The Influence of School Climate and Subjective Well-Being on Students’ Engagement

The Influence of School Climate and Subjective Well-Being on Students’ Engagement

Mag-aso, Samer John S.¹, Albiso, Krysthel Mae R.¹, Condeza, Kenneth B.¹, Edaño, Ronnel V.¹, Evangelista, Angela F.¹, Lazaro, Edz Laurence O.¹, Luzon, Lance Lawrence R.¹, Maliguid, Gian Khaira A.¹, Mapatot, Irish Jane B.¹, Sacil, Rogelio J.¹, Salcedo, Charise A.¹, Krystal Joy M. Clamares, PhD², Anna Marie O. Pelandas, PhD (CAR)²

¹Department of Education, Senior High School Students, Philippines

²Department of Education, Senior High School Teachers, Division of Davao de Oro, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300145

Received: 18 March 2025; Accepted: 03 April 2025; Published: 04 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the influence of school climate and subjective well-being on students’ engagement at Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School. The study’s primary objective was to determine the levels of school climate, subjective well-being, and students’ engagement in terms of their respective indicators. It also aimed to identify significant relationship between school climate, subjective well-being, and students’ engagement, as well as to determine which domains of school climate and subjective well-being would significantly influence students’ engagement. A quantitative-correlational design was used in this study, which included 257 respondents from the grade 9 and grade 10 students at Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School. The statistical tools employed in this study were the average weighted mean, Spearman’s rho correlation, and multiple regression analysis. The results indicated a very high level of school climate in terms of its respective indicators, namely, the presence of a respectful environment in school, the presence of an organized environment in school, and the presence of a safe environment in school. The study also revealed a high level of subjective well-being in terms of, joy of learning, school connectedness, educational purposes, and academic efficacy. Lastly, the study revealed a high level of student engagement along with its indicators: affective engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement. Moreover, the study revealed a significant relationship between school climate and subjective well-being on students’ engagement, making the null hypothesis rejected. Furthermore, all domains of school climate and subjective well-being received high ratings, resulting to a significant influence on students’ engagement.

Keywords: GAS, School Climate, Subjective Well-Being, Students’ Engagement Philippines

INTRODUCTION

Students’ engagement was a hot topic in many universities, with a lot of resources devoted to tactics for getting students involved in extracurricular and academic activities (Crabtree, 2023). However, research conducted by Subramainan and Mahmoud (2020) from the University of California, Los Angeles revealed that 40% of students regularly felt bored in class and that less than 20% of students asked questions because they were not engaged. In addition, research conducted by Urias (2022) at Grand Valley State University, also stated that lack of student engagement was one of the problems that many teachers faced in their university. Despite the rapid increase in international students in China, little understanding had been gained regarding quality management of these students’ engagement in learning (Tian et al., 2020).

In the Philippines, a positive school climate significantly enhanced student achievement and overall well-being (Pendon, 2023). A positive school climate was characterized by supportive teacher-student relationships and a safe environment, which significantly influenced student engagement (Božović et al., 2024). With this, a study by Francisco (2020) in Bulacan City found the importance of a positive school climate in students’ engagement, indicating that students who perceived their school climate positively were more likely to exhibit higher levels of engagement in their studies. Studies showed a strong correlation was found between school climate and students’ engagement levels, suggesting that improvements in school climate could lead to enhanced student learning engagement (Solis & Flores, 2024).

Furthermore, subjective well-being referred to an individual’s subjective experience of emotions, both positive and negative, and their overall life satisfaction (Proctor, 2023). Subjective well-being was strongly correlated with student’ engagement, which also demonstrated how student outcomes had been overgeneralized and were in desperate need of conceptual improvement (Wong et al., 2024). This underscored the diverse interactions with different tools and study practices, providing valuable insights into students’ learning behaviors over time (Boulton et al., 2019). Supporting this notion, a study conducted by Fernandes et al., (2024) in Iloilo City highlighted that subjective well-being (SWB) included individuals’ self-assessment of their overall life satisfaction, making it difficult for individuals and leading to lower levels of subjective well-being. This perspective was crucial to people’s lives and served as a key metric for measuring societal progress (Voukelatou et al., 2021).

