Positive Education in Schools: Teachers’ Practices and Well-Being

Abstract

This study explored the role of positive education practices in predicting teacher well-being, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Background:Drawing on positive psychology principles, positive education integrates evidence-based strategies aimed at fostering emotional resilience, engagement, and flourishing in educational settings. Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative design was employed. A total of 175 primary and secondary school teachers using validated instruments, including the Positive Education Practice Scale (PEPS), PERMA (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) Profiler, Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), participated. Results: Factorial ANOVA results indicated that training background, rather than years of experience, significantly influenced the extent of PEPS implementation, with specialised training showing the strongest effects. Spearman’s correlations revealed that PEPS scores were positively associated with PERMA, life satisfaction, and teacher self-efficacy. Hierarchical regression analyses further demonstrated that PEPS significantly predicted PERMA, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy beyond demographic and professional factors. Conclusions: The findings highlighted the importance of positive education in enhancing teacher well-being and professional efficacy. This research underscored the need for targeted teacher training in positive psychology approaches to foster supportive and thriving school environments.

1. Introduction

In the new millennium, the landscape of educational philosophy and practice has shifted from a primary focus on rigid, performance-based educational systems to a renewed sense of hope for a more comprehensive view of learning centred on the psychological health, social–emotional development, and resilience of the individual learner. This transition is underpinned by the advent of positive psychology, a discipline established by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), that concentrates on human strengths and well-being as opposed to psychopathology. Out of this framework, positive education has emerged as a novel educational approach that couples evidence-based well-being with academic study (Seligman, 2011). This model aims to develop emotionally intelligent, resilient and purpose-filled learners and educators by integrating well-being into the fabric of school curriculum and culture.

Significant milestones have punctuated the positive education journey. Early efforts, such as the Penn Resiliency Program, helped build the foundation for well-being in schools. More recently, and as far afield as Australia, the institution Geelong Grammar School was hailed as a world leader in implementing positive education programmes in whole-school schools (White & Kern, 2018). Related to this, an increasing empirical base has highlighted the importance of teachers’ well-being, not only for quality of teaching but also for nurturing positive school environments (Kern et al., 2014; Waters, 2011). However, while progress has been made, deficits continue to exist in the conceptualisation and assessment of such practices, especially from the viewpoint of educators themselves.

The current data on teacher well-being are troubling. Repeated surveys indicate that stress, burnout, and attrition among teachers are sky high all over the world. For example, in a subsequent analysis, 78% of teachers identified workload as the major stress, and emotional exhaustion and poor professional support emerged as direct predictors for early departure from the career (Ingersoll, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). In addition, although positive education interventions are becoming more common, there is limited evidence for instruments to measure the delivery of such programmes by teachers as well as studies that investigate the impact of such programmes on teacher outcomes including job satisfaction and self-efficacy (Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Frederickson et al., 2020). This suggests a strong demand for the creation of strong, instructor-focused rubrics for gauging and promoting effective educational practices.

This is the gap this study attempts to fill by looking at how teachers conduct positive education and how it affects teacher well-being, job satisfaction and self-efficacy. Methodologically, the present study contributes by concentrating on the teacher being an agent and recipient of positive education, an approach less examined in the field. Instrumentally, it indicates the creation or adaptation of instruments to measure teacher practices consistent with the PERMA model. In relation to population, it privileges the perspective of the teachers in diverse school contexts, broadening the stipulation of most student-oriented research.

In examining the intersection between positive education and teacher well-being, this research addresses the pressing need for sustainable educational reform to foster not only student development but also teacher health. The PERMA model is used as a theory basis for positive education and evidence on teacher well-being. The next sections describe the theoretical base of positive education, in particular the PERMA model, and empirical evidence on teacher well-being. Next, specific research aims and questions are described, which are then linked to the methodology design component.

1.1. Theoretical Foundations of Positive Education

Positive education is based on positive psychology, a scientific field that studies human strengths, virtues, and factors contributing to individual well-being and development (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In contrast to traditional educational models, which emphasise exclusively cognitive skills and standardised assessments, positive education seeks to create school environments that promote emotional intelligence, mental resilience, and personal growth. One of the most recognised theoretical models in positive education is the PERMA model (Seligman, 2011), which identifies five fundamental pillars of human well-being.

1.1.1. Positive Emotions

The first pillar of Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA) concerns developing and maintaining positive emotions, such as joy, gratitude, optimism, and hope. Research suggests positive emotions enhance cognitive flexibility, improve problem-solving skills, and create resilient individuals in adversity (Fredrickson, 2001). Cultivating positive emotions reduces student anxiety and frustration, promoting a supportive learning environment (White & Kern, 2018).

1.1.2. Engagement

The second pillar, engagement, refers to an individual’s complete focus and absorption in an activity, a state often described as “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). When students are actively involved in activities that align with their strengths, they experience high satisfaction levels and are intrinsically motivated to achieve. In the educational context, implementing pedagogical methods that promote active student participation, such as experiential learning and differentiated instruction, enhances engagement and increases academic performance (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014).

1.1.3. Relationships

Positive social relationships, the third pillar, are critical for psychological flourishing. The existence of supportive interpersonal relationships in the school environment enhances students’ self-esteem, reduces stress levels, and promotes resilience (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research shows that students who experience a safe and supportive environment are more resilient in the face of adversity and develop greater mental resilience (Quinlan et al., 2019).

1.1.4. Meaning

The fourth pillar refers to the sense that education and knowledge contribute to achieving a larger purpose. Students who find meaning in their learning display higher autonomy, engagement, and satisfaction (Dweck, 2006). In the educational context, connecting learning objectives to real-world problems, highlighting the ethical and social dimensions of knowledge, and promoting self-discovery enhance the meaning of the educational experience for students (White & Kern, 2018).

