The emergence of positive psychology has prompted the exploration and cultivation of covitality, supporting mental health by simultaneously reducing mental illness and promoting positive mental health domains, including good relationships, positive emotions, and a sense of vitality and thriving (Renshaw et al. 2014). The upper end of covitality is often referred to as wellbeing, a multi-dimensional construct defined as the combination of feeling good, functioning effectively and doing good for others, across various domains of life, and a construct that is distinct from ill-being (Huppert and So 2013; Waters et al. 2017).

Wellbeing has been identified as one of the top 17 sustainable goals by the United Nations (United Nations 2015), with schools specifically identified as important institutions within which the wellbeing of young people can be cultivated (Faulconbridge et al. 2017; Waters et al. 2017). As such, there is growing global interest to encourage schools to not only prioritize academic outcomes but also positive mental health outcomes (Chodkiewicz and Boyle 2017). Indeed, a raft of school-based mental health movements have been introduced in many countries across the globe over the past two decades. For example, meditation appears in the UK with the Mindfulness in Schools Programme (Kuyken et al. 2013) and in Australia with Smiling Mind (Yaari et al. 2019), social and emotional learning is evident in the USA with CASEL (Collaborative for Academic and Social Emotional Learning 2015) and in the UK with SEAL (Lendrum et al. 2013). Other movements that have attracted global attention in education include the self-esteem movement (Orth et al. 2018), the resiliency movement (Dray et al. 2017), positive youth development (Ciocanel et al. 2017), character development (Linkins et al. 2014) and positive education (Seligman et al. 2009). Each of these movements comprises specific aims, target groups and methods of implementation (Wallace et al. 2011; Waters et al. 2017). Together they represent a variety of positive approaches to youth development (Kern et al. 2017).

We focus here on one mental health movement that has recently emerged: ‘positive education’. This paper will provide background on the current state of positive education and discuss two key limitations of the field: (1) it has focused on content over context, and (2) it has focused on individual over collective flourishing.

We propose that by drawing on the principles of Systems-Informed Positive Psychology (SIPP) (Kern et al. 2019), there is greater capacity to cultivate flourishing not only through content but also through context, and to foster flourishing simultaneously for individuals and groups. This paper situates the classroom as a powerful context for intervention and poses the question ‘What can foster collective flourishing in the classroom?’ We argue that positive education must include more than individual-focussed positive psychology interventions (PPIs) taught to students and move towards seeing the classroom as a system that can build or detract from flourishing. From this perspective, teachers can learn how to alter the classroom in ways that boost wellbeing above and beyond the specific teaching of PPIs. To conceptualize this, we have drawn from the foundations of Fish and Dane’s (2000) classroom systems model to develop the Flourishing Classroom Systems Model.

Positive Education

Positive education is defined as education for both traditional skills and for happiness (Seligman et al. 2009), and provides an umbrella term for research and practice that promotes the wellbeing of students (Kern et al. 2017). Positive education aims to bring together the concepts of positive psychology (the science of flourishing) with best-practice approaches from education to build strengths, capabilities, wellbeing and resilience (Norrish et al. 2013; Waters 2017a). Positive education is broader than some of the other above-mentioned movements, given that it incorporates multiple frameworks and theories that extend beyond social-emotional skills to incorporate elements such as character, meaning and physical health (Slemp et al. 2017).

A major focus of positive education is the use of empirically validated interventions and programs from positive psychology that target individual student wellbeing (Shankland and Rosset 2017; White and Waters 2015). These positive psychology interventions (PPIs) are defined as brief, targeted, intentional activities that aim to promote positive outcomes, such as keeping a gratitude diary, mindful breathing or acts of kindness (Roth et al. 2017). Donaldson et al.’s (2015) systematic review of over 1336 published positive psychology articles identified 161 intervention studies with empirical evidence linking such interventions to increased wellbeing, resilience, engagement, hope and other positive outcomes.

While much of the research relating to PPIs has been focused on adult populations, there has been increasing attention for applying such interventions with children, particularly within schools (Waters and Loton 2019). Using PPIs within schools does not require special materials nor an extensive commitment of time, and can be flexibly implemented by an individual teacher across different ages and contexts (Shankland and Rosset 2017).

