student behavior and
deterred undesirable behavior by use of a token economy system. Students earned points that
could then be used to purchase items (e.g., homework passes, food at the school store) at pre- determined times throughout the school year. Tier-2 (e.g., small social skills groups) and tier-3
(e.g., individualized behavior intervention plans) supports were also utilized in each school. All
four schools agreed to take part in the survey after being told their teachers could earn $50 gift
cards for completing online surveys at two time points throughout the school year. Two of the
schools chosen by the researchers would receive the P2 intervention at reduced cost and the
remaining two schools would be offered the program the following year at reduced cost, should
they so choose.
Intervention
The P2 program targets the 24 unique and malleable character strengths (see Figure 1;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004) established in positive psychology to help all students become their
best selves. In addition to taking a positive approach to intervention and the promotion of
positive behaviors, which increases teacher buy-in and fidelity (Owens & Waters, 2020), the P2
program claims it was specifically designed to provide teachers with the autonomy they need
to meet their students’ individual needs while also taking the guesswork out of content delivery.
By allowing teachers to tailor content to their individual students, P2 also claims to foster the
teacher-student relationship because students feel their teachers are offering material that is
relevant to them. A positive relationship between teacher and student is shown to increase
fidelity during interventions (see Sutherland et al., 2013). The P2 implementation strategy
playbooks, which are differentiated by grade level, provide teachers with zero-prep tools to
teach character building and relationship skills. The playbooks contain detailed lesson plans
and weekly slide presentations that teachers use for 15-minute, daily character-strength
instruction.
Figure 1: Positive Psychology’s 24 Character Strengths
Creativity Curiosity Open-Mindedness Love of Learning
Perspective Bravery Persistence Integrity
Enthusiasm Love Kindness Social Intelligence
Page 5 of 11
239
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.117.17321
Teamwork Fairness Leadership Forgiveness
Humility Prudence Self-control Appreciation of Beauty
Gratitude Optimism Humor Purpose
P2 partnership schools are allowed access to a digital library maintained by the developers.
This library contains 32 weeks of grade-level differentiated slide presentations for 15-minute,
daily lessons on character strengths. Training for teachers to implement P2 includes a three- hour staff-wide online training video. Because the program is pre-packaged and designed to be
ready for use “off the shelf,” teachers are prepared to then implement the program right away.
A typical week of P2 lessons follows this structure: Days 1 and 2 introduce the character
strength and reinforce students’ learning through group discussions and formative assessment;
Days 3 and 4 involve an activity where students use the character strength; and Day 5 involves
reflection, such as journaling.
Procedures
Procedures for the current study were approved by the institution review board (IRB) at the
home institution of the first author of this study. In the beginning of the school year, all four
schools implemented their business-as-usual PBIS practices. The two P2 schools also began
implementing the P2 character education program with daily lessons. In January, teachers at
all four schools completed an online survey through Qualtrics. In addition to basic demographic
questions, teachers each identified five students in their classrooms whom they felt they could
most accurately report on relationship quality with the students. This pre-survey was provided
in January to allow teachers a few months to get to know their students. Then, in late May,
teachers from all four schools completed the same questions for the same respective five
students in their classrooms regarding relationship quality. To capture fidelity of
implementation, teachers in P2 classrooms were also asked to report what percentage of P2
lessons they used throughout the school year on a scale of 0-100% with intervals of 10%.
Finally, as a check for social validity, teachers in P2 schools were asked to answer a Yes or No
question regarding whether or not they would like to continue using the P2 program beyond
the current school year.
Measures
The short form of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) is a 15-item
measure with two subscales to measure the degree of closeness (e.g., I share an affectionate,
warm relationship with this child; α = .86) and conflict (This child easily becomes angry with me;
α = .87) between teacher and student. Responses are provided from teachers using a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1=Definitely does not apply; 2=Not really; 3=Neutral, not sure; 4=Applies
somewhat; 5=Definitely applies). The STRS is one of the most widely used measures of teacher- student relationship quality (Poling et al., 2022).
DATA ANALYSIS
We conducted multi-level modeling (MLM) analyses to answer our research question using the
MIXED procedure in SAS 9.4. The two random levels in the models were (a) students and (b)
classrooms. We used MLM because the nested nature of students in classrooms indicated a
small amount of dependency based on intraclass correlations (ICCs) for Closeness (0.28) and
Conflict (0.28). Three-level models were not necessary as ICCs at the school level did not
indicate a relevant level of dependency at level three for either Closeness (.07) or Conflict (.05).