1.1.5. Accomplishment

PERMA’s fifth and final pillar is establishing and achieving personal and academic goals. Success and progress contribute to the creation of self-confidence and enhance the sense of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Providing opportunities for choice, recognising individual potential, and encouraging skill development enhance a sense of personal competence and self-esteem.

1.1.6. The Impact of Positive Education Programmes in Schools

A growing body of research confirms that implementing positive education programmes based on the PERMA theoretical model significantly improves multiple dimensions of school life. These include increasing student motivation, improving teachers’ psychological well-being, and enhancing a positive school climate (White & Kern, 2018). When students experience positive emotions in the classroom (the first pillar of PERMA), they feel more satisfied with learning and are actively involved in the learning process (Bandura, 1997). In addition, providing meaning to learning (fourth pillar) helps students connect knowledge to their personal goals, increasing their interest and dedication, which leads to increased intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Positive emotions in the classroom help teachers cope with stress and improve their professional experience. Quality relationships with students and colleagues create a supportive work environment, reducing loneliness and professional frustration. Teachers’ job satisfaction is directly linked to the feeling that their work is meaningful (Kern et al., 2014). Teachers who feel that they contribute positively to their students’ development and that their teaching has a meaningful impact on society show greater retention in the profession and increased professional commitment. Achieving professional goals and recognising teachers’ contribution to their students’ development increases their self-efficacy, that is, belief in their abilities to manage challenges and provide quality education (Bandura, 1997). Teachers who feel competent and see the positive results of their teaching experience have higher job satisfaction and less emotional exhaustion (Waters & Loton, 2019). Teachers who implement positive education create a supportive and positive school climate, enhancing collaboration, creativity, and interaction between students and teachers. This leads to increased job satisfaction and a reduced likelihood of job dissatisfaction (White & Kern, 2018). This enhanced school climate, shaped by positive education principles, improves teacher well-being and fosters student engagement, motivation, and holistic development. Therefore, positive education is an innovative and necessary model for enhancing the school experience and education systems.

1.1.7. Strengthening School Climate and Culture Through PERMA

School climate is a determining element for the quality of the learning process and students’ overall experience. It refers to the quality of relationships, social norms and the emotional atmosphere in an educational environment. A positive school climate fosters trust, collaboration, and psychological safety, essential for student academic success and teacher professional development (Hoy et al., 2006). Research conducted in schools that adopt pedagogical frameworks based on the PERMA model indicates that these schools record multiple benefits. PERMA enhances the development of relationships based on empathy, active listening, and mutual respect, creating a school culture where students feel valued and understood (Durlak et al., 2011). As a result, stronger teacher–student relationships form. Schools with well-organised well-being programmes incorporating PERMA principles report reduced aggression and delinquency rates. Specifically, studies report 35% less bullying and disciplinary violations (Kern et al., 2014). Thus, reduced bullying and disciplinary issues are noted. Training teachers in positive leadership and emotional intelligence strengthens the cohesion of the teaching staff and promotes effective communication and collaboration. This results in improved teamwork and shared decision-making (Waters, 2011).

Incorporating PERMA principles into schools like Geelong Grammar School in Australia has yielded impressive results. White and Kern (2018) reported that teachers felt 28% more engaged. Students showed a 22% increase in resilience, and a sense of belonging to the school community increased by 30%. These results demonstrate that promoting well-being as a central educational goal can transform school culture, fostering strong social relationships, greater psychological safety, and supportive learning environments. These findings align with broader research demonstrating the widespread benefits of PERMA-based education programmes, which are summarised in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 175).

Demographic Variables	Frequency	Percent
Age
25–34	36	20.5%
35–44	66	37.7%
45–54	37	21.1%
55–65	36	20.6%
Gender
Male	27	15.4%
Female	148	84.6%
Education status
Graduate	56	32.0%
Master	103	58.9%
PhD	16	9.1%
Teaching experience (in years)
1–10 years	65	37.1%
11–20 years	56	32.0%
20+ years	54	30.9%
Training background
Specialised courses/training centres	26	14.9%
University education	57	32.6%
School-based training	92	52.6%
Participation in professional development
No	24	13.7%
Yes	151	86.3%
Marital status
Single	33	18.9%
Relationship	13	7.4%
Married	112	64.0%
Divorced	13	7.5%
Widowed	4	2.3%
Area of residence
Rural area	10	5.7%
Urban area	135	77.1%
Suburban area	3	17.1%

below.

1.2. The Role of Positive Education in Teacher Well-Being

Given the demanding nature of the teaching profession, understanding how positive education influences teacher satisfaction and resilience is essential for fostering a sustainable and supportive learning environment. Teaching requires subject matter expertise, high emotional intelligence, resilience, and the effective management of multidimensional classroom dynamics. Research data confirm that teachers’ increased job stress, burnout and emotional exhaustion negatively affect the quality of the teaching process and learning outcomes (Diener et al., 2017). Specifically, chronic exposure to work-related stress leads to reduced teaching effectiveness, reduced motivation, and an increased likelihood of professional turnover. Given these challenges, exploring structured interventions that enhance teacher resilience and job satisfaction is essential.

By integrating the principles of positive psychology into professional development and training, teachers can develop effective mechanisms for managing work-related stress, enhancing intrinsic motivation, and improving their mental health. Research suggests that cultivating positive emotions, promoting self-awareness, and strengthening interpersonal relationships among teachers are fundamental factors that contribute to increasing job satisfaction and resilience in education. Several factors contribute to these issues, including excessive workload, managing challenging student behaviour, the lack of administrative support, and emotional burden. Increased workload has been identified as one of the leading causes of teacher stress, as educators must balance instructional responsibilities with administrative tasks, lesson planning, and student evaluations. A combination of these duties limits the time for professional renewal, increasing the risk of burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). According to the study by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2017), 78% of teachers identify workload as the most important stressor, which confirms the pressure exerted on teaching staff.

