Coregulation Effects of a School Counselor Consultation Intervention on Middle School Teacher–Student Relationships,Curiosity,and Teacher Stress

Abstract

We explored the outcomes of a school counselor consultation intervention informed by the Advocating Student-within-Environment theory as delivered to nine teachers of 149 students in a Title I school. Results from hierarchical regression analyses revealed changes in teachers’ perceptions of the teacher–student relationship that predicted students’ perception of the same relationship. We also found that similar coregulated changes in two curiosity scales can be attributed to the intervention, as can a small change in teachers’ stress tolerance from the pre- to post-test data collection periods. We discuss implications for school relationships and school counseling services.

Keywords

school counseling consultation mindfulness middle school teacher-student relationships

These are particularly inauspicious times for teachers and students as the COVID-19 pandemic has collided with longstanding social challenges. Consequently, school climates have changed dramatically, often compromising how teachers and students relate and interact (Hamilton & Gross, 2021; Pressley et al., 2021). Ineffectual educational relationships have far-reaching consequences on teachers’ pedagogical practices and students’ school experiences and learning outcomes (Wentzel, 2009); whereas propitious teacher–student relationships are associated with desirable academic, behavioral, and instructional outcomes (Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Sethi & Scales, 2020). Many teachers are stricken with various forms of stress that can compromise instructional performance and contribute to instructional disengagement and professional attrition (Goldhaber & Theobald, 2021; Kim et al., 2022). Left in the wake are students who have also been compromised both academically and socially (Huck & Zhang, 2021). Although school relationships can be threatened, emerging evidence supports interventions designed to improve teacher–student relationships (e.g., Duong et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2016).

School counselors are often understood as the educational personnel best positioned to encourage social/emotional development in schools (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019a). For classroom teachers, school counselors can provide consultation services that can positively influence how they interact with students (Brigman et al., 2021). Cholewa et al. (2016) found that teachers prize the collaborative relationships engendered by school counselors when consulting with teachers or working directly with students. Considering the outstanding stressors in the current educational milieu and the potential of school counselors to kindle helpful teacher–student relationships, we investigated how a theoretically informed school counselor consultation intervention affected the ways that teachers and students coregulate their classroom relationships. Coregulation—which includes interacting relational, cultural, and personal influences that shape and guide identity and action (McCaslin, 2009)—is important given its influence on constructive teacher–student relationships and its status as a foundational concept for the intervention approach considered in the current study, namely the Advocating Student-within-Environment (ASE) theory for school counseling practice (Lemberger, 2010; Lemberger & Hutchison, 2014).

Teacher–Student Relationships

Classroom climate is deeply influenced by teacher–student relationships and, therefore, affects schooling processes and learning outcomes (Walker & Graham, 2021). Teacher–student relationships are generally defined as “teachers’ and students’ aggregated and ongoing perceptions of one another, affect towards each other, and interactions over time; these perceptions are stored in memory and guide future interactions with the other party” (Brinkworth et al., 2018, p. 25). These relationships are especially important during the middle school years as youth experience profound changes in all types of relationships, particularly those that occur in school environments (Hughes & Cao, 2018). Quality teacher–student relationships are generally important for all students and educators, but the literature suggests a critical value for ethnic minorities, boys, and students from economically challenged backgrounds (Murray & Zvoch, 2011; Roorda et al., 2011).

Several personal and social qualities contribute to teacher–student relationships, including the degree to which one is relationally curious or manages stress. More than a century ago, Dewey (1916) posited that curiosity is a foundational disposition for both teachers and students when pursuing democratic education. Although the intuitive value of teacher curiosity is widely accepted (Jirout et al., 2018), the empirical literature pertaining to teacher curiosity lags. To fill this gap, Amorim Neto et al., (2022) sampled 518 U.S. teachers and found that teacher curiosity predicted their relationships with students, with relationships in Grades 6 to 8 particularly vulnerable to students’ negative behavior, time constraints, large class sizes, family issues, and truancy. Panning out to varying workplace environments, curiosity is associated with job satisfaction, work engagement, healthy work relationships, and innovation in workplace performance (Kashdan, Goodman, et al., 2020). For students, curiosity is associated with important learning and social outcomes (Engel, 2011; Jirout et al., 2018). Further, curiosity might be a mechanism that students can use to leverage more just and supportive classrooms (Clark & Seider, 2017). As such, experiencing and engendering curiosity might prove to be critical, especially given the various professional, relational, and societal threats affecting elementary and secondary classrooms.