In addition, various concerns had been identified in some places in the Mindanao region. Coinciding with this, a study conducted in Davao City found that many students were never motivated to learn, and as a result, they tended to be less engaged in class and in the learning process (Arcipe & Balones, 2023). Similarly, a study by Cebelleros (2024) in Davao Del Sur observed that students’ engagement was one of the problems that their teachers faced, and most of the disengaged students were those who lacked belief in their academic efficacy. Less student engagement not only impacted students’ learning experiences but also had lasting effects on their educational achievements and future success (Quines & Relacion, 2022). Moreover, the researchers observed that some students in Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School faced challenges in engaging themselves in class discussions, encountered boredom in specific subjects, and lacked enthusiasm for learning.

Research Objectives

1. To determine the level of school climate in terms of:

1.1 presence of a respectful environment in school;

1.2 presence of an organized environment in school and;

1.3 presence of a safe environment in school.

2. To determine the level of subjective well-being in terms of:

2.1 joy of learning;

2.2 school connectedness;

2.3 educational purposes and;

2.4 academic efficacy.

3. To determine the level of student’s engagement in terms of:

3.1 affective engagement;

3.2 behavioral engagement and;

3.3 cognitive engagement.

4. To find out the significant relationship between school climate and students’ engagement.
5. To intuit the significant relationship between subjective well-being and students’
6. To verify which of the domains in school climate would influence students’ engagement.
7. To clarify which of the domains in subjective well-being would influence students’ engagement.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a non-experimental research design using descriptive correlational methods. It will aim to explore the potential relationship between the two or more variables, it examines how they may be connected and the strength of this connection. This method will be appropriate for describing the current situation and exploring the causes of a specific phenomenon. A correlation research design will be used to investigate the relationships between two variables and without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them (Montalla & Velasco, 2023). The correlational sought to ascertain relationship between two or more variables. It examines whether an increase or decrease in variables corresponds to an increase or decrease in another variable (Tan, 2014).

This survey dealt with a quantitative data on the phenomenon. The quantitative aspect will be an appropriate for gathering the data, the design for the target respondents to answer the questions. A questionnaire will be a specific tool used for collecting the data. The focus of the study is to determine if the school climate and subjective well-being does really influence the students’ engagement.

Population and Sample

Simple random sampling was employed in selecting the respondents for this study. The subjects included were 257 Grade 9 and Grade 10 students of Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School, male or female and currently enrolled for this school year 2024-2025. The Grade 7, Grade 8 and all Senior High school students will not be part of this study.  The following Grade 9 and Grade 10 students were considered ideal respondents due to their own perspective and direct experiences regarding to the school climate and their well-being. These factors aligned with this study focusing on the students’ engagement. Therefore, the following students were considered ideal respondents. Moreover, the study also employed stratified random sampling, allowing the researchers to obtain a sample population that represents the entire population to be studied, ensuring that each subgroup of interest is represented.

According to Lyons and Hearne (2015), a sample size of 200 to 300 respondents provide an acceptable margin of error and fall before the point of diminishing returns. In the case of Grade 9 and Grade 10 students of Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School, out of a population of 767 individuals, a random sample of 257 respondents were selected. The sample size was computed using the Raosoft sample size calculator (Raosoft, 2004).

Table 1. Population and Sample size of Respondents

Statistical Tool

The following statistical tools were utilized for the data analysis and interpretation.

Mean. This statistical tool would be used to determine the level of school climate, subjective well-being and students’ engagement Lorenzo S. Sarmiento SR. National High School in Mawab, Davao de Oro.

Spearman’s rho.  This statistical tool would be used to determine the significant relationship of school climate and subjective well-being to the students’ engagement of the students in Lorenzo S. Sarmiento SR. National High School in Mawab, Davao de Oro.

Multiple Regression Analysis. This statistical tool would be used to determine the influence of school Climate and subjective well-being to the students’ engagement of the students in Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School in Mawab, Davao de Oro.

