You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Education Sciences
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

28 March 2023

Teacher Educator Wellbeing, Stress and Burnout: A Scoping Review

and
1
Department of Education, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia
2
Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mount Gravatt 4111, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2023, 13(4), 351;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040351
This article belongs to the Special Issue Creating the Future of Teaching and Teacher Education – Innovative Disruption as a Catalyst for Reform
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Research reveals that due to the intensifying demands of higher education work environments, academic staff are reporting increased levels of burnout and stress and decreasing wellbeing. Teacher educators are academic staff who are involved with teaching and research in the field of Initial Teacher Education (ITE). This scoping review aimed to draw together research about teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout, and to identify where there are gaps in evidence-based knowledge. This study revealed that teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout is a relatively new and under-researched area, and that there is a dearth of current evidence-based literature in this field. As a result of this finding, it is recommended that extensive qualitative and quantitative research be conducted to better understand teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout. It is hoped that this scoping review will drive innovation and reform in ITE by identifying what is known and unknown in the field, thus informing future research to better support teacher educator wellbeing.

1. Introduction

In recent years, higher education academics have been required to accommodate rapid changes in their work landscape [1] while simultaneously negotiating the challenging, conflicting, and complex expectations placed on them in their roles as researchers, teachers, and administrators [2]. Research reveals that because of the increasing demands of higher education work environments, academic staff are reporting high levels of stress and burnout [1,3,4], and low levels of wellbeing [5,6]. This has led to greater interest in academic wellbeing and mental health [6].
Research reveals that factors which are particularly hazardous to academic staff wellbeing include: job insecurity [7]; a performance-based culture with increasing pressure to generate research income and publish in prestigious journals [5,6]; excessive workload; work intensification [8]; and work-family conflict [2]. Significantly, some researchers have argued that universities have transformed from a teaching-led model to a consumer and profit-led business model (for example, [3,9], which has increased stress and burnout in academic staff). Concerningly, increased stress and decreased wellbeing in academic staff can result in poorer performance at work [10], decreased job satisfaction [11], and decreased student wellbeing [7].
To further exacerbate an already challenging situation in 2020 and 2021—caused by the COVID-19 pandemic isolation requirements—higher education learning, teaching and assessment practices were moved to online formats as university campuses were closed and widespread academic job losses occurred [12]. These changes had a negative impact on academic staff wellbeing. For example, Fetherston et al. [8] found that Australian and United Kingdom university teachers’ wellbeing measures were significantly lower than the population norm.
Teacher educators are academic staff who are involved with teaching and research in the field of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) [13]. Alongside the stressors and challenges faced by all higher education academic staff, teacher educators face additional, context specific demands in an increasingly complex work environment [14]. Teacher educators experience externally driven, intense expectations and pressures; for example, government mandated reforms in ITE aimed at producing high performing teachers who are able to improve student learning outcomes [14,15]. Implementing this myriad of external requirements whilst simultaneously answering to many different levels of oversight can create a negative culture which undermines academic wellbeing [16]. In addition, addressing these external demands has resulted in workload intensification for teacher educators [14], requiring a significant workload, often at the expense of time spent on research [16]. Concerningly, such widespread international government mandated reforms have resulted in a highly politicised workspace for teacher educators [16] who often perceive that they are working in a hostile political landscape [17].
To illustrate, in Australia, teacher shortages and declining school student performances in national and international standardised assessments have been addressed with government policy solutions aimed at lifting the quality of teachers through reform in ITE programs [18]. Such quality improvement agendas include: strengthening ITE programs to ensure graduating teachers are classroom ready [19], higher tertiary admission rank entrance score [20], the introduction of literacy and numeracy tests for all Pre-Service Teachers (PST) [21], and the implementation of evidence-based selection criteria for admission to ITE courses [22]. Further, all PST must undergo “Teacher Performance Assessment” before graduating from their ITE [23], and all ITE programs must undergo a two-stage accreditation, including demonstration of impact [24]. Such regulations require significant funds and human resources to implement [25].
Similarly, in the United States, to address concerns with the effectiveness of teacher education and criticisms of teacher education as being disconnected from practice [26], there has been an increasing move toward sharing the responsibility for teacher education across both universities and schools, in addition to an increase in “for-profit” teacher education providers [27]. Graduates are required to pass several standardised tests administered by government bodies in order to demonstrate their competence [27]. In the United States, teacher educators have been described as “context-non-grata” among policy makers who prefer “Pearson over professors” and the fast-tracking of candidates into classrooms [26]. Funding cuts to public universities have reduced the university resources which are available to teacher educators; at the same time, teacher educator accountability has increased [27], as they are required to devote significant resources toward demonstrating their impact [26]. Meanwhile, teacher educators have been negatively narrated by the media, classroom teachers, entrepreneurs, community leaders, funders, and policy makers [26].
Government interventions, such as the prescription of teacher education course content, are driven by governmental “education initiatives” [16] and fanned by media, political and public debate [18]. Most such political reforms position teacher educators as the objects and implementers of reform agendas, rather than the agents of reform [28]. This resulting lack of autonomy for teacher educators may have detrimental impacts on their wellbeing, as evidenced in Self-Determination Theory [29], which recognises individual autonomy as a basic psychological human need required for optimal human functioning, wellbeing and motivation [29].
A further cause of stress and burnout unique to teacher educators includes declining enrolments in teacher education programs, which means increased competition between institutions, and decreased funding for staffing and program resources [30]. In addition, teacher educators often struggle to meet university benchmarks for research income and output, and are therefore susceptible to consequences [31], p. 35.
This scoping review aimed to draw together what is currently known about teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout, and to identify where there are gaps in evidence-based knowledge. Scoping studies seek to examine the extent, range, and nature of research in the field, and to identify the gaps in the current literature [32]. It is hoped that this scoping review will drive innovation and reform in ITE by identifying what is known and unknown in the field, thus informing future research to better support teacher educator wellbeing.