Negative teacher–student relationships can have enduring consequences for teachers and students. For teachers, negative relationships with students can compromise physical and psychological health, resulting in experiences of harmful stress and professional dissatisfaction (Spilt et al., 2011; von der Embse et al., 2016). For students, perceptions of supportive teachers are associated with various constructive classroom behaviors and academic performance (Frenzel et al., 2018; Tao et al., 2022), whereas negative perceptions of teachers are associated with a litany of deleterious outcomes in and beyond school (Rudasill et al., 2010). Considered together, teacher–student relationships appear to be a complex tapestry that can have protracted effects on teachers and students alike, therefore, requiring interventions that are responsive to the complex nature of schooling relationships.

Poling et al. (2022) performed a review of 24 teacher–student relationship intervention studies and found that relationship-building approaches generally focused on increasing closeness, decreasing conflict, promoting social/emotional learning, and emphasizing relationship-driven classroom management. In one example study, Duong et al. (2019) tested how a professional development training entitled Establish-Maintain-Restore affected the relationships for 20 middle school teachers and their students. Using a multilevel analysis approach, the researchers found that the teachers and students in the treatment condition reported significant improvements in the relationship, increases in engaged academic time, and reduced disruptive behaviors in class. Similar results have been reported in studies that include culturally diverse student populations and differing school settings (Gehlbach et al., 2016; Gregory et al., 2016).

School counselors work directly with students and teachers; thus, they might be in a position to help support positive teacher–student relationships. Molina et al. (2022) investigated how school counseling consultation utilizing ASE theory affected 30 randomly assigned teachers in a Title I school district. Results from hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed statistically significant decreases in teacher-reported stress and conflict in the teacher–student relationship. Moreover, teachers in the treatment condition self-reported greater rates of change in how they act with awareness, a precursor for self- and co-regulated behavior (Short et al., 2016). Given that school counselors are embedded in schools and generally readied with skills to support teacher–student relationships, it is important that scholarship can demonstrate how school counselors might ameliorate educational relationships in ways that are germane to both teachers and students and that are determinants of school climate over time.

Current Intervention Approach and Empirical Study

School counselor consultation is intended to support students by directly engaging with relevant adults who will in turn utilize the consultation content in interactions with students (Brigman et al., 2021). This systemic aspect of school counseling corresponds to ASE theory in that the approach purports to amplify students’ and school stakeholders’ capacities while simultaneously pursuing more hospitable and contributory school ecologies (Lemberger-Truelove & Bowers, 2019). In this manner, ASE theory is concerned with the pursuit of social justice and student development as conjoined praxis, consistent with liberatory approaches to critical education (Freire, 1970). As illustrated in Figure 1, the specific school counseling behaviors suggested in ASE are chiefly concerned with engendering curiosity, connectedness, coregulation, compassion, and contribution in students, educators, and other education stakeholders.

Figure 1.

Advocating student-within-environment theory map.

Prior ASE-related studies were generally concerned with causal comparative effects of interventions delivered directly to students or educators. Student outcomes associated with ASE interventions include development in executive functioning, connectedness, curiosity, and achievement in reading, math, and science on standardized academic tests (Bowers et al., 2020; Ceballos, et al., 2021; Lemberger et al., 2018; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2020). Treatment outcomes include samples of ethnically and economically diverse students, ranging from pre-K to high school settings in both rural and urban schools. Among teachers exposed to ASE interventions, results have demonstrated significant changes in their perceived stress, mindfulness, and teacher–student relationships (Molina et al., 2022). ASE theory was designed to accommodate comprehensive school counseling programs (see ASCA, 2019a) that serve all students and teachers in corresponding ways across the duration of a school period. Although ASE theory and practice behaviors endorse reciprocal interventions with students and school faculty, prior ASE empirical studies have only considered how the intervention influences students or educators discretely, rather than as coregulating forces in school environments.

For the current study, we were interested in how an ASE school counseling consultation intervention might affect the coregulated relationships between teachers and students, including effects on teacher or student curiosity and teacher stress. This focus deviates from prior ASE studies in that our current intent was less on causal intervention effects extrapolated from randomized samples with treatment and control conditions; instead, for the present study, the concern was to interrogate how coregulated change between teacher and student might occur as a consequence of that teacher’s exposure to an ASE consultation intervention. This overarching focus informed the following research questions:

1. Do changes in teachers’ perception of the teacher–student relationship predict changes in students’ perception of the same relationship?

2. Do changes in teachers’ perception of their own curiosity predict changes in students’ perception of their curiosity?

3. After accounting for baseline teacher stress, did changes in teachers’ perception of teacher–student relationships predict changes in students’ perception of the same relationship?

