View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Associations between Teachers' Lesson-Specific Emotions and Observed Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Engagement

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Associations between Teachers' Lesson-Specific Emotions and Observed Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Engagement
Language: English
Authors: Sanni Pöysä (ORCID 0000-0002-5059-9459), Kati Vasalampi (ORCID 0000-0002-1249-7566), Joona Muotka (ORCID 0000-0002-7113-903X), Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen (ORCID 0000-0002-5709-5800)
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 95(1):153-171.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Secondary School Teachers, Secondary School Students, Adolescents, Teacher Student Relationship, Learner Engagement, Teacher Behavior, Affective Behavior, Classroom Environment, Emotional Response
Geographic Terms: Finland
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Classroom Assessment Scoring System
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12739
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Teachers' emotions while teaching are associated to how they teach. Prior research has evidenced such associations mostly based on teacher or student ratings of different teaching behaviours. Aims: This study examined the extent to which teachers' self-rated lesson-specific positive and negative emotions are associated with the observed quality of teacher-student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support as well as students' behavioural engagement in the same lesson. Sample: The participants comprised 84 subject teachers (76.2% female) and 907 students (15-16 years old; 50.1% female) from 26 Finnish lower secondary schools. Methods: The data consisted of video-recordings from a total of 282 lessons (M = 3.36 lessons/teacher). The quality of teacher-student interactions and students' behavioural engagement was assessed using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System--Secondary (CLASS-S) observational instrument. Data regarding teachers' positive and negative emotions were collected at the end of each video-recorded lesson using the In Situations Teacher (InSitu-T) Instrument. The collected data were analysed using cross-classified two-level modelling. Results and Conclusions: The findings revealed that teachers' positive and negative emotions were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with the observed quality of teacher-student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization but not instructional support. The results provide evidence of the associations between teachers' emotions and students' observed behavioural engagement. The findings complement the literature by highlighting the importance of observational data, along with teacher and student ratings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483720
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH_gtzHDdxEq4Ry7BhU7sN0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNTXhjYDldYzZPClogIBEICBmoVH899hUlsQA_V9WHdWZQ84LeQT4eodxpUqEG4Pz9Unfj39bdPsoi42VMpM4NURKhWLp95gFD-cqxXTvQJN5KXV0Cx7-L8Xlb37j9-a0OdFx3SpDWdMOMrd6kaWn7KH3rOPtGFSFd3cOy4HXjbBzzgJ-D7J7tACFR5G8T6MZQwQLedMS9bO_Wd1xdSC60mC6sLfV-iMnmaChIE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187948725;6kx02sep.25;2025Sep16.03:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187948725-1">The associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and observed teacher–student interactions and student engagement </title> <p>Background: Teachers' emotions while teaching are associated to how they teach. Prior research has evidenced such associations mostly based on teacher or student ratings of different teaching behaviours. Aims: This study examined the extent to which teachers' self‐rated lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions are associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support as well as students' behavioural engagement in the same lesson. Sample: The participants comprised 84 subject teachers (76.2% female) and 907 students (15–16 years old; 50.1% female) from 26 Finnish lower secondary schools. Methods: The data consisted of video‐recordings from a total of 282 lessons (M = 3.36 lessons/teacher). The quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement was assessed using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System–Secondary (CLASS‐S) observational instrument. Data regarding teachers' positive and negative emotions were collected at the end of each video‐recorded lesson using the In Situations Teacher (InSitu‐T) Instrument. The collected data were analysed using cross‐classified two‐level modelling. Results and Conclusions: The findings revealed that teachers' positive and negative emotions were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization but not instructional support. The results provide evidence of the associations between teachers' emotions and students' observed behavioural engagement. The findings complement the literature by highlighting the importance of observational data, along with teacher and student ratings.</p> <p>Keywords: lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions; student engagement; teacher; teacher–student interaction</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Teachers' emotions are bound to be connected to what goes on inside their classrooms while teaching. Research has provided evidence regarding the associations, for instance, between teachers' self‐assessed emotions and students' perceptions of how their teachers enhance their learning through cognitive activation, maintain classroom management by monitoring students and provide them with emotional support (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]). Such teacher behaviours reflect classroom organization and emotional and instructional support, which are components of teacher–student interactions (Hafen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]; Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]). Moreover, teachers' emotions are associated with student outcomes, such as student engagement (Aldrup et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]). It seems that also teachers' perceptions of their students' engagement are linked to their self‐rated emotions whether such emotions are measured regarding some specific lesson or day (Burić & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Gaspard & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]) or as trait‐like experiences (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref9">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Current understanding regarding the associations between teachers' emotions and teacher–student interactions or student engagement is mainly based on studies that used teachers and students as informants, although their assessments may not be completely objective (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]). In the present study, we take this a step further and examine the extent to which teachers' positive and negative emotions while teaching are associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement within the same lesson. By using a research tool that does not rely solely on teacher or student ratings but considers classroom interaction as a whole, this study provides new insights about how teachers' emotions are reflected in their interactions during lessons. Such findings are important when aiming to create programmes for developing teachers' professional skills, among other applications.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-3">TEACHERS' EMOTIONS</hd> <p>There are different ways by which emotions, particularly teachers' emotions, are defined in the literature (e.g. Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]; Mulligan & Scherer, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]; Schutz et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]). According to Frenzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]), 'emotions' comprise 'the interface between an individual and their environment, continually mediating between events and social contexts and the individual's responses and experiences' (p. 251). Furthermore, Schutz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]) defined 'emotions' in educational settings as 'socially constructed, personally enacted ways of being that emerge from conscious and/or unconscious judgments regarding perceived successes at attaining goals or maintaining standards or beliefs during transactions as part of social‐historical contexts' (p. 344). Their definition can be seen to highlight that whether looking into teachers' or students' emotions, emotions are attached to individual appraisals of different person–environment transactions and the contexts in which such transactions take place. To acknowledge the central role of different interactions that take place when a teacher is teaching (Hascher & Waber, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]) and how these interactions link to teachers' emotions (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]; Taxer et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]), we followed the definitions of Schutz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]) and Frenzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref21">17</reflink>]), allowing us to understand what teachers' emotions are.</p> <p>The importance of teachers' emotions has been widely acknowledged. For example, teaching‐related emotions are associated with how they teach and interact with their students (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]; de Ruiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]; Holzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]). Naturally, associations also exist between teachers' emotions and different student outcomes (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]; Burić, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]; Gaspard & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Emotions can be examined using a dimensional or discrete emotion approach. The present study used the dimensional approach, as the discrete emotions reported by teachers were categorized under positive and negative emotions. In the present study, positive emotions were accessed, for example, through teachers' experiences of joy and satisfaction (e.g. Chen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]; Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]). In turn, negative emotions were accessed through experiences such as frustration and boredom (e.g. Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]; Tam et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref33">41</reflink>]). To endorse teachers' value as informants regarding their subjective emotions, we measured their emotions while teaching through self‐reports. However, other variables of interest (i.e. teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement) were assessed by external observers to avoid possible single‐source bias and to maintain the objectivity of assessments (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>As the present study aimed to examine teachers' lesson‐specific emotions, different emotions were measured as state‐like experiences. Thus, instead of asking teachers to evaluate, for example, their general emotions in certain teaching situations, they were guided to evaluate their emotions regarding specific lessons they had just taught (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]). A similar approach has been successfully used in the literature to examine teachers' state‐like emotions (e.g. Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-4">THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TEACHER–STUDENT INTERACTIONS AND TEACHERS' EMOTIONS</hd> <p>Important interactions that take place between teachers and their students can be examined from various perspectives. The present study assessed these interactions using the widely used Teaching Trough Interaction (TTI) framework (e.g. Hafen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]). This framework divides teacher–student interactions into three broad domains: emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support. Emotional support underlines the importance of sensitivity and responsiveness during interactions and highlights actions that foster a shared positive climate and acknowledge students' needs during lessons. Classroom organization emphasizes the importance of proactiveness and clear expectations during interactions. It also highlights actions that enhance well‐organized learning situations, leading to the absence of student misbehaviours. Finally, instructional support demonstrates interaction as a key element through which students' cognitive development can be fostered. This dimension highlights actions related to the ways in which learning is enabled through the chosen instructional strategies and feedback provided during lessons.</p> <p>Strong empirical evidence has shown that teachers' positive and negative emotions are positively and negatively associated, respectively, with emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support (e.g. Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]; Hagenauer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]; Taxer et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]). While such associations have not been examined using the TTI framework, the teaching behaviours presented in those studies align with how emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support are conceptualized in the TTI framework. For example, Burić and Frenzel ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]) examined the associations between teachers' self‐rated emotions and student‐rated teaching quality in terms of cognitive activation, classroom management and received emotional support, concluding that teachers' trait‐like emotions predict quality of teaching and vice versa.</p> <p>Some studies have reported significant associations between teachers' state‐like emotions and some specific aspects of teacher–student interactions. Often, these associations have been recognized with respect to characteristics related to classroom organization. For example, Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]) found that teachers' perceptions of their students' disruptive behaviours in specific lessons predicted their self‐reported negative emotions in the same lessons. Similarly, a daily diary study by Becker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]) reported that higher levels of student‐rated class discipline and class motivation were associated with higher levels of teacher‐rated positive emotions and lower levels of teacher‐rated negative emotions.</p> <p>The associations between different characteristics reflecting instructional support and teachers' state‐like emotions have also been recognized in the literature. For example, Becker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]) examined the importance of teachers' emotions and instructional behaviours for students' emotions using the experience sampling method. They reported that student‐rated teacher emotions were associated with student‐rated instructional behaviours, both of which were identified as significantly predicting students' own emotions.</p> <p>Some examples also examined the associations between teachers' state‐like emotions and the different characteristics reflecting emotional support. For example, an innovative study by Frenzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]) examined facial expressions and reported the reciprocal connection between teachers' and students' feelings of joy and the emotional benefits of such a positive experience to teachers. Reciprocally experienced joy is also a central element of a positive climate that describes the quality of emotional support (Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The associations between teachers' emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support can be seen as somewhat covered through studies focusing on links between teachers' emotions and different teaching behaviours. However, the understanding of such associations regarding teachers' state‐like emotions has yet to be strengthened. First, these associations have mainly been examined through teachers' and students' reports. However, teachers' emotions vary depending on the group of students they are teaching (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>]), and both teachers and students are likely to reflect partly on their lesson‐specific experiences through their shared histories (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]). Thus, using an external observer with respect to teacher behaviours, which can reflect the quality of teacher–student interactions at the level of the classroom, could enhance the objectivity of assessments and prevent the transmission of previous experiences into the assessments (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]). Second, to create a more comprehensive picture of the associations between teachers' state‐like emotions and lesson‐specific emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support, these should be examined simultaneously, as has been previously done with respect to teachers' trait‐like emotions (e.g. Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>]; Holzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-5">THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND TEACHERS' EMOTIONS</hd> <p>The present study follows the widely accepted conceptualisation of 'student engagement' as a multidimensional construct consisting of three distinct but interrelated components: behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement (e.g. Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]). When conceptualized as such, 'behavioural engagement' can be used to capture students' positive conduct and their involvement/participation in learning and academic tasks. Furthermore, 'emotional engagement' can be used to capture students' sentiments towards school and learning, while 'cognitive engagement' can be used to capture, for example, students' different cognitive investments required by learning. However, the present study focuses only on students' behavioural engagement, which is the most transparent and, therefore, easiest to observe through students' actions and the ways in which they participate in classroom activities (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student engagement is one of the student outcomes expected to be associated with teachers' emotions (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). These associations have mostly been investigated by examining teachers' trait‐like emotions (e.g. Burić, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]; Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref65">17</reflink>]; Hagenauer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]), although increasing evidence has been presented regarding state‐like emotions. For example, Gaspard and Lauermann ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref67">21</reflink>]) have provided evidence of an intertwined association between teachers' state‐like emotions and student engagement based on lesson‐specific teacher and student ratings. Similarly, a daily diary study linked teacher enjoyment to student engagement through teachers' expressions of positive emotions (Burić & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>]). Interestingly, teachers' perceptions of their students heightened engagement reflected also back to their positive emotions. The present study aims to complement the literature by assessing students' behavioural engagement through external observations using a widely acknowledged observational method that has not been excessively used to examine these types of associations. While this procedure does not reach students' own experiences regarding their lesson‐specific behavioural engagement, it ensures that the ratings would not be biased due to the students themselves and that teachers' general perceptions of certain students or classrooms would reflect on their lesson‐specific assessments (e.g. de Ruiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref69">11</reflink>]; Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref70">12</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref71">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-6">THE PRESENT STUDY</hd> <p>This study examined teachers' emotions while teaching, specifically the extent to which their positive and negative emotions were associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement in the same lesson. In particular, this study aimed to complement the literature by examining these associations using extensive observational data (i.e., a total of 282 video‐recorded lessons). Observational data were used to assess the quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement. At the end of each video‐recorded lesson, the teachers were also asked to provide self‐reported assessments of their positive and negative emotions while teaching. The following research questions and hypotheses were set:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent are teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions (i.e. emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support) in the same lessons?