Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Whitehead, Jenna
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
For decades, research has documented the importance of caring student-teacher relationships in fostering students’ healthy development. Less attention has been paid, however, to investigating specific qualities of caring student-teacher relationships from the perspective of early adolescents in middle school. Three studies were conducted to address this gap. Study 1 presents the development and validation of the Caring Student-Teacher Relationship (CSTR) scale. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on data from 222 sixth and seventh grade students and a two-factor solution was found: Teacher Support and Attunement and Caring Teacher Qualities. Analyses revealed that the two factors were related in expected directions to existing measures of teacher support, to student and teacher-rated student adjustment, and to teachers’ reports of mindfulness and burnout. Study 2 explored 199 sixth and seventh grade students’ written responses to the question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” via a qualitative content analysis. Findings revealed 19 themes; 18 of which were grouped into one of three thematic categories associated with mindful teaching: Calm, Clear, and Kind, and one General Teaching theme. Most students’ responses comprised Kind and Clear themes. Girls’ responses were more likely to include Clear themes compared to boys. Study 3 investigated the congruence of student and teacher reports of their dyadic relationship and the relation of this congruence to students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. A cluster analysis of 219 sixth and seventh graders and their teachers produced four profiles based on the consistency between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationship quality: Congruent–Negative, Congruent–Positive, Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative, Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive. Students in the Congruent-Positive group were rated highest on both self- and teacher-reported dimensions of prosociality in contrast to students in other groups. Moreover, groups in which students rated the student-teacher relationship positive regardless of teachers’ ratings of the relationship were highest on school and well-being dimensions. Findings from this research has implications for understanding the nature of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence, particularly in middle school, and the association of these relationships with students’ overall functioning.
EARLY ADOLESCENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF CARING STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS: A MIXED METHODS APPROACH by JENNA WHITEHEAD BSc, The University of British Columbia, 2009 MA, The University of British Columbia, 2013 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Human Development, Learning, and Culture) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2021 © Jenna Whitehead, 2021 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Early adolescents’ perspectives of caring student-teacher relationships: A mixed methods approach submitted by Jenna Whitehead in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Development, Learning, and Culture Examining Committee: Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Professor, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education, UBC Supervisor Dr. Eva Oberle, Assistant Professor, School of Population & Public Health, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Lara Boyd, Professor, Director, Brain Behaviour Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Nancy Perry, Professor, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education, UBC University Examiner Dr. Amori Mikami, Professor, Department of Psychology, UBC University Examiner Dr. Kathryn Wentzel, Professor Emeritus, Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland External Examiner iii Abstract For decades, research has documented the importance of caring student-teacher relationships in fostering students’ healthy development. Less attention has been paid, however, to investigating specific qualities of caring student-teacher relationships from the perspective of early adolescents in middle school. Three studies were conducted to address this gap. Study 1 presents the development and validation of the Caring Student-Teacher Relationship (CSTR) scale. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on data from 222 sixth and seventh grade students and a two-factor solution was found: Teacher Support and Attunement and Caring Teacher Qualities. Analyses revealed that the two factors were related in expected directions to existing measures of teacher support, to student and teacher-rated student adjustment, and to teachers’ reports of mindfulness and burnout. Study 2 explored 199 sixth and seventh grade students’ written responses to the question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” via a qualitative content analysis. Findings revealed 19 themes; 18 of which were grouped into one of three thematic categories associated with mindful teaching: Calm, Clear, and Kind, and one General Teaching theme. Most students’ responses comprised Kind and Clear themes. Girls’ responses were more likely to include Clear themes compared to boys. Study 3 investigated the congruence of student and teacher reports of their dyadic relationship and the relation of this congruence to students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. A cluster analysis of 219 sixth and seventh graders and their teachers produced four profiles based on the consistency between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationship quality: Congruent–Negative, Congruent–Positive, Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative, Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive. Students in the Congruent-Positive group were iv rated highest on both self- and teacher-reported dimensions of prosociality in contrast to students in other groups. Moreover, groups in which students rated the student-teacher relationship positive regardless of teachers’ ratings of the relationship were highest on school and well-being dimensions. Findings from this research has implications for understanding the nature of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence, particularly in middle school, and the association of these relationships with students’ overall functioning. v Lay Summary Early adolescence marks a time of significant cognitive, social, and emotional changes and shifts in the nature of relationships at home. Thus, caring student-teacher relationships become particularly important for students’ well-being and school adjustment, particularly within the unique setting of middle schools. This research focused on understanding how early adolescents define and assess teacher caring. The present three studies explored these questions by (a) developing a new measure of students’ perceptions of teacher caring and examining the association between teacher caring and students’ school functioning, prosocial behaviours, and well-being; (b) exploring early adolescents’ descriptions of teacher caring, and (c) examining both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their mutual relationships and whether agreement between their perspectives was related to student adjustment. Findings have practical implications for caring qualities to prioritize in middle school and highlights the strong relation between middle school students’ perceptions of teacher caring and their healthy adjustment. vi Preface This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University of British Columbia’s Doctor of Philosophy in Human Development Learning and Culture. My supervisor for the project has been Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, who is the Principal Investigator of the Kimberly Schonert-Reichl (KSR) Social and Emotional Learning laboratory. The data used in Studies 1 – 3 were collected as part of a larger study evaluating a mindfulness-based social and emotional learning program for middle school students, which was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (approval certificate number: H18-02228). The identification and design of the research project was made in consultation with my supervisor. I formulated the research questions and hypotheses, prepared the data and conducted all data analyses, interpreted the results, and prepared the manuscript for each study. Dr. Schonert-Reichl, Dr. Oberle, and Dr. Boyd provided me with feedback on my manuscript drafts, which I incorporated in further revisions. The studies presented in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this dissertation are being submitted for publication as three separate manuscripts. A version of Chapter 2 (Study 1) was published in Frontiers in Education as Whitehead, J., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., & Boyd, L. (2021). Development and validation of a measure to assess early adolescents’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1-18. Chapter 3 (Study 2) is currently under review for publication and Chapter 4 (Study 3) will be submitted for publication shortly. For each manuscript, I am the first author and the co-authors are Dr. Kim Schonert-Reichl, Dr. Eva Oberle, and Dr. Lara Boyd. vii Table of Contents Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. v Preface .......................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xii Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 6 Middle School: Stage-Environment Fit ................................................................................... 6 The Classroom: A Relational Context ..................................................................................... 9 Student-Teacher Relationships .............................................................................................. 10 Attachment and Care in the Student-Teacher Relationship ................................................... 14 Characteristics of a Caring Student-Teacher Relationship in Early Adolescence ................. 17 Mindfulness in Teaching ....................................................................................................... 19 Gaps in the Research ............................................................................................................. 21 Summary and Present Research Aims ....................................................................................... 26 Study 1 Aims ......................................................................................................................... 27 Study 2 Aims ......................................................................................................................... 28 Study 3 Aims ......................................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2: Development and Validation of a Measure to Assess Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of Caring Student-Teacher Relationships ...................................................................................... 29 The Present Study ...................................................................................................................... 34 viii Method ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 3: What do Teachers do to Show They Care? Learning From The Voices Of Early Adolescents .................................................................................................................................... 71 Present Study ............................................................................................................................. 79 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Analytic Approach ..................................................................................................................... 83 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 85 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 92 Chapter 4: Associations of Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Attachment Quality of Their Relationships to Early Adolescents' Prosociality, School Functioning, and Well-Being: Does Congruence Matter? ........................................................................................................... 105 Present Study ........................................................................................................................... 114 Method ..................................................................................................................................... 116 Analysis Overview .................................................................................................................. 123 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 125 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 130 Chapter 5: General Discussion .................................................................................................... 146 References ................................................................................................................................... 164 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 218 Appendix A: Student Demographic Questionnaire (Study 1, 2, 3) ......................................... 218 Appendix B: Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (Study 1 & 3) ......................................... 219 Appendix C: Teacher Personal Support Subscale of the Classroom Life Measure (Study 1) 220 Appendix D: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Study 1 & 3) ........................................... 221 Appendix E: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence Scale (Study 1) ............................. 222 ix Appendix F: Intrapersonal Mindfulness and Interpersonal Mindfulness Subscales from the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (Study 1) ............................................................................... 223 Appendix G: Maslach Burnout Inventory (Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization Subscales) (Study 1) ................................................................................................................ 225 Appendix H: Classroom Supportiveness Subscale of the Sense of Classroom as a Community Scale (Study 1) ........................................................................................................................ 226 Appendix I: Prosocial Goals Subscale of the Social Goals Scale (Study 1) ........................... 227 Appendix J: Altruism Adolescent Scale (Study 1 & 3) ........................................................... 228 Appendix K: Social and Emotional Competence Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale (Study 1 & 3) ...................................................................................................... 229 Appendix L: Optimism Subscale of the Resiliency Inventory (Study 1) ................................ 230 Appendix M: 10-item Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (Study 1 & 3) .......................... 231 (PSS-10; Cohen & Williamson, 1988) .................................................................................... 231 Appendix N: Academic Goals Questionnaire (Study 1 & 3) .................................................. 232 Appendix O: Academic Success Subscale of the Academic Performance Rating Scale (Study 1 & 3) .......................................................................................................................................... 233 Appendix P: Open-ended Teacher Caring Question (Study 2) ............................................... 234 Appendix Q: Sample Coding Worksheet (Study 2) ................................................................ 235 Appendix R: Teacher Support and Attunement Subscale of Caring Student Teacher Relationship Scale (Study 3) ................................................................................................... 236 Appendix S: Sympathy Subscale of Teachers’ Ratings of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (Study 3) .................................................................................................................. 237 Appendix T: Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children (Study 3) ........................................... 238 Appendix U: Individual Standardized Scores on CSTR and STRS (Study 3) ........................ 239 x List of Tables Table 2.1. Caring Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (CSTR)...................................................65 Table 2.2. Descriptive Statistics of the CSTR ..............................................................................66 Table 2.3. Intercorrelations Between Items of the CSTR Using the Polychoric Correlation Matrix............................................................................................................................................67 Table 2.4. Items and Factor Loadings of the CSTR......................................................................68 Table 2.5. Corrected Item Total Correlations, and Ordinal Alpha if Item Deleted of Items of CSTR.............................................................................................................................................69 Table 2.6. Evidence of Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the CSTR...............................70 Table 3.1. Ethnic Origin Proportions of B.C. and School Neighbourhoods................................102 Table 3.2. Themes and Sample Student Responses.....................................................................103 Table 3.3. Frequencies (%) of Themes and Responses by Gender and Grade............................104 Table 3.4. Combination of Themes Present in Students’ Responses...........................................105 Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations of all Variables..............................142 Table 4.2. Group Differences in CSTR and STRS Means (SD) and Frequency of Gender and Grade............................................................................................................................................143 Table 4.3. Profile Group Differences in Prosociality, School Functioning, and Well-Being Means (SD) .............................................................................................................................................144 xi List of Figures Figure 4.1. Scatterplot of Standardized Scores of Student-Reported Teacher Support and Attunement (CSTR) and Teacher-Rated Student-Teacher Closeness......................................145 xii Acknowledgements I would like to extend my gratitude to many who made this dissertation possible. First, to my supervisor, Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, for her gentle and wise mentorship, critical feedback, and unwavering support and championing throughout the past several years. Kim, I am so grateful for every opportunity you have led me to and the enduring compassion you have shown me every step of the way. I offer my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Eva Oberle and Dr. Lara Boyd, for their encouragement and invaluable feedback and expertise, which were integral for helping to shape my studies. I would like to especially thank my committee for their understanding and flexibility throughout the past year of the pandemic, and their support that allowed me to finish my dissertation through this stressful time. I would also like to thank Drs. Nancy Perry and Amori Mikami for serving as university examiners for my final defence and for their feedback and engaging questions. Finally, I would like to give an especially big thank you to Dr. Kathryn Wentzel for serving as the external examiner for my dissertation and for her thoughtful suggestions and questions. I am grateful to the University of British Columbia and Faculty of Education for allowing me the opportunity to study and for providing financial support, through scholarships and grants, throughout my studies. I would also like to give thanks to all the past and present members of the KSR Social and Emotional Learning lab, for being my graduate school family, and for not only helping with the research process but always being sounding boards and support throughout the years. Special gratitude to Julie and Jenny for your help and support for my dissertation this past year, to Eri for being a second coder in Study 2, and to Michael for your statistical advice. I would also like to extend a special thanks to the school district administrators, teachers, and xiii students who welcomed us into their schools and enthusiastically participated in these studies and offered us invaluable insights into their school lives. Finally, I offer my deepest gratitude to my family. To my parents, for opening every door for me and cheering me through them, no matter which one I walked through. To my brother, for inspiring my field of study and for keeping me laughing as I go. And to my extended family, friends, and my TB – for being my rocks, my sanity, and my cheerleaders. Last but not least, I express my heartfelt gratitude to my husband Mario and daughter Ella for being the reason I could pursue this dissertation and my reason for continuing to pursuing this. xiv Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my loves, my husband Mario and my sweet Ella. To Mario, for going above and beyond to support me, for so often being both parents, and sacrificing so much for me to focus on my studies. And to my Ella; whose dramatic, early entrance into the world not only shifted my research focus but the heart of everything. To my sweet girl, who too often had to ask “Mommy, are you done your work?” — I dedicate this work to you, as my humble attempt to make the world a brighter, healthier, and kinder place for you and all children. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Historically, the predominant focus in psychology was on understanding and preventing psychopathology (e.g., anxiety, depression) as a means to improve the well-being of society (Koch & Leary, 1985; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). More recently, however, studies have added support to the notion that the absence of problems is not necessarily synonymous with optimal functioning or well-being (i.e., flourishing), especially for children and adolescents (Keyes, 2006; Keyes & Westerhof, 2012). Partially through the advent of positive psychology (Lerner, 2009; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), positive youth development (PYD; Damon, 2004), and social and emotional learning (SEL; Collie, 2020; Jones et al., 2019; Weissberg et al., 2015), there has been an emergent focus on studying the promotive and protective factors that may help today’s youth to thrive (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Durlak et al., 2011; Tolan et al., 2016) and exhibit resilience (i.e., the capacity to withstand or recover from significant challenges) (Sapienza & Masten, 2011) in the face of adversity. Moreover, there is a movement towards assessing not only students’ current well-being and functioning, but indicators of their “well-becoming” — indicators that can predict well-being and functioning in adulthood (Ben-Arieh, 2005, p. 100). Finally, in light of the mounting challenges that todays’ youth face, such as climate change and the current COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a fervent effort to study the conditions that could help young people to sustain well-being and well-becoming and to work together to cope with these crises (Luthar et al., 2021; Meherali et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2012). Given that many issues (e.g., mental illness, bullying) appear to emerge in childhood and adolescence (Children’s Health Policy Centre, 2019; Kessler et al., 2005), there is a growing 2 desire to prevent problems before they begin and set youth on positive trajectories (Durlak et al., 2011; Guhn et al., 2012). Early adolescence (ages 10 to 14 years), in particular, is a pivotal time to promote those factors associated with resilience (e.g., social support, optimism) because it signifies a developmental period in which young people experience a “stress pileup” due to the many social, emotional, cognitive, and biological changes that occur in a relatively short time period (Steinberg, 2016). However, as “child by environment” perspectives (Ladd, 2003) highlight, human development and adjustment are complex, and are influenced by factors both internal and external to the child or adolescent (Osher et al., 2020). Therefore, with the right context and support, early adolescence can also be a time of considerable advances in young peoples’ development and social capabilities, such as their ability to understand the perspectives of others (Blakemore, 2008, 2018; Mills et al., 2014). Graber and Brooks-Gunn (1996) describe in their transition-linked turning points framework, that this transitional period between childhood and adolescence may be marked by increased vulnerabilities, but it may also serve as a turning point with opportunities for change and growth (Del Giudice, 2014; Eccles, 1999). As illustrated by developmental systems theory (DST; Ford & Lerner, 1992; Osher et al., 2020) and the bioecological model of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), children and adolescents develop within an interactive set of relationships and contexts which include those of the family, school, community, and the wider culture. As Osher et al. (2020) state, relationships are the “drivers of human development” (p. 6); the neural connections within youths’ brains that underly their development are shaped through the relational connections they encounter. 3 Children and adolescents, in particular, spend a significant portion of their waking hours in school, in which they are constantly interacting with their teachers, classmates, and other school staff (Hamre & Pianta, 2010). Specifically for early adolescents, whose circles of influence are expanding from primarily the family to peer networks and the school environment, classrooms become some of the most significant contexts for development (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Ladd, 2003; McLaughlin & Clarke, 2010). Indeed, given that this is also a time in which early adolescents transition from elementary to middle school and experience changes in the nature and function of their relationships with parents and increased influence of peers and non-related adults (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Yu et al., 2018; Yu & Deutsch, 2019), teachers, in particular, become pivotal sources of support and guidance for these youth (Deutsch et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2005). As self-determination theorists posit, supportive student-teacher relationships have the potential to meet students’ basic needs of autonomy, belonging, and competence, thereby providing students with the security and motivation to venture out and thrive academically, socially, and emotionally (La Guardia et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Van Ryzin et al., 2009). For example, there is burgeoning evidence that supportive student-teacher relationships can promote students’ resilience (Luthar et al., 2021; Sapienza & Masten, 2011), student engagement and success in school (Engels et al., 2016; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004), well-being (Harding et al., 2019), and prosociality (Luckner & Pianta, 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010). Although the importance of student-teacher relationships in predicting a wide corpus of student outcomes is well-documented (Luckner & Pianta, 2011; Sapienza & Masten, 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010), traditionally, studies that have investigated student-teacher relationships have focused on the impact of these relationships in the early years (i.e., preschool, 4 Kindergarten) of school (Berry & O’Conner, 2010; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Only recently has there been a growing interest in empirically examining student-teacher relationships in the early adolescent years (Longobardi et al., 2016; Prewett et al., 2019), with burgeoning research demonstrating the continued importance of these relationships for students in middle childhood and adolescence (Wang & Eccles, 2012; Wentzel et al., 2010). For instance, research has shown that supportive student-teacher relationships may have an increasingly positive impact on early adolescent students’ social skills (Wentzel et al., 2010), well-being (Oberle et al., 2014), and academic aspirations (McCollum & Yoder, 2011). Furthermore, early adolescents’ experiences of supportive relationships with their teachers have been shown to buffer the typically observed declines in school compliance (i.e., increased misconduct), engagement, and the value they place on learning seen in the transition from middle school to high school (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Despite the growing interest in examining the impact of student-teacher relationships among early adolescents, there remains a lack of consensus on what characterizes a “high quality” student-teacher relationship in this developmental period. Attachment theory, however, (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) offers a perspective through which to view these dyadic relationships (De Laet et al., 2014). Although attachment theory arose from the study of parent-child relationships in early childhood (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015), a growing body of research has emphasized the continued importance of attachment qualities (e.g., nurturance, attunement) for older children and adolescents (Ammaniti et al., 2000; Buist et al., 2004; Duchesne et al., 2009), but also within non-parental relationships such as student-teacher relationships (Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012; Wentzel, 2002). For instance, models of family socialization and effective parenting (Baumrind, 1991) have been applied to student-teacher 5 relationships to show that, similar to the home, when teachers are nurturing and caring, students are more likely to adopt their values and goals (e.g., prosociality, academic competence) (Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 1997). Specifically, teachers both directly and indirectly transfer these ideals through mechanisms such as explicit instruction of social and emotional competencies, modeling of desired behaviours, and creating a context that values and supports students to behave prosocially (Wentzel, 2003). Moreover, fostering a sense of belonging in the classroom has been shown to lead to prosocial behaviour, via social goal motivation (Wentzel et al., 2018). Despite the growing appreciation of the significance of caring, nurturing student-teacher relationships for student adjustment, the field is in need of more nuanced, detailed explorations into what qualifies as caring, particularly within early adolescent contexts (Wentzel, 1997; Yu et al., 2018). Student-teacher relationships are dyadic, and students’ backgrounds and characteristics certainly contribute to the quality of their relationships with teachers. Due to the power differential in this relationship, however, “teachers lead the way in developing relationships with each of their students” (Prewett et al., 2019, p. 68), therefore the focus of the present research is on teachers’ contribution to these relationships, from the perspective of the students. Although there is growing attention on early adolescent students’ perspectives of their student-teacher relationships (Roorda et al., 2011), most of these studies focus on broad beliefs of teacher support (Brinkworth et al., 2017) or utilize a wide variety of items or unvalidated measures of students’ perceptions of these relationships (Pössel et al., 2018), resulting in a lack of consistency in how caring is conceptualized in this unique developmental phase. 6 The present research aims to address gaps in the literature by examining middle school students’ perceptions of the specific caring aspects of the relationships with their teachers through (a) developing and exploring the validity of a new student report measure of teacher caring, (b) exploring students’ qualitative descriptions of what teachers do to show that they care, and (c) investigating the congruence of student and teacher reports of their dyadic relationship and the relation of this congruence or incongruence on students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. Literature Review The following literature review explores existing literature on student-teacher relationships and their impact on students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being, with a particular focus on early adolescence. This chapter begins with an overview of early adolescence and the context of middle school, which includes a presentation of stage-environment fit theory (Eccles et al., 1993). Following this, current research on the classroom context and student-teacher relationships is examined, which includes some of the extant definitions and dimensions of what characterizes a supportive student-teacher relationship. This discussion includes a review of attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) as well as teachers’ social and emotional competencies (SEC; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) and mindful approaches to teaching (Hulburt et al., 2020). Finally, an overview of gaps in the literature and how this research proposes to address them is also presented. Middle School: Stage-Environment Fit Early adolescence signifies a particularly dynamic developmental period, characterized by significant biological, cognitive, and social changes (Del Giudice, 2014; Steinberg, 2016). In 7 addition, many social and emotional challenges (e.g., anxiety, conduct disorders) have been observed to increase around the same time that early adolescents are adjusting to middle school (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Kazdin, 1993). Historically, this has led to a belief that adolescence is just an inevitably tumultuous developmental period of “storm and stress” (Hall, 1904). More recently, however, researchers have called for an updated perspective of this developmental stage, citing more current research which has shown that not all adolescents experience turmoil (Arnett, 1999; Hines & Paulson, 2006; Offer & Schonert-Reichl, 1992). Eccles and colleagues posit, through their stage-environment fit perspective, that a mismatch between the developmental stage (in this case early adolescence) and the supports provided by the environment (i.e., middle school) is partly responsible for some of the negative psychological changes that are noted during this period of development, such as decreases in academic motivation, school drop-out, and delinquent behaviour (Eccles et al., 1993; Roeser & Eccles, 2014). This theory is rooted in the sociocultural perspective on learning (Vygotsky, 1978), and emphasizes that human learning and development are fundamentally social in nature. As such, when adolescents are not properly supported it can lead to greater emotional instability and risk for mental health problems (Lee et al., 2014) and declines in academic performance (Huss & Eastep, 2011; Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010). When properly nurtured and supported, however, it can be a time of profound development, with strides in social capabilities, such as an increased ability to understand the perspectives of others (Blakemore, 2008; Blakemore & Mills, 2014). Unfortunately, there is often a disparity between the needs of these developing adolescents and the opportunities provided by their social environments to meet these 8 relationship needs (Eccles et al., 1993). For instance, the way middle schools are typically structured (large classrooms, few teachers) can preclude enduring, positive relationships from forming (Woolley & Bowen, 2007). Moreover, elementary and middle schools tend to differ in their goals and focus, with middle school focusing more on performance and less on cooperative tasks and personal development (Roeser & Eccles, 2014). This mismatch, however, comes from more than just the school structure. Middle school teachers differ from elementary school teachers as well, with elementary school teachers generally reporting feeling more efficacious and having stronger beliefs in the malleability of learning, compared to middle school teachers (Midgley et al., 1995). In addition, some research indicates that middle school teachers may carry stereotypical beliefs about adolescence (i.e., “storm and stress”) which may impact their relationships with their students (Hines & Paulson, 2006; Roeser & Eccles, 2014). These beliefs, however, vary by culture, and thus impact middle school students differently in diverse contexts (LeTendre & Akiba, 2001). The transition from elementary to middle school often results in heightened levels of mistrust and distance between teachers and students (Wigfield et al., 2006). For example, research indicates that students often perceive that their teachers no longer care about them, and this is coupled with a decrease in opportunities for students to establish meaningful relationships with teachers due to the increase in the number of teachers students encounter throughout the school day (Wigfield et al., 2006; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). Similarly, research has illustrated that adolescents often experience declines in emotional support from teachers and a sense of belonging in their classroom as they move from elementary into middle or secondary schools (Eccles & Roeser, 2011) and middle school students often report that their teachers are 9 less friendly, supportive, and caring than their elementary school teachers (Gallup, 2014; Reddy et al., 2003). The Classroom: A Relational Context “Simply put, schools are a relational context in which interactions among all individuals play a critical role in shaping child development” (Sauve & Schonert-Reichl, 2019, p. 6). Within the school context, classroom level experiences appear to be the most influential and the most associated with student outcomes (Battistich et al., 1997; Nye et al., 2004; Resnick et al., 1997), especially for early adolescents (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Wentzel, 1998). This context, therefore, has the potential to heal or further exacerbate the stage-environment mismatch (Colaianne et al., 2020; Wigfield et al., 1991). Evidence is accumulating regarding the importance of a supportive classroom climate on students’ well-being, motivation, and school engagement and success (McLaughlin & Clarke, 2010; Pianta, 2016; Reyes et al., 2012). Studies have demonstrated that students who report feeling an attachment and connection to their school and feel cared for by people at school report greater well-being (Eccles et al., 1993 Rucinski et al., 2018), success in school (Bond et al., 2007; Reyes et al., 2012), and less antisocial behaviour (Smith, 2006; Wang & Degol, 2016). Research has highlighted a variety of aspects of the classroom (e.g., environment, instructional practices) that have the potential to impact students (Eccles & Roeser, 2011), however, the most proximal influences on student development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) are the interactions among students and teachers (Hamre & Pianta, 2010). The relationships students forge in their classrooms influence several aspects of 10 their development, from their academics to their social and emotional lives (Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Rucinski et al., 2018; Wang & Eccles, 2012) and this remains particularly true for early adolescents (Longobardi et al., 2016; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Oberle et al., 2014). Student-Teacher Relationships Given that adolescents spend the majority of their days within their classrooms, some of the most significant and consistent non-related adults in their lives are their teachers (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Ensuring that these student-teacher relationships are supportive becomes an important priority as students transition from elementary to middle school (Roeser & Peck, 2003). Students’ relationships with their teachers have been increasingly acknowledged in recent years as having the potential to significantly impact students’ academic achievement, social behaviours, and well-being, in either a positive or negative way (Downer et al., 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Roorda et al., 2011). For instance, a growing body of research indicates that higher levels of teachers’ stress and burnout is positively associated with students’ stress (Greenberg et al., 2016; Oberle & Schonert- Reichl, 2016) and negatively associated with students’ positive adjustment and well-being (Hoglund et al., 2015). In contrast, positive relationships between teachers and students have been shown to be a buffer for students’ behavioural problems (Wang et al., 2013), leading to more positive relationships among students and better school functioning (Roeser et al., 1996; Roorda et al., 2011), prosociality (Wentzel et al., 2010), and well-being (Murray-Harvey, 2010; Oberle et al., 2014). School Functioning 11 There is a plethora of research demonstrating the positive impact of student-teacher relationships on students’ school functioning and performance (Roorda et al., 2011; Zins et al., 2007). Despite the environmental mismatch of middle school, recent studies have shown that when middle school students perceive positive social support from their teachers, they show increased academic interest and engagement compared to students without such support (Roorda et al., 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010). For instance, in a large study of 1,088 Grade 7 and 8 students in Germany, Raufelder et al. (2016) found that when students liked their teacher and perceived supportive student-teacher relationships in their school, students reported greater intrinsic academic motivation. In addition, high levels of teacher warmth and sensitivity have been found to be associated with improvements in adolescents’ academic outcomes, such as academic engagement and achievement (Roorda et al., 2011; Sakiz et al., 2012). For example, in a meta-analysis which included 99 studies that investigated the associations between qualities of student-teacher relationships and adolescent students’ school engagement and achievement, Roorda et al. (2011) found small to medium associations between student-teacher relationships and achievement and medium to large associations between student-teacher relationships and school engagement. It is increasingly evident that positive student-teacher relationships have a beneficial effect on early adolescent students’ school engagement and success. Relatively less is known, however, about the impact of student-teacher relationships on students’ social and emotional outcomes, such as their prosociality and well-being, during middle school (Wentzel, 1997). This may be due, in part, to how caring student-teacher relationships are conceptualized during this developmental phase. 12 Prosociality Research on the relation of student-teacher relationships to early adolescent students’ prosociality has begun to expand in recent years (Gest et al., 2014; Oberle et al., 2014; Wentzel et al., 2010). Prosociality is defined as an individual’s tendency to help, share, cooperate, and comfort others (Caprara et al., 2012) and is seen to play a fundamental role in social and emotional competence during adolescence (Carlo, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Wentzel, 2003). Prosocial behaviours have been found to be associated with fewer incidences of aggression and antisocial behaviour (Caprara et al., 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2010; Padilla‐Walker et al., 2015), improved academics (Caprara et al., 2000), greater peer acceptance (Layous et al., 2012), as well as improved well-being of the student performing the prosocial act (Curry et al., 2018). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that students’ lack of prosocial behaviours (i.e., helping, sharing, cooperating, comforting others) in pre-adolescence and adolescence are predictive of externalizing behaviours (i.e., rule-breaking, aggression) in adulthood (Flynn et al., 2015). From an evolutionary perspective, social support is a basic ingredient and driving force for prosociality as a behavioural and survival strategy, with the most prosocial individuals often being the ones with the most social support (Wilson et al., 2009). Similarly, recent research in developmental psychology has begun to provide evidence for the influential role of student-teacher relationships on prosociality in early adolescence (Jungert et al., 2016; Wentzel et al., 2010). Specifically, through caring relationships with their students, teachers have the opportunity to both instruct about socially responsible actions as well as model prosocial behaviours, thus creating a supportive classroom context where positive relationships and altruistic behaviours are valued (Luckner & Pianta, 2011; Wentzel, 2003). For instance, in a 13 study of 358 sixth to eighth grade students, Wentzel et al. (2010) found that students’ perceptions of teacher support significantly predicted students’ prosocial goals, over and above the effects of gender and grade. Similarly, in her study of 452 sixth graders, Wentzel (2002) found that students’ ratings of a lack of nurturance from their teacher (e.g., “the teacher makes me feel bad when I don’t have the right answer”) were negatively associated with students’ social responsibility (how often students tried to follow classroom rules). In addition, in their study of 472 middle school students across 24 Italian public schools, Jungert et al. (2016) found a significant and positive association between warm student-teacher relationships (i.e., teacher support, encouragement, and acceptance) and adolescents’ intrinsic motivation and propensity to defend victims of bullying. Well-Being Although studies examining the impact of student-teacher relationships on early adolescent well-being have been relatively sparse, several studies have emerged in the past decade that shed light on this relation (Joyce & Early, 2014; Murray-Harvey, 2010; Pössel et al., 2018). For example, in their population-based study of 3,026 Grade 4 students, Oberle et al. (2014) found that students’ perceived school support (i.e., perceptions of supportive adults in school and school connectedness) was an important predictor of students’ self-reported emotional well-being (i.e., optimism, self-concept, and satisfaction with life), after controlling for socioeconomic status (i.e., median equalized disposable income at postal code level). Moreover, when compared to parent and neighbourhood support, school support was the most significant predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in students’ well-being. In another study of 401 middle school students, Suldo et al. (2009) found that teacher support accounted for 14 approximately a fifth of the variance in students’ reports of subjective well-being (SWB). Furthermore, emotional support and instrumental support (providing time, skills, assistance) were the aspects of teacher support most related to student SWB (the other two being appraisal and informational support). Attachment and Care in the Student-Teacher Relationship There are various mechanisms through which student-teacher relationships may impact outcomes among middle school students, however, this field of empirical research is in its nascent stages. Although this area of research is emergent, several theorists and researchers have posited that attachment theory may offer an important lens through which to examine these relationships (Granot, 2014; Verschueren, 2015; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). The early work on attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) focused primarily on understanding the nature and function of attachment in relation to the parent-child relationship in early childhood (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). Moreover, early psychoanalytic (i.e., Erikson, 1959) and Piagetian (Piaget, 1964) perspectives suggested that parent-child attachment is most important in childhood and then attachment transfers from parents to peers in adolescence, necessitating teens to emotionally disengage from their parents in order to achieve healthy identity development. The more contemporary view, however, is that attunement, responsiveness, and supportiveness from parents remain important throughout all developmental stages (Ainsworth, 1985, 1991; Ammaniti et al., 2000). Specifically, researchers have recognized the continued importance of attachment relationships in older children and adolescents (Baumrind, 1991; Bosman et al., 2018; De Laet et al., 2014) and have posited that merely the nature of attachment shifts from early childhood to middle childhood and adolescence, from a 15 reliance on caregiver proximity to the importance of predictable availability of the caregiver (Bosmans & Kerns, 2015). Furthermore, led by the pioneering work of Pianta (1992), researchers and theorists have posited that the characteristics of supportive parent-child relationships, such as emotional closeness and low conflict, are also relevant for successful non-familial relationships, such as student-teacher relationships (Pianta, 1992; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012; Wentzel, 2002). As such, although teachers may not be attachment figures per se, in the same way that enduring parental or family-caregiver relationships are (Verschueren, 2015; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012), researchers have suggested that student-teacher relationships can have temporary attachment components (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Verschueren, 2015) such as providing a secure base from which students can explore and try new things. Although work on attachment in student-teacher relationships started with younger children in the earlier school years (Pianta, 1992), there is burgeoning research that has continued to investigate attachment and pedagogical caring in student-teacher relationships in older children and adolescents (De Laet et al., 2014; Verschueren, 2015; Wentzel, 1997). For example, in a series of studies, Wentzel (1997, 2002), examined the applicability of Baumrind’s (1971, 1991) related model of effective parenting for understanding student-teacher relationships in middle school. For example, in one study with sixth to eighth grade students, Wentzel (1997) found that students’ perceptions of caring (e.g., “My teacher really cares about me”) from their teacher predicted their prosocial goal pursuit and academic effort. In addition, when asked to describe a caring teacher in their own words, students’ responses contained themes of effective parenting, such as democratic communication (i.e., valuing and soliciting students’ opinions), 16 nurturance, and modeling. In another study with sixth grade students, Wentzel (2002) similarly found that effective parenting dimensions such as fairness and nurturance positively predicted students’ prosocial goal pursuit and classroom grades (Wentzel, 2002). Pianta and colleagues (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; Ruzek et al., 2016) have further established the importance of teacher caring and sensitivity (i.e., warmth, awareness, and responsiveness to students’ cues) for fostering students’ social and academic competence in older students. For example, in their longitudinal study that included 960 middle and high-school students (ages 11 – 17) using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary (CLASS-S; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012), Ruzek et al. (2016) found that observed teacher emotional support had a significant positive effect on students’ reports of engagement and motivation. Specifically, their research findings supported an indirect model, whereby the relation between teacher emotional support at the beginning of school year and student engagement and motivation at the end of the school year was mediated by students’ feelings of autonomy in the classroom and peer relatedness (i.e., whether their classroom peers were supportive, positive, and respectful) in the middle of the year. In sum, the research on attachment in student-teacher relationships emphasizes the importance on the affective quality of the student-teacher relationship and teachers’ responsiveness to students’ needs (Noddings, 2015), and these features remain important in early adolescence (Verschueren, 2015; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). This research supports the notion that when teachers are sensitive and caring toward their students, greater feelings of autonomy and more positive relationships emerge in the classroom which subsequently leads to more student motivation and engagement (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Moreover, much like parents, 17 when teachers lead with care, they model the behaviours desired in their students, such as prosociality, and they create a nurturing context that supports and values these goals (Wentzel, 2003). More research is needed, however, that explores the specific affective qualities and behaviours of teachers that support a caring approach to teaching and student-teacher relationships, particularly in early adolescence. Characteristics of a Caring Student-Teacher Relationship in Early Adolescence There remains a lack of agreement as to the theoretical conceptualization of a “caring” student-teacher relationship (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006; Davis, 2006; Noddings, 2015; Thompson, 2003) and many scholars have discussed that what it means to be “caring” can vary across development, cultures, racial groups, and genders (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006). Nel Noddings (2012, 2015), a pioneer and advocate for fostering caring relationships in schools has distinguished between virtue-caring and relational-caring; the