Beyond workload, the necessity of managing student behaviour also places significant emotional strain on teachers. Maintaining discipline, addressing challenging behaviours, and adapting instructional methods to diverse student needs can lead to emotional exhaustion. Research indicates that teachers working in high-stress environments are 2.5 times more likely to experience burnout than those working in supportive school settings (Herman et al., 2018). Additionally, Administrative support is critical to teacher job satisfaction and resilience. Inadequate administrative support exacerbates feelings of isolation and professional frustration, as teachers who lack clear guidance and professional development opportunities report lower levels of job satisfaction and are twice as likely to leave the profession within five years (Ingersoll, 2014).

Another significant stressor is the emotional burden associated with teaching. Beyond academic instruction, teachers often serve as mentors and counsellors to students, providing emotional support that can lead to a phenomenon known as “compassion fatigue”. The constant need for emotional engagement without adequate boundaries increases mental exhaustion, contributing to higher absenteeism rates and professional dissatisfaction (Hoffman et al., 2019). Considering these challenges, implementing positive education strategies emerges as a practical approach to enhancing teacher resilience, mitigating stress, and fostering greater professional satisfaction.

Research has shown that when teachers receive training in positive psychology interventions, they develop stronger confidence in their teaching abilities and demonstrate improved management of socio-emotional classroom dynamics. Teaching strategies emphasising student strengths are linked to higher motivation and positive behavioural outcomes (Frederickson et al., 2020). Additionally, emotion regulation and mindfulness techniques allow educators to maintain emotional balance, enabling them to manage daily classroom challenges more effectively (Roeser et al., 2013). As a result, teachers who implement a social-emotional learning (SEL) approach report a 30% reduction in undesirable classroom behaviours and increased student focus and academic engagement (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Similarly, implementing well-being policies in schools has been linked to improved teacher retention, with research indicating a 40% increase in long-term retention rates in schools that incorporate well-being initiatives (Huppert & Johnson, 2010). These findings emphasise the importance of positive education as a transformative approach to enhancing teacher well-being. By integrating scientifically validated psychological tools into educational settings, teachers gain the necessary skills to manage stress, maintain emotional resilience, and find greater fulfilment in their profession.

1.3. Challenges in Implementing Positive Education

Despite the documented benefits of positive education in enhancing the well-being of students and teachers, implementing the relevant principles in educational practice still faces significant challenges. These difficulties stem from structural, political and psychological factors that affect integrating positive psychology practices into the modern school environment. One of the main inhibiting factors in implementing positive education is the absence of systematic and organised training programmes for teachers. Despite the growing research on the importance of strengthening psychological resilience, regulating emotions and developing positive pedagogical practices, most teachers do not have access to appropriate training programmes that equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills (Kern et al., 2014). The lack of specialised training means that teachers often lack the necessary theoretical and practical tools to apply positive education principles in their teaching practice effectively.

Beyond the lack of training, another significant barrier is the resistance to change within educational institutions. The integration of new pedagogical approaches requires the willingness of teachers and school structures to move away from established, traditional teaching practices. However, this transition is often met with resistance at the individual and institutional levels due to deep-rooted attachment to conventional teaching models (Waters & Loton, 2019). Many educators are hesitant to embrace new approaches that suggest a shift from strictly cognitive-centred teaching to a more person-centred, well-being approach. This resistance may be due to a lack of clear understanding of the long-term benefits of positive education or a belief that innovative practices are not aligned with schools’ academic goals.

Another key factor affecting positive education implementation is the lack of institutional and political support for integrating well-being science into the school curriculum. Despite the growing literature documenting the importance of student and teacher mental health, most education systems still do not provide adequate resources and guidance for implementing relevant interventions (Brunzell et al., 2018). Administrative inertia and the lack of strategic planning lead to limited time and funding for integrating positive education practices. In addition, the absence of a clear regulatory framework and the lack of coherent policies make it difficult to systematically implement strategies that promote resilience, mindfulness and student empowerment in the school environment.

Even when schools recognise the value of positive education, time constraints and overloaded curricula present additional obstacles. One of the most practical constraints that make it challenging to implement a positive education is teachers’ already increased teaching workload. Most schools’ curricula are highly demanding, focusing mainly on covering specific academic objectives, leaving little room for integrating new teaching methods (Huppert & Johnson, 2010). The pressure to achieve predetermined learning objectives and the lack of time make it challenging to develop and implement strategies focusing on students’ psychosocial development and mental well-being.

Despite the above difficulties, the effective integration of positive education into the school system is not impossible if evidence-based interventions are developed and institutional policies are adopted that prioritise the well-being of teachers and students. Creating comprehensive training programmes that focus on the applications of positive psychology in education could contribute to the gradual reform of the pedagogical approach, making teachers more capable of effectively integrating these practices into their teaching practice (Frederickson et al., 2020). At the same time, shaping policies that promote mental well-being as an integral part of the educational process could strengthen institutional support and ensure the long-term sustainability of positive education interventions.

Achieving meaningful progress requires a coordinated approach combining professional development, administrative backing, and policy-driven initiatives. Schools that cultivate a culture of teacher empowerment and student well-being will be better positioned to foster an inclusive, psychologically supportive learning environment. By bridging the gap between research and practice, positive education can become a core pillar of modern education systems, ensuring the academic success, emotional resilience and lifelong fulfilment of students and teachers.

1.4. Research Problem and Significance

The increasing emphasis on positive psychology in education has led to a growing body of research examining its impact on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Positive education creates a supportive academic environment that fosters cognitive development, emotional resilience, motivation, and life satisfaction. Schools implementing well-being-focused interventions report improved student academic performance, stronger social relationships, and reduced behavioural issues (White & Kern, 2018). Despite these promising outcomes, much of the existing research has primarily centred on students, leaving a significant gap in understanding how positive education affects teachers.