Methods

Our research team obtained institutional review board approval from the University of Texas at Tyler prior to disseminating recruitment material nationally through ASCA’s online network. Initially, 19 school counselors responded with interest to participate in the study. After discussing the intervention and data collection responsibilities, two school counselors in a single middle school, Midwestern school, met inclusion criteria and committed to the study. In turn, the school counselors recruited teacher and student participants and facilitated electronic consent (or assent) processes.

The first two authors trained the two school counselors for the purposes of intervention fidelity. The school counselors participated in an initial 2 day training seminar utilizing the Zoom online meeting platform. The initial training included the content for each consultation session with teachers and spontaneous ASE-inspired counseling language prompts. Beyond the initial training, the school counselors participated in six weekly meetings with the investigators to discuss upcoming sessions, unique circumstances with teachers or students, and other intervention or data collection concerns.

Each manualized consultation session included the following general components: (a) 15 minute teacher check-in (e.g., teacher goals, classroom experiences, and evaluations of consultation); (b) 15 minute psychoeducational content pertaining to relationship and social/emotional skills germane to culturally diverse middle school classroom settings; (c) 10 minute meditation exercise; and (d) 5 minute “contribution talk” (i.e., social advocacy commitments by the school counselor and teacher, intended to improve school climate). Inspired by the initial and weekly training sessions, the school counselors delivered five consultation sessions to the participating teachers. Each session lasted approximately 45 minutes and occurred once a week, generally during the teachers’ planning periods during the school day.

Data Collection Procedures

Data were drawn from both the consented teachers and the middle school students in those teachers’ classrooms. We used the Qualtrics platform to disseminate the assessment surveys to students and teachers. The school counselors were emailed the anonymous Qualtrics survey links, which they then forwarded to participating teachers and students. To help ensure confidentiality during data collection, teachers created a pseudonym to use when completing Qualtrics assessments and students were given a unique code identifier to use for the surveys. Quantitative data were captured across three time periods: 1 week prior to the initial consultation session, after the third week of the intervention, and within 1 week after the final session was delivered.

Instruments

Teacher–Student Relationship Scale (TRS)

The TRS (Brinkworth et al., 2018) asks teachers and students to independently complete parallel scales where students report their perception of the student–teacher relationship and teachers report their perception of their relationship with each student, one at a time. The questionnaire comprises 14 statements, with nine statements asking about positive perceptions and five related to negative perceptions. Responses are provided along five points, from Not at all to A tremendous amount. Scores for each item are averaged to form one score for positivity and one score for negativity. The reliability for students and teachers across all assessment points ranged from α = .82 to .95.

The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DC)

The 5DC (Kashdan, Disabato, et al., 2020) is a self-report measure consisting of 25 items that assess the multifaceted construct of curiosity. The instrument, as suggested by its name, has five constructs: joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, stress tolerance, social curiosity, and thrill seeking. Each subscale is assessed by five items that ask for responses to statements about how the individual feels and behaves on a 7-point, Likert-type scale. All teachers and students completed the 5DC at three time points. Scores from this scale have been validated by independent research teams in multiple countries (e.g., Birenbaum et al., 2019). In the current sample, the scores across each subscale and assessment point demonstrated strong reliability, with alpha ranging from .78 to .85.

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)

The PSS is a 14-item measure to assess the degree to which an individual appraises life situations as stressful. All teachers in the current study completed the PSS at each of the three time points. Teachers responded to each provided statement on a 4-point scale from never to very often; responses were averaged to form a teacher score for perceived stress. Internal consistency reliability across the three time points ranged from α = .82 to .95. Previous research using the PSS demonstrated that the scores produced by the instrument have evidence for both concurrent and predictive validities (see Cohen et al., 1983).

Participants

The current study included two school counselors, nine teachers, and 149 students. One teacher did not complete the study. The school counselor participants reported 9 and 11 years of experience as school counselors and both identified as White. Teacher participants self-reported years of teaching experience as follows: five indicated 0–5 years, two indicated 5–10 years, and one each reported 10–15 years and more than 20 years. The average class size reported by teachers was 20–25 students. All teacher participants (n = 8) self-identified as White. Of participating students in those teachers’ classrooms, 4% self-identified as multiracial (n = 6), 7% as biracial (n = 11), 11% as Hispanic (n = 16), 16% as Black (n = 23), 58% White (n = 82), and 4% identified as Asian (n = 5); seven students did not report their ethnicities. All participants worked or attended a Title I school, meaning more than 40% of students are economically disadvantaged and qualify for free and reduced lunch (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

Analytic Approach

We used a series of hierarchical regressions (Aiken & West, 1991) to determine if changes in teachers’ perceptions of teacher–student relationships and their own curiosity predicted students’ perception of the same relationship and students’ curiosity. For each model, we first created change variables for students and teachers by subtracting their first assessment from their last assessment for each construct of interest (e.g., teacher–student relationships and curiosity constructs). Change scores then served as our dependent variables in each model and teachers’ scores were assigned to their corresponding students.