</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the literature, which has shown the associations between different teaching behaviours and teachers' trait‐like emotions (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]), and on evidence obtained by examining associations between teachers' state‐like emotions and different aspects representing emotional support (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref75">18</reflink>]), classroom organization (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]) or instructional support (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]), we expect that teachers' lesson‐specific emotions would be associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interaction (Hypothesis 1). Specifically, we assume that teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions would be positively and negatively associated, respectively, with emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support observed during the same lessons.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent are teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions associated with observed student engagement in the same lessons?</item> </ulist> <p>Based on prior literature, which concludes that teachers' emotions are associated with student outcomes (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref79">17</reflink>]), and on empirical evidence indicating that teachers' emotions and student engagement are reciprocally linked (Burić & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref80">7</reflink>]; Gaspard & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref81">21</reflink>]), we expect that teachers' lesson‐specific emotions would be associated with the observed student engagement (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, we assume that teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions would associate positively and negatively, respectively, with students' behavioural engagement observed in the same lessons.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-7">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948725-8">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>The data for the present study were collected in Finland as part of a longitudinal First Steps study (Lerkkanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]) that was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Jyväskylä. Only students with written consent from their parents were involved in the study. The teachers of these students were informed about the ongoing longitudinal study and asked to participate. Participation was voluntary, and the participating teachers also provided written consent.</p> <p>The data used for the present study were collected from teachers participating voluntary on video‐recordings of their lessons as usual and their students in these lessons who were also participants of the First Steps study. The participants of the present study consisted of 84 subject teachers (76.2% females, 23.8% males) and 907 of their Grade 9 students (50.1% females, 49.9% males, 15–16 years old). The vast majority of teachers (89.3%) reported having a master's degree in their field and more than 15 years of work experience.</p> <p>A total of 282 lessons were recorded between February and May 2016 from 26 lower secondary schools. On average, the number of lessons recorded from one teacher was 3.36 lessons (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.90), and teachers taught an average of 1.83 student groups (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.94) across their video‐recorded lessons (see Table 1 for more information). A total of 105 student group compositions attended the lessons, and the video‐recordings contained lessons from 19 different subjects divided under four subject areas (Table 1). At the end of each video‐recorded lesson, the teachers completed a self‐rating of their lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive characteristics of the video‐recorded lessons (N  = 282).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Number of lessons per teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 lesson</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (7.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">28 (33.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">7 (8.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">32 (38.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">7 (8.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (2.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15 lessons</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of student groups per teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 student group</td><td align="char" char="(">33 (39.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 student groups</td><td align="char" char="(">40 (47.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 student groups</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (7.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4 student groups</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (3.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5 student groups</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6 student groups</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of lessons per subject area</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Languages<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">103 (36.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Science<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char="(">98 (34.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Humanities<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char="(">33 (11.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nonacademic subjects<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char="(">48 (17.0)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Four subjects: Language Arts (Finnish), Swedish (second national language), English (first foreign language), German (second foreign language).</p> <ulist> <item>2 b Three subjects: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, Biology.</item> <item>3 c Four subjects: Social Studies, Health Education, Religion, Geography.</item> <item>4 d Eight Subjects: Home Economics, Physical Education, Crafts, Visual Arts, Computer Science, Pupil Counselling, Drama, Entrepreneurship.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187948725-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948725-10">Lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions</hd> <p>The teachers' lesson‐specific self‐assessments of their positive and negative emotions were measured at the end of each video‐recorded lesson using the In Situations Teacher (InSitu‐T) Instrument (Lerkkanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]; Pöysä et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>]). The instrument consisted of 12 items categorized under four factors (lesson‐specific behavioural/cognitive engagement, lesson‐specific emotional engagement, lesson‐specific disaffection and lesson‐specific competence experiences). The teachers were instructed to rate their experiences regarding the lesson at hand using a five‐point Likert scale (1 = <emph>not at all</emph>; 5 = <emph>very much</emph>). This process took approximately 2–4 minutes. Based on the research questions of the present study, only two factors were used. Factor of lesson‐specific emotional engagement (3 items; 'How much did you like teaching this lesson?', How much satisfaction did you feel during the lesson?' and 'How much joy did you feel during the lesson?'; <emph>α</emph> = .86) was used to capture teachers' positive emotions during teaching, and factor of lesson‐specific disaffection (3 items; 'How much boredom did you feel during the lesson?', 'How much helplessness did you feel during this lesson?' and 'How much frustration did you feel during this lesson?'; <emph>α</emph> = .74) was used to capture teachers' negative emotions during teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-11">Teacher–student interactions and Students' Behavioural engagement</hd> <p>The quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement were assessed using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System–Secondary (CLASS‐S; Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref85">37</reflink>]; Virtanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref86">44</reflink>]) observation tool. Following the theoretical views presented under the TTI framework, the CLASS‐S evaluates different aspects related to effective teacher–student interactions through three main domains and 12 dimensions. In particular, the dimensions of Positive climate, Teacher sensitivity and Regard for adolescent perspectives formulate the domain for Emotional support; the dimensions of Behaviour management, Productivity and Negative climate (as reverse coded) formulate the domain for Classroom organization and the dimensions of Instructional learning formats, Content understanding, Analysis and enquiry, Quality of feedback and Instructional dialogue formulate the domain for Instructional support. The dimension of student engagement observes students' behavioural engagement and is used independently. Each dimension is assessed separately on a 7‐point scale (1–2 <emph>Low</emph>, 3–5 <emph>Mid</emph>; 6–7 <emph>High</emph>) following the indicators of effective interactions and observable behavioural markers provided in the CLASS‐S manual (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref87">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following the CLASS‐S manual (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]), assessments were conducted by evaluating each indicator with respect to approximately 15 min segments (minimum of 8 min) called 'cycles'. The average time for cycles in the present data was 13:55 minutes (<emph>SD</emph> = 01:23 min). As the unit of observation consisted of 1 cycle, the ratings of each dimension were averaged across the cycles of the lesson. Then, the average values with respect to the domains of Emotional support (<emph>α</emph> = .79), Classroom organization (<emph>α</emph> = .78) and Instructional support (<emph>α</emph> = .85) were calculated to be used in the analyses, along with the independently used dimension of Student engagement.