Introduction

Helping teachers to thrive at work has significant benefits for teachers’ personal and professional outcomes (e.g. sense of well-being, job satisfaction; Collie et al. 2016; De Nobile 2016; Goddard and Goddard 2006). Thriving is thus a worthy goal in itself, but it also helps teachers to create supportive and caring learning environments, and promote better learning outcomes for students (e.g. Arens and Morin 2016; Jennings et al. 2017). Making efforts to support teacher thriving is an important endeavour for schools, researchers, and policy-makers. As described below, we operationalise teacher thriving by a dual focus on harm reduction and wellness promotion. A growing body of research has identified a wide range of factors that are positively associated with teacher thriving, such as principal support and high-quality teacher–student relationships (e.g. Collie et al. 2016; Klassen et al. 2012). At the same time, understanding remains limited about how and why these various factors are specifically associated with teacher thriving. The aim of this article is to propose a framework to better understand these associations.

We propose that a common denominator underlying the different factors that support teacher thriving is teachers’ social–emotional competence (SEC); it is by way of SEC that teachers are able to apply various personal capacities and utilise contextual supports to help them to thrive at work. The Framework for Cultivating Teacher Thriving is shown in Fig. 1 and builds from Collie’s (2019) recent work, which harnesses conceptual underpinnings from self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017) and the SEC literature to provide understanding about SEC development among children and adolescents. Self-determination theory establishes that contextual support (by way of need-support) promotes basic psychological need satisfaction of autonomy (a sense of being the driver of one’ actions), competence (a sense of one’s effectiveness in the role of teacher), and relatedness (a sense of belonging with important others; Ryan and Deci 2017). Collie’s (2019) framework establishes that this is also relevant in the domain of SEC: need-support for SEC promotes need satisfaction for SEC. This, in turn, promotes social–emotional autonomous motivation and strategy use involving socially and emotionally competent behaviours. Extending from Collie’s work, effective strategy use then promotes and is promoted by teacher thriving. Importantly, the associations in the framework influence and are influenced by different factors within teachers’ working environment, as well as individual differences among teachers, such as recent experiences and personal characteristics. In the following sections, thriving and SEC are introduced and defined. Then, details about the framework are provided. Following this, our focus turns to how teachers’ SEC may be further supported through professional learning, helping them to thrive in their work.

Fig. 1
figure 1

(Reproduced with permission from The Social and Emotional Competence School Model; Collie 2019)

The Framework for Cultivating Teacher Thriving.

Full size image

Teacher thriving: overcoming challenges and experiencing wellness

In this article, teacher thriving encompasses harm reduction and wellness promotion. For harm reduction, the concept of resilience is relevant. Research in the area of resilience originally stemmed from work looking at how children and adolescents can overcome experiences of major adversity in order to develop successfully (e.g. Masten 2007). As such, a defining feature of many perspectives on resilience is that it involves effectively navigating or overcoming adversity (Martin and Marsh 2008a). Over the years, many different definitions have emerged regarding resilience—and in recent years one fertile area for conceptualising this construct has been in the field of teaching (e.g. Bowles and Arnup 2016; Mansfield et al. 2016). In amongst the ongoing conceptual work on resilience, an approach to emerge is the idea of buoyancy. Buoyancy reflects individuals’ capacity to effectively navigate “everyday” or low-level adversities (Martin and Marsh 2008a). In this article, we focus on teacher buoyancy as our resilience-related construct. Of note, buoyancy is related to other operationalisations of teacher resilience that also tend to focus to low-level challenges (e.g. “everyday resilience”, Day and Gu 2014).

For wellness promotion, we consider well-being. Teacher well-being is a multidimensional construct that refers to positive and healthy functioning in the workplace (Collie et al. 2016). It can be operationalised in many different ways such as job satisfaction (teachers’ sense of fulfilment from their work; Collie et al. 2012) and organisational commitment (teachers’ emotional attachment to their current job; Meyer and Allen 1991). We suggest that a focus on well-being is important because although resilience and buoyancy may help teachers to endure work, these constructs do not necessarily mean that teachers will fare well or that their psychological functioning will improve. More precisely, resilience-related constructs have typically focused on the extent to which individuals are able to recover from setback and return to their previous levels of functioning (e.g. Masten 2007). More recently, teacher resilience researchers have incorporated wellness into their definitions of resilience (e.g. Beltman et al. 2011; Day and Gu 2014; Wosnitza et al. 2018); however, we have opted to keep these constructs separate to enable us to delineate harm reduction from wellness promotion. We employ a dual focus that involves helping teachers to effectively navigate setbacks and adversity at work (via buoyancy), as well as promoting wellness (via well-being). As noted above, we propose that teachers’ SEC plays a central role in supporting their buoyancy and well-being at work. This is introduced next.

