Exploring the Relation Between Teacher Self-efficacy and Burnout:
A Literature Review
Arwen Vis
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Debora Roorda Student number: 10222502
Bachelor thesis Pedagogical Sciences 5498 words
Abstract
This literature review investigates the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout. Studies among primary and secondary school teachers, conducted in countries all over the world in the past five years are included. A direct relationship is found between teacher self-efficacy and burnout. Effect sizes vary from small to large across studies and dimensions of burnout, but the direction of the relationship is the same for all studies - teacher self-efficacy protects against the development of burnout. Also, an indirect relationship is found in which teacher self-efficacy influences a variable that in turn influences the development of burnout. Variables through which burnout is influenced by teacher self-efficacy are coping strategies, student behavior stressors, instructional management, and job stressors. Mediation was not investigated for either of these variables. Future research should focus on the different outcomes across studies and the dimensions of burnout. The differences between teacher self-efficacy questionnaires and their implications for research outcomes should be investigated as well. And most important, a longitudinal study should be conducted, to be able to draw conclusions on causality. Last, teacher self-efficacy is important in preventing from developing burnout, and interventions should be developed to improve teacher self-efficacy.
Contents
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Burnout 4
What is the direct relation between teacher self-efficacy and burnout? 6 What is the indirect relation between teacher self-efficacy and burnout? 12
Discussion 15
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Burnout
Being a teacher is one of the most burdensome jobs. It is among the six occupations with worse than average scores on physical and psychological well-being, has one of the lowest levels of job satisfaction, and is known as a stressful job (Johnson et al., 2005; Hupkens, 2005). Related to this is the high number of teachers that develop burnout and/or quit the profession prematurely (Brouwer & Tomic, 2000; Aloe, Amo, & Shanahan, 2014). An estimated 25% of first-year teachers in the United States leave the profession in their first 3 years, rising to a startling 40% in the first 5 years (Chang, 2009). This trend is found across many countries and thus seems to be an international problem (Hong, 2010). Also, burnout is not only a problem for starting teachers, but is found in every stage of teachers' careers and teachers with both higher and lower levels of burnout are more likely to quit the profession (Aloe et al., 2014). Burnout is a pervasive problem in the educational world, leaving schools in a constant search for teachers to fill their vacancies. Burnout is thus an internationally known problem, influencing the educational system and the lives of many teachers and their pupils.
The concept of job burnout first emerged in the 1970s and seemed to capture a common experience of people in the working force (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). Even before scientific psychology identified the term, people in the working force used it to describe feelings of draining energy. It was after the term gained popularity in the working force that scientific psychology started investigating the phenomenon, and so it gained today's status of an established medical diagnosis. The dominant instrument to assess burnout, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), offers a
three-dimensional description of burnout. This instrument distinguishes between emotional exhaustion, depersonalization or cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Although other definitions and measures for burnout do exist, such as the Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), the three-dimensional definition with the MBI as measure remains the dominant one for burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2009).
depleted of emotional resources (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). An example item of this dimension is ''I feel like I am at the end of my rope.'' The second dimension of depersonalization refers to negative, cynical attitudes and feelings towards students and colleagues (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). An example item is ''I feel I treat some students as if they were impersonal objects.'' The third dimension of reduced personal accomplishment is defined as a general feeling that the teacher is no longer doing an important job, as well as a negative evaluation of the self. An example item is ''I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything.'' Although the dimension actually is 'reduced personal accomplishment', a negative construct, some research makes use of the positive term 'personal accomplishment'. In order to avoid confusion, it will be made clear whether the positive or negative construct has been used in each study, and how the relationship needs to be interpreted. A growing body of research suggests that the (the tree dimensions of) burnout are affected by teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).
Self-efficacy is a concept first developed by Albert Bandura, and can be described as an individual's personal judgment of ''how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations'' (Bandura, 1982, p. 1). Self-efficacy thus, is influenced by the self-evaluation of the individual's performances and in turn influences the individual's subsequent performances
(Bandura, 1982; Pajares, 1996). According to Friedman and Kass (2002) teacher self-efficacy (TSE) can be defined as:
The teacher's perception of his or her ability to (a) perform required professional tasks and to regulate relations involved in the process of teacher in educating students (classroom self-efficacy), and (b) perform organizational tasks, become part of the organization and its political and social processes (organizational self-efficacy). (p. 684).