Teachers are pivotal in shaping the educational experience, facilitating academic knowledge and social–emotional development. However, the demands of the teaching profession—long hours, classroom management challenges, administrative responsibilities, and high expectations—contribute to elevated stress levels, burnout, and job dissatisfaction (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). While positive education principles are intended to enhance school culture and climate, there is limited empirical evidence regarding how these practices are integrated into teachers’ daily instruction and how they influence teachers’ well-being, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy.

Addressing this research gap is critical, as teacher well-being directly impacts student learning outcomes. Teachers who experience greater job satisfaction and emotional resilience are more likely to foster engaging, student-centred classrooms, while those experiencing burnout may struggle to provide effective instruction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). Understanding the practical application of positive education strategies among teachers can offer valuable insights into how educational institutions can support teachers’ mental health, professional fulfilment, and long-term career sustainability.

This study contributes to educational psychology and teacher training by examining the relationship between positive education practices and key teacher-related outcomes. By identifying how positive psychology principles affect educators’ professional experiences, the research aims to provide practical recommendations for teacher training programmes, school policies, and institutional interventions that promote student and teacher well-being. The findings can help inform educational policymakers, administrators, and professional development organisations about the benefits of systematically incorporating positive education into teacher training and school-wide initiatives.

1.5. Research Aim and Objectives

This research examines the effects of positive education practices on teacher well-being, job satisfaction and self-efficacy. Though positive education has received a considerable amount of attention in the field of education, most of the previous studies have focused on the impact of positive education on students, with little research being conducted on how teachers incorporate positive education in their teaching and how the implementation of positive policies in schools may impact teachers’ professional perspectives. This gap is addressed with psychometrically sound instruments to explore educators’ experiences, which will contribute to creating more supportive and resilient educational environments.

The primary aims are as follows:

• To measure how behaviourally engaged in positive education practices (such as those in the PERMA model) teachers are when teaching.
• To investigate the association between these practices and teacher outcomes, such as well-being, job satisfaction and perceived self-efficacy.
• To determine if any moderators (e.g., school climate, training or years of experience) may influence the evidence of implementation or effects of positive education practices.
• To fill a methodological gap in the literature by employing validated instruments that measure teachers’ use of well-being practices at school.
• To introduce recommendations for the further integration of positive education into schools.

The following research questions guide the investigation:

• RQ1: How much are positive education practices, based on the PERMA model, used in schools by teachers?
• RQ2: What are the relationships between these practices and teachers’ well-being, job satisfaction and self-efficacy?
• RQ3: What does work promote or inhibit teacher well-being interventions in schools, and how does this differ according to context or demographic considerations?

This set of aims and research questions is consistent with others in the field calling for a more expansive research agenda in positive education, focusing on teacher well-being as central to sustainable school reform.

To meet the aim of this study, we shall test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1.

The longer the teaching experience of a teacher, the more positive education practices are implemented, while the shorter the experience, the more training influences.

Hypothesis 2.

The use of positive education practices has a positive effect on teachers’ well-being and self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 3.

Positive education practices predict well-being and perceived self-efficacy above and beyond demographic and professional factors, including age, gender, experience, and training exposure.

Through this study, we hope to add to the developing body of the literature on teacher well-being and school culture change and advance the call for a more holistic, strength-based perspective on school change efforts.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative research design to examine the relationship between teachers’ implementation of positive education practices and their well-being and self-efficacy. The cross-sectional nature of the design means that data were collected at one specific moment, rather than longitudinally across multiple time points. As a result, this study identified correlations and predictive relationships but could not establish causality between variables. This design was particularly suitable for exploring the current state of how positive education was applied in classrooms and how it related to key psychological outcomes among teachers. A self-reported survey methodology was selected to collect data from a large sample of educators within a specific timeframe.

2.2. Sample

This study included 175 primary and secondary education teachers whose demographic characteristics are summarised in Table 1. Participants were selected using a convenience sampling method, targeting educators from various schools who voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. Participants met the following inclusion criteria: (a) active teachers with at least one year of teaching experience in public or private schools and (b) currently employed in a primary or secondary education setting and willing to provide informed consent and complete the survey. Exclusion criteria include teachers on long-term leave or those not currently employed in formal education settings. Participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, years of teaching experience, educational level (primary or secondary), participation in professional development programmes related to positive education, marital status and residence.

2.3. Questionnaires

To ensure the validity and reliability of the data, standardised and widely used self-report instruments were utilised to assess positive education practices, well-being, and teacher self-efficacy. In previous research, all measures demonstrated strong psychometric properties and were administered in their validated versions.

2.3.1. Positive Education Practices Scale (PEPS)

To assess the implementation of positive education practices in school settings, the Positive Education Practice Scale (PEPS) was employed. The PEPS is a 17-item self-report instrument specifically designed to measure the extent to which schools foster environments aligned with the principles of positive psychology and the PERMA framework (Seligman, 2011), as well as the Positive Educational Practice (PEPS) Framework introduced by Noble and McGrath (2008). The scale was developed and validated by Karakasidou et al. (2025).

The PEPS was developed through an iterative process involving expert consultation, item generation, pilot testing, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Initial item development was theory-driven and aimed at capturing five core dimensions of positive education. Following refinement, including removing redundant or low-performing items, the final scale consists of 17 items distributed across five theoretically grounded subscales, each representing a distinct component of the PEPS framework: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Accomplishment, Meaning and Purpose and Positive Relationships. Each subscale score reflects the specific domain, and a total scale score reflects the overall implementation of positive education practices. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. This format was selected to capture the degree to which each positive education practice is perceived to be present within the school context. A sample item includes “I incorporate gratitude practices in my teaching to foster positive emotions in students.”

The PEPS demonstrated excellent internal consistency across all subscales, with Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω values ranging from 0.83 to 0.91. A second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the presence of a higher-order construct representing overall positive education practices (PEPS), with all five subscales loading significantly onto the second-order factor. Fit indices for the final model were strong (e.g., CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.969, RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = 0.039), supporting the validity and reliability of the scale in educational settings.