Social–emotional competence

A regular feature in research on teachers’ psychological functioning at work is the acknowledgement that teachers’ SEC plays a central role in their thriving (e.g. Collie 2017; Jennings and Greenberg 2009; Mansfield et al. 2016). Surprisingly, however, there has yet to be much work directly focused on this topic (Collie 2017; Jennings and Greenberg 2009). Instead, the bulk of research and conceptualising in the area of SEC stems from the literature on children. There, the definition of SEC has been widely debated for many decades (Stump et al. 2009). A common theme of many definitions is a list of qualities—such as abilities, goals, or behaviours—that reflect SEC. For example, a growing body of research, building on the work of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), has operationalised SEC in five abilities (e.g. CASEL 2013; Weissberg et al. 2015). The first of these, self-awareness, refers to the capacity to recognise and understand one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviours, and know one’s strengths and weaknesses. The second, self-regulation, refers to the capacity to regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. The third, social awareness, refers to the ability to consider others’ perspectives, understand and follow social norms regarding behaviour, and empathise and feel compassion for others. The fourth, relationship skills, involves the capacity to initiate and maintain positive relationships by listening effectively, communicating clearly, cooperating well with others, and negotiating conflict in respectful ways. Finally, responsible decision-making involves the capacity to make respectful and constructive choices concerning one’s behaviour and social interactions in different settings and situations.

At the same time, there have been calls for the development of SEC definitions to also consider underlying mechanisms that may drive SEC (Stump et al. 2009). In response to these concerns, Collie (2019) defined SEC as “effective management of intrapersonal and interpersonal social and emotional experiences in ways that foster one’s own and others’ thriving” (p. 2). Collie operationalises this by way of basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and behaviours. This operationalisation incorporates qualities (i.e. behaviours), as well as underlying mechanisms (i.e. need satisfaction and motivation). As Collie argues, the motivational component is essential because having the ability to be socially and emotional competent is not necessarily enough. The ability must also be “wilfully” applied. Importantly, Collie developed the Social and Emotional Competence School Model to show how SEC development can be promoted. Although Collie’s model is focused on school students, we believe it also holds much relevance for understanding relationships between SEC and teacher thriving. In the next section, our framework is introduced.

The Framework for Cultivating Teacher Thriving

The Framework for Cultivating Teacher Thriving is shown in Fig. 1 and is informed by conceptualising from self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017) and the SEC literature (e.g. Rose-Krasnor and Denham 2009; see Collie 2019 for full details). Briefly, self-determination theory establishes that fulfilment of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are central for optimal human motivation and functioning (Ryan and Deci 2017). Another major premise of self-determination theory is that the social environment plays a major role in supporting need satisfaction and, in turn, optimal motivation and functioning (Ryan and Deci 2017). This occurs by way of autonomy-support, competence-support, and relatedness-support. A growing body of research has identified the relevance of self-determination theory for understanding teachers’ well-being at work (e.g. Collie et al. 2016; Klassen et al. 2012; Roth et al. 2007).

In the framework, knowledge from self-determination theory and prior SEC conceptualising is combined to yield the major associations. Importantly, the framework also aligns with major factors and processes that have been identified in prior conceptualising of teachers’ resilience (e.g. Mansfield et al. 2016): contextual support (by way of need-support in the framework), personal resources (by way of need satisfaction and motivation), strategy use (by way of behaviours), and outcomes. In the following section, each component of the model is introduced starting with the buoyancy and well-being outcomes.