Page 6 of 11
240
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 7, July-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The dependent variable in each model was the post-P2 survey response score for Closeness and
Conflict, respectively. We also included child gender (female = 0, male = 1) as a covariate, as
previous research indicates relationship quality varies based on child gender (Rimm-Kauffman
et al., 2015). Race was not included as a covariate due to the relatively homogenous nature of
the sample. The respective baseline scores for Closeness and Conflict were also included to
account for pre-intervention relationship quality. Group status (0 = control, 1 = treatment) was
a fixed factor in both models. We calculated effect sizes for significant effects using Hedge’s g,
based on recommendations from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2022).
RESULTS
No significant differences in teacher-student relationship scores based on closeness or conflict
were present between the two groups at baseline. Independent t-tests conducted using post- intervention data revealed significant effects in favor of the treatment group. Closeness scores
for the treatment group (M = 3.94, SD = 0.13) were significantly higher than those of the control
group (M = 3.81, SD = 0.22), t(208) = 5.27, p <.001. A main effect (see Table 2) was found for
group (b = 0.13, p < .001), such that students in the treatment group had significantly higher
posttest scores for closeness, resulting in a moderate effect (g = 0.73). Conflict scores for the
treatment group (M = 2.01, SD = 0.58) were significantly lower than those of the control group
(M = 2.35, SD = 0.63), t(208) = 4.07, p <.001. A main effect (see Table 2) was found for group (b
= -0.31, p < .001), such that students in the treatment group had significantly lower posttest
scores for conflict, resulting in a moderate effect (g = -0.65). Regarding fidelity of
implementation, results indicated an overall rate of 92.73% (SD = 8.27), with a range of 70-
100%. Overall, 20 out of 22 teachers (90.90%) indicated they would like to continue using the
P2 program in the following school year.
Table 2: MLM Effects for Closeness and Conflict
Fixed Effects B SE g
Closeness
Pretest 0.51*** 0.04
Child Gender 0.03 0.05
Group 0.13*** 0.03 0.73
Conflict
Pretest 0.60*** 0.07
Child Gender -0.21 0.14
Group -0.31*** 0.08 -0.65
Note. Bolded g indicates significant effect size. MLM = multi-level modeling.
***p < .001
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which implementation of a character
education program – P2 – was related to two aspects of teacher-student relationship quality.
Results indicated significant effects, such that when compared to teachers and students in a
control group, those involved in the intervention experienced higher rates of closeness and
lower rates of conflict. These findings are important for three reasons, which we discuss below.
First, the data represent an experimental evaluation of the effects of the P2 program, which is
currently being used in nearly 1,000 school across the United States (see
Page 7 of 11
241
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.117.17321
https://posproject.org/impact/). Schools need to implement programming with empirical
evidence of effectiveness to be sure students are receiving the best education possible. Second,
one would expect to see a proximal effect (i.e., a direct impact) on measures of students’ social- emotional skills or character strengths from a character education program because this is the
very information being taught to students. However, results from this study demonstrate a
distal effect, meaning a skill not directly being taught in the program – relationship building –
is being impacted by the intervention. Teacher-student relationship quality is especially
important to students’ success in school, as previous research has demonstrated strong
associations between relationship quality and students’ positive academic, behavioral, and
social outcomes (Poling et al., 2022; Roorda et al., 2017). Finally, results indicated a high level
of fidelity (91%) of implementation by the teachers involved in the study. The key for any CE
program is the fidelity with which it is implemented by teachers (Wanless & Domitrovich,
2015). Interventions developed through rigorous research often fall short in the classroom
when teachers’ fidelity fails to reach the level demonstrated by research teams (Durlak &
DuPre, 2008). Identifying programming that teachers are willing to implement with fidelity,
which promotes better outcomes for student participants, is therefore a priority.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Although results of the study are promising, they represent just one example of empirical
effectiveness for the P2 program. However, the significant effects on relationship quality, as
well as the high rates of fidelity reported by teachers, are reason to continue experimental
studies of the P2 program. Research points to several critical issues related to teachers that are
most important to consider when aiming to maintain a high level of fidelity (Durlak & DuPre,
2008; Han & Weiss, 2005; Larson et al., 2018). First, the teacher’s opinion on the type of
program (i.e., whether it is focused on promoting positive attributes or reducing negative
behaviors) influences fidelity. Research has long demonstrated that teachers prefer
interventions that aim to promote positive behaviors rather than reduce negative behaviors
(Elliot et al., 1984; Martens et al., 1986; Owens & Waters, 2020). The P2 program is based in
positive psychology, which adopts a strengths-based approach to intervention. Furthermore,
social validity data indicated that 91% of teachers would like to continue using P2 in the future.