2.3.2. PERMA Profiler

The PERMA Profiler based on Seligman’s (2011) theory developed by Butler and Kern (2016), translated and validated in Greek by Pezirkianidis et al. (2021), was used to assess teacher well-being across five core dimensions of positive psychology: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. These domains align with Seligman’s PERMA model of well-being, which emphasises a multidimensional approach to flourishing. The instrument consists of 23 items, each rated on a 10-point Likert scale (0 = Never, 10 = Always), with higher scores indicating greater well-being across the five domains. A sample item includes “How often do you feel engaged in your work?” The PERMA Profiler has demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89, indicating strong reliability. The scale has been widely used in educational and organisational psychology research, providing a comprehensive measure of subjective well-being.

2.3.3. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985) was used to assess global life satisfaction among educators. The SWLS has been translated and validated for the Greek population by Galanakis et al. (2017). This scale is widely recognised as a reliable measure of subjective well-being and reflects an individual’s overall cognitive judgement of life circumstances. The SWLS consists of five items, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater life satisfaction. A sample item includes “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.” The SWLS has demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, indicating strong reliability.

2.3.4. Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) assessed educators’ self-efficacy in three key domains: instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. This scale is widely employed in educational research to evaluate teachers’ confidence in their ability to effectively influence student learning and behaviour. The TSES consists of 24 items, rated on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 9 = A great deal), with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. A sample item includes “How well can you motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?” The TSES has demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92, indicating high reliability across its three subscales. Factor analysis has confirmed the scale’s three-dimensional structure, supporting its use in diverse educational settings.

2.4. Procedure

This study followed a cross-sectional survey design, collecting participant data over four weeks. It used self-reported questionnaires to measure positive education practices, teacher well-being, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Participants received an email invitation containing a brief description of the study and ethical guidelines. A consent form was sent to schools and teaching networks, and a link was provided to the online survey (Google Forms). The survey began with an informed consent form before participation, ensuring that participants understood the voluntary nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. The estimated completion time for the survey is 10–15 min. To protect participant confidentiality, no personally identifiable information was collected, such as name or school affiliation. IP addresses were not recorded to maintain full participant anonymity. The data were stored securely in a password-protected file, accessible only to the research team. All responses were anonymous and confidential to protect participant identity. The Panteion University of Social & Political Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study, adhering to institutional ethical guidelines and international standards for psychological research.

3. Results

3.1. Data Analysis

3.1.1. Overview and Data Preparation

The data were analysed with the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 27, developed by IBM Corporation (New York, NY, USA) with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. An initial overview was conducted to describe the sample characteristics (Table 1) and ensure that the data met the necessary assumptions for subsequent analyses. Before analysis, the dataset was screened for incomplete responses and patterned answering. Responses that were incomplete or exhibited systematic response patterns (e.g., straight-lining) were excluded from further analysis. This quality check ensured that the final dataset reflected accurate and reliable self-reported data, thereby enhancing the validity of subsequent statistical analyses. No significant issues were identified regarding missing data, and boxplot inspections revealed that extreme outliers were minimal and did not necessitate exclusion.

3.1.2. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the distribution and reliability of the study variables (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and reliability analyses for study measures.

Measure	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s α
PEPS	3.19	0.80	0.95
TSES	7.11	1.17	0.96
PERMA	6.13	0.83	0.95
LS	5.16	1.14	0.90

Note. LS = life satisfaction.

).

3.2. Hypothesis Testing

3.2.1. Hypothesis 1: Effects of Teaching Experience and Training Background on PEPS Implementation

Teachers with more experience implemented positive education practices to a greater extent, while less experienced teachers were more influenced by training.

A 3 (Teaching Experience: 1–10 years, 11–15 years, 16+ years) × 3 (Training Background: Specialised Courses/Training Centres, University Education, School-Based Training) factorial ANOVA was conducted to examine whether teaching experience and training background predict the implementation of PEPS, (Shapiro–Wilk W = 0.992, p = 0.501, Levene’s test F(8, 166) = 1.14, p = 0.341). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of training background, F(2, 166) = 3.93, p = 0.022, partial η² = 0.045, suggesting a small to moderate effect size according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines and indicating that training background plays a role in the implementation of PEPS. Teachers who attended Specialised Courses/Training Centres reported significantly higher PEPS scores compared to those who participated in School-based Training with a mean difference of −0.497, 95% CI [−0.82, −0.17], p = 0.018 (Bonferroni-adjusted). Teachers who received specialised courses scored higher on average than those who attended School-Based Training. The comparison between Specialised Courses and University Education approached significance, with a mean difference = −0.422, 95% CI [−0.85, 0.01], p = 0.083. The difference between University Education and School-based Training was non-significant. There was no significant main effect of teaching experience, F(2, 166) = 0.45, p = 0.639, partial η² = 0.005. The interaction between teaching experience and training background was not significant, F(4, 166) = 0.33, p = 0.856, partial η² = 0.008, indicating that the benefits of professional training on PEPS implementation are consistent across different levels of teaching experience (

Table 3. Frequencies and post hoc comparisons for teaching experience and training background.

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	% of Total	Comparison	Mean Difference	Effect	F	df	η2
Teaching Experience (Years)	1–10 Years (1)	65	37.1%	1 vs. 2	0.149	TE	0.45	2166	0.005
	11–15 Years (2)	56	32.0%	1 vs. 3	0.034	TE
	16+ Years (3)	54	30.9%	2 vs. 3	−0.114	TE
Training Background	Specialised Courses/Training Centres	26	14.9%	Courses vs. University	−0.422	TB*	3.93	2166	0.045
	University Education	57	32.6%	Courses vs. School	−0.497	TB
	School-Based Training	92	52.6%	University vs. School	−0.075	TB
Interaction						TE*TB	0.33	4166

).

