Register or Submit a manuscript.
Quick Link
OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine

(ISSN 2573-4393)

OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal published quarterly online by LIDSEN Publishing Inc. It covers all evidence-based scientific studies on integrative, alternative and complementary approaches to improving health and wellness.

Topics contain but are not limited to:

  • Acupuncture
  • Acupressure
  • Acupotomy
  • Bioelectromagnetics applications
  • Pharmacological and biological treatments including their efficacy and safety
  • Diet, nutrition and lifestyle changes
  • Herbal medicine
  • Homeopathy
  • Manual healing methods (e.g., massage, physical therapy)
  • Kinesiology
  • Mind/body interventions
  • Preventive medicine
  • Research in integrative medicine
  • Education in integrative medicine
  • Related policies

The journal publishes a variety of article types: Original Research, Review, Communication, Opinion, Comment, Conference Report, Technical Note, Book Review, etc.

There is no restriction on paper length, provided that the text is concise and comprehensive. Authors should present their results in as much detail as possible, as reviewers are encouraged to emphasize scientific rigor and reproducibility.

Publication Speed (median values for papers published in 2023): Submission to First Decision: 5.9 weeks; Submission to Acceptance: 14.7 weeks; Acceptance to Publication: 8 days (1-2 days of FREE language polishing included)

Current Issue: 2024  Archive: 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
Open Access Original Research

On the Relationship Between Teacher Stress, Student Age, and Social-Emotional Competence

Robin Junker *

Institute for Psychology in Education, University of Muenster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149 Münster, Germany

* Correspondence: Robin Junker

Academic Editor: Brandis Ansley

Special Issue: Stress, Burnout, and Trauma in Schools: Coping Strategies for Teachers, Staff, and Students

Received: November 24, 2022 | Accepted: January 20, 2023 | Published: February 01, 2023

OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine 2023, Volume 8, Issue 1, doi:10.21926/obm.icm.2301011

Recommended citation: Junker R. On the Relationship Between Teacher Stress, Student Age, and Social-Emotional Competence. OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine 2023;8(1):15; doi:10.21926/obm.icm.2301011.

© 2023 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is correctly cited.

Abstract

Stress in teaching leads to many teachers suffering from burnout or leaving the profession. Therefore, it is important to identify specific correlates of teacher stress. The role of student age and social-emotional competence in teacher stress emergence is still unclear. To further clarify this relationship, 284 teachers were surveyed using a questionnaire that measured teacher stress, student year grade, and student social-emotional competence. Results show a strong negative relationship between grade level and teacher stress and a positive relationship between variance in students’ social-emotional competence and teacher stress. Social-emotional competence did not moderate between student year grades and teacher stress. Directions for further research and practical implications for teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

Student year grade; student age; social-emotional competence; teacher stress

1. Introduction

Globally, occupational stress in teaching and its influence on the number of teachers leaving the profession, is viewed with growing concern [1,2,3,4,5]. In the US, around 40% of teachers leave their profession in the first five years of teaching [6,7,8]. With the same percentage, Chinese teachers at least consider leaving the profession [9]. Worldwide, teachers report high levels of stress (e.g., [10,11,12]). Compared to other occupational groups, teachers are highly affected by job stress [13,14], which in turn has a negative impact on the quality of instruction. Stressed teachers lack enthusiasm [15], which reduces the amount of student learning [16] and interest [17]. Moreover, they do not have enough resources to be motivating [18,19], again impacting the way the students learn [20]

Teacher stress can be defined as “a response of negative affect (such as anger or depression) by a teacher usually accompanied by potentially pathogenic physiological and biochemical changes […] resulting from aspects of the teacher's job” ([21] p.2). If persisting, and the person is unable to cope with those specific stressors, stress can lead to the symptoms of burnout [22]. Although the emergence of burnout is related to dispositional factors [23,24], occupational and contextual factors should not be neglected, particularly as they are a starting point for intervention. This study aims to examine student age as a factor, which could be related to teacher stress. Since previous studies have found or hypothesized different moderating factors concerning the relationship between the age group of the students and teacher stress, one of those factors, namely students’ social-emotional competence, is included in the analysis.

1.1 Stressors of Teaching

Previous research identifies several occupational correlates of teacher stress, broadly categorized as macro-, meso- and micro-level factors. Macro-level stressors emerge out of wider cultural and (inter-)national changes, meso-level stressors occur in larger social contexts such as schools, and micro-level stressors essentially refer to small social contexts such as classrooms [25,26].