To assess if change in teachers predicted change in students, we first entered students’ and teachers’ initial responses. In a second step, we entered (a) teacher stress and (b) the teacher’s change score to determine if any significant relationship existed between an individual teacher’s change and each of their students’ change, after accounting for differences that may have existed in their initial responses. We examined change in R² (ΔR²) to determine whether teacher change significantly predicted student change.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Missingness across assessment items ranged from 0% to 45.81% (baseline, 0%–5.2%; time mid, 4.52%–15.21%; post, 18.06%–39.35%). Missingness may have been because of skipping, fatigue, time limitations, or a variety of other factors. We examined patterns of missingness for all variables used in the analyses. The missing data pattern analysis revealed that missingness was likely random or completely random (Little’s MCAR; χ(3778) = 3819.72, p = .31). Under the missing at random assumption, missingness in the data was a result of ignorable response mechanisms, and the parameters and variance of missing data can be estimated using observed responses from within and across participants (Little, 1988). We used 1000 iterations of the expectation–maximization algorithm (Dempster et al., 1977) to impute for missing data (convergence set at .0001, tolerance at .001). We used all analysis variables (Graham et al., 2012) and the process produced a complete dataset for 147 participants. The means of the two datasets’ (imputed and observed) variables were compared and were statistically the same. Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for all variables by time point.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations by Time Point.

	Baseline	Mid-Assessment	Post-Assessment
Student outcomes
Teacher–student relationship positive	4.02 (0.77)	4.03 (0.72)	4.05 (0.67)
Teacher–student relationship negative	1.78 (0.75)	1.71 (0.67)	1.65 (0.60)
Joyous exploration	4.21 (1.46)	4.25 (1.42)	4.30 (1.42)
Deprivation sensitivity	4.10 (1.62)	4.17 (1.60)	4.39 (1.62)
Stress tolerance	3.92 (1.44)	3.90 (1.48)	3.96 (1.37)
Social curiosity	4.01 (1.64)	4.05 (1.53)	4.15 (1.48)
Thrill seeking	4.10 (1.46)	4.10 (1.54)	4.27 (1.65)
Teacher outcomes
Teacher–student relationship positive	2.61 (0.87)	2.73 (0.96)	2.84 (0.91)
Teacher–student relationship negative	0.82 (0.74)	0.67 (0.56)	0.63 (0.56)
Joyous exploration	5.41 (0.73)	5.14 (0.84)	5.34 (0.81)
Deprivation sensitivity	4.17 (1.53)	4.41 (1.20)	4.45 (0.98)
Stress tolerance	3.79 (1.33)	3.77 (1.17)	3.98 (1.37)
Social curiosity	4.97 (1.37)	4.90 (1.29)	5.16 (1.31)
Thrill seeking	3.44 (1.08)	3.51 (1.08)	3.63 (0.92)
Perceived stress	2.17 (1.18)	1.62 (1.22)	1.85 (1.14)

Teacher–Student Relationships

Positive Perceptions

Results from our analysis indicate that changes in teachers’ positivity score correlated with changes in students’ positive perception of that same teacher–student relationship. More specifically, after reducing the influence of the initial response for teacher–student relationship, change in the teacher’s perception of positive teacher–student relationship (β = 0.43, p < .001), accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance (ΔR² = .14, p < .001; overall R² = .177). Teacher stress was not significantly related and was therefore removed from the model. This indicates that as teachers saw positive change in their relationships with students, so did the students, with approximately 18% of the variance in students’ change tied to teachers’ change as well as students’ and teachers’ initial responses. Table 2 provides a summary of model coefficients for this analysis and all other results.

Table 2.

Regression Estimates.

	B	SE	$β$	p
Positive
Step 1
Constant	0.19	0.38
Student initial response	0.16	0.10	0.20	.10
Teacher initial response	0.16	0.75	0.26	.03
Step 2
Constant	0.27	0.35
Student initial response	0.26	0.09	0.31	.009
Teacher initial response	0.25	0.07	0.41	< .001
Teacher change score	0.43	0.11	0.40	< .001
Negative
Step 1
Constant	0.27	0.13
Student initial response	0.15	0.09	0.20	.10
Teacher initial response	0.05	0.06	0.09	.94
Step 2
Constant	0.24	0.12
Student initial response	0.18	0.08	0.25	.03
Teacher initial response	0.17	0.07	0.33	.03
Teacher change score	0.41	0.11	0.48	< .001
Deprivation sensitivity
Step 1
Constant	1.00	0.52
Student initial response	0.27	0.08	0.39	.001
Teacher initial response	0.04	0.08	0.00	.96
Step 2
Constant	0.35	0.70
Student initial response	0.29	0.07	0.43	< .001
Teacher initial response	0.29	0.13	0.39	.03
Teacher change score	0.66	0.24	0.49	.009
Thrill seeking
Step 1
Constant	1.00	0.52
Student initial response	1.81	0.68	0.55	.009
Teacher initial response	7.55	0.36	-0.10	< .001
Step 2
Constant	508.86	0.49
Student initial response	1.81	0.68	0.07	.008
Teacher initial response	6.85	0.80	0.50	< .001
Teacher change score	-0.41	0.19	-0.18	.03

