Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations Einar M. Skaalvik*, Sidsel Skaalvik Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 April 2009 Received in revised form 26 August 2009 Accepted 3 November 2009

The purpose of this study was partly to test the factor structure of a recently developed Norwegian scale for measuring teacher self-efficacy and partly to explore relations between teachers' perception of the school context, teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, teacher burnout, teacher job satisfaction, and teachers' beliefs that factors external to teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish. Participants were 2249 Norwegian teachers in elementary school and middle school. The data were analyzed by means of structural equation modelling using the AMOS 7 program. Teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy and two dimensions of burnout were differently related both to school context variables and to teacher job satisfaction. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher self-efficacy Collective teacher efficacy Teacher burnout Teacher job satisfaction

1. Introduction and purposes

2. Theoretical framework

Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) a vast number of studies have shown that students' academic self-efficacy is predictive of study behaviour as well as academic outcomes (see Maddux & Gosselin, 2003; Skaalvik & Bong, 2003). During the last decade the research literature also shows a growing interest in teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Soodak & Podell, 1996; Wheatley, 2005). However, a problem with research on teacher self-efficacy is that there is no common agreement about how the construct should be conceptualized and how it should be measured. It has been conceptualized and measured differently by different researchers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). One purpose of the study presented in this article was therefore to test the factor structure of a recently developed Norwegian scale for measuring teacher self-efficacy. The scale has previously been tested on smaller samples (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2008) whereas the present study was based on 2249 teachers. We also examined relations between individual teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and external control defined as teachers' beliefs that factors external to teaching (e.g., students' home environments) puts limitations to what they can accomplish. Additionally, we examined relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. Lastly, we explored how teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout was related to teachers' perception of the school context and to their job satisfaction.

2.1. Teacher self-efficacy

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 73591954; fax: þ47 73591890. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.M. Skaalvik). 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

Self-efficacy is grounded in the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory emphasizing the evolvement and exercise of human agency e that people can exercise some influence over what they do (Bandura, 2006a). Bandura (2006a) maintains that in this conception, people are self-organizing, proactive, selfregulating, and self-reflecting. From this perspective, self-efficacy affects one's goals and behaviours and is influenced by one's actions and conditions in the environment (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Efficacy beliefs determine how environmental opportunities and impediments are perceived (Bandura, 2006a) and affect choice of activities, how much effort is expended on an activity, and how long people will persevere when confronting obstacles (Pajares, 1997). Based on social cognitive theory teacher self-efficacy may be conceptualized as individual teachers' beliefs in their own ability to plan, organize, and carry out activities that are required to attain given educational goals. Following this conceptualization Bandura's (1997, 2006b) recommendation for item construction should be followed when measuring teacher self-efficacy: (a) because selfefficacy is concerned with perceived capability the items should contain verbs like “can” or “be able to” in order to make clear that the items ask for mastery expectations because of personal competence, (b) the object in each statement should be “I” since the aim is to assess each teacher's subjective belief about his or her own capability, and (c) each item should contain a barrier. The latter point is underlined by Bandura (1997, p. 42) stating that “If there

1060

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

are no obstacles to surmount, the activity is easy to perform, and everyone has uniformly high perceived self-efficacy for it.” Based on Bandura's definition of self-efficacy several instruments have been developed to measure (personal) teacher selfefficacy. Most of these instruments either do not measure teacher self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct, do not reflect the variety of tasks and demands that are put upon a teacher, or do not follow Bandura's recommendation for item construction (for an overview, see Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Despite differences in item construction teacher self-efficacy has been shown to predict teachers goals and aspirations (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002), teachers' attitudes towards innovation and change (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Guskey, 1988), teachers' tendency to refer difficult students to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Soodak & Podell, 1993), teachers' use of teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), and the likelihood that teachers stay in the teaching profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). Based on an analysis of role expectations in Norwegian schools Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) recently developed a multidimensional 24-item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES) measuring six dimensions by four items each. The dimensions were self-efficacy for instruction, adapting education to individual students' needs, motivating students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges (see Method). The scale was constructed according to Bandura's recommendations. One purpose of the present study was to test the factor structure of the NTSES on a large sample of Norwegian teachers. 2.2. Perceived collective teacher efficacy and external control In addition to personal efficacy expectations the individual teacher may also have beliefs both about the ability of the team and of the faculty of teachers at the school to execute courses of action required to produce given attainments. Such beliefs represent perceived collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). Unfortunately, few studies are done exploring relations between perceived collective efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy. The few available studies suggest moderate positive relations both between perceived collective efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). On theoretical ground one may argue that it is reasonable to predict that perceived collective efficacy affects individual teacher self-efficacy. Schools characterized by high collective teacher efficacy set challenging goals and are persistent in their effort to meet these goals. Goddard et al. (2004) argue that these high expectations create a normative press that encourage all teachers to do what it takes to excel and discourage them from giving up when faced with difficult situations. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2008) proposed that such a cultural context promotes students' achievements which again enhance individual teachers' sense of self-efficacy. We therefore expect that individual teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy are positively related. However, it is not obvious that being part of a strong team always increases self-efficacy for all team members. Based on social comparison theory (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 2000) one may expect that a teacher who perceive his or her teaching ability to be lower than the ability of other teachers at school may loose confidence regarding his or her own teaching ability. Hence, we conceptualize individual teacher selfefficacy and collective teacher efficacy as different but correlated constructs. Based on Rotter's (1966) distinction between external and internal control teacher self-efficacy has been assumed to increase if