The focus in this review will be on what Friedman and Kass (2002) named classroom self-efficacy (CSE). Previous research makes use of different operationalizations of TSE. Some articles for
example make a distinction between different categories of TSE, which will then be described. All of these operationalizations however fit into the above classification of classroom self-efficacy.
burnout (e.g. Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), consensus on what this relationship exactly looks like has not been reached. In addition, some articles imply that the
relationship may not exist at all, since both constructs increase over time any way (Pas, Bradshaw, & Hershfeldt, 2012). In order to provide insight in what previous research has found in this field, the main question in this literature review is: 'What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout?' Looking at the literature, both direct and indirect relationships can be found (e.g. Khani & Mirzaee, 2014; Yu, Wang, Zhai, Dai, & Yang, 2014). Therefore, the first question will be: 'What is the direct relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout?' The second question will be: 'What is the indirect relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout?' These two questions will, when possible, be answered separately for the three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and (reduced) personal accomplishment.
Both primary and secondary education teachers are included in the present study. No pre-service teachers have been included, for previous research shows that their perception of TSE changes during the course of their internships, following a different pattern than in-service teachers' self-efficacy (Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). Studies performed in countries all over the world in the past five years were included. In order to assess the magnitude of correlations found in previous research, Cohen's (1977) criteria for interpreting effect sizes were used: an r of .10 is considered to be 'small', an r of .30 is considered 'moderate', and an r of .50 is considered 'large'. Effect sizes that are in between these values are described as 'small to moderate' when r is between .20 and .30. When r is between .40 and .50, this will be described as a 'moderate to large' effect size. Keywords used for searching literature were 'teacher self-efficacy, 'burnout', 'relation', 'association', 'indirect', 'direct', 'depersonalization', 'emotional exhaustion', and 'personal accomplishment'.
What is the direct relation between teacher self-efficacy and burnout?
This section describes research that found a direct relationship between self-efficacy and burnout. As noted before, most research makes use of the MBI (Maslach et al., 1996; Schaufeli et al., 2009) as a measure for professional burnout. If a different scale has been used to assess burnout, this
will be mentioned specifically. For measuring TSE on the other hand, a great variety of questionnaires exists: in the past five years, five different questionnaires were found. Therefore, studies will be organized based on the questionnaire that was used to measure TSE. First of all, however, a meta-analysis will be described.
Aloe and colleagues (2014) performed a meta-analysis on the relation between classroom management self-efficacy (CMSE) and the three dimensions of burnout. In this meta-analysis, CMSE is described as the extent to which a teacher feels that he can to control disruptive behavior, is calming and responding to defiant students, and can establish a routine and order so that learning activities run smoothly. All studies in the meta-analysis used the MBI to measure burnout, whereas studies varied in the questionnaires that they used to measure CMSE. The only criterion was that articles should
provide data on CMSE specifically. The different instruments that will be described in this literature review were included in this meta-analysis as well. The meta-analysis consisted of 16 studies, which were conducted in the USA (8), the Netherlands (3), Israel (2), Turkey (1) Norway (1) and Spain (1), among teachers in primary and secondary education. Over all these studies, Aloe and colleagues (2014) found a significant effect of CMSE on all three dimensions of burnout. For emotional
exhaustion a negative relation with a small to moderate effect size was found (r = -0.27, p < .05). For depersonalization a negative relation with a moderate effect size was found (r = -0.32, p < .05). This implies that a high score in TSE predicts a low score on both the emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization dimension of burnout. For personal accomplishment a positive relation of moderate to large effect size was found (r = 0.43, p < .05). In this study personal accomplishment was measured as a positive construct. The relation that Aloe and colleagues (2014) found implies that a high score in TSE predicts a high score on personal accomplishment, and thus a low score on the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout.
The following set of studies made use of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) to measure TSE (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). This self-administered questionnaire consists of 10 items, measuring TSE as a one-dimensional construct. All ten items refer to successful coping, and the scale is not specifically meant for the teaching profession. An example item is ''I am confident that I could
deal efficiently with unexpected events''.