Macro-level stressors for teachers are often interwoven with certain political decisions or movements. Woods and Carlyle [26], for example, identify specific changes in the modern educational system, which they said were “driven by the values of the market, competition, managerialism, heavy-duty accountability, instrumentalism, technical rationality’’ (p. 26). Empirically, these tendencies, evident in, for example, test-based accountability policies, correlate positively with teacher stress [27,28,29].

Meso-level stressors primarily emerge from processes regarding one school as a whole. These include such stressors as a lack of internal support [30], poor leadership, weak communication systems, autocratic decision-making, bullying management styles [26], poor collegial relationships, school culture [31,32,33,34], and poor cooperation with parents [35], university supervisors or field placement offices [36].

Certain stressors also result from an interplay of macro- and meso-level events. These are, for example, class size [37], workload [10,34,36,38,39], lack of opportunities for teacher development, and poor working conditions [40,41].

The major micro-level stressors identified by previous educational research are disruptive-disrespectful student behavior [34,36,39,42,43,44,45,46] and students’ lack of motivation or effort [35,40,43,44,47,48], and poor teacher-student-relationships [34,35,49,50,51,52].

1.2 The Role of Student Age as a Predictor of Teacher Stress

Even though student age is not explicitly mentioned as a specific stressor of teaching in previous studies, it seems reasonable that micro-level stressors like disruptive or disrespectful student behavior or students’ lack of motivation or effort may somehow be associated with their age. Anyway, the extent to which these teaching stressors are becoming more or less intense with increasing student age should be clarified. In turn, student age should be able to statistically predict teacher stress. Yet, although previous studies showed significant results for the association between student age and teacher stress, the results remain inconsistent. For example, Arvidsson et al. [53] investigated a cohort of 310 Swedish teachers of school years 4 to 9 concerning their burnout level, which can be a consequence of chronic stress [54], and the year grades of their students. They found that teachers of the upper grades experienced more burnout symptoms than those of lower grades.

This result was also found by Forlin [55], Saloviita & Pakarinen [56], Schwab & Iwanicki [57] and van Horn et al. [58]. Some studies specifically pointed out, that the burnout facet of depersonalization was higher for teachers teaching older students [55,57]. First, the authors justified the increased stress levels with the fact that teachers in secondary education often have to deal with more students compared to those in primary education. Second, they believe that room and class composition changes, which occur more often in secondary education, can lead to a more frequent occurrence of disciplinary events. Third, it is assumed that arguments with teenagers may be generally more demanding than with younger students [53]. Fourth, other studies show that students’ motivation significantly decreases throughout school life [59,60,61], especially in mathematics [62], which, in turn, could lead to increased stress [35,40,43,44,47,48]. However, some of the above findings may be related to specific national (e.g., Swedish, Finnish, or Australian) educational contexts or strategies and therefore cannot be generalized. These include the increase in class size or the opening of the class community in secondary education.

In contrast, some studies, show that teachers of lower grades experience more stress or burnout. For example, Antoniou et al. [63] examined the stress and burnout levels of 338 teachers in Greece, while associating it with the grade level taught. As a result, primary education teachers showed more stress and burnout symptoms than teachers, occupied in secondary education. In particular, the burnout facet of emotional exhaustion was more pronounced in this group. Similar results were shown by Evers & Tomic [64], Malik et al. [65] and von der Embse et al. [29]. There could be several possible explanations for these results. Over the years, children and adolescents internalize and feel more self-conscious, and moral emotions such as guilt. These emotions function as negative markers to predict the negative consequences of one’s potentially aggressive behaviors [66].

Moreover, they show a dramatic increase in verbal skills [67] and coping strategies, especially emotion-focused coping abilities [68,69]. Additionally, children and adolescents show more empathy and sympathy towards others while advancing their social-emotional development, especially if they have been educated in emotionally nurturing environments. These social-emotional factors may thus reduce the frequency and intensity of students’ aggression [66] and classroom management demands [70], which would, in turn, reduce teacher stress [34,36,39,42,43,44,45,46]. However, studies have shown, that the positive effect of student age on teacher stress can easily be reduced or erased if the social-emotional competencies of one or more individuals in the class negatively deviate from the average level of their specific age [56].

1.3 The Present Study

The present study examines whether student age is associated with teacher stress. As mentioned above, there are convincing arguments and empirical evidence for both a positive and a negative correlation between teacher stress and student age. Thus, we have no directional expectation, only the goal of providing more detailed information on this relationship. Moreover, this study shall explore to what extent students’ social-emotional development moderates the relationship between student age and teacher stress. When a negative relationship between these two variables is found, social-emotional competence is assumed to negatively influence this relationship. Thus, the suggested association between student age and teacher stress should be less negative when the students' social-emotional competence is high. If student social-emotional competence is low, the negative correlation between student age and teacher stress should become stronger.

