Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
10 SES 07 D: Teachers’ Working Conditions, Wellbeing, and Professional Stress
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Teachers’ Responses to Student Bullying: A Systematic Literature Review University of New South Wales, Australia Presenting Author:Bullying has recently drawn ongoing concerns in school environments globally due to its widespread incidence and harm to students’ emotional well-being and academic engagement (Al Ali et al., 2025). As role models, authoritative figures and agents who shape institutional norms, teachers are uniquely positioned to impact the bullying dynamics (e.g. Colpin et al., 2021). However, there is still little precise and widely accepted conceptualisation of teacher responses to bullying, especially in secondary schools (e.g., Colpin et al., 2021). This systematic literature review (SLR) thus synthesises and discusses empirical studies to conceptualise how teachers respond to bullying and what influences their strategies across secondary education contexts. In the light of Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) socio-ecological framework, this study puts forward to implications for policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders in dealing with bullying. This study draws on Bronfenbrenner's (1981) socio-ecological framework to understand teacher responses to bullying across microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems and chronosystems. Within this ecosystem, teachers are situated within a multi-stakeholder network that calls for coordinated efforts by parents, school leadership team and policy frameworks to address student bullying. In this sense, factors across different tiers of this socio-ecological system may impact teacher responses and result in a range of responses when they witness bullying incidents (Görzig et al., 2025). At the same time, students observe and make sense of teacher responses as models for behavioural and learnt norms that reflect whether bullying is accepted or condemned in schools and can result in their behavioural intentions about bullying (Burger et al., 2022). As such, understanding teacher responses to student bullying is underpinned within the mechanisms of how teachers impact student behaviours and the broader socio-ecological context that shapes their perceptions, decisions and intervention strategies. The growing attention to teachers’ potential role in addressing student bullying has resulted in various reviews on teacher responses to bullying over the past decade. Van Verseveld et al. (2019) explored how school-based antibullying programmes influence teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy and responses. Dawes et al. (2024) examined teacher attitudes-responses correlation, and van Aalst et al. (2024) established a framework to elucidate and predict teachers’ intervention through their traits and behaviours. While all three reviews adopt the theory of planned behaviour to focus mainly on individual level factors (i.e., intentions) in relation to their responses, this approach has been considered as “too narrowly conceived” for not including broader factors (Rigby, 2024, p. 106). Also, O’Brien et al. (2024) proposed a model for comprehending personal and environmental factors related to teacher responses. Similarly, Gizzarelli et al., (2023) undertook a scoping review on staff responses to student-reported bullying and associated individual-institutional factors but acknowledged that their results could be distorted by including studies with poor methodology and measurement biases. Other existing reviews have had narrow focus areas of teacher responses to cyberbullying (Macaulay et al., 2021) or in primary education (van Aalst et al., 2024). This gap might undermine understanding anti-bullying support systems across educational levels, especially given the significant prevalence of bullying in secondary education (Martínez Sánchez et al., 2019). Over recent years, no review has systematically conceptualised teacher responses to student bullying in the broader ecosystem of secondary education based on empirical evidence while following quality assessment processes for included studies. Given this anchor, this SLR addresses the following research questions: 1. What teacher responses to bullying have been examined in the existing literature on secondary education? 2. What factors influencing teachers' responses to bullying have been identified in previous research? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) were adopted to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of this SLR. In terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, studies must be published in peer-reviewed English-language journals from 2016 to 2025. They must present empirical evidence on teacher responses to peer bullying among students and associated factors from the perspectives of teachers and students in secondary education. Teacher-targeted bullying or cyberbullying is outside the research focus. The search was conducted on Proquest (ERIC and Education databases), Scopus and Web of Science due to their esteemed reputations in the educational field. Clusters of keywords and equivalent synonyms were used in the search string, including (1) actors/stakeholders (students and teachers); (2) main theme (bullying, bullied); and (3) perspectives and responses/strategies. Secondary education terminology was not included in search syntax due to its wide variation across contexts, such as secondary schools, middle schools and high schools (UNESCO, 1995). To avoid excluding relevant studies, we deliberately chose a broader approach. Initial search yielded 1246 studies. After removing 287 duplicates, 959 studies were identified for (1) titles and abstracts, and (2) full-text screening. To ensure reliability, the first and second authors independently screened 10% of the total in each stage, and discrepancies were addressed through discussions with the third author. Following title and abstract screening, 229 studies were selected for full-text review. 