Second, flexibility/adaptability and ease of use of the program for teachers impacts fidelity
(Han & Weiss, 2005). Programs may need to be structured so teachers have the autonomy to
adapt the content to changing circumstances and the needs of their students. At the same time,
the program needs to be adequately developed to the point where teachers can deliver the
content to their students with easy-to-understand core principles and intervention techniques.
The P2 program provides teachers with zero-prep materials for ease of use, while also allowing
teachers to decide for themselves how best to infuse the learning into their curriculum. Finally,
the teacher’s ability to cultivate a positive relationship with children receiving an intervention
is key to promoting fidelity (Sutherland et al., 2013). Student engagement in material, which is
positively associated with high-quality teacher-student relationships (see Quin, 2017), has
been posited as more important to program effectiveness than strict adherence to an
intervention protocol (Low et al., 2014).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Three limitations of the current study must be acknowledged. First, the sample was relatively
homogenous regarding the race and ethnicity of both teachers and students. Future research
on the use of P2 with diverse samples should be explored. Second, although quasi-experimental
Page 8 of 11
242
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 7, July-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
designs are an acceptable form of research, the gold standard continues to be RCTs. Future
studies should be done where participants are randomized by condition. Finally, the only data
available for this study was teacher-reported and there is always the risk of social desirability
bias in self-report data. Future studies would benefit from use of multi-informant data
collection methods.
Despite these limitations, there are other areas of future research also worth exploring.
Ecological models suggest that, if a program has a positive impact on some aspect of the
classroom (e.g., improving teacher-student relationship quality), teachers are also positively
impacted (e.g., teaching becomes less stressful), and this may, in turn, improve fidelity
(Domitrovich et al., 2016). Future research should explore these possible mechanisms of
change with large sample sizes to explore mediation and moderation effects in student and
teacher outcomes. Teachers may experience secondary beneficial effects of character education
programs when they internalize the content (Bradshaw et al., 2009). Whether this is related to
rates of fidelity of implementation or not remains to be seen, but the high rates of fidelity in this
study – coupled with the knowledge that only 50% of teachers typically implement social- emotional learning interventions with high fidelity (Low et al. 2016) – indicate the need for
future research in this arena.
Disclosure Statement
In accordance with my ethical obligations as a researcher, I am reporting that I have previously
been paid as a Research Consultant to The Positivity Project. My role has been to assist the CEO
in the evaluation of internal data collected by the company; develop surveys for partner schools
to help the company determine its impact; and to lead efforts to evaluate the impact of the
program. I have disclosed these interests to my home institution and maintain a plan to mitigate
any potential conflicts arising from this involvement. None of the consulting fees I have received
have had any impact on the research reported in the enclosed manuscript.
References
Bastounis, A., Gallaghan, P., Banerjee, A., & Michail, M. (2016). The effectiveness of the Penn Resiliency
Programme (PRP) and its adapted versions in reducing depression and anxiety and improving explanatory style:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 37-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.004
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial.
Prevention Science, 10, 100-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of
structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 151-154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.001
Brunwasser, S. M., Gillham, J. E., & Kim, E. S. (2009). A meta-analytic review of the Penn resiliency program's
effect on depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1042-1054.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017671
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2007). Youth and schools today: Why SEL is needed.
Chicago, IL: Author.
Page 9 of 11
243
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.117.17321
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2010). Congressman Ryan discusses early college
and social and emotional learning with Secretary Duncan [video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PTZcty1G5A.
Diener, E. (2009). Positive psychology: Past, present, and future. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 7-11). Oxford University Press.
Domitrovich, C. E., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw C. P., Becker, K. D., Keperling, J. P., Embry, D. D., & Ialongo, N. (2015).
Individual and school organizational factors that influence implementation of the PAX Good Behavior Game
intervention. Prevention Science, 16, 1064-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0557-8
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of
implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Elias, M., White, G., & Stepney, C. (2014). Surmounting the challenges of improving academic performance:
Closing the achievement gap through social-emotional and character development. Journal of Urban Learning,
Teaching, and Research, 10, 14-24.
Elliott, S. N., Witt, J. C., Galvin, G. A., & Peterson, R. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive interventions:
Factors that influence teachers’ decisions. Journal of School Psychology, 22(4), 353-360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(84)90022-0
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta- analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172
Garwood, J. D. (2022). Character education to improve students’ sense of relatedness: Preliminary findings from
The Positivity Project. International Journal of Education, 14(2), 119-136.