2. Methods

2.1 Participants and Procedure

A total of 52 German school administrators were asked whether a digital inquiry of their teaching staff would be possible. Of these, 44 school principals agreed to the survey and forwarded it to their staff. Teachers had to complete the survey within two weeks. As a result, 284 teachers completed the survey.

78.5% (N = 223) of the teachers were female, 20.1% (N = 57) were male, and 1.4% (N = 4) of the teacher did not give a response regarding their gender. A great number of the teachers were in secondary education (N = 128, 45.1%), which could be divided into a high track (N = 36, 12.7%), low track (N = 37, 13%), and mixed track (N = 55, 19.4%). Moreover, 110 (38.7%) teachers from primary and 27 (9.5%) teachers from tertiary education participated. The remaining teachers (N = 15, 5.3%) worked in other kinds of schools (e.g., special needs schools). The teachers had an average work experience of 13.5 years (SD = 9.3 years). Data on the age of the teachers was not collected because in Germany this is rather sensible data and we assumed that most of the age effects could be explained by the variable of work experience. For better orientation, however, it is noted that the average age of teachers in Germany when they enter the profession is 30.8 years [71]. So that the meaningful work experience can be summed up with this starting age to estimate the age of the participants (M ≈ 44.3 years).

The teachers were asked to complete an online questionnaire administered via unipark (https://www.unipark.com/) and required 12 minutes on average for completion.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 Teacher Stress

To measure teacher stress, the German short version of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ-20) was used [72]. This is based on the English version developed by Levenstein & colleagues [73] and contains 20 items, which can be subsumed into the four subscales of worries (e.g., “I was afraid of the future.”), tension (e.g., “I had trouble relaxing.”), joy (e.g., “I was full of energy.”) and demands (e.g., “I felt that too many requests were being made to me.”). Looking retrospectively at the last four weeks, the teachers were required to evaluate the items on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = usually). All positively formulated items were reversed to calculate the person-specific overall stress score. Then, the mean of all items was determined.

In the validation study of Fliege et al. [74], the questionnaire was validated on a sample of 650 participants. Concerning the subscales, internal consistency values of Cronbach’s Alpha between α = 0.80 (“demands”) and α = 0.86 (“worries”) were reached in the validation study. Overall, the questionnaire showed an internal consistency of α = 0.85.

2.2.2 Student Age and Teacher-Perceived Social-Emotional Competence

We gave the following instruction to measure students' characteristics: "The following statements refer to a single class. Please imagine the class in which you teach the most.” Next, we asked for the year grade of this class as an indicator of the student's average age. Student grade can be used as equivalent to student age because these variables correlate almost perfectly (e.g., r = 0.89, p < 0.001 in [75]). In the German Education system, students start with year grade 1 when they are six years old, whereas they are around 18 when they enter the 13th year grade.

To measure the student's social-emotional competence, we used two items, which should give information about (1) the level and (2) the variance of their social-emotional skills. The first item included the statement “the average development of social-emotional competencies of the students in my class about their grade and their type of school is as follows” and the response options of “substantially delayed” (1), “slightly delayed” (2), “adequate” (3), “slightly ahead” (4), and “substantially ahead” (5). The second item contended the statement „the social-emotional competencies of the students in my class are” and the response options “very different” (1), “rather different” (2), “rather similar” (3), and “very similar” (4).

2.3 Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated with IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0.1.1. We also used SPSS to examine regression and moderation effects with the add-on PROCESS v. 3.5.

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The descriptive statistics in Table 1 reveal that students' average year grade was 6.03 (corresponding age ≈ 12) with a minimum of 1 (age ≈ 6) and a maximum of 13 (age ≈ 18). Moreover, the table shows that students’ social-emotional competence was evaluated as slightly delayed (2 = “slightly delayed”). However, within the learning groups, social-emotional competence was evaluated as similar (3 = “rather similar”). Concerning the stress components teachers described experiencing stress, especially in response to external factors (high demands). Internal factors like worries or tensions were only felt sometimes (2 = “sometimes”). Nevertheless, the overall stress score (also including the inverted joy values) was medium to rather low. However, all the stress variables showed great variance across teachers.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics.

