Next Article in Journal
Psychotherapy with Psilocybin for Depression: Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Keeping Morality “on the Straight” and Never “on the Bend”: Metaphorical Representations of Moral Concepts in Straightness and Curvature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/bs13040296
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during COVID-19 Lockdown

by
Alessandro Geraci
*,
Laura Di Domenico
,
Cristiano Inguglia
and
Antonella D’Amico
Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze Edificio 15, 90128 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13(4), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040296
Submission received: 3 March 2023 / Revised: 28 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 30 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Educational Psychology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Teachers’ psychological well-being is a crucial aspect that influences learning in a classroom climate. The aim of the study was to investigate teachers’ emotional intelligence, burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy in times of remote teaching during COVID-19 lockdown. A sample of 65 teachers (Mage = 50.49), from early childhood through lower secondary education, were recruited during a period of school closure to answer self-report questionnaires and other measures assessing study variables. Results showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers reported higher levels of burnout and lower levels of self-esteem due to multiple challenges related to remote teaching and the growing sense of insecurity regarding health safety in the school environment. However, the negative effects of COVID-19 on teachers’ self-efficacy, work engagement, and burnout varied according to their own levels of emotional intelligence. These results demonstrate that emotional intelligence may support teachers in facing these challenges.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to an unprecedented and unplanned change in the education systems around the world. Isolation, social distancing, the generalized feeling of uncertainty, and the absence of unanimously established guidelines or inequalities emerged, and the fear of contagion generated a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, and sleeping disorders on the general population [1,2,3].
These effects were particularly evident in teachers since during the global health emergency, school buildings closed to protect the public’s health, and many teachers, consequently, settled for innovative ways of teaching [4,5]. Therefore, instead of traditional teaching, teachers learned an emergency remote teaching (ERT) technique defined as a transitory change from instructional delivery to an alternate mode of teaching due to crisis circumstances [6]. Consequently, teachers have experienced an important modification in their work format that has been perceived as an abrupt and unplanned change [7]. Although some teachers were ready to face the adversities, most of them had to adapt in a brief time without training and preparation [8].
However, even when school attendance was reinstated, teachers had to prevent the spread of the virus and face selective blocking and restriction measures during teaching activities [9]. However, some of the measures imposed to prevent contagion in schools also had a direct impact on the way teaching was carried out, with many classes adopting the hybrid format—with half of the students at home and half in the classroom—or bimodal [10,11], mirrored classrooms [12], small bubble groups [13], and even the use of the internet for all the school year [14]. Consequently, before the pandemic, teachers had little previous experience with integrating technology in their daily curricula [15]. This was made even more difficult by schools’ lack of digital infrastructures and equipment, together with poor digital competences of the students, especially in relation to online safety [16].

1.1. Teachers’ Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during the Pandemic

Considering all these evidence, it is not surprising that during the pandemic period teachers tended to report higher levels of psychological difficulties, such as stress, anxiety, and depression [4,17,18,19,20,21]. In particular, the pandemic negatively affected teachers’ experience of teaching and work-life balance in terms of higher levels of burnout and lower levels of both work engagement and self-efficacy. Burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy in teaching, indeed, are highly interconnected. Burnout is conceived to be a state in which a person perceives having no more energy and having reached a point of no return in terms of mental, emotional, and physical resources [22,23,24]. During the pandemic, studies have shown increasing levels of burnout in teachers [4,25,26,27,28]. Over time, teachers have become more exhausted and under pressure, especially because of the change from classical teaching methods into remote teaching [29]. Furthermore, studies show that female teachers, compared to men, manifest a greater vulnerability in terms of experiences and consequences of burnout [30,31]. Teachers’ burnout can affect health and well-being, increasing the chances of suffering from physical and psychological pathologies [32]. More generally, the consequences of teachers’ burnout are low satisfaction, absenteeism, substitution, early retirement, and a deterioration in instructional self-efficacy and teaching effectiveness [26,28,33]. In addition, teachers’ burnout is associated with a low teacher–student relationship, students’ poor academic success, and behavioral problems [34,35,36].
Opposite to burnout, work engagement is a persistent, positive, and satisfying work-related mental state, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption during work activities [37,38]. Studies show that teachers’ work engagement is associated with high satisfaction and wellbeing [39], effective instructional performance [40], and high student engagement [41] and academic success [42]. Recent studies showed that, during the pandemic, teachers’ work engagement has been negatively affected [43,44].
Lastly, self-efficacy in teaching is a particular aspect of the general construct of self-efficacy, defined in Bandura’s social-cognitive theory as a person’s belief in their ability to succeed in a particular situation [45]. Teachers’ self-efficacy corresponds to beliefs in personal and instructional ability to successfully cope with instructional tasks, obligations, and challenges [46]. In addition, it refers also to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to motivate students’ engagement and learning [8]. Past research has consistently shown the key role of teachers’ self-efficacy in fostering students’ motivation, learning, and academic achievements [47,48]. However, teachers’ self-efficacy may change over time due to several factors, such as burnout [28]. Moreover, the pandemic also affected teachers’ self-efficacy as demonstrated in the study [26] that showed how, during the pandemic, teachers manifested a lower level of instructional competence than pre-pandemic teachers. Furthermore, teachers who were teaching in a virtual classroom had the lowest efficacy scores compared to teachers teaching in a hybrid or in-person classroom [49].