Brudnik (2009) made use of the GSES in a sample of 404 Polish primary and secondary school teachers. All three dimensions of the MBI were assessed. She found a small to moderate relationship between TSE and emotional exhaustion (r = -.28, p < .01). Between TSE and
depersonalization a small effect size was found (r = -.18, p < .01). For the relation between TSE and personal accomplishment a moderate to large effect size was found (r = -.40, p < .01). In this case the relationship with personal accomplishment is negative, for they considered this dimension as a negative construct. A high score in TSE thus predicts a low score on the reduced personal
accomplishment dimension of burnout. Besides these general results for all teachers in their sample, this article makes a distinction between teachers teaching different subjects.
For physical education teachers a relation between TSE and all three dimensions was found (emotional exhaustion: r = -.51, p < .01; personal accomplishment: r = -.53, p < .01;
depersonalization: r = -.46, p < .01). For natural science teachers and science teachers a relationship between TSE and personal accomplishment was found (r = -.28, p < .05; r = -.51, p < .01). For foreign language teachers only a relationship between TSE and emotional exhaustion was found (r = -.27, p < .01). Last, teachers in humanities showed a relationship with both emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment (r = -.24, p < .01; r = -.43, p < .01). Although all the relations are negative, teachers across different subjects show different relationships between their self-efficacy and the three dimensions of burnout.
Yu and colleagues (2014) made use of the GSES as well, in a sample of 387 Chinese middle school teachers. In their results they did not make a distinction between the different dimensions of burnout, even though they did make use of the MBI. The results show a moderate effect size of TSE on burnout (r = -.34, p < .01). The direction of this relation is the same as Brudnik (2009) found: a low score of TSE predicts a high score on burnout.
A second set of studies makes use of the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES), developed by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007). In the past five years this questionnaire was used in two studies. This questionnaire consists of six sub-scales, with four questions each, that provide a score for
TSE together. These six sub-scales are: instruction, adapting education to individual student's needs, motivating students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges. An example of an item measuring TSE in the NTSES is ''How certain are you that you can provide realistic challenges for all students even in mixed ability classes?''
Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) used this questionnaire in a study with 2249 primary and secondary school teachers. Following Schaufeli and Salanova (2007), Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) regarded emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as the central elements of burnout and only investigated TSE in relation to these two dimensions. For more information on why personal
accomplishment may not be a central element of burnout, the article of Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) may be consulted. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) found a negative relation with a small to moderate effect size between TSE and emotional exhaustion (r = -.29). A similar relation with a moderate to large effect size was found for TSE and depersonalization (r = -.49). Unfortunately, p-values were not given in the article although the authors claim that these relations are all significant.
Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) performed a second study which also used the NTSES to measure TSE. In this study, 2569 Norwegian primary and secondary teachers participated. This time, only the relationship between TSE and the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout was
investigated. As in their previous study, they found a small to moderate negative relation between TSE and emotional exhaustion (r = -0.23, p < .01). They also examined whether this relation was
moderated by the teacher's sense of autonomy. However, they found no significant interaction of autonomy. The direct relation between TSE and emotional exhaustion was thus confirmed once more.
Four studies used other questionnaires than the GSES and the NTSES to measure TSE. A first study was conducted by Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, and Barber (2010) among 610 American primary and secondary school teachers. Their focus was TSE in a specific situation: when dealing with misbehaving students. They made use of the emotional exhaustion scale of the MBI to assess burnout, and the questionnaire for Perceived Self-Efficacy in Classroom Management (Brouwers & Tomic, 2001) to assess a teacher's sense of self-efficacy in dealing with misbehaving students. An example of an item is ''I can keep defiant students involved in my lessons''. They found a
very weak but still significant negative relationship between TSE in classroom management and emotional exhaustion (ß = -.09, p < .05). Possibly this effect size is smaller than previously described research found because they only measured TSE in a very specific situation instead of the broader measures described before.