teachers believe that the students' achievement and behaviour can be influenced by education (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Rose & Medway, 1981). Accordingly, teacher self-efficacy has also been assumed to decrease if teachers' believe that factors external to teaching (e.g., students' abilities and home environments) are more important to the students' learning than the influence that a teacher may have. These assumptions has led some researchers to measure teachers' general beliefs about limitations to what can be achieved through education, which is often referred to as “teaching efficacy” (e.g., Soodak & Podell, 1996). In order to emphasize that this is a measure of the degree to which teachers believe that factors external to their teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish, we will refer to it as “external control” (see also Ho & Hau, 2004). It may also be conceptualized as a general measure of educational pessimism or optimism. Because external control may be confounded with teacher self-efficacy it is important to test how strongly there constructs are related and if they relate differently to school context variables and to teacher job satisfaction. One of the purposes of this study was to test relations between individual teacher self-efficacy, perceived collective efficacy, and external control. 2.3. Teacher burnout Burnout is conceptualized as resulting from long term occupational stress, particularly among human service workers, including teachers (Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003). Although the reasons may differ, all teachers may experience stress in their work (Jennett et al., 2003). Most teachers cope successfully with such stress. However, burnout may be the endpoint of coping unsuccessfully with chronic stress (Jennett et al., 2003). Burnout is often described as a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Maslach et al. (1996) identify emotional exhaustion as the key aspect of burnout whereas Pines and Aronson (1988) include physical exhaustion characterized by low energy and chronic fatigue. In teacher burnout depersonalization refers to negative, cynical attitudes and feelings about ones students or colleagues. Reduced personal accomplishment refers to a tendency that teachers evaluate themselves negatively as well as a general feeling that they are no longer doing a meaningful and important job. Research indicates that the three dimensions of burnout cannot be added up to a single measure (Byrne, 1994; Lee & Ashforth, 1996) and Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) regard emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as the central elements of burnout. The analysis of burnout in this study is limited to the latter two dimensions. Studies in different cultures show that measures of teacher burnout predict both subjective and objective health as well as teachers' motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, Hakanen, Bakker, and Schaufeli (2006) showed that both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization correlated negatively with self-rated health as well as work ability among Finnish teachers. Available research also shows a negative relation between burnout and motivation (Hakanen et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Moreover, Leung and Lee (2006) found, in a study of teachers in Hong Kong, that the exhaustion dimension of burnout predicted teachers' intentions of leaving the profession. Teacher burnout has been shown to be moderately related to teacher self-efficacy (Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, 1992; Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002; Friedman & Farber, 1992). However, using structural equation modelling Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) found a strong relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. There is less agreement about how to explain the relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout (see for instance Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

1061

In this study we will examine relations between teacher selfefficacy and teacher burnout by means of confirmatory factor analysis.

3. Method

2.4. Teacher job satisfaction

Participants in this study were 2249 teachers from 113 elementary schools and middle schools (1ste10th grade) in Norway. Norway was divided into five geographical regions. In each region between 20 and 25 schools were drawn from one large city, one smaller town and two rural areas by a stratified random procedure. At each school a particular time was set aside for all teachers to respond to the questionnaire and the teachers were instructed not to discuss the items or to collaborate. All teachers who were present at the school at the time of the data collection participated in the study. The sample consisted of 68% females. The age of the teachers varied from young teachers (the youngest was 24 years old) to teachers close to retirement (the oldest was 69 years). The mean age was 45 years. The average number of years in the teaching profession was 16. The schools varied with respect to size from schools with 5 teachers to schools with 60 teachers with an average of 35. The average number of students in the schools was 352. About half of the teachers in the sample (45%) worked in elementary schools (grade 1e7), whereas 37% worked in middle schools (grade 8e10) and 18% in combined elementary schools and middle schools. Forty-five percent of the teachers worked in schools with traditional classes of students whereas 47% worked in schools where a team of teachers shared responsibility for all students at a given grade level.

Job satisfaction may be defined as positive or negative evaluative judgments people make about their job (see Weiss, 2002). Hence, we conceptualize job satisfaction as an affective reaction to one's work. Nevertheless, there is no generally agreed upon definition of teacher job satisfaction. It is an ambiguous term (Evans, 1997) and has been studied both as an overall construct and as teachers' satisfaction with different circumstances. A problem with measuring teachers' satisfaction with different circumstances and letting those measures indicate overall job satisfaction, is that different circumstances may be important to different teachers. Therefore, the problem with such measures is that they overlook the fact that the impact of different circumstances on overall job satisfaction is dependent on how important each of the circumstances is to the individual teacher. We therefore maintain that satisfaction with concrete circumstances should not be used as a measure of teachers' overall job satisfaction. Several studies indicate that job satisfaction is one of the most important factors influencing teachers' relations to students (Van den Berg, 2002), teachers' enthusiasm (Chen, 2007) as well as teacher retention (Ingersoll, 2001). Moreover, as shown above, studies in different cultures show that measures of teacher burnout predict teachers' motivation and job satisfaction (e.g., Hakanen et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).