1.2. Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence as a Protective Factor

In many recent studies, scientific research has focused on teachers’ emotional intelligence (EI) since teaching is a high-content emotional profession [50], and EI may be a crucial resource against burnout and for promoting work engagement and teaching self-efficacy. Mayer and Salovey [51] conceived EI as the ability to: (a) perceive, value, and express emotions accurately; (b) access and generate feelings that facilitate thinking; (c) understand emotions and have emotional awareness; and (d) regulate emotions and promote emotional and intellectual growth. In addition, they [51] stated that, as a form of intelligence, EI should be measured with a maximum performance test [52]. Another main theoretical model, namely trait EI, conceives EI as emotion-related dispositions and self-perceptions, which are measured using self-report [53]. However, self-report scales have also been designed on the ability EI model, which excludes traits or competencies related to emotions and shows weak association with personality dimensions [54,55]. Contrary to a maximum performance test, which measures actual abilities, ability EI self-report scales measure individuals’ perceptions about their own emotional abilities, namely self-reported EI or perceived EI (PEI) [55]. Performance-based and self-report-based measures of EI show a low convergence validity, suggesting that these two different measurement methods “are most likely tapping into different mental processes” [56] (p. 784). In addition, self-report scores might be susceptible to falsification or social desirability as well as the low accuracy of people’s perceptions about their own emotional abilities [56,57].
Regardless of the theoretical model, studies have found that EI results, both when measured using performance and self-report scales, were significantly associated with several aspects of psychological health, such as a positive mood [58], satisfaction with life [59], well-being [57], and psychological stress [60]. In addition, EI is a psychological factor that might help to buffer the effect of psychological distress [61]. Before the pandemic, some studies already demonstrated that PEI and EI are positively associated with work engagement, self-efficacy, and negatively related to burnout [55,62,63]. However, from a recent systematic review [63], it became evident that most studies assessed the relationship between teachers’ PEI and burnout while only one study used MSCEIT to measure EI. Similarly, four studies performed during the pandemic [27,64,65,66] demonstrated that teachers with higher levels of PEI presented lower levels of burnout. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies investigated the role of teachers’ ability EI in facing adversities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study represents the first one to employ both performance and self-report measures to assess PEI and EI.

1.3. The Present Study

The purpose of this study is twofold: First, it investigates the changes from pre- to post-COVID-19 outbreak in the levels of burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy reported by teachers. Hereby, it is hypothesized that due to the circumstances of the pandemic, burnout levels would increase whereas work engagement and self-efficacy would decrease from pre- (time 1) to post-COVID-19 (time 2). Second, it analyzes whether the changes are affected by teachers’ levels of self-reported EI abilities (PEI) and actual emotional intelligence abilities (EI). Hence, it is hypothesized that burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy changes from time 1 to time 2 vary with the levels of PEI and EI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