A second study, conducted by Høygaard, Giske, and Sundsli (2012), made use of the Personal Teacher Efficacy Scale (PTES; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI; Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005) for assessing burnout. The PTES treats TSE as a unidimensional construct. An example of an item is ''If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.'' The CBI is a three-dimensional questionnaire, but this study only makes use of the 'work related burnout' sub-scale. An example of an item of this scale is ''Do you feel worn out at the end of the working day?'' In their sample of 191 beginning Norwegian teachers, they found a significant negative relationship between TSE and burnout (r = -0.34, p < .01).
A third study, by Khani and Mirzaee (2014), investigated the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization dimensions of the MBI, and made use of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) to assess TSE (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). This questionnaire distinguishes three different categories of TSE: feelings of self-efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and in classroom management. Although they distinguish these categories of teacher self-efficacy, all categories can be seen as classroom teacher self-efficacy as described by Friedman and Kass (2002). The sample of this study existed of 216 Iranian teachers offering elementary to advanced classes in English at private institutions (Khani & Mirzaee, 2014). The effect sizes between the three categories of TSE and the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout were moderate to large. The relation between instructional strategies TSE and emotional exhaustion, and student engagement TSE and emotional exhaustion showed the same moderate to large effect size (r = -.49, p < .01). TSE in classroom management showed a similar relationship with emotional exhaustion (r = -.45, p < .01). The relation between TSE in instructional strategies and depersonalization had a large effect size (r = -.53, p < .01). The relation between student engagement TSE and depersonalization, and between classroom management TSE and depersonalization showed a large effect size (respectively r = -.51, p
< .01; r = -.50, p < .01). Thus, the different self-efficacy categories that the OSTES distinguishes all significantly predicted the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization dimensions of burnout.
A fourth study was conducted by Betoret and Artiga (2010), among 724 Spanish primary and secondary school teachers. They made use of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) to assess instructional TSE (Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Daytner, 1999). This scale consists of ten items, assessing the teacher's feelings of competence to carry out a teaching process. An example of an item is ''I'm confident my teaching skills respond to my students' needs, even on a bad day.'' Besides that, four items of a Classroom Management Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (CMSEQ), which was developed by Betoret (2006), were added to assess classroom management self-efficacy. An example of an item is ''I know how to efficiently neutralize any disruptive or unacceptable conduct I see among my students in my class.'' Together, these items lead to a two-dimensional construct of TSE. Both categories that were investigated fit into classroom self-efficacy as described by Friedman and Kass (2002). The MBI was used to assess all three dimensions of burnout.
Betoret and Artiga (2010) found a relation with a moderate effect size between instructional TSE and emotional exhaustion (r = -.32, p < .01). A small to moderate effect size was found for the relation between instructional TSE and depersonalization (r = -.29, p < .01). A large effect size was found for the relation between instructional TSE and reduced personal accomplishment (r = -.65, p < .01). The relation between classroom management self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion was moderate (r = -.32, p < .01). For depersonalization the effect size was small to moderate (r = -.26, p < .01) and for reduced personal accomplishment the effect size was large (r = -.51, p < .01). This study regarded personal accomplishment as a negative construct. This means that a high score on both instructional and classroom management self-efficacy leads to a low score on the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout.
In short, although many different measures have been used for assessing TSE, and not all effect sizes were of the same magnitude in terms of Cohen's (1977) criteria, all studies found a direct relationship between TSE and one or more of the dimensions of burnout. Also, all relationships had the same direction. A high score in TSE predicts a low score on the emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization dimensions of burnout. It also predicts a high sense of personal accomplishment, and thus a low score on the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. This makes clear that teacher self-efficacy has a direct relationship with teacher burnout, with a low score in TSE predicting a greater risk of developing burnout. Although a direct relation was found, some authors expect an indirect relation with contextual variables as mediators (e.g. Khani & Mirzaee, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Therefore, the next paragraph will elaborate on the indirect relationship between TSE and burnout.
What is the indirect relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout?
Besides the direct effect between teacher self-efficacy and professional burnout, research also shows indirect relations between TSE and burnout. In these studies, TSE influences one or more variables that in turn influence burnout. Three studies describing such an indirect relationship between TSE and burnout were found.