3.1. Participants and procedure

3.2. Instruments 2.5. Perceived school context One of the purposes of this study was to explore relations between teachers' perception of school context variables and teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. The school context variables examined in this study were discipline problems, time pressure, relations to parents, autonomy, and supervisory support. Recent research shows that teachers experience an acceleration of working speed as well as an increasing number of work assignments, resulting in less time for rest and recovery (Hargreaves, 2003; Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2006). Furthermore, time pressure and work overload have been found to correlate positively with teacher burnout (Hakanen et al., 2006; Kokkinos, 2007; Peeters & Rutte, 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2008). Discipline problems or disruptive student behaviour is also recognized as a serious work-related stressor, and significant correlations have been found between discipline problems and measures of burnout (Hakanen et. al., 2006; Kokkinos, 2007). Research also indicates that social climate and social support are negatively related to burnout (Hakanen et al., 2006; Leung & Lee, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Furthermore, teachers are dependent on cooperating with parents and need positive relations to them. Therefore, experiencing that one is not trusted by the parents, that they are critical, or that cooperating with parents are difficult may be a serious strain on teachers with negative impact on self-efficacy and burnout. It may increase anxiety, create a feeling that one is not doing a good job, and promote a need for self-protection. In a study of German teachers Stoeber and Rennert (2008) found that pressure and demands from parents positively predicted teacher burnout. According to the selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) autonomy is considered a basic psychological need. Research reveals that the degree of autonomy perceived by teachers is indicative of their job satisfaction (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). However, research indicates an international tendency that teacher's autonomy is diminishing (Ballet, Kelchtermans, & Loughran, 2006).

3.2.1. Teacher self-efficacy Teacher self-efficacy was measured by a multidimensional 24item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). The scale had six dimensions measured by four items each. The dimensions were: instruction, adapting education to individual students' needs, motivating students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges. The scale was constructed according to Bandura's recommendations for item construction, including barriers in the item formulations. Responses were given on a 7-point scale from “Not certain at all” (1) to “Absolutely certain” (7). The six sub-scales are extensively described elsewhere (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Examples of items are “How certain are you that you can provide realistic challenge for all students even in mixed ability classes?” (adapting education to individual needs), and “How certain are you that you can wake the desire to learn even among the lowestachieving students?” (motivating students). Cronbach's alphas for the scales were .83, .90, .83, .91, .77, and .81, respectively. 3.2.2. Perceived collective teacher efficacy Perceived collective teacher efficacy was measured by a sevenitem scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). The items focussed on instruction, motivation, controlling student behaviour, addressing students' needs, and creating a safe environment. In order to mark the difference from items in the teacher self-efficacy scale all items focussed on what “we” or “teachers at this school” were able to do. An example of an item is: “As teachers of this school we can get even the most difficult students engaged in their schoolwork.” Responses were given on a 6-point scale from “False” (1) to “True” (6). Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .85. 3.2.3. External control External control was measured by a five-item scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Each item stated a limitation to what can be

1062

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

achieved through education concerning students' learning, achievement, motivation, or behaviour. The limitations were described as students' abilities or home environment. An example of an item is: “How much students can learn in school is primarily determined by their abilities.” Responses were given on a 6-point scale from “False” (1) to “True” (6). Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .78.

high scores indicated discipline problems, strong feeling of supervisory support, high time pressure, positive relations to parents, and high degree of autonomy. Cronbach's alphas for discipline, time pressure, parents, autonomy, and supervisory support were: .80, .71, .81, .73, and .83, respectively.

3.2.4. Teacher burnout According to Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) the central elements of burnout are emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. These two dimensions of teacher burnout were measured by means of eight modified items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory e Educators Survey (MBI: Maslach et al., 1996). Participants rated statements indicating that their work makes them feel emotionally drained or exhausted (emotional exhaustion) and that they do not care about some students (depersonalization). Responses in the original scale are given on a 7-point scale from “Never” (0) to “Every day” (6). In our modification responses were given on a 6-point scale from “False” (1) to “True” (6). The response scale was modified because several teachers in a previous study (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) indicated that they found the statements difficult to answer on a scale ranging from “Never” to “Every day”. Cronbach's alphas for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were .88 and .70.

Data were analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) using the AMOS 7 program. SEM is a statistical methodology that takes a confirmatory approach to the analysis (Byrne, 2001). In this approach a hypothesized model of relations between variables is tested statistically to determine the extent to which it is consistent with the data, which is referred to as the goodness of fit. If the goodness of fit is adequate it supports the plausibility of the relations among the variables. To assess model fit, we used well-established indices such as CFI, IFI, TLI, and RMSEA as well as the chi-square test statistics. For the CFI, IFI, and TLI indices, values greater than .90 are typically considered acceptable and values greater that .95 indicate good fit to the data (Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999). For well specified models, an RMSEA of .06 or less reflect a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

3.2.5. Teacher job satisfaction As pointed out in the introduction we maintain that satisfaction with concrete circumstances should not be used as a measure of teachers' overall job satisfaction. Consequently, we measured teachers' overall job satisfaction or job enjoyment by means of three items: (a) “All things considered how much do you enjoy working as a teacher?” Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Very much”. (b) “If you could choose occupation today, would you choose to be a teacher?” Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from “No, definitely not” to “Yes, without a doubt”, and (c) “Have you ever thought about leaving the teaching profession?” Responses were given on a 5point scale ranging from “All the time” to “Never”. Cronbach's alpha for the 3-item scale was .71.