RESULTS

Level of School Climate 

Shown in Table 2 the level of school climate in terms of presence of a respectful environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school, and presence of safe environment in school. The overall mean is 4.20, which is described as very high, with a standard deviation of 0.56. The very high level could be attributed to the high ratings the respondents gave in all indicators. This entails that the respondents’ responses to the level of school climate are much positive in terms of presence of a respectful environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school, and presence of a safe environment in school.

The cited overall mean score was the result obtained from the following computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.28 or very high for presence of a respectful environment in school with a standard deviation of 0.65; 4.24 or high for presence of an organized environment in school with a standard deviation of 0.63; and 4.09 or high for presence of a safe environment in school with a standard deviation of  0.65.

Table 2. Level of School Climate

Level of Subjective Well-Being 

Shown in Table 3 are the mean scores for the indicators of Subjective Well-being, with an overall mean score of 4.17, which is described as high with a standard deviation of 0.60. The high level could be attributed to the high rating given by the respondents on most indicators in the joy of learning, school connectedness, academic efficacy and very high rating in educational purposes.

The overall mean score mentioned was derived computed mean scores arrange from highest to lowest: 4.20 or very high for educational purposes with a standard deviation of 0.73; 4.18 or high for academic efficacy with a standard deviation of 0.73; 4.17 or high for joy of learning with a standard deviation of 0.64; and 4.11 or high for school connectedness with a standard deviation of 0.67.

Table 3. Level of Subjective Well-Being

Level of Students’ Engagement 

Shown in Table 4 are the mean scores for the indicators of students’ engagement, with an overall mean score of 4.18, which is described as high with a standard deviation of 0.57. The high level could be attributed to the high rating given by the respondents on most indicators in the items of affective engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement.

The cited overall mean score was the result obtained from the following computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.22 or high for affective engagement with a standard deviation of 0.65; 4.18 or high for cognitive engagement with a standard deviation of 0.69; and 4.12 or high for behavioral engagement  with a standard deviation of 0.67.

Table 4. Level of Students’ Engagement

Significance on the Relationship School Climate and Students’ Engagement

The Pearson’s r value for the variables presented is 0.682*, with a p-value of <.001 which shows a moderate correlation. The dependent variable is students’ engagement and the independent variable is school climate. Since the table shows that the probability level for school climate and students’ engagement is <.001, which is lower than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant relationship between school climate and students’ engagement has been rejected. The correlation of the variables indicates that all indicators have a significant relationship with students’ engagement.

Table 5. Significance on the Relationships Between School Climate to Students’ Engagement

Significant Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being and Students’ Engagement

The Pearson’s r value of the two variable is 0.793* with p-value of <.001. It suggests a high correlation between subjective well-being and students’ engagement. This means that as the level of well-being increases, student’ engagement tends to increase to some extent.

It reveals that the overall result of indicators in subjective well-being have a probability level of <0.001, which is significantly lower than the significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that ‘there is no significant relationship between subjective well-being and students’ engagement among students is rejected. The strong interdependence of the variables indicates that the indicators in subjective well-being have a significant relationship with students’ engagement.

Table 6. Significance on the Relationships Between Subjective Well-Being to Students’ Engagement

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Influence of Between School Climate to Students’ Engagement

Using the Multiple Regression Analysis, the data revealed the calculated F-value of 91.787 and a p-value <.001. This signifies that school climate significantly influences students’ engagement because the probability value is less than the 0.05 significance level. The coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.521 indicates that 52.1% of the variation in students’ engagement can be explained by presence of a respectful environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school , and managing ti. Conversely, the remaining 47.9% is attributed to other factors not included in the study.

Consequently, as illustrated in the table, the assumption that there is no domain within the school climate that significantly influences students’ engagement is rejected in all indicators, namely, presence of a respectful environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school, and presence of a safe environment in school.

