INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2453
www.rsisinternational.org
School Belonging, Student-Teacher Relationship, and School
Climate: A Structural Equation Model on Subjective
Well-Being, Bradd Anderson
A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Professional School University of Mindanao, Davao City
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Major in Educational
Management
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10100000201
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 25 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the best-fit model for the subjective well-being (SWB) among private college
students in Region XI, focusing on the influence of school belonging, student-teacher relationship, and school
climate. A quantitative descriptive and causal research design was employed using the structural equation
model (SEM) for analysis. A total of 400 students from various provinces in the Davao Region were selected
through stratified random sampling, and data were collected via personal surveys using modified and validated
questionnaires to ensure content validity and reliability. Statistical tools were used for data analysis, including
mean, standard deviation, Pearson product-moment correlation, linear regression, and SEM. Findings revealed
that the level of school belonging was perceived as high, student-teacher relationship as moderate, school
climate as very high, and subjective well-being as high. Significant relationships were observed between
school belonging and subjective well-being, student-teacher relationship and subjective well-being, and school
climate and subjective well-being, confirming that each exogenous variables had a significantly influence on
SWB. Among the three generated models, Model 3 was identified as the best fit for the study, with school
belonging emerging as the most significant predictor of SWB. The results further indicated that SWB was best
anchored in school belonging, which was measured by inclusion to school, and school engagement; teacher-
student relationship was characterized by comfort, approval, intimacy, and trust; and school climate was
described in terms of leadership/staff relations, institutional environment, interpersonal environment, teaching
and learning, and safety.
Keywords: educational management, subjective well-being, school belonging, student-teacher relationship,
school climate, structural equation model, private college students, University of Mindanao, Philippines SDG
Indicator: #3: Good Health and Well-being and #4: Quality Education
INTRODUCTION
College students' subjective well-being is increasingly at risk due to academic pressures, financial concerns,
reduced social interaction, and heightened emotional distress (Kovalenko et al., 2020; Kasianova & Filonenko,
2021; Strukova & Polivanova, 2023). Financial constraints, academic workload, and declining motivation
significantly undermine students' mental health (Mueller & Perreault, 2020). In the Philippines, high rates of
depression and anxiety among both students and teachers further highlight the urgency of addressing this issue
(Mendoza et al., 2023). The transition to college intensifies these challenges, especially for students with
limited access to support services (Mazzucchelli & Purcell, 2020; Newton et al., 2021). Supporting student
well-being is therefore essential for promoting healthy development and academic success.
Subjective well-being (SWB), comprising individuals’ emotional and cognitive evaluations of life, is a key
indicator of students’ quality of life (Fan, 2020). High SWB predicts stronger academic performance, healthier
social behaviors, and better personal development (Ng et al., 2020). In educational settings, SWB enhances
engagement and motivation, whereas low well-being diminishes learning and contributes to negative school
experiences (Hascher, 2020; Liang & Baek, 2023). Improving SWB is thus central to creating supportive
learning environments (Govorova et al., 2020).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2454
www.rsisinternational.org
Research consistently highlights school belonging, student-teacher relationships, and school climate as major
contributors to students’ well-being. A strong sense of school belonging enhances psychological health and
academic satisfaction (Karaman & Tarim, 2020; Arslan, 2022). Positive student-teacher interactions further
promote emotional security and academic engagement (García-Moya, 2020; Bilz et al., 2022). Supportive,
inclusive school climates strengthen these relationships, fostering environments that sustain student well-being
(Cocoradă & Orzea, 2021; Aldridge & McChesney, 2020). These interrelated factors highlight the importance
of understanding how the school environment collectively shapes students’ SWB.
Despite growing research in the Philippines, limited work has examined the combined effects of school
belonging, student-teacher relationships, and school climate on SWB, particularly in Region XI (Mendoza et
al., 2023; Corpuz, 2023). Studies often address these variables separately, leaving a gap in understanding their
interconnectedness within the regional context. Addressing this gap is vital for developing effective mental
health and educational interventions (Govorova et al., 2020; Ibrahim & El Zaatari, 2021). This study employs
structural equation modeling to examine the pathways linking these variables to SWB, offering a holistic view
of college students’ well-being in Region XI.
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the best-fit model explaining college students’ subjective
well-being based on school belonging, student-teacher relationships, and school climate. Specifically, it aims
to: (1) assess levels of school belonging; (2) evaluate the quality of student-teacher relationships; (3) describe
perceptions of school climate; (4) determine levels of SWB; (5) examine the relationships among these
variables; and (6) identify the best-fit SEM model for predicting SWB in the Davao Region. The study tests
the null hypotheses that no significant relationships exist among the variables and that no best-fit model
explains students’ SWB.
This study is anchored in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1977), which posits that human
development is shaped by nested environmental systems. School belonging, student-teacher relationships, and
school climate operate within the microsystem, while mesosystem and exosystem interactions—such as home-
school linkages and institutional policies—also influence well-being. Recent expansions of the model
emphasize dynamic person–environment interactions (Rosa & Tudge, 2021; Tong & An, 2023), reinforcing its
relevance in examining school-based influences on SWB.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) complements this framework by explaining how unmet needs for
belonging and esteem hinder students’ well-being. Supportive school relationships and climates help fulfill
these needs, fostering connectedness and positive self-perceptions. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan,
2000) further supports the analysis by underscoring the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Belonging, strong teacher relationships, and positive school climates facilitate these needs, thereby enhancing
students’ psychological functioning and SWB.
Figure 1 presents the study’s conceptual framework, illustrating the relationships among the exogenous
variables—school belonging, student-teacher relationship, and school climate—and the endogenous variable,
subjective well-being. School belonging is measured through engagement, teacher support, peer support, and
inclusion. Student-teacher relationships encompass trust, interaction, intimacy, care, approval, and comfort.
School climate includes safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, institutional environment,
and leadership/staff relations. SWB is assessed through academic satisfaction, academic efficacy, school
connectedness, and college gratitude.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2455
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1. Hypothesized Model on the Influence of School Belonging, Student-
Teacher Relationship, and School Climate to the Subjective Well-Being of College Students
Legend: SCE - School Engagement SAF - Safety
TES - Teacher Support TAL - Teaching and Learning
PES - Peer Support INR - Interpersonal Relationship
ITS - Inclusion to School INE - Institutional Environment
LSR - Leadership/Staff Relations
TRU - Trust
INT - Interaction ACS - Academic Satisfaction
INI - Intimacy ACE - Academic Efficacy
CAR – Care SCC - School Connectedness
APP – Approval COG - College Gratitude
COM - Comfort
School belonging refers to students’ feelings of acceptance and inclusion in school (Direkci et al., 2020).
Strong belonging enhances academic outcomes, peer and teacher relationships, resilience, and mental health,
and reduces anxiety and loneliness (Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Zong et al., 2021). Positive peer relations also
strengthen belonging and foster engagement in academic and extracurricular activities (Lu, 2023). The School
Belonging Scale (SBS) provides a reliable measure of this construct (Direkci et al., 2020).
Student-teacher relationships (STRs) shape students’ academic performance, social development, and
emotional well-being (Bai et al., 2022). Indicators such as trust, interaction, care, and comfort foster a
supportive learning environment (Pianta, 2020; Roorda et al., 2021). Positive STRs promote engagement,
motivation, reduced dropout rates, and better mental health (Seligman, 2021; Poulou, 2020). Fairness and high
teacher expectations also contribute to students’ academic goals (Wentzel, 2020).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2456
www.rsisinternational.org
School climate encompasses norms, values, relationships, safety, teaching practices, and organizational
structures (Bochaver et al., 2022; Cohen et al., 2021). Positive school climates are associated with higher
academic achievement, improved mental health, reduced problem behaviors, and stronger engagement (Daily
et al., 2021; Bradshaw et al., 2021; Ebbert & Luthar, 2021). Supportive climates enhance belonging and
identification with school, promoting academic success (Frontiers, 2023).
Subjective well-being (SWB) includes students’ cognitive and emotional evaluations of life and schooling
(Renshaw, 2018). Higher SWB is linked to stronger academic performance, school connectedness, and mental
health (Seepersad et al., 2020). It encompasses life satisfaction, positive affect, and low negative affect
(Katajavouri et al., 2023; Khairuddin & Mahmud, 2020). The pandemic further emphasized the importance of
SWB in sustaining motivation and resilience (Kiuru et al., 2020).
This study has global relevance as it contributes to understanding how educational environments promote well-
being, aligning with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education). Positive school
environments foster resilient, engaged individuals who contribute to societal progress. For students and
teachers, the findings underscore the importance of nurturing supportive relationships and climates. For future
researchers, this work offers a foundation for further exploration of environmental and relational factors that
shape student well-being.
METHOD
This section outlines the research design, research locale, population and sample, research instruments used to
measure constructs of interest, data collection, statistical tools, and ethical considerations.
Research Respondents
The study involved students from large private colleges across four provinces in Region XI (Davao del Sur,
Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental, and Davao de Oro). Davao Occidental was excluded due to the absence of
private colleges. From a total population of 20,408 second-, third-, and fourth-year students, 400 respondents
were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure proportional and equitable representation (Mweshi &
Sakyi, 2020). Each province contributed 100 participants.
A sample size of 400 meets recommended requirements for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which
typically ranges from 200 to 400 for valid and stable estimates (Ranatunga et al., 2020; Yahaya et al., 2021).