4.1. The Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES)

3.2.6. Perceived school context We measured five dimensions of teachers' perception of the school context: (a) discipline problems and disrupted student behaviour (discipline), (b) teachers' feeling of having a heavy workload, having to prepare for teaching in the evenings and weekends, and having a hectic school-day with little time for rest and recovery (time pressure), (c) teachers' experience of being trusted by the parents, of communicating well with parents, and that cooperation with parents were easy and adaptive (parents), (d) teachers' feeling of having autonomy regarding choice of teaching methods, educational strategies and content within the limit set by the national curriculum (autonomy), and (e) teachers' feeling of having cognitive and emotional support from the school leadership, that they could ask the school leadership for advise, and that their relation to the school leadership was one of mutual trust and respect (supervisory support). Each of the five contextual variables was measured by three items. Examples of items are: “My teaching is often disrupted by students who lack discipline” (discipline) “Preparation for teaching must often be done after working hours” (time pressure), “I feel that the parents have trust in my teaching” (parents), “In my daily teaching I am free to choose teaching methods and strategies” (autonomy), and “In educational matters I can always seek help and advice from the school leadership” (supervisory support). Responses were given on a 6-point scale from “False” (1) to “True” (6). The responses were scored so that

3.3. Data analysis

4. Results

We first tested the factor structure of the 24-item NTSES by means of exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and eigenvalues greater than 1. The analysis extracted six factors consistent with the theoretical model (see description of the six dimensions in the Method section). These factors explained 60% of the variance in the equation. The expected factor loadings were greater than .6 for twenty of the twenty-four items and greater than .5 for four items. None of the remaining factor loadings were greater than .3. We further tested three theoretical models by means of confirmatory factor analyses. Model 1 defined one primary factor only and tested if teacher self-efficacy could be treated as a onedimensional construct. Model 2 defined six primary factors corresponding to the six theoretical dimensions. Model 3 defined six primary factors and one second order factor underlying the primary factors. Model 1 did not fit the data (c2 (248, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 10 173.00, CFI ¼ .657, IFI ¼ .658, TLI ¼ .586 and RMSEA ¼ .133) whereas both model 2 and 3 had good fit to the data (c2 (233, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 1469.70, CFI ¼ .957, IFI ¼ .957, TLI ¼ .945 and RMSEA ¼ .049 for model 2 and c2 (240, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 1569.07, CFI ¼ .954, IFI ¼ .954, TLI ¼ .943 and RMSEA ¼ .050 for model 3). The analyses verify previous results showing that teacher self-efficacy should be treated at a multidimensional construct, but that for research purposes it may be treated as a latent variable indicated by the six sub-scales. The second order model is shown in Fig. 1. 4.2. Teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and external control The next step in the data analysis was to test a model specifying eight primary factors: six individual teacher self-efficacy factors, one collective teacher efficacy factor, and one external control factor (see description in the Method section). This model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (560, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 2782.79, CFI ¼ .943, IFI ¼ .943, TLI ¼ .933 and RMSEA ¼ .042). The correlation between the (individual) self-efficacy factors ranged from .36 to .65 with 14 out of 15 correlations greater than .42 and eight correlations greater than .50 (Table 1).

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

1063

.63 .69 .84

Instruction

Instruction

.67

Motivating

.82

.67

.76 .77

.85

.72

.80

Motivating

.75

.82

Exhaustion

.66

Adapting .79 .79

Exh4

Selfefficacy

Discipline

.69

.23

Exh5 .81

-.41

.83

Depersonalization

Selfefficacy

.86

.67

.89

.73

Dep1

.80

Dep2 .42

Cooperating

Discipline

.78

Exh3 .74

.67

.71

Adapting

.83

Exh2

.77

-.29

.71

Exh1

Dep3 .68

.76

Coping

.75

.73

.74 .62

Cooperating

Fig. 2. Model of relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout.

.59

.68 .61

RMSEA ¼ .189) whereas model 2 had good fit to the data (c2 (19, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 186.96, CFI ¼ .977, IFI ¼ .977, TLI ¼ .956 and RMSEA ¼ .063). The correlation between the two primary factors in model 2 was small (.20). We therefore decided, in the further analyses, to treat emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as separate constructs.

.73

Coping

.84 .74

Fig. 1. Second order model of teacher self-efficacy.

External control correlated negatively but weakly with both the six self-efficacy factors and the collective efficacy factor (ranging from .14 to .24). This result clearly indicates that external control should be distinguished from both teacher self-efficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy. Collective teacher efficacy was positively but moderately correlated with the six dimensions of teacher self-efficacy (ranging from .29 to .45). Both these positive but moderate correlations and the model fit indicate that teacher self-efficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy should be conceptualized as different but positively correlated constructs. 4.3. Teacher burnout We tested two theoretical models of teacher burnout by means of confirmatory factor analyses. Model 1 defined one primary factor only whereas model 2 defined two correlated primary factors (exhaustion and depersonalization). Model 1 did not fit the data (c2 (20, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 1619.53, CFI ¼ .780, IFI ¼ .780, TLI ¼ .604 and Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and external control e correlations among factors. Primary factors

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

e

.59 e

.48 .65 e

.36 .59 .43 e

.54 .52 .43 .57 e

.45 .47 .52 .47 .56 e

.29 .42 .45 .28 .42 .36 e

.15 .24 .14 .15 .24 .19 .16 e

Instruction Motivating Adapting Discipline Cooperating Coping Collective External

Note. Instruction ¼ self-efficacy for instruction and explanation of subject matter, Motivating ¼ self-efficacy for motivating students, Adapting ¼ self-efficacy for adapting education to individual students' needs, Discipline ¼ self-efficacy for keeping discipline, Cooperating ¼ self-efficacy for cooperating with colleagues and parents, Coping ¼ self-efficacy for coping with changes and challenges, Collective ¼ collective teacher efficacy, External ¼ External control or the degree to which teachers believe that factors external to their teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish.