Table 2 shows the correlations between all examined variables. Associations between the four sub-facets of stress were in line with our expectations. The students’ social-emotional competence levels correlated positively with its variance and their age. Moreover, persons teaching in higher grades experienced less stress, whereas teachers from lower grades experienced greater stress. Figure 1 shows this correlation in more detail concerning the student year grades.

Click to view original image

Figure 1 Relationship between teacher stress and students’ year grades (Pearson’s r = -0.25).

There were also small negative correlations between social-emotional competence levels and worries as well as demands. Additionally, we found small negative correlations between the variance of social-emotional competence and worries, tension, and demands.

Table 2 Correlations Between Students’ Year Grades, Social-Emotional Competence, and Teacher Stress.

3.2 Regression and Moderation

The following results show how students’ social-emotional competence moderated the relationship between their age and teacher stress. We conducted three models, which used (1) the level of social-emotional competence, (2) the variance of social-emotional competence, and (3) the product of level and variance as moderators between students' age and teacher stress. Table 3 shows the results of these three models. Model 1 explained 6% of the data (R² = 0.06). Students' age (year grade) was significantly related to teacher stress but the level of social-emotional competence and the interaction of both variables were not.

Table 3 Regression of Teacher Stress Using Students’ Level of Social-emotional Competence, Students’ Variance of Social-Emotional Competence, and Their Year Grade as Predictors.

The second model explained 9% of the data (R² = 0.09). Again, the year grade of the students was significantly related to teacher stress. Additionally, student variance of social-emotional competence was associated with the experience of stress, whereas the interaction of both variables was not. The third model explained 7% of the data (R² = 0.07). Like in the models above, student year grade was significantly associated with teacher stress. However, the product of student variance and levels of social-emotional competence, as well as the interaction term, were not significantly related to teacher stress. All three models were also applied to the sub-facets of teacher stress. The results showed no significant interactions. In every regression, student year grade was highly significantly related to the sub-facets of teacher stress. Moreover, the variance of student social-emotional competence was associated with the teachers’ worries (t = -2.66, p = 0.008), tension (t = -2.23, p = 0.02), and demands (t = -3.08, p = 0.002). The b- and t-values were negative because of the negative polarity of student social-emotional competence (see method section).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to examine, whether student age is associated with teacher stress. Previous empirical results and theoretical considerations led to two different rationales that argued for positive and negative relationships between those variables. In our study, we found a clear negative relationship between student year grade as an indicator of student age and teacher stress level as well as on all its sub-facets: worries, tension, demands, and joy (positive relationship).

This finding is in line with earlier studies conducted by Antoniou et al. [63], Evers & Tomic [64], Malik et al. [65], and von der Embse et al. [29]. It strengthens the assumption that younger students, because they have less differentiated moral emotions [66] and verbal skills [67] and have learned fewer emotion-focused coping strategies [68,69], are more likely to engage in disruptive or aggressive behaviors [66]. This may increase classroom management demands [70] and thus lead to more frequent and intense teacher stress [34,36,39,42,43,44,45,46].

Due to the crucial role of social-emotional development [56], we assumed that social-emotional development might have a moderating effect on the relationship between student age and teacher stress. However, contrary to our assumption, we could not find the expected moderation effect. Instead, we were able to find a clear direct association between the variance of student social-emotional development within the class and teacher stress (as well as its negative sub-facets).

However, a significant correlation between the variance of social-emotional competencies and student year grade could not be found. In other words, these results hint at teachers experiencing less stress in the classroom with increased age and reduced social-emotional variance. This means that elementary school teachers with students who exhibit high social-emotional variance experience the most stress.

4.1 Limitations

This study has several methodological limitations. First, for anonymity reasons, we have not been able to assign which teachers came from which school; thus, we can neither exclude nor assess the effect of the school level [76].

Second, all measurement methods were self-assessments. The usual measurement errors, such as acquiescence [77] or social desirability [78], must be considered when interpreting the results. Some teachers might have rated themselves less stressed because they pretend to be resilient. At the same time, studies are arguing for the validity of teacher self-assessments. For example, Rathmann and colleagues [79] found a strong relationship between teachers' self-reported classroom climate and life satisfaction. Third, for reasons of time economy, student social-emotional competence was only measured using two items. It is questionable whether a construct containing many different facets, such as expressing, receiving, and managing emotions [80] or forming and maintaining social interactions and relationships [81], can be represented in such a simple way. Although there are findings that show that single items can be eligible to substitute multiple-item scales [82], a subdivision into sub-facets would have been interesting here to explore the correlations in more detail. In addition, the measurement of a strongly interpersonal construct such as social-emotional competence remained limited to the teachers' perspective since the viewpoints of the students and external observers were not assessed.