Inclusion criteria required respondents to be currently enrolled in private colleges in Region XI and to have
completed at least one academic year. First-year students and those not enrolled within the region were
excluded to ensure respondents had sufficient exposure to their academic environment. Participation was
voluntary, and students were free to withdraw at any time. The researcher upheld all ethical and institutional
guidelines to protect respondents’ rights and well-being.
Materials and Instrument
This study used four adapted and validated survey questionnaires to measure the key variables. The first
instrument, developed by Renshaw (2018), assessed students’ subjective well-being through 16 items covering
academic satisfaction, academic efficacy, school connectedness, and college gratitude. The second instrument,
created by Direkci et al. (2020), measured school belonging using 23 items reflecting school engagement,
teacher support, peer support, and inclusion. The third questionnaire, developed by Bai et al. (2022), evaluated
student–teacher relationships through 29 items assessing trust, interaction, intimacy, care, approval, and
comfort. The fourth instrument, adapted from Durham et al. (2022), measured school climate using 12 items
across domains such as safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, institutional environment,
and leadership/staff relations.
To interpret the levels of school belonging, student–teacher relationship, school climate, and subjective well-
being, a five-point descriptive scale was used:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2457
www.rsisinternational.org
4.20–5.00 (Very High), 3.40–4.19 (High), 2.60–3.39 (Moderate), 1.80–2.59 (Low), and 1.00–1.79 (Very Low).
All instruments were modified to better fit the local educational context. One school belonging indicator was
reframed from alienation to inclusion to maintain a more positive and consistent construct, as recommended by
panel reviewers. Expert validation yielded an overall rating of 4.66, indicating excellent content validity.
Following validation, pilot testing with 30 college students demonstrated strong reliability across all scales as
evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Part I ( Subjective Well-Being), achieved a coefficient of .861 for
16 items, reflecting good internal consistency and stability. Part II (School Belonging), recorded a reliability
coefficient of .947 for 23 items, affirming excellent dependability, while Part III (Student-Teacher
Relationship), achieved a score of .870 for 29 items, indicating good measurement consistency. Part IV
(School Climate), demonstrated a Cronbach's Alpha of .944 for 12 items, underscoring its robustness as a
reliable tool. These high reliability values confirmed the instruments’ suitability for full-scale data collection
and ensured accurate measurement of the intended constructs.
Design and Procedure
This study employed a non-experimental quantitative research design to examine the relationships among
school belonging, student–teacher relationships, school climate, and college students’ subjective well-being.
This design allowed the measurement of variables as they naturally occur and supported the use of Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) to test hypothesized associations and predictive pathways.
SEM was used to develop the best-fit model and assess direct, indirect, and mediating effects among the
constructs. As a robust multivariate technique, SEM incorporates both factor analysis and path analysis,
enabling the evaluation of measurement errors and overall model fit (Byrne, 2020; Hair et al., 2020; Memon et
al., 2021).
Data collection was conducted in large private colleges across Region XI, specifically in Davao del Sur, Davao
del Norte, Davao Oriental, and Davao de Oro. Davao Occidental was excluded due to the absence of private
colleges. Before data gathering began, the researcher secured permission from the Dean of the UM
Professional Schools and coordinated with participating institutions. Surveys and informed consent forms were
personally administered, and data collection commenced in May 2025. After retrieval, responses were
organized and analyzed using several statistical techniques. Mean and standard deviation were used to describe
the exogenous and endogenous variables. Pearson’s correlation assessed the strength and significance of
relationships among variables. Linear regression identified predictors of subjective well-being. SEM was then
applied to evaluate the overall structural model.
Model adequacy was evaluated using widely accepted fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.95),
Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI ≥ 0.95), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.06),
following the cutoff criteria recommended by Hu and Bentler (2019). These measures ensured that the
resulting model accurately represented the relationships among the study variables.
This research complied with the ethical standards of the University of Mindanao Ethics Review Committee
(UMERC), Protocol No. UMERC-2024-196, and the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Participant confidentiality,
voluntary participation, and protection of rights were strictly maintained throughout the study. The research
posed no physical, psychological, or socioeconomic risks, and while participation was uncompensated, the
findings aim to benefit students and academic institutions. Academic integrity was ensured through the use of
plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin and Grammarly.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Presented and discussed in this section are the data analysis and findings on school belonging, student-teacher
relationship, school climate, and their influence on subjective well-being. It provides a comprehensive
interpretation of the results, highlighting key patterns, relationships, and insights from statistical analyses to
address the study’s research objectives and implications.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2458
www.rsisinternational.org
School Belonging
Depicted in Table 1 is the level of school belonging of college students in terms of school engagement, teacher
support, peer support, and inclusion to school. It obtained an overall mean score of 4.10 with a standard
deviation of 0.59, which is high. This means that the level of school belonging is oftentimes observed. Among
the indicators of school belonging, peer support obtained the highest mean score of 4.28 with a standard
deviation of 0.75, which is described as very high. Conversely, teacher support achieved the lowest mean score
of 3.98 with a standard deviation of 0.73, which is still considered as high.
Table 1 Level of School Belonging of College Students
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Level
School Engagement
0.67
4.01
High
Teacher Support
0.73
3.98
High
Peer Support
0.75
4.28
Very High
Inclusion to School
0.76
4.13
High
Overall
0.59
4.10
High
The very high descriptive level on one indicator is due to the respondents very high ratings on spending time
with friends at school, feeling happy to do activities with friends at school, and feeling valuable among friends
at school. These results suggest that students feel most connected to their peers, which is a crucial factor in
fostering a sense of inclusion and emotional security. The high descriptive levels on the rest of the indicators
are due to feeling accepted and valued, feeling safe at school, and respecting students’ ideas which
demonstrates that students positively perceive their relationships with teachers and feel integrated into the
academic environment. Overall results imply that supportive interpersonal relationships and inclusive school
environments are vital in nurturing a strong sense of belonging, which can positively impact students’
academic motivation, mental health, and overall well-being. The high results of school belonging support with
the research conducted by Karaman and Tarim (2020) and Burton (2020) highlighting the importance of social
and emotional support in cultivating school belonging. Students who feel supported by peers and educators are
likelier to experience a strong sense of belonging and academic engagement.
Student-Teacher Relationship
As shown in table 2, student-teacher relationship is measured by trust, interaction, intimacy, care, approval,
and comfort. It obtained an overall mean of 3.33 or labelled as moderate, with a standard deviation of 0.76.
This implies that the level of student-teacher relationship is sometimes observed. Among the indicators of
student-teacher relationship, trust received the highest mean score of 3.97 with a standard deviation
Table 2 Level of Student-Teacher Relationship of College Students
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Level
Trust
0.64
3.97
High
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2459
www.rsisinternational.org
Interaction
0.91
3.50
High
Intimacy
1.05
2.56
Low
Care
0.94
3.36
Moderate
Approval
0.94
3.14
Moderate
Comfort
0.96
3.44
High
Overall
0.76
3.33
Moderate
of 0.64, described as high. Conversely, intimacy obtained the lowest mean score of 2.56 with a standard
deviation of 1.05, described as low. The high descriptive levels on three indicators of student-teacher
relationship can be attributed to the respondents’ consistent belief that most teachers possess a wealth of
teaching knowledge, engage in interaction and active listening, and create an environment where students feel
happy and comfortable expressing themselves without fear of judgement. Additionally, the respondents
moderately acknowledged that their teachers provide guidance and support not just in academic matters such
as making appointments but also in helping them cope with stress and maintain their personal well-being.
However, one indicator received a low descriptive level, suggesting limited emotional closeness or personal
connection between students and teachers, as reflected in the lack of social interactions such as going out,
playing, eating, or traveling together to build a closer relationship. These findings imply that while functional
and academic interactions are strong, deeper relational ties, such as mentorship or personal rapport, are
lacking.
The high levels of trust, interaction and comfort observed in the study align with the findings of Pianta (2020)
and Brinkworth et al. (2021), who emphasized that positive student-teacher relationship, characterized by trust,
meaningful interaction, intimacy, care, approval, and emotional comfort, form the foundation of a supportive
and effective learning environment. Such relationships foster secure attachments, enhance student engagement
and confidence, and significantly contribute to higher levels of subjective well-being. However, the low level
of intimacy observed in this study suggests the importance of close mentoring relationships in enhancing
students' sense of belonging and long-term academic success (Wentzel, 2020). While students appear to
respect and trust their teachers’ capabilities, the presence of emotional distance indicates an area for
improvement particularly in fostering deeper connections that supports holistic student development.
School Climate
Presented in Table 3 is the level of school climate as determined by safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal
relationships, institutional environment, and leadership/staff relations. It obtained an overall mean score of
4.32 or categorized as very high, with a standard deviation of 0.60. This suggests that the level of school
climate is always manifested. Among the indicators of school climate, teaching and learning got the highest
mean score of 4.37 with a standard deviation of 0.70, described as very high. Conversely, safety obtained the
lowest mean score of 4.26 with a standard deviation of 0.78, although still classified as very high.