4.4. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout The relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout were explored by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. We tested a model specifying three correlated latent variables; a second order teacher self-efficacy variable, and two primary burnout variables; emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Fig. 2). The model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (449, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 2345.76, CFI ¼ .949, IFI ¼ .949, TLI ¼ .940 and RMSEA ¼ .043). Teacher self-efficacy correlated negatively with both emotional exhaustion (.29) and depersonalization (.41). The two dimensions of teacher burnout were positively, but weakly correlated (.23). 4.5. Perceived school context Before we analyzed how teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout were related to perceived school context we tested a measurement model of perceived school context. The model specified five primary factors (discipline problems, time pressure, relations to parents, autonomy, and supervisory support) indicated by three items each (see Method). The model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (80, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 520.17, CFI ¼ .961, IFI ¼ .961, TLI ¼ .942 and RMSEA ¼ .049). The correlations among the factors were weak to moderate, ranging from .30 to .50 (Table 2). We should note the Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis of perceived school context e correlations among factors. Primary factors

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

e

.36 e

.23 .07 e

.09 .21 .40 e

.02 .30 .16 .50 e

Discipline problems Time pressure Positive relations to parents Autonomy Supervisory support

1064

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

relatively strong correlation between supervisory support and teachers' feeling of autonomy. 4.6. Relations with perceived school context One of the purposes of this study was to test if teacher selfefficacy and teacher burnout were predicted by school context as perceived by the teachers. We tested a theoretical model with five latent school context variables as exogenous variables predicting three latent variables; teacher self-efficacy, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization (Fig. 3). The model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (997, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 4764.40, CFI ¼ .927, IFI ¼ .927, TLI ¼ .917 and RMSEA ¼ .041). All school context variables were significantly related to one or more of the endogenous variables. The strongest predictor of teacher self-efficacy was teachers' relations to parents (.46), but feeling of autonomy also predicted teacher self-efficacy positively (.13) and time pressure was negatively related to selfefficacy (.10). Teachers' relations to parents was also the strongest predictor of depersonalization (.44) whereas time pressure was the strongest predictor of emotional exhaustion (.59). Moreover, discipline problems were weakly, but significantly related to both emotional exhaustion (.13) and depersonalization (.11). Because we concluded that both collective teacher efficacy and external control should be distinguished from teacher self-efficacy we conducted a separate analysis to explore how these constructs related to school context variables. We tested a SEM model with latent school context variables as exogenous variables and external control and collective teacher efficacy as separate endogenous variables (Fig. 4). The model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (304, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 1651.48, CFI ¼ .937, IFI ¼ .938, TLI ¼ .922 and RMSEA ¼ .044). Fig. 4 shows that external control was not strongly related to any of the five school context variables although it was significantly and positively related to discipline problems (.12) and time pressure (.13) and negatively related to relations to parents

Time pressure

.13

External control

-.03 -.11 .12

Autonomy

-.05

Relations parents

Discipline problem

.16

.06

.17 -.05

Supervisory support

.50

Collective efficacy

Fig. 4. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, external control, and collective teacher efficacy.

(.11). Collective teacher efficacy was strongly related to supervisory support (.50) and weakly but significantly related to autonomy (.16) and teachers relations to parents (.17). 4.7. Teacher job satisfaction

Time pressure

Selfefficacy

-.10 .13 .46

Autonomy .59 -.12

Relations parents

Emotional exhaustion

-.12 .13

Discipline problem

-.44 .11

Supervisory support

-.12

Depersonalization

Fig. 3. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, teacher selfefficacy, and teacher burnout.

Relations with teacher job satisfaction were explored by testing two SEM models. We first tested a model letting self-efficacy, collective efficacy, external control, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization predict teacher job satisfaction. The five school context variables were entered as exogenous variables in the model. This model had marginal fit to the data (c2 (1772, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 7748.88, CFI ¼ .908, IFI ¼ .908, TLI ¼ .898 and RMSEA ¼ .039). Neither collective efficacy nor external control were significantly related to teacher job satisfaction (standardized regression weights ¼ .01 and .04, respectively). We therefore tested a simplified model excluding collective efficacy and external control (Fig. 5). The model had acceptable fit to the data (c2 (1130, N ¼ 2249) ¼ 5165.23, CFI ¼ .925, IFI ¼ .925, TLI ¼ .915 and RMSEA ¼ .040). Both teacher self-efficacy and the two dimensions of teacher burnout were related to teachers' job satisfaction. Emotional exhaustion was the strongest predictor of job satisfaction (.52), but depersonalization also predicted job satisfaction negatively (.21) and self-efficacy was predictive of higher job satisfaction (.17). Both autonomy and time pressure were directly related to job satisfaction (.24 and .13, respectively) whereas all school context variables were indirectly related to job satisfaction e through self-efficacy, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. 4.8. Brief summary of results A brief summary of the purposes of the study and the main results are presented in Table 3.

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

Time pressure

-.10

1065

Selfefficacy

.13 .46

Autonomy

.17 .13 .59

.24

-.12

Relations parents

Emotional exhaustion

-.12

-.52

Job satisfaction

.13 -.21

Discipline problem

-.44 .11

Supervisory support

-.13

Depersonalization

Fig. 5. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, teacher self-efficacy, teacher burnout, and teacher job satisfaction.