4.2 Implications and Further Directions

Beyond its limitations, this study might, allow us to derive directions and implications for further research and practice. First, we should address why teachers rated student social-emotional competence as “slightly delayed." There is evidence that this rating indicates an increased need for student social-emotional learning [83] and not a distorted perception due to increased teacher stress. This can be concluded from the fact that teachers could cope with low levels of social-emotional competence, but had difficulty when social-emotional competence was highly variable. This opens the question of whether teachers may have been exposed to increased stress levels due to the variety of programs addressing inclusive schooling [84], teachers may have been exposed to increased stress levels. Here, supplemental staff could be a strategy to decrease stress levels in demanding environments due to the increase in social resources [85]. This staff could, for example, consist of school counselors, school psychologists, and social workers who support schools and teachers in diagnosing and promoting student social-emotional competence by developing and applying specific screening procedures and interventions [86]. At the same time, the findings highlight the role of teachers' social-emotional competence [87] and knowledge [88]. This competence, which mainly consists of teacher emotion regulation and relationship management should be measured and promoted adequately in teacher education [89].

The need to build up such competence might, at the same time, be related to the particular type of school a teacher works at, as some school types may hold more variance in terms of their students' social-emotional competence. Accordingly, teachers would need to be better prepared against stress (through learning social-emotional knowledge and skills), especially in those school types, where students are young and socially-emotionally heterogeneous. However, since this study is correlational, we cannot rule out the possibility of a self-selection effect on the teachers’ side. Perhaps more stress-prone young adults are more likely to choose a teaching profession in which younger and perhaps more socially and emotionally unstable students are educated. For example, Denzler & Wolter [90] found that teachers who teach younger students have a higher need for social connection compared to others. This could hint at a dependency on social harmony and make younger students' teachers more vulnerable to (social) stress. Following this rationale, these teachers should be specially trained regarding their coping with stress.

Yet, the results discussed here are only based on self-assessments and should, therefore, optimally be complemented by other methods, such as psychophysiological measurement methods for stress [48] or observational procedures for social-emotional competence [91], in order to obtain a corresponding broader picture of the situation and to further emphasize possible practical implications. If the results presented could be strengthened by additional data, there would be an increased need to focus on dealing with social-emotional variability in early grades in the context of teacher education. Appropriate knowledge and classroom management skills would contribute to this. In addition to knowledge and skills related to social-emotional competence, these teachers should have the opportunity to learn appropriate relaxation methods for their everyday work [92]. Finally, the role of student age and social-emotional competence in the development of teacher stress needs further research. In particular, it would be useful to conduct experimental studies to draw more precise conclusions about causal relationships. Moreover, more insights are needed concerning whether some schools have more variance in social-emotional competence than others and how this distribution is related to inequities in student socioeconomic status or family involvement.

Author Contributions

The author did all the research work of this study.

