Document Type : Original Article



CONTEXT: Well‑being in schools is often considered in relation to the educational and academic
success of students. However, it is difficult, at present, not to consider the well‑being of a student
without an ecological and holistic perspective, in view of the interaction principles implemented in
schools. This research aimed to identify the representations hold by Moroccan teenagers about
well‑being. It aimed, also, to do a comparison between two groups of teenagers: one belonging to
urban and the other to rural areas.
METHODS: This quantitative study concerns a sample of 1444 pupils (755 girls and 689 boys)
enrolled in middle school. Research instrument for this study was questionnaire that includes 15
questions relating to well‑being at school, relationships with the teacher, relationships between
students, violence experienced, and coeducation.
RESULTS: From the analysis of data, pupils in the rural areas seem to be most sensitive to the
“emotional” aspects of the teacher–pupil relationship. The girls are more satisfied in middle school
than boys. This fact seems to be a very important factor in their retention and in reducing their dropout
rate. As expected, academic success is highlighted in the two groups of students as an indicator
of well‑being. However, the fact of not knowing which orientation to choose constitutes a factor of
ill‑being for pupils, especially for girls. The results show also that well‑being is not taken care of in
the two environments (urban and rural). This will explain the results of Moroccan students assessed
by the Program for the Monitoring of Student Achievement.
CONCLUSIONS: Training programs should focus on the development of teachers communication
skills, ability to manage behavioral problems of their students and use teaching approaches to develop
positive relationships between students.


  1. World Health Organization. The constitution of the World Health
    Organization. Washington, DC: World Health Organization; 1948.
    2. Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ. The hierarchical structure
    of well-being. J Personality 2009;77:102550.
    3. Heginbotham C, Newbigging K. Commissioning Health and
    Wellbeing. London: Sage; 2014.
    4. O’Brien M. Well‑Being and Post‑Primary Schooling. A Review
    of the Literature and Research. NCCA Research Report No. 6,
    Dublin; 2008.
    5. Bradshaw J, Keung A. Trends in child subjective well‑being in
    the UK. J Children’s Services 2011;6:4‑17.
    6. Konu A, Rimpelä M. Well‑being in schools: A conceptual model.
    Health Promot Int 2002;17:79‑87.
    7. Veenstra R, Kuyper H. Effective students and families: The
    importance of individual characteristics for achievement in high
    school. Educ Res Evaluat 2004;10:41‑70.
    8. Hoy WK, Hannum JW. Middle school climate: An empirical
    assessment of organizational health and student achievement.
    Educ Administrat Q 1997;33:290‑311.
    9. Gill, S. Understanding well‑being: A Conceptual Framework,
    a Education by All for the Well‑Being of Children ConsortiumWorking Paper, European Foundation Centre; 2009.
    10. Guimard P, Bacro F, Florin A. Évaluer la satisfaction scolaire et le
    bien‑être des élèves à l’école et au collège. In: GuimardP, Sellenet C,
    editors. Evaluation des besoins des enfants et qualité de vie: Regards
    croisés France‑Canada. Paris: L’Harmattan; 2014. p. 1‑25.
    11. Huebner ES, Ash C, Laughlin JE. Life experiences, locus of control,
    and school satisfaction in adolescence. Soc Ind Res 2001;55:167‑83.
    12. Hoffman DM. Reflecting on social emotional earning: A critical
    perspective on trends in the United States. Rev Educ Res
    13. Randolph JJ, Kangas M, Ruokamo H. The preliminary
    development of the children’s overall satisfaction with schooling
    scale (COSSS). Child Indicator Res 2009;2:79‑93.
    14. Randolph JJ, Kangas M, Ruokamo H. Predictors of dutch and
    finnish children’s satisfaction with schooling. J Happiness Study
    15. Zullig KJ, Koopman TM, Huebner ES. Beyond GP. Towards more
    comprehensive assessments of students’ school experiences. Child
    Indicators Res 2009;2:95‑108.
    16. DurlakJA, WeissbergRP, DymnickiAB, TaylorRD, SchellingerKB.
    The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning:
    A meta‑analysis of school‑based universal interventions. Child
    Dev 2011;82:405‑32.
  2. 17. Shankland R, Rosset E. Review of brief school‑based positive
    psychological interventions: A taster for teachers and educators.
    Educ Psychol Rev 2016;27:1‑30.
    18. Anderman LH. Academic and social perceptions as predictors
    of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging.
    J Experimental Educ 2003;72:5‑22.
    19. Battistich V, Soloman D, Kim D, Watson M, Schaps E. Schools as
    communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’
    attitudes, motives, and performance: A multi‑level analysis. Am
    Educ Res J 1995;32:627‑58.
    20. Chiu MM, Chow B, McBride C, Mol ST, Students’ sense of
    belonging at school in 41 countries: Cross‑cultural variability.
    J Cross Cultl Psychol 2016;47:175‑96.
    21. Ma X. Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference?
    J Educ Res 2003;96:340‑9.
    22. Noble T, Wyatt T, McGrath H, Roffey S, Rowling L, editors.
    Scoping Study into Approaches to Student Wellbeing: Final
    Report, Australian Catholic University. Melbourne; 2008.
    p. 177. Available from:
    wellbeing_final_report.pdf. [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 14].
    23. Battistich V, Solomon D, Watson M, Schaps E. Caring school
    communities. Educ Psychol 1997;32:137‑51.
    24. Bowman NA. The development of psychological well‑being
    among first‑year college students. J Coll Stud Develop