79 studies met all eligibility criteria and were evaluated predicated on a 14-criteria framework adapted from Nguyen et al.'s (2024) reporting quality framework and Gorard's (2024) methodological quality framework. The authors independently evaluated 10% of studies and convened to reach consensus before completing appraisal process. Five low-quality studies were excluded, and 74 studies that meet at least 70% of the quality criteria were retained and imported into NVivo for analysis. Thematic synthesis (Thomassen & Munthe, 2021) was employed: (1) free line-by-line coding of primary study findings; (2) constructing ‘descriptive themes’ by grouping these ‘free codes’ into similar categories; and (3) developing ‘analytical’ themes. To ensure coding consistency and trustworthiness, the first and second authors collaboratively coded eight studies (equivalent to over 10% of sample) in the calibration phase. The authors discussed coding decisions, identified coding discrepancies and refined coding framework. The remaining publications were then coded using the established codebook. The research team then reviewed emerging codes and subcodes, cross-verified each other’s work and discussed uncertainties until full consensus was achieved. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This SLR provides theoretical and practical insights into teachers’ strategies (emotional, instrumental and informational support strategies across individual, class and school levels together with unresponsive approaches) and factors influencing their responses to student bullying. One important finding is that authoritarian-punitive and unresponsive approaches emerge as prevalent measures by teachers, which escalates the circle of ‘revenge’ and power imbalances. Also, teachers usually discipline bullies while providing minimal emotional support to perpetrators and blaming victims. When receiving blame, victimised students may adopt bullying behaviours to seek attention and care they need (Winnicott, 2016). Such responses reflect teachers’ misunderstanding of bullying dynamics and unawareness of students’ mental health or emotional experiences in bullying contexts. Second, this study extends O’Brien et al.'s (2024) model and van Aalst et al., (2024) focus on primary education to conceptualising teacher responses to student bullying within secondary education through the socio-ecological framework. While individual elements like teacher self-efficacy and emotional intelligence predict intervention intentions, these attributes might be undermined by interpersonal dynamics (i.e. student characteristics: angry victims, high-achieving perpetrators) and systemic barriers (i.e. heavy workloads, lack of autonomy and academic-focused cultures) that push teachers toward punitive measures, non-intervention or protecting high-achieving bullies. This multi-tiered cross-level influence might create an ongoing circle where ineffective responses become normalised, affect their peers’ responses and shape school culture that reinforces societal acceptance of bullying. This study takes initial steps towards conceptualising teacher responses to bridge theoretical understanding with actionable practice. The study has implications for teacher professional development and beyond in equipping the workforce with the capacity to identify bullying and students’ emotional needs and effectively prevent and address school bullying. This can contribute to developing whole-school strategies to deal with school bullying and fostering secure learning environments where teachers are part of the solution, not carrying the burden alone. References Al Ali, N., Qasem, I., & Aldwaikat, T. (2025). Examining the impact of a school-based bullying education program on students’ knowledge of bullying, bullying behavior, and self-esteem. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 30(1), 2454997. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2025.2454997 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6 Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., & Kollerová, L. (2022). Teachers can make a difference in bullying: Effects of teacher interventions on students’ adoption of bully, victim, bully-victim or defender roles across time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(12), 2312–2327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01674-6 Colpin, H., Bauman, S., & Menesini, E. (2021). Teachers’ responses to bullying: Unravelling their consequences and antecedents. Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2021.1954903 Dawes, M., Malamut, S.T., Guess, H., & Lohrbach, E. (2024). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and intervention responses: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09951-5 Gizzarelli, E., Burns, S., & Francis, J. (2023). School staff responses to student reports of bullying: A scoping review. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 34(2), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.680 Görzig, A., Betts, L. R., Maunder, R., Monks, C.P., De Amicis, L., & Bennett, S. (2025). Teachers’ responses to identity-based bullying: Social inequality, identity, and diversity at teacher and school level. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-024-00281-2 Macaulay, P., Betts, L., Stiller, J., & Kellezi, B. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions on the roles of publicity and severity in cyberbullying. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1767183 Martínez Sánchez, I., Goig Martínez, R., González González, D., & Álvarez Rodríguez, J. (2019). School bullying in compulsory and advanced secondary education. Determining factors in its intervention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 750. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050750 O’Brien, S., Campbell, M., & Whiteford, C. (2024). A Review of Factors Affecting Teacher Intervention in Peer Bullying Incidents: A Call for More Nuanced Professional Development. Journal of School Violence, 23(3), 308–318. (WOS:001109297100001). https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2023.2289117 Rigby, K. (2024). Theoretical perspectives and two explanatory models of school bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00141-x van Aalst, D. A. E., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2024). A systematic review on primary school teachers’ characteristics and behaviors in identifying, preventing, and reducing bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6(2), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00145-7 van Verseveld, M., Fukkink, R., Fekkes, M., & Oostdam,R. (2019). Effects of antibullying programs on teachers’ interventions in bullying situations. A meta-analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 56(9), 1522–1539. (WOS:000481055600001). https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22283 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper A Typology of English Language Teachers' Occupational Stress and their Immunity 1: Lieden University, The Netherlands,; 2: Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) Presenting Author:Proposal Information This study investigates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ occupational stress and Language Teacher Immunity (LTI) in Iran, aiming to identify distinct profiles of stress and immunity and explore how these patterns relate to teachers’ biographical characteristics and coping strategies. Teacher well-being is a critical factor for instructional quality and learner success, yet teaching remains a highly demanding profession prone to burnout. These challenges are intensified in EFL contexts where sociocultural, ideological, and institutional constraints shape teachers’ professional lives. Language Teacher Immunity has been proposed as a mechanism that enables teachers to adapt to stressors and maintain professional functioning despite systemic pressures. Research Aim and Research Questions Addressing a gap in the literature, this study seeks to develop a typology of Iranian EFL teachers based on occupational stress and LTI and to examine how these profiles are associated with individual characteristics and coping strategies. The research is guided by the following questions:
By answering these questions, the study moves beyond reporting average levels of stress and immunity and instead provides a differentiated understanding of how these constructs co-occur and influence teachers’ professional lives. Theoretical Framework The study draws on established conceptualizations of teacher occupational stress and Language Teacher Immunity (LTI). Occupational stress is defined following Kyriacou (2011) as the experience of negative emotions, such as tension, anxiety, and frustration—resulting from aspects of teachers’ work and professional demands. Stress is understood as multidimensional, shaped by workload, job insecurity, institutional conditions, and interpersonal relationships. Language Teacher Immunity is conceptualized following Hiver (2017) as a dynamic system of psychological and professional mechanisms that teachers develop in response to ongoing challenges. LTI encompasses dimensions such as emotion regulation, resilience, teaching commitment, self-efficacy, and professional attitudes, which collectively enable teachers to sustain motivation and effectiveness despite stressors. Importantly, this study does not treat stress and immunity as opposing constructs. Rather, it adopts the view that stress and immunity can coexist, and that immunity influences how teachers experience and respond to stress rather than eliminating it. Based on these conceptualizations, the study employs a typological approach, assuming that EFL teachers differ in how stress and immunity combine in their professional lives. Identifying these profiles offers insights into adaptive strategies and their links to biographical factors such as age, experience, and mother tongue. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology This study adopted a mixed-method design to examine Iranian EFL teachers’ occupational stress and Language Teacher Immunity (LTI) and to develop a typology based on these constructs. Quantitative Phase: For collection data from 244 EFL practicing teachers, two questionnaires were used for data collection. The first instrument (ETSQ) measured occupational stress and was designed specifically for this study. To ensure validity and reliability, the questionnaire underwent a pilot test, followed by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). These procedures confirmed the factor structure and internal consistency of the scale. The second instrument assessed Language Teacher Immunity (ELTIQ), adapted from Hiver (2017). The adaptation process included a validity check and Factor Analysis (FA) to localize the questionnaire for the Iranian context. Both instruments demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. Data was analyzed using K-means cluster analysis to identify distinct profiles of stress and immunity. Additionally, a chi-square test was conducted to examine the predictive role of biographical variables (e.g., gender, age, teaching experience, mother tongue, and educational background) in cluster membership. Qualitative Phase: To complement the quantitative findings and provide deeper insights into teachers’ experiences, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine teachers who had completed the questionnaires, three from each identified cluster. Interviews were carried out either in person or online via Microsoft Teams or Skype. The interview protocol began with broad, open-ended questions exploring teachers’ general perspectives on EFL teaching and occupational stress, followed by more specific questions related to factors identified during the quantitative phase. This approach allowed participants to elaborate on coping strategies and interpretations of stressors within a socio-politically restrictive environment. By integrating quantitative clustering with qualitative thematic insights, the study provides a comprehensive understanding of how stress and immunity interact in shaping teachers’ professional lives. This methodological design ensures both statistical rigor and contextual depth, enabling the development of a typology that is theoretically grounded and practically relevant. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The cluster analysis identified three distinct profiles of Iranian EFL teachers based on occupational stress and Language Teacher Immunity (LTI). Cluster 1 consists of teachers with moderate stress and high immunity, indicating that strong professional identity, confidence, and resilience help these teachers cope with systemic challenges such as low salaries, job insecurity, and administrative burdens. Cluster 2 represents teachers with moderate stress and moderate immunity, suggesting that while these teachers do not face the most severe organizational pressures, they also lack robust coping resources, leaving them comparatively more vulnerable than Cluster 1. Cluster 3 emerged as the most vulnerable group, characterized by high stress and low immunity. The most influential stressors for this cluster include Lack of Professional Competence, Difficult Work Conditions, and Insufficient Facilities & Resources. These findings imply that teachers in Cluster 3 work in highly challenging environments with resource shortages, demanding workloads, and limited institutional support. Immunity factors such as Resilience, Emotion Regulation, and Problem-Solving were notably low, indicating difficulties in managing emotions, adapting to challenges, and developing effective coping strategies. This combination places Cluster 3 teachers at heightened risk of emotional exhaustion, burnout, reduced job satisfaction, and related health issues. These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions, including improved resource allocation, professional development opportunities, and emotional support systems. A chi-square test examined six biographical variables for their influence on cluster membership. Results revealed that only Mother Tongue significantly predicted cluster membership (p = .029), while age, experience, gender, marital status, and qualification showed no significant associations. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of recognizing distinct teacher profiles and tailoring support strategies to address both systemic and individual factors influencing stress and immunity. References Admiraal, W., Veldman, I., Mainhard, T., & van Tartwijk, J. (2019). A typology of veteran teachers’ job satisfaction: Their relationships with their students and the nature of their work. Social Psychology of Education, 22(2), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-09477-z Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of educational psychology, 104(4), 1189. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029356. Haseli Songhori, M., Ghonsooly, B., & Afraz, S. (2018). Language teacher immunity among Iranian EFL teachers: A self-organization perspective. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 128-143. Hiver, P. (2017). Tracing the signature dynamics of L2 teacher immunity: A retrodictive qualitative modeling study. Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 669-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12433. Hiver, P., & Dornyei, Z. (2017). Language teacher immunity: A double-edged sword. Appl. Ling., 38(3), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv034. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational Psychology, 102(3), 741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019237. Kyriacou, C. (2011). Teacher stress: From prevalence to resilience. In J. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of Stress in the Occupations, (pp. 161-173). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.4337/9780857931153.00027. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company. MacIntyre, P. D., Ross, J., Talbot, K., Mercer, S., Gregersen, T., & Banga, C. A. (2019). Stressors, personality and wellbeing among language teachers. System, 82, 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.013. Maghsoudi, M. (2021). Productive or maladaptive immunity? Which one is more dominant among Iranian EFL Prospective Teachers?. Applied Research on English Language, 10(1), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2020.124031.1595. Mercer, S. (2023). The wellbeing of language teachers in the private sector: An ecological perspective. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1054-1077. Mercer, S., Oberdorfer, P., & Saleem, M. (2016). Helping language teachers to thrive: Using positive psychology to promote teachers' professional well-being. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32954-3_12. Noughabi, M. A., Amirian, S. M. R., Adel, S. M. R., & Zareian, G. (2020). The association of experienced in-service EFL teachers’ immunity with engagement, emotions, and autonomy. Current Psychology, 1-10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-01066-8. Rahmati, T., Sadeghi, K., & Ghaderi, F. (2019). English as a foreign language teacher immunity: An integrated reflective practice. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 91–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2019.120738. Sadeghi, K., & Saadatpourvahid, M. (2016). EFL teachers’ stress and job satisfaction: What contribution can teacher education make? Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2016.20355. 