An emerging research base of school-based PPIs demonstrates promising impact on multiple indicators of student wellbeing (Roth et al. 2017). For example, a gratitude intervention was found to increase wellbeing, positive affect, life satisfaction and feelings of gratitude (Khanna and Singh 2016); mindfulness and meditation practices have been shown to reduce ill-being and reported stress and improve various wellbeing domains (Waters et al. 2015); and character strength PPIs were related to increased engagement, life satisfaction, positive affect, wellbeing and relationships (Lavy 2019).

Limitations of Positive Education

Despite the benefits of positive education, the movement has received multiple criticisms (Christopher et al. 2008; Gruman et al. 2018; Kern et al. 2019; Lomas and Ivtzan 2016; Wong 2011). Amongst these critiques, two key criticisms are that positive education has focused on content over context and individual over collective flourishing.

Various socio-ecological factors have been found to shape student wellbeing, including the school environment (Goldspink et al. 2008), classroom climate (Walker 2011), teacher wellbeing (Gu and Day 2007), teacher-student relationships (Cornelius-White 2016), the emotional environment that occurs amongst peers (e.g., sense of care, respect, trust amongst students) (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2017) and a climate of connectedness (Allen et al. 2016a). These factors illustrate that wellbeing is influenced by a range of factors that sit outside of the student. Models are needed that explore how to create contexts that build wellbeing (Ciarrochi et al. 2016; Roffey 2017). Teachers must focus as much on the context they are creating as on the content they are teaching. For example, in addition to teaching students’ conflict management skills (content), schools might also seek to build a culture of forgiveness and put in place restorative policies and practices (context).

Further, current positive education interventions are based on a psychological perspective, focusing on what students can do individually (e.g. keeping a gratitude journal), rather than including sociological aspects that might build the collective wellbeing of the group (e.g. creating class identity through a whole-class appreciative inquiry activity). Various studies demonstrate that wellbeing occurs as a group phenomenon. For instance, mood has been shown to occur at the group level through the mechanism of emotional contagion, where the affective states of group members converge over time (Barsade and Knight 2015; Cacioppo et al. 2009).

Targeting wellbeing at a group level may be more efficient and effective than focusing on individuals, by impacting on a larger number simultaneously (Dion 2000). As such, it is useful to consider collective interventions that cultivate both flourishing students and flourishing classrooms. Páez, Espinosa and Bobowik (2013) provide an example of such an intervention, in which they targeted the emotional climate of a classroom through collective rituals, fostering shared experiences and incorporating social sharing. Similarly, the Growing and Nurturing Classroom Model teaches educators about ecosystems, attachment, psychosocial development, resilience, and promoting positive behaviour, allowing them to embed nurturing principles into everyday classroom practice (Boorn et al. 2010).

Group Flourishing: a Definition

If we intend to focus on flourishing at a collective level and understand how the context influences flourishing, it is helpful to differentiate between individual and collective flourishing. Definitions of flourishing have increased, but conceptualisations remain focused on individuals (King et al. 2018). The positive psychology literature also limits the focus to psychosocial wellbeing. For instance, Huppert and So (2013) define flourishing as the opposite of a mental disorder, rather than its absence, requiring the presence of both positive feelings and positive functioning. Keyes (2007) proposed that flourishing requires an individual to display at least one high-level indicator of hedonic wellbeing and at least six high-level indicators of positive functioning, such a purpose in life, autonomy, social acceptance or social contribution. Extending flourishing to a collective phenomenon, we define flourishing as a situation where a group as a collective is independently and interdependently feeling good and functioning well.

A Systems-Informed Perspective of Positive Education

If flourishing occurs and is impacted at a group level, how can teachers learn to create classroom contexts in ways that build collective flourishing? We suggest that a Systems Informed Positive Psychology (SIPP) perspective, with a focus on classroom systems, is useful. This shifts typical approaches to positive education in three ways. First, it provides concrete elements that teachers can alter to build a context that supports wellbeing (e.g. teaching practices, student relationships, communication patterns). Second, by working with the classroom as a system, wellbeing can be viewed not only as the experience of an individual student but also as a collective phenomenon. Third, taking a SIPP approach treats the teacher not simply as a curriculum deliverer but as a change agent who curates his/her classroom in ways that support both learning and wellbeing.

Classrooms represent human social systems that are dynamic, non-linear and in continuous interaction, nested within larger and smaller systems (Burns and Knox 2011; Rosas 2017). Multiple definitions of systems exist (Hieronymi 2013); here, we adopt Meadows’ (2008) definition of a system as an ‘interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something’ (p. 11). According to Meadows, systems include three components: elements, interconnections and purpose. Within the classroom, elements include the teacher, students, and materials. Interconnections include the student’s interactions, classroom behaviour expectations and teaching methods. The purpose of a classroom is for students to learn, achieve and develop (and, we argue, to build wellbeing).

Within this dynamic classroom environment, many factors beyond the individual student affect learning and wellbeing, including teaching style, peer group relationships, class climate, teacher relationships, and educational policies (Gupta and Gupta 2013), as well as the interactions amongst these factors. Indeed, Hattie’s (2018) meta-analysis of factors that influence student achievement identified over 250 influences, grouped into themes, including the student, home, school, classroom, curricula and teacher. Given that teachers are already creating systems in their classroom (knowingly or unknowingly), providing teachers ways to change the elements, interactions and purpose of their classroom may help them modify the classroom system to foster student wellbeing.

A core principle of a SIPP approach is that elements are interconnected. Change in one part of the system influences or creates reactions in other parts (Rhodes and Wallis 2011; Shiell et al. 2008). Some elements have mutually reinforcing relationships. For instance, a student might experience rejection from peers; in response, he inappropriately uses humour to restore his self-esteem, which disrupts the class. This triggers the teacher to reprimand the student, who feels further disconnected from the class, reinforcing his disruptive behaviour. Other elements play a balancing role, helping to maintain stability or homeostasis. For instance, the teacher might recognize his/her feelings in response to this student, takes a moment to calm his/her emotions before responding, diffusing the situation. When trying to modify a system, one is trying to introduce a mutually reinforcing loop, shifting homeostatic levels to more positive set points. However, if balancing elements are ignored, changes will not be sustained long enough for new levels to emerge (Rhodes and Wallis 2011). Interventions thus do not occur in isolation, but because of and in reaction to other elements within the system. By making relationships within a system visible, a greater understanding of how the system works can emerge, providing a better understanding of how to most effectively influence the system (Meadows 2008).

Kern et al. (2019) proposed SIPP applies principles from the systems sciences to positive psychology theory, research, and practice to ‘optimize human social systems and the individuals within them’ (p. 2). SIPP assumes that people are interdependent with the systems that they are a part of and it assumes that wellbeing is defined by, negotiated and embodied by people within the system. Drawing on the many tools and methods available from the systems sciences, SIPP makes visible what is invisible in the system, helping to identify problems, strengths and potential solutions. It assumes that there is no single solution to problems or one best approach to flourishing, as the appropriateness of actions is dependent on the context and people within the system.

In a recent empirical SIPP application, Waters (n.d.) used a family systems approach to extend PPIs beyond individuals within families, to interventions that also alter the way relational systems operate across families. Families who undertook the two family-level PPIs showed significant improvements in collective family happiness. A SIPP perspective was used to suggest how small, regular, strength-based practices change ‘action-reaction patterns’ in families to create positive patterns and, as these new patterns become repeated over time, they shift the family into a new state of being—that of higher family happiness. Just as SIPP applies to families, it can also be applied to the classroom to help teachers understand how wellbeing can be built through changing the elements, interactions and purpose of the classroom.

Flourishing Classrooms: a Working Model

When considering how teachers can understand collective wellbeing and identify where and how to modify the classroom system, Fish and Dane’s (2000) Classroom Systems Observation Model (CSOM) provides a useful starting point. They suggested that three elements can be used to understand classroom systems for the purpose of learning: cohesion, flexibility, and communication. Figure 1 outlines the three elements and sub-elements of the CSOM. We first describe the original model, and then extend the model to explicitly include wellbeing, in a revised model called the Flourishing Classroom Systems Model (FCSM).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Fish and Dane’s (2000) Classroom Systems Observation Model

Full size image

Cohesion

Cohesion refers to ‘feelings of closeness and caring shared by classroom members. A cohesive classroom is one where members spend time together, support and help each other’ (Fish and Dane 2000, p. 79). Cohesion has three sub-elements: emotional bonding, supportiveness and boundaries.