Buoyancy and well-being outcomes

As the aim of the framework is to promote teacher thriving, it is important to consider the outcomes, which appear at the end of the model in Fig. 1. We focus on buoyancy (for helping teachers to bounce back from “everyday” setbacks and challenges at work) and well-being (to support teachers to further improve their psychological functioning at work). Workplace buoyancy refers to teachers’ capacity to effectively navigate and manage the everyday, low-level challenges that occur in teaching work (e.g. multiple deadlines, poor student results, a failed lesson; Martin and Marsh 2008b). For well-being, we focus on job satisfaction and organisational commitment. These two constructs have ample empirical support (e.g. Collie et al. 2012; De Nobile 2016) and thus provide the opportunity to illustrate the associations in the model. Although not explicated here, other well-being outcomes can also be positioned in the model (e.g. flourishing at work, work engagement). As Fig. 1 shows, buoyancy and well-being outcomes are promoted by the iterative process shown in the framework. In addition, these outcomes also help to support the iterative process (a reciprocal relationship).

Iterative process of SEC development

As per Collie (2019), we operationalise SEC by way of basic psychological need satisfaction, autonomous motivation, and behaviours. These three components form an iterative process that reflects SEC development as shown in the centre of Fig. 1. As such, SEC is not static, but rather involves a cyclical and changing process that impacts and is impacted by the teacher and their experiences (further details on these components below). The factors in the iterative process are now introduced. Starting with need satisfaction, the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness have long been established as important for optimal human functioning (e.g. deCharms 1968). In our framework, the basic psychological needs also play an essential role for SEC (Collie 2019; Rose-Krasnor 1997) and have been defined specifically in relation to SEC. The first need is perceived social–emotional autonomy. Extrapolating from Ryan and Deci (2017), this reflects teachers’ sense that they have choice in how to be socially and emotionally competent at work, that their social and emotional choices reflect who they really are (e.g. how to think, behave, and feel), and that their choices for being socially and emotionally competent at work reflect their genuine wishes (Collie 2019).

The second need is perceived social–emotional competence. This involves teachers’ feelings of effectiveness in their social and emotional interactions at work and their perception that they can express their social and emotional capacities (Collie 2019; Ryan and Deci 2017). Of note, this focus is different from most prior conceptualising on SEC. Prior work has tended to focus on individuals’ actual competence—such as the five CASEL (2013) abilities outlined earlier (see also Collie 2017). However, in self-determination theory (and most motivational theories), it is perceived competence that is the focus (rather than actual competence). This is because perceived competence energises individuals into action, and drives development and performance (Ryan and Moller 2017). More precisely, it is perceived competence that is considered to play a central role in driving ongoing skill development (e.g. Ryan and Deci 2017; see also Bandura 1997). For example, if a teacher feels competent (high perceived competence), she is more likely motivated to develop her SEC and act in socially and emotionally competent ways. Conversely, if a teacher feels that he lacks the necessary competence (low perceived competence), then he may be less motivated to develop his SEC. Existing research supports the link between perceived competence and teachers’ motivation for and engagement in professional learning broadly (e.g. Jansen in de Wal et al. 2018). Research examining these associations in the area of SEC is now needed. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that there are some cases where individuals hold high perceived competence despite low actual competence. In this case, the hope is that their perceived competence still drives their motivation to develop their SEC. Moreover, this case highlights the importance of providing teachers with appropriate supports (e.g. professional learning, supportive and caring environment, feedback) that will help them to continue develop their actual competence (discussed below).

To illustrate the focus on perceived competence in our framework, the five CASEL (2013) abilities have been adapted to reflect perceived rather than actual abilities. More precisely, the abilities have been shifted to teachers’ self-appraisals of their capabilities (Collie 2019). Drawing from CASEL (2013), perceived competence for self-awareness thus involves teachers feeling capable of recognising and labelling their emotions. Perceived competence for self-regulation involves teachers feeling effective in regulating their thoughts, behaviours, and emotions in different contexts and towards relevant goals. Perceived competence for social awareness involves teachers feeling effective at considering others’ perspectives, complying with social norms, and empathising with others. Perceived competence for relationship skills involves teachers feeling competent to initiate and sustain positive relationships (e.g. listening, communicating, cooperating, and negotiating conflict in respectful ways). Finally, perceived competence for responsible decision-making involves a teacher’s belief that he or she can make productive choices concerning his/her actions and social interactions. Importantly, the ellipsis shown in Fig. 1 demonstrates that these five areas of perceived SEC may be added to or amended in different contexts and cultures as relevant (Collie 2019; see also Collie et al. 2017).