Table 7. Multiple Regression Analysis of the influence Between School Climate on Students’ Engagement

*p<0.05 R=0.722* R²=R=0.521 F-ratio=91.787 p-value< .001

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Influence of Subjective Well-Being on Students’ Engagement

Using the Multiple Regression Analysis, the data revealed the calculated F-value of 122.038 and a p-value of <.001. This signifies that subjective well-being significantly influences students’ engagement because the probability value is less than the 0.05 significance level. The coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.660 indicates that 66% of the variation in students’ engagement can be explained by joy of learning, school connectedness, educational purposes, and academic efficacy. Conversely, the remaining 34% is attributed to other factors not included in the study.

Consequently, as illustrated in the table, the assumption that there is no domain within the subjective well-being that significantly influences students’ engagement is rejected in all indicators, namely, joy of learning, school connectedness, educational purposes and academic efficacy.

Table 7: Multiple Regression Analysis of the Influence of Subjective Well-Being to Students’ Engagement

*p < 0.05 R= 0.812* R²⁼0.660 F= 122.038 p-value < 0.001

DISCUSSIONS

Level of School Climate 

The result of the study greatly highlights that students’ engagement is highly affected by school climate. These findings are in relation to the study of Huayan and Huang (2024), who indicated that a positive school climate, particularly strong teacher-student and peer relationships, significantly enhances students’ learning abilities. The study emphasizes that enhancing school climate can lead to better educational outcomes and recommends specific measures for improvement. Positive school climate plays a significant role in school. This notion is in relation to the findings of Dysan et al. (2023), which emphasized the crucial role of a respectful school environment in shaping students’ social and emotional well-being. Such an environment promotes positive interactions between students and teachers, fostering mutual respect and understanding. This atmosphere not only enhances students’ satisfaction but also contributes to better behavior and more effective learning experiences. Additionally, it supports the development of morally upright and character-driven individuals, preparing them to contribute positively to society.

In addition, the presence of an organized school environment also yields significant results in improving students’ engagement. These findings was dependent to the study of Panuykova and Panuykov (2022), indicating that an organized school environment significantly contributes to students’ psychological well-being. It enhances their psycho-emotional, personal, and socio-psychological health by fostering a sense of order and stability. Additionally, it positively impacts academic outcomes by increasing students’ activity, satisfaction, and engagement in both social and academic aspects of school life. This comprehensive support system creates a foundation for academic success and overall well-being.

Level of Subjective Well-Being 

In the previous chapter, the study reported the level of subjective well-being of students in Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School. It was revealed that subjective well-being was described as high. One of the indicator in this variable was described as very high, and the other three were described as high, indicating that they generally experience positive emotions, life satisfaction, and a sense of a fulfillment. These findings is in relation to the study of Lin (2023), indicating that subjective well-being among high school students is significantly correlated with academic satisfaction and engagement, with gratitude and school connection serving as strong predictors of these positive outcomes. These findings suggest that students’ emotional well-being, along with their sense of gratitude and connection to their school, plays a crucial role in shaping their overall satisfaction with their academic experiences and their inclination toward helping others.

Finally, these findings were in relation to the study by Daley et. al, (2024), which underscore the pivotal role of school connectedness during the pandemic, emphasizing its protective impact on students’ academic and emotional well-being. Among various forms of connectedness, strong relationships with science teachers were identified as the most significant predictor of students’ science self-efficacy, demonstrating the importance of meaningful teacher-student interactions. Qualitative findings revealed that despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, schools and teachers actively maintained connections, ensuring students felt supported and engaged. These efforts highlight the critical value of fostering school connectedness to enhance self-efficacy, resilience, and overall student success, particularly in times of crisis.

Level of Students’ Engagement 

Presented in the previous chapter are the results regarding to the level of students’ engagement as observed and reported by the students. The findings revealed that students’ engagement was described as high, indicating their active participation in learning activities, collaboration with peers, and responsiveness to tasks. This high level of students’ engagement underscores the importance of fostering interactive and supportive learning environments, as engagement is a critical factor in enhancing students’ academic performance, motivation, and critical thinking skills.

