1 Introduction

A deficit-based teaching approach is widely embedded in higher education [22], and this habit often starts with practices like subtractive grading, wherein teachers deduct points from a perfect score due to students’ errors [6]. Since a deficit mindset focuses more on what is wrong with students and what they are missing, teachers may miss out on the opportunity to acknowledge and leverage students’ strengths and resources. For instance, teachers who employ a deficit-based approach in the classroom may focus on the struggles of students who are English language learners but neglect to identify their ability to use multiple languages and their demonstration of resilience in practicing a different language while engaging with new subject matter materials [23].

Furthermore, a deficit-based teaching approach fails to consider the societal and institutional circumstances contributing to inequalities in higher education, which can have a disproportionate impact on students from marginalized backgrounds. For example, college students with financial insecurity may not have access to resources to improve their performance [48]. Additionally, college students of color may experience racial microaggressions that negatively influence academic behaviors [27]. To resolve the significant problems of the deficit-based teaching approach, postsecondary educators can shift to a strengths-based teaching approach, where teachers help students recognize, express, and utilize their individual abilities in beneficial ways. This study aims to examine the relationship between strengths-based teaching practices and students’ general, academic, and strengths self-efficacy, as there may be various practical implications for educators, such as faculty development and training, to improve students’ belief in their ability to achieve their goals.

2 Background to the study

2.1 Strengths-based practices

Strengths-based practices, a positive psychology concept thoroughly discussed in the literature [25, 32, 33, 40,41,42, 47, 53], were officially defined by Niemiec and Pearce [30] as “empowering, energizing, and connecting in which practitioners… embody and exhibit their character strengths as they educate clients on strengths and support clients in cultivating their character strengths for boosting well-being and handling adversity” (p. 3). There are seven guidelines for a strengths-based practice: practitioners (1) exemplify awareness and application of strengths, (2) educate on strengths, (3) challenge blind spots, (4) shift attention from deficits to strengths, (5) acknowledge difficulties while emphasizing positives, (6) foster connections, and (7) customize support for positive actions [30]. In summary, Niemiec and Pearce [30] not only defined strengths-based practices but also offered practical guidelines for practitioners to empower others, enhance their well-being, and encourage them to navigate challenges effectively.

Individuals’ strengths are deeply intertwined with their identity, thoughts, feelings, behavior, and culture [30], and these strengths manifest in their personalities, visibly and invisibly [31]. Furthermore, strengths are diverse and expressed uniquely by individuals, with no hierarchy in importance [33]. As such, those employing strengths-based practices in various contexts may be able to harness individuals’ diverse and deeply embedded strengths, offering a pathway for fostering authenticity, empowerment, and holistic well-being in both personal and professional realms.

2.2 Strengths-based teaching in higher education

When postsecondary educators employ a strengths-based approach to teaching, they highlight strengths in themselves and their students, focusing on everyone’s capabilities and recognizing problems as opportunities for growth while developing solutions based on their strengths and resources. These teachers recognize strengths as dynamic and encourage continual development for academic growth [15], emphasizing effort and mastery over performance and prioritizing cultivating strengths through relationships. This approach supports all students, especially marginalized ones, preparing them for success [51, 52].

A strengths-based teaching practice can benefit educators and students in higher education settings by helping them refine and leverage their strengths. For example, Almond and Blanken-Webb [4] posited that in strengths-based classrooms, even students’ vulnerabilities “revealed through heart-break (e.g., disorienting life dilemma)... reveals latent transformative potencies (e.g., emptiness) that may ripen into genuinely transformative strengths (e.g., fullness)” (p.3). Additionally, strengths-based teaching can help educators create inclusive classrooms. As Wehmeyer and Kurth [50] noted, those who teach students with disabilities can implement strengths-based approaches in the classroom by identifying students’ strengths and examining how to enhance their capacity in the classroom by modifying or changing the environment so that it better supports students’ success. Similarly, Rasmitadila et al. [35] researched a brain-based instructional strategy model for inclusive higher education classrooms and discovered that students with support needs benefit when teachers help them refine their strengths [35].

2.3 Strengths and academic self-efficacy in the higher education classroom

Self-efficacy theory, pioneered by psychologist Bandura [7,8,9], refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish tasks successfully. It differs from self-esteem or confidence, focusing specifically on task-related confidence across diverse contexts. Students with high strengths self-efficacy are more likely to approach academic challenges with a positive attitude, believing they can succeed, which in turn increases their motivation to try new things and overcome obstacles they may face. Conversely, students with low academic self-efficacy may doubt their abilities, causing avoidance, which can limit their personal and professional growth. In the absence of self-efficacy, students in the higher education classroom might have less incentive to try new things or to persist when faced with academic hurdles. Awareness of strengths, from both the teacher and student perspective, unlocks individuals' full potential.