2. Teacher Educator Wellbeing and Burnout

Within teacher education, there is no agreed definition of wellbeing [7]. To date, research in this field has conceptualised wellbeing through several different theoretical perspectives. To illustrate, Kiltz et al. [7] applied three key wellbeing conceptualisations including: “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [33], wellbeing as “a multifaceted construct which includes physical, social, psychological, and emotional well-being, life satisfaction and work engagement” [34], and resilience as an indicator of wellbeing (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Kosnik et al. [11] consider teacher educator wellbeing as a broad concept which includes being a respected community member, having a manageable workload, and experiencing job satisfaction. A further definition of teacher educator wellbeing comes from Roy and Roy [35], who state that wellbeing refers to “the positive relationship and active engagement with the surroundings for the purpose of happy, healthy, and leading harmonious life”.
Research in the field of teacher educator burnout is scarce [36]. However, current research in the field, for example [3,30,36,37], draws largely on the work of Maslach et al. [38] in defining burnout. Burnout is viewed as a form of job stress and is defined as a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal job stressors; it is characterised by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment [38].

3. Method

Scoping studies provide a “snapshot” of current knowledge and identify gaps in the existing literature [39]. The scoping review method has become increasingly common due to its ability to inform research agendas which aim to advance knowledge in a particular field [40]. Scoping studies are most frequently applied to map existing knowledge, identify gaps, and inform future research within a clearly defined field [41]. The aim is not to aggregate findings or synthesise evidence [32]; rather, they are concerned with identifying what is known and unknown in a particular field [42]. Scoping studies are exploratory in nature and are most appropriate when the researchers’ intention is to understand the extent of knowledge in an emerging field in order to inform future research or policy [40]. Thus, a scoping study was deemed the most appropriate method to answer the research questions and inform future researcher and policy makers seeking to support teacher educator wellbeing. Although relatively new to the field of higher education, scoping studies have previously been used to better understand what is known and where there are research gaps; for example, Anderson-Butcher et al. [43] and Reining and Kauffeld [44].
This scoping study applies Arksey and O’Malley’s [32] five stage framework, and Peters et al.’s [40] methodological guidance for conducting scoping reviews to rigorously and transparently map the research area and produce reliable findings [32].