Table 3 Level of School Climate of College Students
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive
Level
Safety
0.78
4.26
Very High
Teaching and Learning
0.70
4.37
Very High
Interpersonal Relationship
0.68
4.35
Very High
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2460
www.rsisinternational.org
Institutional Environment
0.69
4.30
Very High
Leadership/Staff Relations
0.74
4.31
Very High
Overall
0.60
4.32
Very High
The very high ratings given by the respondents to each indicator of school climate account for the overall very
high descriptive levels. Items that received very high ratings include using supportive teaching practices such
as encouragement and constructive feedback; providing varied opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and
skills; supporting risk-taking and independent thinking; fostering an atmosphere conducive to dialogue and
questioning; offering academic challenges; and giving individual attention. Additionally, students highly
valued the practice of mutual respect for individual differences (e.g., gender, race, culture, etc.) across all
levels of the school community such as student-to-student, adult-to-student, adult-to-adult, while promoting
overall norms of tolerance. Other positively rated aspects include creating and communicating a clear vision,
while remaining accessible and supportive of school staff and their professional development, practicing
cleanliness, order, and appeal of facilities and adequate resources and materials, and ensuring that students and
adults feel safe from physical harm in the school. These results imply that students view their academic
environment positively, characterized by supportive relationships, effective teaching, a sense of safety, and
strong institutional and leadership structures.
This very high level of school climate supports with the findings of Daily et al. (2021) who emphasized that a
positive school climate is linked to greater student satisfaction, higher academic achievement, improved
mental health and emotional well-being, and decreased involvement in negative behaviors. Similarly, Wong et
al. (2021) confirms these findings by highlighting that a nurturing school climate contributes to better
emotional health, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, and enhanced overall well-being. Furthermore,
studies by Bradshaw et al. (2021) and Ebbert and Luthar (2021) reinforce these results, emphasizing that a
supportive school climate can reduce disruptive behaviors, foster a culture of respect and inclusion, and
ultimately enhance student engagement and academic success.
Subjective Well-Being
Reflected in Table 4 is the level of subjective well-being across the dimensions of academic satisfaction,
academic efficacy, school connectedness, and college gratitude. It obtained an overall mean score of 4.10
categorized as high, with a standard deviation of 0.49. This signifies that the level of subjective well-being is
oftentimes observed. Among the indicators of subjective well-being, college gratitude recorded the highest
mean score of 4.74 with a standard deviation of 0.42, described as very high. Conversely, academic efficacy
received the lowest mean score of 3.79 with a standard deviation of 0.70 and still marked as high.
Table 4 Level of Subjective Well-Being of College Students
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Level
Academic Satisfaction
0.70
3.92
High
Academic Efficacy
0.70
3.79
High
School Connectedness
0.72
3.94
High
College Gratitude
0.42
4.74
Very High
Overall
0.49
4.10
High
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2461
www.rsisinternational.org
The very high descriptive level on one indicator of subjective well-being is attributed to respondents’ being so
thankful that their getting a college education. The high descriptive levels on the remaining indicators of
subjective well-being are due to respondents’ high ratings. Among the items that received high evaluations are
their feelings of being a real part of the school, having a great academic experience, and being hard working
and doing well in their classes. These results imply that students feel emotionally connected to their school
environment, satisfied with their academic experiences, and confident in their academic capabilities. These
factors collectively contribute to their overall subjective well-being.
The high level of subjective well-being supports Suldo et al.’s (2020) finding that students who perceive strong
school connectedness and support report higher levels of well-being and life satisfaction. Similarly, the study
of Kiuru (2020) emphasized that student well-being is positively influenced by supportive school
environments, academic satisfaction, greater resilience and a strong sense of belonging. In addition, Froh et al.
(2021) found that gratitude among students is positively associated with academic motivation, school
satisfaction, and overall psychological well-being, which directly aligns with the very high levels of college
gratitude observed in this study.
Relationship between School Belonging and Subjective Well-Being
Displayed in Table 5 are the test results of the relationship between school belonging and the subjective well-
being of college students in the Davao Region. As indicated in the hypothesis, the relationship was tested at a
.05 level of significance. The overall R-value of .752 with a p-value of less than .05 showed that the null
hypothesis was rejected. This result suggests a significant relationship between school belonging and the
subjective well-being of college students in the Davao Region. The correlation
Table 5 Significance of the Relationship between School Belonging and Subjective Well-being of College
Students
School
Belonging
Subjective Well-being
Academic
Satisfaction
Academic
Efficacy
School
Connectedness
College
Gratitude
Overall
School
Engagement
.646
**
.000
.479
**
.000
.678
**
.000
.315
**
.000
.720
**
.000
Teacher Support
.512
**
.000
.360
**
.000
.574
**
.000
.322
**
.000
.592
**
.000
Peer Support
.316
**
.000
.291
**
.000
.455
**
.000
.378
**
.000
.466
**
.000
Inclusion to
School
.559
**
.000
.438
**
.000
.661
**
.000
.290
**
.000
.662
**
.000
Overall
.624
**
.000
.483
**
.000
.730
**
.000
.404
**
.000
.752
**
.000
coefficient, r = .752, further supports this strong relationship, highlighting that school belonging is closely
linked to the subjective well-being. Specifically, the findings show that all indices of school belonging have a
significant relationship with the subjective well-being, as indicated by p-values less than .05.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2462
www.rsisinternational.org
The rejection of the null hypothesis confirms that school belonging plays a crucial role in shaping and
sustaining subjective well-being. This implies that
a positive and well-established school belonging fosters greater academic performance, academic satisfaction,
motivation, school connectedness and gratitude, ultimately enhancing students’ learning outcomes, happiness
and overall psychological well-being. Additionally, the significant relationship across all indices of school
belonging suggests that a supportive, safe, inclusive, and healthy institutional environment strengthens
subjective well-being by emotional security, social connectedness, and a sense of purpose in life.
The results support Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1977), which emphasizes that positive,
reciprocal, and consistent relationships within a student’s immediate environment such as engagement with
school, relationships with teachers and peers and feelings of inclusion are central to promoting optimal
development and well-being. The study further reinforces Bronfenbrenner’s assertion that healthy and
supportive environments are essential for positive developmental outcomes. These findings also affirms the
argument of Fan (2020) that a cohesive and nurturing school environment serve as powerful determinant of
students’ emotional and psychological health, ultimately lead to their overall quality of life. Similarly, Hascher
(2020) supports these results by highlighting that high levels of positive peer interactions foster both better
social integration and improved academic outcomes.
Relationship between Student-Teacher Relationship and Subjective Well-Being
Presented in Table 6 are the results of the test of the relationship between student-teacher relationship and the
subjective well-being of college students in Davao Region. As indicated in the hypothesis, the relationship was
tested at .05 level of significance. The overall R-value of .534 with a p-value less than .05 showed that the null
hypothesis was rejected. It can be deduced that there is a significant relationship between student-teacher
relationship and subjective well-being of college students in Davao Region. Individually, each indicator of
student-teacher relationship correlates positively with subjective well-being, having p-values of less than .05.
The rejection of the null hypothesis suggests that student-teacher relationship plays a critical role in fostering
and enhancing the subjective well-being of college students. This implies that strong student-teacher
relationships- characterized by trust, interaction and comfort- contribute to higher academic success,
satisfaction, motivation, sense of connectedness and overall psychological well-being. Moreover, the
positive correlation of these three indicators of student-teacher relationship reinforces the idea that supportive
and emotionally secure relationships with teachers are essential for
Table 6 Significance of the Relationship between Student-Teacher Relationship and Subjective Well-being of
College Students
Student-Teacher
Relationship
Subjective Well-being
Academic
Satisfaction
Academic
Efficacy
School
Connectedness
College
Gratitude
Overall
Trust
.501
**
.000
.390
**
.000
.519
**
.000
.282
**
.000
.570
**
.000
Interaction
.497
**
.000
.380
**
.000
.460
**
.000
.097
.052
.504
**
.000
Intimacy
.392
**
.000
.262
**
.000
.393
**
.000
.015
.767
.382
**
.000
Care
.391
**
.000
.253
**
.000
.414
**
.000
.110
*
.028
.406
**
.000
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2463
www.rsisinternational.org
Approval
.359
**
.000
.239
**
.000
.354
**
.000
.047
.344
.354
**
.000
Comfort
.500
**
.000
.343
**
.000
.481
**
.000
.161
**
.001
.513
**
.000
Overall
.520
**
.000
.365
**
.000
.515
**
.000
.129
**
.010
.534
**
.000
promoting positive psychological outcomes among students. Conversely, the weaker correlation of the
remaining indicators of student-teacher relationship, such as intimacy, approval and care, with low relationship
on college gratitude dimension of SWB suggests that students’ feelings of gratitude toward their college
experience are not substantially influenced by the emotional closeness or perceived approval from their
teachers, or the frequency or quality of their interpersonal interactions. This implies that while students deeply
value trust, interaction, and comfort from teachers, they do not necessarily require deep emotional intimacy or
affirmation to feel grateful about their educational experience.
These results support attachment theory, which posits that secure and supportive relationships contribute to
emotional regulation, resilience, and overall psychological well-being (Bowlby, 2020). Consistent with this
theory, the study affirms that emotionally secure and supportive relationships with teachers play a crucial role
in fostering positive psychological outcomes among students. Furthermore, the findings align with Noddings’
(2021) ethic of care, which emphasizes the importance of nurturing relationships in educational settings to
promote student growth and satisfaction. Empirical studies, such as Roorda et al. (2021), also support this by
demonstrating that positive affective relationships with teachers significantly enhance students’ academic
engagement and emotional functioning.
owever, the non-significant correlations between certain STR indicators, such as intimacy, interaction, and
approval, with college gratitude suggest possible cultural nuances in relational expectations, particularly in
collectivist societies like the Philippines, where emotional closeness with authority figures is often less
emphasized (Bernardo et al., 2020). These mixed findings imply that while core emotional support from
teachers is vital to student well-being, not all relational dimensions of STR hold equal importance across
different cultural contexts.