The findings suggested that training background—and specifically Specialised Courses/Training Centres—plays a more important role in the implementation of PEPS compared to the level of teaching experience. Teachers’ years of experience do not appear to enhance or diminish the benefits gained from professional training, as no interaction effect was found.

3.2.2. Hypothesis 2: Correlations Between PEPS, Well-Being, and Self-Efficacy

Implementing positive education practices was positively related to teachers’ well-being, as measured by the PERMA Profiler and the SWLS and self-efficacy as measured by the TSES.

Spearman’s rank correlation was conducted to examine the relationships between the implementation of PEPS, LS, subjective well-being as measured by PERMA, and the TSES. Given that LS, PERMA and the TSES did not meet the assumption of normality (Shapiro–Wilk p < 0.001), Spearman’s rho was calculated to assess the strength and direction of the associations. As shown in

Table 4. Correlation matrix for PEPS, PERMA, SWLS and TSES.

	LS	PEPS	PERMA	TSES
LS	—
PEPS	0.212 **	—
PERMA	0.731 ***	0.229 **	—
TSES	0.400 ***	0.392 ***	0.567 ***	—

Note. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-tailed.

, PEPS scores were positively and significantly associated with both well-being indicators. Specifically, PEPS was moderately correlated with PERMA (ρ (173) = 0.23, p < 0.05) and LS (ρ (173) = 0.21, p < 0.5). PEPS scores were also moderately and positively correlated with the TSES, ρ (173) = 0.392, p < 0.001.

The results supported Hypothesis 2, indicating that teachers who used PEPS more reported higher levels of well-being and life satisfaction. The results indicated that teachers who reported a higher frequency of implementing PEPS tended to report higher levels of perceived self-efficacy.

3.2.3. Hypothesis 3: Predictive Role of PEPS on Well-Being and Self-Efficacy Controlling for Demographics

The implementation of positive education practices (PEPS score) positively predicts well-being (PERMA Profiler and SWLS scores) and perceived self-efficacy (TSES score), independent of demographic and professional factors, such as age, gender, experience, and training participation.

PERMA

Assumptions were met. A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine whether implementing positive education practices (PEPS) predicts teachers’ well-being (as measured by the PERMA Profiler), above and beyond demographic and professional variables. As shown in

Table 5. Hierarchical regression predicting PERMA.

Step	Predictor	b	SE	β	t (p)	R2	ΔR2	F (p)
1	Intercept	6.01	0.26	—	23.16 ***	0.077	—	1.53
	Age (Under 25 vs. 25–34)	−1.08	0.37	−0.13	−2.94 **
	Age (35–44 vs. 25–34)	0.11	0.20	0.14	0.57
	Age (45–54 vs. 25–34)	0.22	0.25	0.26	0.87
	Age (55–64 vs. 25–34)	0.35	0.28	0.42	1.25
	Gender (Female vs. Male)	0.05	0.17	0.06	0.27
	Experience (11–15 vs. 1–10 years)	−0.14	0.17	−0.16	−0.81
	Experience (16+ vs. 1–10 years)	−0.32	0.23	−0.39	−1.41
	Prof. Development (Yes vs. No)	0.12	0.19	0.14	0.61
2	PEPS	0.31	0.08	0.30	4.11 ***	0.163	0.086	3.20 ***

Note. ΔR² = change in R² from Step 1 to Step 2. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

, in Block 1, age, gender, teaching experience, and training participation were entered as predictor variables. This model was not significant, F(9, 165) = 1.53, p = 0.141, accounting for approximately 7.7% of the variance in PERMA scores, R² = 0.077. In Block 2, PEPS was added to the model. The addition of PEPS significantly improved model fit, ΔR² = 0.086, ΔF(1, 164) = 16.90, p < 0.001, resulting in a final model that accounted for 16.3% of the variance in PERMA scores, R² = 0.163, F(10, 164) = 3.20, p < 0.001. PEPS was a significant positive predictor in Model 2 (b = 0.31, SE = 0.08, β = 0.30, p < 0.001). Among the demographic variables, the age group “Under 25” was negatively associated with PERMA compared to the “25–34” reference group (b = −1.01, p = 0.005).

The final model confirmed that PEPS significantly predicts teachers’ well-being (PERMA) even after controlling for age, gender, teaching experience, and professional development. Teachers younger than 25 reported significantly lower PERMA scores compared to the 25–34 age group.

Life Satisfaction

Assumptions were met. A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine whether the implementation of positive education practices (PEPS) predicts life satisfaction (LS), above and beyond demographic and professional factors (age, gender, teaching experience, and training participation). As shown in

Table 6. Model summary of the hierarchical regression predicting LS.

Step	Predictor	b	SE	β	t (p)	R2	ΔR2	F (p)
1	Intercept	3.66	0.48	—	7.65 (<0.001) ***	0.060	—	1.18 (0.311)
	Age (55–64 vs. 25–34)	0.688	0.38	—	2.08 (0.040) *
	Age (Under 25 vs. 25–34)	−0.510	0.49	—	−1.18 (0.240)
	Gender (Female vs. Male)	0.296	0.23	—	1.45 (0.149)
	Teaching Experience (3 vs. 1)	−0.341	0.31	—	−1.27 (0.206)
	Training Participation (Yes vs. No)	−0.131	0.25	—	−0.59 (0.557)
2	PEPS	0.252	0.11	0.360	3.41 (<0.001) ***	0.123	0.062	2.29 (0.015) *

Note. ΔR² = change in R² from Step 1 to Step 2. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

, Model 1 included age, gender, teaching experience, and participation in professional development training as predictors. This model was not significant, F(9, 165) = 1.18, p = 0.311, and explained a small proportion of variance in life satisfaction (R = 0.246, R² = 0.060). Model 2 introduced PEPS into the regression. The addition of PEPS significantly improved the model, F(10, 164) = 2.29, p = 0.015, with an additional 6.2% of variance explained (ΔR² = 0.062), F change (1, 164) = 11.64, p < 0.001. PEPS was a significant positive predictor of life satisfaction (b = 0.252, t = 3.41, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.57]). Age group 55–64 compared to 25–34 was also a significant predictor (b = 0.688, t = 2.08, p = 0.040, 95% CI [0.04, 1.53]), while all other demographic and professional variables were non-significant predictors of LS (p > 0.05).