Negative Perceptions

Negative perception followed a similar pattern in that teacher change predicted student change. Results suggest that as teachers reduced their negative perceptions, so too did students. Specifically, after reducing the influence of initial responses, change in teachers’ perception of negative teacher–student relationship statements (β = 0.41, p < .001) accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance (ΔR² = .13, p < .001; overall R² = .176). As with positive perceptions, teacher stress was not significantly related and was therefore removed from the model. Our finding indicates that as teachers felt less negative towards students, students felt a more positive relationship emerge, with approximately 17% of the variance in why students changed their negative perceptions being related to teacher change as well as students’ and teachers’ initial responses.

Teacher and Student Curiosity

The 5DC scale is a multifaceted construct of curiosity with five constructs: joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, stress tolerance, social curiosity, and thrill seeking. Of the five constructs, deprivation sensitivity and thrill seeking were the only two aspects that demonstrated significant relationship between teacher change and student change.

Deprivation Sensitivity

Changes in teachers’ deprivation sensitivity positively predicted student change, with both groups becoming more tolerant of stressful situations. Our findings suggest that after accounting for initial responses to deprivation sensitivity, change in the teacher’s score predicted change in students score (β = 0.66, p = .009), and accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance (ΔR² = .09, p < .009; overall R² = .247). As with results from the student–teacher scale, teacher stress was not significantly related and was therefore removed from the model. Put concisely, our finding indicates that as teachers became more tolerant of stressful situations, so did students, with approximately 25% of the variance in why students changed their deprivation sensitivity being related to teacher change as well as students’ and teachers’ initial responses.

Thrill Seeking

Changes in students’ thinking about taking academic risks (e.g., doing something new) were predicted by changes in teachers’ willingness to take on a new challenge. Results from the thrill-seeking regression model indicated that after accounting for initial responses to thrill seeking, change in the teacher’s score predicted change in students score (β = 0.50, p = .016), and accounted for a statistically significant amount of unique variance (ΔR² = .08, p < .016; overall R² = .253). Like all other models, teacher stress was not significantly related and was therefore removed from the model. Overall, approximately 25% of the variance in why students changed their thrill-seeking score was related to their teacher’s change as well as students’ and teachers’ initial responses.

Discussion

We examined how teachers’ participation in a 5-week, ASE-informed, school counseling consultation intervention affected coregulated experiences between teachers and students, including their teacher–student relationship and curiosity, and teachers’ stress. Results indicate that after accounting for students' and teachers' initial positive and negative relationship perceptions, changes in students' perception of their relationship with their teacher were significantly predicted by their teacher's perception of the same relationship (with positive perceptions increasing and negative perceptions decreasing). These findings potentially demonstrate that the ASE consultation intervention had some positive influence on the coregulated development of teacher–student relationships and that these positive changes were coregulated between teacher and student. Further, the analyses revealed significant relationships in two of the five scales pertaining to coregulated teacher and student curiosity, namely deprivation sensitivity and thrill seeking. Finally, teacher participants reported greater tolerance to stressful situations over the course of the three data collection periods.

Findings from the current intervention study add to a nascent literature that suggests use of school-based interventions can foster teacher–student relationships (Poling et al., 2022). The manualized ASE consultation intervention used in the current study is generally consistent with the recommended practices, including opportunities for teachers to increase closeness to students, decrease conflict, promote social/emotional learning, and emphasize relationally focused classroom experiences. The current study does add to the extant teacher–student relationship intervention literature in a number of ways, particularly the inclusion of school counseling services. Rather than reliance on resource-intensive external resources, school counselors are embedded in schools and readied with training and responsibilities necessary to deliver teacher–student relationship-building experiences across entire school environments. These results also provide germinal evidence for the importance of coregulated relationships between teachers and students (McCaslin et al., 2015). In this way, students and teachers might have more agency to determine the shared classroom culture.