Relationship between School Climate and Subjective Well-Being
Displayed in Table 7 are the results of the test of the relationship between school climate and the subjective
well-being of college students in Davao Region. As indicated in the hypothesis, the relationship was tested at a
.05 significance level. The overall R-value of .449 with a p-value less than .05 showed that the null hypothesis
was rejected. This suggests a significant relationship between school climate and subjective well-being of
college students in the Davao Region. Specifically, the findings indicate that each dimension of school climate
is significantly associated with subjective well-being as evidenced by p-values below the .05 threshold.
Table 7 Significance of the Relationship between School Climate and Subjective Well-being of College
Students
School Climate
Subjective Well-being
Academic
Satisfaction
Academic
Efficacy
School
Connectedness
College
Gratitude
Overall
Safety
.270
**
.000
.221
**
.000
.245
**
.000
.235
**
.000
.317
**
.000
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2464
www.rsisinternational.org
Teaching and
Learning
.327
**
.000
.296
**
.000
.322
**
.000
.283
**
.000
.402
**
.000
Interpersonal
Relationship
.319
**
.000
.319
**
.000
.331
**
.000
.341
**
.000
.424
**
.000
Institutional
Environment
.280
**
.000
.262
**
.000
.302
**
.000
.317
**
.000
.373
**
.000
Leadership/Staff
Relations
.285
**
.000
.269
**
.000
.320
**
.000
.302
**
.000
.381
**
.000
Overall
.351
**
.000
.324
**
.000
.360
**
.000
.350
**
.000
.449
**
.000
The rejection of the null hypothesis suggests that a positive and supportive school climate significantly
contributes to the enhancement of student well-being. Schools that prioritize high-quality teaching, encourage
positive interpersonal relationships, ensure a safe and inclusive environment, and demonstrate effective
leadership are more likely to foster students who are academically confident, satisfied with their educational
experience, feel connected to their school, and express gratitude for their college life. Additionally, the strong
correlation across all dimensions of school climate highlights its vital role in enhancing teaching quality,
relationships, safety, leadership, and institutional environment, ultimately leading to improved overall student
well-being.
The results support Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979), highlighting on how a student’s
development is shaped by their immediate environment, particularly the microsystem, which includes school
settings. A positive climate within this system can nurture emotional, academic, and social growth. Similarly,
the results confirm with Cohen et al. (2021), who argued that a positive school climate fosters better student
outcomes by promoting supportive relationships, a sense of safety, and engagement in learning.
Additionally, these results support with Suldo et al. (2020), who found that students in schools with more
positive climates reported higher levels of well-being and academic functioning. The consistently significant
correlations in this study underscore the multifaceted impact of school climate, not just on academic
performance but also on emotional outcomes like gratitude and connectedness. The highest correlations,
particularly for interpersonal relationships and teaching and learning, reinforce the importance of human-
centered and instructionally rich environments in fostering holistic well-being (Thapa et al., 2021).
Influence of School Belonging, Student-Teacher Relationship, and School Climate on Subjective Well-
Being of College Students
Table 8 shows the influence of school belonging, student-teacher relationship, and school climate on subjective
well-being of college students in Davao Region. The regression model, indicated by a p-value of .000 and a
corresponding F=value of 182.026, is statistically significant. This result leads to rejecting of the null
hypothesis, suggesting that the combined exogenous variables can predict subjective well-being of college
students.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2465
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 8 Significance of the Influence of School Belonging, Student-Teacher Relationship, and School Climate
on Subjective Well-being of College Students
Subjective Well-being
(Variables)
B
β
t
Sig.
Constant
1.413
10.831
.000
School Belonging
.538
.646
14.887
.000
Student-Teacher Relationship
.081
.126
3.056
.002
School Climate
.049
.061
1.570
.117
R
.761
R
2
.580
∆R
.576
F
182.026
ρ
.000
The rejection of the null hypothesis indicates that the predictors such as school belonging, student-teacher
relationship, and school climate are significant contributors to students’ subjective well-being (SWB),
engagement, and sustainability. This suggests that a strong sense of school belonging, positive student-teacher
relationships, and a supportive school climate enhance college students’ overall well-being by creating a
psychologically safe and nurturing academic environment. Consequently, strengthening these factors can lead
to better academic performance, increased motivation, enhanced social connections, and lasting emotional
resilience.
Among the three variables, school belonging shows as the most influential factor. When students feel accepted,
included, and valued within the school community, their emotional, academic, and social well-being
significantly improve. Likewise, a positive student-teacher relationship, marked by trust, supportive
communication, and comfort contributes meaningfully to student well-being by creating environments where
students feel seen, supported, and motivated. Although school climate did not show a significant unique
contribution when analyzed alongside the other variables, it should not be disregarded. Its influence may be
indirect or overlapping with the effects of school belonging and student-teacher relationships. Overall, the
findings highlight that psychosocial bonds and interpersonal connections have a greater impact on student
well-being than institutional factors alone. This underscores the need for higher education institutions to
prioritize cultivating meaningful relationships and a strong sense of community among students to promote
sustained well-being, engagement, and academic success.
Statistically, school belonging (β = .646, p < .001) emerged as the strongest and most significant predictor of
subjective well-being, followed by student-teacher relationship (β = .126, p = .002). In contrast, school climate
(β = .061, p = .117) did not significantly contribute to the model when considered alongside the other
variables. This suggests that its unique predictive power is minimal, like due to overlapping effects with school
belonging and student-teacher relationship.
Moreover, the R value of .761 indicates a strong multiple correlation between the combined predictors and
subjective well-being. This suggests a robust linear relationship between school belonging, student-teacher
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2466
www.rsisinternational.org
relationship, and school climate with students’ subjective well-being. The R² value of .580 shows that
approximately 58 percent of the variance in subjective well-being is explained by the three predictors
combined, namely: school belonging, student-teacher relationship, and school climate, demonstrating a
substantial influence effect. The high F-value of 182.026, and p < .001 further confirms that the overall
regression model is statistically significant. However, the relatively small standardized beta coefficient (β =
.061) for school climate, along with its non-significant p-value, implies that when students experience a strong
sense of belonging and maintain positive relationships with teachers, the independent influence of general
school climate becomes statistically negligible.
These findings have meaningful implications. The dominance of school belonging underscores its foundational
role in shaping student well-being. This suggests that interventions aimed at increasing students' emotional and
psychological connection to their school through engagement, inclusion, and peer/teacher support could be
especially impactful. Moreover, the modest yet significant role of student-teacher relationship highlights that
trust, care, and emotional support from faculty still matter, although to a lesser extent than the broader sense of
belonging. On the other hand, the non-significant result for school climate may reflect conceptual or statistical
overlap with school belonging and STR, or it may indicate that in the context of college students, perceived
belonging takes precedence over environmental or systemic factors.
Best Fit Model of Subjective Well-Being
This part examines the interrelationships among the variables in the study. Three models were generated to
obtain the best-fit model for subjected well-being of college students. The models were assessed against the
given fit indices and served as a basis to accept or reject the model.
Revealed in Table 9 are the goodness-of-fit results for the three generated models. Models 1 and 2 were not a
good fit due to their failure to meet the acceptable goodness-of-fit criteria. Model 1 exhibited a high chi-
square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF = 6.122), indicating a poor model
Table 9 Summary of Goodness of Fit Measures of the Three Generated Models
Model
P-value
(>0.05)
CMIN / DF
(0<value<2)
GFI
(>0.95)
CFI
(>0.95)
NFI
(>0.95)
TLI
(>0.95)
RMSEA
(<0.05)
P-close
(>0.05)
1
.000
6.122
.809
.840
.816
.817
.113
.000
2
.000
4.093
.859
.905
.879
.889
.088
.000
3
.089
1.270
.977
.996
.981
.993
.026
.992
Legend: CMIN/DF – Chi Square/Degrees of Freedom NFI –Normed Fit Index
GFI – Goodness of Fit Index TLI – Tucker-Lewis Index
RMSEA – Root Mean Square of Error Approximation CFI – Comparative Fit Index
fit, while its Goodness of Fit Index (GFI = .809), Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .840), and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .113)
fell outside acceptable thresholds. Similarly, Model 2, though an improvement, still had CMIN/DF = 4.093,
with GFI (.859), CFI (.905), and RMSEA (.088) failing to meet standard fit indices. The p-values of both
models were .000, further confirming that they do not adequately represent the data.
Meanwhile, Generated Model 3 met all the criteria for model fit across all indices. As displayed above, it
obtained a p-value of .089, a CMIN/DF of 1.270, a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of .977, a Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) of .996, a Normed Fit Index (NFI) of .981, a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of .993, an RMSEA of
.026, and a P-Close of .992. These fit indices collectively meet the required thresholds, indicating that Model 3
is the best-fit model. This is consistent with structural modeling standards which emphasize using multiple fit
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2467
www.rsisinternational.org
indices for confirmation (Byrne, 2020; Hair et al., 2020). Consequently, all exogenous variables are
appropriately incorporated, supporting Model 3 as the most suitable framework for examining the subjective
well-being of college students in Davao Region.
