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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction is excessively brief and relies solely on the quote from Seligman (2011), without offering a sufficiently broad overview of the context and current relevance of the topic. Before delving into the theoretical framework, it is essential to:

1. broaden the historical and conceptual context: incorporate key references that show the evolution of positive education and teacher well-being from its beginnings to date, and recent studies that evidence emerging trends in the area.
2. Justify the need for the study: Provide up-to-date data on gaps in teacher education - for example, job stress indices, low rates of teacher satisfaction, or lack of validated instruments to measure positive classroom practices - to highlight the gap that this research fills.
3. Clearly state the knowledge gap: Explicitly state which aspects-methodological, population or instrumental-have not been sufficiently investigated, and how the objectives and hypotheses of this study contribute to closing those gaps.
4. Lead the reader to the objectives: End the introduction with a brief description of the aims and research questions, linking directly to the outline of the theoretical framework.

Reference

Add missing references to citations used in the text that have not been referenced: (Dweck, 2006).

(Noble and McGrath's, 2008)

Greek by Pezirkianidis and his partners (2021),

(Slemp et al., 2017)

Make sure that all references follow the same style (APA 7th ed.), especially titles in italics and the use of upper and lower case.

The introduction is excessively brief and relies solely on the quote from Seligman (2011), without offering a sufficiently broad overview of the context and current relevance of the topic. Before delving into the theoretical framework, it is essential to:

1. broaden the historical and conceptual context: incorporate key references that show the evolution of positive education and teacher well-being from its beginnings to date, and recent studies that evidence emerging trends in the area.
2. Justify the need for the study: Provide up-to-date data on gaps in teacher education - for example, job stress indices, low rates of teacher satisfaction, or lack of validated instruments to measure positive classroom practices - to highlight the gap that this research fills.
3. Clearly state the knowledge gap: Explicitly state which aspects-methodological, population or instrumental-have not been sufficiently investigated, and how the objectives and hypotheses of this study contribute to closing those gaps.
4. Lead the reader to the objectives: End the introduction with a brief description of the aims and research questions, linking directly to the outline of the theoretical framework.

Reference

Add missing references to citations used in the text that have not been referenced: (Dweck, 2006).

(Noble and McGrath's, 2008)

Greek by Pezirkianidis and his partners (2021),

(Slemp et al., 2017)

Make sure that all references follow the same style (APA 7th ed.), especially titles in italics and the use of upper and lower case.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which greatly contributed to improving my article. I am submitting my response to your feedback, along with the revised version of the article. I hope I have addressed your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on teacher well-being and positive education. Addressing the above limitations—particularly sample diversity, study design, and measurement—would further strengthen its impact. The findings support the integration of positive education into teacher training programs, with clear implications for educators, policymakers, and school leaders.

Strengths:

Relevance and Timeliness: The study addresses a critical and timely topic—teacher well-being—which is increasingly recognized as vital for educational outcomes. The focus on positive education aligns with current trends in holistic education. Theoretical Foundation: The paper is well-grounded in positive psychology, particularly the PERMA model, providing a robust framework for understanding teacher well-being. Methodological Rigor: The use of validated instruments (PEPS, PERMA Profiler, SWLS, TSES) and appropriate statistical analyses (factorial ANOVA, Spearman’s correlations, hierarchical regression) strengthens the study's credibility. Practical Implications: The findings highlight the importance of specialized training in positive education, offering actionable insights for teacher professional development and school policies.

Areas for Improvement:

Sample Diversity and Generalizability: The sample is predominantly female (84.6%) and skewed toward urban areas (77.1%). This limits the generalizability of findings to male teachers and rural/suburban settings. The convenience sampling method may introduce bias, as participants self-selected into the study. A more representative sampling strategy would enhance external validity. Cross-Sectional Design Limitations: The study acknowledges that causality cannot be inferred due to its cross-sectional nature. A longitudinal design could better capture the dynamic relationship between positive education practices and teacher well-being over time. Including qualitative data (e.g., interviews) could provide deeper insights into how teachers experience and implement positive education. Measurement of Positive Education Practices: While PEPS is described as a validated scale, more details about its development (e.g., factor structure, subscales) would help readers evaluate its appropriateness for the study. The reliance on self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias. Triangulating with observational or administrative data could strengthen the findings. Discussion of Confounding Variables: The study controls for demographic factors but does not address other potential confounders (e.g., school leadership, workload, student demographics). These variables could influence both positive education implementation and teacher well-being. The non-significant effect of teaching experience (Hypothesis 1) warrants further exploration. Are there qualitative differences in how experienced vs. novice teachers interpret or apply positive education? Policy and Implementation Challenges: The discussion of barriers (e.g., lack of training, resistance to change) is thorough, but the paper could provide more concrete recommendations for overcoming these challenges (e.g., funding models, policy frameworks). The paper mentions "systemic and policy-level reforms" but does not specify what these might look like in practice. Clarity and Structure: Some sections (e.g., the PERMA model explanation) are repetitive. Streamlining the theoretical background could improve readability. Tables and figures are well-presented, but the results section could benefit from clearer subheadings to guide the reader through the hypotheses.

Suggestions for Future Research:

Longitudinal Studies: Track changes in teacher well-being and self-efficacy as they undergo positive education training. Mixed-Methods Approaches: Combine quantitative data with qualitative insights to explore contextual factors influencing implementation. Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Examine how positive education practices vary across different educational systems and cultures. Intervention Studies: Test specific positive education interventions (e.g., mindfulness, gratitude exercises) to identify the most effective strategies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which greatly contributed to improving my article. I am submitting my response to your feedback, along with the revised version of the article. I hope I have addressed your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I don’t have further comments.

I don’t have further comments.