Schulthes and Dykeman [37] highlighted the link between family strengths and Hispanic college students’ academic self-efficacy, indicating the potential of strengths-based teaching. This finding suggests that a strengths-based teaching practice, which supports college students in identifying their strengths, can potentially improve their academic self-efficacy. Furthermore, findings from this study give reasons to believe that there may be relationships between strengths-based practice and various types of self-efficacy, warranting further attention and research in this area.

Academic self-efficacy refers to students’ beliefs in their abilities to navigate academic tasks. Abdous [2] examined the relationship between college students’ satisfaction with their online learning training and academic self-efficacy. The findings revealed a significant positive relationship between the two, suggesting that other types of support, in addition to instruction, play a role in students’ academic self-efficacy in higher education. Alghamdi et al. [3] also studied academic self-efficacy in college students and found that the ability to self-regulate for multitasking can influence students’ academic self-efficacy.

2.4 Purpose of the study

In higher education, teachers often employ a deficit-based approach in the classroom [22]. This focus on students’ limitations has negative consequences, especially for traditionally marginalized students [51]. A strengths-based practice may mitigate these problems as it supports college students’ development by empowering them to develop a holistic view of themselves [52]. Existing research suggests that strengths-based practices prompt a range of positive outcomes. Based on current evidence, one potential positive outcome is self-efficacy, which is also fundamental to college student development. Given the benefits of strengths-based practices and the importance of self-efficacy for college students, further research in the area is beneficial. However, the current research largely focuses on the relationship between strengths-based practice and academic self-efficacy. Research regarding the relationships between strengths-based practice, general self-efficacy, and strengths self-efficacy is lacking. As such, this study sought to add empirical evidence for the relationships between strengths-based teaching practices in higher education and college students’ general self-efficacy, strengths self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy. To achieve this purpose, the following research questions were developed.

  • Research Question 1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between strengths-based teaching practices and college students’ general self-efficacy?

  • Research Question 2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between strengths-based teaching practices and college students’ strengths self-efficacy?

  • Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between strengths-based teaching practices and college students’ academic self-efficacy?

3 Methodology

3.1 Sampling and recruitment

G*Power Version 3.1.9.7 was used to perform an a priori power analysis, which determines the minimum sample size needed for adequate statistical power [13]. For the research questions, an a priori analysis result indicated that the minimum sample size needed to attain 80% power for identifying a medium effect (0.30; [12]) at a significance level of α = 0.05 with two tails is 84 participants for Pearson correlation. After receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from institutions where the researchers worked or from institutions near where they resided, the researchers used a convenience sampling method to recruit participants for this study. The researchers emailed teachers at a community college in the Northwest United States, a university in the Southwest United States, and a university in the Midwestern United States through email. The email included a recruitment flyer for teachers to pass along to students with a link to an online questionnaire that gathered data about participants’ demographic information, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ strengths-based teaching practices, as well as college students’ general, strengths, and self-efficacy. College students were required to be at least 18 years old to be eligible for the study. After agreeing to the embedded informed consent, 268 eligible and interested college students participated in the study by responding to the items in the online questionnaire (see Table 1).

Table 1 Sample demographics
Full size table

3.2 Instruments

There were four instruments utilized to collect data to answer the three research questions in this study. One instrument assessed students’ perceptions of their teachers’ levels of strengths-based teaching practices. The other three instruments measured college students’ general self-efficacy, strengths self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy.

3.2.1 Strengths-based teaching practice

To measure strengths-based teaching practices, an adapted Strengths-Based Practices Inventory (SBPI; [16]) was used. The 16-item Strengths-Based Practices Inventory (SBPI) was designed to measure strength-based practices in early education and family support programs through the perceptions of program participants. For each item in the inventory, respondents self-reported the level to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The score of strengths-based teaching practice is calculated by averaging the sum score of all items in the inventory. The SBPI has adequate reliability, as evidenced by the Cronbach’s alpha scores (α > 0.70; [16]). The SBPI was adapted for this study to align with the study’s focus on strengths-based teaching practice in higher education institutions. The modifications to the original instrument included changes in language to reflect the strengths-based practice of teachers in colleges and universities. For instance, the original SBPI asked families to assess the strengths-based practice of “program staff,” and the adapted SBPI asked students to assess the strengths-based practice of “teachers at my institution.” Since the work of higher education teachers goes beyond academic instruction and includes the facilitation of students’ holistic development, the adapted SBPI is suited to assess strengths-based teaching practices in higher education through the perceptions of students.