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper How Students Perceive Teacher Attention: A Latent Profiles Analysis Based on A Large-Scale Data in China 1: Northeast Normal University, China; 2: University of Scranton, USA; 3: Hitotsubashi University, Japan Presenting Author:1. Introduction Building on eye-tracking and cognitive perspectives, teacher attention refers to the selective allocation of cognitive resources to classroom events that teachers perceive as instructionally relevant (Witt et al., 2024). This multidimensional construct encompasses cognitive, affective, and behavioral foci (Hamre et al., 2013), aligning with the global shift toward cultivating well-rounded learners equipped with 21st-century competencies through student-centered education (UNESCO, 2021). However, how this multidimensional attention manifests varies substantially across contexts. In high-stakes systems, some teachers prioritize content delivery and behavioral monitoring (Au, 2007), while others attend to students' cognitive engagement and learning processes (Chaudhuri et al., 2022). Increasingly, teachers also focus on students' emotional needs, cultivating supportive classroom climates (Ruzek et al., 2016). These attentional orientations often coexist and interact dynamically, reflecting the context-dependent nature of teacher attention. Prior research has largely examined isolated aspects of attention—such as caring and noticing—using teacher-centered methods like eye-tracking or video analysis (König et al., 2022). Yet students' perceptions of teacher attention, which more directly shape their motivation and learning, remain underexplored. Moreover, most studies investigate separate dimensions rather than examining how different attentional foci combine into meaningful patterns in authentic classrooms. The present study addresses these gaps by employing latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify distinct profiles of teacher attention as perceived by students and examining how these configurations relate to students' holistic development. This approach offers a unique vantage point for understanding how instructional focus is experienced in real learning environments. 2. Theoretical Framework We operationalize teacher attention as the selective allocation of teachers' verbal expressions toward students during instructional dialogue, encompassing content guidance, relational support, and classroom management. This conceptualization emphasizes behavioral manifestations as perceived by students. Drawing on achievement goal theory (AGT), we distinguish three primary attentional dimensions. Performance-oriented teachers’ direct attention toward observable academic outcomes—grades, accuracy, and test performance—emphasizing external evaluation (Elliot & Church, 1997). Mastery-oriented teachers focus on students' cognitive processes, reasoning strategies, and understanding (Throndsen & Turmo, 2012). Additionally, teachers may attend to students' personal and socioemotional development, fostering psychologically safe climates (Wentzel, 2009). While AGT integrates cognitive and affective aims under mastery-oriented goals, these domains represent distinct constructs in classroom practice. The present study extends AGT by differentiating: (1) Attention to learning outcomes (performance-oriented focus), (2) Attention to learning processes (cognitive mastery-oriented focus), and (3) Attention to students' personal lives (affective/socioemotional focus). Research demonstrates that teacher attention significantly impacts academic achievement (Chan et al., 2025), motivation and self-efficacy Guo et al., 2025), and behavioral engagement (Sherin et al., 2011). However, these effects have been studied in isolation. Our framework proposes that these attentional dimensions combine into distinct profiles that differentially influence student outcomes across developmental domains (see Figure 1). 3. Research Questions To address existing gaps, this study is guided by three research questions: RQ1: What distinct profiles of teacher attention do students perceive in classroom settings? RQ2: How do students' academic, motivational, emotional, and behavioral outcomes differ across these attention profiles? RQ3: Within each teacher attention profile, how do motivational and emotional–behavioral factors influence students' academic achievement? By employing a person-centered approach through LPA, this study moves beyond variable-centered analyses to reveal how different configurations of teacher attention relate to students' comprehensive development, offering implications for both theory and practice in teacher professional development and educational policy. Figure 1. The Research Framework of This Study Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used 4. Methods 4.1 Participants and Sampling Data were drawn from the 2024 Region Education Quality Assessment Project (REAP), conducted across 1,837 primary schools in 129 counties in a southern Chinese province. We employed a two-stage stratified sampling design, randomly selecting 85% of schools in each district or county in accordance with stratified sampling requirements (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The sample targeted fourth-grade students in spring 2024 and is representative of the province's overall fourth-grade population. Of 54,396 participating students, 53,703 valid responses were retained after data cleaning (28,909 male [53.8%]; 24,794 females [46.2%]). 4.2 Instruments All instruments underwent rigorous reliability and validity testing during development. Teacher attention was assessed through student perceptions across three dimensions: attention to outcomes (e.g., "The teacher cares whether my scores have improved"), processes (e.g., "The teacher encourages me to develop independent thinking"), and lives (e.g., "The teacher is concerned about my emotional well-being"). Items used a five-point Likert scale, reverse-coded so higher scores indicated greater attention. Academic factors included standardized mathematics performance and problem-solving ability, assessed through tests developed based on National Curriculum Standards. Test development followed systematic procedures including expert review, cognitive interviews, pilot testing (n=30), pretesting (n=300), and international expert evaluation. Scores were scaled with M=500, SD=100. Motivational factors encompassed learning interest, confidence, internal motivation, and pressure, measured via validated scales (α=0.607-0.931). Emotional and behavioral factors included subjective well-being (9 items, 7-point scale), teacher-student relationship (5 items), and smartphone addiction (5 items, 4-point scale). All scales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α≥0.607) and construct validity (CFI≥0.912, TLI≥0.877). Although RMSEA values for some scales exceeded 0.08, they were retained given acceptable CFI/TLI values and strong content validity. Robustness checks excluding weaker measures yielded consistent results. 