3.1. Stage 1: Research Questions

The following research questions informed this scoping review: (1) What is known from the current literature about teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout? and (2) What are the gaps in current knowledge around teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout?

3.2. Stage 2: Relevant Studies

The key search terms used to capture relevant literature were “teacher educator wellbeing”, “initial teacher educator wellbeing”, “pre-service teacher educator wellbeing”, “student teacher educator wellbeing”, and “teacher educator stress or burnout.” The term “well-being” was also searched as an alternative term for “wellbeing”.
The inclusion criteria were based on research around teacher educator wellbeing, stress or burnout published between the years 2016 and 2022, written in the English language and with the full text available. The following electronic data bases were searched: Google Scholar, A+ Education Informit, Scopus, Proquest, SAGE, ERIC Education Research Complete (EBSCO), and JSTOR. A search of citations and reference lists from all relevant articles was also conducted.

3.3. Stage 3: Study Selection

The initial search resulted in 995 articles, and the reference list and citations search added a further 31 articles; however, many of these articles did not address the inclusion criteria. To illustrate, many articles addressed primary or secondary school teacher wellbeing, stress or burnout, or pre-service teacher wellbeing or stress, and were thus excluded from this study. In addition, studies of the wellbeing, stress or burnout of higher education academics from other disciplines, for example nursing, were also excluded from this scoping review. Full text review of the remaining fourteen articles confirmed that thirteen of them fit the criteria for inclusion in this scoping review. As per recommendations for scoping reviews by Peters et al. [45,46], a ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) flow diagram has been included to map the scoping review process. See Figure 1: Scoping Review PRISMA Flow.
Figure 1. Scoping Review PRISMA Flow.

3.4. Stage 4: Charting the Data

The following data were then extracted from the articles for inclusion in this review: author, year of publication, country, and method. According to scoping review methods [45], these results were then charted. Table 1 “Teacher educator wellbeing stress and burnout articles: 2016–2022” provides a summary of the findings.
Table 1. Teacher educator wellbeing stress and burnout articles: 2016–2022.

3.5. Stage 5: Collating, Summarising and Reporting the Results

The discussion was developed through narrative synthesis, including the date, method and location of the included studies, and was followed by critical analysis in which research gaps were identified and recommendations for future research were made.

4. Limitations

Scoping studies do not seek to aggregate findings or synthesise evidence from the included studies [32]. Every attempt was made to be as comprehensive as possible; however, articles which did not include the key search terms may have been missed in the electronic database search.

5. Results and Discussion

Insert here Table 1: “Teacher educator wellbeing stress and burnout articles: 2016–2022”.
The following discussion addresses the study research questions under the following subheadings: (1) ‘What is Known about Teacher Educator Wellbeing, Stress and Burnout?’, including a discussion of the stressors and challenges experienced by teacher educators, teacher educator exhaustion and burnout, and teacher educator wellbeing; and (2) ‘Where are the research gaps in our current knowledge of teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout?’