The study sample was composed by 65 teachers (M = 4, F = 61) with an average age of 50,49 years (SD = 8.99; age range = 29–72 years). The majority of participants worked at a school (60%), the rest was equally distributed between kindergarten (20%) and lower secondary school (20%). Most teachers worked as curricular (81.5%) whereas the rest of them worked for students with special needs (18.5%). Their professional experience ranged from 0 to 50 years (M = 19.05, SD = 11.47). At the time the research was conducted, the number of weeks that teachers spent using remote teaching ranged from 0 to 24 weeks (M = 12.58, SD = 5.35).
Teachers were recruited during their participation in the MetaEmotions at School program, an experiential training for promoting and developing EI abilities at schools [67]. Schools’ principals and teachers were informed about the research and asked to participate providing them with informed consent. In order to assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions had affected teachers’ burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy, they were administered with a research protocol that presented two forms for some instrument (i.e., burnout, work engagement, self-efficacy): The first one asked participants to think about their work situation before the COVID-19 pandemic and was defined as T1 form, whereas the second one asked them to think about their actual work situation (i.e., during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions) and was defined as T2 form. As a result, for each scale and subscale, two scores were computed and analyzed as two distinct moments in time.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory—CBI

The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory [68] is a self-report measure that assesses burnout syndrome in specific domains and life contexts, including the work domain and, specifically, the school context: personal burnout (PB), work-related burnout (WB), and student-related burnout (SB). The scale consists of 19 items scored on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = never to 5 = always). All the scales showed good internal consistency both for form A (PB: α = 0.75; WB: α = 0.84; SB: α = 0.71) and form B (PB: α = 0.86; WB: α = 0.91; SB: α = 0.84).

2.2.2. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale—UWES

The Utrecht work engagement scale [38] is a self-report tool that measures three dimensions of work engagement: vigor (VI), dedication (DE), and absorption. It is composed by nine items, in which responses are given on a frequency scale varying from 0 (never) to 6 (always). For the study, all the subscales showed good internal consistency both for form A (VI: α = 0.70; DE: α = 0.82; AB: α = 0.79) and form B (VI: α = 0.83; DE: α = 0.89; AB: α = 0.88).

2.2.3. The Norwegian Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Scale—NTSES

The Norwegian Teacher’s self-efficacy scale [69] is a self-report tool that measures six aspects of teachers’ self-efficacy: instruction, adapting instruction to individual needs, cooperating with colleagues and parents, coping with change, motivating students, and maintaining discipline. This scale consists of twenty-four items, with a response scale ranging from 1 (not certain at all) to 7 (absolutely certain). All the scales showed good internal consistency both for the form A (instruction: α = 0.93; adapting instruction to individual needs: α = 0.93; cooperating with colleagues: α = 0.89; coping with change: α = 0.85; motivating students: α = 0.87; maintaining discipline α = 0.92) and form B (instruction: α = 0.92; adapting instruction to individual needs: α = 0.91; cooperating with colleagues: α = 0.87; coping with change: α = 83; motivating students: α = 0.88; maintaining discipline α = 0.91).

2.2.4. The Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale—WLEIS

The Wong and Law emotional intelligence scale [70] is a self-report measure of EI. It consists of 16 items, which are scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree) that aims to assess people’s perception about their own emotional abilities (self-reported EI): self-emotion appraisal (SEA), others’ emotion appraisal (OEA), use of emotion (UOE), and regulation of emotion (ROE). The overall scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.88).

2.2.5. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test—MSCEIT

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test [71] is a maximum performance ability-based measure of EI, which assesses the four branches [50]. The test is composed by 141 items divided in eight sections (tasks) that, in pairs, evaluate the four main emotional intelligence abilities: perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing emotions. The participants’ answers are corrected using the general consensus scores. The test allows us to obtain fifteen main scores: eight subscale scores, the four-branches scores, two area scores (experiential and strategic), and an overall score (EIQ). For the study, the overall test showed good internal consistency (α = 0.82).

2.2.6. The Remote Teaching Questionnaire

The remote teaching questionnaire was designed ad hoc and used in this study to gather information about the extent to which teachers used remote teaching and how it affected their work. The questionnaire is composed of seven items scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very). Each item explored different aspects of the perceived quality of teachers’ work, space, or equipment to carry out remote teaching.