The third basic psychological need in the framework is perceived relatedness, which involves teachers’ perceptions that they are supported, have a sense of belonging, and care for others within a particular context (Ryan and Deci 2017; see also De Nobile 2016). This factor retains the original, domain-general definition as per earlier theorising (Baumeister and Leary 1995) and self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017) because this basic psychological need is already inherently social and emotional in nature (Collie 2019).

Taken together, the basic psychological needs represent the first component of the iterative process of SEC development. The second component is social–emotional autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation refers to behaviour regulation that is driven by a sense of self-determination, volition, and choice (Ryan and Deci 2017). In the framework, social–emotional autonomous motivation involves being motivated to be socially and emotionally competent by internal reasons, such as inherent interest or enjoyment (e.g. pleasure derived from teaching students, or helping a colleague who needs additional teaching resources), as well as by external reasons that are valued (e.g. sense of responsibility for helping challenging students because you believe all students should feel valued; Collie 2019; Ryan and Deci 2017). According to self-determination theory, when individuals feel a sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness within a context, this promotes autonomous motivation (Ryan and Deci 2017). In relation to SEC, when teachers feel that they have choice and freedom in how they manage their social and emotional interactions (perceived social–emotional autonomy), when they feel effective in managing their social and emotional experiences (perceived social–emotional competence), and when they feel cared for by important others (perceived relatedness), this then promotes social–emotional autonomous motivation (see Fig. 1). Importantly, autonomously motivated teachers are more likely to engage in behaviours and strategies that reflect high levels of SEC—this constitutes the third component of the iterative process.

Socially and emotionally competent behaviours, or strategies, refer to actions such as practicing mindfulness, applying cognitive reappraisal to rethink negative emotions, taking time off to recharge one’s batteries, setting constructive goals, adaptive help seeking, and problem solving (Mansfield et al. 2016). Engaging in these types of behaviours is beneficial for buoyancy because the behaviours help teachers to effectively navigate challenges at work (e.g. Parker and Martin 2009). The behaviours are also beneficial for teachers’ well-being because they promote positive and healthy functioning (e.g. Jennings et al. 2017). As noted above, buoyancy and well-being also have a reciprocal association with the behaviours in the framework (see Fig. 1). When teachers experience buoyancy and well-being, they are more likely to use socially and emotionally competent behaviours (e.g. cognitive reappraisal). The positive emotions help individuals to be aware of and access the resources and strategies to handle socially and emotionally fraught situations (Fredrickson 2001).

In addition to the associations described above, there is also a cyclical association in the iterative process of social and emotional competence development (Collie 2019). The final connection occurs from behaviours back to need satisfaction. When teachers engage in socially and emotionally competent behaviours, this then impacts their need satisfaction positively because such behaviours help teachers to experience perceived autonomy (the behaviours were autonomously motivated after all), perceived competence (by enacting socially and emotionally competent behaviours, teachers are likely to feel a greater sense of competence in the domain), and perceived relatedness (teachers are better able to connect with those around them if they are, for example, relaxed, rested, and able to engage effectively with others).

Together, need satisfaction, motivation, and behaviours constitute the iterative process of SEC development. In terms of empirical support for these relationships, research among teachers demonstrates the importance of basic psychological need satisfaction for autonomous motivation at work generally (e.g. Klassen et al. 2012; Roth et al. 2007). The extent to which these associations hold when considered specifically in terms of teachers’ SEC requires attention. Nonetheless, findings among other populations provide important preliminary support. For example, basic psychological need satisfaction is associated with more volunteering among adults (Gagné 2003), lower anger and less bullying among children (Hein et al. 2015), and more prosocial behaviours among adolescents (Cheon et al. 2018). Moreover, autonomous motivation for maintaining friendships is positively associated with adolescents’ ability to form friendships. For the cyclical association, studies among children and university students show that prosocial behaviours are, in turn, associated with greater need satisfaction (e.g. Martela and Ryan 2016). The extent to which these associations hold among teachers is an important area for future research.