former of which places a greater emphasis on the “character” of the carer and implies a universality to caring, whereas the latter embodies Noddings’ pedagogy of care - caring in relation by authentically attending to students’ needs. This responsivity and attunement from teachers that typifies pedagogical caring has been shown to lead to more positive student-teacher relationships and better adjustment for students in school (Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel et al., 2010). In a similar vein, self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) emphasizes that when teachers show involvement – an affective component of student-teacher relationships derived from attachment theory (Connell & Wellborn, 1991) that refers to caring for and expressing interest in the student - students’ needs 18 for relatedness is supported, which studies have shown leads to healthier adjustment (Furrer et al., 2014). As Noddings (2015) has stated, “As we explore caring in the context of caregiving — any long-term unequal relation in which one person is carer and the other cared-for — we will ask about the virtues [emphasis added] that support caring” (p. 70). Distinct from virtue-caring, Noddings (2010, 2015) suggests there can be characteristics that support relational caring. Following from this work emphasizing the caring relation, several researchers have stressed that caring student-teacher relationships emerge from a combination of interpersonal and intrapersonal factors, such as students’ and teachers’ characteristics (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) and the emotional and academic support provided by the teacher (Davis, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Wentzel, 1997). Thus, there is a growing interest in investigating the characteristics of the teacher, namely teachers’ own social and emotional competence (SEC), and the contribution of these characteristics to promoting a caring student-teacher relationship (Harding et al., 2019; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Wentzel, 2002). Teachers’ SEC refers to a set of emotional processes (i.e., emotion awareness), interpersonal skills (i.e., recognize others’ emotions and maintain positive relationships), and cognitive regulation processes (i.e., stress management) (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017), that are all interdependent and help shape teachers’ interactions with students. In their foundational review article, Jennings and Greenberg (2009) put forth “The Prosocial Classroom model,” whereby teachers who are socially and emotionally competent themselves are also able to maintain their own well-being, have more positive relationships with their students, can better manage their classrooms, and tend to model social and emotional learning skills for their 19 students. Growing research indicates that socially and emotionally competent teachers have an increased capacity to create positive environments for their students (Collie & Perry, 2019; Jones et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). For example, Whitehead (2013) found that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ SEC, which included teachers’ empathy (e.g., “My teacher notices when students are sad or upset”), stress-management (e.g., “My teacher seems really stressed this year”), and well-being (e.g., “My teacher seems really happy this year”), were significantly and positively associated with students’ social, emotional, and academic outcomes (e.g., empathy, positive affect, academic efficacy) and teacher reported closeness in the student-teacher relationship. Results also revealed that students’ perceptions of teachers’ SEC were negatively related to internalizing behaviours (i.e., anxiety) and conflict in the student-teacher relationship. Despite the growing interest in the relation of teachers’ SEC to student-teacher relationships and students’ adjustment, most of this work to date has focused primarily on students in the early elementary years (Mashburn et al., 2006; Yoon, 2002). Given the varying conceptualizations of teacher caring, particularly during early adolescence, there is a need to explore the specific qualities and behaviours of teachers that characterize a caring approach to teaching and support students’ positive adjustment from the perspectives of middle school students. Mindfulness in Teaching Mindfulness, which comprises “attention, openness to experience, and a compassionate stance towards present moment experience” (Roeser, 2016, p. 153; see also Kabat-Zinn, 1994), has recently been studied as both a trait and a practice among educators and students (Frank et al., 2016; Lawlor et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl, Oberle et al., 2015). In particular, 20 mindfulness has surfaced in recent years as a potential set of traits that may nurture supportiveness in the student-teacher relationship (Molloy Elreda et al., 2019; Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016) and have a positive effect on both educators and their students (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016). Moreover, when combined with critical cultural awareness and responsivity, mindfulness has been shown to have the potential to reduce bias and foster more equitable classrooms (Cannon, 2016; Lueke & Gibson, 2014). Hulburt and colleagues (2020) recently proposed a conceptual framework for a mindful approach to teaching - the Calm, Clear, Kind (CCK) Educator – which integrates work regarding contemplative approaches to education (i.e., Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006) and the importance of teachers’ social and emotional competencies (SEC; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). This framework proposes characteristics and practices that can both protect teachers’ emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006), as well as promote authentic and positive relationships with their students. Specifically, the CCK framework draws from work by Daniel Goleman who has highlighted the importance of teachers being “calm in body, clear in mind, and kind-hearted” in their approaches with their students (Hulburt et al., 2020, p. 4). Hulburt et al. (2020) describe “calm in body” as a teacher’s ability to remain calm and non-reactive and regulate their own stress in the face of the challenges inherent in teaching. This allows teachers to be better able to support their students with their own stress and emotion regulation (Troth et al., 2018). Within the CCK framework, “clear in mind” encompasses a teachers’ capacity to remain present with their students and to be attuned to their needs. It also emphasizes the importance of teachers’ ability to listen and maintain clear, democratic communication with their students (Rodgers & 21 Raider-Roth, 2006). Finally, “kind in heart” expands beyond solely a kind or nice disposition and encompasses practicing non-judgment and embodying warmth and connection, nurturing trust and respect, and attending to the needs of students (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). This mindful teaching framework provides some tangible characteristics, reflective of features of an attachment-based, caregiving relationship (e.g., attunement, responsiveness), as well as an important lens through which to examine caring dyadic relationships. Gaps in the Research There is a growing number of studies investigating the adaptive significance of student-teacher relationships beyond the early years of school (Ahnert et al., 2012; Pianta, 1992) and into the middle school years (Roorda et al., 2011). Given the accumulating evidence of the continued importance of affective and responsive qualities of caregiving relationships in early adolescence (Verschueren, 2015; Wentzel, 2003), there is a need for more studies that investigate the caring and attachment-related characteristics of student-teacher relationships in the transitional years of early adolescence. However, there remains a lack of consensus of how the affective qualities of the student-teacher relationship are assessed in middle school, particularly from the perspective of students. Specifically, student-teacher relationships have been studied in various ways – through observed quality of interactions in the classroom (e.g., via CLASS observations; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012), beliefs about the relationship (e.g., “my teacher supports me;”), and perceptions of the relationship (Clark & Lemay, 2010; Wentzel et al., 2010). Regardless of its conceptualization, however, supportive student-teacher relationships have been shown to be 22 associated with positive student adjustment (Cornelius-White, 2007; Roorda et al., 2011). Drawing from attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and social psychological theories (Clark & Lemay, 2010) of relationships and the burgeoning research on the importance of perceived support in early adolescence (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010), the present research focuses on perceptions of the quality of the student-teacher relationship. There is a substantial body of research exploring student-teacher relationships from the perspective of the adults in students’ lives (i.e., teachers, parents) (Ahnert et al., 2012; Doumen et al., 2012), with relatively fewer studies exploring these relationships from the perspectives of students themselves, particularly during early adolescence (Downer et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2018). However, there has been a growing movement to more intentionally include students’ voices in research and treat students as active participants with unique value and perspectives (Ben-Arieh, 2005, 2006; Ben-Arieh & Goerge, 2001; McHugh et al., 2013). Not only do children and adolescents have a right to be heard and included in research and activities that impact them, as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 12; unicef.org/crc), but students have unique perceptions (Waters et al., 2003) that may be disparate from the perceptions of the adults in their lives (Downer et al., 2015; Koepke & Harkins, 2008). This remains particularly true for student and teacher perceptions of their dyadic relationships (Prewett et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017). For example, while some researchers have found that students and teachers perceive their relationships similarly (i.e., either positively or negatively) (Murray & Zvoch, 2011), others have found an incongruence indicating students’ perceptions of the quality of the student-teacher relationship differs from 23 those of their teachers (Zee & Koomen, 2017). Including students’ voices adds a unique and valuable perspective, grounded in first-person experience (Ben-Arieh, 2005, 2006; Downer et al., 2015). Assessing Students’ Perceptions of Caring Student-Teacher Relationships Despite the burgeoning interest in including students’ perspectives of their relationships with their teachers, there are still a limited number of validated student self-report measures designed for specific developmental stages. Of the extant student self-report measures being used to investigate student-teacher relationships, most have utilized either unvalidated sets of items developed for a particular study (Pössel et al., 2018; Scales et al., 2020) or broad measures that do not examine specific dimensions of the student-teacher relationship (Brinkworth et al., 2017). Even some widely used measures do not assess specific qualities or behaviours or do not have substantial validation work to support their factor structures or latent constructs (Ahn et al., 2019; Reddy et al., 2003). In addition, many of the scales that have been used with adolescent samples have been either designed for use with any caregiver (i.e., domain-general), rather than tailored to the specific context of student-teacher relationship (Prewett et al., 2019; Ricard & Pelletier, 2016), or have asked students to report broadly on “teachers in their school” rather than on a specific teacher (Gallagher et al., 2019; Joyce & Early, 2014). In sum, the scales used across studies vary dramatically in content and validity evidence, calling into question the comparability of studies that include students’ perceptions of their student-teacher relationships. In addition, most research utilizing measures of students’ perceptions of their relationship with their teachers have shown the effectiveness of these existing, broad teacher support measures in predicting academic-related 24 student outcomes (Roorda et al., 2011; Scales et al., 2020; Wang & Eccles, 2012), however, fewer have shown strong relations with adolescent students’ social and emotional outcomes (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Colaianne et al., 2020). As such, there is a growing need for well-designed, validated measures that assess the particular characteristics of student-teacher relationships most related to students’ social and emotional adjustment, from early adolescents’ perspectives – such as relational caring qualities of the teacher. Need for Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research A second gap in the research, is the relative dearth of mixed-method or qualitative investigations that attempt to understand student-teacher relationships from the firsthand experiences of early adolescents. Although quantitative studies have provided invaluable insights and allowed for sophisticated analyses regarding the relation between student-teacher relationships and a multitude of student outcomes, qualitative methods can deepen our realistic understandings of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence (Yu et al., 2018) by offering opportunities for more in-depth investigations into participants’, in this case students’, perspectives (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Furthermore, mixed methods studies can capitalize on the benefits from both quantitative and qualitative approaches and provide a richer understanding of complex constructs (Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2010; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2007), such as student-teacher relationships. Person-Centered Investigations of Teacher and Student Perceptions of their Relationships Another gap is that most research that has examined student-teacher relationships have done so through one informant, typically the teachers’ (Claessens et al., 2017; Pianta et al., 2003) with few studies investigating both student and teacher perceptions, concurrently, 25 especially during early adolescence (Prewett et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017). Of the small number of studies that have investigated both perspectives within a single study, some have found students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationship are in agreement (Cipriano et al., 2019; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015), but more often students and teachers differ in their perceptions of their dyadic relationships (Zee & Koomen, 2017). Moreover, some research has shown that positive aspects may not be as salient to teachers as negative aspects when assessing relationship quality with their students (Ladd et al., 1999; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Furthermore, a body of work in attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and perceptual congruence/discrepancies in relationships (Feinberg et al., 2000; Ohannessian et al., 2000; Shek, 2002), however, suggest that children benefit most when there is synchrony between the child and caregiver. In contrast, research also has shown that perceived social support may be most important for early adolescents’ well-being and healthy adjustment (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010). Few studies, however, have investigated the implications of congruence or incongruence between student and teachers’ perceptions of their relationships. Thus, more research is needed to investigate the association of congruence between student and teacher perceptions and student adjustment. Finally, an additional gap is that most of the research in the field of student-teacher relationships has relied on variable-centered approaches (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Hughes, 2011; Murray et al., 2008), which provide important information about these relationships and their correlates but separates psychological phenomena and relationship processes from the individual. Person-centered approaches, as an alternative, take a more holistic view of individuals and provide nuanced understandings of the data, by allowing for multi- 26 dimensional investigations of patterns within individuals (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Furr & Skinner, 2003). With regard to student-teacher relationships, person-centered analyses allow for the investigation of individual differences of relationships within the classroom, as well as examination of multiple perspectives of a relationship (Davidson et al., 2010; Granot, 2014). A small number of studies have utilized person-centered approaches for investigating student-teacher relationships, but most have focused on younger children (Murray et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2010), rather than adolescents (Zee & Koomen, 2017) or single perceptions (e.g., student only; Furr & Skinner, 2003). Thus, there is an opportunity to leverage both multi-method, multi-rater studies as well as person-centered approaches to further understand student and teacher perspectives of these complex relationships during the pivotal developmental stage of early adolescence. Summary and Present Research Aims Caring student-teacher relationships have been shown to be important protective and promotive factors for students’ development (Luthar et al., 2021; Sapienza & Masten, 2011), particularly in the transitional stage of early adolescence when the nature of the relationship with parents is changing and non-related adults are becoming increasingly influential (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). In viewing student-teacher relationships from an attachment perspective (Pianta, 1992; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012), nurturing and caring student-teacher relationships provide students with a sense of security which, in turn, contributes to a greater motivation to learn and pursue prosocial goals (Wentzel et al., 2018). Specifically, teachers nurture their students’ internalization of socially responsible behaviours and competencies in many ways, such as explicitly teaching the values such as prosociality, modeling caring behaviour, and providing a 27 classroom context in which students can learn and feel supported in embracing the goals and values (Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 2003). Building upon this research literature, the present study investigates different aspects of middle school students’ perceptions of their relationships with their teachers through a mixed-method design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), which includes three studies that are related in methodology and theory. This dissertation is written in a three-manuscript format following the guidelines outlined by the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of British Columbia. Study 1 Aims First, given the scarcity of validated measures assessing early adolescents’ perceptions of specific qualities of caring student-teacher relationships, Study 1 (Chapter 2) focused on the development of a new student self-report measure assessing early adolescent students’ perceptions of teacher caring, herein called the Caring Student-Teacher Relationships scale (CSTR). In an effort to obtain strong ecological validity for this measure, the CSTR was developed from data obtained on early adolescent students’ descriptions of important adults at school from a previous study. Utilizing a large sample of data from the baseline portion of a study examining the effectiveness of an SEL program for middle school students (grade 6 – 7), this study also investigated the dimensionality, reliability, and evidence for construct validity (convergent and discriminant) of the CSTR through a series of psychometric analyses. For example, the relations between the CSTR and extant measures of teacher support, measures of teacher mindfulness and burnout, and measures of students’ social, emotional, and academic adjustment were explored. 28 Study 2 Aims Next, in response to the limited number of qualitative and mixed method studies exploring middle school students’ perceptions of caring teachers, Study 2 (Chapter 3) took a mixed methods approach to explore middle school students’ definitions of a caring teacher. Based on a subset of the same large-scale dataset used in Study 1, this second manuscript presents results of a qualitive content analysis exploring sixth and seventh grade students’ responses to the question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” Specifically, themes that emerged in students’ answers were examined through the lens of a new framework of mindful teaching: the Calm, Clear, Kind educator. Demographic patterns in the data regarding students’ gender, grade, and first language learned were also examined. Study 3 Aims Finally, to address the need for research that concurrently investigates both teacher and student perceptions of their dyadic relationships, Study 3 (Chapter 4) utilized a person-centered approach to compare middle school students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the attachment quality of their relationships, as well as the association of congruence or incongruence of these perceptions with students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. This third manuscript also drew from data from the large-scale study of early adolescent students used in Study 1 and 2. Patterns of congruence or incongruence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationships were examined and hypotheses were guided by attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and research on the importance of perceived support in early adolescence (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010). 29 Chapter 2: Development and Validation of a Measure to Assess Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of Caring Student-Teacher Relationships Mounting evidence posits that positive student-teacher relationships promote students’ school engagement (Engels et al., 2016), prosocial behaviours (Wentzel et al., 2010), and well-being (Guess & McCane-Bowling, 2016). Moreover, these relationships become increasingly critical as students enter adolescence (Ruzek et al., 2016). This is because evidence from a number of studies has consistently shown that early adolescence, particularly when this occurs in a middle school context, is a time when individuals need supportive teacher relationships due to the nature and pace of changes that occur across so many levels – changes due to puberty, changes in the nature and function in relationships with peers and parents, and school transitions (Eccles et al., 1993; Offer & Schonert-Reichl, 1992). Unfortunately, there exists a relative dearth of studies that have investigated student-teacher relationships from the perspective of middle school students, particularly in relation to young adolescents’ experiences of teacher caring (e.g., Brinkworth et al., 2017; Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 1997). The present study attempts to redress this by developing and evaluating the validity of a student self-report measure of caring student-teacher relationships derived from students’ own descriptions of the qualities of important and caring teachers. Researchers have prioritized different dimensions of student-teacher interactions as having the greatest impact on students (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Much of the research in this field has focused on the impact of academic support and instructional practices on student outcomes (Downer et al., 2015; McCombs et al., 2008), whereas more recently researchers have begun to focus their attention on understanding the impact of non-academic aspects of teacher support in 30 relation to student-teacher interactions and student outcomes (Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 2002). Nel Noddings (2015), recognized as a pioneer in the field because of her emphasis on an ethic of care in education, has drawn attention to relational-caring which posits that, like parenting, educating children should first and foremost involve attending to students’ needs. The field of social and emotional learning (SEL) has supported this notion over the past few decades, by demonstrating that when teachers are attuned to the social and emotional needs of their students, there are concomitant positive changes in classroom relationships, student engagement, and academic achievement (Roorda et al., 2011; Ruzek et al., 2016). As Nodding has stated, however, “as we explore caring in the context of caregiving—any long-term unequal relation in which one person is carer and the other cared-for—we will ask about the virtues that support caring” (2015, p. 70). As such, recent years have witnessed a burgeoning literature investigating the teacher characteristics and social and emotional competencies (SEC) that support caring student-teacher relationships, foster optimal classroom climates, and nurture students’ positive development (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jones et al., 2013; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). Specifically, this research suggests that socially and emotionally competent teachers exhibit an increased capacity to attend to their students’ needs (Roeser et al., 2012) and to create positive environments in their classrooms that are more conducive to learning (Collie & Perry, 2019). Jennings and Greenberg (2009) clearly illustrate this pathway in their “Prosocial Classroom” model that posits that teachers high in SEC and well-being have more positive student-teacher relationships, manage their classrooms more effectively, and implement SEL programs more competently. These, in turn, create a healthy classroom climate and positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes for students. 31 Researchers in the field of contemplative science have also discussed the “unnamed domain” of teacher expertise, one which goes beyond the traditional aspects of content knowledge and pedagogy and includes teachers’ dispositions and social and emotional skills, such as calmness, clarity of mind, and kindheartedness (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rickert et al., 2020; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). Moreover, contemplative educators and researchers have emphasized the importance of mindfulness in teaching (Rickert et al., 2020), which involves qualities such as focused attention (Kabat-Zinn, 1994), teacher presence (an awareness, receptivity, and connectedness to the mental, emotional, and physical needs of the students; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006), and attunement (understanding, sympathy, and knowledge about the student; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). These qualities have emerged in the student-teacher literature as important aspects of these relationships (Rickert et al., 2020; Wentzel, 2003). Taken together, burgeoning research emphasizes the importance of teacher SEC and mindful awareness of and responsiveness to students’ needs in creating positive student-teacher relationships. Despite the growing interest in understanding student-teacher relationships, much of the extant empirical research examining the impact of teacher SECs on student-teacher relationships has focused on teachers of younger students in elementary schools (Mashburn et al., 2006; Yoon, 2002). Nonetheless, there is now an emerging corpus of research investigating associations between teacher characteristics and student-teacher relationships in early adolescence (Longobardi et al., 2016; Oberle et al., 2020). For example, Braun et al. (2019) found that middle school teachers’ self-reports of mindfulness were significantly and positively related to observer ratings of the quality of emotional support in teachers’ interactions with their students. In another study of early adolescents and their teachers, Harding et al. (2019) found that positive associations between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being were partially moderated by 32 improvements in students’ evaluations of their student-teacher relationships. These studies point to the value of investigating teachers’ qualities and competencies in relation to student-teacher relationship quality, particularly during early adolescence. Notwithstanding these recent developments in the field, studies that consider middle school students’ perceptions of positive dimensions of their relationships with their teachers are relatively scant. Instead, the majority of studies that have examined student-teacher relationships have relied heavily on other perspectives (i.e., observational, teacher, and parent ratings) (Doumen et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2014; Ruzek et al., 2016) and/or have focused on the early years of school (i.e., preschool, Kindergarten) (Claessens et al., 2017; Ladd et al., 1999). This may be due, in part, to the relative paucity of measures available that assess early adolescents’ perspectives of supportive student-teacher relationships (Brinkworth et al., 2017). When it comes to adolescents in particular, although there is evidence suggesting some congruence between students’ and others’ perceptions with regard to relationship quality (Cipriano et al., 2019; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015), adolescents’ perspectives often differ from those of their parents or teachers (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Rickert et al., 2020; Waters et al., 2003). This remains particularly true for student and teacher perceptions of their dyadic relationships (Prewett et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017). Moreover, there may be a disconnect between what teachers feel they bring to the relationship and what students actually experience. For example, in a study of fifth and sixth grade students, Prewett et al. (2019) found that teachers’ reports of the emotional support they provided to students did not predict students’ perceptions of quality of the student-teacher relationship. In addition, the relation between teachers’ reports and students’ reports was nonsignificant and close to zero. Yet students’ own 33 perceptions of their teachers’ emotional support positively and significantly predicted students’ perceptions of student-teacher relationship quality. Taken together, it appears that research that relies solely on teacher ratings of student-teacher relationship quality and does not consider the students’ perspective may underestimate the role that student-teacher relationships can play in predicting students’ positive development. To better understand the connection between student-teacher relationships and prosocial development, classroom climate, well-being, and school functioning, it is critical that both the perspective of the student and the teacher be considered (Brinkworth et al., 2017). Also needed is research that examines gender differences in students’ perceptions of their student-teacher relationships. Indeed, to date there have been mixed findings on gender differences in student-teacher relationships (Kurdi & Archambault, 2018; Wentzel, 1998), with some research indicating no differences (Colaianne et al., 2020) and others showing gender differences (McFarland et al., 2016; Zee & Koomen, 2017). Because of the mixed findings, in the present study gender differences in students’ perceptions of their teachers were also examined. In summary, there is a need for well-designed and validated measures that assess the relational-caring qualities of caring student-teacher relationships from the perspectives of early adolescent students. Most studies that have investigated student-teacher relationships with early adolescents have utilized either unvalidated sets of items developed for a particular study (Pössel et al., 2018; Scales et al., 2020) or have employed measures that do not focus specifically on caring dimensions of the student-teacher relationship (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Reddy et al., 2003). Moreover, many of the extant measures that have been used to assess the quality of relationships in adolescent samples have been either domain-general (i.e., were designed for use with any caregiver, rather than tailored to the specific context of student-teacher relationship) 34 (Prewett et al., 2019; Ricard & Pelletier, 2016) or have asked students to report more generally on all of the teachers in their school rather than to report on a specific teacher (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2019). The Present Study Given the growing evidence of the importance of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence and the limitations of the currently available student-report measures of student-teacher relationships, the present study was designed to address gaps in the field by developing and evaluating the reliability and validity of the inferences from the scores of a student report measure of caring in student-teacher relationships – the Caring Student Teacher Relationship scale (CSTR). Although some scales exist that assess students’ perceptions of the presence or absence of broad teacher support (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Prewett et al., 2019), few include more detailed items about teachers’ caring behaviours and attunement within this relationship. In addition, very few measures to date have been developed using middle school students’ own voices (i.e., Brinkworth et al., 2017). Therefore, the student self-report measure developed in this current study was derived from early adolescent students’ descriptions of important adults in school, in an effort to capture the aspects of care, support, and attunement within student-teacher interactions that has particular relevance for early adolescent students. In the current study, we examined evidence for construct validity of the CSTR, through the investigation of (1) factor structure and internal consistency, (2) demographic differences in the CSTR, and (3) convergent and discriminant associations between CSTR and other constructs of students’ prosociality, classroom context, well-being, and school functioning, and teachers’ mindfulness and burnout. 35 We hypothesized - based on previous research indicating both age and gender differences in student-teacher relationship quality (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Zee & Koomen, 2017) - to find demographic differences of small effect sizes on the CSTR. With regard to convergent and discriminant validity evidence, we hypothesized the CSTR to have significant relations with measures of teacher support, burnout, and mindfulness, as well as measures of student social, emotional, and academic adjustment, to varying effects. First, in support of convergent validity, we hypothesized the CSTR to be highly related to but not redundant with other student-reports of teacher support and SEC. Moreover, research has demonstrated that teacher burnout can both impact (Longobardi et al., 2014) and be impacted by (Harding et al., 2019) student-teacher relationship quality, thus we expected a moderate association between CSTR and teacher burnout. Next, due to research showing significant, positive relations between supportive student-teacher relationships and positive classroom climate and early adolescent students’ prosocial tendencies (e.g., Wentzel et al., 2010), we hypothesized to find positive and significant correlations between the CSTR and student-rated classroom supportiveness and prosociality (prosocial goals, altruism), with medium to large effect sizes. In contrast, research has shown positive, but moderate, associations between student-teacher relationships and aspects of students’ resilience (e.g., optimism, self-regulation, stress regulation) (Thomson et al., 2015; Zee & de Bree, 2017). Therefore, we hypothesized the CSTR to have significant, positive correlations between the CSTR and measures of students’ optimism and self-efficacy and a significant, negative correlation between the CSTR and students’ perceived stress, with small to medium effect sizes. To examine discriminant evidence, we hypothesized significant but small correlations between the CSTR and student reports of academic efficacy and teacher measures of academic success (i.e., Scales et al., 2020). We also expected a significant but small positive 36 correlation between CSTR and teacher-rated measures of student-teacher relationship quality, given the disparity often found between early adolescent and teacher perspectives of their relationships (Zee & Koomen, 2017). Finally, because of the content of the CSTR, which included some elements of mindfulness, we anticipated a significant but small association between the CSTR and teacher measures of their own mindfulness (i.e., Rickert et al., 2020). Method Participants Data for this study were collected during the baseline portion of a larger study investigating the efficacy of a social and emotional learning (SEL) program. This study took place in a public-school district in a suburban, predominantly middle-class community in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The mean household income for the neighbourhoods in which each of the three schools was located was $77,790.00 CAD (Range: $60,907 - $106,338 CAD). This mean household income falls slightly below the Canadian average (Statistics Canada, 2017). Given the focus of the current study on caring student-teacher relationships, it is important to note that BC’s Ministry of Education has a long history of integrating the promotion of students’ social and emotional development into its education system. For example, in 2016 the BC Ministry of Education legislated a revised curriculum for all elementary and secondary school students in the province which included an explicit focus on promoting students’ personal and social competencies (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca). Three middle schools in the district, that were equivalent in school size, achievement level, socioeconomic status (SES), and ethnic and racial diversity, were selected as potential sites for the research. They were also chosen because the principal had an interest in implementing SEL programs to promote students’ SEC and well-being. Participants recruited for the study 37 included 350 students in 14 classrooms across the three middle schools. Of those, 260 received parental/guardian consent and gave their own assent to participate. Some students were absent on the day of the survey (n = 8) or opted out of the entire study after providing assent (n = 9). In addition, 21 students were excluded from the study due to missing significant portions of the measures, resulting in a final sample size of 222 students who had complete data for this study (participation rate = 63%). Analyses indicated that the students who did not participate did not differ from participating students in terms of gender (F[1, 242] = .15, p = .70), age (F[1, 242] = 1.26, p = .26), family composition (F[1, 239] = .66, p = .42), or first language learned (F[1, 240] = .11, p = .74). The final sample of 222 sixth (n = 138) and seventh (n = 83) grade students was comprised of 112 boys (50.5%), 109 girls (49%), and one student (.5%) who identified their gender as something other than boy or girl. The mean age of participants was 11.87 (SD = .56; Range = 11.00 - 13.02). The majority of students (84%) reported English as one of the first languages they learned at home, the next highest reported first language was Mandarin (8%). The rest of the students reported several other languages (e.g., Cantonese, French, Spanish, Korean, Filipino, Hindi, Punjabi, Vietnamese). These reported languages were reflective of the breadth of first languages found in the neighbourhood populations in which the schools were located (Statistics Canada, 2017), and of the ethnic origins of people of British Columbia which comprises Indigenous Peoples (6.6%), European (62.7%), Asian (28.8%), Black (1.7%), and Latinx (1.5%) (Statistics Canada, 2017). The majority (78%) of students indicated they lived with both parents and/or stepparents (either full time or part-time), while about 10% live with single parents, and 12% live with parents and grandparents. The participating teachers (n = 14; nine female, five male) ranged in age from 25.23 to 52.48, with a mean age of 40.40. Half (50%) 38 of the teachers reported their ethnicity as Caucasian/White, 14.3% as East Asian, 7.1% as South Asian, and the remaining 28.5% as multiracial (e.g., Indigenous and Caucasian) or something else (e.g., Roma). All teachers had worked between one and 25 years as a teacher, with an average of 11.86 years of teaching. Five teachers indicated B.Ed. as their highest education, two indicated a post-baccalaureate diploma, and seven had a graduate degree (e.g., M.A., M.Ed.). Procedure Approval to conduct the research was received from the university research ethics board. Following approval from the school district’s ethics committee, principals from three middle schools were contacted to request their participation in this study. A total of 14 teachers from these three schools were recruited to participate. Following, the Principal Investigator and/or her research assistants visited the schools and explained the study to the students in each of the classrooms in child-friendly language, provided parent/guardian consent forms, and answered any questions the students had. Teacher consent, parent/guardian consent, and student assent were obtained from all participants. Trained graduate student research assistants (RAs) administered the student self-report surveys during two, 30-minute sessions in the same school day. Students were in their main homeroom classrooms (i.e., not exploration classes) during survey administration. The RAs read the questions out loud to account for language differences and ensure students understood the items before providing their responses. Teachers were also asked to complete teacher rating surveys on each participating student within two weeks of the administration of the student surveys. Measures 39 For all of the student report measures in which students were asked to report on their teacher or their classroom, students were told to respond with respect to the specific classroom they were in at the time of survey administration with reference to their classmates and their teacher in that class. For each scale, items were averaged to form a composite score. Demographics Student demographics were obtained by asking students to respond to questions about their birthdate, grade, gender identity, family composition, and first language learned at home (see Appendix A). Teachers also responded to a series of demographic questions regarding their birthdate, gender, ethnicity, and teaching background (see Appendix B). Measures of Teacher Support and the Student-Teacher Relationship As one means of exploring validity evidence for the CSTR, we included extant measures of teacher support and student-teacher relationship quality, as measured by both students and teachers. Students responded to four items from the Teacher Personal Support subscale of the Classroom Life Measure (Johnson et al., 1985; Wentzel, 1997; Appendix C), a measure designed to assess students’ perceived support from their teachers (e.g., “My teacher cares about me”) and 10 items from the Child and Adolescent Support Scale (CASSS, Malecki et al., 2000), a scale assessing students’ perceived academic support from teachers (e.g., “My teacher makes it okay to ask questions”). Responses to both scales were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). The Teacher Support subscale of the CLM has been shown to have good internal consistency (a = .89) in previous research with sixth to eighth grade students (Wentzel, 1997). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .86 and ordinal alpha was .88 for the CLM. The CASSS has also been shown to have good internal consistency (a = .93) 40 and validity with samples of early adolescents (CASSS; Malecki & Demaray, 2002). For the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .92 and ordinal alpha was .93 for the CASSS. To assess teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with each of their students, teachers completed 12 items from the 15-item short form of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001; Appendix D), which is comprised of two subscales: Closeness and Conflict. The five items included from the Conflict subscale assess the extent to which the teacher perceives conflict in the student-teacher relationship (e.g., “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other”) whereas the seven items from the Closeness subscale assess the amount of closeness felt by the teacher within the student-teacher relationship (e.g., “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child”). Three items were considered inappropriate for the middle school context and, therefore, were omitted for this study (e.g., “This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me”). Teachers rated each student on the extent to which they agreed with each statement using a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). Closeness and Conflict scores were created for each student by averaging item scores for each subscale, with higher scores representing higher levels of each dimension. Evidence for the concurrent and predictive validity of these subscales of the STRS has been demonstrated extensively in previous research (e.g., Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001). Reliability of the Conflict and Closeness subscales have been shown to be consistently high in previous research, with Cronbach’s alpha of .93 and .86 respectively (Pianta, 2001). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .89 and ordinal alpha was .90 for Closeness, and Cronbach’s alpha of .89 and ordinal alpha of .92 for Conflict. Teacher SEC, Burnout, and Mindfulness 41 To assess three characteristics related to teacher support (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), students and teachers responded to measures of teacher SEC, burnout, and mindfulness. Students responded to a 6-item measure which assessed their perceptions of their teacher’s social and emotional competence via the Teacher Social and Emotional Competence scale (TSEC; Whitehead, 2013; Appendix E). This measure asks students to respond to items such as “My teacher seems to enjoy teaching our class” using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Previous studies have found evidence supporting the construct validity and internal consistency of the TSEC with fifth to seventh grade students (a = .79; Whitehead, 2013) and with fourth to seventh grade students (a = .86; Oberle et al., 2020). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .78 and ordinal alpha was .81. To assess teacher burnout, teachers were asked to complete the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al., 1996; Appendix G). The Emotional Exhaustion subscale contains items such as “How often do you feel emotionally drained from your work?” whereas the Depersonalization subscale includes items like “How often do you feel you have become more callous toward people since you took this job?” Teacher responded to these items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every day). In this study, the two subscales were significantly correlated (r = .76, p < .001), therefore, to capture a wider range of burnout characteristics in teachers, we formed a burnout composite by averaging scores on the two sum subscales. This burnout composite has been used in previous research with teachers of early adolescents, where a similar correlation of r = .77 was found between the two subscales (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016). Previous research has found high internal consistency of both subscales and the burnout composite (Emotional Exhaustion: a = .92, Depersonalization: a = .80, burnout composite: a = .93) when used with elementary 42 school teachers (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .92 and ordinal alpha was .91 for the Emotional Exhaustion subscale and Cronbach’s alpha was .78 and ordinal alpha was .84 for Depersonalization subscale. Cronbach’s alpha was .93 and ordinal alpha was .92 for the burnout composite. Teachers reported on their mindfulness in teaching via the Intrapersonal Mindfulness and Interpersonal Mindfulness subscales from the Mindfulness in Teaching scale (Frank et al., 2016; Appendix F). The Interpersonal Mindfulness subscale assesses teachers’ openness and receptivity in interactions with students and contains items such as “When I am upset with my class, I calmly tell them how I am feeling.” The Intrapersonal Mindfulness subscale focuses on present-centered awareness (Kabat-Zinn 1990) (i.e., attentiveness and focus on the present moment) and includes reverse-coded items such as “I rush through activities with my class without being really attentive to them.” Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always true). After reverse coding for relevant items, items are averaged with higher scores representing higher levels of Intrapersonal Mindfulness and Interpersonal Mindfulness. Previous research has demonstrated the internal consistency of the Intrapersonal Mindfulness subscale (a = .87) and the Interpersonal Mindfulness subscale (a = .71), as well as preliminary evidence for the validity of this scale for use with teachers (Frank et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .78 and ordinal alpha was .79 for the Intrapersonal Mindfulness, and Cronbach’s alpha was .76 and ordinal alpha .86 for Interpersonal Mindfulness. Classroom Supportiveness To assess students’ perceptions of general supportiveness in the classroom, students were asked to respond to the 14-item Classroom Supportiveness subscale of the Sense of Classroom as 43 a Community Scale (Battistich et al., 1997; Appendix H). This subscale assesses the degree to which students evaluate their classmates as supportive and helpful (e.g., “Students in this class help each other learn”). Students responded to the items using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot). Evidence for the validity and reliability of this subscale has been demonstrated in previous research (Battistich et al., 1997). For the present study, internal consistency as assessed via Cronbach’s alpha was .90 and ordinal alpha was .91. Prosociality Students and teachers reported on dimensions of students’ prosociality, namely prosocial goals, altruism, and social and emotional competence (SEC). Specifically, students responded to the 6-item Prosocial Goals subscale of the Social Goals Scale (Wentzel, 2003; Appendix I) and the 4-item Altruism Adolescent Scale (Lippman et al., 2014; Appendix J). The Prosocial Goals subscale assesses students’ prosocial intentions with items such as “How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has happened to them.” Responses were made on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Extensive research has provided evidence of reliability and validity with middle school students (e.g., Wentzel, 1998). The Altruism Adolescent Scale assesses students own evaluations of their altruism with items such as “I go out of my way to help others” and respond to the question “How true is each statement for you?” Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (exactly like me). Previous research has shown evidence of good internal consistency for this scale with students ages 12 – 17 (Lippman et al., 2014). In the present study, internal consistency was found to be good; Cronbach’s alpha =.84 and ordinal alpha =.85, for the Prosocial Goals subscale; Cronbach’s alpha = .83 and ordinal alpha = .84 for the Altruism Adolescent Scale. 44 To assess teachers’ evaluations of each of their students’ SEC related to prosociality, teachers responded to the 9-item Social and Emotional Competence subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale (TSCRS; Kam & Greenberg, 1998; Appendix K). Teachers responded to items such as “Shows empathy and compassion for others’ feelings” and “Provides help, shares materials, and acts cooperatively with others” with a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Evidence of the validity and reliability of this scale has been supported by previous research (Kam & Greenberg, 1998) and good internal consistency has been found with samples of fourth to seventh grade students (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha for teacher-rated SEC was a =.92 and ordinal alpha was .93 in the current study. Well-Being In order to measure three facets of students’ well-being, students responded the 9-item Optimism subscale of the Resiliency Inventory (Noam & Goldstein, 1998; Appendix L) and the two subscales of the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10; Cohen & Williamson, 1988; Appendix M): Perceived Helplessness (6-item) and Perceived Self-Efficacy (4-item). Optimism has been identified as an important component of children and adolescents’ resiliency (Noam & Goldstein, 1998; Thomson et al., 2015) and therefore was included in the operationalization of student well-being for this study. The Optimism subscale asks students to respond to items like “More good things than bad things will happen to me” using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (always like me). Previous research has demonstrated good internal consistency of the Optimism subscale with samples of fourth to seventh grade students (Thomson et al., 2015). The PSS-10 asks students to reflect on the past few weeks and report how often they experienced things like “felt nervous and stressed,” for the 45 Perceived Hopelessness subscale, and “Felt that you were on top of things,” for the Perceived Self-Efficacy subscale. Students responded to these subscales using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Evidence for the reliability and validity of these subscales has been provided in previous research (Liu et al., 2020; Roberti et al., 2006) and internal consistency for Perceived Helplessness (a = .80) and Perceived Self-Efficacy (a =.71) subscales have been found to be good, with a sample of adolescents (Liu et al., 2020). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .77 and ordinal alpha was .79 for Optimism; for Perceived Helplessness Cronbach’s alpha was =.84 and ordinal alpha was .85; and for Perceived Self-Efficacy, Cronbach’s alpha was .73 and ordinal alpha was .74. School Functioning To assess two aspects of students’ school functioning, students and teachers completed measures related to academics. Students responded to the 6-item Academic Goals Questionnaire (Roeser et al., 1996; Appendix N), which assesses academic efficacy (e.g., “I can do even the hardest schoolwork if I try”) by responding to the question “How true is each statement for you?” on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (always like me).” Evidence for validity and reliability of the Academic Goals Questionnaire (Midgley et al., 1998; Roeser et al., 1996) has been demonstrated in previous research. For the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .90 and ordinal alpha was .91 for the Academic Goals Questionnaire. Teachers responded to the 7-item Academic Success subscale of the Academic Performance Rating Scale (APRS; DuPaul et al., 1991; Appendix O). Each item is rated on a different rating scale, for example “Estimate the accuracy of completed written math work” is rated on a 5-point scale representing a range of scores from 1 (0 - 49%) to 5 (90 - 100%) whereas the item “What is the quality of this child’s reading skills” is rated from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). 46 The seven items are averaged to create a composite academic success score. Previous research has provided evidence of the internal consistency and validity of this measure when used with first to sixth grade students (DuPaul et al., 1991). Cronbach’s alpha for the Academic Success subscale in this current study was .94 and ordinal alpha was .94. Results The following section first describes the development of the Caring Student-Teacher Relationship (CSTR) measure and then reports results from a series of analyses conducted to examine evidence for the validity of the inferences (Zumbo, 2007) from 222 sixth and seventh grade students’ scores on this new scale. Specifically, we examined several facets of construct validity of the CSTR: (1) the dimensional structure and internal consistency of the CSTR, (2) evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the CSTR, by examining associations between the CSTR and other constructs of teacher support, teacher burnout and mindfulness, classroom supportiveness, and student prosociality, well-being and school functioning, and (3) gender and grade differences in students’ scores on the CSTR. Caring Student-Teacher Relationship (CSTR) Measure Development In an effort to establish content validity from the outset of the measure development process, several recommended scale development steps were followed (Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011). First, a literature review of middle school student-teacher relationships and existing student self-report measure was conducted to identify key characteristics and potential scale items (e.g., Downer et al., 2015; Gallagher et al., 2019). One intention of the present study was to create a measure directly from the voices of middle school students, therefore in a second step we examined qualitative data derived from a previous study examining teacher-student relationships in early adolescence (Buote & Schonert-Reichl, 2004; Schonert-Reichl & Buote, 47 2006). Specifically, in this previous study, early adolescent students were asked to list five important adults in their school and then “List all the ways in which this person is important in your life.” In this study, the responses were coded in the following categories: (a) teaching instruction, (b) nurturing interactions, (c) positive characteristics about the person, and (d) other (not able to code). Following from Noddings’ (2010) work on relational caring, as well as the burgeoning research on the importance of responsive and attuned student-teacher interactions (Braun et al., 2019; Wentzel, 1997) and teachers’ own mindfulness and social and emotional competence (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Rickert et al., 2020), 17 statements were selected that encompassed both relations or interactions (“Listens to me and my problems”) and characteristics (“She is a nice teacher”) that support caring student-teacher relationships. In a third step, we rephrased the 17 statements into scale items (i.e., “My teacher...”), while trying to maintain the language of the students. Finally, these items were reviewed by eight Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the field of SEL and student-teacher relationships. The SME’s provided feedback on redundancy of items and suggestions for important missing qualities. This resulted in the removal of one redundant item (“I can talk to my teacher about my problems”) and a final pool of 16 items designed to assess nurturing, mindful student-teacher interactions and caring, compassionate teacher characteristics (see Table 2.1 for items). Given that students may have positive relationships with some teachers and negative ones with others (Raufelder & Hoferichter, 2015), to ensure validity, this measure asked students to think of a specific teacher (i.e., the current teacher in the study) when responding to the items, rather than teachers in general (Raufelder et al., 2016). Students completed this scale using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Distributions and Intercorrelations of Items on the CSTR 48 To examine whether this population of middle school students exhibited variability on the CSTR, we examined the means and standard deviations for each item on the scale (see Table 2.2). Results indicated there was satisfactory variability reported on the items of the CSTR as well as acceptable skewness (< 2.0) and kurtosis (< 4.0) for each item (Watkins, 2018). We also examined inter-item correlations of the CSTR using the polychoric correlation matrix, which is recommended for ordinal data. Ordinal variables such as Likert-type items do not meet linearity and normality assumptions and can, consequently, negatively affect correlation coefficients and subsequent factor analysis results. Therefore, the more robust polychoric correlation matrix is recommended (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012; Gadermann et al., 2012). In order for factor analysis to be appropriate, a large number of correlations should exceed ±.30 (Hair et al., 2010), which was the case for these data with correlations ranging from .50 to .80 (see Table 2.3 for intercorrelations). These findings indicate that items of the CSTR are highly related to each other (Cohen, 1992). Factor Analysis In order to explore the CSTR’s dimensionality and structural validity (Furr, 2011), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using participating students’ responses to the scale (see Table 2.1 for full scale). First, to ensure the data were appropriate for EFA, tests were conducted to ensure the correlation matrix was not random. Specifically, the Bartlett test of sphericity χ2 (120) = 3179.99, p <.001 indicated the correlation matrix diverged significantly enough from the identity matrix therefore may be factorable. Moreover, the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value (Kaiser, 1974) was above the recommended minimum of .50 (KMO = .95) indicating sampling adequacy for EFA. 49 Following this, we conducted a factor analysis of the 16-item CSTR using principal axis factoring as the estimation method with oblique (Promax) rotation (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Watkins, 2018). We chose oblique rotation given the high likelihood that the factors would be correlated (Watkins, 2018). We used EFA (instead of confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) because the factor structure and latent variables of this newly created set of items has not been previously examined. The EFA was conducted using the lavaan package (Rosseel et al., 2012) and the psych package (Revelle, 2018) in RStudio version 1.2.5042 (R Core Team, 2017) on polychoric correlation matrices to accommodate the Likert-type data (Holgado-Tello et al., 2010; Özdemir et al., 2019). To assist in the determination of the number of factors to retain, we conducted a principal component analysis on the polychoric correlation matrix, followed by an inspection of eigenvalues (Kaiser criterion) and scree plot. A parallel analysis (Hayton et al. 2004) was also conducted. Data were missing on one or more items for less than 2% of the sample (n = 4). Given that this represented less than 10% of the data, mean imputation was employed (Schumacker, 2015). Dimensionality and Internal Consistency of CSTR Theory, eigenvalues, scree plot, and parallel analysis all suggested that two factors should be retained. The percent of total variance (of the 16 items) explained by the two rotated factors was 71% (40% by Factor A and 31% by Factor B). Criteria for establishing factor adequacy was established a priori, where pattern coefficients ≥.40 were considered salient (i.e., practically and statistically significant) (Norman & Streiner, 2014; Pedhazur & Pedhazur Schmelkin, 1991). To honor simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), items with loadings > .40 on more than one factor were to be rejected. However, there were no items that met this criterion. Finally, theoretically 50 meaningful factors with a minimum of three items with adequate factor loadings and internal consistency > .70 were retained. All 16 items loaded > .40 on one (and only one) of the factors (see Table 2.4 for all factor loadings). The two factors were also highly correlated at r = .78. Appropriate cut-off values for fit indices of structural equation models (SEM) have been shown to depend on estimation methods and design (Xia & Yang, 2019). For the current study, a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) smaller than .06 and a Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of factoring reliability larger than .95 was taken to indicate relatively good model–data fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger, 2007). The two-factor model for this data, therefore, showed good fit, χ2 (89) = 169.69, p < .001; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [.05, .08]. Furthermore, the root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is 0.02 for this data, which is below .10, and therefore indicates very good model fit (McDonald, 1985). The results from an alternative, one-factor model (TLI = .86; RMSEA = .13; RMSR =.06) suggest that the two-factor model is preferable. A subscale was created for each factor by calculating the unweighted mean for the items loading above .40 on that factor. The first 10 items loaded onto the first latent variable, Factor A (factor loadings ranged from .64 to .89) and six items (observed variables) loaded strongly on a second latent variable, Factor B (loadings ranged from .77 to .88) (see Table 2.4). Given the complexity of each factor, a team of SMEs were again consulted and surveyed for their suggestions for factor labels. First, a qualitative feedback discussion was conducted, where all SMEs provided their insight into the themes that emerged from each factor. Second, a list of preliminary factor names was created from this discussion and distributed to each SME, with a request to rank each factor name in order of preference. Following this iterative process, two 51 factor names emerged: Teacher Support and Attunement (Factor A) and Caring Teacher Qualities (Factor B). Following from the principal components and factor analyses, which indicated two factors of the CSTR, internal consistency was calculated on scores of the subscales. Cronbach’s alpha was .94 and ordinal alpha was .95 for Teacher Support and Attunement. For Caring Teacher Qualities, Cronbach’s alpha was .94 and ordinal alpha was .95. We also calculated the corrected item-total correlations based on the polyserial correlation matrix and the ordinal alphas-if-item-deleted (Table 2.5) for both subscales. The results indicated that in the present sample all items related highly to the corrected total subscales; Teacher Support and Attunement ranged from .70 to .85 and Caring Teacher Qualities ranged from .74 to .87. Furthermore, deleting any of the items would not improve the reliability of either subscale. These findings indicate satisfactory internal consistency of each subscale of the CSTR. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Evidence for the CSTR We conducted a series of correlations between the two CSTR subscales and a battery of measures, to examine convergent and discriminant validity evidence. These associations are presented in Table 2.6. In terms of missing data for the validity constructs, participant data were retained if they responded to at least 80% of the items of a scale. Any missing data for the correlations was treated with listwise deletion. As hypothesized, students’ scores on both the Teacher Support and Attunement and Caring Teacher Qualities subscales were positively and significantly correlated with students’ reports on other measures of teacher support and teacher SEC, and the effect sizes were large (>.60). Cohen (1992) suggests that correlations of .10, .30, and .50 can be interpreted as small, 52 medium, and large effect sizes respectively. Students’ scores on both subscales were aggregated at the teacher level in order to compare them to teachers’ self-reports of their burnout. Students’ scores on the Teacher Support and Attunement and Caring Teacher Qualities subscales were both significantly and negatively related to teachers’ self-reports of their feelings of burnout, with medium to large effect sizes. As hypothesized, students’ scores on the two CSTR subscales were also positively and significantly related to student self-report measures of classroom supportiveness and student and teacher reported measures of prosociality (i.e., altruism, prosocial goals, SEC), with small to medium effect sizes. Similarly, the CSTR subscales showed significant positive correlations with students’ reports of optimism and self-efficacy, with medium effect sizes, but were not significantly correlated with students’ perceived helplessness. The two CSTR subscales were significantly and positively correlated with students’ reports of academic efficacy, with medium effect sizes. The Teacher Support and Attunement subscale showed significant positive correlations with teachers’ reports of students’ academic success), with small effect sizes, but the Caring Teacher Qualities was not significantly related to academic success. In further support of discriminant validity, students’ scores on the Teacher Support and Attunement subscale were also positively and significantly related to teacher reports of student-teacher closeness and significantly and negatively related to conflict, but with small effect sizes. Students’ scores on Caring Teacher Qualities were significantly and negatively related to teacher-rated conflict but not significantly correlated with teacher-rated closeness (see Table 2.6). Students’ scores on both subscales were aggregated at the teacher level to compare them to teachers’ self-reports of their mindfulness in teaching. Results indicated significant and 53 positive correlations between both subscales and teachers’ reports of Intrapersonal Mindfulness (i.e., mindful habits within the self) and Interpersonal Mindfulness (i.e., mindful interactions between teacher and student), with small effect sizes. Gender and Grade Differences To examine gender and grade differences in students’ responses to CSTR, we performed a 2 (Grade) x 2 (Gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each subscale of the CSTR. Confidence intervals (CIs) of effect sizes (ηp2) are provided, as they are favoured over retrospective power analyses and can provide additional information about significance of findings (Cohen, 1990; Hoenig & Heisey, 2001; Levine & Ensom, 2001; Nakagawa & Foster, 2004). 90% CI are recommended when using ηp2 and are equivalent to a 95% CI around Cohen’s d, thus were calculated using the effectsize package (Ben-Shacher et al., 2021) and esc package (Lüdecke et al., 2019) in RStudio version 1.2.5042 (R Core Team, 2017). Main effects for both gender and grade were not significant for either Teacher Support and Attunement (gender, F[1, 216] = 1.69, p =.20, ηp2 = .01, 90% CI [ .00, .04]; grade, F[1, 216] = 2.71, p =.10, ηp2 = .01, 90% CI [ .00, .05]) or Caring Teacher Qualities (gender, F[1, 216] = .12, p =.73, ηp2 = .001, 90% CI [.00, .02]; grade, F[1, 216] = 2.15, p =.14, ηp2 = .01, 90% CI [.00, .04]). Interaction effects were also nonsignificant for both subscales; Teacher Support and Attunement (F[1, 216] = 1.45, p = .23, ηp2 = .01, 90% CI [ .00, .04]), Caring Teacher Qualities (F[1, 216] = 1.46, p = .23, ηp2 = .01, 90% CI [.00, .04]). CIs that include zero provide additional support for the non-significant conclusions. An important next step in measure validation is examining measurement invariance (Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) to determine if the same underlying construct is being measured across groups. However, for a multi-group CFA, as a general rule, it is 54 recommended that there be 100 participants in each group (Kline, 2015). An a priori power analysis was also conducted using the semPower package (Moshagen & Erdfelder, 2016) in RStudio version 1.2.5042 (R Core Team, 2017) which indicated that at least 88 participants would be needed in each group (i.e., 88 boys, 88 girls) to achieve 80% power to detect small effects at α = .05. Moreover, to follow an EFA with a CFA, the CFA should be conducted on a sample independent from the initial EFA to avoid model overfitting (Fokkema & Greiff, 2017; Matsunaga, 2010). Given this and the limited sample size were we to partition the data into two sub-samples, measurement invariance analyses were not conducted for this present study. Discussion The present study examined the factor structure, psychometric properties, and evidence for validity of a new measure of middle school students’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships, the CSTR. There is a growing need for validated measures that assess middle school students’ perspectives of student-teacher relationships. This is particularly true given the limited research that incorporates students’ perceptions of specific caring dimensions in these relationships (Ahnert et al., 2012) and the frequent disparity found between early adolescents’ perceptions and teachers’ perceptions in the classroom (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Rickert et al., 2020). Moreover, the majority of scales currently being used in research to assess middle school students’ perceptions of student-teacher relationships frequently employ unvalidated sets of items, focus on broad beliefs of teacher support rather than a thorough look at specific perceived relational features and caring qualities of these relationships (Johnson et al., 1985; Ricard & Pelletier, 2016), and/or are not developed from the voices of students (Brinkworth et al., 2017). The pattern of results in the present study offers preliminary evidence that the CSTR has strong psychometric properties and has utility for shedding light on student-teacher relationships 55 in early adolescence. Specifically, our results revealed a two-dimensional factor structure for the CSTR, highlighting two important components of student-teacher relationships: Support and attunement within the student-teacher relationship (Teacher Support and Attunement) and caring qualities of the teacher themselves (Caring Teacher Qualities). This aligns with previous work that has emphasized the importance of both teachers’ own characteristics they bring to the relationship (Colaianne et al., 2020; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) as well as the nurturing and responsive interactions between teachers and their students (Noddings, 2015; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Existing measures of teacher support typically ask students to report on broader beliefs about the relationship, such as how much a teacher likes them (e.g., “My teacher likes me as much as he/she likes other students;” Johnson et al., 1985) or conflict/closeness (e.g., “I easily have quarrels with my teacher”) in the relationship (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015; Longobardi et al., 2016). The CSTR, however, asks students to reflect on the specific caring and responsive behaviours and qualities they perceive their teacher to exhibit (e.g., “My teacher listens to me and my problems,” “My teacher respects people,” “My teacher gives me time to cool down”). Furthermore, analyses revealed high internal consistency and acceptable variability of the responses on the two subscales on the CSTR. In addition, the results supported our hypotheses, that the correlations between the CSTR and other measures of teacher support and teacher SEC and burnout would have the largest effect sizes, followed by moderate associations with measures of students’ prosociality, well-being, and school functioning, and small associations with teachers’ ratings of relationship quality and self-reports of mindfulness. Given that the convergent connections had larger effect sizes than the discriminant relations, this provides some preliminary support for construct validity of the CSTR subscales. 56 First, the findings of large correlations between the CSTR subscales and other teacher support scales indicates that this new scale is comparable to other measures of teacher support but is not redundant. This provides evidence for convergent validity and supports the contention that the CSTR may indeed offer additional, unique information about middle school student-teacher relationships beyond what is currently being assessed in the field. This study also included correlational analyses between the CSTR and teachers’ self-reports of burnout, specifically a composite of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Results indicated moderate significant and negative correlations between teacher burnout and student reports of Teacher Support and Attunement and Caring Teacher Qualities. Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot discern which direction this relationship occurs in – whether teacher burnout leads to students perceiving less teacher attunement, support, and caring, or whether a lack of support and attunement in the student-teacher relationship has detrimental, reciprocal effects on the teacher, causing feelings of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion. Some previous longitudinal research, however, has provided some support for the former explanation. For instance, research has supported the “burnout cascade” described in Jennings and Greenberg’s “Prosocial Classroom” (2009), in that higher teacher burnout earlier in the school year has been shown to lead to teachers feeling less connected to their students (Aloe et al., 2014; Dicke et al., 2014) and has been associated with poorer student well-being at the end of the year (Braun et al., 2020). These findings support the notion that valuing and fostering teachers’ well-being not only has benefits for teachers but also has positive, downstream effects on student well-being and school success (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jennings et al., 2017). Future research would benefit from a longitudinal investigation of the relation between the CSTR and teacher burnout. 57 The findings of significant associations between middle school students’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships and students’ own prosociality, well-being, and school functioning, and perceptions of classroom support provided additional evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Moreover, this study aligns with previous research that has shown strong correlations between supportive student-teacher relationships and students’ prosociality, particularly during middle school (Wentzel et al., 2010). In addition, this study corroborates previous findings of small to moderate relations between student-teacher relationships and students’ resiliency (i.e., optimism, self-efficacy) (Pallini et al., 2019), academic functioning (Archambault et al., 2017; Engels et al., 2016), and classroom support (Brown et al., 2010; Cipriano et al., 2019). Next, the finding of weak correlations between the CSTR and teacher reports of closeness and conflict in the student-teacher relationship is noteworthy. These findings align with previous research reporting weak or non-significant correlations between early adolescents’ and teacher or other’s perspectives of caregiver relationships (Zee & Koomen, 2017), demonstrating that early adolescent students often have a unique perception of their relationships that is less accessible to other raters. In contrast to previous research that has shown students and teachers are more likely to agree on the conflict in the relationship than the closeness (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Zee & Koomen, 2017), the findings of the current study indicate the opposite: a higher correlation between student perceptions of Teacher Support & Attunement and teacher-rated closeness than with conflict. There were no differences in magnitude of correlations between closeness and conflict with Caring Teacher Qualities. This finding may be due to the CSTR measuring something more distinct from the STRS, than other measures that have been previously compared to the STRS. Moreover, the CSTR only includes positively worded items, which may 58 be more closely related to closeness than conflict. It is also notable that the factor Caring Teacher Qualities was not significantly correlated with teacher-rated closeness but was significantly and negatively correlated with teacher-rated conflict. This finding echos previous research that has found that teachers’ own characteristics (e.g., stress, self-efficacy, emotional support) account for significant variance in their perceptions of conflict in their relationships with students, over and above that which is accounted for by their reports of students’ problem behaviours (Hamre et al., 2008). Additionally, the findings of low but significant, positive correlations between CSTR subscales and teacher self-reports of interpersonal and intrapersonal mindfulness in teaching are notable. These results reflect previous research by Rickert et al. (2020) that found that teachers’ self-reports of their mindful experiences were not as often reflective of their outward expressions of mindful behaviours, as reported by students and trained observers. Although the CSTR does not explicitly claim to measure teacher mindfulness, many characteristics of mindful teaching (i.e., calm, clear, kind; Rickert et al., 2020) were included in the items as they were considered important for caring and attuned student-teacher relationships (e.g., “my teacher is calm,” “My teacher gives me time to cool down”). The finding of a significant correlation between teacher reported mindfulness and students’ perceptions of a caring student-teacher relationship supports the burgeoning research that shows fostering teachers’ mindfulness has the potential to improve relationships and climate in the classroom (Braun et al., 2019; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Rickert et al., 2020). With regard to the third aim and final piece of validity evidence, no gender or grade differences were found for either subscale of the CSTR. This finding regarding gender is at odds with some of the research showing boys and girls differ in their relationships with their teachers, 59 namely around closeness and conflict, as measured by the teachers (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Pianta, 2001; Zee & Koomen, 2017) and some research on students’ perceptions of teacher support (Wentzel et al., 2010). This finding does agree with some previous research that has found no gender difference in students’ perceptions of teacher mindfulness – calm, clarity, and kindness – in the student-teacher relationship (Colaianne et al., 2020), which are also aspects assessed in the new CSTR measure. These findings highlight the importance of investigating students’ own perceptions of their relationships with their teachers as they often differ from the perspectives of the teachers. For instance, some research has demonstrated that teachers, particularly middle school teachers, may have inherent and differing biases towards each gender of student (Saft & Pianta, 2001), which may contribute to their contrasting evaluations of the quality of their relationships with students. In particular, teachers tend to both report relationships with boys as more conflictual (Koepke & Harkins, 2008) and view boys as more aggressive (Miller et al., 2009; Spilt et al., 2010). It has been proposed, however, that this could be due to the fact that boys are more likely to express aggression overtly (e.g., physically; Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006), whereas aggression amongst girls is more often expressed in more covert verbal or social ways (Spilt et al., 2010) which may be less salient to an observer. Future validation studies of the CSTR should include tests of measurement invariance (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000), particularly as it pertains to gender, to investigate if the scale functions and is interpreted the same way for every gender identity. The finding of no significant main effects for grade for either subscale is in contrast with previous research that shows a decline in closeness and quality of student-teacher relationships as students progress from elementary to middle and secondary school (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Reddy et al., 2003). This relationship, however, has typically been investigated through teachers’ 60 reports of the student-teacher relationship, whereas there is a scarcity of investigations and incongruence of findings regarding grade differences of student perceptions of student-teacher relationships (Downer et al., 2015; Malecki & Demaray, 2002). Moreover, the majority of this previous research has investigated changes in student-teacher relationships during transitions from elementary schools to middle or secondary schools (Eccles et al., 1993), which comes with many contextual and pedagogical changes (e.g., more teachers, larger classes), whereas this study only compared two grades within middle school. Moreover, this study involved combined grade classrooms, which incorporates both sixth and seventh grade students within the same class. This may have contributed to the small effect size found for grade-level differences, given that both grades shared the same classroom teacher. However, future studies should conduct measurement invariance analyses for grade and continue to investigate the utility of the CSTR longitudinally and across a wider range of grades. Strengths and Limitations The results of this study provide some initial support for a new psychometrically sound instrument that can provide new insight into middle school students’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships. The findings suggest that the CSTR is an appropriate measure to use with middle school students and there is some preliminary evidence that students’ perceptions of attunement, support, and caring from their teachers are related to better classroom support and student prosociality, well-being, and school functioning. The results also support previous research by demonstrating that early adolescents have a unique perspective to offer when evaluating relationships in the classroom and these perceptions may have an important impact on their own social, emotional, and academic well-being. 61 One primary strength of this study is the content validity and developmental appropriateness of the items in the measure. First, the original pool of items was developed using language generated from middle school students themselves and then reviewed and modified by a team of SMEs. Second, the majority of items asked students to report on their own interpretations and experiences with teachers, rather than asking them to report on the perspectives of their teacher or classmates (e.g., “My teacher has close relationships with students in this class”) which may be a challenging cognitive task for this age group. To ensure variability and the inclusion of students’ perceptions of the wider classroom context, some items went beyond students’ own experiences, but were deemed easily observable (“My teacher is always nice to everyone,” “My teacher respects people”). Moreover, the content of this measure assessed both nurturing interactions between students and teachers (Teacher Support and Attunement) as well as caring qualities or virtues of the teacher themselves (Caring Teacher Qualities), two facets previously identified as important for caring student-teacher relationships (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Noddings, 2015), yet missing from many extant student-report measures. Another strength of this study includes the multiple methods used to investigate validity evidence for this measure, including student self-report measures, teacher-ratings of students, and teacher self-report measures. In this study, we included many constructs that other investigations of comparable scales also used for convergent and discriminant validity such as academic efficacy (Rickert et al., 2020) and prosociality (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015). Furthermore, this study took place midway through the school year, which ensured students and teachers had sufficient time together prior to data collection to establish their relationships and reliably report on them. There is also moderate generalizability of the findings 62 due to the relatively large and diverse sample of students, representative of Western Canada. A number of students did not have complete data for the CSTR and thus were excluded from analyses. A comparison between the excluded students and the participating sample revealed no significant demographic (i.e., gender, family composition, first language) differences. However, it is possible the excluded students may have provided different responses to the CSTR. Thus, there is a small group of students for whom we do not know if the current findings apply. It is important to highlight the unique context of the present study, both as a strength and limitation. First, most measures of students’ perceptions of their student-teacher relationships have been developed within an American context. This study provides insight into the context of middle schools in Canada and developed a measure particularly relevant to this setting. Second, as mentioned, BC where this study took place, has a dedicated focus on fostering students’ social responsibility, promoting SEL, and creating caring schools. Moreover, the teachers that participated in this study had voluntarily signed up for this research about a social and emotional learning program. Therefore, the context of the participating schools and the teachers and students may be particularly primed for caring student-teacher relationships. Thus, it is possible that the factor structure and scores on the CSTR, as well as the associations with gender, grade, and other SEL constructs, could be different in other jurisdictions with a lesser focus on these qualities. An additional limitation of this study is the cross-sectional and correlational design, which limits some of the interpretations that can be made from these findings, such as predictive validity, stability of scores (e.g., test-retest reliability), or development of students’ perceptions over time. For example, the findings indicate significant relations between students’ perceptions of teacher support, attunement, and caring to measures of classroom supportiveness as well as student prosociality, well-being, and school functioning, however, longitudinal studies are 63 needed to infer any causal relationships among these constructs. Despite these limitations, this study provides some preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the CSTR for use with middle school students. In doing so, this study reinforces the need to continue to include student voices and perceptions when studying relationships in the classroom. Future Directions and Educational Implications Validation is considered an ongoing, iterative process (Hubley & Zumbo, 2011), therefore additional validation research on the CSTR is needed, particularly with a broader age range, more diverse samples, and in the context of longitudinal research. For instance, the population of BC consists predominantly of people who report their ethnic origin as European or Asian, with smaller proportions of Black, Indigenous Peoples, and Latinx. Given the systemic oppression and disparate experiences of underrepresented groups, it is essential to examine this measure with additionally diverse samples, particularly with a greater proportion of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous Peoples populations. In addition, we did not have sufficient power to conduct measurement invariance analyses (i.e., Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis [MGCFA]) on a subsample that was independent from that which was used for the EFA. Future studies utilizing the CSTR should further explore validity evidence of this tool using both confirmatory factor analyses and measurement invariance analyses. Given the novel aspect of this measure and the paucity of available measures that assess middle school students’ perceptions of their relationships with their teachers, it would also be valuable to investigate the cognitive processes students utilize when responding to the CSTR (i.e., through think-aloud protocols) (e.g., Gadermann et al., 2011). 64 The current findings provide support for the importance of student-teacher relationships in middle school and provides a psychometrically sound tool for assessing students’ perceptions of caring dimensions of these relationships. Having such a measure is not only valuable for theoretical investigations, but it may also prove useful for schools looking to internally evaluate their own school cultures. Furthermore, although a handful of measures exist that assess students’ perspectives of broad teacher support (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Ricard & Pelletier, 2016), none to date focus on early adolescents’ perceptions of specific aspects of teacher caring and attunement. This type of in-depth measure may be informative for interventions and teacher professional development that aim to improve student-teacher relationships and classroom contexts. Specifically, rather than only measuring teachers’ perceptions of the impact of such interventions, this measure provides a means through which to investigate how SEL interventions may change students’ perceptions of their relationships with their teachers. Given the common discrepancy between teacher and student perceptions of their relationships (Prewett et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017), this is an important perspective to evaluate in intervention research. Moreover, some research has shown the effectiveness of some of the existing, broad teacher support measures in predicting academic-related student outcomes (Scales et al., 2020; Wang & Eccles, 2012). However, fewer have shown strong relations with adolescent students’ social and emotional outcomes (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Colaianne et al., 2020). Given the growing need to foster current and future early adolescents’ social and emotional competencies in school (Greenberg et al., 2017), there may be particular relevance in being able to assess the qualities of the student-teacher relationship that are most related to these students’ outcomes, particularly from the unique perspective of the students themselves. 65 Table 2.1 Caring Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (CSTR) How true is each statement for you? Not at all True A little true Somewhat true Pretty much true Very True 1. My teacher helps me when I’m sad. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My teacher is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I can trust my teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My teacher takes care of me and the other students. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My teacher gives me respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6. My teacher listens to me and my problems. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I can talk to my teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My teacher gives me time to cool down. 1 2 3 4 5 9. My teacher supports me. 1 2 3 4 5 10. My teacher treats me fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 11. My teacher is always nice to everyone. 1 2 3 4 5 12. My teacher respects people. 1 2 3 4 5 13. My teacher is kind. 1 2 3 4 5 14. My teacher is friendly. 1 2 3 4 5 15. My teacher is calm. 1 2 3 4 5 16. My teacher is caring. 1 2 3 4 5 66 Table 2.2 Descriptive Statistics of the CSTR M SD Variance Skewness Kurtosis Statistic SE Statistic SE 1. My teacher helps me when I’m sad. 3.80 1.17 1.38 -.73 .17 -.28 .33 2. My teacher is helpful. 4.33 0.82 .68 -1.09 .16 .69 .33 3. I can trust my teacher. 4.26 0.98 .96 -1.29 .16 1.11 .33 4. My teacher takes care of me and the other students. 4.34 0.85 .72 -1.12 .16 .64 .33 5. My teacher gives me respect. 4.32 0.83 .70 -1.17 .16 1.27 .33 6. My teacher listens to me and my problems. 4.14 0.98 .95 -1.01 .16 .54 .33 7. I can talk to my teacher. 4.14 1.01 1.03 -1.08 .16 .48 .33 8. My teacher gives me time to cool down. 3.95 0.98 .96 -.62 .16 -.23 .33 9. My teacher supports me. 4.15 0.90 .81 -.83 .16 .02 .33 10. My teacher treats me fairly. 4.31 0.85 .73 -1.34 .16 1.79 .33 11. My teacher is always nice to everyone. 4.29 0.82 .67 -1.09 .16 .96 .33 12. My teacher respects people. 4.48 0.73 .54 -1.44 .16 2.22 .33 13. My teacher is kind. 4.50 0.74 .54 -1.74 .16 3.97 .33 14. My teacher is friendly. 4.56 0.67 .45 -1.68 .16 3.75 .33 15. My teacher is calm. 4.36 0.82 .67 -1.34 .16 1.91 .33 16. My teacher is caring. 4.49 0.75 .57 -1.52 .16 2.34 .33 67 Table 2.3 Intercorrelations Between Items of the CSTR Using the Polychoric Correlation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Item 1 - Item 2 .63** - Item 3 .71** .70** - Item 4 .61** .70** .65** - Item 5 .66** .71** .66** .72** - Item 6 .75** .68** .63** .63** .71** - Item 7 .70** .65** .68** .65** .67** .67** - Item 8 .63** .58** .56** .58** .59** .63** .72** - Item 9 .72** .72** .65** .69** .69** .68** .78** .70** - Item 10 .70** .70** .63** .71** .77** .71** .76** .69** .77** - Item 11 .57** .63** .55** .62** .61** .58** .57** .53** .64** .67** - Item 12 .57** .60** .56** .61** .63** .59** .57** .53** .59** .66** .74** - Item 13 .60** .67** .61** .60** .66** .59** .64** .60** .67** .69** .76** .80** - Item 14 .57** .66** .58** .59** .65** .56** .61** .55** .63** .67** .72** .78** .82** - Item 15 .52** .60** .54** .59** .57** .55** .55** .50** .59** .59** .73** .73** .75** .72** - Item 16 .59** .64** .63** .62** .68** .63** .59** .59** .66** .67** .75** .79** .82** .79** .74** - **p < .01. 68 Table 2.4 Items and Factor Loadings of the CSTR Factor loading Item A B Teacher Support and Attunement I can talk to my teacher. 0.89 -0.04 My teacher helps me when I’m sad. 0.86 -0.04 My teacher supports me. 0.83 0.06 My teacher listens to me and my problems. 0.80 0.03 My teacher treats me fairly. 0.74 0.16 My teacher gives me time to cool down. 0.74 0.03 I can trust my teacher. 0.71 0.09 My teacher gives me respect. 0.68 0.19 My teacher takes care of me and the other students. 0.65 0.18 My teacher is helpful. 0.64 0.22 Caring Teacher Qualities My teacher respects people. 0.00 0.88 My teacher is kind. 0.08 0.85 My teacher is friendly. 0.06 0.83 My teacher is calm. 0.00 0.83 My teacher is caring. 0.10 0.82 My teacher is always nice to everyone 0.09 0.77 Note: N = 222. The extraction method was principal axis factoring with an oblique (Promax with Kaiser normalization) rotation. Factor loadings above .40 are in bold. 69 Table 2.5 Corrected Item-Total Correlations, and Ordinal Alpha-if-Item-Deleted of Items of CSTR Corrected Item-Total Correlation Ordinal Alpha-if-Item-Deleted Teacher Support and Attunement 1. My teacher helps me when I’m sad. .78 .95 2. My teacher is helpful. .76 .95 3. I can trust my teacher. .71 .95 4. My teacher takes care of me and the other students. .76 .95 5. My teacher gives me respect. .79 .95 6. My teacher listens to me and my problems. .77 .95 7. I can talk to my teacher. .80 .95 8. My teacher gives me time to cool down. .70 .95 9. My teacher supports me. .85 .95 10. My teacher treats me fairly. .82 .95 Caring Teacher Qualities 11. My teacher is always nice to everyone. .81 .94 12. My teacher respects people. .85 .94 13. My teacher is kind. .87 .94 14. My teacher is friendly. .83 .94 15. My teacher is calm. .74 .95 16. My teacher is caring. .81 .94 70 Table 2.6 Evidence of Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the CSTR Teacher Support and Attunement Caring Teacher Qualities Teacher Support and Attunement - .78** Caring Teacher Qualities .78** - Teacher support, SEC, and burnout Student report of Teacher Support (CASSS) .80** .67** Student report of Teacher Personal Support (CLM) .86** .63** Student report of Teacher SEC (TSEC) .73** .70** Teacher report of Burnout (MBI)a -.40** -.50** Classroom context and prosociality Student Report of Classroom Supportiveness .34** .26** Student Report of Prosocial Goals (Social Goals Scale) .33** .23** Student Report of Altruism .32** .19** Teacher Report of Student SEC (TSCRS) .22** .16* Well-being Student Report of Optimism (Resiliency Inventory) .36** .26** Student Report of Perceived Self-Efficacy (PSS-10) .30** .24** Student Report of Perceived Helplessness (PSS-10) -.10 -.11 School functioning Student Report of Academic Efficacy (Academic Goals Questionnaire) .47** .29** Teacher Report of Academic Success (APRS) .17* .06 Teacher ratings of relationship and mindfulness Teacher report of Student-Teacher Relationship Closeness (STRS) .24** .13 Teacher report of Student-Teacher Relationship Conflict (STRS) -.17** -.15* Teacher report of Intrapersonal Mindfulness in teachinga .22** .18** Teacher report of Interpersonal Mindfulness in teachinga .19** .28* a For analyses between teacher self-report and student-rated data, student data was aggregated within each classroom to create a classroom level indicator. *p < .05. **p < .01. 71 Chapter 3: What Do Teachers Do to Show They Care? Learning From the Voices of Early Adolescents There is a burgeoning research literature documenting the positive impact of supportive student-teacher relationships on several aspects of students’ social and academic lives (Hamre & Pianta, 2010), such as their academic engagement (Engels et al., 2016), well-being (Braun et al., 2019), and prosocial behaviours (Wentzel, 2002). This becomes particularly important during the early adolescent years (ages 10–14 years), a time when non-familial adults and peers become increasingly influential (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Yu & Deutsch, 2019) and when students experience significant biological and social changes (Steinberg, 2016). Despite the plethora of research on student-teacher relationships, there remains a lack of consensus with respect to the conceptualization of a “caring” or “supportive” student-teacher relationship (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006; Davis, 2006; Noddings, 2015; Thompson, 2003). Moreover, scholars have discussed the notion that what it means to be “caring” often varies across development, cultures, racial groups, and genders (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006). Mindfulness, which involves “attention [and] openness to experience, and a compassionate stance towards present moment experience” (Roeser, 2016, p. 151), has surfaced in recent years as a potential profile of traits that may benefit both teachers and students in the classroom, and nurture care and support in the student-teacher relationship (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016). Mindful teaching, in particular, has given rise to a growing body of work (Cannon, 2016; Colaianne et al., 2020; Roeser et al., 2012) that supports the contention that students who experience their teachers as more mindful, for instance by being calm, clear, and kind in their interactions with students (Hulburt et al., 2020), have more positive developmental outcomes (Colaianne et al., 2020). 72 Despite the growing body of work about teacher caring, much less is known regarding students’ own perceptions of the characteristics of a caring teacher, particularly in the important transitional stage of early adolescence (Alder, 2002; Wentzel, 1997). To further explore this question and explicate the role of mindfulness as a caring approach to in teaching during adolescence, this study investigated the degree to which middle school students’ characterizations of a caring teacher would reflect the qualities of calm, clear, and kind that represent the conceptualization of “mindful teaching” (Rickert et al., 2020). Caring Student-Teacher Relationships Many contend that effective teaching that leads to positive academic and social outcomes for students, includes a combination of academic knowledge and personal attributes (Downer et al., 2015; Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Although pedagogical and content knowledge are undeniably important for teachers, there is growing empirical support for the significance of teachers’ emotional support and social and emotional competence (SEC) for fostering student well-being and learning in the classroom (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). A corpus of studies have explored the impact of teachers’ caring and personal support on student outcomes (Guess & McBowling, 2016; Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 1997). Not only do supportive teachers establish better relationships with their students and more positive classroom climates (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), these actually lead to greater student motivation and academic success (Eccles & Roeser, 2016; Wentzel, 1997) and prosocial behaviour (Wentzel, 2002). For decades, researchers and theorists have posited and debated the meaning and components of “teacher caring.” For instance, Nel Noddings (2013, 2015), a pioneer and advocate for fostering caring relationships in schools, has stressed the importance of teachers 73 leading with a pedagogy of care, which emphasizes first and foremost attending to students’ needs and fostering a reciprocal, empathic relationship. Other researchers have emphasized qualities such as emotional closeness and low conflict as essential for caring student-teacher relationships (Longobardi et al., 2016; Pianta et al., 2012). Furthermore, researchers have shown that definitions of caring can vary among students of colour, different cultural groups, or underrepresented peoples (Thompson, 2003; Tosolt, 2009). Taken together, more research is needed that explores the specific qualities and behaviors of teachers that define a caring approach to teaching and student-teacher relationships in different school contexts, particularly from the perspective of early adolescent students. The Role of Mindfulness in Teaching There is a growing movement to investigate the application of mindfulness in education, both as a trait and a practice among educators and students (Lawlor et al., 2014; Schonert-Reichl, Oberle et al., 2015). Research in this emerging field of contemplative science has demonstrated the positive effect that mindful traits and practices can have, both on individuals themselves and the people around them (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016). For instance, in a recent systematic literature review that examined qualitative studies of mindfulness practices in caring and educational professions (e.g., teachers, nurses, social workers), DeMauro et al. (2019) found participants reported that mindfulness practices improved their responsiveness and receptivity to others through developments in qualities including presence, listening, and compassion. Mindfulness in teaching in particular has emerged as a valuable framework for understanding the ways in which to foster caring and compassionate classroom environments, which in turn promote optimal student development. Specifically, recent studies have demonstrated that teachers categorized as high in mindfulness have better well-being and more 74 positive interactions with their students (Molloy Elreda et al., 2019). For example, in a study of 58 middle school teachers, Braun et al. (2019) found that teachers’ self-reported mindfulness was significantly related to lower levels of occupational stress, burnout, anxiety, and depression. In addition, middle school teachers’ self-reports of mindfulness were associated with higher observer reports of emotional support in the classrooms in which teachers reported high levels of stress. Similarly, in a longitudinal study with 599 high school students, Colaianne et al. (2019) found students’ perceptions of their teachers’ mindfulness predicted positive changes in students’ need fulfillment (autonomy, competence, relatedness), which in turn predicted students’ own mindfulness and compassion for self and others. Furthermore, when mindfulness is combined with critical cultural and racial awareness and responsivity, it has been shown to have the potential to reduce bias and foster more equitable classrooms (Cannon, 2016; Lueke & Gibson, 2014). In sum, growing research is supporting the efficacy of mindfulness in fostering caring relationships between teachers and students and promoting both student and teacher well-being (Jennings, 2014; Lawlor, 2016). Calm Clear Kind Framework Recently, Hulburt and colleagues (2020) put forth a conceptual framework for a mindful and compassionate approach to education: the Calm, Clear, Kind (CCK) Educator. The CCK framework builds upon decades of research regarding the emotional labour and practice of teaching (Hargreaves, 1998; Hochschild, 1983; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006) and the importance of teachers’ social and emotional competencies (SEC) (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), while incorporating emerging contemplative approaches to education (i.e., Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). This framework proposes characteristics and practices that can both protect teachers’ emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983; Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006), 75 as well as promote authentic and positive relationships with their students. Specifically, the CCK framework draws from work by Daniel Goleman who has highlighted the importance of teachers being “calm in body, clear in mind, and kind-hearted” in their approaches with their students (Hulburt et al., 2020, p. 4). Hulburt et al. (2020) describe “calm in body” as a teacher’s ability to remain calm and non-reactive and regulate their own stress in the face of the challenges inherent in teaching. In so doing, teachers are better able to support students with their own emotion regulation (Troth et al., 2018). Within the CCK framework, “clear in mind” encompasses a teachers’ capacity to remain present with their students and to be attuned to their needs. It also emphasizes the importance of teachers’ ability to listen and maintain clear, democratic communication with their students (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). Finally, “kind in heart” expands beyond solely a kind or nice disposition and encompasses practicing non-judgment and embodying warmth and connection, nurturing trust and respect, and attending to the needs of students (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). This aspect also emphasizes the importance of teachers’ compassion towards themselves (i.e., self-compassion), which in turn better facilitates a compassionate approach with students (Hulburt et al., 2020). These posited facets align with established theories and perspectives such as attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1975/2015), family socialization literature (Baumrind, 1991), and Noddings’ (2015) ethics of care, which emphasize qualities such as teacher presence (an awareness and receptivity of students’ needs; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006), democratic communication, and attunement (understanding and knowledge about the student; Skinner & Belmont, 1993) as important aspects of student-teacher relationships. Moreover, in its essence and intention, a mindful approach to caring addresses some concerns posed about the dangers of generic and ethnocentric approaches 76 to “caring” literature and campaigns in schools (Thompson, 2003), by emphasizing authentic relationships and responsivity to students’ unique needs and backgrounds. Notwithstanding the recent burgeoning of research on supportive teachers (Longobardi et al., 2016; Prewett et al., 2019) and mindfulness in teaching (Braun et al., 2019; Rickert et al., 2020), most studies have relied heavily on classroom observations and/or teacher reports (Doumen et al., 2012), with relatively few examining these qualities of student-teacher relationships through the perspectives of the early adolescents (Wentzel, 1997). Specifically, despite the compelling evidence of the value of mindfulness in teaching (Molloy Elreda et al., 2019; Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016), few studies have investigated whether mindfulness features are meaningful to students (Rickert et al., 2020). Moreover, no studies to date have taken a qualitative or mixed-method approach to explore students’ characterizations of caring teachers, through the lens of the CCK framework of mindful teaching. Thus, examining whether the CCK framework is applicable to students’ generated themes of caring teachers can provide additional and grounded insight into whether mindful teaching is a resonant approach in classrooms, specifically for early adolescents. Early Adolescents’ Descriptions of Caring Teachers There is a current paucity of research that examines caring and mindful qualities of teachers from the perspectives of students (Ozer et al., 2008; Rickert et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2018). Furthermore, in studies that have assessed students’ perceptions, the operationalization of caring teachers has still largely relied on experts’ conceptualizations of what is important in student-teacher relationships (Brinkworth et al., 2017). Research has demonstrated, however, that adolescents in particular have first-hand experience of their own realities and thus their perspectives may differ from outside observers (Rickert et al., 2020; Zee & Koomen, 2017). 