The first study was conducted by Betoret and Artiga (2010), among 724 Spanish primary and secondary school teachers. To assess instructional TSE they made use of the ten-item TSES
(Schwarzer et al., 1999), and the four items of the CMSEQ (Betoret, 2006) that are described above. Together, these items describe instructional and classroom management self-efficacy. The MBI was used to assess all three dimensions of burnout. Two types of coping strategies that are influenced by TSE were found to influence the dimensions of burnout: active or problem-solving coping strategies, and passive or problem-avoiding coping strategies. To assess coping strategies, teachers were asked ''How often do you act when your work conditions make it difficult to fulfill the learning objectives with students?'', followed by statements describing following actions. The teacher had to indicate how likely it is that he will make use of that action. The use of active coping strategies was measured by 3 possible actions, for example: ''I try to find solutions.'' The use of passive coping strategies was measured by 4 possible actions, for example: ''I give up, I can't do anything else.'' First, the relations between the different categories of TSE and coping strategies will be described. Second, the relations between coping strategies and the dimensions of burnout will be described.
Instructional TSE showed a relation with active coping strategies (r = .29, p < .01), and passive coping strategies (r = -.27, p < .01), both small to moderate effect sizes. Classroom
management self-efficacy showed a direct relation with active coping strategies (r = .13, p < .01), and passive coping strategies (r = -.27, p < .01). Active coping strategies showed a direct relationship with emotional exhaustion (r = -.15, p < .01), depersonalization (r = -.20, p < .01), and reduced personal accomplishment (r = -.26, p < .01). Active coping strategies thus increase the sense of personal accomplishment, and thus decrease the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. Passive strategies also showed a direct relationship with emotional exhaustion (r = .27, p < .01), depersonalization (r = .27, p < .01), and reduced personal accomplishment (r = .26, p < .01). This last relation indicates that the use of passive coping strategies decreases feelings of personal
accomplishment, and thus increases the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. Interestingly, this study never tested for mediation while direct relationships were found between all different constructs. For now it thus seems that the indirect relationship works through job stressors, and whether job stressors are a mediator remains unknown.
Two other variables that are influenced by TSE, and in turn influence the dimensions of burnout are the teacher's instructional management, and student behavior stressors (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2012). In this study, the student engagement category of TSE of the previously described OSTES (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) has been used to assess TSE. Instructional management was measured by the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale (Martin & Sass, 2010) that contains six items measuring instructional management. An example item is ''I nearly always adjust instruction in response to individual student needs.'' Student stressors were measured with nine items of the Teacher Stressor Scale, in which teachers indicate how much cause for stress each item is to them (Hui & Chan, 1996). An example of an item is ''Students being disrespectful to teachers.'' Burnout was measured with all three dimensions of the MBI. A total of 613 American primary and secondary teachers was included in the sample (Martin et al., 2012). The model they developed with this study suggests how TSE in student engagement influences the instructional management of teachers, which in turn influences the personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. The instructional management
of teachers also influences student behavior stressors. Student behavior stressors show a positive relationship with the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout. According to this model, emotional exhaustion in turn influences the depersonalization dimension of burnout. Thus, all three dimensions of burnout are influenced by TSE in student engagement through other variables according to this model (Martin et al., 2012).
The relation between TSE in student engagement and instructional management has a large effect size (γ = -.83, p < .01). In the rest of the model, beta-values are displayed. Instructional management in turn predicts both the personal accomplishment dimension of burnout (β = -.76, p < .01) and student behavior stressors (β = .52, p < .01). Student behavior stressors in turn predict the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout (β = .64, p < .01). Depersonalization is predicted by both burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion (β = .67, p < .01) and personal accomplishment (β = -.33, p < .01). In short, Martin and colleagues (2012) offer a complex model in which indirectly, through instructional management and student behavior stressors, all three dimensions of burnout are influenced by TSE. Whether any of the variables in this model are mediators was not investigated.