3.2.2 General self-efficacy, strengths self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy

Several instruments were used to measure general self-efficacy, strengths self-efficacy, and academic self-efficacy. The 8-item New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES), which assesses the degree of one’s belief that they can accomplish their goals despite challenges [11], was chosen to measure college students’ general self-efficacy. For each item in the scale, respondents rated the level to which they agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To assess college students’ strengths self-efficacy, the 34-item Strengths Self-Efficacy scale (SSES) was employed. It was developed to “assess individuals’ perceived abilities to build their personal strengths and apply them in their daily life” [29, 47], was used to assess college students’ academic self-efficacy. For each item in the scale, respondents self-reported the level to which they agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree to 5 (strongly agree)). The scores of these different types of self-efficacy are calculated by assessing the mean scores of all items of each instrument. Moreover, all these instruments related to self-efficacy demonstrate adequate reliability, as evidenced by their Cronbach’s alpha scores: NGSES (α = 0.85–0.90; [11], SSES (α = 0.95; [47]), and GASE (α = 0.74–0.78; [49]).

3.3 Data analysis

Once the data were collected, cleaned, and organized, SPSS Version 29 was used to conduct statistical analyses. In addition to descriptive statistics, a Pearson correlation analysis was utilized to address Research Question 1, Research Question 2, and Research Question 3. Bootstrapping was applied to these analyses to minimize error by generating simulated samples to create an approximately normal distribution [18].

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

On average, the participants scored 5.75 (SD = 0.99) for their perception of their teachers’ strengths-based practice, 4.13 (SD = 0.61) for their general self-efficacy, 7.43 (SD = 1.56) for their strengths self-efficacy, and 4.08 (SD = 0.69) for their academic self-efficacy. Furthermore, all four instruments demonstrated internal consistency, as indicated by the Cronbach alphas of the adapted Strengths-Based Practices Inventory (SBPI; α = 0.946), New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES; α = 0.901), General Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (GASE; α = 0.775), and Strengths Self-Efficacy scale (SSES; α = 0.983).

4.2 Addressing the research questions

For Research Question 1, there was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between strengths-based teaching practice and college students’ general self-efficacy (r = 0.451, p < 0.001; see Table 2). For Research Question 2, there was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between strengths-based teaching practice and college students’ strengths self-efficacy (r = 0.437, p < 0.001; see Table 2). For Research Question 3, there was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between strengths-based teaching practice and college students’ academic self-efficacy (r = 0.418, p < 0.001; see Table 2).

Table 2 Correlations
Full size table

5 Discussion

This study investigated the relationships between college students’ perception of their teachers’ strengths-based practices and students’ levels of general, strengths, and academic self-efficacy. The goal was to explore the relationship between teachers’ strengths-based practices and students’ belief in themselves, as that can impact their success in academia. The results indicated that participants generally perceived their teachers’ strengths-based practices positively, which means that they have seen their instructors emphasize and leverage students’ individual strengths and abilities within the learning environment. In other words, instead of solely focusing on students’ weaknesses, their teachers recognized and nurtured their students’ talents, interests, and positive attributes.

As previously noted, studies on strengths-based practices concluded that the ongoing development of strengths between a teacher and student facilitates academic growth [15]. Furthermore, the results of our study are consistent with the findings of Singh et al. [38] and Guo et al. [17] that students’ academic outcomes are influenced by positive interactions in the classroom. Moreover, in line with the results of our study, Sun and Lyu [43] pointed out that students with higher self-efficacy tend to exhibit stronger academic performance and experience fewer negative emotions.

The results of this study also indicated that there was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between strengths-based teaching practice and college students’ academic self-efficacy. As pointed out by researchers Su et al. [44], a positive teacher-to-student relationship encourages knowledge sharing and an affirming academic setting, corroborating the hypothesis that strengths-based teaching would build academic self-efficacy within college students. Similarly, Maguire and Anderson [26] established that building a supportive teacher-student relationship resulted in a connection founded on rapport, which in turn has the potential to impact student academic outcomes [45]. For practitioners, the positive correlation between strengths-based teaching and college students’ academic self-efficacy is evidenced in acknowledging strengths, communication outside of the classroom, integrating strengths into the curriculum, individualizing instruction, providing strengths-based activities, pointing out the benefits, as well as incorporating strengths-based feedback [6]. In interpreting the results, there were statistically significant relationships between teachers’ strengths-based teaching and their students’ self-general, strengths, and academic self-efficacy. Each type of self-efficacy represents a distinct aspect of a student’s belief in their own ability to achieve success in different parts of their lives, whether it be general life challenges, utilizing personal strengths, or academic pursuits. Furthermore, each distinct type of self-efficacy improves students’ chances of overcoming obstacles and challenges, adapting to change, and pursuing goals.