Along with coregulated changes in teacher–student relationships, our results indicated that teachers’ perceptual changes in deprivation sensitivity and thrill seeking predicted similar changes in students’ perception of these two forms of curiosity. Kashdan et al., (2020) found that people who scored high in deprivation sensitivity tended to engage deeply in complex ideas, seek to reduce knowledge gaps, and are solution focused. This result is consistent with ASE theoretical intentions to cultivate capacities in students and teachers, especially in the face of socially challenging circumstances. In a similar way, Kashdan and Goodman’s group (2020) found that individuals who scored high on thrill seeking were more amenable to seeking out novel and intense experiences, which might align with the liberatory aspirations of ASE theory. Somewhat surprisingly, results yielded no significant coregulated relationships between teachers’ and students’ joyous exploration, stress tolerance, and social curiosity. These results might be a function of the modest sample size (especially at the teacher level) or the relatively brief duration of the study. Curiosity can be a generally durable and intrinsic personal characteristic (Ryan & Deci, 2000), especially in schooling relationships.

A third important finding pertained to coregulated changes in teacher stress tolerance. For teacher–student relationships and curiosity, teachers’ stress tolerance did not predict significant outcomes. Results instead indicated that a small change in teacher stress responses occurred between the first and third data collection points. The consultation intervention included a mindfulness lesson in each session, but the particular mindfulness activities were not necessarily focused on stress reduction but chiefly concerned teachers’ awareness of experience and intentional teaching behaviors. The subtle changes in stress response found in these results also indicate the pernicious nature of stress for teachers, especially given that the various factors that potentially induce stress are outside of teachers’ control or the influence of the teacher–student relationship. Nonetheless, these modest findings provide some optimism that coregulated relationships might begin to introduce some limited relief for teachers’ stress levels.

Implications for School Counseling Practice

The school counseling literature has a burgeoning focus concerned with social justice practices (Holcomb-McCoy, 2022; Stickl Haugen et al., 2022). Social justice in schools includes, at least in part, how adult educators interface with students (Dover, 2009). The preponderance of the school counseling scholarship related to social justice in schools is conceptual or reflects the social justice values of the school counselor; although these works are unequivocally laudable, the literature lacks empirical scholarship demonstrating how school counselor-led interventions affect the school environment and peoples’ lived experiences.

Results from the current study provide some initial evidence that school counselors can affect the relationships shared between teachers and students, which may in turn enhance classroom dynamics, leading to more just and advantageous outcomes for students. The participating school counselors were trained to consult with the teachers such that those teachers could interrogate their internal experiences, consider how their instructional approaches affect themselves and their students, and commit to more intentional and prosperous alternative classroom behaviors including teacher–student relationships. This approach to social justice-focused school counseling places profound trust in teachers and students as co-determining agents of social change.

The ASE approach to school counseling illustrates that social justice practice can align with counseling values such as prevention, development, and wellness (Myers, 1992). The liberatory social justice focus of ASE suggests that teachers and “students from disenfranchised communities do not accept inadequate or deleterious social conditions; instead, using social-emotional and mindfulness strategies, they accept their cognitive and affective reactions and respond with clearer intentionality” (Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2018, p. 299).

Conclusion and Future Research

Relationships in schools have profound implications on the educational experiences and outcomes for teachers and students. Findings from the current study provide some preliminary support that school counselors using theory-informed consultation can contribute to constructive teacher–student relationships while amplifying curiosity and supporting teachers who experience stress.

ASCA (2019b) requires that school counselors operate under the influence of evidence-based theories and techniques. Most human service approaches were not designed explicitly for the purposes of intervening in school environments or with students or teachers, and there is value in providing interventions that are tailor made for the specific context (Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2020). Findings from the current investigation add to the prior outcome literature in support of the ASE approach and of school counseling more generally. The preponderance of the intervention literature related to school counseling treats student or teacher outcomes as ends, whereas the current focus on coregulated experiences shared between teacher and student is more consistent with philosophical assumptions of ASE. Synthesizing ASE findings pertaining to student outcomes such as their executive functioning or feelings of connectedness (Bowers et al., 2020; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2018), coupled with academic achievement outcomes (Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2018, 2020), with teacher outcomes such as improved relationships with students and more mindful teaching behaviors (Molina et al., 2022), adds greater dimensionality to the results of current study. Inferentially, considering the sum of these various results, school counselors who utilize ASE theory can demonstrate that students and teachers can flourish when provided sufficient support and hospitable schooling climates.

Although this work is promising, future empirical scholarship might include a greater number of matched pairs of teachers and students or use stricter experimental conditions (e.g., randomization; treatment and control conditions). The ASE approach to school counseling has accrued a modest and tentatively impressive empirical foundation, yet no study has fully actualized the delivery of complimentary services to students and educators or other school stakeholders. In this manner, the ultimate aspiration of ASE is to cultivate relationships between students and educators aimed at personal and social well-being.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Hackett Fund.