A last study, conducted among 724 Spanish primary and secondary teachers, shows an indirect relationship between TSE and burnout through job stressors (Betoret, 2009). TSE was measured with both the TSES (Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Daytner, 1999) that has been described before, and the same four items of the Classroom Teacher Self-Efficacy questionnaire of Betoret (2006). The construct of job stressors exists of six factors on different levels (Betoret, 2006) on which teachers indicate to which extent they feel these stressors interfere with their teaching goals. These factors and their example items are: classroom level – students misbehavior (''Lack of students' interest''), school level – lack of shared decision-making (''Difficulty to take part in sharing decisions''), administration level – ambiguity demands (''Ambiguity in the educational policy from the Administrations''), classroom level – student diversity (''Diversity in the students' race and culture''), school level – workload (''Too much work to do''), and parents level – insufficient involvement (''Insufficient parental interest in children's learning''). Betoret (2006) offers more information on these six factors. Betoret (2009) shows that the relationships between the different variables are different for primary and secondary school teachers.
Therefore, the results for primary teachers will first be displayed, followed by the results for secondary teachers.
For primary school teachers, TSE showed a positive relation with job stressors (β = .34, p < .05). Job stressors showed a positive relation with emotional exhaustion (β = .58, p < .05) and depersonalization (β = .30, p < .05). No significant relation with reduced personal accomplishment was found. For secondary school teachers a negative relation between TSE and job stressors was found (β = 0.87, p < .05). Job stressors showed a positive relation with emotional exhaustion (β = .65, p < .05), depersonalization (β = .24, p < .05) and reduced personal accomplishment (β = .94, p < .05).
In short, three studies have investigated variables that are influenced by TSE, that in turn influence burnout. None of these studies tested for moderation or mediation. Also, no other research on these variables is available. Therefore, these indirect relations need to be investigated further in order to discover how these work exactly.
Discussion
This literature review investigated the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and the development of burnout among teachers. First, studies on the direct relationship between TSE and burnout were described, followed by studies investigating the indirect relationship between TSE and burnout. This leads to the following conclusions.
All studies found a direct relationship between TSE and depersonalization, although the effect sizes were varying from small to large. One study found a medium to large effect size, another effect size was medium, and five studies found small to medium effect sizes. All found relationships between TSE, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were negative. This means that a high score on TSE predicts a low score on both dimensions of burnout. Only three studies investigated the relationship between TSE and the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. These studies did find a relationship with effect sizes varying from medium to large. Some studies found a negative, and some a positive relation with (reduced) personal accomplishment because some studies used the term in its negative form while others used the positive form. When interpreting these results,
it becomes clear that all the studies show that a high score on TSE predicts a low score on the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. Two studies did not distinguish between the three dimensions of burnout. Both studies found a negative relation of medium effect size between TSE and burnout. Overall, this leads to the conclusion that teachers scoring higher on TSE have a lower chance of developing burnout.
Second, an indirect relationship through various variables was found. Three studies investigated possible variables that are influenced by TSE, and in turn influence burnout. The variables that were studied however are different across the studies. This led to one study showing a relationship between TSE and job stressors, and job stressors and burnout. Another study showed a relation between TSE and coping strategies, and coping strategies and burnout. A third study showed a complicated model, according to which the three dimensions of burnout are influenced through
different variables. Overall, it may be concluded that teacher self-efficacy influences various variables that in turn influence the development of burnout.
In short it seems that the relationship between teacher self-efficacy is complicated: on the one hand there is a direct influence, while on the other hand some studies show an indirect relation through various factors. Either way, teacher self-efficacy clearly is a factor that can protect against burnout. However, a few comments on these finding are in in place. First of all, many studies did not investigate the reduced personal accomplishment dimension of burnout, while the three studies that did include this dimension found moderate to large effect sizes. Why the other studies left this dimension out remains unclear. This review clearly shows that it is important for future research to include the relation with this dimension, for it may be an important factor in predicting burnout. A second concerns the effect sizes that vary between small and large. A possible cause is that many different instruments were used to assess TSE, some of which made distinctions between different categories of TSE and some of which did not. All these different questionnaires however, were included in the meta-analysis of Aloe and colleagues (2014) and they still found a direct relation between TSE and burnout. The effect sizes however, were different for each of the three dimensions of burnout. Why these differences exist remains unknown. Besides that, major differences were found
between different groups; the protective role of TSE against burnout turns out to be different for primary and secondary teachers (Betoret, 2009), and even for teachers in different fields (Brudnik, 2009). Interestingly, no other studies have investigated these differences. Therefore, not much is known about why and how these differences arise. Future research should focus on all these differences, for this will provide insight in the mechanism of the protective role of TSE against
burnout. Third, it is interesting to see that none of the studies investigating the indirect relationship has tested for mediation effects. Therefore, much remains unclear on how exactly the indirect relationship works and future research should focus on that.