3. Results

3.1. Teachers’ Perceptions about Remote Teaching

Teachers’ answers to the remote teaching questionnaire were analyzed by computing percent frequency distribution for each item that was reported in the bar charts (Table 1). Results showed that 64.6% of teachers believed that remote teaching has affected the quality of their work whereas only 9.2% of teachers thought otherwise. In addition, 78.5% of the teachers sampled perceived their workload to be increasing due to remote teaching, and 72.3% of teachers felt that their work–life balance was negatively affected by remote teaching. Nevertheless, teachers reported to have enough adequate space at home (83.1%), proper equipment at home (84.6%), and technical skills to conduct remote teaching classes (75.3%). However, 52.3% of teachers found it difficult to conduct remote teaching classes as they had to deal with their family members.

3.2. Repeated Measures ANOVA and ANCOVA Results

To evaluate if teachers’ work engagement, burnout, and self-efficacy have changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, three repeated ANOVA measurements were conducted on the scores obtained in T1 and T2 forms. For each scale, the ANOVA included the different subscale scores. Moreover, six ANCOVA measurements were performed with the aim of evaluating whether PEI and/or EI influenced the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in work engagement, burnout, and self-efficacy: Three ANCOVA measurements included the total score of WLEIS, and the three ANCOVA results were entered as the total score of MSCEIT as covariates. Mean, standard deviation, and repeated ANOVA measurements and ANCOVA results for each variable are presented separately in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Results showed that burnout mean levels (Table 2) greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in each domain: personal burnout (F(1, 64) = 79.04, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.55), work-related burnout (F(1, 64) = 49.89, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.44), and student-related burnout (F(1, 64) = 48.40, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.43). However, when both total scores of MSCEIT and WLEIS were entered as a covariate, such differences were no longer significant. Results for work engagement (Table 3) showed that after the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers’ mean levels decreased largely for the dimensions of vigor (F(1, 64) = 40.87, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.39) and dedication (F(1, 64) = 14.14, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.18). Once again, repeated measurement for ANCOVA results showed that such differences vary as a function of MSCEIT and WLEIS. Finally, results for self-efficacy (Table 4) showed a decreasing mean level after the COVID-19 pandemic for the dimension of instruction (F(1, 64) = 7.78, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.11), adapting instruction to individual needs (F(1, 64) = 8.55, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.12), coping with change (F(1, 64) = 9.71, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.13), motivating students (F(1, 64) = 8.71, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.12), and maintaining discipline (F(1, 64) = 6.08, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.09). However, ANCOVA results showed such differences ceased to be significant when considered MSCEIT and WLEIS.

4. Discussion

During these past two years, the pandemic has impacted people’s health and well-being both in a professional context and in everyday life. This study aimed to investigate whether teachers’ burnout, work engagement, and self-efficacy have shifted due to COVID-19 restrictions. In addition, it aimed to investigate whether such changes had a lower impact in people who showed higher levels of PEI and EI.

4.1. Effects of Remote Teaching and COVID-19 Lockdown

With regard to the first aim of the study and hypothesis, data confirmed our predictions. In line with other studies that showed that the pandemic has negatively impacted teachers’ burnout, work engagement and self-efficacy [4,25,26,27,28,49], during the pandemic, our participants reported higher levels of burnout and lower levels of work engagement and self-efficacy than before the pandemic. Moreover, consistently with other studies showing the negative impact of remote teaching [29], our participants reported that remote teaching has affected the quality of their teaching as the workload increased. Thus, it is possible that being forced to resort to remote teaching and to change their ways of teaching would have been an additional source of stress along with the ongoing fear of contagion. Even though most of the teachers had technical and digital skills to conduct the remote activities, they reported a decrease in their instructional efficacy. They had difficulties managing the classroom and the discipline, adapting activities to individual needs, and motivating the students.

4.2. The Role of PEI and EI

With regard to the second aim of the study and hypothesis, our findings also confirmed the initial hypotheses about the protective role of EI against burnout and for maintaining high levels of teachers’ self-efficacy and work engagement consistently with studies before [55,62,63] and during the pandemic [27,64,65,66]. Using both assessment methods focused on PEI and EI provided crucial information since we had the opportunity to confirm that both the self-perception of EI and the actual abilities in performing emotional tasks are factors that influence the way teachers react to stressful situations, such as the outbreak of COVID-19. Emotions convey key information that point out which aspect of the internal and/or external world requires immediate attention. Ignoring emotions, or not processing them properly, implicates that one cannot address properly an adverse situation. High EI individuals should process such information and orient efficiently their thoughts or behaviors to reach the desired outcome.