5. Discussion This study supports the conceptualization of teacher self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct and shows that the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale may be a useful measure of the construct. However, the six dimensions of teacher self-efficacy are relatively strongly correlated, and the analysis verify previous results of a small scale study indicating that the six sub-scales may be used as indicators of a latent self-efficacy construct. This makes the scale particularly useful for research purposes. The results also indicate that teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy should be conceptualized as different, but correlated constructs. Although teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy were positively correlated, these constructs were differently related to the school context. Teacher self-efficacy was most strongly related to teachers' relations to parents. Positive relations to parents predicted that teachers had stronger self-efficacy beliefs.

This indicates that experiencing that one is not trusted by the parents, that parents are critical, or that cooperating with parents is difficult reduces the teachers' beliefs in their ability to plan, organize, and carry out activities that is required to attain given educational goals. Hence, the results indicate that parents' evaluation of the teaching is an important frame of reference for teachers' self-evaluation and self-perception. Although collective teacher efficacy was related both to teachers' relations to parents and to teacher autonomy it was most strongly related to supervisory support. Supervisory support was in this study indicated by items tapping teachers' feeling of having cognitive and emotional support from the school leadership, that they could ask the school leadership for advice, and that their relation to the school leadership was one of mutual trust and respect. Thus, compared to (individual) teacher self-efficacy collective teacher efficacy seems to be more dependent on the functioning of the school leadership or the school principal.

Table 3 Brief summary of purposes and main results. Purposes

Results

Test the factor structure of the 24-item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale.

A model defining a single teacher self-efficacy factor did not fit the data whereas both a model defining six primary factors and a model defining six primary factors and a second order factor had good fit to the data.

Examine relations between individual teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and external control defined as teachers' beliefs that factors external to teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish.

External control correlated negatively but weakly with both the six self-efficacy factors and collective efficacy and should be conceptualized as a separate construct. Collective teacher efficacy was positively but moderately correlated with the six dimensions of teacher self-efficacy.

Examine relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout.

Teacher self-efficacy was negatively related to both dimensions of teacher burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization)

Explore how teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout is related to teachers' perception of the school context and to their job satisfaction.

Relation to parents was the strongest predictor of both teacher self-efficacy and the depersonalization dimension of burnout, whereas time pressure was the strongest predictor of emotional exhaustion. Teachers' job satisfaction was strongly related to emotional exhaustion and weakly, but directly related to self-efficacy, depersonalization, autonomy, and time pressure. Also, all five school context variables in this study were indirectly related to job satisfaction, through self-efficacy and burnout.

1066

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

A possible interpretation is that the parents' evaluation of the teaching is a more important frame of reference for teacher selfefficacy than for collective efficacy, whereas collective efficacy are more dependent on perceived opportunities and constraints as a function of leadership style and framework conditions provided by the school leadership. For instance, we may speculate that a supportive school leadership provides norms, goals and values that are shared by all or most teachers at school. Working towards the same goals and following the same norms and values may increase the teachers' beliefs of the ability of the faculty of teachers at the school to execute courses of action required to produce given attainments. External control or teachers' believes that factors external to their teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish was negatively related to both teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy. However, the relations were weak. Moreover, whereas both teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy were strongly related to (different) school context variables, external control was not strongly related to any of the school context variables in this study. These results clearly reveal that external control should be distinguished from both teacher selfefficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy. Although external control may be more strongly related to school context variables which were not measured in this study, a possible interpretation is that external control represents more fundamental and stable attitudes and beliefs, which we may conceptualize as general educational pessimism or optimism, whereas both self-efficacy and collective efficacy are more malleable, and thus more affected by environmental influences. This is an important finding because external control has been termed “teaching efficacy”, which may be confounded with teacher self-efficacy. Following Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) we regard emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as the central elements of burnout. In this study we therefore analyzed these two dimensions of teacher burnout. These two dimensions were weakly correlated confirming previous findings that the two dimensions cannot be added up to a single measure (see Byrne, 1994). Both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were negatively related to teacher self-efficacy. In future research it is therefore important to design studies to explore causal relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. A possible causal interpretation is that low teacher self-efficacy may result in feelings of burnout (Bandura, 1997; Evers et al., 2002; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). For instance, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) argued that low expectation of classroom management increases occupational stress, which may increase emotional exhaustion as well as depersonalization. However, emotional exhaustion may also be expected to result in lower performance. Since self-efficacy beliefs are heavily based on experiences, it is also reasonable that teacher burnout may affect teacher self-efficacy. Consequently, the relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout is likely reciprocal. Emotional exhaustion was most strongly related to time pressure whereas depersonalization was most strongly related to teachers' relations to parents. In this study time pressure was defined as teachers' feeling of having a heavy workload, having to prepare for teaching in the evenings and weekends, and having a hectic school-day with little time for rest and recovery. Given this definition it is not surprising that time pressure was related to emotional exhaustion. It is important to note that although time pressure was related to emotional exhaustion, it was not significantly related to depersonalization. Hence, although emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are traditionally conceptualized as the central elements of burnout, the present study indicates that they are affected by different processes.