Gillham, J. E., Brunwasser, S.M., & Freres, D. R. (2008). Preventing depression in early adolescence: The Penn
resiliency program. In J. R. Z. Abela, & B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents
(pp. 309-333). Guilford Press.
Gunter, L., Caldarella, P., Korth, B. B., & Young, K. R. (2012). Promoting social and emotional learning in preschool
students: A study of Strong Start Pre-K. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 151-159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0507-z
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
Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665-679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in
relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Jeynes, W. H. (2019). A meta-analysis on the relationship between character education and student achievement
and behavioral outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 51(1), 33-71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747681
Johnson, K. P. (2020). A preliminary meta-analysis of character education research. (Publication No. 27997378)
[Fairleigh Dickinson University] ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Jones, S. M., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Social and emotional learning: Introducing the issue. TheFuture of Children,
27(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0000
Page 10 of 11
244
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 7, July-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Kincade, L., Cook, C., & Goerdt, A. (2020). Meta-analysis and common practice elements of universal approaches
to improving student-teacher relationships. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 710-748.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320946836
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between
childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72(5), 1579-1601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366
Larson, M., Cook, C. R., Fiat, A., & Lyon, A. R. (2018). Stressed teachers don’t make good implementers: Examining
the interplay between stress reduction and intervention fidelity. School Mental Health, 10, 61-76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9250-y
Low, S., Van Ryzin, M. J., Brown, E. C., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2014). Engagement matters: Lessons from
assessing classroom implementation of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program over a one-year period.
Prevention Science, 15, 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0359-1
Luo, L., Riechow, B., Snyder, P., Harrington, J., & Polignano, J. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis of
classroom-wide social-emotional interventions for preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 42(1), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420935579
Martens, B. K., Peterson, R. L., Witt, J. C., & Cirone, S. (1986). Teacher perceptions of school-based interventions.
Exceptional Children, 53(3), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300303
Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for
aggressive children. Child Development, 74(4), 1145-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00598
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2001). Relationships with teachers and bonds with school: Social emotional
adjustment correlates for children with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 25-41.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200101)38:1%3C25::aid-pits4%3E3.0.co;2-c
Owens, R. L., & Waters, L. (2020). What does positive psychology tell us about early intervention and prevention
with children and adolescents? A review of positive psychological interventions with young people. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 15(5), 588- 597. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1789706
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford
University Press.
Pianta, R. (2001). Student–Teacher Relationship Scale–Short Form. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Poling, D., Van Loan, C. L., Garwood, J. D., Zhang, S., Riddle, D. (2022). Enhancing teacher- student relationship
quality: A narrative review of school-based interventions. Educational Research Review, 37, 14-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100459
Poulou, M. S. (2017a). Social and emotional learning and teacher-student relationships: Preschool teachers’ and
students’ perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-
0800-3
Poulou, M. S. (2017b). An examination of the relationship among teachers' perceptions of social emotional
learning, teaching efficacy, teacher-student interactions, and students' behavioral difficulties, International
Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 5(2), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1203851
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
Page 11 of 11
245
Garwood, J. D. (2024). Change in Teacher-Student Relationship Quality During a Tier-One Character Education Intervention. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(7). 235-245.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.117.17321
Raley, S. K., Shogren, K. A., & Cole, B. P. (2021). Positive psychology and education of students with disabilities:
The way forward for assessment and intervention. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 5, 11-20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-020-00181-8
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher–
student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037252
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (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
Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of school-wide
positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 118-128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711413820
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,
55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.5
Sutherland, K. S., McLeod, B. D., Conroy, M. A., & Cox, J. R. (2013). Measuring implementation of evidence-based
programs targeting young children at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders: Conceptual issues and
recommendations. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113515025
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through
school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child
Development, 88(4), 1156-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864
Van Loan, C. L., & Garwood, J. D. (2020a). Facilitating high-quality relationships for students with emotional and
behavioral disorders in crisis. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(4), 253-256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219855740
Van Loan, C. L., & Garwood, J. D. (2020b). Measuring relationships between adolescents with emotional and
behavioral disorders and their teachers: A psychometric report. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(2),
144-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418786779
Voegler-Lee, M. E., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2011). Intervening in childhood social development. In
P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (2nd ed., pp. 605–
626). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wanless, S. B., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2015). Readiness to implement school-based social emotional learning
intervention: Using research on factors related to implementation to maximize quality. Prevention Science, 16,
1037-1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0612-5
What Works Clearinghouse (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version
5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance (NCEE).