5.1. What Is Known about Teacher Educator Wellbeing, Stress and Burnout?

During the years 2016 to November 2022 there were thirteen articles published which fit the criteria for inclusion. Three of these articles were published in 2021, four in 2020, one each in 2022 and 2019, and two each in 2018 and 2016. The articles reported on studies conducted in: United States (four studies), Australia (three studies), Germany (two studies), India (two studies), South Africa, Netherlands, Canada, England, Pakistan, and China.
Three of these studies [3,7,49] included participants who were not teacher educators, and the exact break down of data from teacher educators and other participants was not included in the articles. One study included teacher educators who also worked part time as schoolteachers, two studies included only literacy teacher educators, and the remaining seven studies included a total of 670 teacher educator participants.
Six of the thirteen studies were qualitative, examining challenges experienced by teacher educators (two studies) and teacher educator wellbeing (five studies) (note: one study addressed both of these phenomena). These studies applied semi-structured interviews and open-ended survey data collection methods and used thematic coding data analysis. Six of the studies were quantitative, examining teacher educator emotional exhaustion and burnout (four studies), teacher educator stressors and challenges (two studies), and teacher educator wellbeing (two studies). These studies applied survey data collection methods and used descriptive statistics, correlation and linear regression analysis methods. One mixed methods study examined teacher educator stress.
The retrieval of only 13 articles highlights the relative newness of this research field. While studies have emerged to show data from across different countries, no more than four papers were reported in a particular country. Furthermore, as the field is relatively new, only a small range of data collection tools have been applied, with limited opportunities for replicability.
This scoping review reveals three key themes in the current literature around teacher educator wellbeing: stressors and challenges experienced by teacher educators (six articles), teacher educator exhaustion and burnout (four articles), and teacher educator wellbeing (six articles).

5.2. What Is Known about the Stressors and Challenges Experienced by Teacher Educators?

A total of five articles examined stressors and challenges experienced by teacher educators; see [3,14,15,30,50,51]. The most frequently reported stressor for teacher educators was workload intensification, including stress arising from the conflicting demands of teaching, research, and service roles. This was reported by: Amos-Williams et al. [50], McDonough et al. [14], Coyle et al. [30], Naz et al. [51], and Padilla and Thompson [3]. The difference in time period of the articles highlights that the challenges were not resolved for teacher educators. University policy, processes, and procedures was the next most frequently cited cause of stress experienced by teacher educators; see [14,30,51]. This may also be because of stronger notions of neo-liberal management styles entering higher education institutions, with constant restructures and centralization of professional supports.
Other sources of stress cited in the current literature include: maintaining a sustainable work life balance [14,30,50], relationships with colleagues and feelings of isolation [14,30], leadership [14,30], increased compliance and accountability demands in ITE [14,15], and role conflicts with regard to university promotion requirements [3,30].
Across the challenges and stressors, many appear to be at the systematic level of the university around workload and changes within the university structure which then contributed to negative relationships and loss of work-life balance. As such, it is difficult for individuals to have control over these challenges when they are top-down approaches that are implemented within higher education structures.

5.3. What Is Known about Teacher Educator Exhaustion and Burnout?

Four quantitative studies examined teacher educator exhaustion and burnout (see: [3,36,37,52]. Findings reveal that exhaustion and burnout are common in teacher educators. Padilla and Thompson [3], in their study of 1439 United States university faculty staff, 127 of whom were from the Education faculty, reported that 27% of participants experienced burnout ‘often’ or ‘very often’. Meanwhile, in their study of 200 Indian teacher educators, Kant and Shanker [37] found 100% of their participants were suffering from either extreme (17.5%), mild (74%), or low levels of burnout (8.5%). It is important to note that many of these studies were prior to COVID-19, when further stresses associated with transitions to online learning and lockdowns were not reported.
Pressure to obtain grants, time spent teaching, pressure to conduct service, increase in average hours worked per week, and pressure to perform were also related to an increase in academics burnout [3]. Meanwhile, emotional intelligence [37], a student-focused approach to teaching [36], career aspirations, social contributions [52], social support, time with family, time on leisure activities, and sleeping were related to a decrease in teacher educator burnout [3]. However, finding the balance between these—with stressors and challenges—is difficult, especially with expectations for workloads.

5.4. What Is Known about Teacher Educator Wellbeing?

Six articles reported findings related to teacher educator wellbeing; see [7,11,14,35,49,51]. Factors found to decrease teacher educator wellbeing include: job insecurity [7,11], excessive workload [7,11,49], supporting student wellbeing [7,49]; and perceived lack of institutional support or teacher-researcher role conflict [7,11,49]. Meanwhile, factors found to be supportive of teacher educator wellbeing include teaching and engaging with students [7,11,14], feeling valued, work–life balance, relationships with colleagues, manageable workload, and receiving positive feedback [14]. As such, it is important that more focus is made on the supportive factors and how these can be implemented throughout the working conditions of teacher educators.