Job satisfaction was positively related to teacher self-efficacy and negatively related to both dimensions of teacher burnout with emotional exhaustion as the far strongest predictor. Job satisfaction was also related to autonomy, both directly and indirectly. An analysis of both direct and indirect relations reveals that autonomy, time pressure, and teachers' relations to parents stand out as the most important school contextual variables affecting teachers' job satisfaction. An unexpected result was that, when controlled for self-efficacy and burnout, high time pressure was predictive of higher job satisfaction, although the relation was weak. Even though the model (see Fig. 5) was designed to let time pressure predict job satisfaction, we do not believe that high time pressure affects job satisfaction positively. A possible interpretation is that those teachers who enjoy teaching the most also put most effort into the teaching and the preparation for it. These teachers may therefore also experience the highest time pressure. In order to understand the psychological processes related to teacher burnout and teacher self-efficacy, future research should distinguish between different dimensions of teacher burnout. We may conceptualize emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as separate constructs which are influenced by different processes but which affect each other in a reciprocal manner. Furthermore, both these constructs and teacher self-efficacy may be shaped by a reciprocal interplay between the constructs. Longitudinal studies seem necessary to increase our understanding of these processes. The results of this study have important practical implications. One practical implication is that in developmental work in school one should be particularly concerned with identifying which school context variables or environmental factors one want to focus on. The reason for this is that all five school context variables which were analyzed in this study were significantly related to teachers' cognitive and emotional responses. Particularly strong relations were found between time pressure and emotional exhaustion, between relations to parents and both self-efficacy and depersonalization, and between supervisory support and collective efficacy. Moreover, teacher autonomy was directly related to job satisfaction as well as to self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion. Thus, the school context variables were differently related to teachers' cognitive and emotional responses. Moreover, the school context variables were weakly correlated. This means that effort to improve teachers' working condition should be tailored to defined goals and values. In accordance with previous research we found a particularly strong association between time pressure and the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout and a substantial negative indirect relation between time pressure and job satisfaction. This is particularly worrying because recent research shows that teachers experience an increasing time pressure resulting in less time for rest and recovery (Hargreaves, 2003; Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2006). Teachers we have been talking with especially point out that the school-days have become more hectic, that the time they spend on paperwork and documentation is increasing, and that parents more than before expect teachers to be available after normal working hours (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009a, 2009b). It is therefore important that both local and central school leaders make an effort to reduce time pressure on teachers. That will require a thorough analysis of the roles and responsibilities of teachers, how teaching is organized, as well as the need for different types of documentation. The Norwegian government has recently initiated a study of teachers' use of time in order to bring about such a change. Teachers' relations to parents are in this study shown to be strongly related to both self-efficacy expectations and to depersonalization. Although we should warn against causal interpretations there are several reasons that teachers' relations to parents may affect their self-efficacy as well as the depersonalization

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

dimension of burnout. The teachereparent relation may affect the student's attitudes towards school in general as well as towards particular teachers. A positive relation between teachers and parents may therefore be an important determinant of students' motivation for schoolwork as well as students' behaviour in school. Also, teachers may need to co-operate with parents regarding students' homework. Moreover, during the last decades the level of education among Norwegian parents has become higher. At the same time they have increasingly shown more active involvement in school, making demands regarding the methods and the content of the teaching. Teachers are therefore increasingly dependent on cooperating with parents and conflict with parents may be a serious strain on teachers. Building positive relations to parents is therefore important. We therefore suggest that communication and cooperation with parents be given attention in teacher training as well as in in-service training and developmental work in school. However, building positive relations to parents is not entirely under the control of the individual teacher. Parents are not a homogenous group and parents may have quite different expectations regarding teaching and education. Hence, meeting the expectations of all parents may be impossible for a class teacher. Therefore, to what extend and in what way parents should be involved in school policy is an important question for the school board and the school administration. We believe that the school administration may reduce teachereparent conflict by establishing norms concerning parent involvement and clarifying responsibilities and expectations regarding both parents and teachers. We should note however, that establishing norms for teaching practices should be balanced against teachers' need for autonomy. Whereas teacher autonomy in this study stands out as an important predictor of job satisfaction previous research indicates an international tendency that teacher's autonomy is diminishing (Ballet et al., 2006). We should therefore point out that there is a need for an analysis and a clarification of teacher autonomy. There is a need for both teacher autonomy and for a collective culture in school. This represents a delicate balance between collective culture and teacher autonomy which calls for both theoretical analysis and practical clarifications. This study has several limitations. One limitation of this study is that we measured only five dimensions of the school context. Other school context variables not measured in this study, should be analyzed in future research. Another limitation is that the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is yet not tested in other environments than the Norwegian. Although we consider the six dimensions constituting the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale to be critical to all teachers, the scale needs to be tested in different cultures. Acknowledgement This research was supported by a grant from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Appendix A. Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Translated from Norwegian) How certain are you that you can: Instruction 1 Explain central themes in your subjects so that even the lowachieving students understand. 8 Provide good guidance and instruction to all students regardless of their level of ability. 12 Answer students' questions so that they understand difficult problems.

1067

16 Explain subject matter so that most students understand the basic principles. Adapt Instruction to Individual Needs 5 Organize schoolwork to adapt instruction and assignments to individual needs. 11 Provide realistic challenge for all students even in mixed ability classes. 18 Adapt instruction to the needs of low-ability students while you also attend to the needs of other students in class. 23 Organize classroom work so that both low- and high-ability students work with tasks that are adapted to their abilities. Motivate Students 2 Get all students in class to work hard with their schoolwork. 10 Wake the desire to learn even among the lowest-achieving students. 15 Get students to do their best even when working with difficult problems. 21 Motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork. Maintain Discipline 6 Maintain discipline in any school class or group of students. 9 Control even the most aggressive students. 14 Get students with behavioural problems to follow classroom rules. 19 Get all students to behave politely and respect the teachers. Co-operate with Colleagues and Parents 3 Co-operate well with most parents. 7 Find adequate solutions to conflicts of interest with other teachers. 13 Collaborate constructively with parents of students with behavioural problems. 22 Co-operate effectively and constructively with other teachers, for example, in teaching teams. Cope with Change 4 Successfully use any instructional method that the school decides to use. 17 Manage instruction regardless of how it is organized (group composition, mixed age groups, etc.). 20 Manage instruction even if the curriculum is changed. 24 Teach well even if you are told to use instructional methods that would not be your choose. Response categories (1) Not certain at all, (3) Quite uncertain, (5) Quite certain, (7) Absolutely certain.