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Assumptions were met. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine whether the implementation of positive education practices (PEPS) predicted teachers’ sense of efficacy (TSES), beyond demographic and professional variables, including age, gender, teaching experience, and participation in professional development. As shown in

Table 7. Hierarchical regression predicting teacher self-efficacy.

Step	Predictor	b	SE	β	t (p)	R2	ΔR2	F (p)
1	Intercept	5.16	0.47	—	11.08 (<0.001) ***	0.062	—	1.22 (0.285)
	Age (35–44 vs. 25–34)	0.409	0.26	—	1.85 (0.067)
	Age (65+ vs. 25–34)	1.76	1.14	—	1.81 (0.072)
	Age (Under 25 vs. 25–34)	−0.759	0.48	—	−1.86 (0.065)
	Gender (Female vs. Male)	−0.141	0.23	—	−0.73 (0.465)
	Experience (3 vs. 1)	−0.252	0.30	—	−0.99 (0.323)
	Training Participation (Yes vs. No)	−0.021	0.25	—	−0.10 (0.919)
2	PEPS	0.395	0.10	0.464	5.65 (<0.001) ***	0.215	0.153	4.50 (<0.001) ***

Note. ΔR² = change in R² from Step 1 to Step 2. *** p < 0.001.

, Model 1 included control variables and was not significant, F(9, 165) = 1.22, p = 0.285, explaining 6.2% of the variance in the TSES (R = 0.250, R² = 0.062). Model 2 introduced PEPS, significantly improving the model, F(10, 164) = 4.50, p < 0.001. The inclusion of PEPS explained an additional 15.3% of the variance (ΔR² = 0.153), with a significant F change (1, 164) = 31.97, p < 0.001. PEPS was a significant positive predictor of teacher self-efficacy (b = 0.395, t = 5.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.38, 0.79]). Among demographic predictors, age comparisons approached significance, age 35–44 (b = 0.409, p = 0.067), age 65+ (b = 1.76, p = 0.072), and age under 25 (b = −0.759, p = 0.065), suggesting a potential trend worth further exploration.

These findings confirmed that PEPS is a strong and consistent predictor of teacher self-efficacy, accounting for significant variance in TSES scores even after controlling for demographic and professional characteristics. Across all models, PEPS emerged as a significant positive predictor of PERMA, LS, and the TSES, explaining additional variance in well-being and professional outcomes beyond demographic and professional factors.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study underscore the crucial role of positive education in enhancing teacher well-being, professional satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Rooted in the principles of positive psychology, positive education offers a robust framework for fostering emotional resilience, engagement, and a sense of purpose among educators (Seligman et al., 2009; Waters & Loton, 2019). These results extend the existing literature advocating for the integration of well-being science into both teacher preparation and whole-school practices (Kern et al., 2014; White & Kern, 2018).

4.1. Professional Training and Implementation

The results related to Hypothesis 1 indicate that years of teaching experience do not significantly predict the implementation of positive education strategies. However, the nature of professional training does. Educators who had completed targeted, theoretically grounded training programmes in positive education reported significantly greater engagement with well-being practices than those who had only participated in general school-based sessions. This finding supports prior research emphasising the value of structured professional development in building educators’ confidence and competence in applying positive psychology in educational settings (Frederickson et al., 2020; Slemp et al., 2017).

While teaching experience did not emerge as a significant predictor of positive education practices in this study, it remains possible that qualitative differences exist in how novice and experienced teachers interpret and apply these practices. Future research employing interviews or observational methods may reveal distinct cognitive or motivational pathways through which teachers at different career stages engage with positive education.

These results suggest a need to embed positive education within formal teacher education programmes and to offer sustained, experiential professional development opportunities. Such training should move beyond surface-level instruction to focus on constructs including emotional intelligence, psychological flexibility, mindfulness, and strengths-based pedagogy (Kern et al., 2014; White & Kern, 2018). When integrated within a coherent framework, these strategies contribute to a school culture that promotes both teacher and student flourishing (Seligman et al., 2009).

4.2. Positive Education and Teacher Flourishing

Support for Hypothesis 2 provides compelling evidence of the relationship between positive education implementation and teacher well-being, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. These findings consistently indicate that teacher well-being contributes directly to effective classroom management, increased engagement, and resilience (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; McCallum & Price, 2016). Educators who regularly apply positive education practices—such as fostering student engagement, gratitude, and purpose—report higher levels of professional confidence and psychological well-being (Waters & Loton, 2019).

Furthermore, these results reinforce the reciprocal relationship between well-being and self-efficacy. Teachers who perceive themselves as competent and impactful are more likely to persist in facing challenges and adopt innovative instructional strategies (Bandura, 1997; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Thus, positive education functions not only as a tool for student development but also as a critical mechanism for sustaining teacher motivation and resilience.

4.3. Predictive Power of Positive Education Practices

The findings related to Hypothesis 3 confirm that implementing positive education practices significantly predicts teacher well-being, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy, even after accounting for demographic and professional variables. This supports a growing body of evidence suggesting that well-being practices contribute directly to developing adaptive psychological resources such as hope, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2007; Seligman, 2011).

Of particular importance is the strong association between positive education and self-efficacy. Teachers who consistently foster emotional resilience and engagement among students report higher perceptions of instructional competence (Bandura, 1997; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). These findings suggest that positive education is not only a well-being framework but also a key predictor of sustained instructional effectiveness.