</p> <p>Following the CLASS–S procedure, the trained coders performed the codings, in which 48 lessons (17.02%) were double‐coded by two independent coders to assess the inter‐rater reliability. According to the developers of this measure, adequate inter‐rater reliability is achieved when a minimum of 80% of double‐coded cycles are within one point of each other (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>]). Apart from this adjacent agreement, inter‐rater reliabilities were also examined by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using a two‐way random effects model with absolute agreement (Landers, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref90">30</reflink>]). The adjacent agreement and ICCs showed that adequate inter‐rater reliability was achieved (Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Inter‐rater reliabilities of CLASS‐S.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Adjacent agreement</th><th align="left">ICC<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Positive climate</td><td align="char" char=".">95.9%</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher sensitivity</td><td align="char" char=".">90.4%</td><td align="char" char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regard for adolescent perspectives</td><td align="char" char=".">89.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behaviour management</td><td align="char" char=".">95.9%</td><td align="char" char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Productivity</td><td align="char" char=".">92.5%</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative climate</td><td align="char" char=".">98.6%</td><td align="char" char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructional learning formats</td><td align="char" char=".">89.0%</td><td align="char" char=".">.73</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Content understanding</td><td align="char" char=".">91.1%</td><td align="char" char=".">.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Analysis and inquiry</td><td align="char" char=".">95.2%</td><td align="char" char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Quality of feedback</td><td align="char" char=".">93.8%</td><td align="char" char=".">.87</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructional dialogue</td><td align="char" char=".">93.2%</td><td align="char" char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">92.5%</td><td align="char" char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="char" char=".">93.1%</td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 a ICCs between.60 and.74 are interpreted as good and those between.75 and 1.00 are interpreted as excellent (Cicchetti & Sparrow, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-12">Controlling variables</hd> <p>The subjects of the video‐recorded lessons were documented, and 19 different subjects were divided into four subject areas (Table 1). The subject areas (1 = languages; 2 = science; 3 = humanities; 4 = nonacademic subjects) were used as controlling variables, along with the teachers' gender (1 = female; 2 = male).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-13">Analytical strategy</hd> <p>As a preliminary stage of analysis, descriptive statistics and a set of GLM univariate analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29; IBM Corp., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]) IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28) to control for the effects of subject areas and teachers' gender before the final analyses. Controlling was done by saving the residuals of the GLM univariate analysis and using those in the final model run with the Mplus statistical programme (version 8.4; Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref93">36</reflink>]). This procedure was chosen because it enabled us to control for the effects of subject area and teachers' gender without increasing the number of parameters in the final model. This was an important consideration, given the somewhat small dataset regarding number of participating teachers.</p> <p>In addition, ICCs were calculated for teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions, the observed student engagement and the observed quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support. Due to the structure of the data, ICCs were conducted with two separate models: first, with a model in which the teacher was set as the clustering variable (i.e. ICCs within teachers and between teachers), and second, with a model in which the student group was set as the clustering variable (i.e. ICCs within student groups and between student groups).</p> <p>As the ICCs confirmed that the data used in the present study were hierarchical in nature, the associations between teachers' self‐rated lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions, and the observed quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement were examined with cross‐classified two‐level modelling using the Mplus. The first level modelled the within‐level variation (i.e. variation within teachers across different lessons), while the second level modelled the between‐level variation (i.e. variation between teachers and between student groups). Teachers and student groups were seen as cross‐classified because the data included teachers who had taught more than one student group and student groups that were taught by more than one teacher. The variation between teachers and between student groups was also shown under preliminary analyses. Thus, as cross‐classified two‐level modelling separated the variations between teachers and between student groups simultaneously (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]), this was considered an optimal solution for the data used in the current study. Furthermore, this approach provides a means to deal with the unequal number of measurements across teachers (Hox, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref95">27</reflink>]). The goodness of fit was evaluated with Bayesian posterior predictive checks (Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref96">35</reflink>]), and the results showed that it was good (.317).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948725-15">Descriptive statistics and ICCs</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and the correlations between the studied variables are shown in Table 3. ICCs were calculated by setting teachers and students as clustering variables. When the teachers were set as the clustering variable, the ICCs showed significant variations within and between teachers, yet variations with regard to all studied variables were higher within than between teachers (Table 4). Similarly, when the student group was set as the clustering variable, the ICCs showed variation within and between student groups, yet variations with regard to all studied variables were higher within than between student groups (Table 4).</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left">M</th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">1.1</th><th align="left">1.2</th><th align="left">2.1</th><th align="left">2.2</th><th align="left">2.3</th><th align="left">3</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1 Lesson‐specific emotions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1.1 Positive emotions</td><td align="left">1.67</td><td align="left">5.00</td><td align="left">3.33</td><td align="left">0.76</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1.2 Negative emotions</td><td align="left">1.00</td><td align="left">3.67</td><td align="left">1.53</td><td align="left">0.59</td><td align="left">−.57***</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2 Teacher–student interaction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2.1 Emotional support</td><td align="left">1.89</td><td align="left">6.44</td><td align="left">4.29</td><td align="left">0.88</td><td align="left">.43***</td><td align="left">−.22***</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.2 Classroom organization</td><td align="left">2.78</td><td align="left">7.00</td><td align="left">6.00</td><td align="left">0.83</td><td align="left">.49***</td><td align="left">−.36***</td><td align="left">.53***</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.3 Instructional support</td><td align="left">1.33</td><td align="left">5.67</td><td align="left">3.43</td><td align="left">0.81</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">.51***</td><td align="left">.28***</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3 Observed student engagement</td><td align="left">2.00</td><td align="left">7.00</td><td align="left">4.75</td><td align="left">1.02</td><td align="left">.43***</td><td align="left">−.26***</td><td align="left">.68***</td><td align="left">.50***</td><td align="left">.45***</td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 ***<emph>p</emph> < .001; Lesson‐specific emotions: 1 = <emph>not at all</emph>; 5 = <emph>very much</emph>; Teacher–student interaction and observed student engagement: 1–2 <emph>Low</emph>; 3–5 <emph>Mid</emph>; 6–7 <emph>High</emph>.