Good teaching isn’t just intuition: What the research says.

Teacher–student relationships and student outcomes: A systematic second-order meta-analytic review.

Many educational decisions are grounded in intuition, personal experience, and long-standing traditions. However, empirical research has consistently shown that seemingly self-evident assumptions are not always correct and that intuition alone is an unreliable guide for educational decision-making (Kahneman, 2011). Exclusive reliance on pedagogical common sense, therefore, poses risks when the aim is to improve student learning and well-being.

Systematic investigation of widely held assumptions is essential to distinguishing between plausible beliefs and empirically supported effects. This principle is central to the development of evidence-based educational policies, which require practices to demonstrate consistent and replicable outcomes rather than relying on popularity or normative appeal (Slavin, 2002).

Within this context, the dissemination of research is as critical as its production. The study under discussion synthesises existing evidence through a systematic review employing a second-order meta-analysis (SOMA), an approach designed to integrate findings across multiple meta-analyses and to enhance the interpretability of cumulative evidence.

SOMA represents a particularly rigorous methodology because it aggregates prior meta-analyses, explicitly models conceptual and methodological heterogeneity, and estimates overall effects and moderators using three-level models (Cheung, 2014). In contrast to conventional meta-analysis, this approach enables the assessment of both the robustness of overall effects and the conditions under which these effects vary, including educational stage, measurement sources, and contextual factors.

Applied to teacher-student relationships (TSR), the synthesis includes 26 meta-analyses, 119 effect sizes, and data from approximately 2.64 million students across early childhood, primary, and secondary education. TSR are significantly associated with eight broad outcomes, with comparable effect sizes: academic achievement, academic emotions, appropriate behaviour, behaviour problems, self-regulation and executive functions, motivation, sense of belonging and engagement, and overall well-being. The association with bullying is comparatively weak (Roorda et al., 2017; Cornelius-White, 2007).

Effect sizes are larger in secondary education, and these differences are not attributable to variation in methodological quality across studies. Two complementary theoretical frameworks help explain this pattern. The bioecological model of development highlights the importance of frequent and meaningful interactions within the school microsystem (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), while attachment theory conceptualises the teacher as a secure base that supports emotional regulation and academic exploration, particularly under conditions of relational instability (Bowlby, 1988).

The stronger associations observed at the secondary level suggest a developmental window of opportunity. During a period characterised by reduced relational stability and increased socioemotional demands, positive relationships with teachers may exert a comparatively greater influence.

From a practical standpoint, the evidence indicates two complementary pathways. First, teacher-student relationships should be supported as an outcome in their own right by minimising conflict and dependency and fostering appropriate professional closeness, which in turn requires policies that promote teacher stability. Second, these relationships can function as mechanisms for achieving specific outcomes, such as enhanced well-being or self-regulation, through emotionally supportive instruction, clear expectations, and continuity in mentoring and tutoring.

At the policy level, prioritising relational stability and continuity does not establish direct causality but is consistently associated with more favourable indicators of school adjustment, classroom climate, and student well-being, underscoring its relevance for evidence-informed educational decision-making.

Source: Emslander, V., Holzberger, D., Ofstad, S. B., Fischbach, A., & Scherer, R. (2025). Teacher-student relationships and student outcomes: A systematic second-order meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(3), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000461

References:

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. En R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-97368-000 

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher–student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563

Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374533557

Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. 
https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007015