The model satisfies the thresholds for each fit index: CMIN/DF is below 2, and GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI all
exceed .95, while RMSEA is less than .05 with a P-Close greater than .05. These results align with the
standards outlined by Arbuckle and Wothke (2000), who recommend CMIN/DF values below 2, and TLI, CFI,
NFI, and GFI values above .95 for acceptable model fit. Furthermore, the RMSEA and P-Close values adhere
to the guidelines provided by MacCallum and Browne (1996), where RMSEA values of .01, .05, and .08
correspond to excellent, sound, and mediocre fit, respectively, with a P-Close greater than .05 indicating a
robust model fit.
The best fit of Model 3 confirms the theoretical expectation that psychosocial school variables significantly
influence subjective well-being among college students. As per Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory
(2000), environments that fulfill basic psychological needs (e.g., belonging and supportive relationships)
enhance well-being outcomes.
Table 10 Regression Weights of the 3 Generated Models
Exogenous Variables to Endogenous Variables
Model
School Belonging
Student-Teacher Relationships
School Climate
1
.803***
.178***
.035
NS
2
.950
***
-.006
NS
-.060
NS
3
.888
***
.015
NS
-.029
NS
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p=.000
Depicted in Table 10 are the regression weights of the three generated models. In Generated Structural Model
1, two exogenous variables such as school belonging and student-teacher relationship have a significant
positive effect on the endogenous variable, subjective well-being while school climate does not. As presented
in Table 10, school belonging exhibits the strongest influence (β=.803, p=.000), highlighting its critical role in
shaping student subjective well-being. This is followed by student-teacher relationship (β=.178, p=.000),
which also contributes positively, but with a smaller effect. In contrast, school climate (β=.035, p>.05) does
not significantly contribute to the model when examined alongside the other variables.
Meanwhile, in Generated Structural Model 2, school belonging maintains the strongest predictor (β=.950,
p=.000), as shown in Table 10, emphasizing its importance in shaping the outcome. In contrast, both student
teacher relationship (β=-.006, p>.05) and school climate (β=-.060, p>.05) are non-significant indicating a
diminished role when school belonging is accounted for. This model suggests that school belonging is the
primary driver, while both student-teacher relationship and school climate contribute minimally in this
specific context.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2468
www.rsisinternational.org
Legend:
SCE-School Engagement INI-Intimacy TAL-Teaching and Learning
TES-Teacher Support INT-Interaction SAF-Safety
PES-Peer Support TRU-Trust ACS-Academic Satisfaction
ITS-Inclusion to School LSR-Leadership/Staff Relations ACE-Academic Efficacy
COM-Comfort INE-Institutional Environment SCC-School Connectedness
APP-Approval INR-Interpersonal Relationship COG-College Gratitude
CAR-Care
Figure 2: Model 1 in Standard Solution
In Generated Structural Model 3, school belonging remains a strong predictor (β=.888, p=.000), as depicted in
Table 10, though with slightly reduced influence compared to model 2. In contrast, both student teacher
relationship (β=.015, p>.05) and school climate (β=-.029, p>.05) are non-significant indicating a diminished
role in the presence of school belonging. This model suggests that school belonging is again the primary force,
while both student-teacher relationship and school climate contribute minimally in this framework. The
model also highlights the central role of school belonging
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2469
www.rsisinternational.org
Legend:
SCE-School Engagement INI-Intimacy TAL-Teaching and Learning
TES-Teacher Support INT-Interaction SAF-Safety
PES-Peer Support TRU-Trust ACS-Academic Satisfaction
ITS-Inclusion to School LSR-Leadership/Staff Relations ACE-Academic Efficacy
COM-Comfort INE-Institutional Environment SCC-School Connectedness
APP-Approval INR-Interpersonal Relationship COG-College Gratitude
CAR-Care
Figure 3: Model 2 in Standard Solution
in fostering student well-being despite other relational and environmental factors. The results further
underscore that enhancing students’ sense of belonging may yield the most substantial impact on their overall
well-being. These values mentioned under model 3 suggest that Figure 4 is the best fit model to account for
subjective well-being of college students in Davao Region.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2470
www.rsisinternational.org
Legend:
ITS-Inclusion to School TRU-Trust SAF-Safety
SCE-School Engagement LSR-Leadership/Staff Relations ACS-Academic Satisfaction
COM-Comfort INE- Institutional Environment. ACE-Academic Efficacy
APP-Approval INR-Interpersonal Relationship SCC-School Connectedness
INI-Intimacy TAL-Teaching and Learning
Figure 4: Model 3 Best Fit Model in Standard Solution
Figure 4 presents the standardized estimates of Generated Model 3, highlighting the strong influence of school
belonging on subjective well-being (SWB). The findings emphasize the importance of cultivating an inclusive
and engaging school environment where students feel accepted, valued, and connected. Within this construct,
inclusion to school and school engagement emerged as critical components, as shown by their high factor
loadings, underscoring the role of participation and inclusion in fostering SWB and building a supportive and
productive school environment. While student-teacher relationships also positively influence SWB through
indicators such as comfort, approval, intimacy, and trust, their effect appears secondary to the impact of school
belonging. In contrast, school climate does not show a significant direct effect on SWB, suggesting that a
positive institutional environment alone may be insufficient without the reinforcing presence of belongingness
and supportive student-teacher connections. Nevertheless, dimensions of school climate including leadership
and staff relations, institutional environment, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning, and safety
demonstrate strong loadings, indicating their continued relevance within the construct.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2471
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 10.1 Covariances: (Group number 1 – Best Fit Model)
Variables
Estimates
S.E.
P-value
Student
Teacher
Relationship
<-->
School
Climate
.181
.022
***
School
Belonging
<-->
Student
Teacher
Relationship
.250
.024
***
School
Belonging
<-->
School
Climate
.160
.022
***
Table 10.1 presents the covariances among the exogenous variables in the best fit model, showing that all
relationships are positive and statistically significant at p < .001. The strongest covariance was found between
school belonging and student–teacher relationship with an estimate of .250, and standard error of .024,
indicating that students who experience stronger connections with their teachers also report a higher sense of
belonging in school. This was followed by the relationship between student–teacher relationship and school
climate with an estimate of .181, and standard error of .022, suggesting that positive interactions with teachers
contribute to a more favorable perception of the overall school environment. The weakest, though still
significant, was between school belonging and school climate having an estimate of .160, and standard error of
.022, reflecting that while school climate plays a role in students’ sense of belonging, it is less influential
compared to direct teacher relationships. Overall, these results highlight that supportive teacher–student
interactions and a positive school climate are critical in fostering students’ sense of belonging within the
academic setting.
In summary, the fit statistics confirm that Model 3 accurately represents the observed data, highlighting school
belonging and student-teacher relationship as key drivers in fostering subjective well-being. While school
climate may offer additional value, its impact depends on the presence of a strong sense of school belonging
and supportive student-teacher relationship. These findings underscore the importance of cultivating school
belonging and nurturing positive student-teacher relationship as foundational elements for enhancing SWB.
This conclusion aligns with existing research by Zhou et al. (2023), Li et al. (2024), Kovalenko et al. (2020),
Kasianova & Filonenko (2021), Strukova & Polivanova (2023), Mendoza et al. (2023) and Corpuz (2023)
which underscores the critical interplay between school belonging, student-teacher relationship, and school
climate in enhancing academic satisfaction, academic efficacy, and school connectedness within SWB.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The study revealed that college students in the Davao Region perceive school belonging as high, student-
teacher relationships as moderate, school climate as very high, and subjective well-being as high. Correlational
analysis showed significant positive relationships among school belonging, student-teacher relationships,
school climate, and subjective well-being. Among these, school belonging emerged as the strongest influence,
followed by student-teacher relationships and school climate. However, regression analysis indicated that only
school belonging and student-teacher relationships significantly predicted subjective well-being. School
climate, while conceptually important, did not show a unique predictive contribution when analyzed alongside
other variables. Of the three tested models, Model 3 demonstrated the best fit.
These findings align with key psychological frameworks emphasizing the importance of positive and
supportive environments. Strong school belonging, meaningful teacher-student relationships, and an
encouraging school climate contribute to students’ psychological needs, including connection, competence,
and self-confidence. These elements collectively promote academic satisfaction, stronger engagement, and
enhanced overall well-being.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2472
www.rsisinternational.org
Despite generally high ratings across variables, targeted improvements are still necessary. The moderate rating
of student-teacher relationships, particularly the low score in intimacy, highlights the need for deeper
emotional connection, trust, and genuine care. Schools may address these concerns by implementing structured
mentorship programs, strengthening advising systems, promoting wellness initiatives, and providing safe
spaces for open, non-academic conversations. Training teachers in socio-emotional learning and empathetic
communication can further enhance rapport, while informal interactions and advisory sessions can help
humanize student-teacher dynamics. To improve perceptions of care and approval, faculty are encouraged to
adopt more student-centered practices, such as showing authentic concern for students’ well-being, giving
timely and constructive feedback, and recognizing academic efforts. These practices can build a classroom
environment where students feel valued, supported, and respected.
School belonging, although rated high overall, showed slightly lower support from teachers and engagement in
academic activities. Institutions can address these gaps by investing in professional development that
strengthens teacher-student rapport, promoting inclusive events, expanding student-led organizations, and
enhancing opportunities for meaningful campus engagement. Regular assessment of student perceptions can
help institutions refine strategies to ensure that all students feel connected and included.