Competing Interests

The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Brunsting NC, Sreckovic MA, Lane KL. Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Educ Treat Children. 2014; 37: 681-711. [CrossRef]
  2. Ingersoll RM. Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. Am Educ Res J. 2001; 38: 499-534. [CrossRef]
  3. Kyriacou C. Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educ Rev. 2001; 53: 27-35. [CrossRef]
  4. Teaching NCO, Future AS. What matters most: Teaching for America's future: Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. New York: The Commission; 1996.
  5. Schlichte J, Yssel N, Merbler J. Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher isolation and alienation. Prev Sch Fail. 2005; 50: 35-40. [CrossRef]
  6. Player D, Youngs P, Perrone F, Grogan E. How principal leadership and person-job fit are associated with teacher mobility and attrition. Teach Teach Educ. 2017; 67: 330-339. [CrossRef]
  7. Reeves PM, Pun WH, Chung KS. Influence of teacher collaboration on job satisfaction and student achievement. Teach Teach Educ. 2017; 67: 227-236. [CrossRef]
  8. Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy: Relations and consequences. In: Educator stress. Springer; 2017. pp. 101-125. [CrossRef]
  9. Liu S, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Chinese teachers’ work stress and their turnover intention. Int J Educ Res. 2012; 53: 160-170. [CrossRef]
  10. Chaplain RP. Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educ Psychol. 2008; 28: 195-209. [CrossRef]
  11. Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in the teaching profession-what do teachers say? Int Educ Stud. 2015; 8: 181-192. [CrossRef]
  12. Vargas Rubilar N, Oros LB. Stress and burnout in teachers during times of pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 756007. [CrossRef]
  13. Johnson S, Cooper C, Cartwright S, Donald I, Taylor P, Millet C. The experience of work‐related stress across occupations. J Manag Psychol. 2005; 20: 178-187. [CrossRef]
  14. Scheuch K, Haufe E, Seibt R. Teachers’ health. Dtsch Ärztebl Int. 2015; 112: 347-356. [CrossRef]
  15. Keller MM, Hoy AW, Goetz T, Frenzel AC. Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educ Psychol Rev. 2016; 28: 743-769. [CrossRef]
  16. Moè A, Frenzel AC, Au L, Taxer JL. Displayed enthusiasm attracts attention and improves recall. Br J Educ Psychol. 2021; 91: 911-927. [CrossRef]
  17. Keller MM, Goetz T, Becker ES, Morger V, Hensley L. Feeling and showing: A new conceptualization of dispositional teacher enthusiasm and its relation to students' interest. Learn Instr. 2014; 33: 29-38. [CrossRef]
  18. Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Haerens L, Soenens B, Fontaine JR, Reeve J. Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. J Educ Psychol. 2019; 111: 497-521. [CrossRef]
  19. Moè A, Consiglio P, Katz I. Exploring the circumplex model of motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The role of teacher need satisfaction and need frustration. Teach Teach Educ. 2022; 118: 103823. [CrossRef]
  20. De Beni R, Moè A. Imagery and rehearsal as study strategies for written or orally presented passages. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003; 10: 975-980. [CrossRef]
  21. Kyriacou C, Sutcliffe J. Teacher stress: Prevalence, sources, and symptoms. Br J Educ Psychol. 1978; 48: 159-167. [CrossRef]
  22. Mustafa OM. Health behaviors and personality in burnout: A third dimension. Medical Educ Onlin. 2015; 20: 28187. [CrossRef]
  23. Alarcon G, Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA. Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work Stress. 2009; 23: 244-263. [CrossRef]
  24. Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav. 2010; 76: 487-506. [CrossRef]
  25. Blalock HM. Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1979.
  26. Woods P, Carlyle D. Teacher identities under stress: The emotions of separation and renewal. Int Stud Sociol Educ. 2002; 12: 169-190. [CrossRef]
  27. Darling-Hammond L, Sykes G. Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the" highly qualified teacher" challenge. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2003; 11: 33. [CrossRef]
  28. Ryan SV, Nathaniel P, Pendergast LL, Saeki E, Segool N, Schwing S. Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teach Teach Educ. 2017; 66: 1-11. [CrossRef]
  29. Von der Embse NP, Schoemann AM, Kilgus SP, Wicoff M, Bowler M. The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional practices: A moderated mediation model. Educ Psychol. 2017; 37: 312-331. [CrossRef]
  30. Certo JL, Fox JE. Retaining quality teachers. High Sch J. 2002; 86: 57-75. [CrossRef]
  31. Butt G, Lance A, Fielding A, Gunter H, Rayner S, Thomas H. Teacher job satisfaction: Lessons from the TSW pathfinder project. Sch Leadersh Manag. 2005; 25: 455-471. [CrossRef]
  32. Collie RJ, Shapka JD, Perry NE. School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. J Educ Psychol. 2012; 104: 1189-1204. [CrossRef]
  33. De Nobile JJ, McCormick J. Job satisfaction and occupational stress in Catholic primary schools: Implications for school leadership. Lead Manag. 2007; 13: 31-48.