It is greatly highlighted in the result of the study that students’ engagement is highly affected by school climate and subjective well-being. These findings is in relation to the study by Saulė et al. (2024), that identifies several challenges students face in adapting to university life. These include difficulties with the academic environment, managing information overload, building social relationships, effective communication, and maintaining self-esteem. Additionally, students who began their university journey during the pandemic reported unique experiences, particularly in terms of reduced engagement and connection compared to their predecessors. These findings highlight the need for tailored support systems to address the distinct challenges faced by different student cohorts. Similarly, these results corroborates the study conducted by Leung et al. (2023), by emphasizing the role of affective engagement in shaping diverse student experiences during environmental education. This type of engagement significantly impacts students’ interest, curiosity, and motivation, which are crucial for fostering a deeper connection to environmental issues. Furthermore, the study highlights the intricate relationships between these factors and students’ environmental consciousness, as well as their intentions and abilities to take meaningful action on behalf of nature. These findings underscore the importance of emotionally engaging educational approaches to inspire proactive environmental stewardship.

Significant Relationship Between School Climate and Students’ Engagement

The study’s results unveiled a significant relationship between the school climate and the students’ engagement. The p-value indicated a correlation between these two variables. This correlation suggests that as a positive school climate increases, there is a corresponding increase in students’ engagement.

This correlation aligns to Đordić (2020) research, emphasizes the impactful role of a positive school climate on students’ engagement. Positive school climate can help enhance students engagement in school. These findings aligned to the study conducted by Tabone et al, (2020) by highlighting the importance of school climate in encompassing moral, relational, and institutional aspects of school life as perceived by individuals. A positive school climate fosters a caring and learning environment, which correlates strongly with students’ academic progress. Additionally, this correlation was in relation to the study conducted by Mitchell and Wehby (2022), which reveals that an organized environment is key to successful classroom management. A variety of evidence-based practices exist that increase the likelihood for student success in the classroom. Policies and practices can foster a supportive learning environment where children can flourish, it affiliate to the study by Colwell et al. (2023), that schools should be havens of safety for everyone, from students to staff and community members. This can help in fostering a more positive, supportive and organized school that can help students in improving their engagement in school.

Significant Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being and Students’ Engagement

The results of the study revealed a notable relationship between subjective well-being and students’ engagement. The correlation propound that an increase in subjective well-being corresponds to an increase in students’ engagement, thereby the null hypothesis between these two variables is rejected and confirming that these two variables has significant relationship. This finding enhances our understanding the impact of increase in subjective well-being on students’ active engagement in school.

These findings shows that students who experience higher levels of well-being are more likely to be engaged in their learning. This findings aligns to the study by Wong et al. (2024), which states that subjective well-being has a large average relationship to students’ engagement. Students with higher well-being tend to be more motivated and invested in their learning, leading to greater effort and active participation in academic tasks. The interrelationship between student, educator, and community wellness is captured. The study conducted by Seligman (2011) emphasizes these by highlighting importance of experiencing positive feelings, being fully engaged in activities, building strong relationships, finding purpose joy in learning, and achieving personal goals.

Subjective well-being is a powerful driver of student engagement, influencing motivation, emotional connection, and cognitive engagement. This notion aligns to the Holistic Well-being Model by McCallum and Price (2016), which indicates the interplay between learners connectedness in school, activeness in any educational purposes, and students’ academic self-efficacy. They described a comprehensive well-being approach that puts the learner first. . The model emphasizes the importance of experiencing positive feelings, being fully engaged in activities, building strong relationships, finding purpose joy in learning, and achieving personal goals.

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Influence of    School Climate on Students’ Engagement

The regression analysis investigating the influence of school climate on students’ engagement states that 3 domains, namely presence of a safe environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school and presence of a respectful in school, have a significant impact on students’ engagement.

These findings is in relation to the study conducted by Sayfulloevna (2023) corroborates these findings by pointing out that a safe learning environment was vital for students’ academic and personal growth. This exploration also examines the negative effects of an unsafe learning environment on students’ engagement in academic. Also, these was highlighted to the study by Merrick et al. (2020), which states that safe environments are essential for the healthy growth of children and the well-being of families and communities. Students feel more comfortable interacting with their peers, leading to the development of strong and supportive friendships.

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Influence of Subjective Well-Being on Students’ Engagement 

The regression analysis investigating the influence of subjective well-being on students’ engagement states that four domains, namely, joy of  learning, school connectedness, educational purposes and academic efficacy, have a significant impact on students’ engagement.