5.5. Where Are the Research Gaps?

This scoping review revealed a dearth of literature in the field of teacher educator wellbeing. From a methodological perspective, few quantitative studies have applied validated and reliable measures to determine teacher educator burnout, stress and wellbeing. To illustrate, only three studies have applied the Maslach Burnout Inventory [53] to determine participant emotional exhaustion and burnout; see [3,37,52]. No studies in this scoping review quantitatively measured teacher educator stress. Roy and Roy [35] used an unreferenced ‘general wellbeing’ measure; however, no other studies in this scoping review quantitatively measured teacher educator wellbeing. Further, none of the studies were longitudinal, and had limited data around the long-term effects on teacher educator wellbeing.
In terms of qualitative methods, this scoping review revealed: one case study [49], one modified grounded theory [11], two unspecified methods which involved semi-structured interview data collection [7], and two unspecified methods which involved survey data collection [14,15]. There is a lack of qualitative methodological diversification, and also a lack of repetition of studies to confirm these findings in a variety of contexts.
Another key consideration is the lack of studies in general (total of 13 studies retrieved) across the globe. Teacher educators are important for educating the next generation of teachers; however, little attention has been given to their own wellbeing. If countries are interested in supporting teachers, they must also acknowledge the importance of modelling healthy lifestyle practices from teacher educators. At the moment, it appears that the teacher educators in the study would not be modelling healthy practices to future teachers.
There are gaps in what is known about teacher educator wellbeing at the individual, institutional and policy levels. For example, at the individual level, research gaps include comparisons of teacher educator wellbeing within the individual contexts of primary, secondary, and early years teacher education. In addition, comparisons of teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout in terms of length of time working in higher education. At an institutional level, the relationship between teacher educator wellbeing and PST wellbeing has not been quantitatively examined. Nor has the effect on teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout resulting from the sessional-isation of the academic workforce been examined. Further, there are gaps in what is known about the changing nature of teacher educator work; for example, the shift to online teaching because of the COVID pandemic. From a policy level, there is a lack of longitudinal, correlational, and multivariate evidence around the impact of implementing and monitoring external policy requirements on teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout.

6. Conclusions

This scoping review aimed to determine what is currently known about teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout, and to identify where there are gaps in evidence-based knowledge. This study examined thirteen articles which fit the criteria for inclusion into this study, analysing the date of publication, country of study, study participant groups, study methodology, and key themes addressed. Seven of the thirteen articles were published in 2020 and 2021, with most of the studies being conducted in Australia and the United States. Findings reveal that exhaustion and burnout are common in teacher educators. The most frequently reported stressor for teacher educators was workload intensification, followed by university policy, processes, and procedures. Factors found to decrease teacher educator wellbeing included: job insecurity, excessive workload, supporting student wellbeing, perceived lack of institutional support, and teacher-researcher role conflict. Meanwhile, factors found to be supportive of teacher educator wellbeing included: teaching and engaging with students, feeling valued, work–life balance, relationships with colleagues, manageable workload, and receiving positive feedback.
This scoping review revealed few quantitative studies have applied validated and reliable measures to determine teacher educator burnout, stress, and wellbeing. In addition, there is a lack of correlational, multivariate, and longitudinal evidence, and a lack of qualitative methodological diversification and repetition. Further, there are gaps in what is known about teacher educator wellbeing at the individual, institutional, and policy levels.
This scoping review revealed that teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout is a relatively new and under-researched area, and that there is a dearth of current evidence-based literature in this field. It is therefore recommended that extensive qualitative and quantitative research be conducted in this field to better understand teacher educator wellbeing, stress and burnout, and the effects of these factors at the individual, institutional and policy levels. In the meantime, in light of the stressful and highly politicised nature of teacher educators’ work, and as recommended by Cornu [54], teacher educators need to nurture their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their colleagues. It is hoped that this scoping review will drive innovation and reform in initial teacher education by informing future research, policy, and practice to better support teacher educator wellbeing.