4.3. Limitations

The current study has potential limitations that must be taken into consideration. First, at the time the research was conducted, the Sicilian region was under a local lockdown due to a high rate of contagion, and consequently, schools were closed. Therefore, teachers’ perceptions might have been affected by the moment they were living in as well as remote teaching. Second, though the results are consistent with previous research, the small sample size is yet a limit. Third, the sample of the present study is almost entirely composed of females, and this could have affected the results; by contrast, the sample distribution reflects the prevalence of females in the general teaching population. Last, we are aware that considering teachers’ perceptions before and during the pandemic as a repeated measure was a methodological artifact since data were collected simultaneously. Hence, teachers’ perceptions might have not been accurate or influenced by other factors not measured in the present study.

5. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply changed several aspects of people’s lives since they have been faced with increased instability in crucial areas of their lives, which has created ongoing pressure. Many people have been afraid for their health, while others have lost the means to provide for themselves or for their families. Like many, teachers have been affected by these problems, and additionally, they faced the pressure of having to function within an educational system that was not designed for remote interactions. All of this contributed to a complex and heavy situation for teachers, which added up to a pre-existing difficult job context. This study provides evidence that, during the pandemic, our participants reported higher levels of burnout and lower levels of work engagement and self-efficacy and that these variables are influenced by teachers’ individual differences in PEI and EI. Despite the limitations, this study contributes to the advancing research and practice related to the role of emotions in teaching, and to highlight the need for teachers to improve and develop their emotional skills to face ongoing demands and new challenges. This suggests that EI abilities are critical resources for adapting to unexpected and challenging situations and that they may become “critical tools” for teachers to adapt to the requests of today’s schools and society and to keep up with the ongoing changes. Adequate emotional processing and managing can support teachers’ ability to address changing and stressful work environments. Teachers’ stress may impair their personal health, as well as compromise their teaching efficacy. In this perspective, it is important to invest in social and emotional learning and training specifically addressed to teachers, both for improving teachers’ emotional abilities and as a medium for improving class climate and students’ emotional well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and A.D.; methodology, A.G. and A.D.; software, A.G. and L.D.D.; validation, A.G., C.I. and A.D.; formal analysis, A.G. and L.D.D.; investigation, A.G. and L.D.D.; resources, A.D. and C.I.; data curation, A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G. and L.D.D.; writing—review and editing, A.G., L.D.D., C.I. and A.D.; visualization, A.G. and C.I.; supervision, C.I. and A.D.; project administration, A.D.; funding acquisition, A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