These findings was in relation to the research conducted by is Amjad and Dasti  (2022) aligns with the findings of joy of learning, by stating the importance of joy in learning as it capture students’ attention, making them more focused and attentive in the classroom. When students are genuinely interested in what they are learning, they are less likely to be distracted and more likely to absorb information. When students experience joy in learning, they are intrinsically motivated. They are driven by a genuine love of the subject matter, a desire to explore new ideas, and a curiosity to understand the world around them.

CONCLUSION     

Conclusions are drawn based on the results of the study. The study concludes that the level of school climate was very high, as well as its indicators, namely, presence of a respectful environment in school, presence of an organized environment in school, and presence of a safe environment in school as high. Additionally, the study also concludes that the level of subjective well being was high, along with its indicators, namely,  joy of learning, school connectedness, academic efficacy, and educational purposes as very high. Moreover, the overall level of students engagement was high, encompassing the three domains, namely, behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and affective engagement as very high. However, the study’s findings challenge the initial assumption that there is a significant relationship between school climate and student engagement. Analysis using Spearman’s rho product moment correlation revealed a very high correlation between school climate and student engagement, while subjective well-being demonstrated a high correlation with student engagement.

Contrary to the assumption, the study concludes that school climate and subjective well being have a significant relationship and influence on student engagement. The analysis, conducted using average weighted mean, Spearman’s Rho correlation, and multiple regression analysis revealed that school climate and subjective well-being show a very high relationship with students’ engagement.

REFERENCES

1. Amjad, A., & Dasti, R. (2020). Humor styles, emotion regulation and subjective well-being in young adults. Current Psychology, 41(9), 6326–6335. doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01127-y
2. Arcipe, C. & Balones, J. (2023). Exploring the Impact of Motivation on Language Learning and Student Engagement. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies. 46. 1-21. doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v46i31002
3. Boulton, C, Hughles, E, Kent, C, Smith, J & Williams, H. (2019). Student engagement and wellbeing over time at a higher education institution. PLoS ONE 14(11). doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225770
4. Božović, S., Stojanović, T. & Simić, M. (2024). THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SCHOOL AND CLASS CLIMATE. SCIENCE: International Journal. 3. 157-161. doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0301157b
5. Crabtree, R. (2023). Barriers to Student Engagement: Why Don’t University Students Engage?. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 4(3), 28–47. sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1156
6. Cebelleros, A. G. (2024). Learning Environment and Teacher Communication Behavior as Determinants of Student Engagement. American Journal of Education and Technology, 3(4), 1-13. doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v3i4.3543
7. Colwell, L, Ives, M, Manoatl, E & Zubrzycki, J. (2023). Safe School Environments: Research, Policy, and Investments in Colorado. eric.ed.gov/?q=Safe+AND+environment+AND+school&id=ED629751
8. Daley, S. G., Heckman, M. E., Rosen, R. L., & Sari, H. I. (2024). School Connectedness and Academic Self-Efficacy During Pandemic Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study of Middle School Students’ Science Experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 02724316241230517
9. Đorđić, D. (2020). The relationship between school climate and students’ engagement at school. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, 52(2), 233-274.
10. Dysan, A., Kabri, K., Maria, F. A. (2023). The Influence of School Environment on Students’ Respectful Attitudes. Edumaspul : jurnal pendidikan, doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v7i1.6956
11. Fernandez, E. G., Fernandez-Abila, C. J., & Subade, R. (2024). Identifying Development Priority Areas Using Index of Dissatisfaction: A Case Study of a Coastal Town in the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, 10185291241273719. doi.org/10.1177/10185291241273719
12. Francisco, C. & Celon, L. (2020). Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Its Effects on Students’ Academic Performance. 64-71
13. Huayan, Huang. (2024). 1. School Climate Affecting Students’ Competence to Learn. Journal of education and educational research, doi.org/10.54097/e8r7jj67
14. Leung, J. S. K., S, Bridges., B, D., Russell., Christelle, Not. (2023). 3. Learning in and from the field: a qualitative study of affective engagement. Environmental Education Research, doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2211752
15. Lin, L. (2023). Subjective Well-being and School Functioning among High School Students. Journal of Professional & Applied Psychology, 4(4), 491-499 doi.org/10.52053/jpap.v4i4.225
16. Lyons, K. (2015). Does your sample size matter? Lipman Hearne Inc.
17. McCallum, F. & Price, D. (2016). Nurturing wellbeing development in education: From little things, big things grow. New York, N.Y: Routledge. https://usq.pressbooks.pub/wellbeingineducationalcontexts/chapter/theoretical-conceptualisations-of-wellbeing/
18. Merrick, M. T., Ports, K. A., Guinn, A. S., & Ford, D. C. (2020). Safe, stable, nurturing environments for children. In Adverse childhood experiences (pp. 329-347). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128160657000161
19. Mitchell, B. S. & Wehby, J. (2022). Consistent, organized, respectful learning environment. In High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (pp. 105-118). doi.org/10.4324/9781003148609-12&type=chapterpdf
20. Montallana, C. P., & Velasco, C. Q. (2023). Project REACH (Reading Empowerment Asserting Connection at Home): Input to an enhanced reading comprehension skills of Grade 9 students in English. APJAET – Journal Ay Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Education and Technology, 240–251. doi.org/10.54476/apjaet/18407
21. Panuykova, Y. G. & Panuykov A.I., (2022). 1. Organization of school educational environment as a factor of students psychological well-being: review of foreign studies. doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2022110305
22. Pendon, J. (2023). Transitional Challenges in the Senior High School Program in Selected Public Secondary Schools in Rizal. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(7), 1-10. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7913047
23. Proctor, C. (2024). Subjective well-being (SWB). In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6952-6956). doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01965-4
24. Quines, L. & Relacion, M. (2022). THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF SCHOOL CLIMATE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT. European Journal of Education Studies. 9. doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v9i11.4521
25. Saulė, P., Saulutė, J., Gintarė, T., Emma, B. E., Randi, Whitney, S., Rasa, D. (2024). 1. Promoting student engagement: insights from Iceland, Lithuania, and Norway. Frontiers in Education, doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1430247
26. Sayfulloevna, S. S. (2023). Safe learning environment and personal development of students. International Journal of Formal Education, 2(3), 7-12. https://journals.academiczone.net/index.php/ijfe/article/view/605
27. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
28. Solis, R. J. N., & Flores, K. L. E. (2024). Students Attitudes on School Climate and Learning Engagement in Physics of Senior High School Students. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(7), 719–733. doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i7150
29. Subramainan, L. & Mahmoud,  (2020). “A Systematic Review on Students’ Engagement in Classroom: Indicators, Challenges and Computational Techniques” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications(IJACSA), 11(1), 2020. doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0110113
30. Tabone, J., Hartnett, H. & Szafran, K. (2019). Trauma-Informed Elementary Schools: Evaluation of School-Based Early Intervention for Young Children. Children & Schools. 41. 239-248. doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdz017
31. Tan, L. (2014). Correlational study. In W. F. Thompson (Ed.), Music in the social and behavioral sciences: An encyclopedia (pp. 269-271).
32. Tian, Mei & Lu, Genshu & Yin, Hongbiao & Li, Lijie. (2020). Student Engagement for Sustainability of Chinese International Education: The Case of International Undergraduate Students in China. Sustainability. 12. 6831. doi.org/10.3390/su12176831
33. Urias, L. (2022). “Addressing the problem of student engagement in the classroom” Culminating Experience Projects. 217. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gradprojects
34. Voukelatou, V., Gabrielli, L., Miliou, I., Cresci, S., Sharma, R., Tesconi, M., & Pappalardo, L. (2021). Measuring objective and subjective well-being: dimensions and data sources. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 11, 279-309.
35. Wong, Z. Y., Liem, G. A. D., Chan, M., & Datu, J. A. D. (2024). Student engagement and its association with academic achievement and subjective well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(1), 48. doi.org/10.1037/edu0000833