7. Disclosure Statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report. No funding was received for this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.T. and S.G.; methodology, K.T.; validation, S.G.; formal analysis, K.T.; investigation, K.T.; data curation, K.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T.; writing—review and editing, S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kinman, G.; Johnson, S. Special section on well-being in academic employees. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2019, 26, 159–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zábrodská, K.; Mudrák, J.; Šolcová, I.; Květon, P.; Blatný, M.; Machovcová, K. Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 38, 800–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Padilla, M.A.; Thompson, J.N. Burning out faculty at doctoral research universities. Stress Health 2016, 32, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Simons, A.; Munnik, E.; Frantz, J.; Smith, M. The profile of occupational stress in a sample of health profession academics at a historically disadvantaged university in South Africa. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 2019, 33, 132–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Salimzadeh, R.; Saroyan, A.; Hall, N.C. Examining the factors impacting academics’ psychological well-being: A review of research. Int. Educ. Res. 2017, 5, 13–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Urbina-Garcia, A. What do we know about university academics’ mental health? A systematic literature review. Stress Health 2020, 36, 563–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kiltz, L.; Rinas, R.; Daumiller, M.; Fokkens-Bruinsma, M.; Jansen, E. ‘When they struggle, i cannot sleep well either’: Perceptions and interactions surrounding university student and teacher well-being. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 578378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fetherston, C.; Fetherston, A.; Batt, S.; Sully, M.; Wei, R. Wellbeing and work-life merge in Australian and UK academics. Stud. High. Educ. 2020, 46, 2774–2788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rae, D. Universities and enterprise education: Responding to the challenges of the new era. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2010, 17, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Torp, S.; Vinje, H.F.; Haaheim-Simonsen, H.K. Work, well-being and presence among researchers. Int. J. Ment. Health Promot. 2016, 18, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kosnik, C.; Menna, L.; Dharamshi, P. Displaced academics: Intended and unintended consequences of the changing landscape of teacher education. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2022, 45, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bhagat, S.; Kim, D.J. Higher education amidst COVID-19: Challenges and silver lining. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2020, 37, 366–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, K.; Flores, M.A. The Janus-faced teacher educator. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 42, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McDonough, S.; Papatraianou, L.; Strangeways, A.; Mansfield, C.; Beutel, D. Navigating changing times: Exploring teacher educator experiences of resilience. In Cultivating Teacher Resilience: International Approaches, Applications and Impact; Mansfield, C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 283–298. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sharp, L.A.; Diego-Medrano, E.; Hughes, C.; Raymond, R.D.; Piper, R. An examination of challenges and pressures encountered by literacy teacher educators in Texas. Engl. Tex. 2018, 48, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kosnik, C.; Menna, L.; Dharamshi, P.; Beck, C. You teach who you are until the government comes to class: A Study of 28 literacy teacher educators in four countries. In A Companion to Research in Teacher Education; Peters, M., Cowie, B., Menter, I., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 135–151. [Google Scholar]
  17. Murray, J. Beginning teacher educators: Working in higher education and schools’. In International Handbook on Teacher Education; Loughran, J., Hamilton, M.L., Eds.; Springer Academic Publishers: Singapore, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 35–70. [Google Scholar]
  18. Churchward, P.; Willis, J. The pursuit of teacher quality: Identifying some of the multiple discourses of quality that impact the work of teacher educators. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2019, 47, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Australian Government, Department of Education. Draft National Teacher Workforce Action Plan. Available online: https://www.education.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/resources/draft-national-teacher-workforce-action-plan (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  20. Victoria State Government. Initial Teacher Education Reforms. Available online: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/educationstate/Pages/intteached.aspx (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  21. Australian Council for Educational Research. Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education. Available online: https://teacheredtest.acer.edu.au/ (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  22. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Spotlight: Initial Teacher Education Today. Available online: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlight/initial-teacher-education-today (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  23. Department of Education and Training. Through Growth to Achievement: The Report of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available online: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/662684_tgta_accessible_final_0.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  24. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures. Melbourne. Available online: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia_2018-_.pdf?sfvrsn=6ccf23c_2 (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  25. Turner, K.; Stough, C. Pre-service teachers and Emotional intelligence: A scoping review. Aust. Educ. Res. 2020, 47, 283–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Anderson, L. Private interests in a public profession: Teacher education and racial capitalism. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2019, 121, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zeichner, K.M. The Struggle for the Soul of Teacher Education; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cochran-Smith, M.; Keefe, E.; Carneya, M.C. Teacher educators as reformers: Competing agendas. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 41, 572–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ryan, R.; Deci, E. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Coyle, T.; Miller, E.V.; Rivera Cotto, C. Burnout: Why are teacher educators reaching their limits? Excelsior Leadersh. Teach. Learn. 2020, 13, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ellis, V.; McNicholl, J.; Blake, A.; McNally, J. Academic work and proleterianisation: A study of higher education-based teacher educators. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2014, 40, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. World Health Organisation. Mental Health: A State of Well-Being. Available online: http://origin.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/ (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Well-Being Concepts. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  35. Roy, R.; Roy, S. Perception of teacher educators towards subjective wellbeing in relations to gender and locality. Scholar 2016, 1, 68–76. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cao, Y.; Postareff, L.; Lindblom, S.; Toom, A. Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and the nexus with self-efficacy and burnout: Examples from two teachers’ universities in China. J. Educ. Teach. 2018, 44, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kant, R.; Shanker, A. Relationship between emotional intelligence and burnout: An empirical investigation of teacher educators. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2021, 10, 966–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Peters, M.D.J.; Casey, M.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’brien, K.; Colquhoun, H.; Kastner, M.; Levac, D.; Ng, C.; Sharpe, J.P.; Wilson, K.; et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016, 16, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Anderson, S.; Allen, P.; Peckham, S.; Goodwin, N. Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2008, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Anderson-Butcher, D.; Bates, S.; Lawson, H.A.; Childs, T.M.; Iachini, A.L. The Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement: A Scoping Review. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reining, N.; Kauffeld, S. Empirical Findings on Learning Success and Competence Development at Learning Factories: A Scoping Review. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Parker, D.; Soares, C. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Trigwell, K.; Prosser, M.; Ginns, P. Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2005, 24, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pietarinen, J.; Pyhältö, K.; Soini, T.; Salmela-Aro, K. Validity and reliability of the socio-contextual teacher burnout inventory (STBI). Psychology 2013, 4, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gillett-Swan, J.; Grant-Smith, D. Addressing mentor wellbeing in practicum placement mentoring relationships in initial teacher education. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2020, 9, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Amos-Williams, T.; Sayed, Y.; Singh, M. The experiences of teacher educators managing teaching and learning during times of crises at one initial teacher education provider in South Africa. Perspect. Educ. 2022, 40, 69–83. [Google Scholar]
  51. Naz, A.; Liaqat, S.; Ghyas, F. Comparative analysis of stressors and motivators of junior and senior teacher educators. J. Educ. Sci. Res. 2019, 6, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  52. Richter, E.; Lazarides, R.; Richter, D. Four reasons for becoming a teacher educator: A large-scale study on teacher educators’ motives and well-being. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 102, 103322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E.; Leiter, M.P.; Michael, P. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual; Mind Garden: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cornu, R.L. Professional experience: Learning from the past to build the future. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2016, 44, 80–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Predicting Parent Trust Based on Professionals’ Communication Skills
Previous
Student–Teacher Role Reversal at University Level—An Experience in Naval Engineering Education
Next