  34. Harmsen R, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R, Van Veen K. The relationship between beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behaviour and attrition. Teach Teach. 2018; 24: 626-643. [CrossRef]
  35. Grayson JL, Alvarez HK. School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teach Teach Educ. 2008; 24: 1349-1363. [CrossRef]
  36. Paquette KR, Rieg SA. Stressors and coping strategies through the lens of early childhood/special education pre-service teachers. Teach Teach Educ. 2016; 57: 51-58. [CrossRef]
  37. Schutz PA, Zembylas M. Introduction to advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives. In: Advances in teacher emotion research. Springer; 2009. pp. 3-11. [CrossRef]
  38. Fussangel K, Dizinger V. The challenge of change? The development of all-day schools and its implications for teacher stress. J Educ Res Online. 2014; 6: 115-133.
  39. Klassen RM, Chiu MM. Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. J Educ Psychol. 2010; 102: 741-756. [CrossRef]
  40. Buchanan J. May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific J Educ. 2010; 30: 199-211. [CrossRef]
  41. Gonzalez LE, Brown MS, Slate JR. Teachers who left the teaching profession: A qualitative understanding. Qual Rep. 2008; 13: 1-11.
  42. Aloe AM, Amo LC, Shanahan ME. Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. 2014; 26: 101-126. [CrossRef]
  43. Becker ES, Keller MM, Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Taxer JL. Antecedents of teachers’ emotions in the classroom: An intraindividual approach. Front Psychol. 2015; 6: 635. [CrossRef]
  44. Benmansour N. Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies among Moroccan high school teachers. Mediterr J Educ Stud. 1998; 3: 13-33.
  45. Clunies‐Ross P, Little E, Kienhuis M. Self‐reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educ Psychol. 2008; 28: 693-710. [CrossRef]
  46. Dicke T, Parker PD, Marsh HW, Kunter M, Schmeck A, Leutner D. Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. J Educ Psychol. 2014; 106: 569-583. [CrossRef]
  47. Geving AM. Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress. Teach Teach Educ. 2007; 23: 624-640. [CrossRef]
  48. Junker R, Donker MH, Mainhard T. Potential classroom stressors of teachers: An audiovisual and physiological approach. Learn Instr. 2021; 75: 101495. [CrossRef]
  49. Aldrup K, Klusmann U, Lüdtke O. Does basic need satisfaction mediate the link between stress exposure and well-being? A diary study among beginning teachers. Learn Instr. 2017; 50: 21-30. [CrossRef]
  50. Aldrup K, Klusmann U, Lüdtke O, Göllner R, Trautwein U. Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learn Instr. 2018; 58: 126-136. [CrossRef]
  51. Klassen RM, Perry NE, Frenzel AC. Teachers' relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers' basic psychological needs. J Educ Psychol. 2012; 104: 150-165. [CrossRef]
  52. Spilt JL, Koomen HM, Thijs JT. Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educ Psychol Rev. 2011; 23: 457-477. [CrossRef]
  53. Arvidsson I, Håkansson C, Karlson B, Björk J, Persson R. Burnout among Swedish school teachers–a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16: 1-11. [CrossRef]
  54. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2016; 15: 103-111. [CrossRef]
  55. Forlin C. Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educ Res. 2001; 43: 235-245. [CrossRef]
  56. Saloviita T, Pakarinen E. Teacher burnout explained: Teacher-, student-, and organisation-level variables. Teach Teach Educ. 2021; 97: 103221. [CrossRef]
  57. Schwab RL, Iwanicki EF. Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher burnout. Educ Adm Q. 1982; 18: 60-74. [CrossRef]
  58. Van Horn JE, Schaufeli WB, Greenglass ER, Burke RJ. A Canadian-Dutch comparison of teachers' burnout. Psychol Rep. 1997; 81: 371-382. [CrossRef]
  59. Garon‐Carrier G, Boivin M, Guay F, Kovas Y, Dionne G, Lemelin JP, et al. Intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics in elementary school: A longitudinal investigation of their association. Child Dev. 2016; 87: 165-175. [CrossRef]
  60. Gnambs T, Hanfstingl B. The decline of academic motivation during adolescence: An accelerated longitudinal cohort analysis on the effect of psychological need satisfaction. Educ Psychol. 2016; 36: 1691-1705. [CrossRef]
  61. Hustinx PW, Kuyper H, van der Werf MP, Dijkstra P. Achievement motivation revisited: New longitudinal data to demonstrate its predictive power. Educ Psychol. 2009; 29: 561-582. [CrossRef]
  62. Gottfried AE, Fleming JS, Gottfried AW. Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. J Educ Psychol. 2001; 93: 3-13. [CrossRef]
  63. Antoniou A-S, Ploumpi A, Ntalla M. Occupational stress and professional burnout in teachers of primary and secondary education: The role of coping strategies. Psychology. 2013; 4: 349-355. [CrossRef]
  64. Evers WJ, Tomic W. Students' perceptions of the incidence of burn-out among their teachers. Res Educ. 2003; 69: 1-15. [CrossRef]