77 Given the disparities found between students of different gender identities (Hughes, 2011; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015) and ethnic and racial backgrounds (Tosolt, 2010) regarding student-teacher relationships, different groups are likely to have different expectations and experiences of teacher caring as well. Hence, in order to enrich our knowledge and theories of student-teacher relationships during this developmental period, it is increasingly important to appreciate a wide breadth of students’ own understanding of what it means to be caring in these relationships (Wentzel, 1997). Moreover, including students’ perspectives in research and theory development respects their rights (i.e., UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [Article 12], unicef.org/crc) and their growing need for belonging and feeling heard (Ben-Arieh, 2005, 2006; Benard & Slade, 2009). The majority of studies that have investigated students’ perspectives of teacher characteristics and quality of student-teacher relationships, however, have relied on quantitative methods (Downer et al., 2015; Roorda et al., 2011), while qualitative or mixed methods studies including students’ perceptions of caring and supportive qualities of teachers are in nascent stages (Garza & Huerta, 2014; Wentzel, 1997) with most studies focusing on younger elementary (Jeffrey et al., 2013) or older high school students (Liu et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018). The use of a mixed methods approach combines the benefits from both approaches and can enrich the depth and breadth of our understanding of complex constructs (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2007), such as student-teacher relationships. While quantitative methods are invaluable for their ability to allow for comparisons between different groups and sophisticated analyses and predictions, the use of qualitative methods offer opportunities for more in-depth and nuanced investigations into participants’ perspectives and understandings of a phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Combining these methods can allow for a meaningful and contextualized summary of the most relevant and important features of caring teachers for students which can 78 help inform interventions and professional development for teachers. Moreover, a mixed methods exploration of participant-generated knowledge has the potential to lead to the creation of more ecologically valid assessments of constructs like caring student-teacher relationships (Brinkworth et al., 2017). As mentioned previously, few studies to date have asked early adolescent students directly for their accounts of what teachers do to show they care, particularly in the context of middle school (Garrett et al., 2009; Wentzel, 1997). In her pioneering study of 375 sixth to eighth grade students, however, Kathryn Wentzel (1997) was one of the few researchers to ask early adolescent students for their own perspectives by posing the questions: "How do you know when a teacher cares about you? List three things that teachers do to show that they care about you" and "How do you know when a teacher does not care about you? List three things that teachers do to show that they don't care about you." These open-ended data were then content analyzed with the themes of effective caregiving (Noddings, 2015) and family socialization literature (Baumrind, 1991) in mind. Students’ responses were coded into six categories: modeling, democratic interactions, expectations based on individuality, nurturance, rule setting, and other. The greatest number of responses fell under expectations for behaviour (i.e., recognition of student’s nonacademic functioning) and democratic interactions (i.e., open and reciprocal lines of communication), with no mentions of rule setting or enforcement. Although the above frameworks largely fit the data in Wentzel’s (1997) study, a proportion of students’ responses did not align with the categories, leaving a residual category of “other/vague” which contained responses such as “Nice to me” and “Helps me.” Given recent work on the importance of teachers’ SEC and mindful dispositions in student-teacher relationships (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Schonert-Reichl, 2017), the current study sought to expand Wentzel’s (1997) 79 work by examining 6th and 7th grade students’ characterizations of caring teachers and exploring the comprehensiveness a new framework of mindful teaching (CCK) for understanding students’ definitions of a caring teacher. Present Study Taking a mixed method approach (Guest, 2013; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2007), the present study explored themes that early adolescents generated in their open-ended responses to the question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” We had a particular interest in determining whether students’ responses contained themes of mindfulness. More specifically, we sought to ascertain whether early adolescents’ characterizations of caring teachers aligned with the CCK framework and comprised themes of calmness, clarity, and kind-heartedness. Additionally, given the potentially disparate experiences of teacher “caring” by students of various genders, ages, and cultural backgrounds (Cooper & Miness, 2014; Garrett et al., 2009; Tosolt, 2009), we investigated both the overall frequency of the emergent themes as well the prevalence of themes in relation to students’ gender, grade, and first language. Method Participants Data for this study were baseline data collected as part of a larger study examining the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based social and emotional learning (SEL) classroom program for early adolescents. The study took place in three middle schools from a public-school district serving approximately 32,000 students, located in a suburban, primarily middle-class community in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The middle schools selected were equivalent in size, socioeconomic status (SES), and ethnic diversity. The neighbourhoods in which the schools were located were comprised predominantly of people who identified European or Asian ethnic origin, 80 with smaller proportions of Indigenous, Black, or Latinx peoples (see Table 3.1 for ethnic/racial proportions). The median household income in the neighbourhoods in which the schools were located was slightly below the Canadian average and ranged from $60,907 - $106,338 CAD (Mean = $77,790.00 CAD; Statistics Canada, 2017). Regarding the study setting, the BC school system has had a longstanding focus on promoting students’ emotional and social development. In 2015, the BC Ministry of Education formally integrated the promotion of emotional and social competence into the provincial K to 12 revised curricula (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca) for all elementary and secondary school students. In the present study, schools were chosen, in part, because the principal in each school had an explicit interest in implementing SEL programs to promote students’ SEC and well-being. Three hundred and fifty students attending 14 classrooms across the three public, middle schools were recruited for the study. Of these, 260 received parental/guardian consent and gave their own assent to participate. A number of students were absent on the day of the survey (n = 5) or opted out of the entire study after providing assent (n = 9). Thirty-eight students were absent during the second half of the survey (e.g., pulled away from class), which included the open-ended question for this study, or indicated they did not want to or know how to answer (e.g., “I don’t know; n = 9), resulting in a final sample of 199 sixth (n = 129) and seventh (n = 70) grade students who had codable data for this study. The sample comprised 99 students who identified as boys, 99 students who identified as girls, and one student who identified their gender in a different way. The mean age of the students was 11.84 (SD = .55). Most students (83.4%) reported English as one of the first languages they learned at home, the next most frequently reported first language was Mandarin (3.5%). The rest of the students reported 28 other languages (e.g., French, Hindi) or combination of languages (e.g., English and Korean). Of the 81 14 participating teachers, nine identified as female and five identified as male, and they reported their ethnicity as either Caucasian/White (50%), East Asian (14.3%), South Asian (7.1%), or multiracial (28.5%; i.e., Indigenous and Caucasian). Participation in the study was voluntary and required both parental/guardian consent and student assent. The participation rate of students who had codable data for this study was 57%. Analyses indicated that the students who opted out or were excluded did not differ from participating students in terms of gender (χ2 [2, n = 244] = 1.33, p = .52) or first language learned (χ2 [22, n = 244] = 23.79, p = .36). Seventh grade students, however, were more likely than sixth grade students to have opted out of all or part of the study, Fisher’s exact test, p = .02, V = .16. Procedure Following university and school board ethics approval, classrooms from the three middle schools were recruited, and the Principal Investigator and/or her research assistants visited the schools and explained the study to the students in child-friendly language, provided parent/guardian consent forms, and answered any questions the students had. Parent/guardian consent and student assent were obtained from all participants. In each consent form, the purpose of the study and the types of data to be collected were described. The consent forms also emphasized that all data would be kept confidential and identities would be kept private in the report of the results. Trained graduate research assistants administered the student self-report survey at baseline, during two 30-minute sessions in one school day, reading the questions aloud to account for any language or comprehension variations. Students were in their main homeroom classrooms (i.e., not exploration classes) during survey administration. Research assistants were present to answer any questions the students had, to ensure students fully understood the items before providing their responses. 82 Measures Students responded to a battery of measures via two-part written survey as part of the larger research study. For the purposes of the present study, demographic data and the open-ended question described below were used. Demographics Student demographics were obtained by asking students to respond to questions about their birthdate, grade, gender identity, and the first language(s) they learned at home (Appendix A). To ensure inclusivity, students could indicate their gender as boy, girl, or in another way and then write (in their own words) how they define their gender identity. These responses were then coded as 1= boy, 2 = girl, or 3 = identified in a way other than binary boy or girl. Open-Ended Question As part of the larger student self-report survey, students responded to the open-ended survey question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” Students were instructed to respond to this question with all teachers in mind, not just their present teacher, however a small number of students appeared to respond with one teacher in mind (e.g., “She takes time out of work to get us supplies,” “He is very nice and understanding”). Students provided between zero and three responses (i.e., codable units) to this question. A codable unit was defined as a distinct word, phrase, or sentence, typically written on each line provided under the survey question (see Appendix P for survey question). Students’ responses were not restricted in any way, and they were instructed by RAs that they could write as much or little as they wanted to for the open-ended question. 83 Analytic Approach Coding of students’ responses occurred in a few iterative phases based on an abductive coding approach to qualitative content analysis (Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2010). This approach allowed for the interpretation of text data, through the identification of specific themes, followed by the systematic winnowing and classification into thematic categories (Wolcott, 1990). Although we had an aim to examine the applicability of the CCK framework for students’ characterizations of caring teachers, we first inductively examined the themes that emerged from the data. Specifically, the primary author familiarized herself with the data by reading through all of the student responses and conducting preliminary open inductive coding for themes of teacher caring. As a result, an initial coding frame (MacPhail et al., 2016; O’Connor & Joffe, 2020) was created, which outlined the organization and definition of codes and comprised several mindfulness-related themes and an additional general teaching theme. Following this, themes were collapsed to decrease redundancy, through deductive discussions among the first and second author and experts in the field. Next, the first author and a second coder independently practice coded responses from the same 50, randomly selected participants (see Appendix Q for sample coding sheets). Note that the second coder was external to the field of mindfulness and SEL, thus provided an impartial contribution to coding and refinement of the coding frame. Each response (codable unit) was assigned up to two codes, meaning each student could have between one and six theme codes assigned to their full answer to the survey question. After doing so, the coders convened to compare their codes, discuss ambiguities, modify codes, and create additional coding rules as needed to minimize discrepancies. Development of the coding frame was an iterative process and involved refining and expanding codes based on the practice coding (MacPhail et al., 2016; 84 Saldaña, 2013). Through this abductive process and further winnowing of themes, it was determined that 18 themes could be organized into the three thematic categories representing the CCK framework, Calm, Clear, and Kind, alongside one additional theme of General Teaching (see Table 3.2). In light of the refinement of the coding frame, the first author and secondary coder independently practice coded responses from a new, randomly selected, set of 50 cases. Finally, given the high level of agreement in this practice stage of coding, the full coding of the entire data set proceeded. There was a goal of achieving Cohen’s kappa > .70 and exact agreement > 90% in the coding of the full data set, which are deemed acceptable cut-offs for agreement indices for a sample of this size (Lombard et al., 2002). In a last step, the first author coded all responses in the study sample. As a means of establishing reliability in the final study sample, a secondary coder independently coded all responses from a new random subsample (i.e., independent of the practice subsamples) of 25% (n = 61) of the sample. This percentage has been established in previous research as an acceptable proportion on which to calculate reliability (i.e., minimum 10%; Lombard et al., 2002; O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). The first author was unaware of which students’ data were coded by the secondary coder. Cohen’s κ and percent agreement were calculated between the two coder’s codes of this random subsample (n = 61) of the data. This resulted in an overall percent agreement of .90 and Cohen’s κ of .73 across all codes. Any significant discrepancies were discussed and resolved before final analyses. As suggested by Creswell and Miller (2000), the combination of intercoder reliability analyses, peer review of coding frame by experts in the field, and a triangulation of findings with regard to previous research (e.g., Wentzel, 1997) establishes trustworthiness of the qualitative findings. Transformation of Qualitative Data 85 To identify the most commonly used themes by students, we transformed qualitative data into quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2010) and conducted statistical analyses on this data. Total counts of theme incidences across all responses were calculated to report overall frequency of themes. To estimate prevalence of each theme in students’ responses, themes were also coded dichotomously, with a 0 representing no presence of the theme and 1 representing a student using a given theme at least once in their responses. We also collapsed the 19 themes into their four thematic categories, created dichotomous coding for these categories, and analyzed frequencies at this broader level to allow for an overview of theme trends. Frequencies and percentages of themes (in Table 3.3) as well as combinations of themes (Table 3.4) within students’ responses are presented in the following section. We then used a series of chi square analyses to examine if there were differences in the themes present in students’ responses, according to their gender, grade, and first language. Chi-square tests of independence are non-parametric tests that are appropriate for nominal data with unequal group sizes (McHugh, 2013). For each analysis, effect size was estimated using the strength test Cramer’s V (also known as Cramer’s phi), which is a form of a correlation and is interpreted as such. As with most correlations and effect sizes, a correlation of .20 is considered small whereas correlations of .50 would be moderate and above .80 would be large (Ferguson, 2009). Confidence intervals (CIs) around the effect sizes (Cramer’s V) were computed using the effectsize package (Ben-Shacher et al., 2021) and esc package (Lüdecke et al., 2019) in RStudio version 1.2.5042 (R Core Team, 2017) and provided as additional information about the significance of findings. Results Students’ Conceptualizations of Teacher Caring 86 The qualitative content analysis was conducted on data from the 199 participating students who provided codable responses to the question “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” Students’ responses ranged from single words (“Help”) to longer phrases (“If someone doesn't understand something, he will take his time to help them"). Participating students provided a total of 591 discrete responses to this question and 726 codes were assigned representing the 19 emergent themes; meaning students provided between one and three responses, most providing the requested three responses (Mode = 3), to the question and their answers often contained multiple themes (e.g., empathy and helpfulness; compassion and democratic communication). Specifically, each student’s response received between one and six codes (i.e., themes) for their entire response to the question (which usually contained three codable units/phrases), with a mean of 3.69 (SD = .95) theme codes per student. There were no significant gender (c2[5, n =198] = 9.48, p = .09, V =.22, 95% CI [.00, .30]), grade (c2[5, n =199] = 3.48, p = .63, V =.13, 95% CI [.00, .18]), or first language (c2[100, n =199] = 78.20, p = .95, V =.31, 95% CI [.00, .33]) differences in number of codes assigned, therefore number of responses was not included as a covariate in subsequent analyses. Students’ responses ranged from single words (“Help”) to longer phrases (“If someone doesn't understand something, he will take his time to help them"). A total of eight discrete responses were not decipherable due to poor spelling or lack of context (e.g., “The school”), but only one student had entirely undecipherable responses for all three responses. Of the 583 interpretable responses, 560 student answers (96%) reflected mindful teaching themes of calmness, clarity, and kindness, whereas 23 responses referred very broadly to teaching (e.g., “Teach us”) thus were assigned a General Teaching theme. Specifically, of the 718 codes assigned to students’ responses, 695 codes could be 87 organized within the Calm, Clear, or Kind theme categories. These theme categories are described below (see Table 3.2 for all themes and sample responses from students). Calm The Calm category encompassed themes related to teachers’ calmness, stability, and ability to regulate their emotions (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). Specifically, two themes that emerged from the data aligned with this thematic category: Calm/not reactive (e.g., “Does stuff calmly like not yelling”) and patience (e.g., “Takes time to help students,” “Be patient when someone doesn't understand material”). The calm category themes were unique in that they never occurred in isolation within students’ responses. Rather, they were always present in combination with another theme category. For example, students who provided responses that contained calm themes (e.g., calm/not reactive; “She doesn't yell”) always concurrently provided responses with a theme from another category (e.g., Kind theme compassion; “She helps when someone has a problem”). Clear The Clear category comprised themes that indicated teachers’ presence and focus, attunement, lack of distraction, and ability to effectively communicate with their students (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). Specifically, three related themes emerged: (a) Democratic communication, which includes teachers’ tendency to listen (e.g., “listens to you) and value students’ voices and opinions (e.g., “They listen to your ideas and talk nicely”), (b) presence/attunement (e.g., “pay more attention to me,” “notice your feelings even if other people don’t,” “Sits down and ignores everything else”), and (c) classroom management (e.g., “Try to set a good class environment”). Many responses that contained clear themes were also coded for other themes. For example, “Gives students opportunities to do what they like” was coded for 88 both the Clear theme of classroom management and the Kind theme of Empathy-school related (i.e., empathy regarding school/learning matters). Kind The Kind category was the most common type of theme that emerged in students’ responses, as will be described in the next section. A wide variety of kindness dimensions were identified by students in this study. Specifically, the category of Kind included 13 themes ranging from general mentions of kindness (e.g., They are kind) or caring (e.g., “cares for you”) to more specific examples of empathy (e.g., “Notice when you’re upset”), compassion (e.g., “They comfort you when the person is sad”), friendliness/warmth (e.g., “They say good morning”), and helpfulness (e.g., “Help you to learn more,” “Help with friends”). Additional themes of generosity (e.g., “giving me supplies when I need some”), trustworthiness (e.g., “I can trust her”), and equal treatment/respect (e.g., “My teacher respects us”) were also present. A full list of the 13 Kind themes and additional student examples are provided in Table 3.2. General Teaching A small number of responses from students (n = 23) referred generically to teaching (e.g., “They teach,” “Teach”) or described broad teaching strategies (e.g., “they plan activities). These responses were assigned the theme General Teaching. Similar to the Calm themes, students never used a General Teaching theme alone; their subsequent responses or part of their responses always included other category themes like Calm or Kind (see Table 3.4). Theme Frequencies Of the total theme codes assigned across all responses from students, 78.0% were from the Kind category, 14.8% were from Clear, and 4.0% were from Calm, and 3.2% were General Teaching themes. In terms of students, out of the total 199 participating students, 13.6% 89 mentioned a Calm theme at least once, 41.2% mention a Clear theme at least once, 97.5% mention a Kind theme at least once, and 11.1% had at least one mention of General Teaching. Most students (54.3%) provided responses that contained multiple themes (Table 3.4). The most common combination of themes was Kind and Clear, which represented 29.6% of students’ responses, followed by Kind and Calm (7.5%) (see Table 3.4 for all combinations). The most prevalent individual theme was the Kind theme help – generic, which accounted for 13.9% of all codes assigned and represented responses such as “They are always helpful.” Specifically, 48.2% of students responded with this theme. The second most frequent theme was empathy – school related, which accounted for another 13.5% of the codes assigned and referred to responses that related to a teacher recognizing the student as a learner with unique academic skills, problems, and contributions to make to the class. This theme was assigned to student responses such as “Makes sure you understand” and “makes sure everyone has an opinion.” Thirty-seven percent of students provided at least one codable answer with this theme. This theme was often concomitant with help – school (e.g., “Help with work,”) or help – generic (e.g., “Help us). Similarly, the theme democratic communication was frequently identified (11.3%), often concurrently with other themes. Thirty-three percent of students had at least one codable response with this theme (e.g., “listens to you,” “they are open-minded”). A chi square analysis was conducted to test for differences among all 14 classrooms in the study. Due to the small sample sizes within classrooms (thus not meeting cell expected requirements), the Likelihood Ratio chi square test was used (McHugh, 2013). Results indicated no significant differences among the 14 classrooms in the presence of Calm (c2[13, n =199] = 19.65, p = .10, V =.31, 95% CI [.00, .44]), Clear (c2[13, n =199] = 7.98, p = .85, V = .20, 95% CI [.00, .20]), Kind (c2[13, n =199] = 13.08, p = .44, V = .26, 95% CI [ .00, .28]), or General Teaching (c2[13, n 90 =199] = 19.65, p = .10, V = .31, 95% CI [.00, .44]) themes in students’ descriptions of caring teachers. Demographic Differences in Emergent Themes To investigate how students’ responses differed across gender, grades, and first languages, themes frequencies were analyzed via a series of chi-square tests. Because the rows and columns in the contingency tables for gender and grade had only two groups (i.e., two genders, two grades, presence/absence of theme) the more precise and recommended Fisher’s exact test was used (McHugh, 2013). Due to the small sample size (n = 1) of students indicating their gender as something other than boy or girl, thus not meeting c2 assumptions, this group was omitted from the contingency tables. For first language learned, the Likelihood Ratio chi square test was used. Chi square tests indicated differences between boys and girls in the themes they used to describe caring teachers (see Table 3.3). Specifically, Fisher’s exact tests indicated there were no significant differences between genders in the presence of Calm (p =.10, V = .13, 95% CI [.00, .27]) or Kind (p = .37; V = .10, 95% CI [.00, .24]) themes in students’ responses, but boys and girls did differ in their use of Clear themes, Fisher’s test p = .03, V = .16, 95% CI [.02, .30]. In particular, more girls used Clear themes (e.g., “Listens to you,” “Notice your feelings even if other people don’t”) compared to boys. There was no gender difference in students’ use of General Teaching themes, Fisher’s test p = .17, V = .14, 95% CI [.00, .28]. When investigating specific themes within each CCK category, some additional gender differences emerged. For example, within the Kind category boys were more likely than girls to mention themes of general helpfulness (e.g., “Helps me”), Fisher’s test p = .01, V = .19, 95% CI [.05, .33], and 91 nurturance/positive encouragement (e.g., “They congratulate what you do”) themes, Fisher’s test p = .03, V = .17, 95% CI [.03, .31]. Fisher’s exact c2 tests by grade indicated no significant differences between sixth and seventh grade students in their use of Calm (p = .83; V = .01, 95% CI [.00, .14]) or Clear (p = .23; V = .09, 95% CI [.00, .22]) themes when describing caring teachers. A difference between grade level on whether or not students mentioned a Kind theme approached significance, Fisher’s test p = .053, and had a comparable effect size to the other significant findings, V = .15, 95% CI [.00, .29]. Specifically, sixth grade students used Kind themes (e.g., “Helps you,” “Cares for you”) more than seventh grade students to describe caring teachers. However, investigation of the 95% CI around the Cramer’s V effect size, which includes 0 at the lower bound, further supports the non-significant conclusion. Sixth and seventh grade students did not differ in their use of General Teaching themes when describing a caring teacher, Fisher’s test p = .62, V = .04, 95% CI [.00, .17]. Finally, although no grade difference emerged for the overall Clear category, separate analyses of each individual Clear theme revealed that seventh grade students used presence/attunement themes (e.g., “Notice your feelings even if other people don’t,” “They listen with their eyes”) significantly more than sixth grade students to describe caring teachers, Fisher’s Exact test, p = .04, V = .16, 95% CI [.01, .30]. Regarding students’ first language learned, Likelihood Ratio chi square tests indicated no significant differences among the 21 first language groups on Calm, (c2[20, n =199] = 14.66, p = .80, V = .27, 95% CI [.00, .27]), Clear (c2[20, n =199] = 23.57, p = .26, V= .34, 95% CI [.00, .34]), Kind (c2[20, n =199] = 22.29, p = .32, V= .33, 95% CI [.00, .33]), or General Teaching themes (c2[20, n =199] = 18.84, p = .53, V= .30, 95% CI [.00, .27]). 92 Discussion Burgeoning research has demonstrated the importance of teacher caring in fostering positive student-teacher relationships (Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 1997, 2002), however, few studies have investigated these relationships through the perspectives of early adolescents. Furthermore, no studies to date have delineated students’ conceptualizations of a caring teacher through the lens of mindful teaching. This mixed method research explored students’ own descriptions of what a teacher does to show they care. Specifically, a qualitative content analysis revealed 19 themes that represent the qualities that students feel exemplify teacher “caring.” The majority of these themes aligned with the three domains of the CCK framework: Calm, Clear, Kind. Some of the most common themes in students’ responses were associated with the Kind category and included themes of empathy and helpfulness. Clear themes were relatively prevalent as well, in particular the theme of democratic communication, which refers to teachers’ propensity to solicit and value students’ voices and opinions. A small number of responses reflected Calm themes (e.g., not reactive, patience) and general teaching. Some of the emergent themes reflect those found in Wentzel’s (1997) study. For instance, students in Wentzel’s study also generated themes of democratic interactions (e.g., “listens to you,” “they are open-minded”) and empathy (i.e., “recognition of student’s nonacademic functioning,” p. 416) when asked to describe teacher caring. Because the coding scheme in Wentzel’ s (1997) study was primarily guided by family socialization (Baumrind, 1991) and pedagogical caring (Noddings, 2015) frameworks, student responses that did not fit the a priori themes were designated as Other/Vague. This category included responses such as “Nice to me” and “Helps me.” The present study adds to the literature by examining students’ descriptions of what teachers do to show they care through the template of mindful teaching, specifically 93 exploring the potential utility of the CCK framework for classifying the themes in students’ characterizations of caring teachers. In doing so, we further unpacked responses similar to those found in Wentzel’s “other/vague” category that had previously not been captured by extant frameworks. In doing so, we uncovered additional themes of calmness, clarity, and kindness. For the current study, the majority of students’ responses fit under the diverse thematic category of Kind. This was not unexpected, given the question posed to students asked them about teacher caring and students may view “kind” and “caring” as interchangeable or closely associated. In addition, often more than one kind theme occurred within students’ responses, increasing the overall frequency of kind themes. However, the diversity of kindness themes generated by students is notable and aligns with both studies that have found a multidimensionality to early adolescent students’ conceptualizations of kindness (Binfet, 2020; Binfet & Passmore, 2019) and the multiple facets of Kindness outlined in the CCK framework (Hulburt et al., 2020). Specifically, 13 themes regarding teachers’ kindness emerged in students’ responses. These themes ranged from caring (e.g., “cares for you”) and friendly/warm (e.g., “They say good morning”) dispositions of their teachers, to more complex themes exemplifying a mindful approach to teaching (Hulburt et al., 2020), such as teacher’s empathy (“Notice when you upset”), compassion (“They comfort you when the person is sad”), and helpfulness (“Help you to learn more,” “Help us”). Helpfulness was a particularly prevalent theme in students’ responses and highlighted students’ valuing of teachers’ responsiveness to their needs (e.g., “Help you to understand more clearly,” “Help you calm down”). Some less common Kind themes were themes such as generosity (“Giving me supplies if I need some”) and trustworthiness (“I can trust her”). These themes have been identified in previous research as 94 important aspects of kindness for young adolescents (Binfet & Passmore, 2019) and integral dimensions of a mindful teaching approach (Hulburt et al., 2020). Another noteworthy finding was the presence of clarity and calmness-related themes in students’ descriptions of teacher caring. Although lower in prevalence than Kind category themes, students independently generated responses reflective of the Clear and Calm aspects of the mindful teaching literature (Hulburt et al., 2020; Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). Specifically, students identified themes of presence, democratic communication, and patience, which are qualities that reflect early adolescents’ growing need to feel heard and seen (Ben-Arieh, 2005, 2006; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). With regard to group differences in students’ responses, there were no significant differences among the 14 classrooms in the present study, which suggests some overall consistency in how early adolescents describe a caring teacher. The current research, however, did indicate some gender differences in students’ characterizations of a caring teacher. Previous research has demonstrated that student-teacher relationship closeness and conflict tend to differ by student gender, as reported by both teachers (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Zee & Koomen, 2017) and students (Hughes, 2011; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015). The current findings may offer some insight into why these differences have been found between genders. Girls and boys equally used Kind, Calm, and General Teaching themes in their descriptions of caring teachers, however, girls used significantly more Clear themes than boys. This suggests that early adolescent girls may value teachers’ presence and attunement (e.g., “Listens to you,” “Pay more attention to me”) in their interactions, more than early adolescent boys. Although all adolescents have an increasing need to be heard (Ben-Arieh, 2005, 2006), some research has suggested this need may develop sooner or more saliently for girls (Banister & Schreiber, 2001). In addition, 95 boys were more likely than girls to mention themes of help or nurturance/positive encouragement (e.g., “They congratulate what you do”). As such, perhaps there is a disconnect between what teachers offer and what students of each gender need in the relationship. Taken together, these findings may reflect true differences in the needs of students of different genders (Banister & Schreiber, 2001), or it could be reflective of the different quality of relationships between teachers and boys vs. girls (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Spilt et al., 2010). For example, there has been a longstanding concern about the “feminization of education” (Driessen, 2007; Spilt et al., 2012), whereby teachers value traits more stereotypical of girls compared to boys (Brophy & Good, 1974; Fagot, 1981). Boys’ more frequent use of nurturance themes could be reflective of an unmet need for boys in school, whereby teachers are inherently less nurturing towards boys and more nurturing and supportive of girls. Likewise, girls’ significant use of presence and attunement themes could reflect an unmet need for them, whereby teachers naturally trust girls more, therefore pay less attention to their behaviours throughout the day. More qualitative research (i.e., focus groups, think-aloud protocols) is needed, however, to better understand the nuances within student-teacher relationships for each gender, as well as the context of students’ characterizations of caring teachers. In the present study, we were also interested in exploring the degree to which definitions of caring might differ with regard to students’ grade level. For example, it may be that older students are better able to generate more sophisticated features of “caring” in their teachers, in comparison to younger students. Our data revealed only one grade difference, which approached significance (p = .053). Specifically, younger adolescents (Grade 6) used slightly more kindness themes when describing caring teachers in comparison to older students (Grade 7). Future 96 research may benefit from further investigating grade differences in students’ characterization of caring teachers with a broader range of distinct grades. There were no significant differences found among the language groups on any emergent theme or thematic category. This is in contrast with previous research that has demonstrated that race and ethnicity can have an influence on how students describe their teachers (Garza & Huerta, 2014; Liu et al., 2018). Due to the age of the participants, however, we collected first language as a proxy for ethnicity rather than directly asking students to indicate their racial or ethnic backgrounds. As a result, the 21 reported language groups were complex and often combinations of languages (e.g., English and Cantonese), and although were representative of the languages present in the population (Statistics Canada, 2017), were not an exact representation of the ethnic or racial distribution in the region. Moreover, census data at the neighbourhood level (Statistics Canada, 2017) indicated the majority of the population reported European or Asian ethnic origin. Therefore, the present results may not generalize to all ethnic or racial groups. Reports of quality of student-teacher relationships for different races and ethnicities, particularly students of colour and other underrepresented groups, have been equivocal in the literature (Garrett et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2018) but most studies have focused on younger students (Murray et al., 2008). Therefore, it is important for future research to continue to investigate race/ethnicity and its relation to how students perceive caring teachers, particularly within the unique context of early adolescence. Strengths and Limitations One of the primary strengths of this study was the inclusion of early adolescent students’ voices, a perspective frequently missing in the theoretical and empirical study of supportive relationships between students and teachers. An additional strength of this study was the 97 relatively large and diverse sample of students who provided open-ended responses. Typically, qualitative studies in schools involve fewer participants due to the intensive nature of the methodology. Moreover, this study took place in Canada whereas the majority of research on students’ perceptions of student-teacher relationships has occurred in the United States (Wentzel, 1997). Hence, this is one of the first studies of Canadian middle school students’ perceptions of teacher caring. The mixed method approach of this research provides a deeper, nuanced understanding of how students perceive teacher caring while also highlighting the aspects most important to early adolescents. Specifically, the mixed-method approach which included qualitative content analyses followed by quantitative analyses, allowed for the exploration of patterns in the student data by demographic characteristics. In addition, the qualitative content analysis followed a rigorous set of steps, including a second coder for reliability and multiple practice coding rounds. One limitation of this study was the presence of small (V < .20) effect sizes (i.e., grade differences in themes). However, it is not unexpected to find small effect sizes, as gender, grade, and first language are likely only part of what influenced students’ use of particular themes (McHugh, 2013). Hence, this calls for future research to investigate additional characteristics of students and classrooms (e.g., SES, school context) in relation to students’ descriptions of a caring teacher. A second limitation of this study regards the degree to which the study’s findings are generalizable to students in other school systems outside of BC’s. For example, as detailed earlier, the BC school system has an intentional focus on promoting the social and emotional development of students and in supporting teachers in doing so. Therefore, it may be that BC teachers are highly attuned to creating supportive and caring classroom environments that 98 nurture and support students’ social and emotional development. Similarly, the participants in this study were drawn from classrooms that had agreed to participate in a research study aimed at evaluating an SEL program. Therefore, the sample of students and teachers in this study may have possibly been more exposed to and primed for creating caring, and social and emotionally supportive classrooms and/or were more familiar with using the language of SEL than other districts or jurisdictions This setting can be considered both a strength and limitation of this study. For instance, this fertile, SEL-primed context may have contributed to students’ breadth of vocabulary and awareness of caring characteristics, thus resulting in the wealth of themes that emerged in their responses. It is important to acknowledge however, with regard to generalizability, that this study may have resulted in a different magnitude, breadth, and/or type of responses from students, had it been conducted elsewhere. It would be beneficial for future studies to explore student’s characterizations of caring teachers across different districts, and also to compare themes of caring teachers between districts with a strong priority on SEL and districts with less of focus on caring contexts, to explore the influence of district-wide SEL initiatives on student-teacher relationships. An additional limitation is that the larger research study from which the data were drawn for the present research, did not collect ethnic or racial identity directly from participating students. Asking students to report first language learned rather than ethnicity is a common practice in Canada, given the complexity of racial identities in Canada. However, this did limit our ability to investigate ethnic and racial differences in students’ conceptualizations of teacher caring. As identified by the neighbourhood-level census, the three participating middle schools consists primarily of people of European and Asian descent, with smaller proportions of people who identify their ethnic origin as Black, Indigenous Peoples, or Latinx. Acknowledging the 99 systemic racism and inequalities experienced by underrepresented cultural groups and people of colour, particularly Black and Latinx populations and Indigenous Peoples, future studies should continue to examine the critical role that race and culture play in students’ perceptions of “caring” teachers (Bartell, 2011; Garza & Huerta, 2014). As several authors have highlighted, caring is important for all students but may manifest differently in various cultures or ethnic groups (Alder, 2002; Garza & Huerta, 2014; Thompson, 2003). At the same time, teacher caring may be of particular significance for certain groups of students’ success in school (Alder, 2000). Moreover, research has shown that the qualities that students of colour value in a supportive teacher may differ from those of students more represented in research (i.e., middle class, White) (Garza & Huerta, 2014; Rolón-Dow, 2005; Tosolt, 2009). Future studies should continue to utilize qualitative approaches to investigate how students of colour characterize caring teachers. Implications and Future Directions The findings in this study shed light on the behaviours and characteristics that early adolescents interpret as caring in their teachers, highlighting mindful teacher qualities and actions, with a particular emphasis on empathy, helpfulness, and teachers’ tendency to listen to and value students’ voices and opinions (i.e., democratic communication). Specifically, there is currently a dearth of tools available to assess students’ perceptions of student-teacher relationships (Brinkworth et al., 2017), thus the majority of studies investigating early adolescents’ perceptions of their student-teacher relationships have utilized unvalidated sets of items (McCollum & Yoder, 2011) or scales that do not measure teacher caring (Prewett et al., 2019). Future research could use the findings from this study to develop student self-report assessments of student-teacher relationships based on students’ descriptions of caring teachers. 100 This study illuminates the unique context of middle schools in Western Canada and characteristics that students in this context identify as exemplifying a caring teacher. Additional research is needed, however, to further explore the characterization of caring teachers among additional diverse populations, particularly underrepresented groups. In particular, the participants in this study were from middle class neighbourhoods, thus the findings may not generalize to students from other SES backgrounds. For instance, attachment research has shown that when there is less stability at home, which could be the case for some economically marginalized families, children may seek more security and safety (i.e., “safe haven”) from trusted adults outside of the home environment (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Students coming from less stable homes may therefore indicate additional features of a caring teacher (e.g., “they make me feel safe”) than what was reported in the present study. The findings in the present study provide support for the continued inclusion of early adolescent voices and mixed methods approaches in this field of research. There are many ways prospective studies could expand upon this work, from including more diverse voices to including interviews or focus groups with students, to further understand and elaborate upon students’ characterizations of caring teachers. This study also makes the case for additional mixed methods studies that incorporates students’ qualitative descriptions of their caring teachers as well as classroom observational tools (CLASS-S; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012) to triangulate and further contextualize caring interactions in the classroom. Through the examination of students’ own descriptions of caring teachers, the current study corroborates the accumulating evidence that has demonstrated the value of a mindfulness approach to teaching (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016). Moreover, given the critiques of feminist theories of care (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006; Thompson, 2003), particularly in 101 terms of its potential to be ethnocentric and lack cultural sensitivity, mindfulness, with its focus on presence, respect, and awareness has the potential to foster a meaningful and more sensitive and responsive approach to caring in the classroom. However, we also echo the importance of explicitly approaching mindfulness practices with an intentional antiracist lens (Cannon, 2016) to ensure potential benefits translate to all students and teachers. Specifically, when integrated with cultural awareness and responsivity, mindfulness has the potential to be a means to reduce racial bias and promote social justice (Cannon, 2016; Hilert & Tirado, 2019; Lueke & Gibson, 2014; Magee, 2015), acknowledging that true change and care cannot happen without this intersection. To date, most research investigating teacher mindfulness interventions have focused on teachers’ self-reports of the impact of the program on their well-being and relationships (Crain et al., 2017; Klingbeil & Renshaw, 2018; Roeser et al., 2013). There is a paucity of studies that have assessed the impact of SEL or mindfulness programs for student-teacher relationships, specifically as perceived by students (Singh et al., 2013). Bearing this in mind, future developers and researchers should seek to evaluate the impact of teacher professional development and interventions on early adolescents, through the direct perspective of early adolescent students. Furthermore, the present findings provide some characteristics to focus on in the development of teacher professional development and classroom interventions. For example, rather than solely focusing on teachers’ classroom management techniques, designing intervention and school initiatives that aim to foster and allow space for teachers’ presence, compassion, and helpfulness beyond academics may be what students at this age need most to thrive. Most importantly, researchers and practitioners must continue to ask students themselves, what they need to thrive. 