</item> <item>4 TABLE ICCs within and between teachers and within and between student groups.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">ICC within teachers<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></th><th align="left">ICC between teachers<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></th><th align="left">ICC within student groups<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></th><th align="left">ICC between student groups<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Lesson‐specific emotions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Positive emotions</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.37***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative emotions</td><td align="char" char=".">0.54***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.41***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher–student interaction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotional support</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.72***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom organization</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.36***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Instructional support</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.36***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Observed student engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 a Model with teacher as cluster variable.</item> <item>8 b Model with student group as cluster variable.</item> <item>9 ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> <item>10 **<emph>p</emph> < .005.</item> <item>11 *<emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187948725-16">Teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and the observed quality of teacher–student interactions</hd> <p>The main results of the cross‐classified two‐level model, in which the effects of subject area and teachers' gender were controlled, can be found in Figure 1. To maintain the readability of the figure, the values of 95% credible intervals (CIs) and the associations between the factors of the used measures were omitted from the figure and presented only in Table 5.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/02sep25/bjep12739-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12739-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Statistically significant (95% CI) standardized correlations of the cross‐classified two‐level model after controlling for the effects of subject area and teachers' gender." /> </p> <p></p> <p>5 TABLE Estimates and CIs of the standardized correlations of the cross‐classified two‐level model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">1.1</th><th align="left">1.2</th><th align="left">2.1</th><th align="left">2.2</th><th align="left">2.3</th><th align="left">3</th></tr><tr><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left">est.</th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Within teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 Lesson‐specific emotions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1.1 Positive emotions</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1.2 Negative emotions</td><td align="left">−.41*</td><td align="left">[−.53, −.27]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2 Teacher–student interaction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2.1 Emotional support</td><td align="left">.39*</td><td align="left">[.25,.51]</td><td align="left">−.29*</td><td align="left">[−.42, −.14]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.2 Classroom organisation</td><td align="left">.24*</td><td align="left">[.10,.39]</td><td align="left">−.35*</td><td align="left">[−.48, −.21]</td><td align="left">.48*</td><td align="left">[.35,.58]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.3 Instructional support</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">[−.05,.25]</td><td align="left">−.12</td><td align="left">[−.27,.02]</td><td align="left">.54*</td><td align="left">[.43, 64]</td><td align="left">.27*</td><td align="left">[.13,.41]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3 Observed student engagement</td><td align="left">.27*</td><td align="left">[.13,.41]</td><td align="left">−.23*</td><td align="left">[−.38, −.09]</td><td align="left">.62*</td><td align="left">[.52,.70]</td><td align="left">.30*</td><td align="left">[.16,.43]</td><td align="left">.45*</td><td align="left">[.33,.57]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Between teacher</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 Lesson‐specific emotions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1.1 Positive emotions</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1.2 Negative emotions</td><td align="left">−.70*</td><td align="left">[−.87, −.42]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2 Teacher–student interaction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2.1 Emotional support</td><td align="left">.23</td><td align="left">[−.24,.59]</td><td align="left">−.18</td><td align="left">[−.50,.19]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.2 Classroom organisation</td><td align="left">.58*</td><td align="left">[.19,.82]</td><td align="left">−.45*</td><td align="left">[−.70, −.10]</td><td align="left">.57*</td><td align="left">[.22,.78]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.3 Instructional support</td><td align="left">.14</td><td align="left">[−.28,.53]</td><td align="left">−.15</td><td align="left">[−.47,.22]</td><td align="left">.92*</td><td align="left">[.77,.98]</td><td align="left">.55*</td><td align="left">[.21,.77]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3 Observed student engagement</td><td align="left">.22</td><td align="left">[−.25,.61]</td><td align="left">−.16</td><td align="left">[−.50,.22]</td><td align="left">.81*</td><td align="left">[.58,.94]</td><td align="left">.74*</td><td align="left">[.44,.91]</td><td align="left">.77*</td><td align="left">[.50,.93]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Between student groups</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1 Lesson‐specific emotions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1.1 Positive emotions</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">1.2 Negative emotions</td><td align="left">−.88*</td><td align="left">[−.97, −.66]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2 Teacher–student interaction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2.1 Emotional support</td><td align="left">.58*</td><td align="left">[.19,.83]</td><td align="left">−.41</td><td align="left">[−.75,.07]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.2 Classroom organisation</td><td align="left">.77*</td><td align="left">[.49,.93]</td><td align="left">−.76*</td><td align="left">[−.92, −.44]</td><td align="left">.70*</td><td align="left">[.35,.89]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2.3 Instructional support</td><td align="left">.63*</td><td align="left">[.15,.90]</td><td align="left">−.53</td><td align="left">[−.86,.02]</td><td align="left">.62*</td><td align="left">[.16,.89]</td><td align="left">.62*</td><td align="left">[.16,.89]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3 Observed student engagement</td><td align="left">.77*</td><td align="left">[.46,.94]</td><td align="left">−.72*</td><td align="left">[−.92, −.36]</td><td align="left">.73*</td><td align="left">[.42,.89]</td><td align="left">.82*</td><td align="left">[.57,.95]</td><td align="left">.66*</td><td align="left">[.22,.90]</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 <emph>Note</emph>: The effects of subject areas and teachers' gender were controlled before the final analyses presented in these results.</item> <item>13 Abbreviation: est. = estimate.</item> <item>14 *Significant according to 95% credible interval (CI).</item> </ulist> <p>The results at the <emph>within‐teacher level</emph> showed that teachers' lesson‐specific emotions were significantly associated with the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization (Figure 1; Table 5). Associations with respect to lesson‐specific positive emotions were positive, while those with respect to lesson‐specific negative emotions were negative. The quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of instructional support was not significantly associated with teachers' lesson‐specific self‐ratings. Therefore, the results revealed that in those lessons where emotional support and classroom organization reflected a higher quality of teacher–student interaction, the teachers also experienced higher lesson‐specific positive emotions and lower lesson‐specific negative emotions.</p> <p>The results at the <emph>between‐teacher level</emph> showed that teachers' lesson‐specific positive emotions were positively associated with the observed quality of classroom organization, while lesson‐specific negative emotions were negatively associated with the same factor (Figure 1; Table 5). No other significant associations emerged. In other words, those teachers who reported a higher quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of classroom organization also reported experiencing higher lesson‐specific positive emotions and lower lesson‐specific negative emotions. However, the ways in which teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions were associated with emotional support or instructional support did not differ significantly between teachers.