Emotional bonding involves students displaying care for each other. Studies find that classrooms that have high cohesion create emotionally, mentally and physically safe spaces, where most students feel a sense of belonging, connection and acceptance (Quinlan et al. 2015). Emotional connections within the classroom have been linked with better academic performance (Reyes et al. 2012).

Supportiveness appears as students encourage one another. Dion (2000) suggests that supportiveness can be demonstrated through vertical cohesion (teacher to students) and social cohesion (peer to peer). Good student-teacher and peer relationships emerge in safe and caring classroom environments, and poor relationships emerge when teacher and peer interactions rupture and breakdown (Mikk et al. 2016). Peer interactions are particularly crucial in the class environment (Soini et al. 2010), with peer connections influencing key outcomes such as behaviour and academic outcomes (Kim and Cappella 2016).

Clear personal and physical boundaries also enable teachers and students to feel safe. Boundaries can be seen in students respecting one another’s personal space. ‘Interpersonal boundaries create an environment in which both student and teacher feel respected, appreciated and capable’(Espinoza 2012, p. 29).

Classroom Flexibility

Flexibility refers to a classroom that is adaptable to student and teacher needs. Flexibility has three sub elements: leadership, discipline and negotiation.

Leadership involves teachers asking for student input on activity and being ‘appropriately responsive to students’ need for direction’ (Fish and Dane 1995, p.9). As students get older, they have a growing need for their perspective to be accepted (LaRusso et al. 2008). Active student voice allows student participation and meaningful decision-making (Reiss 2018) and has been linked with beneficial learning outcomes (Mitra and Serriere 2012). It also fosters personal development, providing opportunities for students to pursue what suits them best and apply decision-making in real life situations (Reiss 2018).

Discipline refers to the teacher being consistent while considering circumstances in rule enforcement and changing rules as needed. At times, discipline for poor student behaviour is necessary and important. However, at times it is unmerited, or is administered in ways that are harmful. One in five students globally report that they experience some form of unfair treatment by their teachers (OECD 2017). Teachers may punish a misbehaving student without first considering whether their own behaviour might contribute to the problem (Goss et al. 2017). Swinson and Harrop (2012) found that a corrective approach to behaviour is often ineffective, despite the perceived short-term efficacy. They suggest that student behaviour is most effectively changed through restoration, encouraging the student to adopt appropriate behaviours.

Negotiation refers to allowing decisions to be made in the classroom through compromise and conflicts resolved through discussion. While fostering leadership encourages student voice, it is empowered through how the teacher responds to this voice, as well as how students navigate each other. Herrmann (2018) explains that negotiation is about ‘solving complex problems that require the cooperation of others’ (p.1). For outcomes such as student learning and wellbeing, the teacher needs the cooperation of the students and they need it from each other.

Communication

Communication reflects the capacity for students and teachers to express their thoughts and feelings and includes listening skills, self-disclosure and clarity.

Listening refers to the teacher’s ability to hear the student without interrupting and looking at students directly when they are speaking. The practice of attentive listening is central to understand students’ experiences and needs; the teacher should listen emotionally and intellectually to build care and trust (Noddings, 2012). For instance, the CoLATE model, which suggests five steps (confidentiality, listening, acknowledging, talking about options and encouragement), provides one example of a structure for teachers to communicate with students in a way that makes them feel safe, valued and heard (Cross et al. n.d.).

Self-disclosure refers to students speaking about their feelings, likes and dislikes, and students and the teacher talking about family and friends. Self-disclosure focuses on appropriate personal disclosure, allowing students to be known and understood by their teacher and classmates.

Clarity refers to clear and consistent verbal and non-verbal messaging from teachers and conversations that stay on topic. Clarity is important in the learning process, with students who are taught by a clear teacher learning more and students reporting greater positive affect towards teachers with clear non-verbal messaging (Chesebro 2003).