102 Table 3.1 Ethnic Origin Proportions of BC and School Neighbourhoods Proportions Ethnic origin British Columbia Neighbourhood A Neighbourhood B Neighbourhood C Indigenous Peoples of Canada 6.6% 4.8% 5.4% 3.6% European (e.g., British, Irish, French, German, Danish) 62.7% 58.3% 63% 56.2% Asian (e.g., West Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian) 28.8% 34.1% 27.2% 36.1% Black (e.g., African, Caribbean) 1.7% 2.0% 3.9% 2.9% LatinX 1.5% 3.2% 3.0% 4.7% 103 Table 3.2 Themes and Sample Student Responses Category Themes Sample Student Responsesa Calm Calm/not reactive Patience “Does stuff calmly like not yelling,” “She uses a calm and kind voice with everyone” “Be patient when someone doesn't understand material” Clear Democratic communication Presence/attunement Classroom management “Listens to you,” “They listen to your ideas and talk nicely” “Notice your feelings even if other people don’t,” “They listen with their eyes” “Try to set a good class environment,” “Creates a calming environment to work in” Kind Kind/nice Caring Nurturance (positive encouragement) Helpful: School related Helpful: Personal Helpful: Generic Friendliness/warmth Compassion Generosity Empathy: Person-related Empathy: School-related Equal treatment & respect Trustworthy “Kind to you,” “They are kind,” “Being nice to me” “Cares for you,” “She always shows that she cares about us” “They congratulate what you do,” “They show me support,” “Says positive words” “Help you to learn more,” “Help with work,” Help you to understand more clearly” “Help with friends,” “Help you calm down” “Help us,” “She is helpful,” “They help you,” “Makes class better” “They say good morning,” “She smiles a lot,” “Greet you” “They comfort you when the person is sad,” She checks in with us if she thinks we’re sad” “Giving me supplies if I need some,” “They are generous,” “He gives us treats at times” “Notice when you’re upset,” “Try to understand you and your problems” “Makes sure you understand,” “Give us breaks when we need them” “They are respectful,” “Inclusion,” “My teacher respects us” “I can trust her,” “They are trustworthy,” “They are not a fake teacher” General Teaching “Teach,” “Teach us,” “They educate you,” “They tell me what the assignment is” a Examples in quotation marks are original responses from participants in this study. Spelling errors have been corrected for clarity. Each phrase in parentheses is a codable unit. 104 Table 3.3 Frequencies (%) of Themes and Responses by Gender and Grade n (% of total codes) % for each group* Category Theme Boysa Girlsb Grade 6c Grade 7d Calm 29 (4.0) 9.1 18.2 13.2 14.3 Calm/not reactive 11 (1.5) 2.0 8.1 4.7 5.7 Patience 18 (2.5) 7.1 10.1 8.5 8.6 Clear 106 (14.8) 33.3 49.5 38.0 47.1 Democratic communication 81 (11.3) 28.3 38.4 29.5 40.0 Presence/attunement 12 (1.7) 4.0 6.1 2.3 10.0 Classroom management 13 (1.8) 4.0 9.1 8.5 2.9 Kind 560 (78.0) 99.0 96.0 99.2 94.3 Kind/nice 62 (8.6) 29.3 29.3 34.1 21.4 Caring 24 (3.3) 11.1 10.1 10.1 11.4 Nurturance/positive encouragement 26 (3.6) 18.2 7.1 14.0 10.0 Helpful: School related 49 (6.8) 24.2 24.2 23.3 25.7 Helpful: Personal 2 (0.3) 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.4 Helpful: Generic 100 (13.9) 57.6 38.4 51.2 42.9 Friendliness/warmth 58 (8.1) 21.2 30.3 27.1 22.9 Compassion 37 (5.2) 16.2 21.2 18.6 18.6 Generosity 18 (2.5) 8.1 7.1 6.2 10.0 Empathy: Person-related 39 (5.4) 16.2 20.2 16.3 21.4 Empathy: School-related 97 (13.5) 31.3 43.4 34.1 42.9 Equal treatment & respect 44 (6.1) 19.2 21.2 18.6 22.9 Trustworthy 4 (0.6) 2.0 1.0 1.6 2.9 General Teaching 23 (3.2) 14.1 7.1 11.6 8.6 Total codes assigned 718 a n = 99 b n = 99 c n = 129 d n = 70 *Percentages represent % of students in each group who mentioned a theme at least once. Figures do not sum to 100 because students provided answers that may have fallen under multiple categories. 105 Table 3.4 Combination of Themes Present in Students’ Responses Theme Combinations n (%) Calm only 0 (0.0) Clear only 2 (1.0) Kind only 88 (44.2) General Teaching only 0 (0.0) Kind & Calm 15 (7.5) Kind & Clear 59 (29.6) Clear & General Teaching 2 (1.0) Kind & General Teaching 12 (6.0) Calm, Kind, General Teaching 1 (.5) Clear, Kind, General Teaching 8 (4.0) Calm, Clear, Kind 11 (5.5) Undecipherable 1 (.5) Total 199 Note. n and % refer to number and percentage of students whose responses contained a given combination of themes. 106 Chapter 4: Associations of Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Attachment Quality of their Relationships to Early Adolescents' Prosociality, School Functioning, and Well-being: Does Congruence Matter? Students who encounter supportive relationships with their teachers experience benefits across a myriad of areas, including increased prosocial behaviours with peers (Wentzel et al., 2010), greater success in school (Longobardi et al., 2016, 2020), and better psychological health and well-being (Suldo et al., 2009). Early adolescence in particular is an opportune time in which to explore the nature and correlates of the quality of student-teacher relationships (Ruzek et al., 2016) due to the many social, emotional, cognitive, and biological changes that occur in a relatively short period (Steinberg, 2016). It is also a time in which students make the transition from elementary to middle school and experience changes in the nature and function of their relationships with parents alongside increased influence of peers and non-related adults (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Yu et al., 2018), thus teachers become potential sources of support and guidance (Yu & Deutsch, 2019). Despite the relative increase in empirical attention to student-teacher relationships in early adolescence (Braun et al., 2019; Longobardi et al., 2016), few studies have investigated these relationships from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives, concurrently (Brinkworth et al., 2017). Further, most studies that have investigated student-teacher relationships in early adolescence have utilized variable-centered approaches (Cipriano et al., 2019; Prewett et al., 2019). Although this approach is invaluable for exploring relations among phenomena or variables, a person-centered approach can provide a more nuanced understanding of profiles of traits, or in the case of the current study, multiple perspectives of a relationship (Davidson et al., 2010; Granot, 2014). The present study utilized a person-centered analysis to: (a) jointly 107 investigate the perspectives of students and teachers regarding the attachment quality of student-teacher relationships, and (b) examine congruence or incongruence between students’ and teachers’ perspectives in relation to students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being. Student-Teacher Relationships in Early Adolescence The past decade has witnessed increased empirical investigation with regard to the quality and function of early adolescent student-teacher relationships (Longobardi et al., 2016; Prewett et al., 2019). Results from these studies have consistently demonstrated positive associations between supportive student-teacher relationships and early adolescents’ academic engagement and success (Longobardi et al., 2016; Zee & Koomen, 2020), and social and emotional adjustment (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Guess & McCane-Bowling, 2016). Although empirical research exploring the mechanisms through which the quality of student-teacher relationships influences students’ social, emotional, and academic adjustment is in a nascent stage, several theorists and researchers have posited that attachment theory may offer an important lens through which to examine these relationships (Granot, 2014; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Attachment in the Student-Teacher Relationship Attachment theory (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) illustrates that young children initially form strong bonds with their primary caregivers (most often their parents) and this relationship acts as a secure base from which they can discover the world while maintaining a sense of safety and comfort (Bowlby, 1984). This primary attachment relationship serves as a foundation from which future relationships, such as those with peers and teachers, will develop (Bowlby, 1984). 108 The field of attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) was originally focused on studying the nature and function of attachment in parent-child relationships in early childhood (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). More recently, however, researchers have recognized the continued importance of attachment for older children and adolescents (Ainsworth, 1985, 1991; Bosman et al., 2018; De Laet et al., 2014). Moreover, researchers and theorists also have proposed that the qualities of an attachment relationship, such as closeness and attunement, are relevant in understanding non-familial relationships, such as those between students and teachers (Noddings, 2015; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Verschueren, 2015). In essence, teachers are in loco parentis, serving as the secure base unto which students explore, and learn, while feeling safe and supported in the school setting (De Laet et al., 2014). Nel Noddings (2013, 2015), a pioneer in the education field for surfacing the importance of caring relationships within schools, has emphasized the pedagogy and ethic of care in teaching. Noddings (2013) describes pedagogical caring as a relational ethic that concentrates on the student-teacher dyad and, much like in early child-parental attachment relationships, emphasizes the importance of attending to students’ needs first and foremost. Similarly, social motivation theories endorse the importance of emotionally supportive student-teacher relationships on students’ motivation and adjustment in school (Wigfield et al., 2015). For instance, self-determination theory posits that supportive student-teacher relationships have the potential to meet students’ basic needs of autonomy, belonging, and competence, thereby providing students with the security, engagement, and motivation to explore and thrive in their academic and social lives (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Van Ryzin et al., 2009). Moreover, when teachers take a caring approach, they both teach and model appropriate behaviours for their students, such as prosociality, and create a nurturing context that promotes these goals (Wentzel, 109 2003). As such, mounting research demonstrates that teachers play a crucial role in fostering relationships that nurture and support students’ needs during early adolescence (De Laet et al., 2014; Verschueren, 2015; Wentzel, 2002), as relationships with parents transform and relationships with non-related adults outside of the home environment increase in importance and influence (Yu & Deutsch, 2019). Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Student-Teacher Relationships Student-teacher relationships have been conceptualized and examined in a variety of ways, from classroom observations of the quality of interactions (e.g., via the CLASS; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012) to beliefs and perceptions of the relationship (Clark & Lemay, 2010; Wentzel et al., 2010). Drawing from attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and social psychological theories (Clark & Lemay, 2010) that emphasize the importance of perceptions within relationships, the present research focuses on perceived quality of the student-teacher relationship. Although an abundance of research exists that has examined student-teacher relationships from the perspective of teachers or other observers (Doumen et al., 2012; Ruzek et al., 2016), fewer studies have investigated the quality of the student-teacher relationship directly from students themselves, particularly in middle school (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Wentzel et al., 2010). Given that research has documented declines in student-teacher relationship quality as students transition to middle and high school (Gallup, 2014), examining students’ perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their teachers is particularly warranted because they have important perspectives to share (Prewett et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017) that may have unique relevance for development (Hughes, 2011). Moreover, given the burgeoning research on the significance of perceived social support for healthy adjustment, particularly in early 110 adolescence (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010), it is increasingly important to assess middle school students’ perspectives of their relationships with their teachers. Wentzel (1997, 1998), a pioneer in the field for being one of the first to empirically examine students’ perceptions of student-teacher relationships in middle school, found that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ caring (e.g., democratic interactions, nurturing feedback) predicted self-reported prosocial and social responsibility motivation and academic effort. Despite this and other emerging work investigating teacher and student perspectives (Brinkworth et al., 2017), only a handful of studies have investigated both student and teacher perspectives of the student-teacher relationship simultaneously (Murray et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2010), with few focused on the early adolescence age-period (Granot, 2014; Zee & Koomen, 2017). Of the research that has examined and compared the perspectives of both early adolescent students and teachers in the same study, findings have been equivocal. For example, while some researchers have found agreement between student and teacher perceptions (i.e., both students and teachers rate their relationships either similarly poorly or positively) (Cipriano et al., 2019; Murray & Zvoch, 2011), others have found a mismatch indicating students’ perceptions of the quality of the dyadic relationship differs from those of their teachers (Zee & Koomen, 2017). Congruence of Student and Teacher Perceptions Of the few empirical studies that have simultaneously investigated student and teacher perceptions of their relationships, most have focused on the correlations between the two perspectives and/or the relative contribution of each perspective to student outcomes (Hughes, 2011; Murray et al., 2008). In contrast, studies investigating the consequences when student and teacher perceptions of the dyadic relationship are misaligned are relatively scant (Wu et al., 2010), particularly in early adolescence (Granot, 2014; Lai, 2015). Extant theories, however, 111 have posited the implications of such agreement or disagreement between perceptions of dyadic, caregiver relationships such as those between student and teachers. For instance, attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) would suggest that attachment bonds are strengthened when both child and caregiver view the relationship as warm, supportive, and responsive (Brinkworth et al., 2017) and that children benefit most when there is synchrony between the child and caregiver. In addition, work in perceptual congruence (Sillars & Scott, 1983), the extent to which two members of a dyad share similar perspectives on any number of topics or experiences, has found that agreement is associated with relationship satisfaction (Acitelli et al. 2001) and stability (Neff & Karney, 2005). Similarly, research on discrepancies between adolescent and parental perceptions of family functioning (Ohannessian et al., 2000), social support (Shek, 2002), or parental warmth and negativity (Feinberg et al., 2000) have demonstrated that incongruence between parent and child perceptions is associated with increased family conflict (Shek, 2002) and poorer psychological well-being among the adolescents (Feinberg et al., 2000; Ohannessian et al., 2000). Researchers also have found discrepancies between parent and adolescent perceptions of parental responsiveness to be negatively associated with students’ academic achievement and psychological competence (Leung & Shek, 2014). Despite the compelling body of work that implies consequences for congruent/incongruent perspectives of two members of close attachment-like dyads (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2000; Leung & Shek, 2014), there remains limited research that has explored the associations between congruence of student and teacher perspectives of their relationships to student adjustment. However, there is research that supports the notion of the adaptive significance of perceptual synchrony in student-teacher relationships. For example, researchers have found that when there is agreement between students and teachers on educational or social 112 goals, students have better engagement, success, and relationships in school (Lai, 2015; Spera & Wentzel, 2003). For instance, Spera and Wentzel (2003) found that high congruence between student and teacher goals (prosocial, learning) was positively associated with 9th grade students’ interest in school and social support from teachers. Importance of Perceived Support Attachment theorists have also argued that both members of an attachment relationship, caregiver and care-recipient, construct mental representations of the relationship that informs future behaviour and subsequent relationships with others (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008). In this vein, students’ perceptions and interpretations of support from their caregiver are highlighted as particularly important for their positive adjustment (Hughes, 2011). Social motivation theories (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2017) and literature on perceived support (Sarason et al., 1997; Siedlecki et al., 2014) echo these sentiments, with several researchers arguing that students’ subjective perceptions of a close and supportive relationship may be what matters most to their well-being and school success (Havik & Westergård, 2020). This is exemplified by several meta-analyses that have found that adolescents’ perceptions of social support were more strongly related to depressive symptoms (Rueger et al., 2016) and well-being (Chu et al., 2010) than actually received support. Variable vs. Person-Centered Investigations of Student-Teacher Relationships Finally, much of the research on student and teacher perceptions of student-teacher relationships has comprised variable-centered approaches and analyses (Brinkworth et al., 2017; Hughes, 2011; Murray et al., 2008). These variable-centered analyses provide important information about the association between student-teacher relationships and their correlates; however, these approaches separate relational processes from the individuals experiencing them. 113 In contrast, person-centered approaches take a more holistic view of individuals (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997) and can offer new integrated understandings of the patterns of processes within individuals. A person-centered approach aligns with an attachment view of student-teacher relationships, which emphasizes the multi-faceted and bi-directional nature of the dyad. Person-centered analyses thus allow for a more multi-dimensional investigation of individual differences in student-teacher relationships, as well as multiple perspectives of a relationship (Davidson et al., 2010; Granot, 2014). Of the limited studies that have utilized person-centered analyses to investigate student-teacher relationships, most have focused on younger students rather than adolescents (Bosman et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2010). These studies with younger students, however, have provided important insights for the impact of multiple perspectives of the quality of student-teacher relationships on students’ positive adjustment. Wu et al. (2010), for example, conducted a k-means cluster analysis using teacher and student ratings of warmth and conflict and peer ratings of student-teacher relationship quality to examine student-teacher relationship quality among 706 academically at-risk second and third grade students and their teachers. Their analyses identified four profiles characterized by whether or not students, teachers, and peers agreed on relationship quality (i.e., warmth, conflict): (a) Congruent positive (i.e., highest student and teacher-rated warmth and peer-rated student-teacher relationship quality), (b) Congruent negative (i.e., highest student and teacher-rated conflict and low student and teacher-rated warmth, and negative peer ratings), (c) Incongruent Child Negative (i.e., lowest student-rated warmth scores, but average teacher and peer reported student-teacher relationship quality), and (d) Incongruent Child Positive (i.e., high teacher-rated conflict scores and low teacher-rated and peer-nominations of student-teacher relationship quality scores, but average student-reported warmth and conflict 114 scores). Using latent growth modeling, they found that cluster membership predicted growth trajectories of standardized academic achievement scores and teacher-rated school engagement over three years. Specifically, students in groups characterized by positive other (i.e., teacher, peer) ratings of the student-teacher relationship, had better reading, math, and engagement scores compared to students in groups with poor teacher and peer ratings of the relationship. Students in the congruent groups did not differ significantly from students in the incongruent groups on school achievement or engagement. This suggests that, for this academically at-risk sample of second and third grade students, students’ positive academic adjustment was not contingent on congruence with students’ perceptions of the relationship. More specifically, having positive peer and teacher ratings of the relationship was enough to garner positive outcomes, regardless of the students’ own assessment of the relationship. The findings of Wu et al. (2010) emphasize that student-teacher relationship quality among young children may differentially influence students’ engagement and academic adjustment depending on whose view is taken into account. What is needed to advance the understanding of both the nature and impact of student-teacher relationships is to: (1) examine teachers’ and students’ reports of student-teacher relationship quality among early adolescents, (2) conduct studies of typical students in typical classrooms (i.e., not just academically at-risk students), and (3) examine additional adjustment correlates such as students’ prosociality and well-being. Present Study Guided by previous work on attachment in student-teacher relationships, which has highlighted the importance of attachment qualities of closeness and warmth as well as teacher responsiveness (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012), we explored students’ perceptions of teacher 115 support and attunement in combination with teachers’ perception of closeness and warmth in the relationship. Specifically, the aims of the present study were threefold: (1) to conduct a cluster analysis to identify student-teacher relationship profiles based on the alignment between early adolescents’ reports of support and attunement in the relationship with teachers’ reports of warmth and closeness in the relationship, (2) to examine the demographic characteristics of these relationship profiles, and (3) to conduct a person-centered analysis to examine differences among profile groups in relation to students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being. Following from previous research that has used cluster analysis to investigate congruence of multiple perspectives of social support (Kistner et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2010), we expected multiple profiles to emerge. Specifically, we anticipated (a) a congruent positive profile wherein both students and teachers report high quality, close relationships, (b) a congruent negative profile, wherein both students and teachers report poor relationship quality, and (c) one or two incongruent profiles, wherein student and teacher reports differ from one another. Due to the paucity of research investigating such congruence profiles in early adolescence, determining the characteristics of the various congruence profiles was largely exploratory. However, an abundance of research has demonstrated gender (Zee & Koomen, 2017) and developmental (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Reddy et al., 2003) differences in both student and teacher perceptions of student-teacher relationship quality. Therefore, we hypothesized that boys would be more likely to be assigned to profiles characterized by poorer student-teacher relationships compared to girls. We also expected younger students to be assigned to groups defined by closer or higher quality student-teacher relationships, compared to older students. Finally, based on previous work on attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and perceptual congruence/discrepancies in parent-adolescent dyads (Feinberg et al., 2000; 116 Ohannessian et al., 2000; Shek, 2002), as well as research showing positive associations between student and teacher perspectives of supportive student-teacher relationships and student adjustment (Granot, 2014; Wu et al., 2010), we hypothesized that students in groups characterized by congruently positive assessments of the dyadic relationship by teachers and students would have the most positive adjustment, whereas students in groups with congruently negative perceptions of the student-teacher relationship quality would be associated with lower levels of adjustment. At the same time, in accordance with social motivation theories (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2017) and previous research on the importance of students’ perceived support during adolescence (Chu et al., 2010; Rueger et al., 2016), we expected that groups defined by positive student perceptions of the student-teacher relationship would be most strongly associated with positive student adjustment correlates, regardless of synchrony with teacher perceptions. These hypotheses were tested in this study, particularly with respect to the array of student prosocial, school functioning, and well-being variables. Method Participants Data for the current study are part of the baseline portion of a larger study examining the effectiveness of a social and emotional learning classroom program for middle school students. The study took place in three public, middle schools, that were similar in size, socioeconomic status (SES), and ethnic diversity and were located in a suburban, predominantly middle-class community in British Columbia (BC), Canada. For instance, the ethnic composition of the BC population includes Indigenous Peoples (6.6%), European (62.7%), Asian (28.8%), Black (1.7%), and Latinx (1.5%) (Statistics Canada, 2017). Furthermore, the average household income for the neighbourhoods in which each of the three schools was located was $77,790.00 CAD, 117 slightly below the Canadian average (Statistics Canada, 2017). Regarding the setting in which this research took place, the BC school system has a long tradition of including a specific and explicit focus on promoting the emotional and social development of its students. Relatedly, in 2015, the BC Ministry of Education put into legislation the promotion of students’ personal competence and social responsibility in its revised K-12 curriculum for all elementary and secondary school students (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca). Additionally, the principals of the three middle schools agreed to take part in this research because each of them had a particular interest in implementing SEL programs to promote students’ SEC and well-being. Three hundred and fifty students attending 14 sixth and seventh grade classrooms across the three middle schools were recruited for the study. Of these, 260 received parental/guardian consent and provided their own assent to participate. The student survey was administered across two class sections, in one school day. Several students were absent for both survey sessions (n = 8) or opted out of the entire study after initially providing assent (n = 9). Twenty-one students were absent during (i.e., left school early or were pulled away from class) or declined participation in the second survey session, which included the items for this study. In addition, three students were missing teacher ratings, resulting in a final sample of 219 sixth (n = 137) and seventh (n = 82) grade students who had complete data for this study. The sample comprised 112 boys, 106 girls, and one student who identified their gender in a different way. The mean age of the students was 11.87 (SD = .56). Most students (83.6%) reported English as the (or one of the) first language(s) they learned at home. The next most frequently reported first language was Mandarin (8.2%). A total of 28 other languages were reported by students as one of the first languages they learned at home (e.g., French, Spanish). The reported languages were reflective of the variety of first languages represented in the neighbourhood populations in which the 118 schools were located (Statistics Canada, 2017). Participation in the study was voluntary and required both parental consent and student assent; the overall participation rate of students was 63%. Chi square analyses indicated that the students who did not participate did not differ from participating students in terms of gender (χ2 [2, n = 244] = 2.30, p = .32, V =.12), first language learned (χ2 [22, n = 244] = 24.20, p = .37, V =.35), or grade, Fisher’s Exact Test, p = .20, V = .09. The 14 participating teachers (nine female, five male) ranged in age from 25.23 to 52.48, with a mean age of 40.40. Fifty percent of teachers indicated their ethnicity as Caucasian/White, 14.3% as East Asian, 7.1% as South Asian, and the remaining 28.5% as multiracial (e.g., Indigenous and Caucasian) or something else (e.g., Roma). All teachers had worked at least one year as a teacher, and up to 25 years, with an average of 11.86 years of teaching. Finally, five teachers indicated B.Ed. as their highest education, two indicated a post-baccalaureate diploma, and seven had a graduate degree (e.g., M.A., M.Ed.). Procedure After receiving university and school board ethics approval and having recruited teachers from the three participating middle schools in November 2019, the Principal Investigator and research assistants (RAs) presented the study to the students in age-appropriate language and answered any questions they had. During this visit, students were provided with parent/guardian consent forms and student assent forms, which outlined the study and the types of data that would be collected and emphasized that all data would remain confidential. After obtaining written parental/guardian consent and assent from all participating students, a team of trained graduate RAs returned to the schools from mid-December 2019 to first week of February 2020 to facilitate data collection in the 14 classrooms. Student self-report surveys were administered during two separate 30 to 45-minute sessions within one school day. RAs read the questions 119 aloud to standardize the administration and ensure students understood the questions. Teachers provided written consent to participate and completed their surveys within two weeks of the administration of the student self-report surveys. Teachers were provided with a substitute teacher and a $50 honorarium to compensate them for the time it took to complete their surveys. Measures Students and teachers responded to a battery of measures assessing students’ social, emotional, and school adjustment and their perceptions of their student-teacher relationship quality. For the student self-report measures in which students were asked to report on their teacher, students were told to respond with reference to the teacher in the classroom that was participating in the current study, who would also be completing a survey about them. Demographics Students responded to questions about their birthdate, grade, gender identity, family composition, and first language learned at home (see Appendix A). Teachers also responded to a series of demographic questions regarding their birthdate, gender identity, ethnicity, and teaching background (see Appendix B). Student and Teacher Perceptions of the Student-Teacher Relationship Students’ Perceptions of a Supportive Student-Teacher Relationship. To evaluate students’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their teacher, students responded to the 10-item Teacher Support and Attunement subscale of the Caring Student Teacher Relationship scale (CSTR; Whitehead et al., 2021; Appendix R). Using a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true), students rated their relationship with their current teacher (i.e., the teacher participating in the study and completing questionnaires on them) using questions such as “My teachers helps me when I’m sad.” Evidence for the reliability and validity 120 of this scale has been provided in a recent study (Whitehead et al., 2021). Internal consistency for this subscale was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = .94; ordinal alpha = .95). Teachers’ Perceptions of Closeness in the Student-Teacher Relationship. To evaluate teachers’ perceptions of closeness with each of their students, teachers completed seven items from the Closeness subscale of the 15-item short form of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Koomen et al., 2012; Appendix D). Teachers rated each student on the extent to which they agreed with each statement (e.g., “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child”) using a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). One item was considered inappropriate for the middle school context and, therefore, was omitted for this study (e.g., “This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me”). Substantial evidence for the validity of this subscale of the STRS has been demonstrated in previous research (e.g., Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001). Internal consistency of this subscale has been shown to be consistently high in previous research, with α = .89 with students in middle childhood (Koomen et al., 2015). For the present study, internal consistency for the Closeness subscale was good (Cronbach’s alpha = .89; ordinal alpha = .90). Social, Emotional, and Academic Dimensions Prosociality. Students and teachers reported on dimensions of students’ prosociality, namely altruism, sympathy, and social and emotional competence (SEC). Students responded to the 4-item Altruism Adolescent Scale (Lippman et al., 2014; Appendix J), which assesses students’ own evaluations of their altruism (e.g., “I go out of my way to help others”) on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (exactly like me). Previous research has shown evidence of good reliability and validity for this scale with students ages 12 – 121 17 (Lippman et al., 2014). In the present study, internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s alpha = .83; ordinal alpha = .84). Teachers rated students on the 6-item Sympathy subscale of the Teachers’ Ratings of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (Michalik et al., 2007; Appendix S). Teacher rated each item (e.g., “This child usually comforts others who are upset or hurt”) on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Previous research provides support for the reliability and validity of this scale (Eisenberg et al., 1993; Michalik et al., 2007). For the present study, internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s alpha = .87; ordinal alpha = .88). Teachers also rated students’ SEC on the 9-item SEC subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale (Kam & Greenberg, 1998; Appendix K) using a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 6 (almost always). Items tapped various of aspects of students’ SEC, including empathy (“show empathy and compassion for other’s feelings”) and helpfulness and cooperation (“provide help, share materials, and act cooperatively with others”). Support for the reliability and validity of this subscale has been provided in previous studies with early adolescents (Kam & Greenberg, 1998; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). For the present study, internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = .92; ordinal alpha = .93). School Functioning. To obtain information about students’ school functioning, both students and teachers provided responses to academic-related measures. Students completed the 6-item Academic Goals Questionnaire (Roeser et al., 1996; Appendix N), a measure of academic self-efficacy (e.g., “I can do even the hardest schoolwork if I try”). Responses are rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (always like me). Evidence for internal consistency of this questionnaire has been provided in previous research with early 122 adolescents, α = .86 (Midgley et al., 1998; Roeser et al., 1996). For the current study, Cronbach’s alpha = .90 and ordinal alpha = .91. Teachers reported on students’ school functioning by responding to the 7-item Academic Success subscale of the Academic Performance Rating Scale (APRS; DuPaul et al., 1991; Appendix O). Each item is rated on a different rating scale, for example “Estimate the accuracy of completed written math work” is rated on a five-point scale representing a range of scores from 1 (0 - 49%) to 5 (90 - 100%) whereas the item “What is the quality of this child’s reading skills?” is rated from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). One item was reversed scored (“How frequently does this child have difficulty recalling material from a previous day’s lessons?”) and then the seven items were averaged to create a composite academic success score. Previous research has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of this measure with first to sixth grade students (DuPaul et al., 1991). The internal consistency of the Academic Success subscale in this current study was high (Cronbach’s alpha = .94; ordinal alpha = .94). Well-Being. Two measures were used to assess students’ well-being: the 6-item Perceived Helplessness and 4-item Perceived Self-Efficacy subscales of the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10; Cohen & Williamson, 1988; see Appendix M) and the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children (SWLS-C; Gadermann et al., 2011; see Appendix T). The Perceived Helplessness subscale asks students to reflect on the past few weeks, and report how often they experienced things like “felt nervous and stressed,” whereas the Perceived Self-Efficacy subscale includes items such as “Felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems.” Students responded to these scales using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Evidence for the reliability and validity of these subscales has been provided in previous research (Liu et al., 2020; Roberti et al., 2006), and 123 good internal consistency has been found for Perceived Helplessness (a = .80) and Perceived Self-Efficacy (a = .71) subscales, with a sample of adolescents (Liu et al., 2020). In the present study, internal consistency for the PSS-10 was good, with Cronbach’s alpha =.84 and ordinal alpha = .85 for Perceived Helplessness; and Cronbach’s alpha = .73 and ordinal alpha =.74 for Perceived Self-Efficacy. The SWLS-C asks students to respond to five items (e.g., “I am happy with life”) using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot). Previous research has demonstrated good internal consistency of the SWLS-C with a sample of fourth to seventh grade students, a = .86 (Gadermann et al., 2011). In the present study, there was good internal consistency for the SWLS-C (Cronbach’s alpha = .89; ordinal alpha = .90). Analysis Overview The findings are divided into three sections that address the main research questions and hypotheses. First, we conducted preliminary analyses to examine descriptive statistics, missing data, and correlations among all variables. Next, we used k-means cluster analysis, with students’ self-reports of Teacher Support and Attunement (CSTR) and teachers’ ratings of Closeness (STRS), to identify different profile groups of congruence/incongruence between student and teacher perceptions of attachment quality in the student-teacher relationship that emerge among the current sample of students. Cluster analysis is a multivariate approach to sorting individuals who have similar patterns of scores across different scales, into relatively homogenous groups (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Specifically, k-means cluster analysis assigns cases into the cluster with the mean closest to their own score, with differences among members of each cluster minimized, via an iterative process using squared Euclidean distances from initial cluster centers (Beauchaine & Beauchaine, 2002). K-means method was chosen because it does not assume a 124 hierarchy to the clusters, it is iterative thus adjusts for poor initial partitioning, and does not permit overlapping clusters (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Statistical and conceptual criteria were used to determine the final cluster solution. Prior to clustering, both clustering variables were standardized (Steinley, 2004). Previous research has demonstrated that the commonly used z-score standardization can produce errors and misleading conclusions in clustering analyses. Therefore, we used the more recommended method of standardizing variables using the range, which also tends to offer the best recovery of underlying cluster structures (Milligan & Cooper, 1988; Steinley, 2006). Following this, to examine whether profile groups differed in gender or grade level, a series of likelihood ratio chi square analyses were conducted, followed by a post hoc examination of adjusted standardized residuals. The strength test Cramer’s V is provided as an indication of effect size, or how strongly two categorical fields are associated. A Cramer’s V of .20 is considered small whereas associations of .50 would be moderate and above .80 would be large (Ferguson, 2009). The third section presents a series of Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs), which explored how different profiles of congruence/incongruence between student and teacher perceptions of student-teacher relationships were related to student and teacher ratings of students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being. To provide additional information regarding the strength and practical significance of the findings, partial eta squared (ηp2) effect sizes are provided for the ANCOVA analyses, with ηp2 = .01 indicating a small effect, .06 a medium effect, and .14 a large effect (Cohen, 1992). To provide further context regarding the significance of findings, confidence intervals (CIs) of effect sizes are recommended over post-hoc power analyses (Cohen, 1990; Hoenig & Heisey, 2001; Levine & Ensom, 2001; Nakagawa & Foster, 2004), therefore 90% CIs of ηp2 effect sizes and 95% CIs for Cramer’s V were calculated using the effectsize package (Ben-Shacher et al., 2021) and esc 125 package (Lüdecke et al., 2019) in RStudio version 1.2.5042 (R Core Team, 2017). Prior to conducting power analyses in G*Power 3.1 (Erdfelder et al., 1996), Cramer’s V values were converted to Cohen’s ω. Results Descriptive statistics and correlations among all variables are presented in Table 4.1. An examination of the distribution of variables was conducted and skewness and kurtosis levels were deemed acceptable, so all variables were retained for subsequent analyses. Missing data in the final sample (n = 219) ranged from 0% - 3% across all student-reported and teacher-rated variables and were distributed across classrooms. Due to the low level of missingness (< 5%), data were not excluded from subsequent analyses. Identification of Student-Teacher Relationship Perception Profiles The first aim of this study was to conduct a cluster analysis to identify student-teacher relationship profiles based on the consistency between early adolescents’ reports of support in the relationship with their teachers’ reports of closeness and warmth in the relationship. Given this aim, a k-means cluster analysis (Steinley, 2006) was conducted using SPSS 27.0, to classify students into groups based on their scores on two measures: Teacher Support and Attunement subscale of the CSTR and the Closeness subscale of the STRS. Figure 4.1 presents a scatterplot of students’ raw scores on these two variables. A high maximum iteration was set (100) to ensure that the cluster analysis reached convergence. To determine the optimal number of clusters, multiple cluster models were tested (two, three, four, five, six, and ten-clusters). A four-cluster solution met the statistical criteria of maximizing distance between cluster centres and achieving high pseudo Fs for both measures; student-reported Teacher Support & Attunement, F(3, 215) = 141.77, p < .001 and teacher-rated Closeness, F(3, 215) = 292.96, p < .001. This confirms, as 126 expected, that students in the four profile groups differed significantly from each other on the clustering variables. Some alternative factor solutions produced a higher pseudo-F for Teacher Support and Attunement, but substantially reduced the pseudo-F for teacher-rated Closeness. The four-cluster solution optimized the pseudo-Fs for both measures. Larger cluster numbers (i.e., six and ten-clusters) did not produce significantly better model solutions (i.e., pseudo-Fs) and also diluted the meaningfulness of the distinctions between the groups. In addition, the four-cluster solution provided adequate and relatively balanced n in each group. The alternate cluster solutions did not meet this criterion. Along with adequately meeting the statistical criteria, the four-cluster solution also provided the best conceptual fit with four distinct and interpretable profiles of student and teacher perceptions of their relationship, thus was deemed the optimal solution. Appendix U presents individual participant standardized scores for each cluster variable and their associated cluster assignment. The resultant four profile groups were labelled according to the relative association between the standardized scores on both the CSTR and the STRS. Standardized mean scores (i.e., cluster centres) of the two cluster variables were considered high if they were at or above the 66th percentile of each variable’s distribution, low if the mean score was below the 33rd percentile, and moderate if it was in between the 33rd percentile and 66th percentile. For teacher-rated closeness, mean standard scores above 1.12 were considered high (>66th percentile), between .94 and 1.11 were moderate, and below .93 (<33rd) were low. For student-rated teacher support and attunement, standardized scores above 1.28 were considered high (>66th percentile), between 1.06 and 1.27 were moderate, and below 1.05 (<33rd) were low. The four profile groups were: (1) the Congruent–Negative group, which comprised the 24 students (11.0%) and had a relatively low (< 33rd percentile) mean score on both student-reported Teacher Support and 127 Attunement (M = 1.02; SD = 1.45) and teacher-rated Closeness (M = .55; SD = .12); (2) the Congruent–Positive group, which included 89 students (40.6%) and had a high1 (> 66th percentile) mean score on both the student reports of Teacher Support and Attunement (M = 1.26; SD =.11) and teacher-rated Closeness (M = 1.16; SD = .08); (3) the Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative group, which comprised 67 students (30.6%) and had a moderately positive (between 33rd - 66th percentiles) mean score on student reports of Teacher Support and Attunement (M = 1.18; SD =.12); but very low (< 33rd percentile) mean score on teacher-rated Closeness (M = .88; SD = .09); and (4) the Incongruent-Student Negative/ Teacher Positive group, which included 39 students (17.8%) and had a low (< 33rd percentile) mean score on student-reported Teacher Support and Attunement (M = .80; SD =.14) but a moderately positive (between 33rd - 66th percentiles) mean score on teacher-rated Closeness (M = 1.01; SD = .12). In sum, the majority of students (89%) had moderately to highly positive relationships with their teachers, as rated by either themselves, their teachers, or both. By contrast, only 11% of students had low mean scores on both teacher and student perceptions of the relationship quality (i.e., Congruent–Negative cluster). With regard to congruence of student and teacher perspectives, 51.6% of students reported perceptions that aligned with their teacher’s evaluations of their relationship (either positive or negative), whereas 48.4% of students had perceptions that differed markedly from their teacher’s perspective. Mean group differences of raw scale scores of the clustering variables are provided in Table 4.2. Group Profile Characteristics 1 Note that the mean score for Teacher Support and Attunement in the Congruent-Positive group was 1.26, which is marginally below the 66th percentile cut-off of 1.28. In order to clearly distinguish the profiles, this score was deemed close enough to call it “high” and consider it congruent with the high teacher-rated Closeness, when compared to the means of other groups. 128 To address the second study aim, analyses were next conducted to examine gender and grade differences between clusters. Due to the low sample size (n =1) of students who indicated their gender as something other than boy or girl, their data was omitted from these analyses for failing to meet the assumptions for contingency tables. Results of a 2 (Gender) x 4 (profile group) contingency table indicated a significant difference in the number of boys vs. girls in each profile group, c2[3, n =218] = 16.03, p = .001, V = .27, 95% CI [.11, .39]. For example, as hypothesized, there were significantly more boys assigned to the Congruent–Negative and Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative groups compared to girls (see Table 4.2). In contrast, significantly more girls than boys were assigned to the Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive group. There were no significant differences in the number of boys and girls in the Congruent-Positive group (see Table 4.2). A subsequent 2 (Grade) x 4 (profile group) contingency table indicated that students’ grade level was not related to their profile assignment, c2[3, n =219] = 1.26, p = .74, V = .08, 95% CI [.00, .17]. Finally, an a priori power analyses with G*Power 3.1 (Erdfelder et al., 1996) indicated that an N = 3260 or 363 would be needed to detect a small (ω = .10) or moderate (ω = .30) effect respectively, at 80% (α = .05). Therefore, examination of profiles by language was not included in the present study. Relations of Profile Group to Student Prosociality, School Functioning, and Well-being To assess the relation of congruence or incongruence of teacher and student perspectives of student-teacher relationships to students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being, a series of ANCOVAs were conducted, controlling for student age and gender. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 4.3. 129 Analyses indicated that the profile groups differed significantly on most of the individual student constructs, with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988; Ferguson, 2009). Specifically, for prosociality, students in the Congruent-Positive group scored significantly higher on student-reported altruism, teacher-rated sympathy, and teacher-rated SEC compared to students in the other three groups. Moreover, for altruism, students in the other three groups did not differ significantly from each other. For teacher-rated sympathy and SEC, however, students in the Congruent–Negative group had significantly lower scores for teacher-rated sympathy and SEC than the other groups. For school functioning, students in the Congruent–Positive and Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative groups were rated by their teachers as having greater academic success and rated themselves as higher in academic efficacy, compared to the students in Congruent–Negative and Incongruent–Teacher Positive/Student Negative groups. Students in the two groups characterized by positive student-rated relationship quality and students in the two groups with poor student-rated relationship quality did not differ significantly from each other on the two school functioning correlates. Finally, with regard to well-being, students in the Congruent–Positive and Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative groups reported greater satisfaction with life and self-efficacy than students in the Congruent–Negative and Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive groups, but students in the groups within each dyad did not differ significantly from each other on these well-being variables. Conversely, students in the four profile groups did not differ significantly on perceived helplessness. 