For the reciprocal link at the end of the model between social–emotional behaviours and the outcomes (see Fig. 1), there is a growing amount of literature to support this. For example, researchers have shown that when teachers engage in mindfulness (Jennings et al. 2017), self-regulate their investment of energy to remain energised (Klusmann et al. 2008), use problem-focused coping strategies (e.g. asking for help; Parker and Martin 2009), adapt to changing situations (Collie and Martin 2017), build high-quality relationships with students and colleagues (e.g. De Nobile 2016; Klassen et al. 2012), and use effective preventative classroom management strategies (e.g. explaining expectations before class; Clunies-Ross et al. 2008), this is associated with greater workplace buoyancy and well-being. Moving forwards, empirical research is needed to examine the reciprocal association that buoyancy and well-being have with the behaviours among teachers. Promising research among other populations provides support for this (e.g. buoyancy predicts effective planning strategies for academic work among students; Martin et al. 2010). Longitudinal cross-lagged panel models, and intervention research, are two approaches for this.

Need-support promotes the iterative process

Three types of need-support as established in self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017) play an important role in promoting the iterative process of social and emotional competence development (see Fig. 1). The first type of need-support is autonomy-support for SEC. Extrapolating from Ryan and Deci (2017), this reflects a context where leaders foster individuals’ empowerment and self-initiation in the social and emotional domains by, for example, acknowledging teachers’ perspectives on social–emotional issues (e.g. recognising that teachers may feel resentful about another after-hours work event), taking teachers’ perspectives about social–emotional dimensions (e.g. inviting teachers’ genuine responses to a contentious plan), and letting teachers have a choice in how they think, feel, and act regarding social–emotional experiences (rather than controlling this). Competence-support for SEC involves leaders providing support and structure in relation to the social–emotional domains (Collie 2019; see also Skinner and Belmont 1993). One avenue by which this type of need-support can be promoted is professional learning (discussed further below). Relatedness-support involves leaders who are inclusive and caring, and who show interest in and provide emotional support to teachers (and students; Connell and Wellborn 1991; Ryan and Deci 2017; Skinner and Belmont 1993). Of note, relatedness-support is not specific to SEC in the framework because it is inherently social and emotional in nature.

As noted earlier, need-support is critical for helping individuals to experience basic psychological need satisfaction (Ryan and Deci 2017). In the framework, when teachers’ empowerment and self-initiation in the social–emotional domains are promoted (autonomy-support for SEC), this fosters a sense of choice and control in how they manage their social and emotional experiences (perceived social–emotional autonomy). Professional learning that relates to teachers’ social–emotional interactions and experiences at work (i.e. competence-support for SEC) can help teachers to further develop their sense of competence relating to the social–emotional domains (perceived social-emotional competence). Finally, when teachers feel that school leaders are inclusive and care about them (relatedness-support), this creates the sense of being cared for and connected to important others (perceived relatedness; Ryan and Deci 2017). Research among teachers has confirmed the importance of autonomy-support generally for need satisfaction (e.g. Collie et al. 2016; Klassen et al. 2012). Moreover, research among various other populations provides further support. For example, autonomy-support for considerateness is associated with greater social–emotional autonomous motivation for considerateness (Roth et al. 2011). Autonomy-support also promotes need satisfaction and, in turn, adaptive emotion regulation strategies (Brenning et al. 2015) and prosocial behaviours (e.g. Cheon et al. 2018). Moving forward, there is a need to examine the extent to which similar associations hold among teachers.

The salience of different contexts in impacting teachers’ SEC development

The extent to which teachers experience need-support in one context influences their expectations and experiences within that context and also impacts other proximal contexts (Ryan and Deci 2017). For teachers, multiple school-related contexts are relevant to SEC and reflect the socioecological influence of various spheres on human functioning (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Three contexts are shown in Fig. 1. Within each context, the interrelationships that occur in the iterative process of SEC development are influenced by and influence the different contexts. The classroom context refers to the social–emotional values, norms, and beliefs that are embedded in the classroom (e.g. the tendency of class members to help one another). This context is influenced most proximally by teachers and students (but also by broader policies and school-wide practices). The school context refers to the social and emotional climate among all school community members as they interact throughout the school. Individuals within a school, along with the policies and practices related to the social–emotional domain (e.g. student and/or teacher well-being policies supported by school leaders as well as school board and government leaders) play key roles in impacting the school context. Third, the system context reflects the broader milieu regarding the social–emotional domains in the schooling system, and the extent to which students’ and teachers’ SEC is prioritised and their social–emotional well-being supported (see Weissberg et al. 2015).