  65. Malik JL, Mueller RO, Meinke DL. The effects of teaching experience and grade level taught on teacher stress: A LISREL analysis. Teach Teach Educ. 1991; 7: 57-62. [CrossRef]
  66. Malti T, Song KH. Socio-emotional development and aggression. In: Handbook of Child and Adolescent Aggression. The Guilford Press; 2018. pp. 127-144.
  67. Nussbaum JF, Pecchioni LL, Baringer DK, Kundrat AL. Lifespan communication. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2002; 26: 366-389. [CrossRef]
  68. Aldwin CM, Skinner EA, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Taylor AL. Coping and self-regulation across the life span. In: Handbook of life-span development. Springer; 2011. pp. 563-587. [CrossRef]
  69. Denham SA, Wyatt T, Bassett HH, Echeverria D, Knox S. Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective. J Epidemiology Community Health. 2009; 63: i37-i52. [CrossRef]
  70. Doyle W. Classroom management techniques and student discipline: Paper prepared for the student discipline strategies project. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 1986.
  71. Frein T, Möller G, Petermann A, Wilpricht M. Das Alter von Lehrkräfte in NRW–Teil 2. SchulVerwaltung NRW. 2007; 5: 60-61.
  72. Fliege H, Rose M, Arck P, Levenstein S, Klapp BF. PSQ-perceived stress questionnaire. Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID); 2009.
  73. Levenstein S, Prantera C, Varvo V, Scribano ML, Berto E, Luzi C, et al. Development of the perceived stress questionnaire: A new tool for psychosomatic research. J Psychosom Res. 1993; 37: 19-32. [CrossRef]
  74. Fliege H, Rose M, Arck P, Levenstein S, Klapp BF. Validierung des “Perceived Stress Questionnaire”(PSQ) an einer deutschen Stichprobe. Validation of the “Perceived Stress Questionnaire”(PSQ) in a German cohort. Diagnostica. 2001; 47: 142-152. [CrossRef]
  75. Şentürk HE. The factors affecting faculty of sport sciences students' attitudes towards sports. Univers J Educ Res. 2019; 7: 272-277. [CrossRef]
  76. Lee VE, Bryk AS. A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociol Educ. 1989: 172-192. [CrossRef]
  77. Watson D. Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale: An application to class consciousness. Sociol Methods Res. 1992; 21: 52-88. [CrossRef]
  78. Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985; 15: 263-280. [CrossRef]
  79. Rathmann K, Herke MG, Hurrelmann K, Richter M. Perceived class climate and school-aged children's life satisfaction: The role of the learning environment in classrooms. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0189335. [CrossRef]
  80. Clarke-Stewart A, Parke RS. Social development. Wiley; 2014.
  81. Han HS, Kemple KM. Components of social competence and strategies of support: Considering what to teach and how. Early Child Educ J. 2006; 34: 241-246. [CrossRef]
  82. Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas. 1998; 58: 898-915. [CrossRef]
  83. Oliveira S, Roberto MS, Pereira NS, Marques-Pinto A, Veiga-Simão AM. Impacts of social and emotional learning interventions for teachers on teachers' outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 677217. [CrossRef]
  84. Sturm T. Constructing and addressing differences in inclusive schooling–comparing cases from Germany, Norway and the United States. Int J Incl Educ. 2019; 23: 656-669. [CrossRef]
  85. Granziera H, Collie R, Martin A. Understanding teacher wellbeing through job demands-resources theory. In: Cultivating teacher resilience. Springer, Singapore; 2021. pp. 229-244. [CrossRef]
  86. Maras MA, Thompson AM, Lewis C, Thornburg K, Hawks J. Developing a tiered response model for social-emotional learning through interdisciplinary collaboration. J Educ Psychol Consult. 2015; 25: 198-223. [CrossRef]
  87. Jennings PA, Greenberg MT. The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Rev Educ Res. 2009; 79: 491-525. [CrossRef]
  88. Buchanan R, Gueldner BA, Tran OK, Merrell KW. Social and emotional learning in classrooms: A survey of teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices. J Appl Sch Psychol. 2009; 25: 187-203. [CrossRef]
  89. Aldrup K, Carstensen B, Köller MM, Klusmann U. Measuring teachers’ social-emotional competence: Development and validation of a situational judgment test. Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 892. [CrossRef]
  90. Denzler S, Wolter SC. Selbstselektion bei der wahl eines lehramtsstudiums: Zum zusammenspiel individueller und institutioneller faktoren. Self-selection in choosing a teacher education program: On the interplay of individual and institutional factors. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung. 2008; 30: 112-141.
  91. Martinsone B, Supe I, Stokenberga I, Damberga I, Cefai C, Camilleri L, et al. Social emotional competence, learning outcomes, emotional and behavioral difficulties of preschool children: Parent and teacher evaluations. Front Psychol. 2022; 12: 760782. [CrossRef]
  92. Flook L, Goldberg SB, Pinger L, Bonus K, Davidson RJ. Mindfulness for teachers: A pilot study to assess effects on stress, burnout, and teaching efficacy. Mind Brain Educ. 2013; 7: 182-195. [CrossRef]
Newsletter
Download PDF Download Full-Text XML Download Citation
0 0
Newsletter  

TOP