Extending the Classroom System Model to Incorporate Wellbeing

The CSOM provides a useful way for teachers to understand their classroom and to use the systems elements of cohesion, flexibility and communication to create group-level change. The model also implicitly contains a number of wellbeing-enhancing elements, such as expressing thoughts and feelings and social support. However, if teachers are to intentionally and clearly build the wellbeing of the group, we suggest that an updated systems model is needed that explicitly recognizes wellbeing as a distinct element.

We suggest that a fourth element of ‘wellbeing’ is needed, resulting in the Flourishing Classroom Systems Model (FCSM; Fig. 2). The FCSM highlights how classroom elements of cohesion, flexibility, communication and wellbeing interact to influence the system’s purpose of cultivating student learning and wellbeing. We suggest that the wellbeing element contains six sub-elements, based upon the SEARCH model: strengths, emotion management, attention, relationships, coping and habits and goals, outlined below (Waters and Loton 2019; Waters 2017c).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The Flourishing Classroom Systems Model (FCSM)

Full size image

Strengths

Strengths refer to the capacity for students and teachers to recognize, utilize and develop their specific talents (e.g. swimming, solving puzzles, building relationships) and character (e.g. kindness, courage) (Waters 2017b). Strengths-based approaches have been linked with improved wellbeing outcomes, including happiness, psychological wellbeing, vitality, positive affect, engagement, achievement and decreased stress (Govindji and Linley 2007; Quinlan et al. 2015; Wood et al. 2011). The explicit teaching of strengths has been shown to improve school performance, achievement and wellbeing (Brunzell et al. 2015; Quinlan et al. 2015). By identifying student’s strengths, assets and abilities, it makes it possible to identify the core elements that enable students to flourish and thrive (Brunzell et al. 2015).

Strengths-based approaches have primarily focused on individuals rather than group outcomes (Quinlan et al. 2015). Yet it is important to not overlook the systemic and relational aspects of strengths. For example, individual strength knowledge and use have been linked with improved social skills and pro-social behaviour in children and adolescents (Tayyab et al. 2013). A flourishing classroom system involves teachers and students using their own strengths, seeing the strengths in others and mobilizing group-level strengths to achieve a common goal.

Emotional Management

Emotional management refers to the ability to perceive, understand, express and manage emotions together with knowing how they are influenced by physiology, thoughts and circumstances (Brackett and Simmons 2015; Salovey et al. 2002). Emotions influence everyday life, including learning, relationships, mental health and performance (Brackett and Simmons 2015; Immordino Yang & Damasio, 2008).

Within the classroom, teachers view their own emotions as a key determinant of the classroom emotional climate (Shewark et al. 2018). A flourishing classroom system involves both teachers and students recognizing and regulating emotions in themselves and others, while displaying practices that collectively shift the emotions of the group. For instance, the teacher might be observed creating a positive emotional atmosphere by focusing on the collective emotions of the classroom.

Attention

Attention refers to where we place our focus. It is selective in nature, requires cognitive effort and is limiting both in the exclusion of other stimuli and as a finite resource (Maxfield 2018). Studies find that when attention is repeatedly present-focussed, a person is more likely to report feeling happy, regardless of the activity that they are engaging in (Killingsworth and Gilbert 2010). Teachers can build present-moment attention to promote wellbeing in the classroom both at the individual level (e.g. a student sustaining attention on task when others are taking) and at the group level (e.g. the entire class participating in a 3 min mindfulness activity).

Relational Capability

Relational capability refers to the ability to develop and sustain positive and beneficial relationships with others (CASEL, 2015), including skills such as being able to understand and manage social aspects of life successfully to develop nourishing connection with others (Roffey 2017). Humans have a deep-rooted biological and psychological need to belong and connect with others (Baumeister et al. 1995; Cacioppo and Cacioppo 2017). A sense of belonging correlates with having friends and being accepted, having peers that are academically and emotionally supportive and positive teacher-student relationships (Allen et al. 2016b).

Positive social identification provides psychological resources, including a sense of meaning and social connectedness (Golec de Zavala 2019). At the collective level for instance, identifying with a sporting team has been found to facilitate wellbeing (Wann et al. 2011). Relational capabilities at the group level might appear through the creation and promotion of a class identity to foster strong relationships amongst the group.