ORCID iD

Matthew E. Lemberger-Truelove

Author Biographies

Matthew E. Lemberger-Truelove, PhD, is a professor with the Department of Counseling & Higher Education at the University of North Texas in Denton, TX. Email: matthew.lemberger-truelove@unt.edu

Citlali E. Molina, PhD, is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology & Counseling at the University of Texas at Tyler.

Kira J. Carbonneau, PhD, is an associate professor with the Department of Kinesiology and Educational Psychology at Washington State University in Pullman, WA.

Megan J. Smith is a graduate student in the Department of Counseling & Higher Education at the University of North Texas.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

American School Counselor Association. (2019a). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).

American School Counselor Association. (2019b). ASCA standards for school counselor preparation programs. https://schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/573d7c2c-1622-4d25-a5ac-ac74d2e614ca/ASCA-Standards-for-School-Counselor-Preparation-Programs.pdf

Amorim Neto

R. D. C.

Golz

Polega

Stewart

(2022). The impact of curiosity on teacher–student relationships. Journal of Education, 202(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420943184

Birenbaum

Alhija

F. N. A.

Shilton

Kimron

Rosanski

Shahor

(2019). A further look at the five-dimensional curiosity construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.038

Bowers

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Whitford

D. K.

(2020). Kindergarteners are ready to learn: Executive functioning and social-emotional effects for a pilot school counseling intervention applying advocating student-within-environment theory. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 59(1), 3–19. https://doi:10.1002/johc.12126

Brigman

Villares

Mullis

Webb

L. D.

White

J. F.

(2021). School counselor consultation: Skills for working effectively with parents, teachers, and other school personnel. Wiley.

Brinkworth

M. E.

McIntyre

Juraschek

A. D.

Gehlbach

(2018). 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

Ceballos

P. L.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Molina

C. E.

Laird

Carbonneau

K. J.

(2021). Culturally diverse middle school students’ perceptions of a social and emotional learning and mindfulness school counseling intervention. Journal of Child & Adolescent Counseling, 7(2), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/23727810.2021.1948809

10.

Cholewa

Goodman-Scott

Thomas

Cook

(2016). Teachers’ perceptions and experiences consulting with school counselors: A qualitative study. Professional School Counseling, 20(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.77

11.

Clark

Seider

(2017). Developing critical curiosity in adolescents. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301835

12.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

13.

Dempster

A. P.

Laird

N. M.

Rubin

D. B.

(1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x

14.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education. Free Press.

15.

Dover

A. G.

(2009). Teaching for social justice and K-12 student outcomes: A conceptual framework and research review. Equity and Excellence in Education, 42(4), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903196339

16.

Duong

M. T.

Pullmann

M. D.

Buntain-Ricklefs

Lee

Benjamin

K. S.

Nguyen

Cook

C. R.

(2019). Brief teacher training improves student behavior and student–teacher relationships in middle school. School Psychology, 34(2), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000296

17.

Engel

(2011). Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115

18.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

19.

Frenzel

A. C.

Becker-Kurz

Pekrun

Goetz

Lüdtke

(2018). Emotion transmission in the classroom revisited: A reciprocal effects model of teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000228

20.

Gehlbach

Brinkworth

M. E.

King

A. M.

Hsu

L. M.

McIntyre

Rogers

(2016). Creating birds of similar feathers: Leveraging similarity to improve teacher–student relationships and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu000004

21.

Goldhaber

Theobald

(2021). Teacher attrition and mobility over time. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 235–237. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211060840

22.

Graham

J. W.

Cumsille

P. E.

Shevock

A. E.

(2012). Methods for handling missing data. In Weiner

(Ed.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed. p. hop202004). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202004

23.

Gregory

Clawson

Davis

Gerewitz

(2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher–student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950

24.

Hamilton

Gross

(2021). How has the pandemic affected students’ social-emotional well-being? A review of the evidence to date. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/publications/how-has-pandemic-affected-students-social-emotional-well-being-review-evidence-date

25.

Holcomb-McCoy

(2022). School counseling to close opportunity gaps: A social justice and antiracist framework for success. Corwin Press.

26.

Huck

Zhang

(2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research and Development Journal, 24(1), 53–84. https://www.viethconsulting.com/members/publication/new_waves_article.php?aid=47722445

27.

Hughes

J. N.

Cao

(2018). Trajectories of teacher–student warmth and conflict at the transition to middle school: Effects on academic engagement and achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 67(2018), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.003.

28.