6 Conclusions

Strengths-based teaching focuses on identifying and building on an individual’s unique strengths and abilities rather than solely on their weaknesses or deficits [6, 10, 51]. This approach can help students develop a more positive view of their capabilities [19], which may increase their belief in their abilities to complete general and academic tasks successfully. Furthermore, strengths-based teaching may help students develop a growth mindset, the belief that one's abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work [19, 25]. When students believe they can develop their strengths and abilities, they are more likely to be motivated to put forth the effort to use their strengths and succeed.

Moreover, strengths-based teaching may help students develop a sense of autonomy and control over their learning [10], which might help them feel more empowered to achieve their personal and professional goals. This positive influence might occur as educators utilize a strengths-based approach to assist learners in finding learning moments in and out of the classroom while helping them be future-focused [5]. As such, educators have a decisive responsibility to select positive teaching techniques that best support students while advocating for quality student learning [36].

Despite the need for further confirmatory studies, these findings suggest that using strengths-based teaching practices might have a positive impact on college students’ general, strengths, and academic self-efficacy by fostering a more positive and supportive learning environment, promoting a growth mindset, and empowering students to take agency in their learning. Additionally, college students may begin to experience a sense of flourishing [24] as they begin to accomplish their goals or experience growth from previous challenges. Moreover, by helping students recognize their strengths and how they can apply them in various academic and personal contexts, teachers can potentially increase students’ resilience, hope, and optimism to succeed [10, 46].

7 Limitations, recommendations, and implications

The study has significance, with one notable strength being its ability to fill the gaps in the literature regarding the relationships between teachers’ strengths-based practices and students’ general, academic, and strengths self-efficacy. Nonetheless, it has several limitations. First, it uses a correlational design to investigate the topic of interest, which provides exploratory results for the topic. With this design, causality was not determined. Other factors may have contributed to the self-efficacy that the participants were experiencing. Second, the sample used for the study was relatively homogenous. Third, the students self-reported the degree to which they agreed with each statement, and their responses could not be corroborated. Finally, there was a limitation because a convenience sampling technique was chosen to recruit participants because many of the participants were enrolled in the institutions where the researchers were employed. To minimize this limitation, the participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that there were no consequences if they chose not to participate.

There are several research recommendations to be made. First, future researchers could employ more intensive research designs to investigate the relationships associated with the topic of interest. It may be interesting to investigate potential changes in students’ efficacy before and after the implementation of strength-based teaching practice. Second, a random sampling technique could be utilized to reduce the possibility of undue influence in recruitment. Furthermore, future research about the topic of interest may benefit from using a more heterogeneous sample to increase generalizability. Qualitative research on the topic of strengths-based teaching may also provide additional insights into students’ experiences with strengths-based teaching and perceptions of the impact of strengths-based teaching.

Finally, the findings of the study have practical implications for higher education institutions, especially for educators of these institutions. Since strengths-based teaching begins with the identification of strengths [25], postsecondary teachers may begin to implement a strengths-based approach in their teaching practice by conducting a strengths assessment with their students, which can help them tailor their instruction [6]. They may also use positive language and highlight students’ strengths when providing feedback, emphasizing students’ strengths and progress rather than their shortcomings [6, 25]. Moreover, higher education teachers may encourage students to foster their strengths through various activities that allow for diverse strengths to be utilized, such as group projects. Similarly, they may provide opportunities for students to pursue their personal interests and passions within group work.

While confirmatory work is needed to extend the preliminary findings, incorporating a strengths-based approach in teaching may have a significant impact on students’ self-efficacy, which is beneficial for all students, particularly marginalized students who tend to have lower academic self-efficacy [28, 51]. Self-efficacy has been shown to be a critical predictor of academic achievement, psychological well-being, and even willingness to address social issues [1, 14, 20, 21, 34, 39]. Thus, the strengths-based teaching approach has the potential to serve as an inclusive higher education teaching practice, improving students’ outlook on their futures.