Coping

Coping refers to the ability to balance the demands of life with the resources to manage those demands and being able to bounce back when thrown off balance (Davis and Asliturk 2011; Rajaei et al. 2016). Skills associated with coping might be task or emotion-focussed, such as the capacity to cognitively restructure thoughts, being able to self-administer psychological first aid and help-seeking with outcomes such as resilience (Gheshlagh et al. 2017). Coping correlates with higher levels of wellbeing and less depressive symptomatology and emotional behavioural problems (Hu et al. 2015; Ziaian et al. 2012).

Collective coping refers to actions carried out by the system or some of its members to increase group level wellbeing (Kuo 2013; Rodríguez et al. 2019). For example, Rodríguez et al. (2019) found that ‘collective problem-focussed coping’, measured by collective actions to cope with stress such as coordination of work, training and supportive colleagues, was associated with significant decreases in both individual stress levels and the organizational stress climate. At the group level, coping might appear in teachers encouraging students to seek help, students helping each other and a sense of resilience, hope and optimism present in the classroom.

Habits and Goals

Habits refer to lifestyle and behaviours linked with wellbeing. Goals are defined as ‘self-regulatory commitments that provide direction to individuals as they interpret and respond to competence-relevant situations’ (Sommet and Elliot 2016, p.1). Progressing towards goals through motivation, perseverance and mastery is a key pathway to wellbeing (Rusk and Waters 2015). Habit and goals interact with each other, with goal setting being an important step to changing habits (Waters and Loton 2019).

Within the classroom, the class that is collectively and routinely participating in mindfulness is creating a group wellbeing habit. Studies on the use of pedagogical practices have seen an increase in activities such as the classroom teacher setting learning intentions and learning goals to make more visible what the class intends to collectively achieve (Hattie and Yates 2014). When considering flourishing as the collective outcome, visible wellbeing (Waters 2017a) challenges teachers to adopt the same concepts and to set wellbeing intentions and goals for the class as a collective.

Applications and Implications

By introducing the fourth element to Fish and Dane’s earlier systems approach, the FCSM allows wellbeing to become a more observable phenomenon in the classroom. By making wellbeing visible (Waters 2017c; Waters et al. 2017), teachers have a clearer way to identify the state of the classroom and then alter their teaching practice accordingly. This creates a classroom context that supports flourishing and, thus, broadens the purpose of the classroom beyond learning. As outlined earlier, purpose is one of the three core components proposed by Meadows (2008) to create a system. We argue that FCSM can be used to create a classroom system that is more focused on the purpose of wellbeing.

This model can be used by teachers to build up various sub-elements, and importantly it helps teachers to understand the interconnections amongst elements and how changing one element can create change in others. For example, the teacher might invite students to create an emotion charter, where students collectively decide how they want to feel and agree on behaviours that would promote these feelings (RULER, 2013). This classroom practice, targeting emotions, while situated within the wellbeing element, would trigger feedback loops that also create positive changes to the communication and cohesion elements. In this example, changing one element has knock-on effects for others. The FCSM, thus, incorporates all three components of what Meadows argues is needed for a system: purpose, elements and interconnections (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The Flourishing Classroom Systems Model (FCSM)

Full size image

Future consideration should be given to how to operationalize group flourishing within the classroom. Efforts to capture a measurement of group flourishing (e.g. classrooms, schools) often rely on subjective self-reports and are aggregates of individual scores. These measures are based on individuals as the unit of measurement and involve subjective indicators as the source of data. Further, such measures capture feeling and functioning at a particular point in time, failing to capture dynamic aspects of functioning, and failing to capture the complexity of group dynamics, as described above. More diverse means of collecting wellbeing data have been encouraged (Hefferon, Ashfield, Waters, & Synard, 2017; Kern et al. 2019; Knifton 2015). To this end, we are developing the Flourishing Classroom Systems Observation Tool, which will operationalize the FCSM and make group flourishing in the classroom more objectively measurable and as a result more modifiable.

Conclusion

Flourishing is both an individual and a collective phenomenon. The adoption of a SIPP approach provides a more visible way for teachers to understand how they can change the context of their classroom in ways that can boost collective wellbeing. The FCSM provides an approach for addressing the classroom as a system and to make its elements more visible. This is an important evolution for the field of positive education and provides a more expansive and systematic lens with which collective flourishing can be considered and cultivated.