</p> <p>The results at the <emph>between‐student group level</emph> showed that, first, teachers' lesson‐specific positive emotions were significantly and positively associated with the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support (Figure 1; Table 5). Second, significant negative associations were found between teachers' lesson‐specific negative emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of classroom organization, but not with respect to emotional support or instructional support (Figure 1; Table 5). Overall, the results from the between‐student group level indicated that the associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions varied based on the group of students being taught.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-18">Teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and observed student engagement</hd> <p>The associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and observed behavioural engagement of students were examined using the same cross‐classified model. The results at the <emph>within‐teacher level</emph> showed that teachers' lesson‐specific emotions were significantly associated with students' behavioural engagement, as observed in the same lesson (Figure 1; Table 5). The associations with respect to lesson‐specific positive emotions were positive, while those with respect to lesson‐specific negative emotions were negative. Therefore, the results indicated that in those lessons in which the students were observed to be more behaviourally engaged, the teachers also experienced higher lesson‐specific positive emotions and lower lesson‐specific negative emotions.</p> <p>Furthermore, the results showed no significant associations between teachers' emotions and observed student engagement at the <emph>between‐teacher level</emph> (Figure 1; Table 5). Thus, the results revealed that teachers did not differ in terms of how their lesson‐specific emotions were associated with the observed behavioural engagement of their students. However, the results at the <emph>between‐student group level</emph> showed that teachers' lesson‐specific positive emotions was positively associated with students' observed behavioural engagement, while lesson‐specific negative emotions was negatively associated with the same factor (Figure 1; Table 5). Therefore, these associations differed based on the group of students being taught.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-19">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In this study, we focused on teachers' emotions while teaching. In particular, we examined the associations between teachers' self‐rated lesson‐specific emotions and observed teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement in classroom activities during the same lessons. Data were collected from nearly 300 lessons as usual that taught by participating teachers for their Grade 9 (15–16 years old) students in Finnish lower secondary schools. Our findings provide new insights into the role of teachers' emotions in classroom interactions.</p> <p>Based on the literature examining associations between teachers' emotions and different aspects of their teaching behaviours (e.g. Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]; Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref99">6</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref100">18</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]), we hypothesised that teachers' lesson‐specific emotions would be associated with the observed quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. The results showed that teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with the quality of teacher–student interactions in the same lesson in terms of emotional support and classroom organization. In turn, the associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and instructional support were not statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was only partially confirmed.</p> <p>The existing studies have evidenced that teachers' self‐reported emotions are linked to students' perceptions of how their teachers provide emotional support (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref102">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref103">6</reflink>]). Furthermore, teachers' perceptions of their students' disruptive behaviours (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>]) and student‐rated class discipline (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>]) are associated with teachers' emotions. Our findings about the significant associations between teachers' emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization are in line with previous findings. In particular, our findings revealed that teachers' emotions while teaching was associated with interactions that reflected, for instance, teachers' sensitivity and responsiveness to students' needs and well‐organized learning situations (Hafen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref106">22</reflink>]; Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref107">24</reflink>]). While such associations somewhat replicate existing findings, the use of the broadly accepted TTI framework and CLASS‐S observational tool, along with teachers' self‐ratings of their lesson‐specific emotions, provided an interesting addition to the field. Indeed, our findings expand previous ones by confirming that such associations also exist when emotional support and classroom organization are evaluated by external observers and by looking into interactions between teachers and groups of students in specific lessons. Therefore, the present findings can be used to highlight the importance of acknowledging the associations between teachers' emotions while teaching and the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization.</p> <p>The absence of within‐teacher associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions in terms of instructional support was somewhat surprising. Based on previous theoretical reasoning (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref108">17</reflink>]) and empirical evidence showing associations, for instance, between teachers' emotions and students' perceptions of how their teachers attempt to enhance their learning through cognitive activation (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref110">6</reflink>]), the association between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and instructional support was expected. However, previous findings regarding such associations were based on the method of accessing instructional support through teacher or student ratings and focusing on teachers' trait‐like emotions. It is possible that associations between teachers' emotions and instructional behaviours reflecting instructional support may differ based on whether they were measured regarding some specific situations or over time.</p> <p>The lack of associations in the present study could also be partly explained by the possibility that teacher and student ratings capture instructional support somewhat differently compared to assessments executed by external observers. Indeed, the observers conducting the CLASS‐S assessments in the present study did not know the teachers or students participating in the lessons. They made their assessments based only on what was observable in that specific lesson. Thus, the assessments were objective, as there was no shared history that could reflect on the assessments, and there was no pressure to over/underestimate the quality of instructional support (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref111">12</reflink>]). While we do not wish to claim against the usage of student or teacher ratings, our findings highlight the need for more research using this type of observational data. Ideally, future studies should include observational data and student/teacher ratings. This would facilitate the examination of potential associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and instructional support.</p> <p>Along with the findings reached by modelling the within‐teacher variation, the cross‐classified model provided some interesting insights based on variations found at the between‐student group level. The findings revealed that the associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions had relatively high variations when teachers were teaching different groups of students. These findings support the literature, which states that teachers experience more positive emotions when teaching student groups with whom they perceive of having better relationships and perceive as better performing, and more motivated and disciplined than other groups (e.g. Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref112">19</reflink>]). Our findings also complement the literature by confirming that such differences in teachers' emotional experiences between student groups also occur when emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support are accessed through observations of teacher–student interactions.</p> <p>With respect to the second research question, the findings support Hypothesis 2 by showing that teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions are positively and negatively associated, respectively, with students' observed behavioural engagement during the same lessons. Such a finding aligns with prior literature (e.g. Burić, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref113">4</reflink>]; Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref114">5</reflink>]; Burić & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref115">7</reflink>]; Gaspard & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref116">21</reflink>]). Furthermore, the present findings complement prior literature, as students' behavioural engagement has been assessed through external observations using a widely acknowledged observational method that has not been excessively used to examine these types of associations. Moreover, the findings at the between‐student group level verified that the associations between teachers' lesson‐specific emotions and student engagement varied substantially when different groups of students were taught. Enhancing our understanding based on observational data highlights the importance of acknowledging the associations between teachers' emotions while teaching and students' behavioural engagement in the same lessons.