130 Discussion Researchers and theorists have proposed that teachers can be regarded as “ad hoc attachment figures” (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012, p. 206), providing students with security, warmth, and nurturance to explore their environments, develop, and learn (De Laet et al., 2014). Particularly throughout early adolescence, a developmental phase during which a multitude of social, emotional, and cognitive changes are occurring in a brief period of time (Steinberg, 2016) and non-familial relationships are becoming more influential (Yu & Deutsch, 2019), research has demonstrated that both student and teacher assessments of high-quality student-teacher relationships are associated with better student social, emotional, and academic adjustment (Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 2002). Few studies, however, have investigated student and teacher perspectives of their dyadic relationships, concurrently, during this vulnerable developmental stage (Zee & Koomen, 2017). This study addressed this gap in the literature by utilizing a person-centered analysis that identified profiles of congruence between middle school students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the attachment quality in their relationships and explored the differences among these profiles with regard to early adolescent students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being. Reflective of previous studies that have investigated agreement between student and teacher perspectives (Wu et al., 2010), the current study identified that middle school students could be categorized into four distinct congruence profiles: Congruent–Positive, Congruent–Negative, Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative, and Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive. The results of this cluster analysis revealed that almost half of the students (40.6%) had student-teacher relationships that were rated highly positive by both teachers and students. Specifically, the students in this group had relationships that were rated by 131 the student as highly attuned and supportive, and by their teacher as highly warm and close. By contrast, only 11% of students had congruently negative (low support and attunement and low closeness) relationship ratings from both teacher and student (i.e., Congruent–Negative group). The remaining 48.4% of students had perceptions incongruent with their teachers, but at least one perspective of the relationship was positive (i.e., either the student or teacher rated the relationship favorably). This bodes well for this particular sample of students, as ratings were positively skewed with most students being perceived, either by themselves or by their teachers, to have supportive and warm attachment-like student-teacher relationships. At the same time, however, the results elucidate the devastating effect even a modestly negative student-teacher relationship can have on students. For instance, even though students in the Congruent–Negative group on average reported slightly negative to neutral ratings of the student-teacher relationship, they still had the poorest scores on all student social, emotional, and academic correlates. These finding highlights that even ambivalent perceptions of student-teacher relationship are not inconsequential, and that positive student-teacher relationships need to be intentionally fostered. With regard to congruence between student and teacher perspectives, about half of the students shared the same perspective as their teacher, jointly viewing their relationship as either positive or negative, and the other half reported discordant perspectives from their teachers. This aligns with the mixed findings in the literature, which has found both agreement (Cipriano et al., 2019; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015) and misalignment between adolescent and teacher perspectives (Zee & Koomen, 2017). The person-centered approach used in this study also extends these findings by showing that both patterns, particularly regarding student and teacher perceptions of their dyadic relationships, may be present within a single sample of students. This reinforces the view of attachment theory in student-teacher relationships that emphasizes that teachers form 132 specific bonds with each individual child in their class, which vary in affective quality (Verschueren, 2015). In terms of the characteristics of the profile groups, results revealed that more boys than girls were assigned to groups characterized by low teacher-rated relationship quality (Congruent–Negative and Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative), while a higher number of girls were assigned to the group characterized by low student ratings of teacher support but high teacher ratings of relationship quality (Incongruent-Student Negative/Teacher Positive). These findings align with previous research that has demonstrated a disparity in the quality of student-teacher relationships for boys and girls, particularly during early adolescence, with teachers more likely to report close relationships with their female students and more conflict with their male students (Spilt et al., 2012; Zee et al., 2013; Zee & Koomen, 2017). This also echoes the longstanding concerns about the feminization of education (Driessen, 2007; Spilt et al., 2012), whereby female-typical expression of behaviours such as cooperation and compliance are valued more by teachers than stereotypical male behaviours of autonomy and impulsivity (Brophy & Good, 1974; Fagot, 1981). However, these results also suggest that early adolescent girls may not always view their relationships with their teacher as positively as their teacher does. Additional research is needed to further investigate the association of both student and teacher gender with student and teacher perceptions of student-teacher relationships. Moreover, the findings in the present study call for the continued examination of the role of gender in the congruence of student and teacher perspectives of their relationships, as well as for the need to investigate potential contributors to these discrepancies, such as differing expectations or relational needs between genders (Banister & Schreiber, 2001). 133 The finding of no significant grade level differences among groups is in contrast with some research that has shown that both teachers and students in younger grades tend to rate their relationships more positively than students and teachers in older grades (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Reddy et al., 2003). However, this study included combined grade classrooms, which incorporates both sixth and seventh grade students within the same class. Therefore, it is not unexpected that no grade-level differences emerged among groups given that all students in a class shared the same classroom teacher, regardless of their grade level. Additional research is needed to compare a wider range of distinct grade levels to further explore grade level differences in the congruence between student and teacher perspectives of their relationships. Regarding the association of congruent/incongruent perceptions of student-teacher relationship quality and student adjustment correlates, significant differences were found between groups on student prosociality, school functioning, and well-being, as rated by both students and teachers; however, these differences varied by construct. For instance, for student-reported altruism, teacher-rated sympathy, and teacher-rated SEC, students in the Congruent–Positive group had significantly higher scores than students in all other groups. It is important to note that students in the Congruent–Positive group, on average, also had significantly higher scores on both student and teacher-rated relationship quality than students in the other three groups. These findings imply a particular strength in having congruence between the two perspectives of the student-teacher relationship, as well as highly positive student-teacher relationship quality, particularly for students’ prosocial tendencies. These findings support the first hypothesis of this study which highlights the positive association of synchrony between two members of a relationship and shared goals such as prosociality (Kistner et al., 2006; Spera & Wentzel, 2003). 134 For the school functioning and well-being constructs, students in the two groups characterized by positive student-rated teacher attunement and support (Congruent–Positive, Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative) did not differ significantly from each other but had more positive school functioning and well-being scores than students in the two groups characterized by negative student-rated teacher attunement and support, regardless of congruence with teacher perspectives. Specifically, for student-reported academic efficacy, satisfaction with life, and teacher-rated academic success, students in the Congruent–Positive and Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative groups scored significantly higher than students in the Congruent–Negative and Incongruent–Student Negative/Teacher Positive groups. Thus, even in the cases of incongruence, when teacher ratings were negative, but students’ ratings of their teacher’s support were positive, students still had very positive school functioning and well-being. Moreover, the absence of significant differences between students in the Congruent–Positive and Incongruent–Student Positive/Teacher Negative groups on school functioning and well-being correlates challenges a potential assumption, that students with the highest student-rated or teacher-rated relationship quality (i.e., Congruent–Positive group) would always have significantly better adjustment than all other students. Instead, the results are more nuanced, and highlight the importance of students’ perceptions of the relationship. These findings support the second hypothesis and are reflective of social motivation theories (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2017) and the extant research which has demonstrated that perceived support may be more influential than actual received support, particularly for students’ well-being and school success (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Rueger et al., 2016). The results were mixed for student-reported perceived stress. For instance, groups did not differ significantly on perceived helplessness. In contrast, students in the two congruent groups 135 significantly differed from each other on perceived self-efficacy, where students who rated their relationships with their teachers positively reported significantly higher self-efficacy compared to students who rated their relationships negatively, regardless of the congruence with teachers’ ratings of the relationship. These results illuminate a more complex relationship between student-teacher relationships and perceived stress, whereby the quality of the relationship, as rated by students, is associated with students’ feelings of efficacy and ability to cope with stress, while not necessarily affecting students’ feelings of helplessness. This aligns with previous research on resilience, that shows that supportive relationships are protective assets for students, bolstering their ability to cope with the stressors they encounter (Yule et al., 2019). Additional research is needed, however, to further explore the relation between student-teacher relationships and students’ feelings of helplessness, and the reasons these relationships may not have as much of an association with this particular correlate. In sum, the findings suggest that various aspects of student adjustment may be differentially associated with congruence (or incongruence) of student-teacher perspectives of the attachment quality of their relationships; concomitantly supporting both study hypotheses that congruence between perspectives of an attachment relationship may be important but also that the student perspective is particularly powerful, especially in early adolescence. Strengths and Limitations A primary strength of this study is the multi-method/multi-rater approach which involved concurrently assessing both student and teacher perceptions of their dyadic relationship and including multiple assessments of students’ social, emotional, and academic correlates, as rated by both teachers and students. Including multiple perspectives in the examination of these relationships during early adolescence is currently scant in the literature; this adds a new 136 dimension to our understanding of these relationships particularly during this transitional stage of development. Moreover, this triangulation of data minimizes common method bias and provides additional confidence in the conclusions. In addition, the relatively large number of participants were diverse and representative of the population of Western Canada, allowing for some generalizability of the findings. Moreover, most research on student-teacher relationships has occurred in the United States, therefore this study provides some unique insight into student-teacher relationships in the context of Canadian middle schools. In addition, the person-centered approach of this research compliments the extant research on this topic, which is primarily variable-centered. Utilizing a person-centered approach and analysis allowed for the exploration of individual differences and the dyadic nature of the attachment-like relationship between students and teachers. Specifically, it created a more holistic picture of attachment within each student-teacher dyad by concurrently including the student’s evaluation of support and attunement from the teacher and the teacher’s assessment of closeness and warmth in each relationship. Furthermore, it allowed for the exploration of congruence and incongruence between student and teacher impressions of their relationships and the association between these various congruence profiles and students’ prosociality, school functioning, and well-being. Regarding study limitations, the setting of this study was BC, Canada, which has a longstanding dedication to the promotion of students’ SECs in schools. Thus, it is not known if the findings of the present study would be the same in other districts or locations with a lesser focus on SEL. In addition, there was insufficient power to examine first-language differences between profile groups, therefore examination of profiles by language was not included in the present study. The present study sets the stage for future research to replicate this work with 137 larger sample sizes, across more diverse school settings, and more intentional examination of the interactions with culture/ethnicity, in order to explore student and teacher perceptions of their relationships in other contexts. An additional limitation was that, of the 260 students who received consent to participate in the study, about 16% of students were absent or opted out of the portion of the survey from which the data for this study was drawn. Although the participating and non-participating groups did not differ significantly on demographics, non-participating students may have differed in other characteristics or may be students with more problematic student-teacher relationships, therefore there is a group of students for whom we do not know if the current results apply. Another limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design. Future research would benefit from jointly investigating student and teacher perspectives of their relationships over time, in longitudinal studies, to both infer causality and to explore growth trajectories of these relationships from both perspectives. Furthermore, the scales used to measure student and teacher perceptions of the student-teacher relationship were complementary but not identical, which could have partially influenced the discrepancies found between perspectives. However, this was an intentional attempt to assess two complementary aspects of attachment that have been shown to be important in student-teacher relationships – students’ perceptions of attunement and support and teacher’s perceptions of warmth and closeness (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). That being said, this field remains in need of comparable student and teacher scales in order to accurately and validly assess the congruence or incongruence of their perspectives of their relationships. Finally, there are some drawbacks inherent to cluster analysis. First, clusters are based on the present sample, thus may reveal different or additional cluster groups in more diverse or 138 larger samples (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). In addition, the profile groups are created with some subjectivity, given the use of cluster analysis instead of latent profile analyses (LPA), and thus in some cases the clusters are merely “best fit,” not perfect representations of the data (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). For example, a small number of individuals who were grouped into the Congruent Negative cluster had CSTR scores higher than some students in the other clusters (see Appendix U for full list of standardized participant cluster variable data) but because of their relatively low CSTR and STRS scores, compared to other profiles, the cluster analysis placed them in the Congruent Negative group. Because of the limited and equivocal conclusions about the congruence between early adolescent students’ and their teacher perspectives of their relationships in the literature (Murray & Zvoch, 2011; Zee & Koomen, 2017), thus lack of a testable model, the exploratory approach of cluster analysis was more appropriate than LPA (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Despite the limitations, this study provides a nuanced way of looking at data of student and teachers’ perspectives of their relationships. Future studies would benefit from additional person-centered analyses, such as LPA, and investigations over time to further explore the impact of congruence between student and teacher perspectives on student outcomes. Research and Educational Implications and Directions for Future Research This study underscores the value of assessing both student and teacher perspectives when trying to understand relationships in classrooms (Lai, 2015; Spera & Wentzel, 2003). Moreover, the findings emphasize the importance of assessing the student perspective, particularly their perceptions of support from their teachers, which may be a particularly important perspective when it comes to early adolescent students’ school functioning and well-being. The findings in this study also highlight that for almost half of the students in this study there still existed a 139 significant disparity between the quality of relationship the student perceived and what the teacher perceived. Additional studies are needed that explore the factors that may be contributing to students and teachers perceiving their relationships differently. For example, research has demonstrated that teachers’ characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, emotional supportiveness) are associated with their perceptions of conflict in their relationships with their students (Hamre et al., 2008). Moreover, research has shown both acute and chronic stress are significantly associated with social cognition and how one perceives their social environment (von Dawans et al., 2021). Hence, student and teacher characteristics and stress are important factors to examine in relation to their perceptions of their relationship quality (Longobardi et al., 2014). However, research on these interactions remains scant in the literature, thus are in need of further investigation. Finally, given the interconnected nature of student and teacher well-being and engagement in the classroom (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Lever et al., 2017), future studies should investigate how congruence or incongruence between these perceptions may be impacting teachers’ well-being and adjustment as well. In addition, the current study revealed gender differences between groups. Future studies should further investigate gender as an important factor in both the quality of student-teacher relationships, as well as the congruence between student and teacher perceptions of these relationships. Moreover, previous studies have found an interaction between student gender and teacher gender, in terms of the quality of their relationships (McFarland et al., 2016; Spilt et al., 2012). Future studies may benefit from continuing this exploration of interactions between student and teacher gender, particularly with regard to the alignment between student and teacher perceptions of the quality of their relationships. 140 The current study did not collect data on students’ ethnic/ racial backgrounds directly, and the range of first languages reported were not an exact proxy for this information. Moreover, there was insufficient power to examine language differences among the profile groups. Given the systemic inequalities experienced by underrepresented ethnic groups and people of colour, particularly Black and Latinx populations and Indigenous Peoples, future studies should continue to examine the essential role that race and culture play in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationship quality and the congruence/incongruence of these perspectives. For example, previous research has found student-teacher relationship quality disparities, depending on whether or not there is congruence between students’ and teachers’ ethnicity (Thijs et al., 2012). Thus, it would be important to continue to explore interactions between ethnicity and student-teacher relationship congruence in future work. Moreover, is it critical to integrate the study and conceptualization of caring student-teacher relationships with an antiracist and critical race theory lens to ensure the progress towards culturally aware and equitable classrooms (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Pennington et al., 2012; Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012) Research has already shown that the quality and closeness of student-teacher relationships decline as students progress through middle and high school (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Reddy et al., 2003). At the same time, researchers have also demonstrated that when student-teacher relationships are positive and supportive in early adolescence, students experience greater positive adjustment and academic success in middle school (Longobardi et al., 2016, 2020; Prewett et al., 2019). In particular, the present research highlights how relevant attachment qualities, such as attunement, warmth, and closeness, remain for dyadic student-teacher relationship during early adolescence. Therefore, continuing to investigate both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of these qualities when attempting to understand these relationships, 141 and further investigating the discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ perceptions, has the potential to inform both how we research these relationships and how we can improve these relationships during this pivotal developmental stage. 142 Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations of All Variables Min Max Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Correlations Statistic SE Statistic SE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Student-reported teacher support and attunement 1.30 5.00 4.17(0.77) -.91 .16 .40 .33 - 2. Teacher-rated student-teacher closeness 1.14 5.00 3.78(0.82) -.85 .16 .36 .33 .24** - 3. Student-reported altruism 1.00 5.00 3.06(0.84) .15 .17 -.39 .33 .32** .20** - 4. Teacher-rated sympathy 1.67 5.00 3.65(0.76) -.15 .16 -.20 .33 .21** .41** .20** - 5. Teacher-rated SEC 2.00 6.00 4.26(0.83) -.31 .16 -.72 .33 .22** .50** .22* .72** - 6. Student-reported academic efficacy 1.00 5.00 3.67(0.85) -.61 .16 .14 .33 .46** .16* .41** .19** .24** - 7. Teacher-rated academic success 1.00 5.00 3.59(0.92) -.44 .16 -.22 .33 .15* .23** .09 .26** .51** .42** - 8. Student-reported satisfaction with life 1.00 5.00 3.59(1.01) -.46 .17 -.59 .33 .40** .22** .29** .19** .26** .40** .06 - 9. Student-reported helplessness 1.00 5.00 2.82(0.81) .17 .17 -.17 .33 -.10 -.11 -.02 -.04 -.05 -.20** -.02 -.37** - 10. Student-reported self-efficacy 1.25 5.00 3.08(0.75) .12 .17 .25 .33 .30** .24** .34** .13 .19** .40** .09 .61** -.40** - 143 Table 4.2 Group Differences in CSTR and STRS Means (SD) and Frequency of Gender and Grade Congruent - Negative (n = 24) Congruent - Positive (n = 89) Incongruent - Student Positive/ Teacher Negative (n = 67) Incongruent – Student Negative/ Teacher Positive (n = 39) Group differences F(3, 213) Cluster variable M(SD) Student reported teacher support and attunement (CSTR)1 3.79(0.54)a 4.66(0.39)b 4.38(0.46)c 2.95(0.51)d 141.64*** Teacher-rated student-teacher closeness (STRS)1 2.13(0.45)a 4.46(0.30)b 3.41(0.35)c 3.89(0.45)d 277.38*** Child gender2 Boys (n = 112) Girls (n = 106) 18a 6b 39a 49a 42a 25b 13a 26b c2 (n = 218) = 16.03** df = 3 Grade level2 6 (n = 137) 7 (n = 82) 15a 9a 55a 34a 45a 22a 22a 17a c2 (n = 219) = 1.26 df = 3 Notes: Means that do not share subscripts differ by p < .05 in Fisher least Significant Difference Test. 1 Analyses controlled for age and gender. 2 Subscripts represent differences in frequency of students of each gender/grade within each profile group. ** p <.01. ***p <.001. 144 Table 4.3 Profile Group Differences in Prosociality, School Functioning, and Well-Being Means (SD) Variable Congruent - Negative (n = 24) Congruent - Positive (n = 89) Incongruent - Student Positive/ Teacher Negative (n = 67) Incongruent - Student Negative/ Teacher Positive (n = 39) Group differences F(3, 212) ηp2 90% CI ηp2 [LL, UL] Prosociality Student-reported altruism 2.68(0.75)b 3.38(0.82)a 2.97 (0.83)b 2.68(0.67)b 9.82*** .12 [.05, .18] Teacher-rated sympathy 3.03(0.62)a 4.03(0.69)b 3.48(0.58)c 3.48(0.84)ac 16.12*** .19 [.11, .25] Teacher-rated SEC 3.33(0.66)a 4.67(0.74)b 4.14(0.67)c 4.10(0.78)c 23.24*** .25 [.16, .32] School functioning Student-reported academic efficacy 3.21 (0.82)a 3.97(0.76)b 3.78(0.80)b 3.07(0.75)a 15.56*** .18 [.10, .25] Teacher-rated academic success 3.02(0.86)a 3.81(0.88)b 3.62(0.84)bc 3.38(1.03)ac 5.90*** .08 [.02, .13] Well-being Student-reported satisfaction with life 2.89(1.06)a 3.89(0.88)b 3.81(0.99)b 3.01(0.88)a 13.22*** .16 [.08, .23] Student-reported helplessness 3.02(0.67)a 2.85(0.91)a 2.65(0.72)a 2.92(0.78)a 1.53 .02 [.00, .05] Student-reported self-efficacy 2.63(0.71)a 3.28(0.75)b 3.18(0.70)b 2.74(0.64)a 8.86*** .11 [.05, .18] Note: Means that do not share subscripts differ by p < .05 in Fisher least Significant Difference Test. All analyses controlled for gender and age. 1 df for Altruism (210), SWLS-C (207), PSS-helplessness (208), PSS-efficacy (206) are different due to some missing data. *p <.01. ** p <.001. 145 Figure 4.1 Scatterplot of Standardized Scores of Student-Reported Teacher Support and Attunement (CSTR) and Teacher-Rated Student-Teacher Closeness (STRS) Note: Each dot represents an individual student participants’ standardized score on each of the two scales used in the cluster analyses. 146 Chapter 5: General Discussion The aim of the present research was to add to the growing number of studies that bring to light the unique context of middle schools (McCollum & Yoder, 2011; Prewett et al., 2019; Reddy et al., 2003) and to explore the particular set of qualities needed to foster positive student-teacher relationships within this setting (Rickert et al., 2020; Wentzel, 1997), particularly from the perspective of early adolescents. Specifically, the three studies explored early adolescent students’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships and the association of these relationships with students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. In particular, the current suite of studies took a multi-pronged approach to exploring students’ own perceptions of caring qualities of their teachers. Specifically, this research examined (1) how we assess students’ perceptions of teacher caring and the adaptive significance of teacher caring for early adolescent students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being, (2) how middle school students conceptualize teacher caring, and (3) how congruence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their dyadic relationship is related to early adolescents’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. Through a mixed methods and multi-informant approach, utilizing student self-report measures, open-ended questions, teacher reports of students, and teacher self-report measures, this research aimed to address research questions in order to contribute to a deeper understanding of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence, particularly in the context of middle school. Most research on the affective and attachment components of teacher support has focused on broad aspects of emotional support, such as the presence or absence of support (e.g., “my teacher really cares about me;” Van Ryzin et al., 2009) or closeness or conflict within the relationship (O’Connor et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001). The present research aimed to take a more 147 nuanced look at the specific qualities that comprise caring student-teacher relationships in early adolescence. Briefly, Study 1 investigated early adolescents’ perspectives of teacher care by developing and examining the construct validity of a new psychometric tool for assessing students’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships. The aim of Study 2 was to delve deeper into the perspectives of students and explore how sixth and seventh grade students characterize a caring teacher, by conducting a qualitative content analysis of students’ responses to the question: “What are three things that teachers do to show they care?” Guided by recent research in mindful approaches to teaching, this study explored whether students generated themes of calmness, clarity, and kindness in their definitions of a caring teacher. Finally, Study 3 took a person-centered approach to explore both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their attachment quality of their dyadic relationships, concurrently, in order to investigate the relation of congruence between these perspectives to students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. This research is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015), positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), resilience (Luthar et al., 2021; Sapienza & Masten, 2011), mindfulness in teaching (Hulburt et al., 2020), and SEL (Collie, 2020; Weissberg et al., 2015), which emphasize the role of protective factors, such as positive relationships, in fostering students’ social and emotional well-being and success in school. Teacher Caring Matters in Middle School The results of the three studies buttress prevailing beliefs that caring in the student-teacher relationship, or as Noddings (2015) posited pedagogical caring, plays a crucial role in students’ social, emotional, and academic development, and that this relationship remains 148 particularly important during early adolescence (Verschueren, 2015; Wentzel, 1997, 2003). The present research supports the increasingly robust body of work that shows that supportive student-teacher relationships in early adolescence have a positive impact on students’ academic motivation and success (Roorda et al., 2011; Zins et al., 2007). For instance, Study 1 indicated that both factors of the newly developed Caring Student Teacher Relationship (CSTR) measure (teacher support and attunement and caring teacher qualities) were significantly and positively correlated with student reports of academic efficacy, as well as teacher reports of students’ academic success. Study 1 and 3 also contribute to the burgeoning knowledge of the crucial role student-teacher relationships play in middle school students’ social and emotional development (Oberle et al., 2014; Pössel et al., 2018; Wentzel et al., 2010). Specifically, in both studies, students’ perceptions of teacher support and attunement were significantly and positively related to students’ reports of altruism, self-efficacy, and teachers’ reports of students’ sympathy and SEC. In addition, in Study 1, students’ reports of teacher caring were significantly and positively associated with students’ self-reported optimism and prosocial goals, and in Study 3 teacher support was significantly and positively correlated with students’ satisfaction with life. Moreover, in Study 1 teacher caring was also positively and significantly related to students’ perceptions of a more positive classroom climate (i.e., classroom supportiveness). Teacher Caring Matters, but What Does it Look Like in Middle School? The findings of Study 1 support the growing corpus of studies that establish that teacher caring matters (Noddings, 2015) even, and arguably especially, as students transition to more independent, larger schools such as middle school (Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 2002). Research has demonstrated that, much like the socialization that occurs within effective parent-child relationships (Baumrind, 1991), when teachers provide a nurturing, caring context in the 149 classroom, students are more likely to adopt the goals valued by the teacher, such as prosociality and academic competence (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Wentzel, 2002). Specifically, extant theoretical models have proposed that teachers contribute to students’ internalization of socially appropriate goals and competencies in a myriad of ways, such as directly teaching the values, modeling the behaviour, and providing the context in which students can learn and feel supported to adopt the teachers’ goals and values (Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 2003). As such, teachers’ behaviours and qualities have important implications for their students’ social and emotional competencies. The present research highlights some of the specific teacher qualities that may play a role in this socialization. For example, through the EFA results of the new CSTR measure, Study 1 revealed two important factors of teacher caring: (a) teacher support and attunement (e.g., “My teacher gives me time to cool down,” “My teacher listens to me and my problems”) and (b) caring teacher qualities (e.g., “My teachers is kind,” “My teacher is calm”). The findings from Study 1 align with the growing body of work that endorses how important and interrelated both teachers’ intentional emotional support of students (Longobardi et al., 2016; Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 2002), as well as teachers’ own social and emotional competencies (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) are for promoting positive student adjustment. Moreover, Study 1 indicated a significant positive association between the new CSTR subscales and teachers’ reports of mindfulness in teaching. This is in accord with the emerging field of contemplative approaches to education, which posits that mindful teaching could be an important framework through which to view a caring approach to teaching (Hulburt et al., 2020; Lawlor, 2016). Specifically, mindful dispositions and behaviours may be integral components of teachers’ own SECs (Palmer, 2007; Roeser, 2016; Roeser et al., 2012) and could be a tangible channel through 150 which to foster attachment (e.g., attunement, responsiveness) within the student-teacher relationship. Study 2 additionally contributed to the characterization of caring teaching in middle school by directly exploring how early adolescents themselves conceptualize a caring teacher. Findings indicated that students identify numerous important characteristics and behaviours when asked “what are three things that teachers do to show they care.” Of particular interest, was the finding that the 19 themes identified in students’ responses could be grouped into the three categories from the Calm, Clear, Kind framework of the mindful educator (Hulburt et al., 2020), with only a small number of responses falling outside of these categories (i.e., general teaching). As such, this study further bolsters the value of a mindful teaching approach for fostering caring in the student-teacher relationship. Of the small number of studies that have explored students’ characterizations of supportive or caring teachers (Wentzel, 1997), no studies have investigated this through the framework of mindful teaching. Instead, studies have either not referenced a theoretical framework (Garrett et al., 2009) or examined other models such as effective caregiving and family socialization (Baumrind, 1991; Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 1997). Although these approaches have merit, Study 2 adds to the literature by presenting a framework that encompassed the majority of students’ descriptions of a caring teacher. Previously used models did not account for responses such as “kind to me” or “helps me” (Wentzel, 1997), which were responses that constituted a large proportion of the students’ answers in Study 2. Therefore, utilizing previous models in the present study would have overlooked several significant factors in students’ characterizations of caring teachers. In effect, the CCK framework reflects many of the features of the previous theories and models, such as democratic interactions (Wentzel, 1997), but also extends beyond them, allowing for a more comprehensive framework for 151 conceptualizing teacher caring (Hulburt et al., 2020). Specifically, the findings in Study 2 highlight the relevance of mindful qualities, such as calmness, clarity, and kindness, for fostering a caring approach of teachers in the middle school classroom. The results in Study 2 also emphasize that the characteristics that exemplify caring teaching to students may differ across genders and grade levels. Specifically, girls reported features of presence and attention more than boys, whereas boys were more likely than girls to report teachers’ positive encouragement as a signal of caring. These findings may reflect true differences in needs between genders (Banister & Schreiber, 2001), and/or it could be representative of the different quality of relationships teachers often report having with boys vs. girls (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Spilt et al., 2010). For example, there is an enduring concern about the feminization of education, whereby teachers value traits more stereotypical of girls compared to boys (Brophy & Good, 1974; Fagot, 1981), which may result in teachers providing different levels and type of care to students of different genders. Students may feel this disparity, leading them to seek and/or value different caring traits in their teachers. Additional qualitative research (e.g., focus groups, think-aloud protocols) is needed, however, to explore the antecedents to students’ conceptualization of a caring teacher. As suggested by the stage-environment-fit perspective put forth by Eccles et al. (1993), for early adolescents in particular there is often a mismatch between students’ developmental needs and the supports provided to them by their school context, which can lead to problems in school and social adjustment (Roeser & Eccles, 2014). By contrast, self-determination theory posits that students thrive when their basic needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, belonging) are met (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In line with previous work that has demonstrated that efficacious student-teacher relationships are ones that support the needs of their students (Colaianne et al., 2020; Noddings, 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006), Study 2 suggests that students also 152 recognize the importance of teachers attending to their needs, as evidenced by the prevalent themes in their descriptions of a caring teacher. Specifically, students’ frequent mentions of helpfulness (e.g., “Help you to understand more clearly”) and democratic communication (e.g., “Listen to you,” “They listen to your ideas and talk nicely”) reflect early adolescents’ need for competence and autonomy and their appreciation when teachers help them achieve this competence and when they foster autonomous, mutual communication. Moreover, the high frequency of responses with empathy, compassion, and friendly/warmth themes (e.g., “Notice when you’re upset,” “They comfort you when the person is sad,” “They say hi to you in the morning,” “Welcoming”) highlight students’ need for positive connection and a sense of belonging in the classroom. Support for this deduction can be found in a recent study by Colaianne et al. (2020) that assessed 599 high school students’ perceptions of mindful (calm, clear, kind) teaching. Specifically, Colaianne et al. (2020) found an indirect pathway whereby students’ perceptions of mindful teaching predicted changes in students’ reports of need fulfillment (i.e., autonomy, competence, belonging), which then predicted improvements in students’ own mindfulness and compassion over time. Future studies are needed to explore if a similar pathway exists for students in middle school and whether this same relationship is found for other outcomes such as students’ well-being and academic functioning. Congruence Between Student and Teacher Perceptions of Their Relationships Despite the well-established body of research that has investigated teachers’ perspectives of the student-teacher relationship (Doumen et al., 2012; Ruzek et al., 2016) and the growing corpus of studies that are beginning to include students’ perceptions of these dyadic relationships (Koomen & Jellesma, 2015; Wentzel, 1997; Yu et al., 2018), there remains a relative dearth of research that combines both perspectives in one study. Expanding upon the findings in Study 1 153 and utilizing the teacher support and attunement subscale of the newly developed CSTR measure in Study 1, Study 3 addressed this lacuna in the literature by examining young adolescents’ perceptions of teacher support and attunement concurrently with their teachers’ perceptions of the closeness in the student-teacher relationship. Specifically, this study examined both students’ and teachers’ assessments of the attachment quality of the relationship, with students reporting on the responsiveness and attunement of their teacher and teachers reporting how close and warm their relationship is with each of their students (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Results reflected the equivocal findings in previous research regarding congruence between student and teacher perceptions of their relationships (Cipriano et al., 2019; Zee & Koomen, 2017), by showing that half of the students perceived their relationship similarly to how their teacher perceived it, either positively or negatively, and half of the students holding views incongruent with their teachers’ views of the relationship. Study 3 further illuminated the role of gender in student and teacher perceptions of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence. Specifically, boys were more likely to be assigned to the two groups with poor teacher ratings of the relationship, whereas girls were more likely to be in the incongruent group characterized by positive teacher ratings but negative student ratings of the relationship. These findings align with the substantial evidence of a discrepancy between boys and girls in their student-teacher relationships, specifically as reporting by teachers, with teachers more likely to report conflict with boys and greater closeness with girls (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Spilt et al., 2012). It also highlights, however, that girls may not always view their relationships with their teachers as positively as their teachers do. These findings call for additional research to investigate more deeply the causes of the disparate experiences of students of all genders within student-teacher 154 relationships and likewise the experience of teachers teaching students of various genders (Banister & Schreiber, 2001). This research also examined the alignment between students’ and teachers’ perspectives and the relation of this congruence or incongruence to students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. Specifically, findings from Study 3 indicated that students who had high-quality student-teacher relationships, as rated by both themselves and their teachers, also received the highest scores on self-rated altruism and teacher-rated sympathy and SEC, in contrast to students who had congruently poor ratings of student-teacher relationship quality or who perceived their relationships differently from their teachers. This finding aligns with attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978/2015) and work on perceptual congruence in relationships (Feinberg et al., 2000; Ohannessian et al., 2000) which posits that synchrony and mutual feelings of affection and closeness between two members of a relationship are associated with increases in shared goals such as prosocial behaviour (Kistner et al., 2006; Spera & Wentzel, 2003) and adolescent well-being (Leung & Shek, 2014). These findings also reflect the extant theories (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Noddings, 2015) and burgeoning research that indicate the importance of caring and attuned student-teacher relationships for students’ social adjustment and prosocial goal pursuit (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; Sapienza & Masten, 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010). An additional finding in Study 3 indicated that students who perceived high levels of attunement and support from their teachers also scored higher on academic and well-being dimensions than students who reported poor student-teacher relationship quality, regardless of how positively (i.e., close) or negatively teachers rated the relationship. This suggests early adolescent students’ own perceptions of their student-teacher relationships are particularly important for their school functioning and well-being. A substantial body of research provides 155 support for this contention - that individuals’ perceptions of support may be what matters most to their well-being (Sarason et al., 1997; Siedlecki et al., 2014; Thompson & Goodvin, 2016) - with growing evidence that this may be especially true for students in early adolescence (Havik & Westergård, 2020; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010). This is further illustrated by recent meta-analyses that found that adolescents’ perceptions of social support were more strongly related to depressive symptoms (Rueger et al., 2016) and well-being (Chu et al., 2010) than actually received (enacted) support. Study 3 further corroborates and illustrates these claims by showing that students who perceived high levels of teacher caring had the highest levels of self-reported life satisfaction, self- and academic efficacy, and teacher-reported school success, even if their teachers reported poorer dyadic relationship quality. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions Strengths The present research has several notable strengths. A primary strength of this research is the in-depth look at early adolescent students’ perceptions of their caring relationships with their teachers. Research including students’ perspectives of their student-teacher relationships in middle school is in a nascent stage, despite the emerging studies that show perceived support may be particularly relevant and important for students’ positive adjustment (Chu et al., 2010; Havik & Westergård, 2020). The present research highlights how salient students’ perspectives of their student-teacher relationships are for their well-being and adjustment in middle school, thereby advocating for the continued inclusion of students’ perceptions in future research. Another strength of the research is the relatively large, diverse sample of early adolescent students that each of the three studies drew from, which was representative of the population of suburban (middle class), BC, Canada. In particular, participating students reported over 30 156 languages when asked to report their first language learned. Moreover, studies that have investigated student and teacher perceptions of their dyadic relationships have primarily occurred in the United States, therefore the present set of studies contribute insight into the context of students in middle schools in Canada. In addition, this collection of studies utilized a mixed methods approach to explore students’ perceptions of teacher caring. Specifically, both quantitative and qualitative analyses such as factor analyses, content analysis, and cluster analyses, were used across the studies. Mixed methods approaches offer “multiple ways of seeing and hearing” (Greene, 2007, p. 20) and intuitive ways to look at phenomena that do not constrain themselves to one type of methodology or inquiry paradigm. Moreover, the inclusion of effect sizes and CIs of effect sizes is an additional strength which provides further information about the significance and practical implications of the findings. Furthermore, through the employment of both variable-centered and person-centered analyses, the present research provides insight into the overall association of student-teacher relationship quality with student adjustment, and also reveals individual differences within student-teacher relationships in the classroom. Finally, this research also took a multi-method, multi-informant approach, utilizing both student and teacher assessments of students’ adjustment correlates, which allowed for the triangulation of data. This combination of methods and approaches provides a rich and realistic illustration of caring student-teacher relationships in the context of middle school, and thus contributes to our budding understanding of these essential relationships during this transitional developmental period. Limitations and Future Directions 157 The current research also has limitations that are worthy of discussion and should be addressed in future studies. For instance, despite the relatively large, diverse samples in the present studies, larger sample sizes with a greater number of teachers/classrooms could have allowed for additional analyses, such as tests of measurement invariance and multi-level modelling in Study 1 and 3. Moreover, although the distribution of first languages was representative of the population of Western Canada, the language groups were not an exact proxy for ethnicity. Therefore, we cannot conclude if the results identified in the present studies would hold true for students of all backgrounds. Findings have been equivocal in the literature regarding underrepresented groups of students’ perceptions of the quality of their student-teacher relationships (Garrett et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2018; Wentzel, 2002), thus including a more direct assessment of ethnic or racial background in future studies would provide greater power to investigate the important role that ethnicity and race play in student-teacher relationships. Moreover, to move the field forward, future studies are needed that investigate student-teacher relationships and teacher caring in underrepresented groups. In recognizing the systemic racism and traumas experienced by people of colour, particularly Black and Latinx populations and Indigenous Peoples, there is a growing need to investigate the role of ethnicity and culture of both students and teachers in student-teacher relationships. Moreover, although a caring approach to teaching is well intentioned, it is integral that “care” in the classroom intersects with critical race theory and an antiracist perspective to ensure we are striving toward culturally responsive caring, not merely White-privileged, colour-blind caring that may further marginalize some students (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Pennington et al., 2012; Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012). Finally, there is also a need to actively listen and seek to understand other underrepresented students’ conceptions of caring, such as those of disabled or economically 158 marginalized students, to intentionally involve all students’ voices in our understanding of teacher caring in the classroom. The studies in this research were also all cross-sectional, which limits the ability to draw causal inferences. For instance, Study 1 and 3 showed evidence of a positive relation between caring student-teacher relationships and students’ school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. Although previous longitudinal research would suggest that positive relationships between teachers and students lead to better adjustment for early adolescents (Hughes, 2011; Wang & Eccles, 2012), it cannot be conclusively determined in the present study if the positive student-teacher relationships led to positive adjustment for students, or if students’ positive adjustment contributed to better student-teacher relationships. Moreover, longitudinal studies, that investigate both teacher and student perspectives concurrently, are needed to explore how perceptions of these relationships change over the school year and across development. Findings from the three present studies have implications for how we conduct research of these complex relationships going forward, such as supporting and encouraging the use of validated measures of students’ perceptions and conducting mixed-methods studies that utilize qualitative data. Moreover, to further enrich our understanding of student-teacher relationships in early adolescence, future research should continue to include multiple perspectives of the relationships in classrooms. Specifically, future research should consider including both students’ and teachers’ perspectives, as well as third-party observational measures such as Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary (CLASS-S; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012), to further triangulate and enrich our understandings of these relationships in middle school classrooms. Furthermore, including interviews and focus groups with middle school students could provide an even deeper understanding of their conceptualizations of caring teachers. In 159 addition, the present research bolstered the value of including person-centered approaches that allow for the simultaneous exploration of multiple perspectives of dynamic and multifaceted relationships such as those between early adolescents and their teachers. Educational Applications Given the changes in the nature and function of early adolescents’ relationships with their parents and the increased influence of peers and non-related adults (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Yu et al., 2018; Yu & Deutsch, 2019), classrooms are some of the most significant contexts for development for early adolescents (Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Luckner & Pianta, 2011). Particularly during these middle school years, supportive teachers can play a crucial role in helping to promote students’ resilience, school success, and social relationships (Ruzek et al., 2016; Wentzel et al., 2010). Previous work has stressed that teachers are often intuitively aware of the importance of providing emotional support to their students, but that many report not having the time to focus on these aspects within the already time-constrained school days (Durlak et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003; Zins et al., 2007). The results of the present research point to another important facet in schools, which is the need for the endorsement of SEL by administration and a school-wide, systemic approach (Oberle et al., 2016) to scaffold teachers in their desire to provide this level of care and support to their students. Moreover, although teachers may know they need to provide emotional support to their students, research on the specific qualities to embody and actions they can take, is still emerging (Colaianne et al., 2020; Wentzel, 1997) and this knowledge may not be effectively translated into practice. The present research contributes some tangible teacher characteristics and behaviours that teachers and schools can prioritize, especially when teaching early adolescents. For instance, 160 Study 1 highlights how foundational teachers’ attunement – listening and being present with their students (e.g., “My teacher listens to me and my problems) - and the trust built within the relationship (e.g., “I can talk to my teachers,” “I can trust my teacher”) are for students’ well-being and social and academic adjustment. Moreover, Study 1 supports recent research that has shown, when teachers focus on their own well-being and social and emotional competencies (e.g., “My teacher is calm,” “My teacher respects people”), their students benefit as well (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Schonert-Reichl, 2017). The results of Study 2 add further support to this contention by showing that middle school students themselves identify these qualities of empathy, presence, calm, and attunement as ways in which teachers can show their support and caring. This bolsters the growing appreciation and evidence that affective support and nurturance are not only important for young children but remain integral as students move through the later years of school (Longobardi et al., 2016; Wentzel, 2003; Zee & Koomen, 2020). Finally, Study 3 underscores the role of attachment-like bonds in the student-teacher relationship, particularly for the typically stressful phase of early adolescence. Specifically, students who reported experiencing high levels of attunement and support from their teachers also reported the highest school functioning, prosociality, and well-being. These findings corroborate previous and growing evidence of the importance of continuing to foster close and responsive relationships between students and teachers in the middle school years and the implications this can have for students’ adjustment (Gallagher et al., 2019; Noddings, 2015; Wentzel, 2003). The three studies in the present research further support that, especially during transitional years such as late elementary and middle school, teachers need to be trained in and supported to impart more than pedagogical and academic knowledge in their classrooms, in order to best support their students’ school and social and emotional adjustment. Synchronous with the 161 growing movement of studies investigating the applicability of mindfulness practices in schools for both students and teachers (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016), this research also shines a spotlight on mindfulness in teaching as a potential pathway through which to foster caring relationships in schools. This growing corpus of research has indicated that many positive results emerge as a result of fostering teachers’ mindful and social and emotional competencies, such as students’ own mindfulness, well-being, and success in school (Colaianne et al., 2020; Jennings, 2014; Lawlor, 2016). With this increasing evidence of the value of mindfulness in teaching, however, there is also important emerging work that has highlighted the critical need to integrate mindfulness practices with an antiracist lens (Cannon, 2016) to ensure potential benefits translate to all students and teachers and to prevent unintended marginalization or harm. Encouragingly, growing evidence has demonstrated that when mindfulness approaches and practices are integrated with cultural awareness and responsivity, they have the potential to be routes to reducing racial bias and promoting social justice (Cannon, 2016; Hilert & Tirado, 2019; Lueke & Gibson, 2014; Magee, 2015). The present research also endorses the need for SEL and mindfulness training to be embedded within teacher preparation programs and professional development (Jones & Bouffard, 2012; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017; Schonert-Reichl, Hanson-Peterson et al., 2015), so that teachers feel equipped with these essential skills when they first enter their classrooms. Recent research by Schonert-Reichl, Hanson-Peterson et al. (2015) found that most teacher preparation programs in North America have a very small focus on developing teachers’ own social and emotional competencies. For example, their study revealed that, in the U.S., no states had teacher education program standards that addressed all five core SEL Competencies of Teaching (i.e., self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, 162 responsible decision-making). Moreover, in a scan of 304 teacher preparation programs in schools across the U.S., only 6% had required coursework that taught teachers about self-management (i.e., stress management) and only 41% had coursework about teachers’ relationship skills (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). In sum, the present research utilized multiple approaches to explore early adolescent students’ perceptions of their student-teacher relationships (a) through the development and validation of a new student self-report measure of teacher caring, (b) through students’ own descriptions of what makes a caring teacher, and (c) in relation to teachers’ perceptions of the relationship. The findings provide nuanced insight into the relation of teachers’ caring and mindful characteristics, such as their attunement, presence, and compassion, with students’ social, emotional, and academic adjustment. Finally, as this research emphasizes, in order to enrich our knowledge and theories of student-teacher relationships during this developmental period, it is increasingly important to understand students’ own understanding of what it means to be caring in these relationships. There is a growing appreciation of the relevance of the students’ perspectives of classroom dynamics and relationships (Downer et al., 2015; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015) and the developmental importance of soliciting students’ input (Ben-Arieh, 2005). Nonetheless, further work is needed to engage students, particularly early adolescents, as active stakeholders when developing interventions that directly impact them and when evaluating programs and classroom contexts (Cook-Sather, 2006). This research has demonstrated the value of including student perspectives and thus advocates for the continued and meaningful inclusion of student voices in this discourse. 