The impact of individual differences on SEC development

The extent to which teachers progress through the SEC framework is impacted by career stage, other in-person characteristics, as well as environmental factors (shown at the base of the model in Fig. 1). Due to space constraints, the focus here will be placed on recent experiences—particularly those that are adverse in nature. A teacher’s pathway through the framework will be affected by challenges and setbacks. This may encompass adverse experiences within the classroom (e.g. challenging student behaviour), school (e.g. high workload, limited support), and/or system (e.g. high face-to-face teaching load). It may also involve adversity experienced by the teachers’ families (e.g. work-life conflict) or by society more broadly (e.g. school funding). Experiencing adversity in these various contexts has an impact on teachers’ SEC. For example, ongoing and challenging student behaviour in the classroom can mean that teachers’ perceived social–emotional competence for building positive relationships suffers (e.g. Spilt et al. 2011). This will have carry-on effects for their autonomous motivation, behaviours, and outcomes. Similarly, a principal who pressures teachers to adopt particular programs or practices may reduce teachers’ sense of autonomy-support for SEC, and this may have negative carry-on effects throughout the process (e.g. a sense of pressure in how they must respond to situations of a social–emotional nature; e.g. Akın et al. 2014). Importantly, the experience of adversity has a reciprocal relationship in the framework because teachers’ use of socially and emotionally competent behaviours, and their buoyancy and well-being, will also impact their interpretations of contextual adversity and the extent to which such experiences impact them negatively. For example, engaging in cognitive reappraisal or mindfulness practices may help teachers to interpret challenging student behaviour in ways that have less of a detrimental impact on their well-being (see Fredrickson 2001).

The role of professional learning in the framework

Having introduced the model, we now turn to the role of professional learning, which forms a core avenue through which teachers’ SEC development and thriving can be promoted in the framework. The role of professional learning is embedded via need-support. Competence-support ensures teachers develop knowledge and skills for SEC. This is not only important for their own thriving, but it is also essential for helping teachers to effectively model and teach SEC to students (Collie 2017). Autonomy-support and relatedness-support also play a role, so ideally teachers are drivers of their professional learning and have opportunities to learn from and support one another. Importantly, professional learning for SEC can be focused at the preservice or inservice levels, and it can involve organisation-led or teacher-initiated efforts.

Prior research on professional learning for inservice teachers has identified several key features of effective approaches. Professional learning should: (a) focus on knowledge and skill building, (b) be guided and sustained, (c) involve opportunities for active participation and learning, and (d) coherently align with teachers’ goals and perceived needs for their teaching and learning contexts (Garet et al. 2001; Perry et al. 2015). These general principles provide guidance for professional learning in SEC. First, teachers need to develop knowledge and skills related to their own SEC, as well as strategies for supporting the SEC of their students. This could involve professional learning about self and social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and/or decision-making skills as they relate to teacher actions and student outcomes. Second, the design of such professional learning should be ongoing, intensive, and involve teachers as active participants rather than passive recipients of others’ expertise (Perry et al. 2015). Turning to the final point concerning the coherent alignment with teachers’ agendas, professional learning should be sensitive to local contexts and privilege knowledge generated within teaching and school communities (Butler and Schnellert 2012; Perry et al. 2015). Moreover, teachers should feel that their self-determination is prioritised through supports for autonomy and relatedness, and that they are working in a socially and emotionally supportive environment in order for professional learning about SEC to be effective. If SEC is prioritised in professional learning, but not beyond, teacher buy-in and implementation of professional learning is less likely.

Emerging research is highlighting the promising role of professional learning for SEC among inservice teachers. For example, Jennings et al. (2017) developed a program that supports teachers’ development of self-awareness (e.g. through mindfulness exercises, such as practicing present moment awareness), emotional skills (e.g. roleplays to aid recognition and awareness of emotions), and social awareness (e.g. showing care and compassion by listening to others without judging). Teachers experiencing this program reported greater ability to regulate their emotions, compared with a control group, showed greater sensitivity to students’ needs, and had more productive classrooms, according to trained observers (Jennings et al. 2017). In line with the effective components detailed above (Garet et al. 2001), this program focuses on skill building, was guided and sustained over 1 year, and involved active participation by teachers. Moving forward, more research is needed to determine whether program effectiveness is increased when professional learning for SEC is accompanied by appropriate autonomy-support and relatedness-support in schools, and is aligned with teachers’ broader goals.