</p> <p>The findings of the present study also reveal that the use of observational measures can validate and deepen our understanding of the ways in which teachers' positive and negative emotions are formed in their transactions with students. It has been shown that professional developmental programmes that build on teachers' reflections based on video‐recordings from their lessons can enhance, for example, students' engagement and teachers' pedagogical awareness (e.g. Vasalampi et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref117">43</reflink>]). Such an approach could also be used when transmitting the present findings into future research and practice. For example, professional developmental programmes that use video‐recordings from lessons can guide teachers on how they can reflect on and be more aware of their emotions while teaching, along with the ways of enhancing emotional support and classroom organization during the lesson. Such programmes can enhance teachers' awareness of their teaching‐related emotions and the quality of teacher–student interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-20">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>This study is not without limitations. First, while the data used in the present study were quite extensive, including 282 video‐recorded lessons after which teachers rated their lesson‐specific emotions, the obtained data were cross‐sectional. Thus, we were unable to determine the directions of the associations. To obtain more detailed information, future studies should use datasets that determine the directions of associations.</p> <p>Second, we examined teachers' state‐like experiences at the level of the lessons by instructing them to evaluate their experiences regarding the lessons at hand at the end of each lesson. While such a procedure has previously been used to assess teachers' state‐like emotions (e.g. Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref118">15</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref119">33</reflink>]), it is possible that teachers' self‐ratings could be biased by experiences gained earlier with the same group of students (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref120">12</reflink>]) or by experiences gained towards the end of each lesson. Thus, in future studies, multiple ratings during one lesson could be used to reduce the retrospective nature of teachers' assessments. Nevertheless, to assess the quality of interactions and student engagement in the lesson, we divided each video‐recorded lesson into 3 cycles, which we observed and rated separately, after which the mean of the cycles was used for analyses. Thus, these assessments captured some of the variations occurring in a lesson.</p> <p>Third, due to study design, we measured only small number of different emotions to capture teachers' lesson‐specific positive and negative emotions. In future studies, the associations between different emotions and the quality of observed teacher–student interactions and student engagement should be examined.</p> <p>Finally, the numbers of clusters (teachers) and observations per cluster were somewhat small, which might have affected the testing power and accuracy of our estimates. Although this was considered during the analytical process, our results should be replicated with a larger sample size to strengthen the possibility of generalization.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-21">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Overall, the findings of the present study indicate that high‐quality interactions between teachers and students, along with students' behavioural engagement in their lessons, are related to teachers' state‐like positive and negative emotions. Gaining empirical evidence that does not rely solely on teacher or student ratings regarding the quality of emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support or student engagement is important, because such information can be used to enhance our understanding of their associations with teachers' state‐like emotions. The present findings are important because they highlight the existence of such associations at the level of individual lessons. Given that teachers' state‐like emotions may vary from one lesson to another, they should be supported by providing means to enhance the quality of teacher–student interactions and students' behavioural engagement in every lesson.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-22">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Sanni Pöysä:</bold> Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; conceptualization; methodology. <bold>Kati Vasalampi:</bold> Writing – review and editing; methodology; conceptualization. <bold>Joona Muotka:</bold> Methodology; formal analysis; writing – review and editing. <bold>Marja‐Kristiina Lerkkanen:</bold> Writing – review and editing; project administration; funding acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-23">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>The present study is a part of the EDUCA Flagship funded by the Research Council of Finland (#358924, 2024‐2028). In addition, the study was part of the project EduRESCUE—the resilient schools and the education system, which was funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) established within the Research Council of Finland (#345196, 2021‐2024). The study was also supported by other grants from the Research Council of Finland (nos. 335635 and 317610 for Lerkkanen and no. 323773 for Vasalampi). The First Steps study was supported by grants from the Research Council of Finland (nos. 213486, 263891, 268586 and 292466).</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-24">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0187948725-25">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data is not openly available as participants were not asked to provide their agreement on that when participating in the follow‐up study. Please, contact the last author with the possible data requests.</p> <ref id="AN0187948725-26"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2024). The role of teachers' emotion regulation in teaching effectiveness: A systematic review integrating four lines of research. Educational Psychologist, 59 (2), 89 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2282446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers' emotions and instructional behavior for their students' emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref49" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Taxer, J. L. (2015). Antecedents of teachers' emotions in the classroom: An intraindividual approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 635. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burić, I. (2019). The role of emotional labor in explaining teachers' enthusiasm and students' outcomes: A multilevel mediational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 70, 12 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burić, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2021). Teacher emotional labour, instructional strategies, and students' academic engagement: A multilevel analysis. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 27 (5), 335 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burić, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2023). Teacher emotions are linked with teaching quality: Cross‐sectional and longitudinal evidence from two field studies. Learning and Instruction, 88, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burić, I., & Wang, H. (2024). Relationships among teacher enjoyment, emotional labor, and perceived student engagement: A daily diary approach. Journal of School Psychology, 103, 101271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, J. (2016). Understanding teacher emotions: The development of a teacher emotion inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 68 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref11" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, J. (2020). Refining the teacher emotion model: Evidence from a review of literature published between 1985 and 2019. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51 (3), 327 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1831440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86 (2), 127 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Ruiter, J. A., Poorthuis, A. M. G., Aldrup, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2020). Teachers' emotional experiences in response to daily events with individual students varying in perceived past disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 85 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donker, M. H., van Vemde, L., Hessen, D. J., van Gog, T., & Mainhard, T. (2021). Observational, student, and teacher perspectives on interpersonal teacher behavior: Shared and unique associations with teacher and student emotions. Learning and Instruction, 73, 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink‐Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 494 – 518). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Becker‐Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teaching this class drives me nuts!‐examining the person and context specificity of teacher emotions. PLoS One, 10 (6), e0129630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Becker‐Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Lüdtke, O. (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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Daniels, L., & Burić, I. (2021). Teacher emotions in the classroom and their implications for students. Educational Psychologist, 56 (4), 250 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1985501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Dindar, M., Pekrun, R., Reck, C., & Marx, A. K. G. (2024). Joy is reciprocally transmitted between teachers and students: Evidence on facial mimicry in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 91, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Fiedler, D., Marx, A. K. G., Reck, C., & Pekrun, R. (2020). Who enjoys teaching, and when? Between‐ and within‐person evidence on teachers' appraisal‐emotion links. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker‐Kurz, B., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Measuring teachers' enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The teacher emotions scales (tes). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 148 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaspard, H., & Lauermann, F. (2021). Emotionally and motivationally supportive classrooms: A state‐trait analysis of lesson‐ and classroom‐specific variation in teacher‐ and student‐reported teacher enthusiasm and student engagement. Learning and Instruction, 75, 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hafen, C. A., Hamre, B., Allen, J. P., Courtney, A. B., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R. C. (2015). Teaching through interactions in secondary school classrooms: Revisiting the factor structure and practical application of the classroom assessment scoring system–Secondary. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35 (5–6), 651 – 680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614537117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagenauer, G., Hascher, T., & Volet, S. E. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom: Associations with students' engagement, classroom discipline and the interpersonal teacher‐student relationship. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30 (4), 385 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212‐015‐0250‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113 (3), 461 – 487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well‐being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzer, J., Grützmacher, L., Lüftenegger, M., Prenzel, M., & Schober, B. (2024). Shedding light on relations between teacher emotions, instructional behavior, and student school well‐being–Evidence from disadvantaged schools. Learning and Instruction, 92, 101926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (version 28.0). [Computer software]. IBM Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers' relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers' basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (1), 150 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landers, R. N. (2015). Computing intraclass correlations (ICC) as estimates of interrater reliability in SPSS. The Winnower, 6 (e143518), 81744. doi: 10.15200/winn.143518.81744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerkkanen, M.‐K., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A.‐M., Poskiparta, E., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.‐E. (2006–2016). The first steps study (Alkuportaat) [Unpublished data set]. Universities of Jyväskylä, Turku and Eastern Finland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerkkanen, M.‐K., Vasalampi, K., & Nurmi, J.‐E. (2012). In situations: Teacher (InSitu‐T) instrument. University of Jyväskylä. Unpublished measure.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, P.‐H., Mayer, D., & Malmberg, L.‐E. (2022). Teacher well‐being in the classroom: A micro‐longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 115, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulligan, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Toward a working definition of emotion. Emotion Review, 4 (4), 345 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, B. O. (2010). Bayesian analysis in Mplus: A brief introduction (Vol. 3). Incomplete Draft, Version. https://<ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/download/IntroBayesVersion%203.pdf">www.statmodel.com/download/IntroBayesVersion%203.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2020). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. https://<ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer%5f8.pdf">www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer%5f8.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2012). Classroom assessment scoring system–Secondary manual. Teachstone.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pöysä, S., Muotka, J., Vasalampi, K., Poikkeus, A.‐M., & Lerkkanen, M.‐K. (2024). Assessment of teachers' situational work engagement: A validation of the In Situations Teacher (InSitu‐T) Instrument. [Manuscript under revision].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutz, P. A., Hong, J., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 343 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐006‐9030‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tam, K. Y. Y., Poon, C. Y. S., Hui, V. K. Y., Wong, C. Y. F., Kwong, V. W. Y., Yuen, G. W. C., & Chan, C. S. (2020). Boredom begets boredom: An experience sampling study on the impact of teacher boredom on student boredom and motivation. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (1), 124 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taxer, J. L., Becker‐Kurz, B., & Frenzel, A. C. (2019). Do quality teacher–student relationships protect teachers from emotional exhaustion? The mediating role of enjoyment and anger. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 22 (1), 209 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐018‐9468‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasalampi, K., Metsäpelto, R.‐L., Salminen, J., Lerkkanen, M.‐K., Mäensivu, M., & Poikkeus, A.‐M. (2021). Promotion of school engagement through dialogic teaching practices in the context of a teacher professional development programme. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30, 100538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virtanen, T. E., Pakarinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.‐K., Poikkeus, A.‐M., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.‐E. (2017). A validation study of classroom assessment scoring system – Secondary in the Finnish school context. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38 (6), 849 – 889. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617699944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M.‐T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (4), 465 – 480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sanni Pöysä; Kati Vasalampi; Joona Muotka and Marja‐Kristiina Lerkkanen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref117"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483720
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Associations between Teachers' Lesson-Specific Emotions and Observed Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Engagement
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sanni+Pöysä%22">Sanni Pöysä</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5059-9459">0000-0002-5059-9459</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kati+Vasalampi%22">Kati Vasalampi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-7566">0000-0002-1249-7566</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joona+Muotka%22">Joona Muotka</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7113-903X">0000-0002-7113-903X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marja-Kristiina+Lerkkanen%22">Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5709-5800">0000-0002-5709-5800</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 95(1):153-171.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Finland%22">Finland</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Classroom+Assessment+Scoring+System%22">Classroom Assessment Scoring System</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12739
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Teachers' emotions while teaching are associated to how they teach. Prior research has evidenced such associations mostly based on teacher or student ratings of different teaching behaviours. Aims: This study examined the extent to which teachers' self-rated lesson-specific positive and negative emotions are associated with the observed quality of teacher-student interactions in terms of emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support as well as students' behavioural engagement in the same lesson. Sample: The participants comprised 84 subject teachers (76.2% female) and 907 students (15-16 years old; 50.1% female) from 26 Finnish lower secondary schools. Methods: The data consisted of video-recordings from a total of 282 lessons (M = 3.36 lessons/teacher). The quality of teacher-student interactions and students' behavioural engagement was assessed using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System--Secondary (CLASS-S) observational instrument. Data regarding teachers' positive and negative emotions were collected at the end of each video-recorded lesson using the In Situations Teacher (InSitu-T) Instrument. The collected data were analysed using cross-classified two-level modelling. Results and Conclusions: The findings revealed that teachers' positive and negative emotions were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with the observed quality of teacher-student interactions in terms of emotional support and classroom organization but not instructional support. The results provide evidence of the associations between teachers' emotions and students' observed behavioural engagement. The findings complement the literature by highlighting the importance of observational data, along with teacher and student ratings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483720
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483720
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12739
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 153
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Finland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Assessment Scoring System
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Associations between Teachers' Lesson-Specific Emotions and Observed Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Engagement
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sanni Pöysä
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kati Vasalampi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joona Muotka
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1