Jirout

J. J.

Vitiello

V. E.

Zumbrunn

S. K.

(2018). Curiosity in schools. In Gordon

(Ed.), The new science of curiosity (pp. 243–266). Nova.

29.

Kashdan

T. B.

Disabato

D. J.

Goodman

F. R.

McKnight

P. E.

(2020). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157(2020), 109836. Article 109836 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836

30.

Kashdan

T. B.

Goodman

F. R.

Disabato

D. J.

McKnight

P. E.

Kelso

Naughton

(2020). Curiosity has comprehensive benefits in the workplace: Developing and validating a multidimensional workplace curiosity scale in United States and German employees. Personality and Individual Differences, 155(2020), 109717. Article 109717 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109717

31.

Kim

L. E.

Oxley

Asbury

(2022). What makes a great teacher during a pandemic? Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(1), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1988826

32.

Lemberger

M. E.

(2010). Advocating student-within-environment: A humanistic theory for school counseling. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 49(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2010.tb00093.x

33.

Lemberger

M. E.

Carbonneau

Selig

J. P.

Bowers

(2018). The role of social-emotional mediators on middle school students’ academic growth as fostered by an evidence-based intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 96(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12175

34.

Lemberger

M. E.

Hutchison

(2014). Advocating student-within-environment: A humanistic approach for therapists to animate social justice in the schools. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 54(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167812469831

35.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Bowers

(2019). An Advocating Student-within-Environment approach to school counseling. In Dollarhide

C. T.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

(Eds.), Theories of school counseling for the 21st century (pp. 266–294). Oxford Press.

36.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Carbonneau

K. J.

Atencio

D. J.

Zieher

A. K.

Palacios

A. F.

(2018). Self-regulatory growth effects for young children participating in a combined social and emotional learning and mindfulness-based intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 96(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00000.x

37.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Ceballos

P. L.

Molina

C. E.

Dehner

J. M.

(2020). Inclusion of theory for evidence-based school counseling practice and scholarship. Professional School Counseling, 23(1_part_3), 2156759X2090357. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20903576

38.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

39.

McCaslin

(2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent Identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832384

40.

McCaslin

Sotardi

V. A.

Vega

R. I.

(2015). Self-regulated learning and classroom management. In Emmer

Sabornie

E. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (2nd ed. pp. 322–343). Erlbaum.

41.

Molina

C. E.

Lemberger-Truelove

M. E.

Zieher

A., K.

(2022). School counselor consultation effects on teachers’ mindfulness, stress, and relationships. Professional School Counselor, 26(1a), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221086749

42.

Murray

Zvoch

(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

43.

Myers

J. E.

(1992). Wellness, prevention, development: The cornerstone of the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(2), 136–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556- 6676.1992.tb02188.x

44.

Poling

D. V.

Van Loan

C. L.

Garwood

J. D.

Zhang

Riddle

(2022). A narrative review of school-based interventions measuring dyadic-level teacher-student relationship quality. Educational Research Review, 37(2022), 100459. Article 100459 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100459

45.

Pressley

Learn

(2021). Teacher stress and anxiety during COVID-19: An empirical study. School Psychology, 36(5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000468

46.

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

47.

Rudasill

K. M.

Reio

T. G.

Stipanovic

Taylor

J. E.

(2010). A longitudinal study of student-teacher relationship quality, difficult temperament, and risky behavior from childhood to early adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.05.001

48.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

49.

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

50.

Sethi

Scales

P. C.

(2020). Developmental relationships and school success: How teachers, parents, and friends affect educational outcomes and what actions students say matter most. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63(2020), 101904. Article 101904 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101904

51.

Short

M. M.

Mazmanian

Oinonen

Mushquash

C. J.

(2016). Executive function and self-regulation mediate dispositional mindfulness and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 93(2016), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.007.

52.

Spilt

J. L.

Koomen

H. M.

Thijs

J. T.

(2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

53.

Stickl Haugen

Bledsoe

K. G.

Burgess

Rutledge

M. L.

(2022). Framework of anti‐racist school counseling competencies: A delphi study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 100(3), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12422

54.

Tao

Meng

Gao

Yang

(2022). Perceived teacher support, student engagement, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 42(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2033168

55.

U.S. Department of Education . (n.d.). Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

56.

von der Embse

N. P.

Sandalos

Pendergast

Mankin

(2016). Teacher stress, teaching efficacy, and job satisfaction in response to test‐based educational accountability policies. Learning and Individual Differences, 50(2016), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.001.

57.

Walker

Graham

(2021). At risk students and teacher-student relationships: Student characteristics, attitudes to school and classroom climate. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(8), 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1588925

58.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2009). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational constructs. In Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 301–322). Routledge.