Another way in which inservice teachers engage in professional learning for SEC is by implementing social and emotional learning programs in their classrooms. By teaching SEC to students, teachers can reflect on their own practice and develop their knowledge in the area. Indeed, researchers have shown that teachers’ implementation of social and emotional learning programs is associated with greater mindfulness in teaching and self-efficacy for teaching social and emotional learning (Domitrovich et al. 2016). In line with the effective components detailed above (Garet et al. 2001), this approach involves skill building, is sustained over the course of the social and emotional learning program, involves teachers’ active participation, and is highly aligned with teachers’ learning contexts. Forming a professional learning community around the delivery of social and emotional learning programs may provide further opportunities for teachers to reflect on their professional growth in the area.

Turning to preservice teachers, there is rarely any training on SEC in initial teacher education courses (Jennings and Frank 2015; Schonert-Reichl et al. 2015). Researchers have thus called for more focus to be placed on SEC in initial teacher education (e.g. Schonert-Reichl et al. 2015). Fortunately, there are some emerging programs on resilience/buoyancy and well-being promotion that are relevant. Like inservice initiatives, these can be introduced by the organisation or teacher-led. Online training modules provide a free and accessible way for preservice (and inservice) teachers to build skills related to SEC (e.g. Beltman et al. 2018; Wosnitza et al. 2018). For example, the Building Resilience in Teacher Education (BRiTE) online modules provide activities to develop teachers’ communication skills, emotional awareness, time management, help seeking, and emotion regulation (Beltman et al. 2018; Mansfield et al. 2016)—all of which are relevant to SEC. Preliminary research is providing support for the value of these types of programs (Beltman et al. 2018), which tend to include both passive (e.g. watching videos) and active activities (e.g. responding to scenarios), are guided online, and are sustained over time (individuals can return multiple times). The extent to which such programs are aligned with teachers’ broader goals is high as it involves self-initiation. An important consideration for research is the extent to which teacher-led initiatives to build SEC can impact teachers’ experiences within school contexts where SEC may not be prioritised. Moreover, it is likely the case that teachers’ thriving is best promoted by a combination of organisation-led and teacher-initiated efforts for SEC development. This is an important empirical endeavour for future research.

Conclusion

The aim of the current article was to elucidate the Framework for Cultivating Thriving Teachers. This model focuses on the central role of teachers’ SEC and its development in teachers’ thriving. Drawing from self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017) and SEC conceptualising, the model proposes that supportive environmental factors within teachers’ working environments promote their basic psychological need satisfaction and, in turn, their autonomous motivation for SEC and socially and emotionally competent behaviours. This process then leads to greater buoyancy and well-being outcomes for teachers. In combination, the framework provides a novel approach for understanding how buoyancy and well-being can be promoted among teachers by focusing on their SEC and its ongoing development over time.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the framework. Teachers work is extremely complex. Although the framework endeavours to address some of this complexity, it also involves simplification, which is necessary for narrowing the focus and guiding research. Also, alongside autonomous motivation, self-determination theory identifies the process that occurs when individuals experience a controlling context and basic psychological need frustration (Ryan and Deci 2017). The focus in this article was on need-support and need satisfaction; however, it is acknowledged that controlling SEC contexts are likely to predict basic psychological need frustration for SEC, controlled motivation for SEC, and fewer socially and emotionally competent behaviours. It is thus important that this less adaptive process is also considered and examined.

Although empirical evidence from other populations was described above, it is necessary that the framework is tested among teachers. In particular, SEC is operationalised in the integrated model by way of three components in the iterative process: social–emotional basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and behaviour. As noted, this operationalisation is different from prior work in which SEC has tended to be assessed by way of individuals’ actual levels of social–emotional abilities, their motivations, and/or their behaviours (e.g. CASEL 2013; Collie 2017). Moving forward, it is important that the new operationalisation is examined to see if it is supported empirically. There is also a need to conduct longitudinal research to test the associations in the integrated model over time. Taken together, the framework provides a novel approach for understanding teachers’ thriving at work, including the central role of SEC in this. While taking into account limitations, the framework also raises several implications for research going forward.