Last, some limitations need to be considered. All studies in this article made use of a cross-sectional design. Therefore, causality cannot be proved. A longitudinal study by Pas and colleagues (2012) did not investigate the relation between TSE and burnout but looked at their development as separate constructs. This study found that both TSE and burnout increased over a period of two years. This could mean that teachers feel more burnt out merely because time is passing, and that TSE actually does not have a relationship with burnout. A strength of this review is that it also includes a meta-analysis. The relation between TSE and burnout was still found in this analysis, which
reconfirms the existence. It is therefore of great importance to investigate this further by conducting longitudinal research, before implications on TSE and burnout can be made. Another limitation of the existing research is that many different factors are measured in studies. Therefore, comparability of results across studies may be diminished. Future research should investigate the used instruments, in order to shed a light on differences that are caused by using these instruments. Concerning this review, one of its strengths is also one of its limitations. Because only research of the past five years was included, a lot of research results remain outside its scope of insight. It also means that only the most recent results are included. A more extensive literature review should look at older studies as well, in order to provide a more complete overview of the existing literature. A strength of this study is that many different countries across the world, and both primary and secondary teachers were included in the sample. The results can therefore be generalized across many cultures and different kinds of teachers. The results of this study provide a solid framework for the relationship between TSE and
burnout, but additional research is necessary to understand the nature of the direct and indirect
relationships. With these insights interventions can be developed to improve teacher self-efficacy, and so prevent teachers from developing burnout.
References
Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101-126. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimenal
Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519-539. doi:10.1080/01443410500342492
Betoret, F. D. (2009). Self-efficacy, school resources, job stressors and burnout among Spanish primary and secondary school teachers: A structural equation approach. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 45-68. doi:10.1080/01443410802459234
Betoret, F., & Artiga, A. G. (2010). Barriers perceived by teachers at work, coping strategies, self-efficacy and burnout. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 637-654.
doi:10.1017/S1138741600002316
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self- efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239-253. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Brudnik, M. (2009). Perception of self-efficacy and professional burnout in general education teachers. Human Movement, 10(2), 170-175. doi:10.2478/v10038-009-0013-3
Chang, M. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review,21(3), 193-218. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classrooom-organization
conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 675-686. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00027-6
Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers' professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 15301543. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003
Høigaard, R., Giske, R., & Sundsli, K. (2012). Newly qualified teachers' work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 347-357. doi:10.1080/02619768.2011.633993 Hui, E. K. P., & Chan, D. W. (1996). Teacher stress and guidance work in Hong Kong secondary
school teachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 24(2), 199-211. doi:10.1080/03069889608260409
Hupkens, C. (2005). Burn-out: De rol van psychische werkbelasting. CBS, Sociaaleconomische trends, 3, 18-22.
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 178-187. doi:10.1108/02683940510579803
Khani, R. & Mirzaee, A. (2014). How do self-efficacy, contextual variables and stressors affect teacher burnout in an EFL context? Educational Psychology (in press).
doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.981510
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). 'Maybe I can teach those kids.' The influence of
contextual factors on student teachers' efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
doi:10.3102/0162373702400103 10.3102/01623737024001037
Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the behavior and instructional management scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1124-1135.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.12.001
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement,
instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers' intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 546- 559. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd. ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 129-145. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204-220. doi:10.1108/13620430910966406
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, 20(2), 177-196. doi:10.1080/10615800701217878
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152-171. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson.
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999). Teacher self-efficacy. Retrieved from www.ralfschwarzer.de
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations
with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology & Marketing, 114(1), 68-77.
doi:10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring
the association between teacher's perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173-189.
doi:10.1080/01443410903494460
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81 Yu, X., Wang, P., Zhai, X., Dai, H., & Yang, Q. (2014). The effect of work stress on job burnout
among teachers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 1-8. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0716-5
