Teacher Emotion Management in the Classroom: Appraisal

TEACHER EMOTION MANAGEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM:

APPRAISAL, REGULATION, AND COPING

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

MeiLin Chang, M.A.

The Ohio State University

2009

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Dr. Eric Anderman, Advisor ______

Dr. Heather Davis, CoAdvisor Adviser

Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy ______

Dr. Richard Lomax Coadviser

College of Education and Human Ecology

MeiLin Chang

2009

Abstract

Compared with other professions, teachers in P12 schools seem to experience the highest level of emotional exhaustion. The purpose of this study was to examine teacher emotions within the context of teachers’ appraisals and the ways they regulate and cope with their emotions. This was done by exploring novice teachers’ appraisals of classroom disruptive behavior situations and by investigating the adaptive coping and emotion regulation strategies that ease teacher burnout.

The underlying framework of this study is appraisal theory. Appraisal theory stresses a cognitive view of emotions: emotions are elicited by appraisals

(evaluations/ judgments) of events and situations (Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Thus, judgments teachers make about the behaviors in the classroom underlie the emotions that are aroused. While appraisals are central to teachers’ emotional experiences in the classroom, emotion regulation and coping are considered as integral features of emotional process dynamics as well (Lazarus, 2002).

This study was conducted by an online survey which collected data from 555 novice teachers in Ohio. In order to examine the antecedents of teacher emotions and the coping strategies teacher employed, the survey includes two parts: general

ii and contextspecific measures. General measures were developed to capture teacher’s sense of efficacy, emotion regulation patterns, and teacher burnout. In the contextspecific measure, the participants selfidentified and described a recent classroom incident in which they felt emotionally challenged. After describing the incident, participants responded to the survey items to identify the intensity of the discrete emotions, their emotional appraisals and coping strategies to the incident.

Data were analyzed by using structural equation modeling (SEM, a method to build a model in explaining and exploring relations between variables). Two models were submitted to LISREL. The fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for both models (model 1: χ2=1195.26, df =678, RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.06, GFI=0.90,

AGFI= 0.88 and CFI=0.96 and model 2: χ2=1367.06, df =693, RMSEA=0.04,

SRMR=0.07, GFI=0.89, AGFI= 0.87 and CFI=0.96). Both models were able to explain how those antecedent judgments lead to teachers’ emotion and how the consequent emotions contribute to their feelings of burnout. Model two allows the researcher to examine the mediating effects of coping between teacher emotions and teacher burnout. Overall, model two explained 39% of the variance in unpleasant emotions, 41% in burnout, 13% in emotionfocused coping, and 9% in problemfocused coping reported by teachers.

This study reveals a strong correlation between the appraisals teachers made

iii about the incident and the intensity of emotions. In addition, the more intense the discrete emotions (e.g. anger, frustration, disappointment, and challenge) teachers felt from the one episode, the more likely teachers would eventually feel burned out.

Emotion regulation by suppression was found to contributing to teacher burnout.

Lastly, teacher efficacy and problemfocused coping strategies were found to be effective in easing burnout.

This study adds new findings to the teacher burnout literature through examining teachers’ appraisals and emotion regulation processes in the classroom context. This study also addresses the substantial need for empiricallydriven attention to emotion management through the judgments teachers make in their classrooms. The findings will help teachers become resilient to the potential stress and emotional exhaustion of the teaching profession.

Dedicated to my family:

my father, ChenLiang; my mother, ChinChu my husband, YungLi (Luke); and my son, William

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful for the support, encouragement, inspiration, wisdom, guidance, and friendship from many people around me during the process of completing my dissertation. I would like to start my thanks to my dearly advisor,

Dr. Heather A. Davis. Words can hardly describe how much I feel I am blessed to have Dr. Davis as my advisor. Without her guidance and encouragement, I could not have accomplished many things throughout the four years. I cherish every step that she had carried me through this doctoral study: from finding a funding to support my doctoral study, developing a survey, analyzing the data, publishing my work in journal, completing my dissertation, to building my career. In addition, her expertise in emotion regulation and teacherstudent relationships guided me through the inquiry of this project. She is not only an adviser for me, but also a great mentor, a dear friend, and a scholarly model. She made me believe what I could accomplish and succeed in this career. She gave me every kind of training I need to become a researcher. She will always be my role model in many ways: her scholarship, her genuine caring and rigorous expectations to her students, her critical and indepth feedback for students’ work, and her humor. Because of her, I am who I am today as an educational researcher and a teacher educator.

My heartfelt gratitude also goes to Dr. Eric Anderman who has become my advisor during my fourth year. It was with his kindly and warmly support that I was able to get through the final and critical stage of my doctoral study. Working with him, I was able to develop a critical eye in examining my data and my analysis.

vi I am also very grateful for his advice and help with publication, teaching, and job search.

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy. I have tremendous respect of her accomplishments in the field of educational psychology.

She is the kindest and humblest scholar I have ever met. Her warm demeanor to her students will always be my example. I can’t describe how fortunate I think I am to be one of her students. I greatly appreciate her thoughtful comments and feedback for this project. It was in many of her seminars that I was exposed the important scholarly work in teacher efficacy and teacher motivation.

I also am very appreciative of the tremendous support from Dr. Richard Lomax.

I can’t thank him enough for his mentoring during my doctoral study. His classes in quantitative methods provided me with a solid foundation on which this project was launched. He also has significant contribution to this project with his expertise in

Structural Equation Modeling. Through his mentoring, I was able to carry out the data analysis successfully. In addition, his patience with my every little trivial question helped me to build my confidence in completing this project.

There are many faculty in the program that I would like to extend my gratitude. I am very thankful for Dr. Robert Hite’s comments when I was developing this study during my candidacy; Dr. O’Connell’s expertise and advices in factor analysis when I was developing my instruments; Dr. Tuckman’s caring through these four years; and

Dr. Lynley Anderman’s advice with publication.

There are people who helped me to collect the data that I owe my thanks to: Dr.

Loadman and Raeal Moore in the Teacher Quality Partnership project. Mr. Bryan

Yontz from Wittenberg University, Dr. Joy Cowdery from Muskingum College, Ms.

Pamela Nickell from Wilmington College. Without their help, I would not be able to

vii recruit preservice teachers for my pilot study and inservice teachers for my dissertation study.

I am incredibly thankful for my dear colleagues in the program. Without their inspirations and help, I could not have completed my doctoral study. Carey

Andrezjewski, Ryan Poirier, and Evan Straub were my important models in this doctoral study. They have always been there to provide any help whenever I need it. They are also like my academic sisters/brothers in holding my hands through this process from listening to my ideas, helping me refining my ideas, to reviewing my documents. I am very grateful for my peers, Sarah Kozel Silverman, Melissa

Newberry, Mike Yough, Paige Bruening, Tony Durr and Kimberly Hughes who offered their invaluable time and advice for reviewing my instruments and documents. I would like to give special thanks to Sarah Kozel Silverman who has inspired me intellectually during my doctoral study. I was very fortunate to experience my doctoral education synchronically with her. I am also thankful for

Heather Dawson and DeLeon Gray who have also supported me on this path.

I also want to thank my Taiwanese and Chinese fellows who gave me endless support: IChia Chou, WeiJia Ren, Jian Li, Sophia Lee, Carrie Lin, Ian Wei, Tony, and MengPei. My greatest gratitude goes to IChia, who has supported me from the very beginning of my doctoral study. She has helped my writing with her expertise in literacy and she has also helped take care of my son during my last phase of writing.

My deepest gratitude goes to my family: my mother, my strength, ChinChu; my father, my stronghold, ChengLiang; my sisters, my shelter, MeiChuan, BiYu; my brother, my shoulder, YuZhen; and my encourager and helper, my father and motherinlaw, TaihSiung Liang, and YuanHsiang Tso. Without the love,

viii support, and prayer from you all, I could not have completed this project. I also owe my special thanks to my mother and my fatherinlaw who sacrificed their time and energy to take care of me and my son, William during the final stage of the completion of the dissertation.

The person who I owe the greatest amount of gratitude is my husband, my love,

Luke. He is the inspiration of my life. He was the person who encouraged me to begin my doctoral study. It’s his faith in me made me believe I can become who I am today. Without his support and sacrifice in time and finance, I could not have completed my study. I also am thankful for my son, William, and for him being an angel to bring laughter and sweetness to reenergize me in the final phase of completing my dissertation. It is because of them, I know I will always do my best in everything I do.

Finally, I would like to thank God, my rock, and my comfort. You are all the reason I have become who I am today. Thank you for your blessings. Thank you for giving me all these people around me to protect and to help me on this path.

Vita

October 23, 1976……………………………………………………..Taipei, Taiwan

1998…………………………………………………………….…….B.S. Education,

National ChengChi University, Taipei, Taiwan

2001………………………………………....…….M.A. Educational Administration,

National ChengChi University, Taipei, Taiwan

20002001……………..………...………………………Chinese Literature Teacher,

Taipei Private DaCheng High School, Taipei, Taiwan

20012002………………………………………………Chinese Literature Teacher,

Taipei Private Dong Shan High School, Taipei, Taiwan

20022004……………………..…………………………Chinese Literature Teacher,

ChunJeng Middle School, Keelung, Taiwan

20072008…………………………………..…………………Evaluation Consultant

Westerville City School District, Westerville, OH

20072008…………………………………………….Graduate Research Associate

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

20062009………………………………...…………Graduate Teaching Associate

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Publications Chang, M.L. (2001). Correlation between instructional methods, and the planning and design of classroom space in elementary school, In C.M., Tang (Ed.), The New Pattern of School Design in 21 Century , 251266.

x Chang, M.L. & Davis, H.A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals in shaping the dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing disruptive behavior and relationship problems. In Schutz, P. & Zembylas, M. (Eds.) Advances in Teacher Emotion Research: The Impact on Teachers’ Lives . NY: Springer.

Chang, M. L. (in press). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers, Educational Psychology Review .

Davis, H. A., Chang, M.L., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Poirier, R. R. (in press). Examining Behavioral, Relational, and Cognitive Engagement in Smaller Learning Communities: A Case Study of Reform in One Suburban District, Journal of Educational Change .

Fields of Study

Major Field: Teacher Education/Educational Psychology and Philosophy

Minor Field: Quantitative Research Methods

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………….. ii Dedication……………………………………………………………….. v Acknowledgments……………………………………………………….. vi Vita………………………………………………………………………. x List of Tables…………………………………………………………….. xii List of Figures……………………………………………………………. xvi Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………...... 1 Background of the Study……………………………………………. 3 Statement of Problem………………………………………………. 6 Theoretical Background…………………………………………….. 8 Social Cognitive Theory………………………………………… 8 Cognitive Appraisal Theories of Emotion….…………………… 10 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………….. 11 Contributions to the Field ………………………………………… 11 Operational Definitions of Terms…………………………………… 13 Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………………. 15 Toward a Theoretical Model in Understanding the Relationships between Teacher Emotions and Teacher Burnout……………… 16 The Proposed Theoretical Model………………………………. 17 The Role of Classroom Disruptive Behaviors in Teacher Burnout 19 The Role of Appraisal Process in Unpleasant Emotions………… 21 The Role of Unpleasant Emotions in Emotional Exhaustion………………………………………………………… 25 Emotion Regulation and Coping with Emotions………………… 28 The Role of Teacher Efficacy in Protecting Against Burnout…… 32 Chapter 3 Methods………………………………………………………… 35 Purpose………………………………………………………………… 35 Research Questions……………………………………………………. 35 Research Hypotheses………………………………………………….. 36 Research Design……………………………………………………. 36 xii Participants…………………………………………………………… 37 Measures…………………………………………………………… 38 Data Analysis…………………………………………….. 46 Chapter 4 Results…………………………………………………………… 48 Phase 1: Validating the Measurement Model………………………… 48 Phase 2: Validating the Fit of Two Models…………………………… 61 Phase 3: Interpreting a Model of Emotion Regulation for Disruptive Events………………………………………………………… 70 Chapter 5 Discussion……………………………………………………….. 75 Contributions to the Field……………………………………………... 75 Summaries of the Findings and Practical Implications……………….. 77 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………. 82 Setting a Research Agenda for Teacher Emotions and Burnout……… 83 References………………………………………………………………... 87

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: IRB Approval Form………………………………………. 100 APPENDIX B: The Instrument……………………………………………. 101 APPENDIX C: Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables in the Model…….. 108 APPENDIX D: Tables of Chapter Four……………………………………. 109

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Definitions of terms………………………………………………….…13

Table 2.1: Underlying Appraisals for Unpleasant Emotions………………………22

Table 4.1 Measurement Model Summary……………………………………….…49

Table 4.2 Fit indices for the full measurement models………………………….…59

Table 4.3: The fit indices for the proposed model and alternative model of the study……………………………………………………………………….….63 Table 4.4: Maximum likelihood estimates of path coefficients in the proposed model……………………………………………………………………….…67 Table 4.5: Maximum likelihood estimates of path coefficients in the alternative model……………………………………………………………………….…68

Table 4.6: Maximum likelihood estimates of variances in the proposed model.…..69

Table 4.7: Maximum likelihood estimates of variances in the alternative model.....70

Table 4.8: Standardized estimates of the direct, indirect, and total effects of the exogenous variables on the endogenous variables in the alternative model of the study…………………………………………………………………….…75 Table C.1 Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables in the Model………………….104 Table D.1 Regression weights of composite variables for TSES scale…………...105

Table D.2 Measurement model for TSES latent variable…………………………106

Table D.3 AppraisalsImportance scale reliability………………………………..106

Table D.4 AppraisalsIncongruence scale reliability……………………………..107

xiv Table D.5 AppraisalsInefficacy scale reliability…………………………………107

Table D.6 AppraisalsAgency scale reliability……………………………………107

Table D.7 Factor loadings with Tvalues for Appraisal Scale…………………….108

Table D.8 Proactive coping scale reliability………………………………………109

Table D.9 Emotionfocused coping scale reliability………………………………109

Table D.10 Problemfocused coping scale reliability……………………………..110

Table D.11 Factor loadings with Tvalues for Coping Scale……………………..111

Table D.12 Unpleasant emotion scale reliability………………………………….112

Table D.13 Reappraisal scale reliability…………………………………………..112

Table D.14 Suppression scale reliability………………………………………….112

Table D.15 Burnout scale reliability………………………………………………113

Table D.16 Regression weights of composite variables for Burnout scale……….114

Table D.17 Full Measurement Model Results…………………………………….115

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1.1: Conceptual model for understanding teacher emotion and teacher burnout………………………………………………………………….. 8 Figure 1.2 The triadic reciprocal causation in the study…………………….. 9 Figure 2.1 Model 1: Independent effects of unpleasant emotions, efficacy, and coping on burnout………………………………………………….. 18 Figure 2.2 Model 2: Emotion and task focused coping processes mediate the relationship between unpleasant emotions and burnout………………… 19 Figure 4.1 The Full Measurement Model…………………………………… 62 Figure 4.2 Structural equation model for model 1………………………….. 64 Figure 4.3 Structural equation model for model 2………………………….. 66 Figure D.1 The CFA model of TSES………………………………………… 105 Figure D.2 The measurement model of TSES……………………………….. 106 Figure D.3 CFA model of appraisal scale……………………………………. 109 Figure D.4 CFA model of coping scale………………………………………. 110 Figure D.5 CFA model of unpleasant emotion scale…………………………. 111 Figure D.6 CFA model of emotional regulation scale………………………... 113 Figure D.7 CFA model of burnout scale……………………………………… 114 Figure D.8 CFA model of burnout composite scale………………………….. 114 Figure D.9 Full Structural Equation Model of Proposed Model……………… 117 Figure D.10 Full Structural Equation Model of Alternative Model………….. 118

xvi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

After graduating from a fouryear teacher education program in Taiwan in

1998, with excitement and pride, I became a school teacher. It was shortly after my first couple years as an educator that I realized teaching takes an enormous amount of physical, intellectual, and emotional energy. I observed and experienced a tremendous amount of variability in my emotion experiences in school; passion, excitement, joy, pride, fear, vulnerability, sympathy, and hope, as well as annoyance, worry, resentment, frustration, pain, guilt, shame, anger, powerlessness, and disappointment. It wasn’t until going to graduate school that I learned there was a large body of literature on emotions in teaching. Teaching is emotional work

(Hargreaves, 1998; Zembylas, 2003) and it can carry with it intensely emotional experiences running the full gamut from joy to rage (Liljestrom, Roulston & deMrrais,

2007). As a result, the emotional nature of teaching can easily drain teachers’ energy.

During my years teaching in junior and senior high schools, I observed my colleagues dealing with their emotions daily in the office. I often witnessed teachers’ expressions of intense emotions aroused by studentteacher relationships in the office.

It did not matter whether they were novice or veteran teachers; they possessed intense emotions toward their students. One instance involved a novice art teacher who became angry and frustrated with her students’ neglect of her assignments. She came into the office to release her emotions and cried and complained about how students were not respecting her by ignoring her assignments. Another veteran teacher became angry at one student’s violation of the dress code. A midcareer teacher felt fear, shame, and sense of hopelessness because of an attack by one of her students during a studentteacher conflict. The incident nearly forced her to leave the job she loved. The preceding incidents caused the educators to carry strong, undue emotional burdens and we knew of no way to help them. It seems evident that teacher emotions are treated as personal property and teachers are expected to deal with them personally and alone. Without proper management and coping, however, teachers may experience burnout quite early in their careers.

From the studies on teacher burnout, it has been suggested that emotional exhaustion is a major component of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

For this reason, I am interested in studying the most salient emotions that teachers experience in the classroom and how these might lead to burnout. In other words, which emotions account for emotional exhaustion? What are the most salient emotions that lead to emotional labor or emotional exhaustion and eventually lead to burnout?

Another aspect of interest is the internal and external process of emotional regulation of teachers. Externally, how do teachers regulate their emotions in the

2 classroom? Do they choose to publicly express their emotions to students? Do they choose to suppress their emotions? How do teachers’ relationships with colleagues or administrators provide an outlet for their emotions? Internally, what is the process of emotional regulation for teachers? For example, how does wishful thinking or selfblame come into play during the process of emotional regulation?

How does selfefficacy play a role in emotional regulation for teachers?

These questions require an answer and the lack of studies on teachers’ emotion in the existing literature review leads to the examination of teacher resilience from the lens of emotion.

Background of the Study

Teaching in K12 schools is often marked by a myopic focus on daytoday effects, isolation from other adults, and limited opportunities for reflection (Fullan,

2001). Moreover, teachers need to draw on their intellectual and emotional resources to successfully connect with their students and help students connect with the subject matter (Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2005). As a result, teachers are often drained intellectually and emotionally. Therefore, teaching is characterized as the highest level of exhaustion in comparison to other professions (Hakanen, Bakker &

Schaufeli, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). The demands of teaching have caused high turnover rates and teacher shortages in many countries. In the United States, up to

25% of novice teachers leave the field before the third year, and almost 40% leave the profession within the first five years of teaching (Milner & Hoy, 2003; National

3 Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2004; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 2003; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). In Germany, fewer than 10% of the teachers remain until retirement and in Britain, more teachers leave the profession early than remain in teaching until retirement (Macdonald, 1999).

The shortage of the teacher workforce has not only caused a staffing problem in schools but also degraded the quality of instruction in the classroom.

Evidence points to high attrition rates of teachers, which result from individual and organizational factors (Ingersoll, 2001). Scholars seem to have reached the consensus that teacher burnout explains the high turnover rate. An international survey conducted by the ILOUNESCO Joint Committee revealed that 2533% of teachers suffered significantly from stress (MacDonald, 1999). The NCES

20002001 report indicates the top sources causing teachers to flee are a lack of planning time, too heavy a workload, too low a salary, as well as problematic student behavior (NCES, 2004). The results from the NCES report correspond to the results from the significant amount of scholarship focused on burnout.

The study of burnout as a syndrome initially appeared in articles through descriptive and qualitative observations by early researchers in human services and healthcare in the mid1970s. It was again examined using an empirical approach in

1980 (see Maslach et al., 2001). Freudenberger (1974), a psychiatrist, observed the wearout symptoms among staff working in free clinics, and defined burnout as ”a symptom of emotional depletion and a loss of motivation and commitment.”

Maslach (1976), a social psychologist, interviewed human service workers about their

4 emotional stress on the job. Maslach found that the burnout phenomenon commonly exists in the caregiving and service occupations, in which the emotions, motives, and values between provider and recipient are the underlying interpersonal context for burnout.

Edelwich and Brodsky (1980) defined burnout in terms of the loss of ideals and meaningfulness, characterized as a “progressive loss of idealism, energy, purpose, and concern as a result of conditions of work” (p. 92). In their recent work, Maslach and

Leiter (1997) defined burnout as “an erosion of engagement that what started out as important, meaningful, and challenging work becomes unpleasant, unfulfilling, and meaningless” (see Maslach et al., 2001, p. 416). Accordingly, burnout happens when exhaustion replaces feeling energized, cynicism replaces being hopeful and involved, and ineffectiveness replaces feeling efficacious.

The sources of teacher burnout are believed to have multifaceted factors

(Maslach et al., 2001). Studies of teacher burnout can be categorized into three groups along the sources of burnout they identify: individual factors, organizational factors, and transactional factors. Individual factors include demographic variables or personality variables (e.g., age, gender, years of teaching experience, personality etc.) (Friedman & Farber, 1992; Greenglass & Burke, 1988; Maslach & Jackson,

1981). Organizational factors include institutional and job characteristics, e.g., inappropriate work demands, socioeconomic status of school, and administrative support etc. (Brissie, HooverDempsey, & Bassler, 1988; Evers, Tomic, & Brouwers,

2004; Farber, 1984; Maslach et al., 2001). Studies identifying sources of burnout as

5 individual factors provided the answers to “who” experiences burnout, while studies identifying sources of burnout as social and organizational factors provided the answers to “what” makes teachers burn out.

Because the paradigm of educational research has shifted to a more social constructive approach, progressively more studies explore teacher burnout as the result of an interaction between individual and organizational factors. The interaction effects could be described as transactional factors based on the transactional model proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). In examining job stress, Lazarus and colleagues identified the critical components that determine the intensity of stress to be an individual’s perceptions and beliefs, which interpret the stressor, and that individual’s perceived resources for coping with the stress.

Transactional factors include interactions of individual factors with organizational and/or social factors, such as an employee’s perceptions of leadership style, teachers’ attribution of student misbehaviors, and teachers’ perceptions of exchange of investments and outcomes (BibouNakou, Stogiannidou, & Kiosseoglou, 1999; Evers,

Tomic, & Brouwers, 2004; Friedman, 1995; Van Horn, Schaufeli, & Enzmann 1999).

In agreement with Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional views of examining stress, the present study will examine teacher burnout by focusing on the interactions of teachers’ beliefs and students’ behaviors.

Statement of Problem

Disruptive behavior by students has been recognized as the top factor

6 contributing to teacher burnout (BibouNakou 1999; Blasé, 1982; Chan, 2006; Evers,

Tomic, & Brouwers, 2004; Gold, 1985; Pines, 2002). Scholars in classroom management like Emmer and Stough (2001) have noted a lack of studies in the relations among teacher emotions, classroom management, and teaching practice in the field of educational psychology. They further suggested that understanding teachers’ beliefs about disruptive student behaviors and teachers’ coping processes in managing student behaviors may be helpful in the field. Consequently, it is important to inquire about how teachers’ beliefs and cognitive processes influence their emotional reactions to disruptive behaviors by students. However, only a handful of studies have examined teachers’ cognitive judgments of the disruptive behaviors and how those judgments influence teachers’ emotional experiences in the classroom. If disruptive behavior in the classroom is identified as the prominent source of teacher burnout, how does one teacher manage to survive, while another is depleted by it?

Moreover, among the studies, emotional exhaustion has been identified as the most prominent characteristic in teacher burnout. However, only a few studies have examined the relationship between teachers’ emotions and burnout (Carson, 2006).

In fact, the lack of inquiry about emotions in teachers and education has been noted by several scholars (Hargreaves, 2004; Pekrun & Schutz, 2007; Sutton & Wheatley,

2003). Therefore, the main goal of this project is to examine how teachers’ appraisals of disruptive behavior in the classroom and their patterns of regulation contribute to their experiences of unpleasant emotions as well as to further investigate

7 how teachers’ sense of efficacy and coping strategies can help ease burnout for teachers.

FIGURE 1.1: Conceptual model for understanding teacher emotion and teacher burnout

As proposed in Figure 1.1, further examination about an educator’s emotional experiences and antecedent cognitive appraisals is needed to answer this question.

What are the emotions teachers generally experience that may contribute to their burnout? Is it anger? Is it frustration? Or is it the culmination of unpleasant emotions over time that leads teachers to repeatedly experience burnout?

Theoretical Background

The theoretical background of this study derives from social cognitive theory

(Bandura, 1986, 1997) and cognitive appraisal theories of emotion (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984; Roseman & Smith, 2001).

Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura (1986) maintained that human agency operates within an interdependent causal structure involving triadic reciprocal causation and thus individuals are capable

8 of learning not only from their own experiences but also from the experiences of those around them. He argued a transactional view of the interrelationships of self and society, “internal personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events; behavior; and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally (p.6)”.

Figure 1.2 The triadic reciprocal causation in the study. The triadic reciprocal causation is adopted from Bandura (1997). The relationships between behavior, internal personal factors, and external environment as a triadic reciprocal causation.

Within social cognitive theory perspective, each individual possesses the capacity to develop selfdirected forethought and learn from his/her and others’ individual experiences (Schunk & Pajares, 2001). Bandura (1997) noted that selfefficacy is the key factor of human agency. Perceived selfefficacy refers to

“beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to

9 produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). The beliefs that form the selfsystem are constructed from four principal sources of information: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and allied types of social influences, and physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1986). In adoption of Bandura’s view, in the theoretical framework of the present study, the environmental factor can provide the sources of efficacy to teachers through the reciprocal relationships.

As depicted by Figure 1.2, influenced by social cognitive theory, the relationships of teachers’ selfsystem, social factors and teacher emotion regulation strategies use are hypothesized by this triadic reciprocal causation.

Cognitive Appraisal Theories of Emotion

Emotional appraisal theory suggests that discrete emotions can be differentiated based on the individual’s appraisal of the situation (Arnold, 1960). Arnold’s theory preceded researchers like Lazarus and Folkman (1984), Roseman and Smith (2001), and Scherer (2001). They suggested that emotions are elicited by evaluations

(appraisals) of events and situations (Roseman & Smith, 2001). For example, anger may be elicited by the appraisal of being treated unfairly or the blaming another person for a motiveincongruent event. In sum, emotions are relational to the individual, based in meaning to the individual and evaluation of the events (Smith &

Kirby, 2001).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this project was to examine how novice teachers’ appraisals of disruptive classroom behavior and patterns of emotion regulation contributed to their experiences of unpleasant emotion, and to further investigate how teacher efficacy, emotion regulation, and coping may help ease feelings of burnout. To this end, the study aimed to use structural equation modeling to examine the fit of a hypothesized model of teacher emotional regulation of disruptive classroom behavior situations

Contributions to the Field

This project is poised to make several contributions to the fields of preservice teacher education, professional development for practicing teachers, and the literature on burnout in caring professions.

The extant literature indicates the leading source of teacher burnout is students' misbehavior, a reality of the classroom for which P12 teachers feel illprepared (Sutton & Weatley, 2003; McCann & Johannessen, 2004). Moreover, it is noted that teacher candidates usually overlook the emotional work and the burnout aspects of teaching (Schutz, Hong & Cross, 2007). This study will focus on teachers’ emotional appraisals during classroom disruptive behaviors, which will also address the substantial need for empiricallydriven attention to emotion management in preparing preservice teachers for effective classroom management. For instance, what are the contributing factors in the emotional appraisal process that relate to

11 teachers’ feelings of anger, frustration or burnout? In what ways do teachers’ judgments shape their discrete emotional experiences? How do resilient teachers judge the events in their classroom differently than other teachers? The findings from this study will help preservice teachers understand the emotional work of teaching as well as to assist preservice teachers in becoming more resilient to the potential stress and emotional exhaustion associated with teaching jobs.

Secondly, this study will make a significant contribution to the field of education as well as to the literature on burnout/compassion fatigue for practitioners in all the caring professions (e.g. nursing, social work, and counseling). Although the existing literature focuses extensively on burnout in different professions, only a few studies have examined burnout through the lens of emotion (Carson, 2006). The proposed study takes the research corpus one step further by examining teachers’ emotional appraisals within their classrooms. The results from the study will contribute to the field by examining specifically teachers’ cognitive judgment of their emotional arousal in the classroom. This study will also help identify the relationships among teachers’ emotional appraisals, experiences of negative emotions, and teachers’ feelings of burnout; relationships that are likely analogous to those experienced by professionals in other helping fields.

Operational Definition of Terms

Burnout A symptom for people who experienced emotional depletion and a loss of motivation and commitment (Freudenberger,

1975)

Coping Coping refers to individual’s efforts to master demands (conditions of harm, threat or challenge) that are appraised (or

perceived) as exceeding or taxing his or her resources

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Cynicism An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others

(Maslach, 1976)

Depersonalization An attempt to put distance between oneself and service recipients by actively ignoring the qualities that make them

unique and engaging people (Maslach et al, 2001)

Emotion An organized psychobiological response linking physiological, cognitive, and motivational states.

Emotional Appraisal A relative, individualized, evaluative judgment that results in emotion (Smith & Kirby, 2001)

13 Emotional Feelings of being emotionally overextended and having depleted one’s emotional resources (Evers, Tomic, & Exhaustion Brouwers, 2004)

Emotion Regulation A theoretical conceptualization of physiological, behavioral, and cognitive processes that enable individuals to modulate

the experience and expression of positive and negative

emotions (Gross & John, 2003).

Teacher’s Sense of The teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully Efficacy accomplishing a specific teaching task in a particular context

(TschannenMoran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

Proactive Coping A coping strategy that integrates processes of personal quality of life management with those of selfregulatory goal

attainment; it consists of efforts to build up general resources

that facilitate promotion of challenging goals and personal

growth (Greenglass, 2002).

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this project was to examine how novice teachers’ appraisals of classroom disruptive behavior and patterns of emotion regulation contributed to their experiences of unpleasant emotion, and further investigate how teacher efficacy, emotion regulation and coping may help ease feelings of burnout. In the following sections, I review the literature on the roles of classroom disruptive behaviors in teacher burnout, appraisal process in unpleasant emotions, unpleasant emotions in emotional exhaustion, the role of emotion regulation and coping with unpleasant emotions, and finally how teacher efficacy protect against burnout.

Review procedures included a directed search for articles written over the past 30 years specifically on teacher burnout and teacher emotions. These were reviewed from the following databases: Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Education Research

Complete, and the Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection. Although emotional exhaustion has been the most prominent dimension for defining teacher burnout, few studies have examined the emotional aspects of teachers’ lives in the field (see review by Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). In addition, although disruptive student behaviors have been recognized as the top reason contributing to teacher

15 burnout (BibouNakou et al.,1999; Blasé, 1982; Chan, 2003; Evers, Tomic, &

Brouwers, 2004; Gold, 1985; Pines, 2002) few studies have examined teachers’ cognitive judgments of the disruptive behaviors and how those judgments influence their emotional experiences in the classroom.

In the following chapter, two alternate models of teacher emotion regulation of disruptive classroom behavior are proposed. The literature concerning the relevant aspects of teacher emotions and teacher burnout is systematically reviewed.

Specifically, relationships already documented in empirical research and relationships implicated in the literature are highlighted.

Toward a Theoretical Model for Understanding the Relationships between Teacher

Emotion and Teacher Burnout

Existing studies have focused on teachers’ emotions mostly through qualitative methods such as emotional labor (Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006;

Winograd, 2003), teacher identity (Schutz et al., 2007; Van Veen, & Lasky, 2005), mentoring (Bullough & Draper, 2004), emotional geographies of teaching

(Hargreaves, 2000), emotional regulation (Sutton, 2004), discrete emotions (Sutton,

2007; Zembylas, 2003), and teachers’ emotions in the context of school reforms

(Zembylas & Barker, 2007).

Several studies have found that the beginning years of a teaching career usually evoke intense emotions for educators (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Hargreaves,

2005; Intrator, 2006; Liljestrom, Roulston & deMrrais, 2007). Bullough &

16 Baughman (1997) concluded that many novice teachers do not realize the profound, allencompassing emotional work involved in teaching until their first year.

Similarly, Intrator (2006) found that new teachers experience a dramatic range of intense emotions and passions evoked by the fear of not being liked or respected, the vulnerability that comes with awareness of judgment by others, the anxiety of not being familiar with the subject matter, and the discomfort that comes from having to make rapidfire and uncertain decisions. In responding to the emotional challenges novice teachers are believed to experience, this study aims to examine novice teachers’ emotional management in the classroom.

The Proposed Theoretical Model

This investigation involved the simultaneous assessment of each construct’s direct and indirect influences on others. The analyses started with the examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of teacher’s appraisals of disruptive classroom behaviors on their experiences of unpleasant emotions. It continued with the examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of emotion regulation patterns as reappraisals and suppression on their experiences of unpleasant emotions. The

17 subsequent analyses involved the examination of direct and/or indirect influences of unpleasant emotion on overall feelings of burnout. Lastly, the direct and/or indirect influences of teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping strategies and coping strategies on teacher burnout were further investigated.

Figure 2.1 Model 1: Independent effects of unpleasant emotions, efficacy, and coping on burnout.

Figure 2.2 presents and alternative model (Model 2) for understanding the relationship between teacher emotion and burnout. Similar to Model 1, the analyses started with the examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of teacher’s appraisals of classroom disruptive behaviors on their experiences of unpleasant emotions. It continued with the examination of the direct and/or indirect influences of emotion regulation patterns as reappraisals and suppression on their experiences of unpleasant emotions. The subsequent analyses involved the examination of direct and/or indirect influences of unpleasant emotion on overall feelings of burnout.

Lastly, the direct and/or indirect influences of teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping strategies and coping strategies on teacher burnout were further investigated. 18 However, in the alternative model (Fig. 2.2), emotion focused and task focused coping processes have the mediating relationships between unpleasant emotion teachers experienced during the disruptive incident and the overall feelings of burnout.

Figure 2.2 Model 2: Emotion and task focused coping processes mediate the relationship between unpleasant emotions and burnout.

The Role of Disruptive Classroom Behaviors in Teacher Burnout

In reviewing classroom management studies, Emmer and Stough (2001) noted that teachers’ unpleasant emotions associated with teaching are often related to disruptive student behaviors. Consistent with Emmer and Stough’s finding, in the body of literature on burnout, disruptive student behaviors have been recognized as the top reason contributing to teacher burnout (BibouNakou et al., 1999; Blasé, 1982;

Evers, Tomic, & Brouwers, 2004; Gold, 1985; Pines, 2002). In addition, in 1995,

19 Friedman published a report on the types of behavior problems that contribute to teacher burnout. Among the most frequently cited disruptive behaviors were talking out of turn (23%), hostility towards peers / teacher (21%), and an inattentiveness / unwillingness to learn (27%). Friedman’s (1995) report corroborated finding by

Brophy and McCaslin (1992) on the nature of “problem” students. However, few scholars have been able to identify the paths by which disruptive, problem behaviors lead to emotional stress (BibouNakou et al.,1999).

The ways educators perceive disruptive student behavior play an important role in their emotional experiences (Emmer & Stough, 2001). In examining the relationships between teachers’ judgments of student behaviors and teacher burnout,

BibouNakou and colleagues (1999) studied 200 elementary school teachers in Greece.

Specifically, they examined teachers’ causal attributions and their relationship with burnout. The results revealed that punitive actions were correlated with diminished personal achievement, whereas socialintegrative coping was associated with reduced feelings of depersonalization. They further argued that teachers’ personal accomplishment was higher in the group who attributed students’ disobedience to internal studentrelated factors. That is to say, teachers who did not take students’ disruptive behaviors personally reported higher personal accomplishment in teaching, and thus less feelings of burnout.

Moreover, Evers et al. (2004) examined burnout among teachers in the

Netherlands and suggested that teachers’ competence to cope with disruptive classroom behaviors was significantly related to each dimension of burnout. Pines

20 (2002) also suggested that disruptive student behaviors cause undue stress on teachers because when students lack interest in learning and lack attention in the classroom, teachers may have a feeling of insignificance or perceive themselves as failures.

Lastly, Schonfeld (1992) found that some teachers who perceive disruptive student behavior as threatening and this perception could cause excess stress.

In sum, classroom managerial issues are central to teachers’ instructional tasks.

Disruptive behaviors can drain teachers’ energy and perceptions, attributions, and judgments they make about those behaviors influence their emotional experiences in the classroom. Therefore, in the following section, the cognitive appraisals theories of emotions will be reviewed to further understand teachers’ appraisal of classroom behaviors and how it relates to the subsequent emotions.

The Role of Appraisal Processes in Unpleasant Emotions

Cognitive appraisal theories of emotions suggest that discrete emotions can be differentiated based upon the individual’s appraisal of the situation (Arnold, 1960;

Lazarus, 1990; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Scherer, 2001). Researchers suggest that emotions are elicited by evaluations (appraisals) of events and situations (Roseman &

Smith, 2001). For example, anger may be elicited by the appraisals that one feels they are being treated unfairly or blames another person for a motiveincongruent event. In sum, appraisals organize emotions are relational to the individual, based in the meaning to the individual (Smith & Kirby, 2001).

21 According to Lazarus (1991), emotional intensity depends on the way in which

we evaluate the significance of events, and the various intensity variables may be

divided into primary appraisals and secondary appraisals. Appraisal theory (Ellsworth

& Smith, 1988; Lazarus, 1992) suggests unpleasant emotions are influenced by the

appraisals of incongruence, importance, agency, situational control and problem

efficacy. For example, teachers who get angry with students during disruptive

behaviors believe the disruptive behavior gets in the way of his or her ability to follow

the lesson plan. This is particularly frustrating when the lesson plan is relatively

important to the curriculum.

Anger Frustration Anxiety Guilt

Relevance High High High High

Incongruence High High High High

Agency Other Self/Circumstance Circumstance Self

Control Potential High Low Low High

Core relation theme An unjustified Having no control Facing Having

(Lazarus, 2002) demeaning over an undesired uncertain, transgressed a

offense against situation caused by existential moral

me and mine self or circumstance threat imperative

Table 2.1 Underlying Appraisals for Unpleasant Emotions

Table 2.1 outlines how teachers’ judgments of misbehaviors would

systematically vary to produce different unpleasant emotions. The common

22 underlying appraisals for anger, frustration, anxiety, and guilt are high motiveincongruent and high relevance. In other words, these unpleasant emotions are aroused because of the perceived incongruence of one’s goal in high importance situations. And yet, these emotions can be discerned by their unique appraisals. In terms of agency, anger is usually othercaused, guilt is selfcaused, and frustration and anxiety are usually circumstancecaused emotions. While anger and guilt are aroused when events are perceived to have high control potential, frustration and anxiety are usually aroused when events are perceived to be low controlpotential.

In primary appraisal, relevance is believed to be the most important factor in determining the significance of an emotional encounter. The more relevant a teacher judges an incident or interaction, the more intense the emotional experience. In the classroom context, studentteacher relationships can serve as a thermometer for relevance. As BenZe’evs (2000) defined “emotional closeness” in terms of time, space, effect, or degree, teachers share a proximal space with students and interact with students intensively. Therefore, the more a teacher cares about students, the higher degree of relevance would be appraised in an emotional encounter. Teachers’ judgments of relevance may also be a function of their perceived psychological proximity (Muller, Katz & Dance, 2004; Newberry & Davis, 2008). In other words, relationships may be viewed as more relevant to a teacher’s goals when he or she perceived the students to be more similar. For example, when a classroom incident occurs, the less a teacher cares about the student or the less s/he cares about the lesson, the less likely it would be judged to be important.

23 Goal congruence is another major component of primary appraisals. In a classroom, a teacher may set several goals in teaching tasks: maintaining order, managing students’ behaviors, following lesson plans, and helping students reach learning goals. As burnout literature suggests that students’ disruptive behaviors are the major sources which drain teachers’ emotions, it is very likely students’ disruptive behaviors could be a threat to teachers’ goal achievement. This goal incongruence might increase the intensity of emotions.

In secondary appraisal, teachers make judgments regarding the nature of the event that forms the kind of emotion and its intensity. While the event is considered to be incongruent and relevant to the primary appraisal, the next process is to determine the accountability/agency of the events, the controllability over the events, the coping potential to deal with the events and the future expectancy of the events.

Further, scholars in emotion regulation like Boekaerts (1993), Schutz and Davis

(2000) have noted that problem efficacy is an important appraisal in the emotion process. People with higher efficacy in solving the problem would perceive less threat or harm in the arousals. This was also found by Davis, DiStefano, and Schutz

(2008) in their study of emotion and emotion regulation in the context of testing.

In sum, based on the literature, when faced with making sense of an incident of disruptive classroom behavior, a teacher’s emotional appraisal of the events will lead to various emotions in different degrees of intensity. Particularly, teachers’ appraisals of high incongruence, high importance low problem efficacy, low agency may lead to high intensity of unpleasant emotions.

24 The Role of Unpleasant Emotions in Emotional Exhaustion

Is emotional exhaustion accounted for by specific discrete emotions? Carson

(2006) examined the issue of teacher burnout and emotion regulation by using

Personal Digital Assistant with 45 teachers who recorded their daily emotional experiences for two weeks. Carson found that burnout was a daily experience for teachers and concluded the frequent accounts of the specific unpleasant emotions of unhappiness, anger and frustration significantly contributed to teacher burnout. Thus, the discrete unpleasant emotions in teaching that may potentially lead to emotional exhaustion will be reviewed.

Existing studies have explored the following unpleasant emotions in teaching which could be the discrete emotions that cause emotional exhaustion: anxiety

(Bullough, Bullough, & Mayes, 2006; Coates & Thoresen, 1976; Hargreaves, 2001), anger, frustration, (Blasé, 1982; Hargreaves, 2004; Liljestrom, Roulston & deMarrais,

2007; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003; Van Veen & Sleegers, & Van De, 2006), guilt

(Hargreaves & Tucker, 1991; Prawat, Byers, & Anderson, 1983), shame (Bibby, 2002;

Carson, 2006), and sadness (Sutton, 2000). The above studies examined the sources that trigger teachers’ unpleasant emotions. In the present study, studies on teacher emotions which are related to disruptive classroom behaviors such as anxiety, anger, and frustration are reviewed.

Anxiety

Teacher anxiety is usually triggered by the feelings of lack of preparedness to teach, discipline issues in the classroom, relationships with other colleagues,

25 administrators, and parents, and changes due to reform efforts (Bullough Jr. et al.,

2006; Calderhead, 2001; Hargreaves, 2001; Van Veen et al., 2005). Furthermore, for new teachers, the need for students to like them and their lack of knowledge of subject matter are also sources of anxiety (Coates & Thoresen, 1976).

Bullough et al. (2006) interviewed 21 elementary school teachers regarding their nighttime dreams about the classroom to understand their anxiety. Results from the interviews revealed teachers frequently had dreams involving themselves being unprepared to teach in the forms of being late or insufficient preparation of materials.

Those dreams revealed that most teachers have the anxiety and worry of being unprepared. Being well prepared is essential for teachers to feel secure and comfortable; however, it is unreasonable to expect teachers to ever fully be prepared for teaching because they can not anticipate all possibilities. Therefore, the anxiety of lesson preparation is a frequently experienced emotion in teaching. Other dreams teachers reported in Bullough et al.’s study involved being judged by others, losing control of the class by yelling at students, or being behind schedule, which revealed that teachers fear their decisions will not be recognized by others. This result supports another study by Hargreaves (2001) in which the researcher claimed teachers are anxious about being questioned by parents on their expertise, judgment, status, and purpose.

Thus, anxiety occurs when one is facing uncertain, existential threats (Lazarus,

2001). For teachers, it is a circumstancecaused emotion triggered by situations when they feel uncertain or when they feel they have little control over situations. Anxiety

26 is more common for new teachers because of their novelty and inexperience in curriculum and in classroom management.

Frustration and anger

Frustration is the most frequently experienced unpleasant emotion reported by teachers (Sutton, 2007). The sources of frustration are mostly from factors outside the classroom: administrative work, externally mandated change or reformation and conflicts between their priorities or goals in teaching and the priorities of the school

(Golby, 1996; Hargreaves, 2004; Zembylas, 2003).

Teacher anger may be caused by goal related incongruence, such as student misbehavior or student failure. This is particularly true if teachers perceive the misbehaviors or failure as intentional or controllable (Brophy & McCaslin, 1992;

Graham, 1994; Prawat, Byers, & Anderson, 1983), if they perceive highability students failing due to the lack of effort or if they believe misbehaviors are disrespectful (Prawat, Byers, & Anderson, 1983). Teacher anger also may be triggered by externally mandated change or reforms they do not believe are beneficial to their instruction or to students.

Frustration is usually circumstancecaused instead of specificother caused.

The core relation theme for frustration is usually a feeling of lack of control over a repeatedly undesired situation. In other words, teachers feel frustrated when misbehaviors or difficulty in teaching are caused not by a specific student but by circumstances over which teachers often feel they have no control. However,

27 according to Sutton (2007), the distinctions between frustration and anger were blurred in several areas in terms of bodily responses, intrusive thoughts, immediate actions and coping strategies. In addition, most teachers perceived that being angry is not considered appropriate for a professional image in the classroom and therefore tend to report or express frustration (Liljestrom, Roulston & deMrrais, 2007; Sutton,

2007). Because frustration sounds more socially acceptable, teachers tend to report frustration rather than anger. Moreover, anger may develop into frustration because teachers feel there is nothing they can do about repeated misbehaviors or situations.

Therefore, the main distinction we can draw between frustration and anger is the appraisal of agency/accountability of incidents by circumstances or by others.

One more distinction between frustration and anger is the threatening component in anger. Different from frustration, anger is usually accompanied by threat and harm. Anger is aroused in the face of a specific, undeserved offense in which the action is believed to be unjustified and controllable (BenZe’ev, 2000; Lazarus, 2001).

For instance, teachers may feel anger toward disruptive students when they believe the behaviors are unjust, and controllable. Teachers who feel anger often feel they are being depreciated or undermined by others, such as students, parents, and administrators, as if their dignity is being hurt or their authority is being threatened.

Emotion Regulation and Coping with Unpleasant Emotions

In order to adapt to the arousal they may feel while teaching, teachers need to be able to regulate their emotions with effective coping strategies. Emotion regulation

28 refers to the heterogeneous set of processes by which emotions are themselves regulated (Gross, 1998, 1999; Gross & John, 2003). Gross & John defined it as a theoretical conceptualization of physiological, behavioral, and cognitive processes that enable individuals to modulate the experience and expression of positive and negative emotions. Bullough (1997) studied a teacher’s life for eight years and found that s elfregulatory knowledge plays a critical role in emotional regulation.

Selfregulatory knowledge determines how experts know themselves and how they process the knowledge they possess. Bullough suggests that “the determination of which levels of stress are productive and which levels are not, is a matter of a teachers’ selfregulatory knowledge (p.104).” In other words, teachers need to be selfreflective in monitoring their own stress levels or emotions that are taking place while in the classroom.

The core features of emotion regulation are described as being social in nature; it is a continuum from conscious, effortful, and controlled regulation to unconscious, effortless, and automatic regulation; where context may make things better or worse

(Gross & Thompson, 2007). Gross (2002) proposed the framework of regulating emotion in two forms: reappraisal and suppression. Through reappraisal, one changes thinking about a situation in order to decrease its emotional impact.

Reappraisal decreases unpleasant emotional experiences and expressions, while increasing pleasant emotional experiences and expressions. Unlike reappraisal, during suppression, one inhibits ongoing emotionexpressive behavior. Suppression not only has little impact on unpleasant emotions, but also “consumes cognitive

29 resources, impairing memory for information presented during the emotion regulation period” (Gross, 2002, p.289). For example, if a teacher in the face of arousal events in the classroom chooses to suppress emotions and pretends to be calm, it’s likely the teacher will have limited cognitive capacity to carry out the lesson and the unpleasant emotion is not likely to go away.

Lazarus (2001) notes that reappraisal is an attempt to alter our emotions by

“constructing a new relational meaning of the stressful encounter” and he believes it is an effective way of coping with the stressful situations. Reappraising the situation can help teachers gather more information about the situation or about the students, thus promoting the potential for teachers to face the situation with a renewed sense of control. Reappraisal might involve asking: In what ways is this behavior relevant to my classroom goals? To what extent are my goals shared by the student? How can

I feel in control? In what ways am I responsible for what is happening and how can

I increase the student’s feelings of responsibility? What do I need in order to cope with this situation? Ideally, reappraisal can help teachers regulate the emotions they are feeling so that they reengage with the student.

Carson (2006) used surveys and PDA diaries to investigate the relations between teacher burnout, teachers’ emotions and emotional regulation. He found emotional regulation strategies like suppressing, faking, or hiding of true emotions led to greater overall burnout. These results are consistent with Brotheridge and Grandey’s (2002) study, which showed surface acting (e.g. hiding anger and fear) is significantly related to emotional exhaustion.

30 Coping

Historically, coping has been viewed as a reaction or response to emotions. In recent decades, however, Folkman and Lazarus (1988) argued that there is a reciprocal, dynamic relationship between emotion and coping. In other words, coping is an integral part of experiencing emotion rather than merely the response. Coping then can be defined as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p.141). Lazarus

(2001) asserted that the evaluation of coping options is a major component in secondary appraisals, in which one appraises what can be done in the troubled personenvironment relationship.

Traditionally, coping functions have been discerned as emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping (Lazarus, 2001). Teachers who engage in problemfocused coping deploy strategies, aim at obtaining information about the disruptive behavior or conflict, and focus on changing the situation. On the other hand, teachers who engage in emotionfocused coping deploy strategies; aim at regulating the emotions that are elicited by the events. There have been mixed findings about which coping strategy is more effective in producing adaptive outcomes (see Lazarus,

2006). For this reason, Lazarus (2006) asserted these two forms of coping should not be compared with each other.

More recently, proactive coping has been lauded effective in stress and emotion management. Greenglass (2002) defines proactive coping as oriented towards

31 the future. It consists of “efforts to build up general resources that facilitate promotion of challenging goals and personal growth (p.38).” Instead of coping reactively, proactive coping aims to achieve productive goal management (i.e. making plans and building up resources for challenging goals and potential risks) rather than risk management (i.e. dealing with problems after being threatened by harm or loss). Coping in traditional context is reactive, and it reflects the compensation for loss or harm. In contrast, people who are proactive see upcoming risks and demands in the future and tend not to appraise these as threats, harm, or loss (Greenglass,

2002). Therefore, proactive coping incorporates a positive approach to deal with stressors and integrates stressors into the processes of attaining classroom goals.

Consistent with this perspective, teachers who foresee relationship challenges will be prepared for situations and will feel efficacious dealing with the problems.

Oplatka (2007) argues that teachers need to be proactively attentive to students’ emotional, physical, and cognitive needs, including students’ verbal and nonverbal ways of communicating. Oplatka found that teachers who dedicate and invest time and energy to diagnose students’ cognitive state and to be sensitive to students’ welfare, stress or difficulties experience decline in disruptive behaviors in the classroom.

The Role of Teacher Efficacy in Protecting Against Burnout

Under the influence of social cognitive theory, teacher efficacy has been recognized as a major predictor of teachers’ competence and commitment to teaching.

32 Teacher efficacy refers to “the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (TschannenMoran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

Teachers’ beliefs shape their expectations and their instruction in the classroom; in turn, the expectations and instruction impact students’ learning outcomes (see

Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2005). In the proposed study, teachers’ sense of efficacy will be central of teachers’ belief system.

Several studies have pointed out that a strong sense of efficacy support is related to enthusiasm, higher motivation, greater effort, persistence, and resilience across the span of a teaching career (Coladarci, 1992; Day, 2005; Evans & Tribble, 1986;

Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982; Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003; Ross & Gray, 2006;

Ware & Kisantas, 2007). At the same time, it is also stressed that teacher efficacy decreased with time spent teaching (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; also see Woolfolk Hoy,

Hoy & Davis, 2008). Moreover, several studies have found the higher levels of burnout are related to lower perceptions of teacher efficacy or work achievement

(Blase, 1982; Brissie et al., 1988; Brouwers, Evers, & Tomic, 1999; Greenglass &

Burke, 1988; Friedman & Farber, 1992).

Evers et al. (2004) examined burnout among teachers in the Netherlands and suggested that teachers’ competence to cope with disruptive classroom behaviors was significantly related to each dimension of burnout. Pines (2002) also suggested that disruptive student behaviors cause stress in teachers because when students lack interest in learning and lack attention in class, teachers may feel they are insignificant

33 or perceive themselves as failures.

In conclusion, to understand how to prevent burnout, we need to understand how teachers’ appraisal, regulation and coping processes are functioning in the classroom and how that may be a habitual pattern which lead them to unpleasant emotions as depicted in the models.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to examine how teachers’ appraisals of classroom disruptive behavior and patterns of emotion regulation contributed to their experiences of unpleasant emotion, and to further investigate how teacher efficacy, emotion regulation, and coping may help ease feelings of burnout. This inquiry was carried out using two hypothesized structural models presented in Figure 2.1 and 2.2.

As described in chapter two, this model was theoretically based on research on teacher efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, in press), appraisal theories (Lazarus,

1984; Lazarus & Roseman, 2001), and emotional regulation theories (Boekaerts, 2003;

Gross 1998; Gross & John, 2003; and Schutz & Davis, 2000).

Research Questions

In the present study, the interplay among appraisals, unpleasant emotions, emotion regulation, teacher sense of efficacy, coping and teacher burnout was examined through the testing of hypothesized models presented in Figure 2.1 and 2.2.

The research questions in this study are:

35 1. How well do the proposed models of teacher emotion management and burnout fit the data?

2. How do appraisals and emotional regulation strategies influence unpleasant emotions in classroom incidents?

3. How do unpleasant emotions contribute to teacher burnout?

4. How do teachers’ sense of efficacy, proactive coping, and emotional regulation strategies protect against burnout?

5. How does coping mediate the effects of unpleasant emotions to teacher burnout?

Research Hypotheses

It is hypothesized that (1) Intensity of unpleasant emotion is influenced by appraisals in importance of the events, goal incongruence, problem efficacy, and agency; (2) Emotional regulation strategies affect unpleasant emotions and burnout, particularly, reappraisals will have moderate effects on intensity of unpleasant emotions and burnout, and suppression will have effects on higher intensity of unpleasant emotions and burnout; (3) Intensity of unpleasant emotion covariates with feelings of burnout; (4) Teachers’ sense of efficacy, reappraisals of regulation strategies, and coping strategies may protect against feelings of burnout.

Research Design

This study employed a surveybased design. In order to determine the extent to which the proposed theoretical models are supported by the collected sample data,

36 structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the fit of the models. SEM is a collection of statistical techniques, based on the general linear model, which allows a researcher to test how sets of variables define constructs and how these constructs are related to each other (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). To understand how a model may explain teacher burnout in classroom disruptive incidents, several antecedents described in the model can be examined individually. The first research question involved creation of a model to understand the factors that influence selfreports of unpleasant emotions during classroom disruptive incidents. Based upon the literature, the models shown in Figure 3.1 and 3.2 were proposed to examine how individuals react to classroom disruptive incidents and how it leads to teacher burnout.

To test the fit of this SEM model, data were submitted for structural analysis using

LISREL.

Participants

Participants. Participants in this study were 555 teachers (male=113, female=437) from the Midwestern United States. Novice teachers who had one to five years of experience were recruited through email contact lists provided by

Teacher Quality Partners project (a unique collaboration of all 50 Ohio teacher preparation institutions joined together with support from the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Department of Education). Fortyfive hundred participants were randomly selected from the email list, and invitations for participation were sent to the teachers. Seven hundred and thirteen participants filled out the survey. The

37 return rate was 15.84%. Five hundred and fiftyfive participants completed the survey. Incomplete surveys were excluded from the final data analysis.

The majority of the participants were Caucasian (94.5%, N=521) and female

(N=428) with teaching experience ranging from one to five years (37.4% of the participants were firstyear teachers, 19.6% were secondyear teachers, 16.7% were thirdyear teachers, 26.3% have taught for over four years). The present study has overrepresentation of Caucasian teachers as compared to the actual figures in both state and national average. In 2004 to 2006, approximately 92% of teachers in Ohio and 85% of teachers in the United States were Caucasian (NCES, 2002).

Measures

Instrument Development

Instrument development involved three steps. First, items were either newly developed based on the literature or adapted from existing instruments. Second, several experts in the field as well as five current graduate students reviewed the draft and provided feedback. Third, a pilot study was conducted in two different preservice teacher programs to examine the practical effectiveness and reliability of the initial instrument.

In order to examine the antecedents to teacher burnout, scales were utilized to capture teacher’s sense of efficacy in the teaching tasks, and then the survey questionnaire asked participants to identify a recent classroom incident in which they felt emotionally challenged. After identifying a specific situation, participants were

38 asked to respond to the items on emotional appraisals and emotion regulation based on the specific experience of classroom disruptive behaviors. The measurements in the survey included two parts: general measurement and contextspecific measurement.

Part I. General Measurement

In part I, several scales were implemented to measure teachers’ general views of emotionality, efficacy, and satisfaction in classroom teaching. The scales are teacher sense of efficacy scale, emotion regulation scale and teacher burnout scale

(modified MBIES scale).

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire . A 10item emotion regulation scale by

Gross and John (2003) was used to capture teachers’ patterns of emotion regulation in the classroom context. In this scale, reappraisals and suppression are identified as the two types of emotion regulation strategies. Six items were used to capture reappraisal strategies and four items were used to capture suppression strategies.

Reliability coefficients for the reappraisal scale ranged from .75 to .82 and for the suppression scale ranged from .68 to .76 (Gross & John, 2003). The Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .86 for the reappraisal subscale, .75 for the suppression subscale and .89 for the total 10item scale.

Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale. The scale adopted 12items of Teacher’s

Sense of Efficacy Scale by TschannenMoran and Woolfolk (2001) and 4items by

Ho and Hau (2004). The scale measured teachers’ sense of teaching efficacy in four

39 dimensions: efficacy for instructional strategies (α=.80), efficacy for classroom management (α=.86), efficacy for student engagement (α=.81), and efficacy on student guidance (α=.83). The Cronbach’s alpha was .90 in the present study for the total 16item scale. Confirmatory factor analyses have generally supported the three scales, with the efficacy for student engagement being the least stable scale (Henson,

Bennett, Sienty, & Chambers, 2004).

Psychological Constructs of Burnout Dimensions and Modified MBIES scale

In recent decades, Maslach’s work on burnout has been the dominant framework for studying burnout because of the defining psychological constructs she developed.

Particularly, scholars have adopted the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale developed by Maslach and Jackson (1981) which measures the psychological syndrome of burnout in three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy.

Burnout items were modified from MBIES (Maslach & Jackson, 1986) and burnout scale developed by Salanova, Llorens, GarciaRenedo, Burriel, Breso, et al.

(2005). The 12item scale included three subscales on emotional exhaustion (α=.87), depersonalization (α=.76), and inefficacy (α=.84). Symptoms and descriptions of each element are described in the following paragraph.

Emotional exhaustion. This is the core element of burnout and the most obvious manifestation of this complex syndrome. Maslach et al. (2001) noted that when people describe themselves or others as experiencing burnout, they most often refer to the experience of exhaustion. Evers, Tomic, and Brouwers (2004) referred to

40 emotional exhaustion as feelings of being emotionally overextended and having depleted one’s emotional resources. Schwarzer, Schmitz, and Tang (2000) described fatigue, debilitation, loss of energy, and wearing out as characteristics of this component. However, emotional exhaustion is a personal psychological status that cannot capture other behaviors that relate to burnout. Maslach et al. argued that “the emotional demands of the work can exhaust a service provider's capacity to be involved with, and responsive to, the needs of service recipients” (p. 403).

Therefore, Maslach et al. (2001) further proposed depersonalization as another relevant dimension of burnout.

Cynicism/ Depersonalization. According to Maslach (1976), besides experiencing emotional exhaustion, human services providers or teachers who burn out tend to become more indifferent to the people they serve or to their colleagues.

Maslach described this syndrome as cynicism or depersonalization. Cynicism refers to an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others. Depersonalization is to actively ignore the service recipients in an attempt to put distance between them and oneself (Maslach et al., 2001). Evers et al. (2004) define depersonalization as “a negative callous and detached attitude towards the people who one works with, i.e. patients, students” (p.

132).

Inefficacy/ reduced personal accomplishment. Exhaustion or depersonalization might interfere with effectiveness. When people feel exhausted or indifferent toward serving or helping people, they can hardly gain a sense of accomplishment.

41 According to Bandura (1997), selfefficacy reflects an individual’s beliefs in his or her own capabilities to pursue a course of action to meet given situational demands.

Therefore, an inefficacious teacher may have low competency in his or her own capabilities in instructional activities. Maslach et al. (2001) suggested that “the lack of efficacy seems to arise more clearly from a lack of relevant resources, whereas exhaustion and cynicism emerge from the presence of work overload and social conflict” (p. 403).

Part II. ContextSpecific Measurement

In part II, participants were asked to identify one memorable classroom incident in which they felt emotionally challenged. One reason for defining the situations in terms of general feelings of being emotionally challenged rather than particular emotions was to allow participants to describe the real situations in which they had experienced mixed emotions (see, Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). After identifying a specific event, participants were asked to rate the intensity of their feeling of being emotionally challenged on a scale of 1 to 6. In the scale, 1 implied one felt a little troubled by the incident, 4 implied one felt mildly challenged, and 6 indicated one felt he or she almost wanted to quit that day. In addition, participants also responded to each the following scales based on the specific classroom incident recalled: discrete emotion scale, emotional appraisal scale, and coping scale.

Discrete emotion scale. After participants identified the specific incident as outlined in the previous section, they then identified the discrete emotions and rated the intensity of the emotions they experienced during the incident on a scale of 1 to 6.

42 The discrete emotions included anger, frustration, challenge, and fatigue. In the scale, 1 indicated that the individual did not feel this emotion at all, and 6 indicated they felt the greatest magnitude of this emotion. The reliability of this scale as

Cronbach’s alpha was .74.

Teacher emotional appraisal scale. In order to capture teachers’ cognitive appraisal processes of teachers’ anger or frustration with classroom disruptive behaviors, modifications to two cognitive appraisal scales were made. The final scale was a combination of modifications from the cognitive appraisal scales developed by Smith and Ellsworth (1985) and the subscales of Emotional Regulation during Testtaking (ERT, Schutz et al, 2004). By combining elements from these two scales, the final appraisal scales for this study measured the following dimensions: importance of the event, goal congruence, problem efficacy, and agency resulting in a

26 item selfdeveloped teacher cognitive appraisal scale used in this study (see

Appendix B).

The rationale of modifying the scales was twofold: the appraisal scale by

Smith and Ellsworth (1988) has 19 questions on an 11point scale designed to measure the dimensions of pleasantness, anticipated effort, certainty, responsibility, control, legitimacy, perceived obstacle, and situational importance. The measure of each dimension was based on one single question, for example “How responsible did you think someone or something other than yourself was for having brought about the events that were occurring in this situation?” As can be seen, the length of the question requires cognitive resources to read and interpret. However, one single

43 item measuring each dimension would not allow the researcher to obtain the reliability of the scales. Therefore, I expanded the items based on the core dimensions identified by Ellsworth and Smith (1988) that contributed to negative emotions: human agency (other versus self), situational control, and importance.

Goal congruence and problem efficacy have also been identified as predictors of some of the important negative emotions (i.e. anger, frustration) in previous work as well

(Schutz et al, 2004). Four to fiveitems were used to measure each described dimension above, including two dimension of human agency (other versus self), totaling six dimensions.

Importance. A fouritem importance scale was used to measure teachers’ perceived importance of classroom order. Items include “classroom order is very important for me to carry out my lesson plans” and “paying attention in class is very important for students’ engagement in learning activities.” Teachers rated each item on a Likerttype scale of 1 to 6 (1=Very strongly disagree, 6= Very strongly agree).

The reliability of this scale examined as Cronbach’s alpha was .72 in the present study.

Goal incongruence. A fouritem goal incongruence scale was used to measure teachers’ perceived goal incongruence of managing classroom disruptive behavior.

Items included “managing classroom disruptive behavior is one of my goals in being a good teacher” and “managing classroom disruptive behavior will help me master my teaching skills.” Teachers rated each item on a Likerttype scale of 1 to 6 (1=Very strongly disagree, 6= Very strongly agree). The reliability of this scale examined as

44 Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Problem efficacy. A fouritem problem efficacy scale was used to measure teachers’ perceived efficacy in dealing with classroom managerial problems. Items included “whatever classroom managerial problem happens during my lesson, I can deal with it successfully” and “even when there are difficult classroom managerial problems, I can usually figure out how to make the lesson go smoothly as I planned.”

Teachers rated each item on a Likerttype scale of 1 to 6 (1=Very strongly disagree,

6= Very strongly agree). The reliability of this scale examined as Cronbach’s alpha was .87 in the pilot study.

Otheragency. A fouritem agency scale was used to measure teachers’ perceived otheragency of controlling the classroom disruptive behaviors. Items included “I think the student(s) could have controlled this misbehavior” and “If the student(s) takes control of his/her behavior, this never would have happened.”

Teachers rated each item on a Likerttype scale of 1 to 6 (1=Very strongly disagree,

6= Very strongly agree). The reliability of this scale examined as Cronbach’s alpha was .75.

Coping scale . The coping scale was comprised of two subscales: social coping scale by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), and proactive coping scale by

Greenglass (2002). An eightitem social coping scale by Carver, Scheier, and

Weintraub (1989) was used to measure teachers’ use of social resources for coping with the difficult situations they encountered in teaching. Two subscales were modified from the social coping scale: emotionfocused coping scale and

45 problemfocused coping scale. The reliability of this scale examined as Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for the emotionfocused coping subscale, .79 for the problemfocused coping subscale, and .80 for the total scale in the present study. A proactive coping scale by Greenglass (2002), which consists of 14 items, was used to capture teachers’ autonomous goal setting with selfregulatory goal attainment cognitions and behavior

(α=.83).

Data Analysis

In order to determine the extent to which extent the proposed theoretical model was supported by the collected sample data, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the fit of the model. Particularly, SEM was used to test the fit of the covariance matrix against the relationships being posited in this study (as in Figure

2.2 and 2.3). SEM is a collection of statistical techniques, based on the general linear model, which allows a researcher to test how sets of variables define constructs and how these constructs are related to each other (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).

This study followed the structural equation modeling procedures recommended by

Schumacker and Lomax (2004). Several steps were implemented for the structural equation modeling: model specification, model identification, model estimation, model testing, and model modification. To analyze the collected data, four steps were implemented: 1) data screening by demographic data, 2) model identification

(examine measurement model for each factor), 3) examine the full measurement model, 4) estimate structural model by theory. The statistical program SPSS was used for input of collected data and to conduct initial statistical analysis, including

46 descriptive statistics, while LISREL was used for computation in structural equation modeling.

Assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling

Independence, linearity, and multivariate normality assumptions are three fundamental assumptions of structural equation modeling.

Independence assumption. Independence implies that “error in predicting Y from

X for one case is unrelated to that of another case” (Kline, 2005, p. 23). Independence assumption requires independent observations obtained through random sampling.

The participants of the present study were randomly selected from a full list of Ohio novice teachers, therefore, the assumption was satisfied.

Linearity. SEM assumes linear relationships between indicator and latent variables, and between latent variables. In the present study, this was done by generating and examining XY plots between indicators and latent variables, and between latent variables.

Multivariate normality assumption. Multivariate normality assumption can be tested univariately through examining the skewness and kurtosis of each univariate variable (McDonald & Ho, 2002). Several studies, as reported by McDonald and Ho, indicated that unless extreme values of skewness and kurtosis are detected, the use of

Maximum Likelihood estimation generates robustness in the case of multivariate nonnormality and, hence, the parameter estimates maintain their validity. Data analysis in the present study excluded survey items that had extreme values (outside the range of +2 and 2) of skewness and kurtosis.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The purpose of this project was to examine how teachers’ appraisals of classroom disruptive behavior and patterns of emotion regulation contributed to their experiences of unpleasant emotion, and further investigate how teacher efficacy, emotion regulation and coping may help ease feelings of burnout. This inquiry was carried out using two hypothesized structural models presented in Figure 2.1 and 2.2.

The research questions in this study were:

1. How well do the proposed models of teacher emotion management and burnout fit the data?

2. How do appraisals and emotional regulation strategies influence selfreports of unpleasant emotions in classroom incidents?

3. How do unpleasant emotions contribute to teacher burnout?

4. How do teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping, and emotional regulation strategies protect against burnout?

5. How does coping mediate the effects of unpleasant emotions to teacher burnout?

Phase 1: Validating the Measurement Model

Each of the scales employed represented a latent construct in the study. To

48 begin, items on each scale were evaluated to verify if they accurately represented the

concept being measured. If an item was deemed not to best represent the latent

concept, it was removed from the instrument. This screening was done at several

points in the process, starting at the descriptive stage where an item was flagged due

to excessive skewness and/or kurtosis. Next, scales were examined for reliability.

A Chronbach’s alpha was calculated for each scale to judge reliability. Items low on

reliability were flagged and/or excluded at this point.

In assessing the measurement model fit in SEM (LISREL 8.7, Joreskog &

Sorbom, 1993), analyses began by evaluating the subscales in the measurement

models: teachers’ sense of efficacy, emotional appraisals, emotion intensity,

emotional regulation, coping and burnout. Measurement model summary for the

scales are reported in Table 4.1. The manner in which each scale was validated is

outlined in the following section.

Measurement # of items χ2 df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI Scale Model Reliability TSES 12 245.50 48 0.08 0.04 0.93 0.88 .90 Appraisal 12 119.24 48 0.05 0.04 0.96 0.94 .70 Coping 9 35.87 24 0.03 0.02 0.98 0.96 .80 Emotional 7 40.86 13 0.06 0.03 0.97 0.95 .74 Regulation Unpleasant 5 14.44 4 0.06 0.02 0.99 0.96 .74 Emotion Burnout 9 136.03 24 0.09 0.03 0.94 0.90 .90

Table 4.1 Measurement Model Summary

49 Validating Teacher Sense of Efficacy Measurement Model

A 12item Teacher Sense of Efficacy scale (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk,

2001; Ho & Hau, 2004) with four factors (student engagement, classroom management, instructional strategies, and guidance) was submitted to LISREL for confirmatory factor analysis. The TSES scale was measured by 16 items. Items with lower loadings to the latent variables were dropped from the scale. The measurement model for the 12item scale appeared to approach an acceptable fit according to the fit indices ( χ2=245.50, df =48, RMSEA=0.08, SRMR=0.04, GFI=0.93, AGFI= 0.88 and

CFI=0.97). The path diagram for the CFA was shown in Figure D.01 in the appendix.

After the confirmatory factor analysis was validated, the latent variable Teacher

Sense of Efficacy was indicated by four composites: teacher sense of efficacy in student engagement (TSESEN), teacher sense of efficacy in classroom management

(TSESCM), teacher sense of efficacy in instructional strategies (TSESIS), and teacher sense of efficacy in guidance (TESEGU). Each composite was constructed by adding the weighted loadings based on the confirmatory factor analysis (regressionweighted) as shown in Table D.1 in the appendix. Loading for student engagement ranged from .71 to .84, for classroom management ranged from .80.89, for instructional strategies ranged from .68.82, and for student guidance ranged from .72.83.

The measurement model of TSES scale comprised of four composite variables

(TSESEN, TSESCM, TSESIS, and TSESGU) was again submitted to LISREL for validation. The factor loadings ranged from .58 to .84 for the TSES latent variable

(see Table D.2 in the appendix). The fit for the initial model with these four

50 composites was good except RMSEA ( χ2=20.75, df =2, RMSEA=0.13, SRMR=0.03,

GFI=0.98, AGFI= 0.91 and CFI=0.98). Modification was made based on how the dimensions of TSES were developed. Particularly, TSES in classroom management and in guidance both measured teacher efficacy in terms of reaching students and maintaining studentteacher relationships in the classroom context. The teacher efficacy scale in the study was drawn from the scale developed by TschannenMoran and Hoy (2001). The dimensions in the scale were teacher efficacy in classroom management, student engagement and instructional strategies. In this study, I added the dimension of teacher efficacy in guidance from Ho and Hau’s (2004) work which had a focus on fostering students’ personal and social adjustment. While teacher efficacy in instructional strategies and student engagement focus on instruction, these two dimensions focus on studentteacher interactions. Recognizing the possible overlapping area of these two dimensions, I allowed the error covariance between

TSESCM and TSESGU (see Figure D.2 in the appendix). After allowing the covariance, the fit indices were slightly improved ( χ2=8.90, df =1, RMSEA=0.12,

SRMR=0.02, GFI=0.99, AGFI= 0.91 and CFI=0.99).

Validating Appraisal Measurement Model

A 20item appraisal scale with five appraisal latent variables (importance, incongruence, inefficacy, control and agency) was reduced to a 12item appraisal scale with four appraisal latent variables (importance, incongruence, inefficacy, and agency) to ensure the parsimony of the final measurement model and structural model.

51 Control subscale was dropped because the reliability for control subscale was less than .7. Choice of items for other subscales was made based on the itemcorrelation and the results of CFA model. Generally, items with the lowest itemcorrelation to the subscale or with the lowest loading to the subscale were dropped from the subscale.

Reliability of subscales and the validation of subscales are reported in the following section.

AppraisalsImportance Subscale

The latent variable of Appraisal in Importance was originally measured by four questions. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the

AppraisalImportance scale is available in Table D.3 in the appendix. Item 9 had low itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. It also had the lowest loading to the scale from the CFA model. As a result, item 9 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .71.

AppraisalsIncongruence Subscale

The latent variable of Appraisal in Incongruence was originally measured by four questions. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the

AppraisalIncongruence scale is available in Table D.4 in the appendix. Item 4 had low itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. As a result, item 4 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .80.

AppraisalsInefficacy Subscale

The latent variable of Appraisal in Inefficacy was originally measured by four

52 questions. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the

AppraisalInefficacy scale is available in Table D.5 in the appendix. Item 18 had low itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. As a result, item 18 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .77.

AppraisalsAgency Subscale

The latent variable of Appraisal in Agency was originally measured by four questions. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the appraisalagency scale is available in Table D.6 in the appendix. Item 21 had low itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. As a result, item 21 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .75.

Validating Appraisal Measurement Model

After items were selected for each latent variable, this 12item appraisal scale was submitted to LISREL for the validation of the measurement model. The fit indices indicate the model has a good fit ( χ2=119.25, df =49, RMSEA=0.05,

SRMR=0.04, GFI=0.97, and AGFI=0.94). The CFA model is shown as Figure D.03 in the appendix. The reliability of the whole scale was .71. As shown in Table D.7 in the appendix, the factor loadings were ranged from .57 to .82 for appraisalimportance, from .67 to .84 for appraisalincongruence, from .71 to .90 for appraisalinefficacy, and from .63 to .77 for appraisalagency.

53 Validating Coping Measurement Model

A sixitem social coping scale with two latent variables (emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping) and a fouritem proactive coping scale were emerged as a 10item coping scale for the measurement model. The proactive coping scale was originally measured by 14 items and the social coping scale was originally measured by 13 items. In order to ensure the parsimony of the measurement model, items with low loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis were dropped.

Proactive Coping Subscale

Proactive coping was measured by 14 items. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the proactive coping scale is available in Table D.8 in the appendix. In order to ensure the reliability of the subscale (α=.78) and the parsimony of the scale, four items with relatively high itemcorrelation were chosen from the scale.

Emotionfocused Coping Subscale

Emotionfocused coping subscale was designed to ascertain an individual’s likelihood to cope by focusing on the regulation and expression of the emotions that might be aroused during a situation. It was measured by 4 items. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the proactive coping scale is available in Table

D.9 in the appendix. Item 1 had the lowest itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. As a result, item 1 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .84.

54 Problemfocused Coping Subscale

Problemfocused coping was measured by 4 items. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the proactive coping scale is available in Table D.10 in the appendix. Item 7 had the lowest itemcorrelation to the scale which indicated it did not represent the construct as well as other items. As a result, item 7 was dropped from the scale. The resulting reliability was .79.

Validating Coping Measurement Model

After items were selected for each latent variable, this 9item coping scale was submitted to LISREL for the validation of the measurement model. The fit indices indicated the model had a good fit ( χ2=35.87, df =24, RMSEA=0.03, SRMR=0.03,

GFI=0.98, AGFI=0.97, and CFI=0.99). The path diagram for the CFA was shown in

Figure D.4 in the appendix. The reliability of the scale was .779. As shown in Table

D.11 in the appendix, the factor loadings were ranged from .68 to .88 for emotionfocused coping, from .66 to .83 for problemfocused coping, from .71 to .77 for proactive coping.

Validating Unpleasant Emotion Measurement Model

A fiveitem unpleasant emotion scale was designed to capture the intensity of the emotions teachers experienced during the incident and it was originally measured by 9 items. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the unpleasant emotion scale is available in Table D.12 in the appendix. In order to ensure the reliability of the subscale (α=.795) and the parsimony of the scale, five items were selected from

55 the scale.

This fiveitem unpleasant emotion scale was submitted to LISREL for the validation of the measurement model. The fit indices indicated the model approaches an acceptable fit ( χ2=83.53, df =5, RMSEA=0.17, SRMR=0.05, GFI=0.94, AGFI=0.83, and CFI=0.93). The measurement model was then modified by adding an error covariance between anger and frustration. Sutton (2007) noted that while studying teacher emotions, the distinctions between frustration and anger were blurred in several areas in terms of the bodily responses, intrusive thoughts, immediate actions and coping strategies. In addition, in the literature, teachers often perceive that feeling/expressing anger are not appropriate for teachers’ professional image and therefore tend to report or express they are frustrated instead (Sutton, 2007; Liljestrom,

Roulston & deMrrais, 2007). Because frustration sounds more socially acceptable, teachers tend to report frustration rather than anger. Moreover, anger may turn into frustration if teachers feel there is nothing they can do with the misbehaviors or the repeatedlyoccurring situations. Based on the literature, it is possible that there is a blurred line between when teachers reported they are angry or frustrated. Therefore,

I modified the model by allowing for these two observed variable correlates. After allowing the covariance, the fit indices improved to a more acceptable fit ( χ2=27.61, df =4, RMSEA=0.10, SRMR=0.03, GFI=0.98, AGFI=0.92, and CFI=0.97).