163 More than any other time in recent history, children’s and adolescents’ well-being (Jenkins et al., 2021; Leeb et al., 2020) need to be prioritized. The increase of social media (Richards et al., 2015), the consequences of climate change (Burke et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2012), and reality of global pandemics (Jenkins et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2021) have had and continue to have a significant impact on the mental health and well-being of all people but has had a particularly negative effect on children and adolescents. Moreover, teachers, who continue to educate and support students throughout these changes and crises, are also experiencing unprecedented stress (Collie, 2021; Swim & Fraser, 2013). Therefore, to support the well-being of students, the well-being of teachers needs to be supported and nurtured as well (Lever et al., 2017). What has been shown for decades and with unique potency in recent years is that relationships are what sustain us and what will contribute most to students’ well-being, especially amidst crisis (Luthar et al., 2021). In particular, attachment bonds are markedly salient during times of stress (Buist et al., 2004; Lopez & Brennan, 2000). Therefore, given the multiplicative stressors of being an early adolescent (Luthar et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2021), and a teacher during times of stress and global crises (Collie, 2021), now more than ever, early adolescent students’ mindful and caring relationships with their teachers will play a mutually important role in promoting the resiliency, well-being, and positive social behaviours in classrooms. 164 References Acitelli, L. K., Kenny, D. A., & Weiner, D. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00034.x Ahn, I., Patrick, H., Chiu, M. M., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Measuring teacher practices that support student motivation: Examining the factor structure of the teacher as social context questionnaire using multilevel factor analyses. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(6), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.107.171/077/30473248289219818779911655 Ahnert, L., Harwardt-Heinecke, E. Kappler, G., Eckstein-Madry, T., & Milatz, A. (2012). Student–teacher relationships and classroom climate in first grade: How do they relate to students’ stress regulation? Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.673277 Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachment across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61, 792-812. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachment and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life-cycle (pp. 35-51). Routledge. Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (2015). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press. (Original work published in 1978). Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781412983 165 Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self‐efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0 Ammaniti, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Speranza, A. M., & Tambelli, R. (2000). Internal working models of attachment during late childhood and early adolescence: An exploration of stability and change. Attachment & Human Development, 2(3), 328-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730010001587 Antrop‐González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small school reform: examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community‐based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600773148 Archambault, I., Vandenbossche-Makombo, J., & Fraser, S. L. (2017). Students’ oppositional behaviors and engagement in school: The differential role of the student-teacher relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(6), 1702-1712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0691-y Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54(5), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.5.317 Banister, E., & Schreiber, R. (2001). Young women's health concerns: Revealing paradox. Health Care for Women International, 22(7), 633-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330127170 Bartell, T. (2011). Caring, race, culture, and power: A research synthesis toward supporting mathematics teachers in caring with awareness. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(1), 50-74. http://education.gsu.edu/JUME 166 Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3203_1 Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372 Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 111-165). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beauchaine, T. P., & Beauchaine III, R. J. (2002). A comparison of maximum covariance and k- means cluster analysis in classifying cases into known taxon groups. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.245 Benard, B., & Slade, S. (2009). Listening to students. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 353-370). Routledge. Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 74, 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-4645-6 Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Is the study of the ‘‘state of our children’’ changing? Re-visiting after 5 years. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.08.004 Ben-Arieh, A., & Goerge, R. (2001). Beyond the numbers: How do we monitor the state of our children? Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 603-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00150-5 Ben-Shachar, M. S., Makowski, D., Lüdecke, D., Kelley, K., & Stanley, D. (2021). Package ‘effectsize’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/effectsize/effectsize.pdf 167 Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457949700206X. Berry, D., & O'Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.001 Binfet, J. T. (2020). Kinder than we might think: How adolescents are kind. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 35(2), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573519885802 Binfet, J. T., & Passmore, H. A. (2019). The who, what, and where of school kindness: Exploring students’ perspectives. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573517732202 Blakemore, S. J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353 Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 116-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738144 Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202 Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 357.e9 -357.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013 168 Bosman, R. J., Roorda, D. L., van der Veen, I., & Koomen, H. M. (2018). Teacher-student relationship quality from kindergarten to sixth grade and students' school adjustment: A person-centered approach. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.03.006 Bosmans, G., & Kerns, K. A. (2015). Attachment in middle childhood: Progress and prospects. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2015(148), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20100 Bowlby, J. (1984). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Penguin Braun, S. S., Roeser, R. W., Mashburn, A. J., & Skinner, E. (2019). Middle school teachers’ mindfulness, occupational health and well-being, and the quality of teacher-student interactions. Mindfulness, 10(2), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0968-2 Braun, S. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Roeser, R. W. (2020). Effects of teachers' emotion regulation, burnout, and life satisfaction on student well-being. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69, 101151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101151 Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102–127). The Guilford Press. Brinkworth, M. E., McIntyre, J., Juraschek, A. D., & Gehlbach, H. (2017). Teacher-student relationships: The positives and negatives of assessing both perspectives. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55, 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.002 169 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 1. Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4Rs Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018160 Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004). The reciprocal relationship between early adolescent attachment and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.012 Buote, D., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2004, November 10 -13). Significant school – based adults: Impact on individual and social responsibility. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl (Chair), Promoting social responsibility in children and early adolescents: Research finding from a University – School Board Partnership [Symposium]. Association for Moral Education Annual Meeting, Dana Point, CA, United States. Burke, S. E. L., Sanson, A. V., & Van Hoorn, J. (2018). The psychological effects of climate change on children. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(5), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0896-9 170 Cannon J. (2016). Education as the practice of freedom: A social justice proposal for mindfulness educators. In R. Purser, D. Forbes, & A. Burke (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Culture, context and social engagement (pp. 397-409). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44019-4_26 Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1289–1303. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0025626 Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4), 302–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00260 Caprara, G. V., Kanacri, B. P. L., Gerbino, M., Zuffiano, A., Alessandri, G., Vecchio, G., Caprara, E., Pastorelli, C., & Bridglall, B. (2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence: Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(4), 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414531464 Carlo, G. (2006). Care-based and altruistically based morality. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 551–579). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Children’s Health Policy Centre. (2019). Celebrating children’s mental health: 50 lessons learned (Children’s Mental Health Research Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2). Faculty of 171 Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University. https://childhealthpolicy.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/RQ-13-19-Spring.pdf Chu, P. S., Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 624-645. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624 Cipriano, C., Barnes, T. N., Pieloch, K. A., Rivers, S. E., & Brackett, M. (2019). A multilevel approach to understanding student and teacher perceptions of classroom support during early adolescence. Learning Environments Research, 22, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9274-0 Claessens, C. A. L., van Tartwijk, J., Pennings, J. M. H., Wubbels, T., van der Want, C. A., Verloop, N., & den Brok, J. P. (2017). Positive teacher–student relationships go beyond the classroom, problematic ones stay inside. Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1129595 Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). Vol. 2. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 898–940). John Wiley & Sons Inc. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 12(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 31–67). Sage. 172 Colaianne, B. A., Galla, B. M., & Roeser, R. W. (2020). Perceptions of mindful teaching are associated with longitudinal change in adolescents’ mindfulness and compassion. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419870864 Collie, R. J. (2020). The development of social and emotional competence at school: An integrated model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419851864 Collie, R. J. (2021). COVID-19 and Teachers’ somatic burden, stress, and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy. AERA Open, 7, 2332858420986187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986187 Collie, R. J., & Perry, N. E. (2019). Cultivating teacher thriving through social–emotional competence and its development. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00342-2 Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol. 23. Self-processes and development (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: "Student voice" in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 873X.2006.00363.x Cooper, K., & Miness, A. (2014). The co-creation of caring student-teacher relationships: Does teacher understanding matter? The High School Journal, 97(4), 264-290. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2014.0005 173 Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3102/003465430298563 Crain, T. L., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Roeser, R. W. (2017). Cultivating teacher mindfulness: Effects of a randomized controlled trial on work, home, and sleep outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000043 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE. Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014 Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260092 Davidson, A. J., Gest, S. D., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Relatedness with teachers and peers during early adolescence: An integrated variable-oriented and person-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 483-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.002 Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207- 234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2 Davis, H. A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school 174 students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 193-223. https://doi.org/10.1086/501483 De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Goossens, L., Van Leeuwen, K., & Verschueren, K. (2014). Comparing parent–child and teacher–child relationships in early adolescence: Measurement invariance of perceived attachment-related dimensions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914527408 Del Giudice, M. (2014). An evolutionary life history framework for psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 25(3-4), 261-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.884918\ DeMauro, A. A., Jennings, P. A., Cunningham, T., Fontaine, D., Park, H., & Sheras, P. L. (2019). Mindfulness and caring in professional practice: An interdisciplinary review of qualitative research. Mindfulness, 10(10), 1969–1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01186-8 Deutsch, N. L., Mauer, V. A., Johnson, H. E., Grabowska, A. A., & Arbeit, M. R. (2020). “[My counselor] knows stuff about me, but [my natural mentor] actually knows me”: Distinguishing characteristics of youth’s natural mentoring relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104879 Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self- efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 569-583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035504 175 Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social‐emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739 Doumen, S., Koomen, H. M., Buyse, E., Wouters, S., & Verschueren, K. (2012). Teacher and observer views on student–teacher relationships: Convergence across kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.004 Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martínez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2015). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5-6), 722-758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564059 Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effects of teachers' gender on pupil achievement, attitudes, and behaviour. International Review of Education, 53(2), 183– 203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9039-y Duchesne, S., Ratelle, C. F., Poitras, S. C., & Drouin, E. (2009). Early adolescent attachment to parents, emotional problems, and teacher-academic worries about the middle school transition. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(5), 743-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608325502 DuPaul, G. J., Rapport, M. D., & Perriello, L. M. (1991). Teacher ratings of academic skills: The development of the Academic Performance Rating Scale. School Psychology Review, 20(2), 284-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1991.12085552 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school- 176 based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Eccles, J. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30- 44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602703 Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532- 7795.2010.00725.x Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2016). School and community influences on human development. In M. H. Boorstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (7th ed., pp. 645–728). Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers' social skills and sociometric status. Child Development, 64(5), 1418-1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8624.1993.tb02961.x Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children's negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.193 177 Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children's maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 495- 525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208 Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, S., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher–student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1192-1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5 Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1-11. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. International Universities Press. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 Fagot, B. I. (1981). Male and female teachers: Do they treat boys and girls differently? Sex Roles, 7(3), 263-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287541 Feinberg, M. E., Howe, G. W., Reiss, D., & Hetherington, E. M. (2000). Relationship between perceptual differences of parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 531-555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.4.531 Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. 178 Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808 Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2015). Prosocial behavior: Long‐term trajectories and psychosocial outcomes. Social Development, 24(3), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12100 Fokkema, M., & Greiff, S. (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 400-402. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000460 Ford, D. L., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Sage. Frank, J. L., Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Validation of the mindfulness in teaching scale. Mindfulness, 7(1), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0461-0 Furr, R. M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd. Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. National Society for the Study of Education, 113(1), 101-123. Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Investigating the substantive aspect of construct validity for the Satisfaction with Life Scale adapted for Children: A focus on cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100, 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010- 9603-x Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert- type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical 179 guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(1), 3, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767 Gallagher, E. K., Dever, B. V., Hochbein, C., & DuPaul, G. J. (2019). Teacher caring as a protective factor: The effects of behavioral/emotional risk and teacher caring on office disciplinary referrals in middle school. School Mental Health, 11(4), 754-765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09318-0 Gallup. (2014). State of America's schools: A path to winning again in education. http://www.gallup.com/services/178709/state-america-schools-report.aspx Garrett, T., Barr, J., & Rothman, T. (2009). Perspectives on caring in the classroom: Do they vary according to ethnicity or grade level? Adolescence, 44(175), 505-521. Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students' perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44(3), 297-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318714 Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2011). Measure twice, cut down error: A process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 380-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025704 Gest, S. D., Madill, R. A., Zadzora, K. M., Miller, A. M., & Rodkin, P. C. (2014). Teacher management of elementary classroom social dynamics: Associations with changes in student adjustment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613512677 Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Transitions and turning points: Navigating the passage 180 from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.768 Granot, D. (2014). Teacher-student attachment and student school adaptation: A variable centered and person-centered analytical approaches. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(11), 1005-1014. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-11-2 Greenberg, M. T. (1982). Reliability and validity of the Inventory of Adolescent Attachments [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Washington. Greenberg, M. T., Brown, J. L., & Abenavoli, R. M. (2016). Teacher stress and health effects on teachers, students, and schools [Issue brief]. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_ briefs/2016/rwjf430428 Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. The Future of Children, 27(1), 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0001 Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466 Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass. Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4 181 Guess, P. E., & McCane-Bowling, S. J. (2016). Teacher support and life satisfaction: An investigation with urban, middle school students. Education and Urban Society, 48(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513514604 Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179 Guhn, M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., Marriott, D., Pedrini, L., Hymel, S., & Hertzman, C. (2012). Well-being in middle childhood: An assets-based population-level research-to-action project. Child Indicators Research, 5(2), 393-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-012-9136-8 Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. I & II). Prentice-Hall. 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 Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Classroom environments and developmental processes. In J. L. Meece & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development (pp. 25-41). Routledge. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17(1), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9507.2007.00418.x 182 Harding, S., Morris, R., Gunnell, D., Ford, T., Hollingworth, W., Tilling, K., Evans, R., Bell, S., Grey, J., Brockman, R., Campbell, R., Araya, R., Murphy, S., & Kidger, J. (2019). Is teachers’ mental health and wellbeing associated with students’ mental health and well- being? Journal of Affective Disorders, 242, 180-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.080 Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0 Havik, T., & Westergård, E. (2020). Do teachers matter? Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 488-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754 Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675 Hilert, A. J., & Tirado, C. (2019). Teaching multicultural counseling with mindfulness: A contemplative pedagogy approach. International Journal of Advanced Counselling, 41(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-018-9363-x Hines, A. R., & Paulson, S. E. (2006). Parents' and teachers' perceptions of adolescent storm and stress: Relations with parenting and teaching styles. Adolescence, 41(164), 597-614. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897 183 Hoglund, W. L. G., Klingle, K. E., & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 337–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.06.002 Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., & Vila–Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135- 008-9190-y Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011- 9843-4 Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-student relationship qualities on academic adjustment. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 38-60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793 Hughes, J. N., Im, M. H., & Wehrly, S. E. (2014). Effect of peer nominations of teacher–student support at individual and classroom levels on social and academic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 52(3), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.004 Hulburt, K. J., Colaianne, B. A., & Roeser, R. W. (2020). The calm, clear, and kind educator: A contemplative educational approach to teacher professional identity development. In O. Ergas & J. K. Ritter (Eds.), 184 Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 34. Exploring self toward expanding teaching, teacher education, and practitioner research (pp. 17-36). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-368720200000034001 Huss, J. A., & Eastep, S. (2011). A tri-state study: Is the middle school movement thriving...or barely surviving? RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 34(9), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2011.11462082 Ikiz, F. E., & Cakar, F. S. (2010). Perceived social support and self-esteem in adolescence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2338-2342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.460 Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 120-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.002 Jeffrey, A. J., Auger, R. W., & Pepperell, J. L. (2013). “If we're ever in trouble they're always there”: A qualitative study of teacher-student caring. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1086/671062 Jenkins, E. K., McAuliffe, C., Hirani, S., Richardson, C., Thomson, K. C., McGuinness, L., Morris, J., Kousoulis, A., & Gadermann, A. (2021). A portrait of the early and differential mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Findings from the first wave of a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Preventive Medicine, 145, 106333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106333 Jennings, P. A. (2014). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4 185 Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R., Rasheed, D., DeWeese, A., DeMauro, A. A., Cham, H., & Greenberg, M. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for Teachers program on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000187 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 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Buckman, L. A., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The effect of prolonged implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom. The Journal of Psychology, 119(5), 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1985.10542911 Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies and commentaries. Social Policy Report (Vol 26, No.4). Society for Research on Child Development. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540203 Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M., & Weissbourd, R. (2013). Educators’ social and emotional skills vital to learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400815 Jones, S. M., McGarrah, M. W., & Kahn, J. (2019). Social and emotional learning: A principled science of human development in context. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 129-143, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1625776 186 Joyce, H. D., & Early, T. J. (2014). The impact of school connectedness and teacher support on depressive symptoms in adolescents: A multilevel analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.02.005 Jungert, T., Piroddi, B., & Thornberg, R. (2016). Early adolescents' motivations to defend victims in school bullying and their perceptions of student–teacher relationships: A self- determination theory approach. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.09.001 Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your mind and body to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte Press. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 Kam, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). Technical Measurement Report on the teacher social competence rating scale [Unpublished technical report]. Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University. Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.127 Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 187 Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.395 Keyes, C. L. M., & Westerhof, G. J. (2012). Chronological and subjective age differences in flourishing mental health and major depressive episode. Aging & Mental Health, 16(1), 67– 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.596811 Kistner, J. A., David-Ferdon, C. F., Repper, K. K., & Joiner, T. E. (2006). Bias and accuracy of children's perceptions of peer acceptance: Prospective associations with depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(3), 336-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9028-9 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. Klingbeil, D. A., & Renshaw, T. L. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for teachers: A meta-analysis of the emerging evidence base. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 501- 511. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000291 Koch, S., & Leary, D. E. (Eds.). (1985). A century of psychology as science. McGraw-Hill. Koepke, M., & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the classroom: Gender differences in the teacher-child relationship. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 843– 864. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802516108 Koomen, H. M., & 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. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 479–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12094 188 Koomen, H. M., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Validating the student-teacher relationship scale: Testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School Psychology, 50(2), 215-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.001 Kurdi, V., & Archambault, I. (2018). Student–teacher relationships and student anxiety: Moderating effects of sex and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 33(3), 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573517707906 Ladd, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of children's behavior and relationships in the school context: A child by environment perspective. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (pp. 43-104). Academic Press, Elsevier Science. 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 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 Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320 La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367 189 Lai, T. L. (2015). Effects of student‐teacher congruence on students’ learning performance: A dyadic approach. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1424-1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12215 Lawlor, M. S. (2016). Mindfulness and social emotional learning (SEL): A conceptual framework. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness in education (pp. 65-80). Springer. Lawlor, M. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). A validation study of the mindful attention awareness scale adapted for children. Mindfulness, 5(6), 730-741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0228-4 Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLoS ONE, 7, e51380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051380 Lee, F. S., Heimer, H., Giedd, J. N., Lein, E. S., Šestan, N., Weinberger, D. R., & Casey, B. J. (2014). Mental health: Adolescent mental health—opportunity and obligation. Science, 346(6209), 547-549. https://doi.org/110.1126/science.1260497 Leeb, R. T., Bitsko, R. H., Radhakrishnan, L., Martinez, P., Njai, R., & Holland, K. M. (2020). Mental health-related emergency department visits among children aged <18 years during the COVID-19 pandemic - United States, January 1-October 17, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(45), 1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a3 Lerner, R. M. (2009). The positive youth development perspective: Theoretical and empirical bases of a strength-based approach to adolescent development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. 190 Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 149-163). Oxford University Press. LeTendre, G. K., & Akiba, M. (2001). Teacher beliefs about adolescent development: Cultural and organizational impacts on Japanese and US middle school teachers' beliefs. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 31(2), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920120053201 Leung, J. T. Y., & Shek, D. T. L. (2014). Parent–adolescent discrepancies in perceived parenting characteristics and adolescent developmental outcomes in poor Chinese families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 200-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9775-5 Lever, N., Mathis, E., & Mayworm, A. (2017). School mental health is not just for students: Why teacher and school staff wellness matters. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 17(1), 6–12. Levine, M., & Ensom, M. H. (2001). Post hoc power analysis: An idea whose time has passed? Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 21(4), 405- 409. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.21.5.405.34503 Lippman, L. H., Moore, K. A., Guzman, L., Ryberg, R., McIntosh, H., Ramos, M. F., Caal, S., Carle, A., & Kuhfeld, M. (2014). Studying aspects of flourishing among adolescents. In Flourishing children. Springer Briefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research (pp. 1-23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8607-2_1 Liu, P. P., Savitz-Romer, M., Perella, J., Hill, N. E., & Liang, B. (2018). Student representations of dyadic and global teacher-student relationships: Perceived caring, negativity, affinity, and differences across gender and race/ethnicity. Contemporary 191 Educational Psychology, 54, 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.07.005 Liu, X., Zhao, Y., Li, J., Dai, J., Wang, X., & Wang, S. (2020). Factor structure of the 10-item perceived stress scale and measurement invariance across genders among Chinese adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 537. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00537 Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2002.tb00826.x Longobardi, C., Iotti, N. O., Jungert, T., & Settanni, M. (2018). Student-teacher relationships and bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.001 Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2016). Student-teacher relationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1988), 1-9. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01988 Longobardi, C., Quaglia, R., Prino, L. E., Pasta, T., & Gastaldi, F. G. M. (2014). Measuring the influence of stress and burnout in teacher-child relationship. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1989/ejep.v7i1.149 Longobardi, C., Settanni, M., Lin, S., & Fabris, M. A. (2020). Student–teacher relationship quality and prosocial behaviour: the mediating role of academic achievement and a positive attitude towards school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 547- 562. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12378 192 Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0167.47.3.283 Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Teacher–student interactions in fifth grade classrooms: Relations with children's peer behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 257-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.010 Lüdecke, D., Lüdecke, M. D., & Calculator from David, B. W. (2017). Package ‘esc’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/esc/esc.pdf Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2014). Mindfulness meditation reduces implicit age and race bias: The role of reduced automaticity of responding. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559651. Luthar, S., Ebbert, A., & Kumar, N. (2021). Risk and resilience during COVID-19: A new study in the Zigler paradigm of developmental science. Development and Psychopathology, 33(2), 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001388 MacPhail, C., Khoza, N., Abler, L., & Ranganathan, M. (2016). Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198- 212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577012 Magee, R. (2015, May 14). How mindfulness can defeat racial bias. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_mindfulness_can_defeat_racial_bias 193 Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10004 Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. Northern Illinois University. Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom characteristics associated with teachers’ ratings of prekindergartners’ relationships and behaviors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(4), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282906290594 Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (4th ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press. Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do's, don'ts, and how- to's. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854 McCollum, E. C., & Yoder, N. P. (2011). School culture, teacher regard, and academic aspirations among middle school students. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(2), 65–74. McCombs, B. L., Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2008). Children's and teachers' perceptions of learner-centered practices, and student motivation: Implications for early schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 16-35. https://doi.org/10.1086/592365 McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Psychology Press. 194 McFarland, L., Murray, E., & Phillipson, S. (2016). Student–teacher relationships and student self-concept: Relations with teacher and student gender. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115626426 McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.018 McHugh, R. M., Horner, C. G., Colditz, J. B., & Wallace, T. L. B. (2013). Bridges and barriers: Adolescent perceptions of student-teacher relationships. Urban Education, 48(1), 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912451585 McLaughlin, C., & Clarke, B. (2010). Relational matters: A review of the impact of school experience on mental health in early adolescence. Educational and Child Psychology, 27(1), 91-103. Meherali, S., Punjani, N., Louie-Poon, S., Abdul Rahim, K., Das, J. K., Salam, R. A., & Lassi, Z. S. (2021). Mental health of children and adolescents amidst COVID-19 and past pandemics: A rapid systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073432 Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Pyschometrika, 58, 525-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825 Michalik, N. M., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Ladd, B., Thompson, M., & Valiente, C. (2007). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity and sympathy and prosocial behavior in adolescence. Social Development, 16(2), 286-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00385.x Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 195 15(1), 90-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431695015001006 Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0965 Miller, J. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Boyle, M. H. (2009). Examining the heterotypic continuity of aggression using teacher reports: Results from a national Canadian study. Social Development, 18(1), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00480.x Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1988). A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification, 5(2), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01897163 Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S. (2014). Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss113 Molloy Elreda, L., Jennings, P. A., DeMauro, A. A., Mischenko, P. P. & Brown, J. L. (2019). Protective effects of interpersonal mindfulness for teachers’ emotional supportiveness in the classroom. Mindfulness, 10(3), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018- 0996y Moshagen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). Package ‘semPower’. https://CRAN.R- project.org/package=semPower Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationships with teachers and bonds with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022- 4405(00)00034-0 196 Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher–student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.006 Murray, C., & Zvoch, K. (2011). Teacher—student relationships among behaviorally at-risk African American youth from low-income backgrounds: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and socioemotional adjustment correlates. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609353607 Murray-Harvey, R. (2010). Relationship influences on students' academic achievement, psychological health and well-being at school. Educational and Child Psychology, 27(1), 104-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031 Nakagawa, S., & Foster, T. M. (2004). The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta Ethologica, 7(2), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-004-0095-z Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480 Noakes, M. A., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2006). Age and gender differences in peer conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(6), 881-891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9088-8 Noam, G. G., & Goldstein, L. S. (1998). The resilience inventory [Unpublished protocol]. Noddings, N. (2010). The maternal factor: Two paths to morality (1st ed.). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/j.ctt1pp657 Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of 197 Education, 38(6), 771-781, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.745047 Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press. Noddings, N. (2015). The challenge to care in schools (2nd ed). Teachers College Press. Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2014). Biostatistics: The bare essentials (4th ed.). People’s Medical Publishing. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237 Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1125450 Oberle, E., Gist, A., Cooray, M. S., & Pinto, J. B. (2020). Do students notice stress in teachers? Associations between classroom teacher burnout and students' perceptions of teacher social–emotional competence. Psychology in the Schools, 57(11), 1741-1756. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22432 Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031 Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Guhn, M., Zumbo, B. D., & Hertzman, C. (2014). The role 198 of supportive adults in promoting positive development in middle childhood: A population-based study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(4), 296-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0829573514540116. O'Connor, E. E., Collins, B. A. & Supplee, L. (2012). Behavior problems in late childhood: the roles of early maternal attachment and teacher-child relationships trajectories. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 265-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672280 O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 Offer, D., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1992). Debunking the myths of adolescence: Findings from recent research. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(6), 1003-1014. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583- 199211000-00001 Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & von Eye, A. (2000). Adolescent–parent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning and early adolescent self-competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500 50118358 Onwuegbuzie, A. & Combs, J. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 397-430). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781506335193 199 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). Conducting mixed analyses: A general typology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 1(1), 4–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/ mra.455.1.1.4 Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 6-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10888691.2017.1398650 Özdemir, H. F., Toraman, Ç., & Kutlu, Ö. (2019). The use of polychoric and Pearson correlation matrices in the determination of construct validity of Likert type scales. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(3), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.519235 Ozer, E. J., Wolf, J. P., & Kong, C. (2008). Sources of perceived school connection among ethnically-diverse urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(4), 438-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408316725 Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirectional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 1759-1772. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cdev.12411 Pallini, S., Vecchio, G. M., Baiocco, R., Schneider, B. H., & Fiorenzo, L. (2019). Student– teacher relationships and attention problems in school-aged children: The mediating role of emotion regulation. School Mental Health, 11(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9286-z Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life (10th anniversary ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 200 Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Exploratory factor analysis. In E. J. Pedhazur & L. Pedhazur Schmelkin (Eds.), Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach (pp. 590-630). Psychology Press. Pennington, J. L., Brock, C. H., & Ndura, E. (2012). Unraveling the threads of White teachers’ conceptions of caring: Repositioning White privilege. Urban Education, 47(4), 743-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912441186 Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176-186. Pianta, R. C. (1992). Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's lives. Jossey-Bass. Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationship scale–short form. Psychological Assessment Resources. Pianta, R. C. (2016). Classroom processes and teacher-student interaction: Integration with a developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 4. Risk, resilience, and intervention (3rd ed., pp. 770–814). Wiley. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Classroom processes and positive youth development: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of interactions between teachers and students. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(121), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.295 Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17 201 Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System manual - Secondary (CLASS-S). Teachstone. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. Handbook of Psychology, 199-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0710 Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261 Pössel, P., Burton, S. M., Cauley, B., Sawyer, M. G., Spence, S. H., & Sheffield, J. (2018). Associations between social support from family, friends, and teachers and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(2), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0712-6 Prewett, S. L., Bergin, D. A., & Huang, F. L. (2019). Student and teacher perceptions on student- teacher relationship quality: A middle school perspective. School Psychology International, 40(1), 66-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318807743 R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Raufelder, D., & Hoferichter, F. (2015). Development and validation of the teacher and motivation (TEMO) scale: A self-report measure assessing students’ perceptions of liked and disliked teachers as motivators. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2014.966228 Raufelder, D., Scherber, S., & Wood, M. A. (2016). The interplay between adolescents’ perceptions of teacher‐student relationships and their academic self‐regulation: Does 202 liking a specific teacher matter? Psychology in the Schools, 53(7), 736-750. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21937 Reddy, R., Rhodes, J., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579403000075 Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., & Bauman, K. E. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038 Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268 Ricard, N. C., & Pelletier, L. G. (2016). Dropping out of high school: The role of parent and teacher self-determination support, reciprocal friendships and academic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.003 Richards, D., Caldwell, P. H. Y., & Go, H. (2015). Impact of social media on the health of children and young people. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 51(12), 1152–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/JPC.13023 Rickert, N. P., Skinner, E. A., & Roeser, R. W. (2020). Development of a multidimensional, multi-informant measure of teacher mindfulness as experienced and expressed in the 203 middle school classroom. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419881724 Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., & Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric support for the 10‐item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135- 147. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: How and why middle schools harm student achievement. Education Next, 10(4), 68-75. Rodgers, C. R., & Raider‐Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500467548 Roeser, R. W. (2016). Processes of teaching, learning, and transfer in mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for teachers: A contemplative educational perspective. In K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness in education (pp. 149-170). Springer. Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2014). Schooling and the mental health of children and adolescents in the United States. In M. Lewis & K. D. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathy (pp. 163–184). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- 9608-3_9 Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408-422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408 Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2003). Patterns and pathways of educational achievement across adolescence: A holistic‐developmental perspective. New Directions for Child and 204 Adolescent Development, 2003(101), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.81 Roeser, R. W., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., Oberle, E., Thomson, K., Taylor, C., & Harrison, J. (2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 787. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032093 Roeser, R. W., Skinner, E., Beers, J., & Jennings, P. A. (2012). Mindfulness training and teachers' professional development: An emerging area of research and practice. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750- 8606.2012.00238.x Rolón-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color (full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 77- 111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001077 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: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493– 529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793. Rosseel, Y., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle, E., Hallquist, M., Rhemtulla, M., Katsikatsou, M., Barendse, M., Scharf, F., & Du, H. (2017). Package ‘lavaan’. ftp://tucows.icm.edu.pl/packages/cran/web/packages/lavaan/lavaan.pdf Rucinski, C. L., Brown, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2018). Teacher–child relationships, classroom climate, and children’s social-emotional and academic development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 992–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000240 205 Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., Pyun, Y., Aycock, C., & Coyle, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(10), 1017. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/bul0000058 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, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. 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 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 Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.2.125.18698 Sakiz, G., Pape, S. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2012). Does perceived teacher affective support matter for middle school students in mathematics classrooms? Journal of School Psychology, 50(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.005 Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE. 206 Sapienza, J. K., & Masten, A. S. (2011). Understanding and promoting resilience in children and youth. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834776a8 Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (1997). Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 547–573). Wiley. Sauve, J. A., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2019). Creating caring classroom and school communities: Lessons learned from social and emotional learning programs and practices. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Student Engagement Interventions (pp. 279-295). Academic Press. Scales, P. C., Pekel, K., Sethi, J., Chamberlain, R., & Van Boekel, M. (2020). Academic year changes in student-teacher developmental relationships and their linkage to middle and high school students’ motivation: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(4), 499-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619858414 Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of Children, 27(1), 137-155. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Buote, D. (2006, May 31 – June 2). Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? A short-term longitudinal study of early adolescents’ natural mentoring relationships with school-related adults [Paper presentation]. Society for Prevention Research Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, United States. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Hanson-Peterson, J. L., & Hymel, S. (2015). Social and emotional learning and pre-service teacher education. In J. A. Durlak, R. P. Weissberg, C. E. 207 Domitrovich, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 406–421). Guilford. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social & emotional learning. A Report Prepared for CASEL. Collaborative for academic, social, and emotional learning. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre-and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mindfulness, 1(3), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010- 0011-8 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., Lawlor, M. S., Abbott, D., Thomson, K., Oberlander, T. F., & Diamond, A. (2015). Enhancing cognitive and social–emotional development through a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038454 Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Roeser, R. W. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of mindfulness in education: Integrating theory and research into practice. Springer. Schumacker, R. E. (2015). Learning statistics using R. SAGE. Schwartz, K. D., Exner-Cortens, D., McMorris, C., Makarenko, E., Arnold, P., Van Bavel, M., Williams, S., & Canfield, R. (2021). COVID-19 and student well-being: Stress and mental health during return-to-school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 166-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211001653 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. 208 American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18 Shek, D. T. L. (2002). The relation of parental qualities to psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(3), 215-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/019261802753577548 Shevalier, R., & McKenzie, B. A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as an ethics-and care- based approach to urban education. Urban Education, 47(6), 1086-1105. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0042085912441483 Siedlecki, K. L., Salthouse, T. A., Oishi, S., & Jeswani, S. (2014). The relationship between social support and subjective well-being across age. Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0361-4 Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10(1), 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00009.x Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Winton, A. S., Karazsia, B. T., & Singh, J. (2013). Mindfulness training for teachers changes the behavior of their preschool students. Research in Human Development, 10(3), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2013.818484 Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 Smith, D. (2006). School experience and delinquency at ages 13 to 16. Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, no. 13. Edinburgh Centre for Law and Society, University of Edinburgh. 209 Spera, C., & Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Congruence between students’ and teachers’ goals: Implications for social and academic motivation. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 395-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.006 Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jak, S. (2012). Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002 Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M., & Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (2010). Young children's perceptions of teacher–child relationships: An evaluation of two instruments and the role of child gender in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 428-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.006 Statistics Canada. (2017). British Columbia and Canada. Census profile, 2016 census. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 98-316-W2016001 Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017 Steinberg, L. (2016). Adolescence (11th ed.). McGraw Hill. Steinley, D. (2004). Standardizing variables in k-means clustering. In D. Banks, F. R. McMorris, P. Arabie, & W. Gaud (Eds.), Classification, clustering, and data mining applications (pp. 53-60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17103-1_6 Steinley, D. (2006). K‐means clustering: a half‐century synthesis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711005X48266 210 Suldo, S. M., Friedrich, A. A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J. (2009). Teacher support and adolescents' subjective well-being: A mixed-methods investigation. School Psychology Review, 38(1), 67-85, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850 Swim, J. K., & Fraser, J. (2013). Fostering hope in climate change educators. Journal of Museum Education, 38(3), 286-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2013.11510781 Thijs, J., Westhof, S., & Koomen, H. (2012). Ethnic incongruence and the student–teacher relationship: The perspective of ethnic majority teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 50(2), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.004 Thompson, A. (2003). Caring in context: Four feminist theories on gender and education. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(1), 9 - 65, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 873X.t01-1-00249 Thompson, R. A., & Goodvin, R. (2016). Social support and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 4. Risk, resilience, and intervention (3rd ed., pp. 86–135). Wiley. Thomson, K. C., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Oberle, E. (2015). Optimism in early adolescence: Relations to individual characteristics and ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 889-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9539-y Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press. Tolan, P., Ross, K., Arkin, N., Godine, N., & Clark, E. (2016). Toward an integrated approach to positive development: Implications for intervention. Applied Developmental Science, 20(3), 214-236, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1146080 211 Tosolt, B. (2009). Middle school students' perceptions of caring teacher behaviors: Differences by minority status. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(4), 405-416. Troth, A. C., Lawrence, S. A., Jordan, P. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation in the workplace: A conceptual and operational review and future research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 523- 543. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12144 Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4 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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad.20097 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 von Dawans, B., Strojny, J., & Domes, G. (2021). The effects of acute stress and stress hormones on social cognition and behavior: Current state of research and future directions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 121, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.026 212 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Harvard University Press. Wang, M.-T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 690-705. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027916 Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychological Review, 28(2), 315-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1 Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3), 877-895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x Waters, E., Stewart‐Brown, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2003). Agreement between adolescent self‐ report and parent reports of health and well‐being: Results of an epidemiological study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(6), 501-509. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 2214.2003.00370.x Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807 Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Durlak, J. A. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3-19). Guilford. Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.411 213 Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.90.2.202 Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00406 Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Motivating students to behave in socially competent ways. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 319-326. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4204_9 Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002 Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2018). Emotional support, social goals, and classroom behavior: A multilevel, multisite study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 611-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000239 Whitehead, J. (2013). Investigating factor structure and validity evidence of a measure assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ social and emotional competence [Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia]. UBC Theses and Dissertations Archive. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0103371 Whitehead, J., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Oberle, E., & Boyd, L. (2021). Development and validation of a measure to assess early adolescents’ perceptions of caring student-teacher relationships. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.695298 Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle 214 adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 87–113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In L. S. Liben & U. Mueller, Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 3. Socioemotional Processes (7th ed., pp. 1-44). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316 Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., MacIver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 552-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.4. Wilson, D. S., O'Brien, D. T., & Sesma, A. (2009). Human prosociality from an evolutionary perspective: Variation and correlations at a city-wide scale. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(3), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.12.002 Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage. Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2007). In the context of risk: Supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56(1), 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00442.x Wu, J. Y., Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. M. (2010). Teacher–student relationship quality type in elementary grades: Effects on trajectories for achievement and engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 357-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.004 215 Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018- 1055-2 Xu, Z., Sheffield, P. E., Hu, W., Su, H., Yu, W., Qi, X., & Tong, S. (2012). Climate change and children's health--a call for research on what works to protect children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3298-3316. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9093298 Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(5), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.5.485 Yu, M. V. B., & Deutsch, N. L. (2019). Aligning social support to youth’s developmental needs: The role of nonparental youth–adult relationships in early and late adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 25(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1548940 Yu, M. V. B., Johnson, H. E., Deutsch, N. L., & Varga, S. M. (2018). “She calls me by my last name:” Exploring adolescent perceptions of positive teacher-student relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33(3), 332-362. Yule, K., Houston, J., & Grych, J. (2019). Resilience in children exposed to violence: A meta- analysis of protective factors across ecological contexts. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(3), 406–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00293-1 Zee, M., & de Bree, E. (2017). Students’ self-regulation and achievement in basic reading and math skills: The role of student–teacher relationships in middle childhood. European 216 Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1196587 Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Similarities and dissimilarities between teachers' and students' relationship views in upper elementary school: The role of personal teacher and student attributes. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.007 Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2020). Engaging children in the upper elementary grades: Unique contributions of teacher self-efficacy, autonomy support, and student-teacher relationships. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(4), 477-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1701589 Zee, M., Koomen, H. M., & Van der Veen, I. (2013). Student–teacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper elementary school: The role of student personality. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 517-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.00 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008 Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D. E. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 143–158). Sage. Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P. & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2-3), 191-210. doi:10.1080/10474410701413145 217 Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Psychometrics (Vol. 26, pp. 45–79). Elsevier. 218 Appendices Appendix A: Student Demographic Questionnaire (Study 1, 2, 3) Please Tell Us A Bit About Yourself 1. What grade are you in this year? (Circle One) 6 7 2. How do you describe your gender? (Circle One) Boy Girl In another way The way I describe my gender is_______________________ If you do not want to answer, please go to the next question. 3. What is your birth date? _____________ ________ ___________ Month Day Year 4. How old are you? ________ 5. Which adults do you live with most of the time? (examples: mother and father, part time with each parent, foster parent or caregiver, two mothers, father and father’s girlfriend or boyfriend, grandmother) (Check all of the adults you live with) □ Mother □ Father □ Stepfather □ Stepmother □ Grandmother □ Grandfather □ Second Mother □ Second Father □ Part time with each parent □ Foster parent(s) or caregiver(s) □ Other adults (write in the space, for example, mom’s boyfriend or girlfriend, dad’s boyfriend or girlfriend): ____________________________________________________ 6. What is the first language you learned at home? (You can check more than one if you need to.) □ English □ Korean □ Cantonese □ Mandarin □ Filipino / Tagalog □ Punjabi □ French □ Spanish □ Hindi □ Vietnamese □ Japanese □ Other, please specify: ______________________ 219 Appendix B: Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (Study 1 & 3) Demographic Information 1. What is your birth date (only month & year required)? 2. How do you describe your gender? _______________________________ 3. I identify my Ethnicity or origin as:  African / Black  Caucasian / White  East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean)  Eurasian or Central Asian (e.g., Armenian, Turkish)  Hispanic / Latin American  Indigenous (e.g., First Nations / Metis / Inuit / Native American)  Middle Eastern / North African (e.g., Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Moroccan)  Pacific Islander  South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan)  Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Filipino, Indonesian, Thai)  Multiracial (Specify): _________________  Something else (Specify): ____________________  Prefer not to say Professional Background 1. Altogether, how many years have you worked as a school teacher? ____ years – Since (year): _____ 2. How many years have you taught middle school specifically? _______ years – Since (year): ________ 3. What is your highest level of education? (check all that apply) □ Some undergraduate coursework □ Graduate Degree (M.A., M.Ed., M.Sc.) □ Bachelor Degree (other than B.Ed.) □ Doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.) □ B.Ed. □ Other (please describe): __________________ □ Post Baccalaureate Diploma Month Year 220 Appendix C: Teacher Personal Support Subscale of the Classroom Life Measure (Study 1) (Johnson et al., 1985; Wentzel, 1997) How true is each statement for you? Not at all true A little true Somewhat true Pretty much true Very True 1. My teacher thinks it is important to be my friend. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My teacher likes me as much as he/she likes other students. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My teacher cares about my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My teacher cares about me. 1 2 3 4 5 221 Appendix D: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Study 1 & 3) (STRS; Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001) Please reflect on the degree to which each of the following statements currently applies to your relationship with this student. Definitely does not apply Does not really apply Neutral, not sure Applies somewhat Definitely applies 1. I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 2. This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other. (Conflict) 1 2 3 4 5 3. If upset, this child will seek comfort from me. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 4. This child values his/her relationship with me. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 5. When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 6. This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 7. This child easily becomes angry with me. (Conflict) 1 2 3 4 5 8. It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 9. Dealing with this child drains my energy. (Conflict) 1 2 3 4 5 10. When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day. (Conflict) 1 2 3 4 5 11. This child’s feelings toward me can be unpredictable or can change suddenly. (Conflict) 1 2 3 4 5 12. This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me. (Closeness) 1 2 3 4 5 222 Appendix E: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence Scale (Study 1) (TSEC; Whitehead, 2013) How true is each statement for you? Not at all true A little true Somewhat true Pretty much true Very True 1. My teacher seems really happy this year. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My teacher seems really stressed this year. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My teacher understands when we need extra help learning class material. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My teacher cares about whether or not students understand what is being taught. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My teacher seems to enjoy teaching our class. 1 2 3 4 5 6. My teacher notices when students are sad or upset in class. 1 2 3 4 5 223 Appendix F: Intrapersonal Mindfulness and Interpersonal Mindfulness Subscales from the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale (Study 1) (Frank et al., 2016). The following statements describe different ways that teachers interact with their students on a daily basis. There are no right or wrong answers and please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be. Please treat each statement separately from every other statement. Never True Rarely True Sometimes True Often True Always True 1. I am often so busy thinking about other things that I am not really listening to my students. 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I’m upset with my students, I notice how I am feeling before I take action. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I listen carefully to my student’s ideas, even when I disagree with them. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am aware of how my moods affect the way I treat my students. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Even when it makes me uncomfortable, I allow my students to express their feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6. When I am upset with my class, I calmly tell them how I am feeling. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I rush through activities with my class without being really attentive to them. 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I am in the classroom, I have difficulty staying focused on what is happening in the present. 1 2 3 4 5 9. At school I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way. 1 2 3 4 5 224 Never True Rarely True Sometimes True Often True Always True 10. When I am teaching it seems I am “running on automatic,” without much awareness of what I’m doing. 1 2 3 4 5 11. When I am teaching I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right now to get there. 1 2 3 4 5 12. When I am teaching I find myself doing things without paying attention. 1 2 3 4 5 13. When I’m really struggling with teaching, I tend to feel like other teachers must be having an easier time of it. 1 2 3 4 5 14. When something painful happens at school I tend to blow the incident out of proportion. 1 2 3 4 5 225 Appendix G: Maslach Burnout Inventory (Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization Subscales) (Study 1) (MBI; Maslach et al., 1996) Using the rating scale provided, think about the 2019-2020 school year and answer the following questions. How often do you… Please circle your responses. Never A few times Once a month or less A few times a month Once a week A few times a week Every day 1. feel emotionally drained from your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. feel used up at the end of the work day? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. feel fatigued when you get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. feel that you treat some students as if they were impersonal objects? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. feel that working with people all day is really a strain? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. feel burned out from your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. feel like you’ve become more callous toward people since you took this job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. worry that this job is hardening you emotionally? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. feel frustrated by your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. feel you’re working too hard on your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. feel you don’t really care what happens to some students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. feel working with people directly puts too much stress on you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. create a relaxed classroom atmosphere with your students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. feel like you’re at the end of your rope? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. feel students blame you for some of their problems? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 226 Appendix H: Classroom Supportiveness Subscale of the Sense of Classroom as a Community Scale (Study 1) (Battistich et al., 1997) How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Disagree a Lot Disagree a Little Don’t Agree or Disagree Agree a Little Agree a Lot 1. Students in this class are willing to go out of their way to help each other. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My classmates care about my work just as much as their own. 1 2 3 4 5 3. This class is like a family. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The students in this class really care about each other. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Students in this class like to put others down. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Students in this class help each other learn. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Students in this class help each other, even if they are not friends. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Students in this class get along together very well. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Students in this class just look out for themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Students in this class are mean to each other. 1 2 3 4 5 11. When I'm having trouble with my work in this class, at least one of my classmates will try to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Students in this class treat each other with respect. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Students in this class work together to solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 14. When someone in my class does well, everyone in the class feels good. 1 2 3 4 5 227 Appendix I: Prosocial Goals Subscale of the Social Goals Scale (Study 1) (Wentzel, 2003) How often do you try to do the following? Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 1. How often do you try to cheer someone up when something has gone wrong? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often do you to try to share what you’ve learned with your classmates? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has happened to them? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often do you try to help other kids when they have a problem? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often do you try to help your classmates learn new things? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How often do you try to help your classmates solve a problem once you’ve figured it out? 1 2 3 4 5 228 Appendix J: Altruism Adolescent Scale (Study 1 & 3) (Lippman et al., 2014) Please indicate how much these statements describe you: Not at all like me A little bit like me Kind of like me A lot like me Exactly like me 1. I go out of my way to help others. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I help others even if it requires a lot of my time. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I help others even if the person is a total stranger. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I help others even if it is hard for me. 1 2 3 4 5 229 Appendix K: Social and Emotional Competence Subscale of the Teacher Social Competence Rating Scale (Study 1 & 3) (TSCRS; Kam & Greenberg, 1998) PART 1. Compared to other (boys/girls) at this grade level, how often does/is this student . . . Almost Never Rarely Some-times Often Very Often Almost Always 1. Disliked by classmates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Liked by classmates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Feel at ease to talk to you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Show empathy and compassion for other’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Provide help, share materials, and act cooperatively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Take turns, play fair, and follow the rules of the game. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Listen carefully to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Initiate interactions and joins in with others in a positive manner 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Recognizes and label his/her feelings and those of others appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5 6 230 Appendix L: Optimism Subscale of the Resiliency Inventory (Study 1) (Noam & Goldstein, 1998) Please indicate how much these statements describe you: Not at all like me A little bit like me Kind of like me A lot like me Always like me 1. I have more bad times than good. 1 2 3 4 5 2. More good things than bad things will happen to me. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I start most days thinking I’ll have a bad day. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Even if there are bad things, I’m able to see the good things about me and my life. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I’m bored by most things in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I think things will get worse in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am optimistic about school life. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I think that I am a lucky one. 1 2 3 4 5 9. When something bad happens to me, I think that it will last long. 1 2 3 4 5 231 Appendix M: 10-item Version of the Perceived Stress Scale (Study 1 & 3) (PSS-10; Cohen & Williamson, 1988) During the past few weeks, how often have you: Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 1. Been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly? 1 2 3 4 5 2. Felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? 1 2 3 4 5 3. Felt nervous and stressed? 1 2 3 4 5 4. Felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? 1 2 3 4 5 5. Felt that things were going your way? 1 2 3 4 5 6. Found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Been able to control irritations in your life? 1 2 3 4 5 8. Felt that you were on top of things? 1 2 3 4 5 9. Been angered because of things that were outside of your control? 1 2 3 4 5 10. Felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them? 1 2 3 4 5 232 Appendix N: Academic Goals Questionnaire (Study 1 & 3) (Roeser et al., 1996) Please indicate how much these statements describe you Not at all like me A little bit like me Kind of like me A lot like me Always like me 1. I’m certain I can learn the skills taught in school this year. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I can do even the hardest school work if I try. 1 2 3 4 5 3. If I have enough time, I can do a good job on all my school work. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I can do almost all the work in school if I don’t give up. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Even if the work in school is hard, I can learn it. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I’m certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult school work. 1 2 3 4 5 233 Appendix O: Academic Success Subscale of the Academic Performance Rating Scale (Study 1 & 3) (APRS; DuPaul et al., 1991) For each of the below items, please estimate the above student’s performance over the PAST WEEK. For each item, please circle one choice only. 0-49% 50-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100% 1. Estimate the accuracy of completed written math work (i.e., percent correct of work done). 1 2 3 4 5 2. Estimate the accuracy of completed written English language arts work (i.e., percent correct of work done). 1 2 3 4 5 Consistently poor More poor than successful Variable More Successful than Poor Consistently Successful 3. How consistent has the quality of this child’s academic work been over the past week? 1 2 3 4 5 Very Slowly Slow Average Quickly Very Quickly 4. How quickly does this child learn new material (i.e., pick up novel concepts)? 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Fair Average Above average Excellent 5. What is the quality of this child’s reading skills? 1 2 3 4 5 6. What is the quality of this child’s speaking skills 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often 7. How frequently does this child have difficulty recalling material from a previous day’s lessons? 1 2 3 4 5 234 Appendix P: Open-ended Teacher Caring Question (Study 2) 1. What are three things that teachers do to show they care? I. ________________________________________________________________________ II. ________________________________________________________________________ III. ________________________________________________________________________ 235 Appendix Q: Sample Coding Worksheet (Study 2) Student ID First Codable unit Second Codable unit Third Codable unit Raw written response First code Second Code Notes Raw written response First code Second Code Notes Raw written response First code Second Code Notes Student ID 1 Student ID 2 Student ID 3 Student ID 4 Student ID 5 236 Appendix R: Teacher Support and Attunement Subscale of Caring Student Teacher Relationship Scale (Study 3) (CSTR; Whitehead et al., 2021) How true is each statement for you? Not at all True A little true Somewhat true Pretty much true Very True 1. My teacher helps me when I’m sad. 1 2 3 4 5 2. My teacher is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I can trust my teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My teacher takes care of me and the other students. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My teacher gives me respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6. My teacher listens to me and my problems. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I can talk to my teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My teacher gives me time to cool down. 1 2 3 4 5 9. My teacher supports me. 1 2 3 4 5 10. My teacher treats me fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 237 Appendix S: Sympathy Subscale of Teachers’ Ratings of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (Study 3) (Michalik et al., 2007) Compared to other (boys/girls) at this grade level, how often does/is this student . . . Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Often Always 1. This child usually comforts others who are upset or hurt. 1 2 3 4 5 2. This child often feels sorry for others who are less fortunate. 1 2 3 4 5 3. This child does not often become sad when reading or listening to a sad story. 1 2 3 4 5 4. This child feels sympathy for others. 1 2 3 4 5 5. This child usually feels sorry for other children who are being teased. 1 2 3 4 5 6. This child rarely feels sympathy for other children who are upset or sad. 1 2 3 4 5 238 Appendix T: Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children (Study 3) (SWLS-C; Gadermann et al., 2010). How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Disagree a Lot Disagree a Little Don’t Agree or Disagree Agree a Little Agree a Lot 1. In most ways my life is close to the way I would want it to be. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The things in my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am happy with life. 1 2 3 4 5 4. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. 1 2 3 4 5 5. If I could live my life over, I would have it the same way. 1 2 3 4 5 239 Appendix U: Individual Standardized Scores on CSTR and STRS (Study 3) Standardized Scores for CSTR and STRS Clustering Variables by Case Case number Standardized scores Cluster label Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS 1 1.08 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 2 1.05 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 3 1.08 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 4 1.08 1.04 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 5 1.11 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 6 1.11 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 7 1.00 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 8 1.03 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 9 1.05 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 10 1.03 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 11 1.08 1.04 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 12 0.99 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 13 1.08 0.91 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 14 1.08 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 15 1.05 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 16 1.05 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 17 1.11 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 18 1.03 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 19 0.99 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 240 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 20 1.05 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 21 1.11 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 22 1.05 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 23 1.00 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 24 1.08 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 25 1.11 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 26 1.03 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 27 1.05 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 28 1.05 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 29 1.14 1.04 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 30 1.27 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 31 1.27 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 32 1.30 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 33 1.24 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 34 1.30 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 35 1.16 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 36 1.32 0.70 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 37 1.19 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 38 1.30 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 39 1.22 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 241 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 40 1.30 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 41 1.16 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 42 1.32 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 43 1.16 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 44 1.14 0.74 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 45 1.24 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 46 1.32 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 47 1.27 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 48 1.16 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 49 1.24 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 50 1.14 1.00 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 51 1.19 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 52 1.27 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 53 1.32 0.74 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 54 1.14 0.70 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 55 1.35 0.67 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 56 1.35 0.74 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 57 1.35 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 58 1.35 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 59 1.35 0.93 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 242 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 60 1.35 0.78 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 61 1.35 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 62 1.35 0.81 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 63 1.35 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 64 1.35 0.89 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 65 1.35 0.85 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 66 1.35 0.70 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 67 1.35 0.96 Incongruent - Student Positive/Teacher Negative 68 1.03 1.11 Congruent - Positive 69 1.08 1.11 Congruent - Positive 70 1.00 1.26 Congruent - Positive 71 1.05 1.18 Congruent - Positive 72 1.05 1.26 Congruent - Positive 73 1.00 1.22 Congruent - Positive 74 1.11 1.18 Congruent - Positive 75 1.05 1.15 Congruent - Positive 76 1.08 1.11 Congruent - Positive 77 1.08 1.15 Congruent - Positive 78 1.05 1.21 Congruent - Positive 79 1.00 1.30 Congruent - Positive 80 1.29 1.11 Congruent - Positive 81 1.16 1.04 Congruent - Positive 82 1.19 1.18 Congruent - Positive 83 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 84 1.14 1.22 Congruent - Positive 85 1.22 1.15 Congruent - Positive 86 1.32 1.00 Congruent - Positive 87 1.22 1.07 Congruent - Positive 88 1.16 1.07 Congruent - Positive 243 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 89 1.22 1.07 Congruent - Positive 90 1.27 1.15 Congruent - Positive 91 1.14 1.11 Congruent - Positive 92 1.19 1.18 Congruent - Positive 93 1.30 1.04 Congruent - Positive 94 1.30 1.18 Congruent - Positive 95 1.14 1.18 Congruent - Positive 96 1.24 1.26 Congruent - Positive 97 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 98 1.24 1.18 Congruent - Positive 99 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 100 1.24 1.15 Congruent - Positive 101 1.30 1.15 Congruent - Positive 102 1.24 1.11 Congruent - Positive 103 1.24 1.04 Congruent - Positive 104 1.27 1.18 Congruent - Positive 105 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 106 1.27 1.15 Congruent - Positive 107 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 108 1.32 1.11 Congruent - Positive 109 1.30 1.22 Congruent - Positive 110 1.30 1.22 Congruent - Positive 111 1.32 1.00 Congruent - Positive 112 1.27 1.11 Congruent - Positive 113 1.32 1.00 Congruent - Positive 114 1.32 1.15 Congruent - Positive 115 1.30 1.07 Congruent - Positive 116 1.22 1.18 Congruent - Positive 117 1.32 1.04 Congruent - Positive 118 1.27 1.30 Congruent - Positive 119 1.24 1.26 Congruent - Positive 120 1.30 1.15 Congruent - Positive 121 1.14 1.22 Congruent - Positive 122 1.17 1.30 Congruent - Positive 123 1.24 1.11 Congruent - Positive 244 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 124 1.30 1.04 Congruent - Positive 125 1.30 1.11 Congruent - Positive 126 1.16 1.15 Congruent - Positive 127 1.35 1.15 Congruent - Positive 128 1.35 1.11 Congruent - Positive 129 1.35 1.11 Congruent - Positive 130 1.35 1.00 Congruent - Positive 131 1.35 1.26 Congruent - Positive 132 1.35 1.26 Congruent - Positive 133 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 134 1.35 1.00 Congruent - Positive 135 1.35 1.15 Congruent - Positive 136 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 137 1.35 1.18 Congruent - Positive 138 1.35 1.30 Congruent - Positive 139 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 140 1.35 1.30 Congruent - Positive 141 1.35 1.30 Congruent - Positive 142 1.35 1.15 Congruent - Positive 143 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 144 1.35 1.04 Congruent - Positive 145 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 146 1.35 1.04 Congruent - Positive 147 1.35 1.26 Congruent - Positive 148 1.35 1.15 Congruent - Positive 149 1.35 1.11 Congruent - Positive 150 1.35 1.26 Congruent - Positive 151 1.35 1.18 Congruent - Positive 152 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 153 1.35 1.11 Congruent - Positive 154 1.35 1.15 Congruent - Positive 155 1.35 1.11 Congruent - Positive 156 1.35 1.22 Congruent - Positive 157 0.78 1.04 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 245 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 158 0.89 1.07 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 159 0.70 1.18 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 160 0.70 1.11 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 161 0.78 0.89 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 162 0.89 1.00 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 163 0.84 1.04 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 164 0.62 0.81 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 165 0.70 0.96 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 166 0.86 1.00 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 167 0.70 0.85 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 168 0.59 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 169 0.92 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 170 0.89 0.86 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 171 0.92 1.00 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 172 0.89 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 173 0.86 1.11 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 174 0.68 0.81 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 175 0.78 1.22 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 176 0.86 1.11 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 177 0.92 1.15 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 246 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 178 0.81 1.00 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 179 0.86 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 180 0.78 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 181 0.81 1.04 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 182 0.86 0.89 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 183 0.84 1.15 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 184 0.81 0.96 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 185 0.81 1.07 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 186 0.35 1.15 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 187 0.51 0.85 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 188 0.92 1.00 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 189 0.78 0.93 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 190 0.70 1.11 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 191 0.54 1.11 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 192 0.95 0.81 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 193 0.95 1.07 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 194 0.97 1.07 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 195 0.97 1.22 Incongruent - Student Negative/Teacher Positive 196 0.86 0.52 Congruent - Negative 197 0.84 0.52 Congruent - Negative 198 0.89 0.52 Congruent - Negative 199 0.73 0.41 Congruent - Negative 247 Case number Standardized scores Student ratings of teacher support and attunement (CSTR) Teacher ratings of closeness STRS Cluster label 200 0.68 0.56 Congruent - Negative 201 0.97 0.30 Congruent - Negative 202 1.08 0.52 Congruent - Negative 203 0.97 0.48 Congruent - Negative 204 1.08 0.56 Congruent - Negative 205 1.05 0.70 Congruent - Negative 206 1.00 0.70 Congruent - Negative 207 1.00 0.67 Congruent - Negative 208 1.03 0.70 Congruent - Negative 209 1.00 0.67 Congruent - Negative 210 1.08 0.37 Congruent - Negative 211 1.11 0.59 Congruent - Negative 212 1.03 0.67 Congruent - Negative 213 1.03 0.56 Congruent - Negative 214 1.24 0.44 Congruent - Negative 215 1.14 0.63 Congruent - Negative 216 1.14 0.41 Congruent - Negative 217 1.19 0.44 Congruent - Negative 218 1.24 0.63 Congruent - Negative 219 1.19 0.67 Congruent - Negative Note: New random case IDs were assigned to protect the confidentiality of participants.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Human Development, Learning, and Culture
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Schonert-Reichl, Kimberly
Early adolescents' perspectives of caring student-teacher relationships : a mixed methods approach
Text