A.G.’s work was supported by the co-funding of the European Union—ERDF or ESF, PON Research and Innovation 2014–2020—Ministerial Decree 1062/2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Palermo (protocol code 3267—2019/10/09).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nech, M.; Tsehay, M.; Birkie, M.; Biset, G.; Tadesse, E. Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and psychological distress among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2021, 67, 892–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rodríguez-Rey, R.; Garrido-Hernansaiz, H.; Collado, S. Psychological Impact and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among the General Population in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Şimşir, Z.; Koç, H.; Seki, T.; Griffiths, M.D. The relationship between fear of COVID-19 and mental health problems: A meta-analysis. Death Stud. 2022, 46, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sokal, L.; Trudel, L.E.; Babb, J. Canadian teachers’ attitudes toward change, efficacy, and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 1, 100016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stang-Rabrig, J.; Brüggemann, T.; Lorenz, R.; McElvany, N. Teachers’ occupational well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of resources and demands. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 117, 103803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EDUCAUSE Review®. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  7. Moser, K.M.; Wei, T.; Brenner, D. Remote teaching during COVID-19: Implications from a national survey of language educators. System 2021, 97, 102431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cataudella, S.; Carta, S.M.; Mascia, M.L.; Masala, C.; Petretto, D.R.; Agus, M.; Penna, M.P. Teaching in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Study on Teachers’ Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy in an Italian Sample. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Li, D.; Lin, E.Z.; Brault, M.A.; Paquette, J.; Vermund, S.H.; Godri Pollitt, K.J. Reopening Schools After a Novel Coronavirus Surge. In Coronavirus Disease-COVID-19; Rezaei, N., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 785–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chavarría-Bolaños, D.; Gómez-Fernández, A.; Dittel-Jiménez, C.; Montero-Aguilar, M. E-Learning in Dental Schools in the Times of COVID-19: A Review and Analysis of an Educational Resource in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Odovtos-Int. J. Dent. Sc. 2020, 22, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schwarz, M.; Scherrer, A.; Hohmann, C.; Heiberg, J.; Brugger, A.; Nuñez-Jimenez, A. COVID-19 and the academy: It is time for going digital. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Malkus, N.; Christensen, C.; Schurz, J. School District Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic; American Enterprise Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ziauddeen, N.; Woods-Townsend, K.; Saxena, S.; Gilbert, R.; Alwan, N.A. Schools and COVID-19: Reopening Pandora’s box? Public Health Pract. 2020, 1, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vera, J.D.; Peña Hojas, D.; Ruiz Ramirez, A.K.; Macías Mora, D. Percepción Del Aprendizaje En El Contexto De Las Clases En línea De La Universidad De Guayaquil Frente a La COVID-19. Sinapsis 2020, 3, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. König, J.; Jäger-Biela, D.J.; Glutsch, N. Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 608–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ortega, J.H.; Collado, J.R. La mediación didáctica del profesorado italiano de ELE ante el desafío del confinamiento domiciliario por COVID-19. In Estudios de Lingüística Hispánica. Teorías, Datos, Contextos y Aplicaciones: Una Introducción Crítica; Mariottini, R., Palmerini, M., Eds.; Dykinson S.L.: Madrid, Spain, 2022; pp. 1383–1411. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim, L.E.; Leary, R.; Asbury, K. Teachers’ Narratives during COVID-19 Partial School Reopenings: An Exploratory Study. Educ. Res. 2021, 63, 244–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Q.; Miao, Y.; Zeng, X.; Tarimo, C.S.; Wu, C.; Wu, J. Prevalence and factors for anxiety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic among the teachers in China. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 277, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N.; Berasategi Santxo, N.; Idoiaga Mondragon, N.; Dosil Santamaría, M. The Psychological State of Teachers During the COVID-19 Crisis: The Challenge of Returning to Face-to-Face Teaching. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 620718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Prado-Gascó, V.; Gómez-Domínguez, M.T.; Soto-Rubio, A.; Díaz-Rodríguez, L.; Navarro-Mateu, D. Stay at Home and Teach: A Comparative Study of Psychosocial Risks Between Spain and Mexico During the Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhou, X.; Yao, B. Social support and acute stress symptoms (ASSs) during the COVID-19 outbreak: Deciphering the roles of psychological needs and sense of control. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2020, 11, 1779494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Queen, D.; Harding, K. Societal pandemic burnout: A COVID legacy. Int. Wound J. 2020, 17, 873–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gómez-Domínguez, V.; Navarro-Mateu, D.; Prado-Gascó, V.J.; Gómez-Domínguez, T. How Much Do We Care about Teacher Burnout during the Pandemic: A Bibliometric Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pellerone, M. Self-Perceived Instructional Competence, Self-Efficacy and Burnout during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Study of a Group of Italian School Teachers. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sánchez-Pujalte, L.; Mateu, D.N.; Etchezahar, E.; Gómez Yepes, T. Teachers’ Burnout during COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain: Trait Emotional Intelligence and Socioemotional Competencies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Weißenfels, M.; Klopp, E.; Perels, F. Changes in Teacher Burnout and Self-Efficacy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interrelations and e-Learning Variables Related to Change. Front. Educ. 2022, 6, 736992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mosleh, S.M.; Kasasbeha, M.A.; Aljawarneh, Y.M.; Alrimawi, I.; Saifan, A.R. The impact of online teaching on stress and burnout of academics during the transition to remote teaching from home. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-González, M.A.; Torrano, F.; García-González, G. Analysis of Stress Factors for Female Professors at Online Universities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Negrut, N.; Codrean, A.; Hodisan, I.; Bungau, S.; Tit, D.M.; Marin, R.; Behl, T.; Banica, F.; Diaconu, C.C.; Nistor-Cseppento, D.C. Efficiency of antiviral treatment in COVID-19. Exp. Ther. Med. 2021, 21, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Martínez-Monteagudo, M.C.; Inglés, C.J.; Granados, L.; Aparisi, D.; García-Fernández, J.M. Trait emotional intelligence profiles, burnout, anxiety, depression, and stress in secondary education teachers. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2019, 142, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 1059–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arens, A.K.; Morin, A.J.S. Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 108, 800–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Collie, R.J.; Martin, A.J. Teachers’ sense of adaptability: Examining links with perceived autonomy support, teachers’ psychological functioning, and students’ numeracy achievement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2017, 55, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hoglund, W.L.; Klingle, K.E.; Hosan, N.E. Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. J. Sch. Psychol. 2015, 53, 337–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Colomeischi, A. Teachers’ Life Satisfaction and Wellbeing: Engagement Influences. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2017, 2, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hultell, D.; Gustavsson, J.P. Factors affecting burnout and work engagement in teachers when entering employment. Work 2011, 40, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, H.L.; Lattuca, L.R.; Hamiton, E.R. Conceptualizing Engagement: Contributions of Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 97, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hakanen, J.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 43, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pöysä, S.; Pakarinen, E.; Lerkkanen, M.-K. Corrigendum: Patterns of Teachers’ Occupational Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Relations to Experiences of Exhaustion, Recovery, and Interactional Styles of Teaching. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 772114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pöysä, S.; Pakarinen, E.; Lerkkanen, M.K. Profiles of Work Engagement and Work-Related Effort and Reward Among Teachers: Associations to Occupational Well-Being and Leader-Follower Relationship During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 861300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Steca, P.; Malone, P.S. Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 44, 473–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Achurra, C.; Villardón, L. Teacher’ Self-Efficacy and Student Learning. Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 2, 366–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mojavezi, A.; Tamiz, M.P. The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on the Students’ Motivation and Achievement. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2012, 2, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pressley, T.; Ha, C. Teaching during a Pandemic: United States Teachers’ Self-Efficacy During COVID-19. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 106, 103465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Loh, C.E.; Liew, W.M. Voices from the ground: The emotional labour of English teachers’ work. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2016, 55, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P. What is emotional intelligence? In Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications; Salovey, P., Sluyter, D.J., Eds.; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D.R. Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychol. Inq. 2004, 15, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Petrides, K.V.; Pita, R.; Kokkinaki, F. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. Br. J. Psychol. 2007, 98, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sánchez-Álvarez, N.; Extremera, N.; Fernández-Berrocal, P. The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. J. Posit. Psychol. 2016, 11, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. D’Amico, A.; Geraci, A.; Tarantino, C. The Relationship between Perceived Emotional Intelligence, Work Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Burnout in Italian School Teachers: An Exploratory Study. Psihol. Teme 2020, 29, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brackett, M.A.; Rivers, S.E.; Shiffman, S.; Lerner, N.; Salovey, P. Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 780–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Brackett, M.A.; Mayer, J.D. Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 29, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Schutte, N.S.; Malouff, J.M.; Simunek, M.; McKenley, J.; Hollander, S. Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional well-being. Cogn. Emot. 2002, 16, 769–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Austin, E.J.; Saklofske, D.H.; Egan, V. Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2005, 38, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ma, Y.; Fang, S. Adolescents’ Mindfulness and Psychological Distress: The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Newton, C.; Teo, S.T.T.; Pick, D.; Ho, M.; Thomas, D. Emotional intelligence as a buffer of occupational stress. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 1010–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Brackett, M.A.; Palomera, R.; Mojsa-Kaja, J.; Reyes, M.R.; Salovey, P. Emotion-regulation ability, burnout, and job satisfaction among British secondary-school teachers. Psychol. Sch. 2010, 47, 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mérida-López, S.; Extremera, N. Emotional intelligence and teacher burnout: A systematic review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 85, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. López-Angulo, Y.; Mella-Norambuena, J.; Sáez-Delgado, F.; Portillo Peñuelas, S.A.; Reynoso González, O.U. Association between teachers’ resilience and emotional intelligence during the COVID-19 outbreak. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2022, 54, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pozo-Rico, T.; Gilar-Corbí, R.; Izquierdo, A.; Castejón, J.-L. Teacher Training Can Make a Difference: Tools to Overcome the Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Schools. An Experimental Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rogowska, A.M.; Meres, H. The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Life Satisfaction among Teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. D’Amico, A.; Geraci, A. MetaEmotions at School: A Program for Promoting Emotional and MetaEmotional Intelligence at School; a Research-Intervention Study. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kristensen, T.S.; Borritz, M.; Villadsen, E.; Christensen, K.B. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress 2005, 19, 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 99, 611–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wong, C.S.; Law, K.S. The Effects of Leader and Follower Emotional Intelligence on Performance and Attitude: An Exploratory Study. Leadersh. Q. 2002, 13, 243–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s Manual; Multi-Health Systems: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Percent frequency distribution of teachers’ answers to the remote teaching questionnaire.
Table 1. Percent frequency distribution of teachers’ answers to the remote teaching questionnaire.
ItemNot at AllSlightlyModeratelyVery
1. Do you believe that remote teaching has negatively affected the quality of your work?9.226.249.215.4
2. Do you perceive an increase in your workload as a result of remote teaching?9.212.332.346.2
3. Has remote teaching negatively affected your daily planning and work–life balance?7.72033.838.5
4. Do you have adequate space at home to conduct your remote teaching classes?016.950.832.3
5. Do you have proper equipment at home to conduct your remote teaching classes?1.613.863.121.5
6. Do you possess the technical skills required to manage your remote teaching classes?1.523.261.513.8
7. Is remote teaching made difficult by the need to mind your children or other family members?23.124.632.320
Table
Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for burnout.
Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for burnout.
Descriptive StatisticsANOVAANCOVA (MSCEIT)ANCOVA (WLEIS)
ScaleSubscaleTimeMeanSDF(1,64)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2
CBPBT128.7214.9979.04 ***0.0000.551.680.1990.030.020.8800.00
T249.8720.18
WBT119.4514.0649.89 ***0.0000.441.770.1880.030.000.9830.00
T238.1322.30
SBT119.8114.1548.40 ***0.0000.43.350.5570.010.060.8140.00
T235.1922.29
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for work engagement.
Table 3. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for work engagement.
Descriptive StatisticsANOVAANCOVA (MSCEIT)ANCOVA (WLEIS)
ScaleSubscaleTimeMeanSDF(1,64)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2
UWESVIT15.640.6340.87 ***0.0000.391.680.2000.030.140.7070.00
T25.081.00
DET15.780.5914.14 ***0.0000.181.830.1810.030.050.8170.00
T25.410.87
ABT15.640.653.350.0720.050.250.6200.000.140.7060.00
T25.470.77
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for self-efficacy.
Table 4. Repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA results for self-efficacy.
Descriptive StatisticsANOVAANCOVA (MSCEIT)ANCOVA (WLEIS)
ScaleSubscaleTimeMeanSDF(1,64)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2F(1,63)pηp2
NTSESInstructionT16.021.077.78 **0.0070.110.110.7370.001.570.2150.02
T25.761.09
Adapting instruction to individual needsT16.011.068.55 **0.0050.120.030.8750.000.840.3630.01
T25.691.09
Cooperating with colleaguesT16.040.993.780.0710.050.810.3730.011.530.2210.02
T25.851.02
Coping with changeT15.671.119.71 **0.0030.130.160.6900.001.540.2190.02
T25.401.06
Motivating studentsT15.751.018.71 **0.0040.120.020.8820.000.540.4640.01
T25.461.04
Maintaining disciplineT15.891.086.08 *0.0160.091.990.1630.030.070.7940.00
T25.651.14
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Geraci, A.; Di Domenico, L.; Inguglia, C.; D’Amico, A. Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during COVID-19 Lockdown. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040296

AMA Style

Geraci A, Di Domenico L, Inguglia C, D’Amico A. Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during COVID-19 Lockdown. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(4):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040296

Chicago/Turabian Style

Geraci, Alessandro, Laura Di Domenico, Cristiano Inguglia, and Antonella D’Amico. 2023. "Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during COVID-19 Lockdown" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 4: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040296

APA Style

Geraci, A., Di Domenico, L., Inguglia, C., & D’Amico, A. (2023). Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, Work Engagement, and Self-Efficacy during COVID-19 Lockdown. Behavioral Sciences, 13(4), 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040296

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop