A Systematic Review on Teachers’ Well-Being in the COVID-19 Era

Abstract

The COVID-19 health crisis has wrought substantial challenges on individuals, societies, and organizations worldwide that have significantly transformed the way people function in their workplace on a daily basis, resulting in heightened levels of physical, psychological, and social deprivation. Available empirical evidence in the field of education has explicitly foregrounded the negative impact of the pandemic on teachers’ well-being (TWB) and mental health as existing pressures became exacerbated and additional stressors accumulated in the workplace in search of the requisite TWB remedial interventions to be used in times of crises. As frontline education providers, teachers were not only called upon to confront difficulties associated with the shift to COVID-19-induced online modes of instruction supporting students’ academic development and well-being but also effectively navigate adversity and stress in their own personal and professional lives. Given that teacher well-being has consistently been reported as a key determinant of quality education and excellence ensuring the stability of a well-qualified workforce, this study uses a systematic review approach to investigate educators’ well-being status, identify predictors, and report on the effective strategies for TWB utilized by educators themselves during the COVID-19 era. Fifty-three empirical studies published between 2020 and 2023, collected within the PRISMA-statement framework, were included in the final analysis. Implications for policy and school administrators are also discussed followed by insights for future research avenues in the area of teacher education and professional development.

1. Introduction

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in late December 2019 and the ensuing imposition of stringent health emergency protocols including lockdown enforcement and social distancing restrictions [1] abruptly disrupted life and triggered a socioeconomic crisis, altering societal living conditions [2] and inflicting profound psychological distress on individuals worldwide [3]. The “mental health pandemic” [4], accompanied by sedentariness and physical inactivity, increased dramatically during the COVID-19 period, trapping the world in a deadly three-pronged vicious circle of three pandemics [5] with a significant detrimental effect on the general population’s well-being [6]. This trend was equally attested extensively in education in a substantial number of empirical studies exclusively reporting on students’ achievement [7,8], motivation for learning [9], and physical and mental well-being [10,11], often to the exemption of teachers’ well-being during this time. Yet, emerging research capitalizing on the necessity to ensure quality education as a key lever for the sustainable development and growth of modern society has recently revisited the issue of teacher well-being (TWB) in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic to understand and document educators’ experiences within the context of this crisis.

Preliminary evidence indicates that the pandemic took a severe toll on teachers’ mental health and well-being [12], many of whom had already exhibited high levels of stress and emotional exhaustion in the pre-pandemic era [13]. Typically, heavy workloads, time constraints, and challenges performing various duties that were once perceived as substantial have been complicated and intensified by the rapid shift to online teaching with the advent of COVID-19 [14]. Uncertainty about the duration of school closures, inadequate training in online teaching methodologies [15], limited digital competence skills [16], and excessive bureaucratic tasks and poor infrastructure [17] led to heightened levels of stress, anxiety [18], and job ambiguity [19] with potentially adverse effects in the long term on teachers’ professional performance [13], higher attrition rates [20], and lower academic achievement in students [21]. Longitudinal investigations indicated an increase in teacher burnout symptoms [22], engendered by prolonged lockdown conditions. Of the cases reported, 87% experienced increased mental health and well-being issues [23], and 53% demonstrated a decrease in self-perceived professional well-being [24]. Still, the majority of teachers expressly reported the failure of state and school administration to take the necessary steps to mitigate the negative psychological impact of COVID-19 and support their overall well-being throughout the pandemic. Given the pivotal role of TWB in creating a supportive and stimulating learning environment [25,26] and the need to expand our knowledge with respect to teachers’ psychological functioning by identifying the determinant factors related to TWB amid the pandemic, this review systematically synthesizes relevant empirical studies published within the 2020–2023 timeframe that report on TWB status throughout COVID-19 crisis across primary, secondary, and higher education levels. To this end, this paper aims to address each of the following questions:

• Research Question #1. How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact overall TWB across different educational levels?
• Research Question #2. What are the key determinants of TWB in terms of the challenges faced and leverage actions used by educators to maintain and advance their sense of well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic period?
• Research Question #3. What are the research design trends used in the examination of TWB throughout the COVID-19 pandemic period?

This paper is structured along the following six sections: Section 2 provides the theoretical framework for our study focusing on how TWB as a construct has been conceptualized and operationalized in extant educational research as a valued precondition and indicator for teaching quality and school effectiveness by ensuring teachers’ optimal functioning in and commitment to school. Section 3 provides the justification used for our systematic review with a discussion of the recent literature on TWB, seeking to identify research gaps that need to be properly addressed. Section 4 describes the research methodology followed in this study, and the key findings of this review are presented and categorized for each research question in Section 5. Implications for policymakers and educators at the school management level related to TWB are outlined in Section 6, where suggestions for future research in the area are also provided.

2. Teacher Well-Being in the COVID-19 Era

Although research on TWB has tremendously increased in recent years [27,28], it is imperative to describe the notion of well-being, which is often studied under an array of different theoretical frameworks and views, in our effort to determine the extent to which TWB has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic era.

The relevant interdisciplinary literature is strikingly replete with an abundance of definitions of well-being. Yet, the term still evades consensual conceptualization as a function of its multi-dimensional, dynamic, and context-dependent nature [29]. OECD [30] conceptualizes well-being in terms of material conditions and quality of life which, according to the WHO [31] (2021), are the fundamental prerequisites that enable both individuals and societies to contribute to the world with a sense of meaning and purpose that supports tracking the equal distribution of resources, general prospering, and sustainability. Well-being has invariably been identified as a complex, multi-factorial concept linked to overall life satisfaction, the presence of positive emotions, and the lack of negative feelings [32] with physical, material, social, emotional, developmental, and activity dimensions [33]. Similarly, Holmes [34] defines well-being as ‘being in a comfortable, happy or healthy state’ that consists of an amalgamation of four distinct types of well-being within an individual, i.e., physical, emotional, mental, and intellectual well-being, while Gillett-Swan and Sargeant’s [35] definition describe well-being as ‘a process overtime, or an individual’s ability to manage inputs that can impact their particular emotional, physical, or cognitive state in response to a given context’. Within more recent holistic definitional frameworks that move beyond the domain of individual subjectivity, well-being is perceived as ‘dynamically constructed by its actors through an interplay between their circumstances, locality, activities and psychological resources, including interpersonal relations’ [36] (p. 118) and ‘a dynamic sense of meaning and life satisfaction emerging from a person’s subjective personal relationships with the affordances within their social ecologies’ [37] (p. 16). In this sense, well-being is viewed as a complex dynamic system, diverse and fluid across time, which fluctuates throughout personal and professional life depending on the interactions between individuals and their environments [38].

In classical psychological models, well-being has been broadly described as ‘optimal psychological functioning and experience’ [39] (p. 142), which has been empirically studied from two different perspectives grounded in two different philosophical strands, i.e., (a) the hedonic or ‘subjective wellbeing’ approach that is associated with happiness, pleasure, low levels of negative affect, and overall life satisfaction [40,41], determined by a ‘hedonic balance’ between positive and negative affect [42], and (b) the eudemonic approach that is based on actions reflecting personal values, virtues, and excellence that allow the full development of individuals’ potentials, leading to a fulfilled and meaningful life [43]. To Ryff [44,45], eudemonic well-being denotes psychological well-being that is correlated with high levels of autonomy, personal development, self-acceptance, purpose in life, competence or environmental mastery, and sound interpersonal relations, with each one of these factors exerting different challenges to an individual in the process of functioning positively [46]. Satisfactory levels of psychological well-being are conditioned by the existence of happy feelings, contentment in life, and the absence of stress disorder and depression symptoms [47] and can even serve as a predictor of an individual’s physical health and age [48]. The inclusion of hedonic and eudemonic elements has inevitably led to more comprehensive models of well-being [49] grounded on the premise that engagement with activities that enhance personal competencies and optimal functioning directly impact life satisfaction or positive affect [50]. Seligman’s [51] PERMA extended framework involving the evaluation of well-being holistically in terms of positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and purpose, and accomplishment, has often been utilized for rigorous investigation of well-being in school contexts, e.g., [52,53], albeit to a limited extent, prompting the development of similar frameworks, as evidenced by Noble and McGrath’s [54] PROSPER model intended for the implementation of positive education.

In addition to its emotional dimension, well-being in the workplace has also been the subject of intense study in the areas of occupational health and industrial psychology, as it ensures organizational resilience and sustainability [55] by increasing job satisfaction and self-efficacy to engaged employees who are willing to invest effort in their work and persist in the face of difficulties [56]. An overview of related research indicates that occupational well-being has often been defined and empirically investigated within the framework of (a) the heuristic job demand–resource (JD-R) model that operationalizes occupational well-being in relation to specific job stress factors, classified as job demands and job resources, resting on the assumption that employees’ work engagement is built on the presence of job-related resources [57] and (b) the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model that emphasizes the reward rather than the control structure of work [58]. Following the JD-R model, professional well-being is treated as a function of a balance between positive job characteristics in the form of job resources at either the individual or organizational level, as well as negative ones related to the typical physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of an occupation [59]. Alternatively, within the ERI model, a lack of reciprocity between effort (extrinsic job demands and an individual’s intrinsic motivation to meet them) and reward (i.e., salary, esteem reward, career opportunities) may lead to increased work stress, decreased occupational well-being, and consequently, to health impairment and absenteeism [60]. Although both models lack explanatory power by reducing the reality of working organizations to only a handful of variables, they have been widely used to provide useful insights into teachers’ occupational well-being status across diverse educational contexts [61], either by assessing the detrimental impact of work-related stress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout on teachers’ professional well-being, e.g., [62], or by focusing on institutionalized recovery practices and self-management coping strategies used by educators to strengthen it [63]. Notably, this line of empirical research significantly intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic era in an effort to provide more nuanced teacher well-being profiles in times of crisis using person-oriented approaches [64].

Valued as a crucial element and indicator of teaching quality [65] and student achievement [66], TWB resurfaced as the focal point of a substantial renewed research interest over the past decade, motivated by the necessity to enable teachers to become more effective in their professional roles. In an attempt to eliminate definitional fuzziness surrounding well-being in the educational field, the concept has most commonly been associated with job satisfaction and described in either deficit terms, as a function of lack of stress, burnout [67], emotional exhaustion, and problems with retention [68], or as an ‘optimal psychological functioning and experience at work’ [69] that involve ‘the prevalence of positive emotions and cognitions toward school, persons in school and the school context over the negative ones’ [70] (p. 3). As an inherently complex construct, TWB has even been perceived as being intricately intertwined with hedonistic and eudemonic elements of well-being, denoting pleasurable moments in teaching students and a deeper sense of teaching, respectively [71], that refers to ‘teachers’ responses to the cognitive, emotional, health and social conditions pertaining to their work and their profession’ [72] (p. 18). In this sense, TWB ceases to ‘be considered solely the responsibility of the individual’ [73] (p. 16) and can succinctly be defined for the purposes of this study as a resulting ‘positive emotional state’ emerging from the subjective way a person interprets and interacts with the immediate school environment [74] (p. 286). Following the line of pre-pandemic research on TWB conducted within an ecological systems framework [75], this review study addresses TWB within the turbulent COVID-19 era and seeks to determine the impact of environmental interconnectedness at the organizational, societal, and cultural level on TWB [76,77] during this period. It also considers the practical implications for educators, administrators, and policymakers alike in their effort to foster and enhance their teaching staff’s well-being using practical interventions at various educational levels in times of crisis.

3. Rationale for the Current Review

Intensified scientific interest in TWB spurred by the developing popularity of positive psychology (PP) within the last two decades has inevitably triggered comprehensive systematic reviews to either elucidate the definitional fuzziness surrounding TWB, e.g., [78,79], or identify potential predictor variables affecting the well-being of specific groups of teachers serving predominantly at the preschool [80] and early education levels [61]. More recently, the related literature on TWB spanning the period between 2000 and 2019 was thoroughly reviewed by Hascher and Weber [81], focusing specifically on the identification of TWB individual and work-related correlates and predictors, who reported the paucity and effectiveness of current TWB intervention research in exclusively primary and secondary educational settings. TWB has also been bibliometrically reviewed by Olaleye and Olaleye [82] in their effort to map out prevalent research trends in the Finnish academic research community with respect to the study of teacher and student well-being under the PERMA theoretical framework. Interestingly, as the COVID-19-initiated emergency remote teaching mode posed a significant threat to the quality of education, augmenting difficulties experienced by educators in organizational justice and generating interpersonal problems, role confusion, work overload, psychosomatic disorders, and burnout [83], TWB was revisited in a limited number of relevant systematic studies.

One such study was performed by Pyżalski and Poleszak [84], which involved an overview of key empirical quantitative and qualitative research on teachers’ mental health, well-being, and occupational stress throughout the period of emergency remote education within the Polish primary and secondary educational context. Results derived from a total of 11 empirical studies indicated overall that issues related to teacher mental health and well-being were underrepresented in research and absent from daily state school practice during the pandemic. In a related systematic review undertaken by Garcia et al. [85], teachers’ psychological well-being was investigated during and after the COVID-19 era in an effort to assess the effectiveness of TWB interventions based on the tenets of positive psychology. The key review findings underscored a scarcity of research on TWB from a person-centered approach in times of crisis as opposed to student well-being at all formal educational levels, calling for a proliferation of professional development initiatives and interventions to enable teachers to maintain and promote their well-being during a difficult time. Although both studies are valuable contributions to the growing literature on TWB in the pandemic years, the generalizability of their findings is limited by their narrow focus resulting from the selection of a small sample of empirical studies in terms of educational settings or theoretical frameworks.

To overcome such limitations and expand current knowledge on the topic, this review aims to systematize available empirical research evidence on overall TWB status throughout the disruptive times of the COVID-19 era, identify self-management strategies and targeted interventions used on an individual and school management level to alleviate COVID-19-induced stressors and optimize educators’ well-being in their workplace, and provide an overview of current research trends in the area. Resting on the premise that a continuous, well-functioning, and high-quality education system is imperative for modern societies, understanding the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic affected TWB across all levels of education is vital for educational leaders and policymakers alike to gain valuable insights into teachers’ experiences of the sudden changes effected by prolonged lockdown periods and support teachers’ well-being in forthcoming crisis events in the future.

4. Methodology Used in This Review

In order to obtain a thorough understanding of TWB during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study concentrates on key findings of empirical studies collected using the systematic literature review technique [86,87], which involves the identification and synthesis of available research evidence of sufficient quality [88] using systematic and precise methods to classify, select, and critically analyze multiple research studies or documents [89]. The review process was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [90,91], which adequately and concisely describe the decision-making processes involved in all phases of a study regarding identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of selected studies as well as research synthesis procedures. The review process undertaken in this study involved three stages, according to [92]:

Planning: (a) selection of databases, (b) definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and (c) definition of categories for the analysis.

Review process: (a) journal and study selection, (b) data extraction, and (c) data synthesis.

Review report: analysis of the results and discussion of the findings in relation to the initial research questions.

4.1. Search Strategy

Following each of the phases delineated in the PRISMA flow diagram, an extensive search of the literature was carried out in three scientific databases that were thought to be compatible with the goals of our systematic review, i.e., Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct, as they provide easy access to up-to-date empirical research on the topic. All searches were limited to empirical studies reported in peer-reviewed journals and published in English on TWB during the COVID-19 era within the two-year spanning 2020–2022 to ensure that all included articles received external feedback. The searches were conducted using the following search strings: ‘wellbeing’ OR ‘well-being’ AND ‘primary education,’ OR ‘secondary education’ OR ‘higher education’ AND ‘COVID-19’. Forward and backward branching search procedures were occasionally applied to the reference in studies on TWB during the COVID-19 era, which were also followed by manual searches in major international and open-access journals in the disciplines of teacher education and educational psychology including Teaching and Teacher Education, Frontiers in Education, Journal of Teacher Education, European Journal of Teacher Education, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, British Journal of Educational Psychology, School Psychology, Journal of Educational Psychology to guarantee the greatest possible scientific quality for all articles selected.

4.2. Selection Criteria and Study Quality Assessment

With respect to the three research questions of this review, the general inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria set for study selection were as follows:

4.2.1. Study Inclusion Criteria

• Published between 2020 and the first quarter of 2023.
• Written in English.
• Offered empirical evidence for the evaluation of TWB status across different educational levels during the COVID-19 period following a well-designed experimental research method instead of expressing a theoretical stance on the issue.
• Focused on the identification of key determinants that affected TWB during the COVID-19 pandemic within the context of primary, secondary, and higher education.
• Reported the coping strategies used by teachers in their effort to effectively overcome difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and sustain their well-being at an acceptable level.

4.2.2. Study Exclusion Criteria

• Not about TWB during the COVID-19 years.
• Not an empirical study based on a well-structured research method.
• Published in languages other than English.
• Published as work-in-progress reports or preliminary studies.
• Unpublished BA, MA, and PhD theses, as they have not undergone a peer-review process.
• Did not discuss implications related to TWB enhancement in times of crisis.

Study quality was also assessed from a methodological design perspective, as studies using qualitative and/or quantitative data analysis are considered to be the most accurate specimens of empirical research to test a hypothesis [93]. To study TWB in times of COVID-19 crisis in valid empirical studies, the following criteria were applied in the selection process that ensured all selected studies used the typical structure of classic empirical work:

• Well-substantiated research questions in relation to TWB in the COVID-19 period.
• The research design (quantitative and/or qualitative) and data analysis methods used for the investigation of TWB in the COVID-19 pandemic in primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
• The goal of the studies and their scientific contribution in the area of teacher education and professional development addressed the TWB concept in empirical terms.
• A clear theoretical rationale for the study and its implications for practice and research in TWB in times of crisis.

4.3. Data Collection and Data Analysis

Capitalizing on previous systematic review studies reported on TWB, e.g., [94], the selected studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were accordingly categorized based on available evidence to map out the key conceptual themes in the relevant research. Identification and classification of emergent and major themes pertinent to the objective of this review were possible using the inductive thematic analysis approach [95] in terms of (a) TWB status amidst the COVID-19 era, (b) TWB stressors and coping strategies used by educators in their effort to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic on their overall personal and professional welfare, and (c) research trends used in TWB investigations during the COVID-19 years. After extensively reading all studies included in our sample, relevant themes used to answer each of the initial research questions were identified and further discussed based on the educational level they referred to. Each empirical study served as the unit of analysis, while the coding scheme emerged inductively and was continuously refined using interaction with the data. The literature search and selection process, shown in Figure 1 [91], were in line with PRISMA guidelines. After duplicates were removed, abstracts were examined, and full-text articles were read, we identified 53 studies that qualified for this study.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Profile of the Reviewed Studies

As a preliminary step to our in-depth analysis and discussion of key empirical findings in relation to TWB in the COVID-19 era, we first focus on the descriptive statistics of our dataset to map and scope the breadth of the evidence base available on the topic within the timeframe of 2020–2023 set for this review study. A summary of all 53 research papers selected for this review is provided in Table 1 in terms of the source of publication, research methodology, sample size, type of TWB, education level, and geographical location of study. In this light, almost all empirical studies (53) included in our final sample were mainly derived from peer-reviewed journals published predominantly in the areas of teacher education, organizational, and school psychology with the exception of one study that was published in a volume of conference proceedings in the related field of educational technology and multiculturalism.

Psychological TWB was the subject of intense research in 34 (64%) out of the 53 short-listed articles, of which 20 studies used a quantitative design based on self-reported survey online questionnaires, 9 studies followed a qualitative research approach, 3 studies used mixed methodology, and 2 studies opted for a quasi-experimental research design. Professional (or occupational) TWB was addressed in 11 studies (21%), with the majority of them (n = 9) conducted within the quantitative research paradigm, although 2 studies followed a qualitative approach. Physical and psychological TWB were examined together in six studies (11%) using quantitative (n = two), qualitative (n = three), and mixed method research (n = one) design, the latter of which was also used in the investigation of professional and psychological TWB (2%), as well as all three types of TWB in two respective studies (2%).

With respect to the educational context in which TWB in the COVID-19 era was studied, in the reviewed studies, primary and secondary education levels were targeted in 19 studies (36%) followed by settings in primary education in 14 studies (26%), higher education in 8 studies (15%), secondary and English as a foreign language (EFL) education in 4 studies (8%), respectively, and pre-service education in 2 studies (4%), while only 2 studies (4%) were conducted with samples from all educational levels, predominantly in the state sector. Overall, the available empirical research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on TWB was heavily conducted in mainstream state primary and/or secondary education, as illustrated by 36 (70%) of the reviewed studies, as opposed to higher, pre-service, and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education contexts collectively.

Finally, Figure 2 illustrates the geographical distribution of TWB research in the COVID-19 period, according to which 42 studies in our sample (81%) were conducted in Europe, the Americas (10 studies), and Asia (13 studies), out of which 20 (38%) were undertaken in countries of Central and Northern Europe (e.g., the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland). In contrast, a meager number of just six studies (12%) were reported within diverse socio-educational contexts in Africa (two studies) and Oceania (five studies), while the remaining three studies (6%) focused on TWB investigation during the pandemic era in international schools spread in different locations around the globe.

5.2. Review Findings

The deleterious consequences caused by the sudden outbreak of the COVID-19 health pandemic on self-perceived TWB levels in diverse educational settings have been vividly depicted in the overwhelming majority of the reviewed empirical studies (n = 50) included in our sample delineating teachers’ lived experiences throughout this critical period. In an effort to adequately answer each of our research questions based on relevant empirical research evidence, studies in this group were further divided into three categories with a distinct focus on the following subthemes: (a) emergent TWB profiling against teachers’ general background and work-related characteristics in times of the global pandemic, (b) the impact of COVID-19-induced challenges on TWB, and (c) the identification of leverage factors reported by educators as essential for TWB enhancement during the COVID-19 crisis. To adequately address each one of these issues, our analysis in the following sections draws on relevant data accessible in thirty-one descriptive studies (58.4%) reporting on COVID-19 TWB status at different stages of the unfolding pandemic (research question 1), seventeen studies (32.6%) elaborating on the negative effect of key COVID-19 stressors on TWB, and twenty-two (42.3%) studies identifying predictor variables conducive to TWB improvement during the COVID-19 era (research question 2).

5.2.1. Research Question 1: TWB Overall Status during the COVID-19 Pandemic

While TWB has so far been extensively researched for its pedagogical saliency in relation to teaching effectiveness, academic achievement, and educational governance [96], stabilizing proper functioning for schools and increasing the commitment of staff members in the process [81], much remains to be understood about TWB in times of crisis across different educational levels. To ensure clarity and precision, the discussion of key review findings in relation to TWB status during COVID-19 is further organized per the educational setting targeted in the reviewed studies under consideration.

• Studies in Preschool Education

Relevant evidence derived from preschool education in two studies [97,98] rigorously outlines the negative impact of COVID-19 on the TWB of early educators in their effort to procure additional services and educational opportunities for highly vulnerable children and children of essential workers. In Ah-Kwon et al.’s [97] mixed-method study, White educators (48%), as opposed to teachers of either Black or Hispanic origin, were the ones who experienced substantial levels of low psychological well-being in the early months of the pandemic during the school closure period, demonstrating heightened levels of personal stress, anxiety, and fear of becoming ill with COVID-19; increased concerns about other illnesses; intense feelings of social disconnection, depression, and sadness; worries related to potential financial insecurity, all accompanied by signs of poor physical well-being with 72% and 63.5% of the teachers reporting weight gain and a lack of physical activity, respectively. Self-reported professional well-being was found to differ by teaching modality and racial group with in-person White teachers vs. online teachers exhibiting significantly lower levels of work commitment and a higher intent to leave, which was mainly attributed to health concerns (41.50%) and a strong dissatisfaction with their current teaching assignment and/or additional job demands (16.98%). The results seem to tie in with the findings from Eadie et al.’s [98] parallel study in Australia, where 86% of the early educators included in their study reported an equally debilitative effect of the pandemic on their overall professional well-being and performance. Conversely, high professional well-being as displayed by senior or more experienced staff was found to be associated with a lower risk of staff turnover and less conflict in educator–child relationships, suggesting that, when properly promoted by supportive school organizational structures, it can assist early childhood educators to meet the demands and expectations of their role and develop quality practice even in the midst of disruptive times.

b.

Studies in Primary and Secondary Education

Identical patterns in empirical evidence highlighting a variance in psychological TWB levels at different stages of the pandemic also persist in a number of relevant studies conducted within primary and secondary educational settings around the globe. Online survey quantitative data available from seven of our reviewed studies provide an overview of the TWB trajectory while struggling to adapt to a series of pandemic-induced changes in their workplace. In Parkes et al. [99] study, the well-being of American primary music teachers was found to be severely impaired at the onset of the pandemic era with 77% of the participants reporting at least some level of depression, experiencing overall relatively moderate degrees of positive feelings. In tandem with Eadie et al.’s [98] findings, higher levels of well-being were only noted for seasoned teachers whose prior experience of surviving other trials may have provided them with resilience to rely on to get through this period of time. Similarly, declining TWB rates were also reported by 920 primary school teachers in Sigursteinsdottir and Rafnsdottir’s [100] survey study just before and over a year after COVID-19 first appeared. The results revealed significantly higher proportions of worse mental and physical health in 2021 than in 2019, with the ratio rising to 31.1% for all groups examined except for teachers under 30 and over 60 years of age as well as teachers with less than a year of teaching experience. Sleep disturbances were the most commonly reported mental symptom in 50.2% and 55.5% of the cases investigated followed by statistically increased levels of anxiety, extreme worry, and sadness, as measured in the two time points of the study, respectively. Incidents of lacking strength, frequent headaches, abdominal pain, dyspnea, and arrhythmias were the most cited physical symptoms reported by the study participants, rising from 43.7% in 2019 to 58.0% in 2021. While stress levels were reportedly significantly higher for female compared with male primary teachers, there emerged no clear-cut gender patterns for mental and physical health. This finding is in line with results derived in a series of survey studies conducted within the Malaysian primary, e.g., [101,102], and Turkish [103] pre-service educational contexts where no statistical difference in psychological TWB levels by gender emerged. Age, on the other hand, was equally found to be a key predictor of TWB levels in [104], albeit in a reverse mode, with primary school teachers between 40 and 49 years of age as a group clearly standing out due to their resilience and demonstrated capability to sustain their well-being by adopting a happy, workaholic profile in 54.2%, characterized by relatively high levels of fulfillment of all basic psychological needs, high job satisfaction, and an autonomy-supportive work climate.

In Alves et al.’s [105] cross-sectional survey study, Portuguese teachers rated their sense of professional well-being status as being moderately positive due to the increased instructional demands imposed by the online medium, leading to alarming levels of apprehension in relation to their prospective professional future in the post-COVID era. These findings align with those in Trindade et al.’s [106] study, set within the same cultural context, according to which teaching remote classes was equally described as an exceptionally challenging and negative experience leading to teacher exhaustion and demotivation to teach and, in turn, to overall moderate and negative TWB levels. In [104], TWB levels for participants in the study were found to vary significantly by teaching experience and gender, as female teachers with a service time of less than 20 years reported high levels of psychological well-being, decreasing perceptions about teaching difficulties, and increasing positive future professional plans. Similar findings also emerge in two other studies included in this review, i.e., (i) in [107], where low COVID-19 TWB levels in primarily psychological terms were most commonly reported by female but highly experienced (16–24 years) state primary school teachers within the 38–45 age range and (ii) in [108], where, again, elevated stress and diminished professional TWB levels were experienced by female and elementary school teachers due to perceived job hindrance demands, particularly in the form of technostress in contrast to male secondary school teachers. Aged teachers expressed the lowest levels of job satisfaction overall and rated resorting to social support provided by colleagues and school management as the most effective remedial job resource for TWB in challenging COVID-19 times. These findings are further corroborated by Hilger et al.’s [109] study where, although decreases in job demands were found to correlate with decreases in fatigue and psychosomatic complaints, decreases in job resources due to lockdown restrictions correlated with decreases in job satisfaction and psychological well-being, leading to negative perceptions of German teachers’ professional integrity as valued members of the educational community and human beings.

The use of more person-oriented approaches with latent profile analyses afforded researchers the opportunity to develop more nuanced profiles of teachers’ occupational well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, as evidenced in two related studies conducted within the Finnish primary education context. TWB patterns reported by the authors of [110] during the first few months of the COVID-19 crisis were similar to those reported in prior reviewed studies, with the vast majority of teachers in their study (72.4%) suffering from occupational stress and emotional exhaustion. Nevertheless, the teachers’ sense of work engagement remained generally unflagged, exhibiting very high levels of vigor, dedication, and affection in their interactional style with their students, which is in sharp contrast to Eadie et al.’s [98] findings in preschool education. A follow-up study conducted by the same research team [111] at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2021 also revealed high levels of occupational well-being for 63.2% of the study participants, which were largely associated with work meaningfulness and commitment and a willingness to persist and invest more effort to supersede COVID-19 adversities at the school level. While no adequate explanation is offered by the researchers with respect to the observed elevated TWB rates in different stages of the pandemic, these findings strikingly run counter to those reported in (i) [112], where substantially self-reported increased levels of stress (72%) and burnout (57%) and an inability to strike a good work–family balance impeded online teaching efficacy required amidst volatile COVID-19 circumstances; (ii) Wong et al.’s [113] small-scale study with primary English language teachers who explicitly reported on the insurmountable emotional toll they had experienced due to the swift COVID-19-induced instructional shift that often resulted in feelings of heightened anxiety, absolute distress, and despair; and (iii) [114], where 77.2% of Australian teachers’ responses indicated that high levels of stress and low levels of positive feelings such as joy, positivity, and contentment in their work during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their well-being and self-efficacy. In line with the studies [110,111], self-reported high TWB levels were also reported in another two parallel studies in our sample, which were primarily associated with online teaching competency skills and the teacher self-belief system in the virtual teaching paradigm, illustrating that: (a) satisfactory TWB levels in terms of increased self-perceived work satisfaction and work-related sense of coherence were positively related to enhanced online teaching self-efficacy skills [115] and (b) positive teacher self-assessments (75.25%) with respect to their implementation competency and success with online teaching and learning were linked to elevated TWB and diminishing levels of emotional exhaustion and stress overall [116]. Conversely, low TWB levels only moderately affected Malaysian teachers’ persistence to teach online as compared with the critical role of e-learning system quality and instructor self-efficacy [117].

Finally, two studies focused on investigating developmental changes in TWB through the COVID-19 period, deploying quantitative longitudinal [118] and qualitative cross-sectional research designs [119], respectively, conducted within two utterly different socio-cultural contexts. In the former case, the evolution of TWB as a complex phenomenon was analyzed across three different stages in the first wave of the COVID-19 lockdown in Ukraine, i.e., before, during, and after the event, and studied in relation to teacher work motivation levels. In line with the bulk of the literature on the topic, the key results revealed that (i) the first-wave COVID-19 lockdown negatively impacted TWB consistently across all three phases of the study, as evidenced in secondary teachers’ diminished physical health and well-being, while (ii) a statistically significant correlation with autonomous teacher work motivation, as reflected in individual’s desire to work and level of satisfaction and pleasure achieved upon work completion, foregrounded the salient role of this variable in fostering TWB in times of crisis. These findings concur with the overall decreased TWB levels and intense psychological strain experienced by teachers in private secondary schools within the socio-economically deprived context of semi-urban districts in Uganda after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as reported by [119] and reflected by negative teacher identity self-perceptions, a fear of a lack of financial support for subsistence, and an increase in incidents of domestic violence throughout the 2020 lockdown period. Similarly, 70% of all teachers in Blaine’s [120] study reported having considered leaving the profession due to intermittent school closures and uncertainty surrounding the government’s response and policies on COVID-19. Less than one-third of teachers described feeling happy at work, while 49% were stressed, 48% were frustrated, 46% were overwhelmed, and 42% were burned out because of their work. In addition, 61% reported feeling exhausted and somewhat effective (53%) at their job, only 36% of respondents felt that they belonged to their school, and less than one-quarter of the respondents felt a strong connection to their workplace. Still, Karamushka et al.’s [118] findings in relation to TWB fluctuation throughout the COVID-19 period are contradicted by the longitudinal survey data provided by over two-thirds of the 8000 UK school teachers in Allen et al.’s [121] study, according to which although no considerable change was effected on their well-being status between October 2019 (pre-pandemic) and April 2020 (the height of lockdown), different aspects may have been impacted in different ways, with teachers feeling at times more energetic and more loved, but also being less likely to feel useful and optimistic about the future. These results echo Sulis et al.’s [122] qualitative remarks that TWB should be studied as a fluid, highly elusive but self-organizing concept whose variance is usually contingent upon individual perceptions of environmental affordances both prior as well as during the pandemic.

c.

Higher Education

Within the context of higher education, only three relevant studies were identified with a pattern of findings consistent with the one encountered already. For the 18 Polish university teachers in Bartkowiak et al.’s [123] small-scale study, teaching online and at a distance was reported as the primary culprit for the overall reduction in self-reported psychological well-being; a depressive sense of threat to one’s own health and the life of relatives; inability to perform job-related and non-personal goals; and life frustration and difficult to identify and low tolerance to all adversities. Variation in their psychological well-being was found to be associated with self-reported levels of productivity as online educators, especially at the height of the epidemic, when inadequacy in digital competencies negatively impacted their quality of work life and sense of mental well-being. Equally low emotional well-being levels experienced by academics during the COVID-19 outbreak associated with a general dissatisfaction with life at a rate of 35.6% were also reported in Shen and Slater’s [124] study. Subsequent regression analysis identified work-related stress as a key predictor for negative TWB in 25.8% of the cases, while the use of acceptance-coping styles was found to be implicitly linked with increased productivity at work, contributing to TWB enhancement in academic settings in 37.6% of the cases. The sudden transition to a remote online learning paradigm along with its concomitant social isolation effect on student–learner interactions and teaching quality using the virtual medium was also cited in Creely et al.’s [125] collaborative ethnographic study as a key risk factor associated with well-being concerns by academics with potential employee burnout pending for the prioritization of academic well-being at a policy level. Similar findings provided by Lee et al.’s [126] study also underscore the significance of supporting TWB at the school level to enable educators to maintain their self-efficacy in times of crisis with the implementation of targeted positive psychological skills interventions to boost higher levels of mental health and greater life satisfaction [127].

5.2.2. Research Question 2: TWB Stressors and Levers in the COVID-19 Era

Identification of key TWB determinants within the COVID-19 context most commonly arises as the second major theme in nineteen of our reviewed studies. Following [81], our discussion of the most cited challenges reported to have a degenerative effect on TWB as well as key TWB facilitators during the pandemic years is guided by their attribution to either individual or contextual factors in order to facilitate better comprehension of their role in TWB development in times of crisis.

• TWB Stressors during the COVID-19 Era

Relevant empirical findings indicate that steadily plummeting TWB levels across diverse socio-cultural contexts and educational levels have invariably been associated with a constellation of hardships experienced by educators in their effort to adjust to the sudden changing working demands caused by the unprecedented event of the COVID-19 crisis in their everyday school routine and teaching practice. Such is the case in [128], where a decline in primary teachers’ TWB rates during the lockdown period was attributed to a vast array of factors related primarily to educators’ exacerbated concerns over issues such as the double burden of work and family and the prospect of part-time employment leading to financial difficulties; exceptionally low levels of emotional stability and resilience engendered while trying to cope effectively with the crisis or distance learning itself; negative perceptions regarding the shifting demands in their workplace in the face of the pandemic wave in terms of increased professional challenges; heavy psychological stress; a lack of experience in competence and self-efficacy when teaching on a remote basis; and a high workload. These worries and negative predispositions expressed by participants in that study were further aggravated by a series of abrupt changes in their workplace related to educators’ inability to deal with challenging students in online learning environments, insufficient resources, and changes in the teaching profession; a lack of common planning for schools to navigate through the uncertain COVID-19 circumstances; a lack of social and professional support from the school management as well as the forced utilization with new professional tools for administrative and instructional purposes. A further addition to this list of COVID-19 TWB stressors comes from [129], who highlighted the extent to which teachers’ negative self-perceptions as devalued professionals, intensified by the restricted autonomy or flexibility they experienced while teaching within COVID-19 unprecedented circumstances, severely thwarted them from attaining a high sense of well-being. The same theme was reiterated by EFL teachers in Pourbahram and Sideghi’s [130] study, whose degraded professional status as propounded by national media often made them fall prey to a kind of social comparison process to the detriment of their overall self-esteem and well-being, which was also found in [131]. In line with [128] above, self-reported high stress levels for these language teachers were found mainly associated with intensification of workload, pronounced difficulties in adapting to novel technological approaches and responding to curricula and pedagogical needs; a lack of fruitful communication with colleagues; an inability to manage students’ demotivation; and an absence of career progression chances with professional development in the midst of the pandemic, undermining profoundly language teachers’ well-being and inculcating feelings of discontentment and hatred about their profession.

Further findings of a qualitative nature available in several of our reviewed studies explicitly elaborate on a set of work-related sources that negatively impacted TWB during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data derived from focus group discussions with university staff conducted by [132] in Bangladesh revealed yet again that (i) the availability of and access to infrastructural and material resources (e.g., limited access to Internet facilities and technological support, fear of monitoring and flaws while teaching in synchronous learning sessions, income worries) and (ii) the increased bulk of administrative and teaching workload amidst the insurmountable COVID-19 circumstances seriously impaired faculty members’ physical and mental health, leading to acute physical discomforts (e.g., musculoskeletal, vision problems, and headache) caused by prolonged engagement with online teaching activities and high psychological pressure experienced when faced with the prospect of reduced salaries and losing their job following low student enrollment rates. In Chan et al.’s [133] study conducted in the first few months of COVID-19, intensified levels of task stress (59%) related to tremendous workload and perceived job ambiguity (over 51%) led to emotional exhaustion and feelings of perplexity for the majority of elementary school teachers, with debilitating effects for their general well-being and teaching efficacy. Overall, 39% of the respondents stressed the need for school administrators to alleviate job demands and minimize role ambiguity in times of crisis by addressing students’ technical difficulties in online learning at school and district levels; developing regular communication with parents; managing students’ participation rates; and preparing parents’ readiness for remote learning to reduce teachers’ extra workload and enhance their job duties clarity. Workload, followed by family health and loss of control over work, was also cited by the majority of participants in [134] as the most stressful teaching-related experience within the idiosyncratic COVID-19 circumstances. This was also found in Kim et al.’s [135] longitudinal study, where self-reported declining TWB levels reported by elementary UK teaching staff in April and November 2020 were mainly attributable to perceived uncertainty, excessive workload, negative views of the professions, concern for others’ well-being, health struggles and acting on multiple roles. On a similar note, the physical, emotional, and financial ‘safety’ of preschool educators in [136] in times of crisis were immensely impeded by the financial stresses they experienced due to COVID-19-induced working conditions; the implementation of sanitation protocols, mostly perceived as an additional burden, to relieve school community’s health anxieties; and the blurry boundaries between work-home responsibilities coupled by reduced access to familiar support structures at the school level.

A series of related studies included in our sample delineate the magnitude of the impact that emergency remote teaching (ERT) had on TWB during the pandemic. Ref. [120] described the pedagogical changes enforced by the swift transition to online remote education as an extremely taxing experience for teachers in primary education, with debilitative effects on their well-being while trying to redesign curriculum, modify their courses for online learning, aid students using different platforms, maximize their engagement, and overcome technological challenges. Virtual sessions were described as particularly demanding and exhausting, engendering feelings of inadequacy in terms of teaching flexibility and digital competency to respond effectively to the demands of synchronous and asynchronous instruction. A lack of personal engagement with colleagues and disengagement and difficulty in engaging students online were mainly reported to be associated with intense feelings of disconnectedness, loneliness, and aggravated levels of anxiety, in view of the sheer lack of appreciation and proper guidance provided by school management teams over the challenges of online education, as well as poor governance daily COVID-19 measures that severely impacted TWB to the extent of suicide ideation. Isolation was also identified by [125] as an intricately intertwined element of online education with long-term effects on the mental health and well-being of the academic staff and serious implications for course delivery and research outcomes in post-pandemic higher education. The theme of insufficient administrative support when shifting to virtual instruction as an extra source of strain with negative consequences on their professional well-being was further elaborated on by EFL primary teachers in [113] highlighting the challenges they were faced with in terms of the amount of support provided to linguistically and digitally heterogeneous language learner groups in view of the absence of social interaction in e-learning environments. Instructional constraints and considerable added pressure imposed upon primary teachers especially when trying to utilize new technology to deliver their courses in the new learning environment were also found to be associated with diminishing levels of well-being by [107] in Spain. In a similar vein, [137] illustrated the negative effect of exceptionally high levels of technostress on educators’ work-related TWB perceptions, which was found to be mitigated by teachers’ perceived meaningfulness of work but not by the implementation of technologically oriented professional development seminars [99] intended to help them cope with the pandemic-imposed instructional demands more self-assuredly.

b.

TWB Levers during the COVID-19 Era

Positive TWB levers were often determined based on teachers’ effective use of their personal resources and personality traits to overcome stress and augment their well-being as fully functioning professionals when working within a school environment in constant flux and turbulence. Empirical testimony to such positive TWB correlates in the COVID-19 period illustrate the invaluable role of teachers’ resilience and utilization of coping strategies, maintaining a clear and organized work schedule and the generation of feelings of professional mastery [128]; teachers’ perceived need to (a) adopt proactive physical TWB self-care strategies (e.g., yoga, meditation classes) and (b) regain their professional self-esteem by being recognized for the services they provide in public education in the middle of the pandemic [98]; teacher confidence as manifest in their ability to manage student behaviors [138]; obsessive work passion found to be associated with considerable gains in work engagement, work performance, and affective well-being by eliminating negative emotions and guilt sentiments for any faults and inadequacies and by moderating the effects of excessive workload and organizational constraints [139]; increased levels of intrinsic motivation and positive attitudes toward the teaching profession that impelled teachers to persist in teaching despite the ERT-associated hardships [130]; personal resource readiness to innovate and high levels of self-efficacy with digital media found to be associated with perceived changes in TWB, elevated levels of job satisfaction, and minimum exhaustion for teachers [108]; a perceived sense of coherence at work and resiliency that positively predicted TWB acting as mediators between COVID-19 stress and TWB and as valuable personal resources that enable teachers to flourish in life and nurture their well-being in times of crisis [140]; and the use of positive coping ‘problem-focused’ (e.g., planning for the future, developing new technological skills) and ‘emotion-focused’ strategies (e.g., personal skills and capacities, connecting with colleagues, family and friends) [131], which were found to be associated with enhanced TWB, particularly when combined with sound a psychological state and work characteristics [141]. Indeed, in a study by [134], the use of effective coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic further revealed that language teachers who tended to opt for active, approach-oriented coping strategies, first by accepting the situation and then by attempting to deal with it using planning, immediate action, and reframing, as well as seeking emotional support, were all predictive of high levels of TWB and health, positive emotions (happiness and growth during trauma), and resilience.

Work-related psychosocial and organizational aspects related to a sense of safety while at school and autonomy at work were also identified to be associated with increasing TWB levels, as exemplified in Billaudeau et al.’s [142] large-scale, cross-cultural quantitative study, conducted 18 months into the pandemic across France, Belgium, Canada, Morocco, Gambia, and Mexico. Teachers’ ability to maintain high-quality relationships with school management and students was reported as a vital element for TWB enhancement efforts within the pandemic context by most participants residing in industrialized countries of the Western world, suggesting the need for the use of more ecological approaches toward TWB impetus on the face of provisional crises. Establishing positive relationships with students and their families as reflected through signs of personal relatedness, parental recognition, and gratitude was also emphasized by [128] along with the provision of adequate and appropriate collegial and leadership support during the crisis, which was also stressed by [98]. In [135], social support and networking with colleagues, family, and friends prevailed over increased work autonomy opportunities and the use of coping strategies in significance, as they minimize social isolation and enhances teachers’ psychological disposition and mental health. The salient role of social support provided at the institutional level as a significant moderating factor of TWB that can effectively mitigate the negative effect of high job demands and control on the psychological well-being of academic staff is further foregrounded by [143]. This was also reported in Smith and James’ [141] relevant study, where the provision of work-related social support coupled with high scores of psychological capital and the use of positive coping strategies were reported by Welsh schoolteachers as conducive TWB factors leading to low levels of absenteeism and a balanced work–life co-existence.

Other elements associated with solid school organization reported in relevant studies to sustain and boost TWB levels within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic were: (i) the existence of an organized, supportive school environment as a critical job resource and enabler of TWB that impacts teachers’ fulfillment of basic psychological needs for autonomy, ensures collaboration with colleagues and accomplishment in pandemic emergency remote teaching (ERT) by prescribing the principles for effective distance education teaching practices [104], and promotes teachers’ creative teaching self-efficacy by enhancing their dispositional joy and general positive affect while reducing general negative affect [144]; (ii) empowering leadership that was found to be associated with lower levels of job stress and higher levels of job well-being and perceived organizational support [145], enabling preschool teachers to link their personal goals to organizational goals, motivate and guide them to better achieve their mission with organizational support, and thus achieve a high level of well-being; (iii) the allocation of low teacher workloads by the school administration, which was found to be positively associated with work satisfaction and work-related coherence, leading to enhanced TWB COVID-19 rates in [115]; (iv) the adoption of school-based TWB interventions within the COVID-19 era, as documented in three action-oriented studies in our sample, which were directed at the exploration of TWB improvement using peer support in digital settings [146], the implementation of in-service professional training TWB sessions aiming at reducing teachers’ psychological distress [147], and emergent mindfulness and cognitive reframing TWB approaches with reported increased gains in teachers’ resilience and psychological well-being in times of crisis [148]. Provision of training support in ERT-related issues and teachers’ eagerness to seek religious and spiritual support to regain their well-being by overcoming the numerous pre- and post-pandemic challenges and difficulties were reported by [149], with self-reported spirituality being only indirectly associated with TWB enhancement and teachers’ overall mental health in one study [127].

Table 1. Profile of the reviewed studies.

	Authors	Source	Research Design	Sample (N)	Type of Well-Being	Educational Level	Country
1.	Ah-Kwon et al. (2022) [97]	Journal	Mixed method	1434	Professional, psychological, and physical	Primary	USA
2.	Allen et al. (2020) [121]	Journal	Quantitative online survey (longitudinal)	8000	Psychological	Primary and secondary	UK
3.	Alves et al. (2020) [105]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	1479	Professional	Primary and secondary	Portugal
4.	Anderson et al. (2021) [144]	Journal	Mixed method	57	Psychological	Primary	USA
5.	Bartkowiak et al. (2022) [123]	Journal	Qualitative	39	Psychological	Higher	Poland
6.	Billaudeau et al. (2022) [142]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	6899	Professional	Primary and secondary	International
7.	Billett et al. (2021) [114]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	534	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Australia
8.	Blaine (2022) [120]	Journal	Mixed method	10	Physical and psychological	Primary and secondary	Hong Kong
9.	Chan et al. (2021) [133]	Journal	Mixed method	181	Professional and psychological	Primary	USA
10.	Creely et al. (2021) [125]	Journal	Qualitative	5	Psychological	Higher	Australia
11.	Eadie et al. (2022) [136]	Journal	Qualitative	15	Professional	Primary	Australia
12.	Eadie et al. (2021) [98]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	232	Professional	Primary	Australia
13.	Egilmez (2022) [103]	Journal	Quantitative survey	123	Psychological	Pre-service	Turkey
14.	Flores et al. (2022) [127]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	624	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Chile
15.	Froelich et al. (2022) [146]	Journal	Mixed method	74	Psychological	Secondary	Austria
16.	Garcia-Alvarez et al. (2022) [147]	Journal	Quasi-experimental	24	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and vocational	Uruguay
17.	Guoyan et al. (2021) [117]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	627	Psychological	Higher	Pakistan and Malaysia
18.	Hascher et al. (2021) [128]	Journal	Qualitative	21	Professional	Primary	Switzerland
19.	Herman et al. (2021) [138]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	639	Psychological	Primary and secondary	USA
20.	Hilger et al. (2021) [109]	Journal	Quantitative online survey(longitudinal)	207	Professional	Primary, secondary, and special	Germany
21.	Kamaruzaman & Surat (2021) [102]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	361	Psychological	Primary	Malaysia
22.	Karamushka et al. (2021) [118]	Journal	Longitudinal quantitative	96	Psychological	Secondary	Ukraine
23.	Kasprzak & Mudlo-Glagoska (2022) [139]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	383	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Poland
24.	Kim et al. (2022) [135]	Journal	Longitudinal qualitative	24	Psychological	Primary and secondary	UK
25.	Kotowski et al. (2022) [112]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	703	Psychological and physical	Primary and secondary	USA
26.	Kupers et al. (2022) [104]	Journal	Mixed method	307	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and vocational	The Netherlands
27.	Lau et al. (2022) [115]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	366	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and special	Hong Kong
28.	Lee et al. (2022) [126]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	291	Psychological	Pre-service	Hong Kong
29.	Leong (2022) [149]	Journal	Qualitative	3	Psychological	Higher	Malaysia
30.	McDonough & Lemon (2022) [131]	Journal	Qualitative	137	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Australia
31.	MacIntyre et al. (2020) [134]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	634	Psychological	Primary and secondary EFL	International
32.	Nakijoba et al. (2022) [119]	Journal	Qualitative	103	Psychological and physical	Secondary	Uganda
33.	Nong et al. (2022) [145]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	453	Professional	Primary	China
34.	Pace et al. (2022) [137]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	219	Professional	Primary and secondary	Italy
35.	Panadero et al. (2022) [107]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	936	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and higher	Spain
36.	Parkes et al. (2021) [99]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	1325	Psychological	Primary	USA
37.	Pourbahram & Sideghi (2022) [130]	Journal	Qualitative	10	Psychological	Secondary EFL	Iran
38.	Poysa et al. (2022) [111]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	321	Professional	Primary	Finland
39.	Poysa et al. (2021) [110]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	279	Professional	Primary	Finland
40.	Rosli & Bakar (2021) [101]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	274	Psychological	Primary	Malaysia
41.	Shen & Slater (2021) [124]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	87	Psychological	Higher	Northern Ireland
42.	Sherief & Rehman (2022) [143]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	421	Psychological	Higher	Malaysia
43.	Sigursteinsdottir & Rafnsdottir (2022) [100]	Journal	Quantitative online survey(longitudinal)	920	Psychological and physical	Primary	Iceland
44.	Smith & James (2021) [141]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	60	Psychological	Secondary	Wales, UK
45.	Stang-Rabrig et al. (2022) [108]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	3250	Professional	Primary and secondary	Germany
46.	Sulis et al. (2021) [122]	Journal	Qualitative	6	Psychological	EFL pre-service	International
47.	Sultana et al. (2022) [132]	Journal	Qualitative	34	Psychological	Higher	Bangladesh
48.	Trindade et al. (2021) [106]	Conference proceeding	Quantitative online survey	595	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and higher	Portugal
49.	Walter & Fox (2021) [129]		Longitudinal Qualitative	49	Psychological and physical	Primary	USA
50.	Weibenfels et al. (2022) [116]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	181	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Germany
51.	Wong et al. (2022) [113]	Journal	Qualitative	8	Psychological and physical	Primary ESOL	USA
52.	Zadok-Gurman et al. (2021) [148]	Journal	Quasi-experimental	67	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Israel
53.	Zewude et al. (2023) [140]	Journal	Quantitative survey	836	Psychological	Higher	Ethiopia

Table 1. Profile of the reviewed studies.

	Authors	Source	Research Design	Sample (N)	Type of Well-Being	Educational Level	Country
1.	Ah-Kwon et al. (2022) [97]	Journal	Mixed method	1434	Professional, psychological, and physical	Primary	USA
2.	Allen et al. (2020) [121]	Journal	Quantitative online survey (longitudinal)	8000	Psychological	Primary and secondary	UK
3.	Alves et al. (2020) [105]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	1479	Professional	Primary and secondary	Portugal
4.	Anderson et al. (2021) [144]	Journal	Mixed method	57	Psychological	Primary	USA
5.	Bartkowiak et al. (2022) [123]	Journal	Qualitative	39	Psychological	Higher	Poland
6.	Billaudeau et al. (2022) [142]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	6899	Professional	Primary and secondary	International
7.	Billett et al. (2021) [114]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	534	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Australia
8.	Blaine (2022) [120]	Journal	Mixed method	10	Physical and psychological	Primary and secondary	Hong Kong
9.	Chan et al. (2021) [133]	Journal	Mixed method	181	Professional and psychological	Primary	USA
10.	Creely et al. (2021) [125]	Journal	Qualitative	5	Psychological	Higher	Australia
11.	Eadie et al. (2022) [136]	Journal	Qualitative	15	Professional	Primary	Australia
12.	Eadie et al. (2021) [98]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	232	Professional	Primary	Australia
13.	Egilmez (2022) [103]	Journal	Quantitative survey	123	Psychological	Pre-service	Turkey
14.	Flores et al. (2022) [127]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	624	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Chile
15.	Froelich et al. (2022) [146]	Journal	Mixed method	74	Psychological	Secondary	Austria
16.	Garcia-Alvarez et al. (2022) [147]	Journal	Quasi-experimental	24	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and vocational	Uruguay
17.	Guoyan et al. (2021) [117]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	627	Psychological	Higher	Pakistan and Malaysia
18.	Hascher et al. (2021) [128]	Journal	Qualitative	21	Professional	Primary	Switzerland
19.	Herman et al. (2021) [138]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	639	Psychological	Primary and secondary	USA
20.	Hilger et al. (2021) [109]	Journal	Quantitative online survey(longitudinal)	207	Professional	Primary, secondary, and special	Germany
21.	Kamaruzaman & Surat (2021) [102]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	361	Psychological	Primary	Malaysia
22.	Karamushka et al. (2021) [118]	Journal	Longitudinal quantitative	96	Psychological	Secondary	Ukraine
23.	Kasprzak & Mudlo-Glagoska (2022) [139]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	383	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Poland
24.	Kim et al. (2022) [135]	Journal	Longitudinal qualitative	24	Psychological	Primary and secondary	UK
25.	Kotowski et al. (2022) [112]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	703	Psychological and physical	Primary and secondary	USA
26.	Kupers et al. (2022) [104]	Journal	Mixed method	307	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and vocational	The Netherlands
27.	Lau et al. (2022) [115]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	366	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and special	Hong Kong
28.	Lee et al. (2022) [126]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	291	Psychological	Pre-service	Hong Kong
29.	Leong (2022) [149]	Journal	Qualitative	3	Psychological	Higher	Malaysia
30.	McDonough & Lemon (2022) [131]	Journal	Qualitative	137	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Australia
31.	MacIntyre et al. (2020) [134]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	634	Psychological	Primary and secondary EFL	International
32.	Nakijoba et al. (2022) [119]	Journal	Qualitative	103	Psychological and physical	Secondary	Uganda
33.	Nong et al. (2022) [145]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	453	Professional	Primary	China
34.	Pace et al. (2022) [137]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	219	Professional	Primary and secondary	Italy
35.	Panadero et al. (2022) [107]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	936	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and higher	Spain
36.	Parkes et al. (2021) [99]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	1325	Psychological	Primary	USA
37.	Pourbahram & Sideghi (2022) [130]	Journal	Qualitative	10	Psychological	Secondary EFL	Iran
38.	Poysa et al. (2022) [111]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	321	Professional	Primary	Finland
39.	Poysa et al. (2021) [110]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	279	Professional	Primary	Finland
40.	Rosli & Bakar (2021) [101]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	274	Psychological	Primary	Malaysia
41.	Shen & Slater (2021) [124]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	87	Psychological	Higher	Northern Ireland
42.	Sherief & Rehman (2022) [143]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	421	Psychological	Higher	Malaysia
43.	Sigursteinsdottir & Rafnsdottir (2022) [100]	Journal	Quantitative online survey(longitudinal)	920	Psychological and physical	Primary	Iceland
44.	Smith & James (2021) [141]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	60	Psychological	Secondary	Wales, UK
45.	Stang-Rabrig et al. (2022) [108]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	3250	Professional	Primary and secondary	Germany
46.	Sulis et al. (2021) [122]	Journal	Qualitative	6	Psychological	EFL pre-service	International
47.	Sultana et al. (2022) [132]	Journal	Qualitative	34	Psychological	Higher	Bangladesh
48.	Trindade et al. (2021) [106]	Conference proceeding	Quantitative online survey	595	Psychological	Primary, secondary, and higher	Portugal
49.	Walter & Fox (2021) [129]		Longitudinal Qualitative	49	Psychological and physical	Primary	USA
50.	Weibenfels et al. (2022) [116]	Journal	Quantitative online survey	181	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Germany
51.	Wong et al. (2022) [113]	Journal	Qualitative	8	Psychological and physical	Primary ESOL	USA
52.	Zadok-Gurman et al. (2021) [148]	Journal	Quasi-experimental	67	Psychological	Primary and secondary	Israel
53.	Zewude et al. (2023) [140]	Journal	Quantitative survey	836	Psychological	Higher	Ethiopia

5.2.3. Research Question 3: Research Trends in TWB in the COVID-19 Era

Quantitative data collection methodologies with the administration of self-reported online survey questionnaires were used in thirty-two of the reviewed studies (60.3%), which were mainly designed as descriptive, cross-sectional empirical research questionnaires to explore TWB lived experiences and status in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. A longitudinal design was only utilized in three survey studies based on data collected at regular intervals within a specific socio-educational setting using electronic questionnaires administered on a daily [121] and quarterly basis [109], as well as before and after the pandemic, to measure changes in teachers’ self-rated occupational health and well-being [100]. Sample sizes range between 8000 and 60 participants. The most common data analysis procedures used were descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analyses, e.g., [105,143], and latent profile analysis TWB profiling in the pandemic years [126], correlations, linear regression analyses, e.g., [98], multilevel regression modeling, e.g., [138], and structural equation analysis, e.g., [117,127], to investigate determinants of TWB, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures, e.g., [112,115].

The instrumentation utilized for TWB measurement in these studies consisted of (a) the adaptation of widely established and standardized psychometric scales of well-being and mental health such as the International Barometer of Education Personnel’s Health and Wellbeing [142], the World Health Organization Well-being Index [115,134], Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales [101,102], the PERMA Profiler Questionnaire [99,140], Diener et al.’s (2009) Psychological Wellbeing Scale [103,139], the modified BBC Subjective Well-being scale (BBC-SWB) [118], and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [126] and (b) the compilation of context-specific well-being instruments, valid for experimentation within a particular educational context. Instances of such scales are Alves et al.’s [105] Well-being and Health Perception Scale and Perception Scale of Well-Being with the Professional Situation in Times of Pandemic, Eadie’s [98] Early Childhood Professional Wellbeing scale, Smith and James’ [141] Wellbeing Process Questionnaire, and Trindade et al.’s [106] Questionnaire of the Perception of Well-Being at Work, (c) the use and appropriation of instruments used in prior TWB research in view of COVID-19 new reality, e.g., [112,115,117,145], (d) the development of new survey COVID-19-oriented questionnaires in relation to TWB [107,116,143], and (e) the use of scales that measure TWB indirectly as a function of work-related anxiety [121], depression, general and specific life satisfaction [124,127], teacher stress and exhaustion [100,108], job satisfaction [109,137,138], teacher burnout [137], teacher work engagement, and emotional exhaustion [110,111].

Thirteen studies (25%) used an exclusively qualitative approach that mainly relied on data derived from (a) in-depth, one-to-one online interviews based on semi-structured questionnaires (nine studies), (b) focus group discussions [132], (c) collaborative autoethnographic practices [125], and (d) open-ended survey questions [131,136], which were further subjected to thematic analysis to reveal teachers’ overlapping concerns over their sense of well-being and experiences during the pandemic. Again, the cross-sectional research design dominated in this group of studies to the exception of Kim et al.’s [135] longitudinal qualitative study, while the sample sizes, often selected based on non-probability techniques, e.g., [119,129,136], ranged between 103 and 3 participants reflecting the small-scale nature of these studies. The measurement of TWB was operationalized in only three instances based on Ryff’s (2008) model [123], the job–resource model of well-being [129], and ecological systems theory [131], while in most other cases, it was investigated in an exploratory fashion using interview protocols aimed to illustrate the pandemic-induced complexity in teachers’ life experiences and the detrimental effect on their well-being, professional growth, and development. Grounded theory [113,122] was one of the two frameworks used for data interpretation purposes in two studies, ‘enabling researchers to make systematic comparisons and engage the data and emerging theory actively throughout the research process’ [150] (p. 374). Phenomenology, involving ‘the study of the lifeworld as we immediately experience it, pre-reflectively’ [151] (p. 614) availed researchers in Creely et al.’s [125] and Leong’s [149] studies of the opportunity to explicate the ontological features of TWB experiences within COVID-19 contextual circumstances.

Six studies (12%), although predominantly quantitative in design, also incorporated qualitative methodologies embodying a mixed-methods approach. The data in these studies were collected using self-administered survey questionnaires, while qualitative data were collected from small numbers of selected study participants using semi-structured interviews or free-response survey questions ensuring data triangulation. Data analysis involved the use of both statistical methods and qualitative thematic analysis. and sample sizes ranged between 307 and 57 participants. The study of TWB was theoretically framed within Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory [120] and the job–demands resource model of well-being [104,133] in three studies and was directly or indirectly measured using established psychological scales [97,104,133,144], TWB questionnaires [146], and exploratory interview questions [120]. Finally, the quasi-experimental methodology was used in two interventionist studies (4%) in an effort to determine the success rate of teacher development training programs on TWB enhancement during the pandemic period.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

TWB has recently emerged as the subject of substantial interdisciplinary research as a pre-eminent determinant variable of school improvement [96], teaching effectiveness, and educational governance [152], stabilizing school functioning and increasing staff members’ professional commitment [153]. The present systematic review can be viewed as a useful addition to the current literature on the topic, as it offers significant insights into TWB in times of crisis using a synthesis of relevant empirical evidence available in a sample of 53 studies conducted in diverse educational levels across the globe. The key findings of our review in relation to our three research questions can be summarized as follows:

6.1. Research Question 1: TWB Status during the COVID-19 Era

Teachers’ self-reported accounts explicitly indicated the overall extremely low levels of psychological, physical, and professional well-being they suffered at various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic across different educational settings, as manifested in: (i) elevated levels of personal stress, anxiety, burnout, and fear of becoming ill with COVID-19 [98]; increased feelings of social disconnection, depression, extreme worry, sadness, and general dissatisfaction with life [125]; absolute distress and despair in the face of increased teaching demands imposed [105,106]; financial insecurity [97] and an inability to strike a good work-family balance coupled with exhaustion and demotivation when teaching online [113,114,124]; (ii) poor physical well-being associated with a sedentary lifestyle and a lack of physical activity that led to excessive weight gain, sleep disturbances, lack of strength, headaches, abdominal pain, dyspnea, and arrhythmias [100]; and (iii) low levels of work commitment and teaching performance and a pronounced intent to abandon the teaching profession due to expressed strong dissatisfaction with current teaching load and/or additional job demands [99]. Self-reported high TWB levels were reported in only four studies and were mainly associated with an increased sense of work engagement, work meaningfulness, job commitment [110,111], and persistence to overcome COVID-19 and job productivity in terms of enhanced online teaching self-efficacy skills [116,117]. No noteworthy TWB developmental changes were recorded throughout the prolonged period of the COVID-19 pandemic [118,119], while findings with respect to TWB variance by gender and age of the samples included in each study were far from conclusive: (i) reported physical and psychological TWB levels were not found to significantly vary overall [101,102,103], with the exception of two studies where female schoolteachers exhibited higher levels of psychological well-being, while (ii) senior teachers tended to exhibit greater resilience and willingness to overcome current teaching difficulties and survive using work engagement [104], stressing the importance of adequate support provided at the school management level to boost their professional TWB level [108].

6.2. Research Question 2: TWB Stressors and Levers during the COVID-19 Era

The results identified a wide variety of individual and contextual correlates of TWB as being responsible for self-perceived negative well-being rates in the pandemic era associated with: (i) role ambiguity at the school level and low resilience and unwillingness for personal engagement due to high workload and increased professional challenges [128,133]; intense feelings of disconnectedness and isolation and a sense of professional uselessness ([129,130]), and teaching incompetence experienced by teachers when called to tackle with ERT demands in both technological and pedagogical terms [131] and (ii) work-related factors related to the risk of reduced income revenue or the prospect of job loss in the private sector [136]; the double burden of work–family care [134,135]; additional administrative and ERT teaching overload [132]; and a lack of common strategy and planning for schools, absence of collegial collaboration [114], appreciation, and support by school administration, insufficient school resources and unequal access to them, and the unavailability of opportunities for further professional development in the midst of COVID-19 [128]. The key TWB positive facilitators were (i) teachers’ personality characteristics and self-esteem as fully qualified professionals [99] capable of surviving the adversities posed by the COVID-19 virus in their everyday school routine by exhibiting obsessive work passion [140], increased teacher self-confidence [139], readiness to innovate within the novel ERT paradigm [109], intrinsic work motivation [130], maintaining a well-organized work schedule [128], and using effective coping and proactive physical self-care TWB strategies [134,142,146]. Aspects of school organization identified as being conducive to TWB in-crisis maintenance and enhancement were: the provision of support and encouragement for creative teaching self-efficacy with training in ERT practices [147]; the appropriate allocation of teacher workload [116]; a high sense of job satisfaction and work-related coherence and autonomy at work boosted by empowering leadership [148]; the promotion of high-quality relationships and collaboration with all stakeholders at school community level [135]; and the implementation of TWB in-service COVID-19 interventions [149,150,151].

6.3. Research Question 3: Research Trends on TWB during the COVID-19 Era

A quantitative cross-sectional research design based on online survey data was used in thirty-two of the reviewed empirical studies, profiling TWB throughout the pandemic years followed by thirteen small-scale, exploratory studies utilizing thematic analysis of data collected using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and collaborative auto-ethnography. A mixed research methodology was only used in six studies in our sample, while two studies utilized the quasi-experimental, pre-posttest methodology. The selection of research instruments applied for TWB measurement within the COVID-19 context widely varied involving (a) the use of standardized psychometric indices of well-being and mental health, (b) the development of new COVID-19 TWB surveys and tests, the adaptation of instruments used in pre-pandemic TWB research, and (c) the use of implicit TWB scales based on self-reported ratings of teacher stress, anxiety, satisfaction, and exhaustion in the workplace.

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic research review that explicitly delineates the debilitative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on TWB across different educational settings by addressing determinant variables and positive correlates based primarily on quantitative large-scale online survey studies. Our review findings broadly concur with those articulated in Pyżalski and Poleszak’s [84] review with respect to overall lower self-reported psychological and professional TWB rates that were mainly attributable to a variety of stressors associated with the new educational reality. TWB levers were also identified and elaborated, which could serve as a useful scientific basis for the enactment of appropriate educational policies, strategies, and interventions for the maintenance of TWB in critical times at both the policymaking as well as at the school administration levels. Following [3,154] (p. 86), the inclusion of ‘practical strategies that can aid teachers improve their interpersonal interactions, use of psychological working resources that enhance reflective teaching practices and improve teaching and learning and fostering teacher autonomy in decision making through institutional support and a respectful leadership based on mutual trust’ are deemed to be critical components of TWB improvement initiatives in tumultuous times.

As with all research, the current study has certain limitations that can be attributed to (i) the limited number of databases selected for to search the relevant literature, which may have led to the exclusion of relevant published research on TWB in disciplines other than the areas of education and psychology, (ii) the chosen language for all research studies selected in this review was English, which could have equally caused available research from different cultural backgrounds to be left out, and (iii) manual searches of relevant international peer-reviewed journals in educational psychology and teacher education could have inadvertently resulted in either the absolute preclusion or erroneous elimination of relevant research. Exclusion of research studies based on the above criteria may severely restrict the generalizability of our findings on TWB globally in the days of COVID-19 by omitting relevant non-English-speaking publications written from an interdisciplinary perspective. Nevertheless, while the provision of educational services suffered considerably in the time of COVID, being converted into a particularly onerous task for teachers around the world, this study also illustrated that such a disruption created the opportunity for researchers to rethink TWB within challenging circumstances and reinvent high-quality teacher preparation using ongoing professional development schemes to respond to teacher well-being needs during the pandemic and beyond [155].