While subjective well-being was rated high, especially in gratitude, continuous improvement is still
recommended. Programs that promote reflection, gratitude journaling, or recognition activities can reinforce
students’ appreciation for their educational experiences. Strengthening school connectedness through peer
support groups, student organizations, and collaborative learning can enhance satisfaction and belonging.
Targeted academic support and personalized feedback can improve students’ sense of competence and
efficacy, contributing to better motivation and resilience.
Although school climate was rated very high, safety while still strong, received the lowest rating among its
dimensions. This indicates minor concerns regarding physical or emotional security that should be carefully
monitored. Enhancing safety protocols, expanding mental health services, and fostering open communication
channels can further strengthen students’ sense of security. Regular climate surveys can guide ongoing
improvements to maintain a positive, supportive environment.
Overall, the study confirms the central role of school belonging, student-teacher relationships, and school
climate in fostering the well-being of college students in the Davao Region. Future research should incorporate
triangulation methods, such as interviews, focus group discussions, and classroom observations, to capture
deeper insights into students’ lived experiences. Expanding research to other regions or institutions can
improve generalizability and reveal contextual differences. Additional variables such as mentorship quality,
mental health support, relational skills training, and student resilience should also be explored to build a more
comprehensive understanding of the factors sustaining well-being in higher education. Strengthening these
areas will contribute to evidence-based strategies that promote emotionally supportive and academically
thriving learning environments.
REFERENCES
1. Ahmadi, S., Hassani, M., & Ahmadi, F. (2020, March 15). Student- and school-level factors related to
school belongingness among high school students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,
25(1), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1730200
2. Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2020, March). The relationships between school climate and
adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of
Educational Research, 88, 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012
3. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Fozdar, F., Ala’i, K., Earnest, J., & Afari, E. (2020, November 6).
Students’ perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity.
Improving Schools, 19(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215612616
4. Aldrup, K. (2021). The teacher-student relationship is beneficial for both sides : Associations with
students' school adjustment and teachers' occupational well-being.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2473
www.rsisinternational.org
5. Alejandria, M. C. P., Casimiro, K. M. D., Gibe, J. A. L., Fernandez, N. S. F., Tumaneng, D. C.,
Sandoval, E. C. A., Hernandez, P. J. S., Quan-Nalus, M. A., Alipao, F. A., & Alejandria, M. A. C. P.
(2022, December 22). Attaining well-being beyond the home: A socio-cultural framing of mental
health among university students in the Philippines. Health Education Journal, 82(2), 143–155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969221141547
6. Allen, K. A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2021). School belonging and the role of
relationships: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 325-360.
7. Allen, K. A., Slaten, C. D., Arslan, G., Roffey, S., Craig, H., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2021). School
Belonging: The Importance of Student and Teacher Relationships. The Palgrave Handbook of Positive
Education, 525–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64537-3_21
8. Ansari, A., Hofkens, T. L., & Pianta, R. C. (2020). Teacher-student relationships across the first seven
years of education and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 71,
101200. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101200
9. Ansari, A., Purtell, K. M., & Gershoff, E. T. (2020). Classroom age composition and the school
readiness of 3- and 4-year-olds in the Head Start program. Psychological Science, 31(1), 79-87.
10. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (2000). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters
Corporation. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc?
repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=404b177cd926745db015621d57d74cab23
11. Arde, R.B., & Evelyn A. Claudio, E.R. (2019). Health behaviors and protective factors of international
students in the University of Northern Philippines.
12. Arslan, G. (2021, January 2). School belongingness, well-being, and mental health among adolescents:
exploring the role of loneliness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 70–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1904499
13. Arslan, G., & Coşkun, M. (2022, August 1). School Belongingness in Academically At-Risk
Adolescents: Addressing Psychosocial Functioning and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness and Health, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.47602/johah.v3i1.9
14. Austria-Cruz, M. C. A. (2019). Academic Stress and coping Strategies of Filipino College Students in
private and public universities in Central Luzon. International Journal of Advanced Engineering,
Management and Science, 5(11), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.511.6
15. Bai, L., Li, Z., Wu, W., Liu, L., Chen, S., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. N. Y. (2022). Student–Teacher
Relationship: Its Measurement and Effect on Students’ Trait, Performance, and Wellbeing in Private
College. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 793483. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.793483
16. Bai, X., Nie, Y., & Liu, Y. (2022). Measuring student-teacher relationships in private colleges: The
development and validation of the Private-College Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (PCSTRS).
Journal of Educational Measurement, 59(2), 183-202.
17. Bene, K., Adan, S., & Kere, M. M. B. (2023). University Students’ Classification of Factors Affecting
Their Well-Being and Psychological Distress. The Journal of Social Science, 7(13), 20-32.
https://doi.org/10.30520/tjsosci.1240176
18. Bernardo, A. B. I., Salanga, M. G. C., & Aguas, J. P. (2020). Filipino adolescents' perceptions of
teachers' caring behaviors and their academic emotions: A cross-sectional study. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 21, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09633-6
19. Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2020). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425-469. doi: 10.3102/0034654316669821
20. Bilz, L., Fischer, S. M., Hoppe-Herfurth, A. C., & John, N. (2022, July). A Consequential Partnership.
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 230(3), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000497
21. Bochaver, A. A., Kalashnikova, O. V., & Sapunova, V. F. (2022). Validation of the School Climate
Questionnaire: Measuring the educational environment's impact on well-being. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 114(3), 452-467.
22. Bochaver, A. A., Korneev, A. A., & Khlomov, K. D. (2022). School Climate Questionnaire: A New
Tool for Assessing the School Environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 871466. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871466
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2474
www.rsisinternational.org
23. Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2021). Social and
school connectedness in early secondary school as predictor of late teenage substance use, mental
health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 357-366.
24. Bowlby, J. (2020). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human Development (7th ed.).
Basic Books.
25. Bradshaw, C. P., Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., & Nation, M. (2021). Addressing school safety through
comprehensive school climate approaches. School Psychology Review, 50(2), 221-236. doi:
10.1080/2372966X.2021.1926321
26. Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2021). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 14(1), 1-22.
27. Brett, C. E., Mathieson, M. L., & Rowley, A. M. (2022). Determinants of wellbeing in university
students: The role of residential status, stress, loneliness, resilience, and sense of coherence. Current
Psychology, 42(23), 19699–19708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03125-8
28. Brilliantes, R. A., Aga, N. B., Tipace, F. C., Adegue, C. A., Perez, M. P., Aya-Ay, A. M., & Sagarino,
E. V. (2021, January 18). The Living Conditions of University Students in Boarding Houses and
Dormitories in Davao City, Philippines. IAMURE International Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.7718/ijss.v1i1.5
29. Brinkworth, M. E., McIntyre, J., Juraschek, A. D., & Gehlbach, H. (2021). Teacher-student
relationships: The positives and negatives of assessing both perspectives. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 55, 24–38. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.002
30. Brouwer, J., Jansen, E., Severiens, S., & Meeuwisse, M. (2021). Interaction and belongingness in two
student-centered learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 119–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.07.006
31. Butler, C.D., Chambers, R., Chopra, K.R., Dasgupta, P., Duraiappah, A.K., Kumar, P., McMichael,
A.J., & Wells, J. (2020). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.
32. Byrne, B. M. (2020). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
33. Capp, G., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2022). Advancing a conceptual and empirical model of
school climate for school staff in California. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 107-121. doi:
10.1080/15388220.2018.1532298
34. Cemalcilar, Z. (2021). Schools as socialization contexts: Understanding school factors’ impact on
students’ sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(2), 243-272.
35. Chowdhury, A. N., & Brahma, A. (2020, March 17). Environment and Wellbeing: Eco-psychiatry in
Sundarban Delta, India. IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences (ISSN 2455-
2267), 37. https://doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v14.n2sp.p5
36. Cleofas, J. V. (2021, September 26). Student involvement, mental health and quality of life of college
students in a selected university in Manila, Philippines. International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 25(1), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1670683
37. Cleveland, R. E., & Sink, C. A. (2022, January). Student Happiness, School Climate, and School
Improvement Plans. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 2156759X1876189.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759x18761898
38. Cocoradă, E., & Orzea, I. (2021). The role of school climate in students’ subjective well-being: A
literature review. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(12), 13-27.
39. Cocoradă, E., & Orzea, I.E. (2021). Relationships Between Well-Being, Resilience and School
Climate.
40. Coelho, C.C., & Dell’Aglio, D.D. (2020). School climate and school satisfaction among high school
adolescents. Psicologia - Teoria e Prática.
41. Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2021). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213. doi:
10.1177/016146810911100108
42. Corpuz, J. C. (2023). Mental health crisis among students in the Philippines during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Public Health, 45(2), e226-e233.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2475
www.rsisinternational.org
43. Corpuz, J. C. G. (2023). The Well-being of students in Higher Educational Institutions: a Philippine
experience. WHO South-East Asia Journal of Public Health, 12(2), 120–121.
https://doi.org/10.4103/who-seajph.whoseajph_104_23.
44. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2019). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
45. Crosnoe, R. (2021). Schools, peers, and the big picture of adolescent development. In E. Amsel & J.
Smetana (Eds.), Adolescent Vulnerabilities and Opportunities: Developmental and Constructivist
Perspectives (pp. 182-204). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46. Crouch, R., Keys, C. B., & McMahon, S. D. (2021, January). Student–Teacher Relationships Matter for
School Inclusion: School Belonging, Disability, and School Transitions. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 42(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2014.855054
47. D’Agostino, R. B., & Stephens, M. A. (2019). Goodness-of-Fit Techniques. Routledge.
48. Daily, S. M., Mann, M. J., Kristjansson, A. L., & Smith, M. L. (2021). School climate and adolescent
substance use: A latent class analysis. American Journal of Health Behavior, 43(1), 144-159.
49. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
50. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. University of Rochester
Press.
51. Delgado, L.E., Rojo Negrete, I.A., Torres-Gómez, M., Alfonso, A., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F. (2019).
Social-ecological Systems and Human Well-Being. In: Delgado, L., Marín, V. (eds) Social-ecological
Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-28452-7_4
52. Direkci, B., Canbulat, M., Tezci, I., & Akbulut, S. (2020, June 13). The Psychometric Properties of
School Belonging Scale for Middle School Students. International Journal of Assessment Tools in
Education, 7(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.723386
53. Dodds, S. (2021, November). Towards a ‘science of sustainability’: Improving the way ecological
economics understands human well-being. Ecological Economics, 23(2), 95–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(97)00047-5
54. Douwes, R., Metselaar, J., Pijnenborg, G. H. M., & Boonstra, N. (2023, March 17). Well-being of
students in higher education: The importance of a student perspective. Cogent Education, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2190697
55. Durham, R.E., Bettencourt, A., & Connolly, F. (2022). Measuring school climate: Using existing data
tools on climate and effectiveness to inform school organizational health. Baltimore Educational
Research Consortium. Dutcher, J.M., & Feizi, S. (2022). Feelings of Belonging May Indicate
Students’ Risk of Depression.
56. Duvnjak, I. (2020, September 30). Well-Being and Life Satisfaction of Students. International Journal
of Advanced Research, 8(9), 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/11772
57. Ebbert, A. M., & Luthar, S. S. (2021). Influential domains of school climate fostering resilience in high
achieving schools. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 9(4), 305-317. doi:
10.1080/21683603.2021.1898501
58. Ebbert, A. M., & Luthar, S. S. (2021). School climate, teacher-student relationships, and social-
emotional development in adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 57(6), 969-982.
59. Edwards, D., & Mullis, F. (2021). Creating a sense of belonging to build safe schools. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 57(2), 196-203.
60. Encina, Y., & Berger, C. (2021, March 1). Civic Behavior and Sense of Belonging at School: The
Moderating Role of School Climate. Child Indicators Research, 14(4), 1453–1477.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09809-0
61. Ettekal, A., & Mahoney, J. L. (2020). Ecological Systems Theory. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-
of-School Learning (pp. 239-241). SAGE Publications, Inc. DOI: 10.4135/9781483385198.n94
62. Fan, W. (2020). Subjective Well-Being and Student Development. .
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.900.
63. Fan, W. (2020). Subjective well-being in students: A review of research and practice. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 622482.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2476
www.rsisinternational.org
64. Field, R., Duffy, J., & James, C. (2021, April 14). Promoting Law Student and Lawyer Well-Being in
Australia and Beyond. Routledge.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=jzz7CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&dq=https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315602
530&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api
65. Finn, J. (2020). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142.
66. Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2021). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An
experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 213–
233.
67. Frontiers. (2021). Subjective well-being in online and mixed educational settings. Frontiers in
Psychology.
68. Frontiers. (2023). The Impact of School Climate and School Identification on Academic Achievement:
Multilevel Modeling with Student and Teacher Data. Frontiers in Psychology.
69. Furlong, M. J., You, S., Renshaw, T. L., O’Malley, M. D., & Rebelez, J. (2019). Preliminary
development of the Positive Experiences at School Scale for elementary school students. Child
Indicators Research, 6(4), 753-775. doi:10.1007/s12187-013-9193-7
70. García-Moya, I. (2020). The Importance of Student-Teacher Relationships for Wellbeing in Schools.
The Importance of Connectedness in Student-Teacher Relationships, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-43446-5_1
71. García-Moya, I., & Brooks, F. (2020). The associations between school belonging and emotional health
in adolescence: A Systematic Review. Educational and Child Psychology, 37(2), 13-29.
72. Gase, L. N., Gomez, L. M., Kuo, T., Glenn, B. A., Inkelas, M., & Ponce, N. A. (2017, April 6).
Relationships Among Student, Staff, and Administrative Measures of School Climate and Student
Health and Academic Outcomes. Journal of School Health, 87(5), 319–328.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12501
73. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2021). Social perspective taking in schools:
Implications for teacher-student relationships and student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review,
28(1), 1-24.
74. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., King, A. M., Hsu, L. M., McIntyre, J., & Rogers, T. (2021). Creating
birds of similar feathers: Leveraging similarity to improve teacher–student relationships and academic
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 342–352. doi: 10.1037/edu0000042
75. Goodenow, C. (2020). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-90.
76. Gopalan, M., & Brady, S. T. (2020). College students’ sense of belonging: A national perspective.
Journal of College Student Development, 60(6), 713-731.
77. Govorova, E., Benítez, I., & Muñiz, J. (2020). Predicting Student Well-Being: Network Analysis based
on PISA 2018. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114014
78. Gunbayı, I. (2021). School Climate and Teachers' Perceptions on Climate Factors: Research into Nine
Urban High Schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6, 70-78.
79. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2020). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Pearson.
80. Hascher, T. (2020). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being.
International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2007.11.016.
81. Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2021). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311-322. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
82. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
83. Ibrahim, A., & D El Zaatari, W. (2021). The impact of student-teacher relationships and school climate
on student well-being in Lebanese public schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences,
3(1), 83-97.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2477
www.rsisinternational.org
84. Ibrahim, A., & El Zaatari, W. (2021, September 2). The teacher–student relationship and adolescents’
sense of school belonging. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 382–395.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1660998
85. Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., &
Longerbeam, S. D. (2021, September). Examining Sense of Belonging Among First-Year
Undergraduates From Different Racial/Ethnic Groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5),
525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054
86. Karaman, M. A., & Tarim, B. N. (2020). The impact of school belonging on mental well-being in
Turkish high school students: A psychological perspective. Journal of Psychology Research, 6(2), 65-
72.
87. Karaman, M., & Tarim, B. (2020, April). Investigation of the Correlation between Belonging Needs of
Students Attending University and Well-being. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 781–
788. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060422
88. Kasianova, A., & Filonenko, M. (2021, March 21). Psychological Well-Being of Students in
Educational Conditions. Happiness and Contemporary Society : Conference Proceedings Volume.
https://doi.org/10.31108/7.2021.24
89. Katajavuori, N., Vehkalahti, K. & Asikainen, H (2023). Promoting university students’ well-being and
studying with an acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based intervention. Curr Psychol 42,
4900–4912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01837-x
90. Khairuddin, M. T., & Mahmud, Z. (2020, March 1). Modelling the effects of Psychological Well-Being
Attributes on Students’ Happiness. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1496(1), 012003.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1496/1/012003
91. King, R. B., & Datu, J. A. (2022, December). Happy classes make happy students: Classmates’ well-
being predicts individual student well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 65, 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.07.004
92. Kiuru, N., Wang, M. T., Salmela-Aro, K., Kannas, L., Ahonen, T., & Hirvonen, R. (2020).
Associations between adolescents’ interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic
achievement during educational transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(5), 1057-1072.
93. Kovalenko, A., Hryshchuk, E., & Rohal, N. (2020, May 20). Features of the Psychological Well-Being
of Student Youth. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific
Conference, 7, 95. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol7.5142
94. Larson, A. (2019). How Student-Teacher Relationships Influence School Climate: A Literature
Review.
95. Lavy, S., & Naama-Ghanayim, E. (2020). Why care about caring? Linking teachers' caring and sense
of meaning at work with students' self-esteem, well-being, and school engagement. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 91, 103046. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103046
96. Lester, L., & Cross, D. (2021, October 22). The Relationship Between School Climate and Mental and
Emotional Wellbeing Over the Transition from Primary to Secondary School. Psychology of Well-
Being,5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-015-0037-8
97. Li, X., Kuo, Y.-L., & Huggins, T. J. (2024). Perceived feedback and school belonging: The mediating
role of subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1450788.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1450788
98. Liang, H., & Baek, J. (2023). The Research of Relationship among the Stress, Resilience and
Subjective Well-being of University Students. Applied & Educational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.23977/appep.2023.040901
99. Liu, X. (2020). The development of private universities in socialist China. Higher Education Policy,
33(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1057/s41307-018-0114-8
100.Lombardi, E., Traficante, D., Bettoni, R., Offredi, I., Giorgetti, M., & Vernice, M. (2019). The impact of
school climate on well-being experience and school engagement: A study with high-school students.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2482. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02482
101.Lu, A. (2023). Improving student success through sense of belonging: A look at the Diverse Learning
Environment survey. Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(1-2), 102-124.