4.4. Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights into the relationship between positive education practices and teacher well-being, several limitations should be acknowledged. This study employed a convenience sampling method, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. Participants self-selected into the study, potentially introducing selection bias. Furthermore, the sample was predominantly female (84.6%) and urban-based (77.1%), which reflects the demographic makeup of the teaching workforce in Greece but restricts broader applicability—particularly to male educators and those in rural or underserved regions. Future studies should aim for stratified or randomised sampling to ensure more balanced demographic representation.

This study’s cross-sectional design provides a snapshot of associations between variables but does not allow for causal inferences. Longitudinal or experimental designs would be more appropriate to examine how implementing positive education practices influences changes in well-being, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy over time. Moreover, integrating qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could provide richer insights into teachers’ subjective experiences and the contextual nuances of implementation.

Furthermore, the findings are situated within Greece’s specific socio-cultural and educational context. While the instruments used were validated in Greek samples, caution should be exercised in generalising the results to teachers in other cultural or educational systems without further cross-cultural validation. All data were collected through self-report questionnaires, which can be influenced by social desirability bias and subjective interpretation. While validated tools were employed (e.g., PEPS, the PERMA Profiler, the SWLS, the TSES), supplementing self-report data with observational or qualitative methods in future research could provide a more nuanced understanding of implementation fidelity and contextual factors.

Another important limitation of this study is the potential influence of unmeasured contextual variables that may act as confounders. While demographic characteristics such as age, gender, educational level, and teaching experience were statistically controlled, other factors—such as school leadership practices, teacher workload, organisational climate, and student demographics—were not directly assessed. These variables could plausibly affect the implementation of positive education practices and teacher perceptions of well-being. For instance, supportive leadership and manageable workloads may facilitate the adoption of positive practices while also independently enhancing staff morale and engagement. Future research would benefit from incorporating multilevel modelling or mixed-methods designs to account for these school-level and contextual influences. Doing so would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which positive education practices are most effectively implemented and experienced.

4.5. Implications, Challenges, and Future Directions

This study offers important educational policy, practice, and research implications, particularly in light of persistent structural and institutional challenges. Although the value of positive education is increasingly acknowledged, its implementation remains hindered by several barriers. These include limited teacher training, resistance to pedagogical innovation, mounting performance pressures, and a general lack of systemic and institutional support (Brunzell et al., 2018; Waters & Loton, 2019). Addressing these issues requires more than isolated efforts; instead, coordinated and sustained reform is necessary across multiple levels of the education system.

A critical step toward such reform involves systematically embedding well-being science into pre-service teacher education and ongoing professional development. Ensuring teachers are adequately prepared to implement positive education practices demands consistent and targeted investment. This can be achieved by allocating funding specifically for long-term training programmes in positive psychology, including certified courses, in-school workshops, and collaborative initiatives with higher education institutions. Equitable access to these opportunities is especially important for schools in under-resourced or high-need contexts, where structural challenges are most acute.

In addition to investment in professional learning, systemic change must include integrating well-being practices into national and regional educational frameworks. Education authorities can legitimise positive education as a core pedagogical priority rather than a peripheral initiative by formally embedding these principles into teaching standards, curriculum guidelines, and teacher evaluation systems. Such integration elevates the status of well-being within education systems and promotes greater coherence and consistency in implementation.

The role of school leadership is also pivotal in this process. Leaders should be supported and incentivised to prioritise teacher and student well-being through leadership development in social and emotional learning, performance frameworks that include well-being indicators, and the institutional recognition of well-being initiatives. Furthermore, adopting whole-school implementation frameworks, such as PERMAH, SEARCH, or the Positive Educational Practices Framework, offers a structured and scalable approach for aligning well-being principles with school culture, teaching practices, and relational dynamics.

Equally important is recognising that schools operating in high-stress or low-resource environments require flexible, context-sensitive implementation models. Blended training options, increased access to psychosocial support services, and culturally relevant adaptations are essential strategies for addressing disparities in opportunity and impact. Beyond these structural adjustments, school leadership must also model psychological safety, empathy, and trust. Cultivating a culture that actively supports the well-being of both staff and students is central to ensuring sustainable and meaningful change. Integrating social and emotional learning (SEL) within broader school improvement agendas can further reinforce a holistic, human-centred approach to education.

In addition to these practical and policy-oriented recommendations, this study highlights several key directions for future research. Longitudinal designs are particularly important for capturing the development of teacher well-being, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy over time—especially before, during, and after implementing positive education practices. Such research would offer valuable insights into long-term outcomes, including the prevention of burnout, the enhancement of teacher retention, and the sustainability of instructional effectiveness.

Moreover, employing mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative analysis with qualitative inquiry would enable a more nuanced and contextually grounded understanding of how teachers experience and implement positive education. Exploring factors such as individual motivation, sources of resistance, and coping strategies during implementation would contribute to developing more adaptable and effective interventions.

Comparative research across cultural and educational systems also holds promise for expanding the applicability of well-being pedagogy. Such studies could illuminate how positive education is understood and enacted in different contexts, thereby identifying culturally appropriate practices and informing the customisation of interventions to local needs. Additionally, future studies should examine the relative efficacy of specific interventions—such as mindfulness practices, gratitude-based activities, or values-driven approaches—in enhancing teacher resilience and engagement. Identifying the most effective and scalable strategies will be crucial for evidence-based programme planning and policy development.

Finally, there is an urgent need to focus research efforts on how positive education can be effectively tailored and sustained in under-resourced and high-need settings. In these environments, teacher stress is often greatest and institutional support most limited. Developing flexible, equity-focused models of positive education that are feasible and impactful in such contexts will be essential for bridging the well-being gap and promoting more inclusive and sustainable educational reform.