Is Invitational Education an Evolving Theory of Practice?

Educational theory and practice are progressively focused on recognizing learners as holistic individuals within multifaceted and dynamic contexts. Two influential approaches that speak to this commitment are contextual well-being (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 206) and Invitational Education (IE; Purkey, 1977). Though aligned in their emphasis on environments that support human growth, they differ in origins, scope, and application. This article compares and contrasts these frameworks, critically examining whether Invitational Education can be considered an evolving theory of practice within contemporary education.

Recent research emphasizes that well-being in educational settings is not an individual trait, but a relational and contextual phenomenon shaped by social, systemic, and environmental influences (e.g., ecological systems perspectives on education) (Colla et al., 2023). Well-being is understood as emerging from the interaction between individuals and their broader contexts, including peers, teachers, school culture, policy environments, and community systems (Mercer, 2021).

In educational research, scholars emphasize that student and teacher well-being are closely tied to contextual factors, including relationships with others, school climate, equity, and supportive infrastructures (e.g., social cohesion, community integration) (Slimmen et al., 2025). Moreover, conceptual reviews identify well-being as multi-dimensional, where subjective experiences intersect with cultural norms, engagement in learning, and school environments (Jiang et al., 2025).

This holistic understanding extends well-being beyond individual psychology to encompass relational, cultural, and systemic dynamics, emphasizing that educational environments can either support or inhibit well-being depending on how they interact with learners’ lived experiences. Well-being in educational settings is increasingly understood as relational and contextual, shaped by social belonging, identity, and broader environmental factors, rather than solely by individual traits (Kassab et al., 2024; Riley et al., 2020). As a result, contemporary research calls for responsive pedagogies and policies that prioritize equity, belonging, and systemic support - emphasizing inclusive and context-responsive educational design rather than narrowly targeting individual behavior alone (Kassab et al., 2024; Riley et al., 2020). 

Invitational Education: Principles and Practice
Invitational Education (IE) originated with William Purkey and colleagues as both a theory and practice aimed at creating environments that intentionally invite people to realize their potential (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). At its core, IE posits that educational environments are never neutral -they either invite or disinvite engagement and growth. The model emphasizes five domains: Places, Policies, Programs, and Processes, which collectively shape organizational climate and influence learners’ self-concept and engagement (Purkey & Siegel, 2020). 

The ethos of IE is grounded in the assumptions that every person has value, ability, and responsibility, and that educational settings should communicate trust, respect, optimism, care, and intentionality. These invitational beliefs are meant to permeate daily interactions, leadership practices, and curricular decisions (Purkey & Siegel, 2013/2015). Furthermore, recent qualitative and mixed-method research in higher education has shown that invitational practices correlate with positive student experiences, including perceptions of agency and belonging when instruction is personalized and multimodal (Coffey, 2021).

Comparing Goals and Assumptions
Despite differing origins, contextual wellbeing and Invitational Education share key commitments:
1. Environment Matters
Both frameworks argue that learning and well-being are significantly shaped by the quality of environments - social, cultural, physical, and institutional.

2. Relationships and Belonging
Contextual well-being research emphasizes relational support (e.g., social cohesion, trust) as fundamental for well-being (Slimmen et al., 2025), while IE explicitly foregrounds trust, respect, and care as foundational invitational principles (Purkey & Siegel, 2020).

3. Intentionality in Practice
Both emphasize intentional actions: contextual wellbeing calls for responsive pedagogies that are attuned to learners’ lived realities, and IE calls for the deliberate cultivation of inviting environments (Lapidot-Lefler, 2025). 

However, differences remain:
• Scope and Origins: Contextual wellbeing is inherently interdisciplinary and often rooted in ecological and socio-cultural theory (Colla et al., 2023). In contrast, IE originates in educational and counseling theory with a strong focus on individual self-concept and organizational culture (Purkey & Novak, 2015).

• Research Base: Well-being research has burgeoned in the past decade with systematic reviews and longitudinal studies across diverse educational contexts. In contrast, invitational research is growing but remains more localized and practice-focused, with fewer large-scale empirical studies (Aziku & Zhang, 2024; Kurrle & Warwas, 2025).

Invitational Education as an Evolving Theory of Practice
Is Invitational Education an evolving theory of practice? The evidence suggests yes - but with important nuances.

Invitational Education (IE) began as a framework for improving school culture and leadership (Anderson & Christensen, 2025). Over time, educators have adapted its principles to address contemporary concerns, including inclusion, differentiated learning, and socio-emotional support. Recent studies indicate that invitational practices have been employed in university literacy instruction and other higher education contexts, highlighting their adaptability beyond K-12 environments (Coffey, 2021).

However, for IE to evolve robustly as a theory of practice, it must increasingly integrate insights from contextual research, especially on equity, diversity, and systemic barriers. When integrated with contextual well-being frameworks, IE’s principles of intentionality and respect can become more responsive to diverse socio-cultural conditions and the lived realities of marginalized learners (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2023).

Contextual well-being and Invitational Education both champion educational environments that nurture human potential, though they approach this aim from different angles (Colla & Mossman, 2023). Contextual well-being situates individuals within dynamic social and systemic ecologies, emphasizing the role of relationships, culture, and institutional conditions in shaping well-being and learning experiences (Jiang et al., 2025; Mercer, 2021). In contrast, Invitational Education offers actionable principles for designing intentionally inviting learning spaces by focusing on people, policies, and processes that convey care, respect, and optimism (Purkey & Novak, 2016).

References
Anderson, C. J., & Christensen, A. (2025). Elevating learning with collaborative invitational education. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 30, 33–57.
Aziku, I., & Zhang, X. (2024). Teacher well-being research from 2020 to 2024: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1389441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1389441
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Wiley.
Coffey, H. (2021). Personalized multimodal instruction positively impacting lives through invitational education. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 27, 21–38.
Colla, R. H., Bower, K. M., & Pate, J. (2023). Wellbeing integrated learning design framework: A multi-layered approach to facilitating wellbeing education through learning design and educational practice. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1216658. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1216658
Colla, R. H., & Mossman, K. (2023). Designing for wellbeing in higher education: A contextual and relational approach. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1215982. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1215982
Jiang, Y., Kosir, K., Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2025). Conceptualizing student wellbeing in secondary education: A qualitative systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09812-7
Kassab, S. E., Rathan, R., Taylor, D. C. M., & Brown, G. (2024). The impact of the educational environment on student engagement and academic performance in health professions education. BMC Medical Education, 24, 1278. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06270-9
Kurrle, L. M., & Warwas, J. (2025). Teacher well-being: A conceptual systematic review. Education Sciences, 15(6), 766. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060766
Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2025). Teacher responsiveness in inclusive education: A participatory study of pedagogical practice, well-being, and sustainability. Sustainability, 17(7), 2919. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072919
Mercer, S. (2021). An agenda for well-being in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.70070
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en
Purkey, W. W. (1977). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching and learning. Wadsworth.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2015). Fundamentals of invitational education (3rd ed.). International Alliance for Invitational Education.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2nd ed.). International Alliance for Invitational Education.
Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to professional and personal success. Humanics.
Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2020). Becoming an invitational leader (2nd ed.). International Alliance for Invitational Education.
Riley, T., Hamilton, R., Khanna, R., & Rawlinson, C. (2020). Belonging, identity, and wellbeing in educational contexts: A relational perspective. Behavioral Sciences, 10(10), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100142
Slimmen, M., Volman, M., & van der Veen, I. (2025). Social cohesion and student wellbeing in secondary education: A systematic review. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 44, 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2024.100796