4.3 Procedures and Analysis Students completed an 80-minute paper-based mathematics test followed by a 20-minute online questionnaire. Tests were scored by trained graduate students achieving 95% inter-rater reliability. Professional data services handled data entry and verification. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted using R to identify optimal teacher attention profiles based on the three attention dimensions. Model fit was evaluated using log-likelihood, AIC, BIC, sample-adjusted BIC, and entropy, with lower information criteria and higher entropy (>0.80) indicating better fit. Following the elbow criterion when fit indices diverged (Nylund et al., 2007), we selected the optimal model and classified students accordingly. Profile differences across academic, motivational, and emotional-behavioral outcomes were examined using ANOVA and post-hoc tests in SPSS 27. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 5. Key Findings This large-scale study (N=26,512 Chinese elementary students) examined how teachers' attentional orientations cluster into distinct profiles and their associations with student outcomes across academic, motivational, emotional, and behavioral domains. 5.1 Three Distinct Teacher Attention Profiles Latent profile analysis revealed three teacher attention types: (1) Outcome-Oriented (14.6%), emphasizing test results and performance; (2) Average-Oriented (35.5%), showing moderate attention across all dimensions; and (3) Process- and Emotion-Oriented (49.9%), prioritizing learning processes and students' emotional lives. Notably, attention to learning processes and personal lives consistently co-occurred, suggesting these dimensions may represent a unified student-oriented construct contrasting with performance-oriented attention. 5.2 Differential Impact on Student Development Students under Process- and Emotion-Oriented teachers demonstrated significantly superior outcomes: higher problem-solving ability (M=37.36 vs. 35.24), learning interest (M=4.21 vs. 3.24), intrinsic motivation (M=4.28 vs. 3.51), and subjective well-being (M=12.51 vs. 10.28), alongside lower academic pressure (M=1.85 vs. 2.39) and smartphone addiction (M=1.55 vs. 1.91) compared to Outcome-Oriented classrooms. Mathematics achievement remained comparable between Process-Emotion-Oriented and Outcome-Oriented groups, indicating that process-focused attention supports academic performance while simultaneously enhancing holistic development. 5.3 Moderating Role of Teacher Attention Teacher attention profiles moderated the motivation-achievement relationship. Motivational factors explained 8.2% of achievement variance under Process- and Emotion-Oriented teachers versus only 2.5% under Outcome-Oriented teachers, suggesting that process-focused attention amplifies motivation's academic impact by creating autonomy-supportive learning environments. 6. Implications These findings challenge stereotypes of East Asian education as narrowly performance-focused and demonstrate that teacher attention operates through dual cognitive-affective pathways. Professional development should cultivate process- and emotion-oriented attention through reflective practice and emotional intelligence training. By integrating Achievement Goal Theory and Self-Determination Theory, this study provides a theoretically grounded framework showing that quality of teacher attention—not merely its presence—decisively shapes both cognitive and socioemotional student development. References Witt, J., Schorer, J., Loffing, F., & Roden, I. (2024). Eye-tracking research on teachers’ professional vision: A scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 144, 104568. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., … & Cappella, E. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 686–722. UNESCO. (2021). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=fr Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative meta synthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. Chaudhuri, S., Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2022). Teachers' visual focus of attention in relation to students' basic academic skills and teachers' individual support for students: An eye-tracking study. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102179. Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95-103. König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A.-K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36, 100453. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Achievement Motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72(01), 218-232. Throndsen, I., & Turmo, A. (2012). Primary mathematics teachers’ goal orientations and student achievement. Instructional Science, 41(2):307-322. Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Students' relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 301–322). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Chan, K, K, H., Jan van driel, S, J., & Hu, X. (2025). Does Teacher Noticing Matter for Students’ Science Content Learning Outcomes? Evidence From a Large-Scale Empirical Study. Journal of Teacher Education. Guo, W., Wang, J., Li, N. et al. The impact of teacher emotional support on learning engagement among college students mediated by academic self-efficacy and academic resilience. Scientific Reports, 15, 3670 (2025). Sherin, M.G., Russ, R. S., & Colestock, A. A. (2011). Accessing mathematics teachers’ in-the-moment noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). SAGE Publications. | ||