Appendix B. Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (Translated from Norwegian) 1 As teachers of this school we can get even the most difficult pupils engaged in their schoolwork. 2 Teachers in this school prevent mobbing effectively. 3 As teacher of this school we handle conflicts constructively because we work as a team. 4 At this school we have a common set of rules and regulations that enable us to handle disciplinary problems successfully. 5 Teachers in this school successfully address individual pupils' needs. 6 At this school we are able to create a safe and inclusive atmosphere even in the most difficult classes.

1068

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069

7 Teachers at this school succeed in teaching math and language skills even to low-ability pupils. Response categories (1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True. Appendix C. External Control Scale (Translated from Norwegian) 1 How much pupils can learn in school is primarily determined by their abilities. 2 If the pupils have not learned discipline at home, there is not much the school can do. 3 A teacher cannot do much to improve students' achievements if they have low abilities for schoolwork. 4 It is practically impossible for a teacher to motivate a student for academic work if he or she lacks support and stimulation at home. 5 Good teaching is more important to students' engagement in schoolwork than is their home environment. Response categories (1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True. Appendix D. Perceived School Context Scale (Translated from Norwegian) Time Pressure 1 Preparation for teaching must often be done after working hours. 2Life at school is hectic and there is no time for rest and recovery. 3 Meetings, administrative work, and documentation take much of the time that should be used for preparing the teaching. Autonomy 1 In my daily teaching I am free to choose teaching methods and strategies. 2 In the subjects that I teach I feel free to decide what content to focus on. 3 I feel that I can influence my working condition. Relation to Parents 1 I feel that the parents have trust in my teaching. 2 The parents are easy to work with. 3 The parents trust and accept my decisions. Discipline problems 1 My teaching is often disrupted by students who lack discipline. 2 Some students with behaviour problems make it difficult to carry out lessons as planned. 3 Controlling students' behaviour takes a lot of time and effort. Supervisory Support 1 In educational matters I can always seek help and advice from the school leadership. 2 My relation with the principal is one of mutual trust and respect. 3 The school leadership is supportive and praise good work. Response categories (1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True.

References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86e95. Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., & Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: analysing changes in teachers' work lives. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 209e229. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191e215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006a). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1e43). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Bandura, A. (2006b). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303e316. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239e253. Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April). A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers' experiences, reactions, and plans. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association in Chicago. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of the causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 645e673. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, W. (2007). The structure of secondary school teacher job satisfaction and its relationship with attrition and work enthusiasm. Chinese Education and Society, 40(5), 17e31. Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 377e400. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227e268. Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 831e845. Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: a study on teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227e243. Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 28e35. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70e84. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego-development, and problem-solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 558e562. Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teacher and Teacher Education, 17, 807e818. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3e13. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63e69. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 4, 63e69. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495e513. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. -T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313e323. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1e55. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499e534. Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 583e593. Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229e243. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123e133.

E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 Leung, D. Y. P., & Lee, W. W. S. (2006). Predicting intention to quit among Chinese teachers: differential predictability of the components of burnout. Anxiety, Stress & Coping. An International Journal, 19, 129e141. Lindqvist, P., & Nordänger, U. K. (2006). Who dares to disconnect in the age of uncertainty? Teachers' recesses and “off-the-clock” work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 623e637. Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2003). Self-efficacy. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218e238). New York: The Guilford Press. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2000). Swimming in the school: expanding the scope of the big fish little pod effect. In Paper presented at the 2000 Self Research Centre Conference, Sydney, Australia. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Mountain View, California: CPP, Inc. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, California: CPP, Inc. Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral change. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378e385. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviours: what really matters. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3e15. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 1e49). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teacher autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 44e51. Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behaviour as a moderator for the job demand-control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 64e75. Pines, A. M., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: Free Press. Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers' beliefs in their control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185e190. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1e28. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. D. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293e315. 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, 177e196.

1069

Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71e96). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Skaalvik, E. M., & Bong, M. (2003). Self-concept and self-efficacy revisited: a few notable differences and important similarities. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 67e89). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. 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, 611e625. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy: conceptual analysis and relations with teacher burnout and perceived school context. In R. Craven, H. W. Marsh, & D. McInerney (Eds.), Self-processes, learning, and enabling human potential (pp. 223e247). Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009a). Trivsel, utbrenthet og mestringsforventning hos lærere. En utfordring for skoleledere. [Job satisfaction, burnout, and selfefficacy among teachers. A challenge for school leaders]. In R. A. Andreassen, E. J. Irgens, & E. M. Skaalvik (Eds.), Skoleledlese. Betingelser for læring og ledelse i skolen (pp. 141e152). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press. Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2009b). Trivsel og belastning i lærerrollen: En kvalitativ tilnærming. [Job satisfaction and strains among teachers. A qualitative study]. Bedre Skole, nr., 2, 35e43. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66e81. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401e411. Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. An International Journal, 21, 37e53. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805. Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers' meaning regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577e625. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 173e194. Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747e766. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teacher and Teacher Education, 6, 137e148.