102.Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2478
www.rsisinternational.org
103.Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Purcell, E. (2020, August 8). Psychological and Environmental
104.McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2020). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and
empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112-127. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.82.1.112
105.McLeod, S. (2020). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
106.McMahon, S., & Wernsman, J. (2022, January). The Relation of Classroom Environment and School
Belonging to Academic Self-Efficacy among Urban Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students. The Elementary
School Journal, 109(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1086/592307
107.Memon, M. A., Ramayah, T., & Cheah, J. H. (2021). PLS-SEM statistical programs: A review. Journal
of Advanced Structural Equation Modeling. Retrieved from https://jasemjournal.com/wp-
content/2021/04Memon-et-al-2021_JASEM51.pdf
108.Mendoza, N. B., King, R. B., & Haw, J. Y. (2023). The mental health and well-being of students and
teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: combining classical statistics and machine learning
approaches. Educational Psychology, 43(5), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2226846
109.Mendoza, R. E., Navarro, C. D., & Dizon, J. T. (2023). Mental health among Filipino students: The
silent pandemic. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 76, 103197.
110.Mikaelian, M. A., & Hakobyan, N. (2022, January 17). Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being
And Commitment To Success Of Students. Modern Psychology, 5(1(10)), 73–82.
https://doi.org/10.46991/sbmp/2022.5.1.073
111.Mueller, T., & Perreault, G. (2020). The Psychology of Student Wellness: Relationships, Detractors
and Exam Anxiety. Journal of Higher Education Management, 34(1), 42–52.
112.Mukherjee, S. (2019). Human Well-Being and Ecological Sustainability: Some Issues Revisited.
113.Mweshi, G. K., & Sakyi, K. (2020). Application of sampling methods for research design. Archives of
Business Review, 8(6), 42–56. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/download/65093418/ABR_9042.pdf
114.Newton, D. C., Tomyn, D. J., & LaMontagne, A. D. (2021, May 24). Exploring the challenges and
opportunities for improving the health and wellbeing of international students: Perspectives of
professional staff at an Australian University. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student
Services Association, 29(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.30688/janzssa.2021.1.01
115.Ng, Z., Huebner, S., & Hills, K. (2020). Life Satisfaction and Academic Performance in Early
Adolescents: Evidence for Reciprocal Association. Journal of school psychology, 53 6, 479-91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.004
116.Nguyen, T., Shih, M., Srivastava, D., Tirthapura, S., & Xu, B. (2020). Stratified random sampling from
streaming and stored data. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 39, 665 - 710.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-020-07315-w.
117.Noddings, N. (2021). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of
California Press
118.Obenza, B. N., Torralba, A. J., Eupena, A.-S. A. C., Sumayo, G. S., & Abelito, J. T. (2024). Personality
Traits and Happiness of University Students in Region XI and Region XII: the Philippine
Context. American Journal of Human Psychology, 2(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhp.v2i1.2551
119.Osterman, K. F. (2021). Teacher Practice and Students’ Sense of Belonging. International Research
Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-
8675-4_15
120.Parker, R. (2020). Relationships Among Belongingness: Behavioral And Environmental Factors In
Academic Achievement.
121.Pianta, R. C. (2020). Enhancing Relationships Between Children and Teachers. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
122.Pianta, R. C. (2020). Classroom Processes and Teacher-Student Interaction: Integrations with a
Developmental Psychopathology Perspective. In Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 494–529). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
123.Poleshchuka, L.G., Ivushkinab, N.V., Gaidamakc, M.A., & Filipenkod, V.V. (2022). Continuous Well-
being and Ecovilages as Means of Achieving It.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2479
www.rsisinternational.org
124.Pope, D., & Miles, S. (2022, February). A caring climate that promotes belonging and engagement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 103(5), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221079972
125.Poulou, M. (2020). Students’ emotional and behavioral difficulties: The role of teachers’ social and
emotional learning and teacher-student relationships. International Journal of Emotional Education,
12(2), 63-80.
126.Poulou, M. S. (2020). Students' adjustment at school: The role of teachers’ need satisfaction, teacher–
student relationships, and student well-being. School Psychology International, 41(5), 499–521. doi:
10.1177/0143034320951911
127.Rahman, F. (2021, December 9). Studi Deskristif Psychological Well-Being Pada Mahasiswa Tahun
Pertama Prodi X Dan Implikasi Dalam Bimbingan Dan Konseling. JIEGC Journal of Islamic Education
Guidance and Counselling, 1(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.51875/jiegc.v1i1.144
128.Ranatunga, R.V.S.P.K., Priyanath, H. M. S., & Megama, R. G. N. (2020). Methods and rule-of-thumbs
in the determination of minimum sample size when applying structural equation modelling: A review.
Journal of Social Science Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340032443
129.Reaves, S., McMahon, S. D., Duffy, S. N., & Ruiz, L. (2018). The test of time: A meta-analytic review
of the relation between school climate and problem behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 100-
108. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.01.006
130.Renshaw, T. L. (2018). A replication of the technical adequacy of the Student Subjective Wellbeing
Questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 757-768.
doi:10.1177/0734282915580885
131.Renshaw, T. L. (2018, November 12). Psychometrics of the Revised College Student Subjective
Wellbeing Questionnaire. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 33(2), 136–149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573516678704
132.Renshaw, T. L., & Bolognino, S. J. (2018). The College Student Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire: A
brief, multidimensional, domain-specific measure of undergraduates’ covitality. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 17(2), 463-484. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9606-4
133.Riva, E., Freeman, R., Schrock, L., Jelicic, V., Ozer, C. T., & Caleb, R. (2020, November 18). Student
Wellbeing in the Teaching and Learning Environment: A Study Exploring Student and Staff
Perspectives. Higher Education Studies, 10(4), 103. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n4p103
134.Roorda, D., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2021). The influence of affective teacher–
student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach.
Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. doi: 10.3102/0034654311421793
135.Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2021). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution
from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–258.
136.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68
137.Sarı, M. (2020). Lise Öğrencilerinde Okula Aidiyet Duygusu [Sense of school belonging among high
school students]. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 147-160.
138.Seepersad, A., Seunarine, M., & Sieunarine, S. (2020). Subjective well-being and its relation to academic
performance among students in medicine, dentistry, and other health professions. Education Sciences,
10(9), 224.
139.Seligman, M. E. P. (2021). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being.
Free Press.
140.Škutor, M. (2022). Attitudes of high school students towards peers and teachers-connection between the
school climate. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 12 (74)(1), 82–94.
https://doi.org/10.51865/jesp.2022.1.09
141.St-Amand, J., Smith, J., & Rasmy, A. (2021, December 30). Development and Validation of a Model
Predicting Students’ Sense of School Belonging and Engagement as a Function of School Climate.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(12), 64–84.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.12.5
142.Strukova, A., & Polivanova, K. (2023). Well-Being in Education: modern theories, historical context,
empirical studies. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 12(3), 137–148.
https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2023120313
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
Page 2480
www.rsisinternational.org
143.Suhlmann, M., Sassenberg, K., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2022, January). Belonging Mediates
Effects of Student-University Fit on Well-Being, Motivation, and Dropout Intention. Social Psychology,
49(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000325 Systems of Latin America: Complexities and
Challenges, 53–69.
144.Suldo, S. M., Shaffer, E. J., & Riley, K. N. (2020). A social-cognitive model of academic predictors of
adolescents’ life satisfaction. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 56–69.
145.Suldo, S. M., Thalji, A., & Ferron, J. (2020). Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early
adolescents' subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 4(1), 17–27.
146.Tan, J.S., Yatco, M.C., Carrera, P.C., Salvador, D.L., & Bautista, V.V. (2022). A Needs Assessment
Study on the Experiences and Adjustments of Students in a Philippine University: Implications for
University Mental Health. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 43–81.
https://doi.org/10.31710/pjp/0054.03
147.Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2021). A review of school climate
research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385. doi: 10.3102/0034654313483907
148.Tong, P., & An, I. S. (2023). Review of studies applying Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory in
international and intercultural education research. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1233925.
149.Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2020, February 13). The influence of
student characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on student’s well-being.
Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9093-7
150.Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2022). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and
impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315-352. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-
9319-1
151.Wentzel, K. R. (2020). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment
in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00406.
152.Wentzel, K. R. (2020). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. Handbook of
Motivation at School, 301-322.
153.Wilson, D. (2020, September). The Interface of School Climate and School Connectedness and
Relationships with Aggression and Victimization. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 293–299.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08286.x
154.Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2019). Sample size requirements for
structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934.
155.Wong, M. D., Dosanjh, K. K., Jackson, N. J., Rünger, D., & Dudovitz, R. N. (2021). The longitudinal
relationship of school climate with adolescent social and emotional health. BMC Public Health, 21(1),
207. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10245-6
156.Yahaya, M., Murtala, A .A., & Onukwube, H. N. (2021). Partial least square structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM): A note for beginners. International Journal of Educational Studies. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/IJESSRONPLS
157.Yuhui, Q., & Xiang, W. (2022). Review of School Belonging. Proceedings of the 2015 International
Conference on Social Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.2991/icsste-15.2015.213
158.Zaman, T. (2020). An efficient exponential estimator of the mean under stratified random sampling.
Mathematical Population Studies, 28, 104 - 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2020.1767420.
159.Zheng, F. (2022, January 4). Fostering Students’ Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Teacher
Interpersonal Behavior and Student-Teacher Relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796728.
160.Zhou, D., Liu, S., Zhou, H., Liu, J., & Ma, Y. (2023). The association among teacher-student
relationship, subjective well-being, and academic achievement: Evidence from Chinese fourth graders
and eighth graders. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1097094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1097094
161.Zong, W., Zhang, L., & Chen, X. (2021). The effect of school belonging on adolescent mental health
during COVID-19: The mediating role of resilience. Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 105873