Particularly, the RMSEA improved from 0.17 to 0.10, AGFI improved from 0.83 to

0.92. The reliability of the scale was .79. The path diagram for the CFA was shown in

Figure D.5 in the appendix.

56 Validating Emotional Regulation Measurement Model

A sevenitem emotional regulation scale with two latent variables (reappraisal and suppression) was designed to capture teachers’ patterns of emotion regulation in the classroom context. It was originally measured by 10 items. In order to ensure the parsimony of the measurement model, seven items with relatively high loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis were selected. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the emotional regulation scale is available in Table D.13 for reappraisals and Table D.14 for suppression in the appendix.

After items were selected for each latent variable, this sevenitem emotional regulation scale was submitted to LISREL for the validation of the measurement model. The fit indices indicated the model had a good fit ( χ2=40.86, df =13,

RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.04, GFI=0.98, and AGFI=0.96). The reliability of the scale was .74. The path diagram of the CFA model was shown in Figure D.6 in the appendix.

Validating Burnout Measurement Model

A 9item burnout scale with three factors (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and inefficacy) was submitted to LISREL for confirmatory factor analysis. The Burnout scale was originally measured by 16 items. Items with lower loadings to the latent variables were dropped from the scale. Full descriptive information for the individual items in the burnout scale is available in Table D.15 in the appendix. The measurement model for the 9item scale appeared to approach a

57 good fit according to the fit indices ( χ2=136.030, df =24, RMSEA=0.09, SRMR=0.04,

GFI=0.95, AGFI= 0.90 and CFI=0.98). The path diagram for the CFA was shown in

Figure D.7.

After the confirmatory factor analysis was validated, the latent variable burnout was indicated by three composites: emotional exhaustion (BURNEE), depersonalization (BURNDP), and inefficacy (BURNIE). Each composite was constructed by adding the weighted loadings based on the confirmatory factor analysis (regressionweighted) as shown in Table 4.16 in the appendix D. The factor loadings ranged from .81 to .89 for emotional exhaustion, .67 to .80 for depersonalization, and from .76 to .84 for inefficacy.

The measurement model of burnout scale comprised of three composite variables

(BURNEE, BURNDP, and BURNIE) was again submitted to LISREL for validation.

Because this is a saturated model ( df =0), the fit of the model was perfect. After fixing one loading of BURNIE to 1.00, the loading of BURIE was 0.94, and the loading of

BURNDP was 0.67.

Validating the Full Measurement Model

Hypothesized full measurement model includes the following scales: teachers’ sense of efficacy, emotional appraisals, unpleasant emotion, emotional regulation, coping and burnout. Full descriptive information and factor loadings for the individual items in the full measurement model are available in Table D.17 in the appendix. The full measurement model was tested and it appears to approach an acceptable fit based

58 on the fit indices, except GFI and AGFI ( χ2=1309.16, df =711, RMSEA=0.04,

SRMR=0.05, GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.87 and CFI=0.97). To improve the fit, alternative

full measurement models were proposed based on the theory and suggested

modifications by LISREL outputs.

Modified full measurement model 1

After reviewing the suggested modification indices, one of the large positive

residuals was between burnout in emotional exhaustion (BURNEE) and fatigue

(FATIG). Kees and Lashwood (p. 41 1996; see also Finke, 2006) have pointed out

that bonding and connecting with clients experiencing trauma can exhaust care

Measurement Latent Variables X2 X2 df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI CFI

Model diff.

Hypothesized TSES 1309.16 711 0.04 0.05 0.89 0.87 0.96 Model with AppraisalImportance

12 LVs AppraisalIncongruence

42 OVs (7 Appraisalinefficacy composites) Appraisalagency

Proactive Coping Reappraisal

Suppression

Unpleasant Emotion EmotionFocused Coping

ProblemFocused Coping

Burnout Modified 1 Added error covariance 1274.09 35.07 710 0.04 0.05 0.90 0.87 0.97

between BURNEE and fatigue Modified 2 Added error covariance 1261.04 13.05 709 0.04 0.05 0.90 0.88 0.97

between INTENSITY and

CHALLENGE

Table 4.2 Fit indices for the full measurement models

59 providers and cause them to experience compassion fatigue as teachers, “move into an exhaustion stage, where energy reserves are depleted and fatigue, apathy, and listlessness [toward the child] sets in.” The items for BURNEE measured how teachers perceived feelings of being emotionally drained or tired. The item for fatigue measured how teachers felt fatigued during a classroom event. These two items are similar to each other by measuring how teachers feel depleted or drained emotionally. Therefore, common method variance may exist and the error covariance may be allowed due to common method variance. After allowing the covariance, the fit indices slightly improved ( χ2=1274.09, df =710, RMSEA=0.04,

SRMR=0.05, GFI=0.90, AGFI= 0.87 and CFI=0.97). Particularly, the GFI improved from .89 to .90.

Modified full measurement model 2

The last step to modify the full measurement model was to add an error covariance between intensity of feeling challenged by the incident and intensity of the emotions felt in the incident. This was another one large positive residual and MI suggested from first model to decrease 39.6 in Chisquare. By looking at how these two items were measured in the survey, common method variance may exist. The emotion intensity was measured by questions such as, “please rate how emotionally challenged you felt by the incident when it happened on a scale of 1 to 6 (from 1 nothing to 6 extremely challenged).” The emotion of feeling “challenged” by the incident was measured by “please identify and rate the following emotions [one of the choices was “challenged”] that accompanied the incident on a scale of 1 to 6 (from 1

60 nothing to 6 extreme).” These two items have similar wording “challenge” and therefore the error covariance may be allowed due to common method variance. After allowing the covariance, the fit indices were slightly improved. The final full measurement model revealed good fit based on the fit indices ( χ2=1261.04, df =709,

RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.05, GFI=0.90, AGFI= 0.88 and CFI=0.97). The factor loadings of each latent variable in the full measurement model were shown in Table

D.17 in the appendix.

The path diagram of the full measurement model is presented in Figure 4.01 below. The observed indicator variables are enclosed by rectangle while the latent variables are enclosed by ovals. Measurement and equation errors are also indicated but are not enclosed.

Phase 2: Validating the Fit of Hypothesized and Alternative Structural Models

Consider first the proposed and alternative structural models as described in

Chapter 2 and shown in more detail in Figure 4.2 and 4.3. The latent variables are enclosed by ovals. A oneway arrow between two latent variables indicates a hypothesized recursive covariate relationship. After the full measurement model was validated, the structural model was submitted to LISREL to answer the following research questions. A correlation Table for the latent variables in the model is available in appendix C.

61 1.00

1.00

Figure 4.1 Full measurement model

62 Research Question One: How well do the proposed models of teacher emotion

management and burnout fit the data?

Hypothesized Model

The fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for the model overall ( χ2=1195.26,

df =678, RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.06, GFI=0.90, AGFI= 0.88 and CFI=0.96). Overall,

the model explained 40% of the variances in unpleasant emotions, 42% in burnout

reported by teachers. As depicted in Figure 4.2, six nonsignificant paths were found

in the proposed model: paths from appraisalimportance, appraisalagency, and

suppression to unpleasant emotions; and paths from reappraisal, emotionfocused

coping and problemfocused coping to burnout. All other paths were significant.

The maximum likelihood estimates of the path coefficients were reported in Table 4.4

for both unstandardized and standardized forms. The maximum likelihood estimates

of the variances were reported in Table 4.06. A full structural equation model with

information of relationships between indicator variables and latent variables is

available in Figure D.9 in the appendix.

df χ2 RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI CFI ∆df ∆χ2

Proposed Model 678 1195.26 0.04 0.06 0.90 0.88 0.96 15 171.8 Alternative 693 1367.06 0.04 0.07 0.89 0.87 0.96 Model

Table 4.3: The fit indices for the proposed model and alternative model of the study

Figure 4.2 Structural equation model for proposed model

Figure 4.3 Structural equation model for alternative model

Alternative Model

In the alternative model as shown in Figure 4.3, emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping were indicated as mediating effects of unpleasant emotions and teacher burnout. An alternative model was proposed to examine how the emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping may mediate the effects of

64 unpleasant emotions on teacher burnout.

The alternative model was submitted to LISREL. The fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for the model overall ( χ2=1367.06, df =693, RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.07,

GFI=0.89, AGFI= 0.87 and CFI=0.96). By adding emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping in the model, the relationships between emotionfocused coping, and problemfocused coping with other latent variables became more complex and thus causing an increase in degrees of freedom and ChiSquare.

Overall, the model explained 39% of the variances in unpleasant emotions, 41% in burnout, 13% in emotionfocused coping, 9% in problemfocused coping reported by teachers. Estimates Unstandardized SE Standardized coefficient coefficient Paths TSES Burnout .28 .06 .24 AppraisalImportance Unpleasant Emotion .02 .04 .03 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence Unpleasant Emotion .18 .03 .28 AppraisalInefficacy Unpleasant Emotion .35 .04 .48 AppraisalAgency Unpleasant Emotion .04 .04 .06 (ns) Reappraisal Unpleasant Emotion .12 .04 .16 Suppression Unpleasant Emotion .05 .04 .07 (ns) Proactive Coping Burnout .98 .25 .20 Reappraisal Burnout .02 .14 .01 (ns) Suppression Burnout .43 .13 .14 Emotionfocused Coping Burnout .06 .16 .02 (ns) Problemfocused Coping Burnout .25 .18 .07 Unpleasant Emotion Burnout 1.68 .20 .42 Table 4.4: Maximum likelihood estimates of path coefficients in the proposed model Note: ns indicates the path was nonsignificant.

Estimates Unstandardized SE Standardized coefficient coefficient Paths TSES Burnout .28 .05 .25 AppraisalImportance Unpleasant Emotion .04 .04 .05 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence Unpleasant Emotion .19 .04 .29 AppraisalInefficacy Unpleasant Emotion .34 .04 .46 AppraisalAgency Unpleasant Emotion .01 .04 .02 (ns) Proactive Coping Burnout .98 .25 .21 Reappraisal Burnout .04 .14 .01 (ns) Suppression Burnout .43 .13 .15 Reappraisal Unpleasant Emotion .14 .04 .19 Suppression Unpleasant Emotion .04 .04 .05 (ns) Unpleasant Emotion Emotionfocused Coping .43 .06 .36 Unpleasant Emotion Problemfocused Coping .36 .06 .31 Unpleasant Emotion Burnout 1.73 .22 .45 Emotionfocused Coping Burnout .13 .14 .04 (ns) Problemfocused Coping Burnout .34 .06 .11

Table 4.5: Maximum likelihood estimates of path coefficients in the alternative model

Note: ns indicates the path was nonsignificant.

When comparing the fit indices (RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, and CFI) between these two models, as shown in Table 4.3, both models fit equally well to the data.

2 According to the ChiSquare difference test (χ critical, df=15 =24.99), the alternative

2 model differed significantly from the original hypothesized model (χ (df =15, N =

555) = 171.8, p < .05). The amount of variances is o nly a slight difference found in explaining unpleasant emotions and burnout. The nonsignificant paths were reduced from six paths to five paths in the alternative model.

66 As depicted in Figure 4.3, five nonsignificant paths were found in the alternative model: paths from appraisalimportance, appraisalagency, and suppression to unpleasant emotions; and paths from reappraisal and emotionfocused coping to burnout. All other paths were statistically significant. The maximum likelihood estimates of the path coefficients were reported in Table 4.5 for both unstandardized and standardized forms. The maximum likelihood estimates of the variances were reported in Table 4.7. In addition, direct, indirect, and total effects of the relationships among the variables were reported in Table 4.8. A full structural equation model with information of relationships between indicator variables and latent variables is available in Figure D.10 in the appendix. The relationships among the variables are further discussed in the following sections.

Retaining Alternative Model

The decision of retaining which model was based on the following three criteria: the statistical fit, the theoretical fit, and the utility of the model. In considering the statistical fit, there was an increase in ChiSquare from model one to model two.

However, this may due to the increase of estimates when paths were added paths from unpleasant emotions to emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping. When emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping became latent dependent variables in the second model, the relationships between these two latent dependent variables and all other latent variables were estimated and thus affected the

ChiSquare. Moreover, the other fit indices (RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, and CFI) in both

67 models were almost identical. Although it is usually considered that the model with lower ChiSquare fits better, in the present study, the other fit indices suggest both models are acceptable. Therefore, the decision of retaining model two was then driven by the theory (Mueller, 2006) and the utility of the model.

In considering the theoretical fit, the alternative model seems to be more appropriate than the first model due to two reasons. First, the coping measures in the present study were directly referred to teachers’ coping actions to the incidents rather than coping style in general. In other words, coping was assumed to be a part of the process of emotions aroused by the disruptive behaviors. Secondly, in the literature, coping is suggested as a mediator of emotions. According to Lazarus, “coping is concerned with our efforts to manage adaptational demands and the emotions they generate.” In addition, Folkman and Lazarus (1988) noted that coping is a mediator which “arises during the encounter and transforms the original appraisal and its attendant emotion in some way.” In this study, since the coping was referred to as how teachers responded to the incident, coping then was a function of mediating effect from the episodic unpleasant emotion to the feelings of burnout. Therefore, the alternative model reflects the theory of coping better than the proposed model.

The alternative model may provide more information in interpreting the relationships among the variables based on the coping theory.

In interpreting and comparing the paths in these two models, emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping were only directed to burnout in the proposed model. The results revealed that these two latent variables were nonsignificant

68 paths in the model. According to Lomax (2009), this was a penalty for parsimony.

In the alternative model, in addition to the paths from emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping to burnout, two more paths were added from unpleasant emotions to emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping. Although the variance explained of these two coping variables in the model were not strong, the results revealed these two added paths were significant. The path from problemfocused coping to burnout was also significant. In other words, problemfocused coping was found to have mediating effects on the unpleasant emotions to burnout. Therefore, the alternative model had a better theoretical fit than the proposed model.

Lastly, considering the utility of the model, the implications from the alternative model seemed to contribute more to the field of teacher education than the proposed model. Specifically, problemfocused coping had significant effects on mediating the unpleasant emotions to burnout. Therefore, based on the interpretation of alternative model, we may suggest teachers to adopt problemfocused coping strategies because it reduces the impact of unpleasant emotions on burnout.

Estimates Variance TSES 7.51 AppraisalImportance 1.27 AppraisalIncongruence 1.50 AppraisalInefficacy 1.16 AppraisalAgency 1.42 Proactive Coping 0.43 Emotionfocused Coping 0.94 Problemfocused Coping 0.87 Reappraisal 1.11 Suppression 1.11

Equation Error Variance Unpleasant Emotion 0.37 Burnout 5.74

Error Covariance Frustration and Anger 0.29 Challenge and Intensity 0.24 BurnoutEmotion Exhaustion and Fatigue 0.65 TSESGuidance and TSESClassroom Management 1.03

Table 4.6: Maximum likelihood estimates of variances in the proposed model

Estimates Variance TSES 7.60 AppraisalImportance 1.26 AppraisalIncongruence 1.50 AppraisalInefficacy 1.19 AppraisalAgency 1.42 Proactive Coping 0.43 Reappraisal 1.12 Suppression 1.11

Equation Error Variance Unpleasant Emotion .40 Emotionfocused Coping .81 Problemfocused Coping .83 Burnout 5.76

Error Covariance Frustration and Anger .37 Challenge and Intensity .19 BurnoutEmotion Exhaustion and Fatigue .65 TSESGuidance and TSESClassroom Management 1.06

Table 4.7: Maximum likelihood estimates of variances in the alternative model

Phase 3: Interpreting a Model of Emotion Regulation for Disruptive Events

Table 4.8 presents the direct, indirect, and total effects of each exogenous variable in the model on each endogenous variable. The following section use Table

4.8 to answer the research questions in the present study.

71 Research Question Two: How do appraisals and emotional regulation strategies influence of selfreports of unpleasant emotions in classroom incidents?

Each path of appraisals and emotional regulation in the model was tested for significance in direct positive effects on the constructs of unpleasant emotion. As presented in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.8, appraisals of importance and agency had no significant contribution to teachers’ unpleasant emotions. Appraisals of incongruence

(β=.28, p<.05) and inefficacy (β=.48, p<.05) showed significant positive direct effects on teachers’ unpleasant emotions. Specifically, teachers who perceived the classroom incidents as incongruent to their goals were likely to report higher intensity of unpleasant emotions.

Surprisingly, in contrast to the function of reappraisals in emotional regulation in the context of test taking in the literature, reappraisals in emotional regulation strategies (β=.16, p<.05) also evidenced significant positive direct effects on teachers’ unpleasant emotions. In other words, teachers who tend to reappraise the situations were more likely to experience higher intensity of unpleasant emotions which is not consistent with the theory.

Research Question Three: How do unpleasant emotions from one episode contribute to overall teacher burnout?

The path of unpleasant emotion to teacher burnout was tested for its significance in direct and indirect positive effects. As presented in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.8, the intensity of unpleasant emotions (β=.45, p<.05) teacher reported during the classroom

72 incident showed significant positive effects on teacher burnout. In other words, the higher intensity of emotions the teacher experienced during the reported incident, the higher levels of overall job burnout the teacher reported.

Indirect effects were found between unpleasant emotion and burnout (z=.04, p<.05). Total effects of unpleasant emotion seemed to be reduced (β=.40) due to the indirect effects. The indirect effects might be the function of coping and will be further discussed in research question five.

Research Question Four: How does teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping, and emotional regulation strategies ease burnout?

The paths of teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping, and emotional regulation were tested for their significance of direct effects on teacher burnout. As presented in Figure 4.3, and Table 4.8, teacher sense of efficacy (β=.24, p<.05), and proactive coping (β=.20, p<.05) showed significant negative effects on teacher burnout. In other words, teachers with higher teacher sense of efficacy experience lower levels of burnout. In addition, teachers who cope with stress proactively tend to experience lower levels of burnout as well.

In examining the relationships between emotional regulation strategies and teacher burnout, the paths were tested for its significance both in direct and indirect effects on burnout. The direct effect of reappraisal (β=.01, p>.05) was found nonsignificant on teacher burnout. Suppression (β=.14, p<.05) was found to have significant positive effects on teacher burnout. The results indicate that teachers

73 who adopt suppression strategies in regulating emotions are more likely to experience burnout.

Question Five: How do emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping mediate the unpleasant emotion and teacher burnout?

The paths of emotionfocused coping and problemfocused coping were tested for their significance of mediating the unpleasant emotions and teacher burnout. As presented in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.8, unpleasant emotion showed significant positive effects on both emotion (β=.36, p<.05) and problemfocused coping (β=.31, p<.05).

In other words, the higher intensity of unpleasant emotions during the classroom incidents teachers reported, the more likely they would employ emotionfocused and problemfocused coping strategies.

Further, while emotionfocused coping (β=.04, p>.05) was not found to have significant effects on teacher burnout, problemfocused (β=.11, p<.05) coping was found to show significant negative effects on teacher burnout. In other words, if teachers judge they have enough coping resources and they are able to deal with the problem, they may feel less burnout in the end.

In addition, the indirect path between unpleasant emotion and burnout was significant (z=.04, p<.05). The indirect effects seemed to be due to the mediation of coping between these two constructs.

74 Exogenous Variables Endogenous Variables Direct Indirect Total Effect Effect Effect AppraisalImportance Unpleasant Emotion .05 (ns) .05 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence .29 .29 AppraisalInefficacy .46 .46 AppraisalAgency .02 (ns) .02 (ns) Reappraisal .19 .19 Suppression .05 (ns) .05 (ns)

Unpleasant Emotion Emotionfocused Coping .36 .36 AppraisalImportance .02 (ns) .02 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence .10 .10 AppraisalInefficacy .17 .17 AppraisalAgency .01 (ns) .01 (ns) Reappraisal .07 .07 Suppression .02 (ns) .02 (ns)

Unpleasant Emotion Problemfocused Coping .31 .31 AppraisalImportance .02 (ns) .02 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence .09 .09 AppraisalInefficacy .14 .14 AppraisalAgency .01 (ns) .01 (ns) Reappraisal .06 .06 Suppression .02 (ns) .02 (ns)

TSES Burnout .25 .25 AppraisalImportance .02 (ns) .02 (ns) AppraisalIncongruence .12 .12 AppraisalInefficacy .18 .18 AppraisalAgency .01 (ns) .01 (ns) Proactive Coping .21 .21 Reappraisal .01(ns) .08 .06 Suppression .15 .02 (ns) .17 Unpleasant Emotion .45 .04 .40 Emotionfocused Coping .04 (ns) .04 (ns) Problemfocused Coping .11 .11 Table 4.8: Standardized estimates of the direct, indirect, and total effects of the exogeneous variables on the endogenous variables in the alternative model of the study Note. Nonsignificant paths were noted as ns

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Essentially, the study was guided by several research questions: How well do the proposed models of teacher emotion management and burnout fit the data? How do appraisals and emotional regulation strategies influence of selfreports of unpleasant emotions in classroom incidents? How do unpleasant emotions contribute to teacher burnout? How does teacher sense of efficacy, proactive coping, and emotional regulation strategies ease burnout? This chapter includes the following sections to discuss how well the present study answers above questions: contributions to the fields, summaries of findings and practical implications, limitation of the study, and future direction of research.

Contributions to the Field

This study makes several significant contributions to the field of classroom management, coping, emotions and burnout. First of all, the findings suggest that appraisals matter in teachers’ emotional experiences in the context of classroom disruptive behaviors. Secondly, this study found the intensity of unpleasant

76 emotions from one episode significantly contributed to teachers’ overall feelings of burnout. Lastly, emotion regulation and coping modulate and mediate the emotion process and thus have effects on teacher burnout.

This study connects the streams of research on teacher burnout and teacher emotions. Although teacher burnout has been extensively studied, few studies have a closer look at how teachers’ emotion experiences in the classroom affect their feelings of burnout. The present study was able to confirm a model which identifies the relationships between teacher emotion experiences, emotional regulation, and burnout. In addition, the present study was able to identify the direct effects of unpleasant emotions teacher experience from one event on their overall feelings of burnout.

This study made several contributions to the appraisal theory. First of all, the effects of secondary appraisals may have stronger influences than primary appraisals on eliciting emotions. In the present study, problem efficacy was the most important facet among the appraisals in eliciting the unpleasant emotions when teachers are faced classroom disruptive behaviors. Secondly, the effects of goal incongruence are not less significant than the effects of importance of the events. In the present study, appraisals of goal incongruence were more prominent than appraisals of importance of the events in eliciting the unpleasant emotions. In addition, this study also adds new findings in this body of literature by examining appraisals in the context of specific incidents selfreported by teachers.

In addition, this study made contributions in the literature of classroom

77 management. Particularly, this study confirms the conclusions of previous research that classroom practice, including teacherstudent relationships, requires huge cognitive and emotional investments that often exhaust teachers (Emmer & Stough,

2001; Hargreaves, 2001; Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006). This study also adds new findings by examining how appraisals and judgments teachers made about classroom disruptive behaviors elicited the unpleasant emotions for teachers.

Further, the present study made contributions to the coping literature.

Specifically, problemfocused coping was found to be effective in mediating the effects of unpleasant emotions on teachers’ overall feelings of burnout.

Lastly, in the methodology of studying teacher emotions, this study made two contributions. First of all, different from most studies in emotions, this study examined emotions in the specific context of selfrecalled incidents rather than general situations. By examining teacher emotions in the selfrecalled incident, the present study may reduce the variability when one reports emotion experiences in general situations. Secondly, most studies in teacher emotions used qualitative data, differently; this study used structural equation modeling to test theoretical models.

By using structural equation modeling, the present study explored the relationships among sets of variables.

Summaries of the Findings and Practical Implications

The findings of the current study extend our knowledge about the role of appraisals, emotional regulation, and coping in teachers’ emotional experiences and

78 teacher burnout in the context of classroom disruptive behaviors. Two theoretical

2 models both fit the data equally well (χ (df =15, N = 555) = 171.8, p < .05). The alternative model was favored because it contributed to our understandings of coping in mediating the unpleasant emotions and teacher burnout. In addition, this model is consistent with the theory by Lazarus and Folkman (1987). They believed that coping is a mediator of shortterm emotional reactions and it is closely connected with contextual factors. In the alternative model, coping was connected with teachers’ emotional experiences in the context rather than isolated from the context.

Therefore, choosing the alternative model allows us to interpret the findings based on the theory.

With regards to the influence of appraisals on teachers’ unpleasant emotions, consistent with the appraisal theory (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Lazarus, 1993, 2000), appraisals of goal incongruence and problem inefficacy significantly contributed to the intensity of unpleasant emotions teachers experienced. Specifically, findings show teachers’ appraisal of low problem efficacy for dealing with disruptive behavior was the driving force behind the experience of unpleasant emotions. The function of problem efficacy in affecting the emotions was also theorized by Boekaerts (1993),

Schutz and Davis (2000) and found by Davis, DiStefano, and Schutz (2008). Based on the result, we could encourage teachers to reflect on the emotions they feel, as well as the judgments they are making that underlie the emotions. They might need to adjust their goals and understandings of students’ behaviors. Instead of judging students as disrespectful, teachers need to learn to understand how and why students

79 behave. For example, teachers need to reflect on how students who behave aggressively understand authority? What are his/her goals? Can those goals be attained in another way? If students are trying to gain power through aggressive behaviors, how can this dominance being transformed into leadership?

In contrast, the teachers’ appraisals of goal importance and agency were not found to be significant in the present study. One possible reason for this result is that the variances were shared among four latent variables among the appraisals, because problem inefficacy and goal incongruence were very strong in the model, goal importance and agency shared rather less variance in influencing unpleasant emotions. In a study by Schutz and Davis (2009), the researchers noted that goal importance may be situationspecific and thus may not have significant effects on emotions. In addition, teachers’ judgments of relevance may also be a function of their perceived psychological proximity (Muller et al., 2004; Newberry & Davis,

2008). In other words, teachers may feel the incident to be more relevant when they feel they are close to the students. To improve the measurement, goal importance, which was measured by general questions like “it was important for me to follow my lesson plans without disruption,” might be changed to be more specifically directed to the teachers’ perceptions about the importance of the relationships, for example

“maintaining a positive relationship with this student is important to me” or “it is important for me to maintain close relationship with all my students.”

In terms of the relationships between emotion regulation strategies and unpleasant emotion, teachers who regulated emotions with an avoidance approach

80 (e.g. suppression of emotion or disengagement from stressful situations) were found to report higher levels of burnout. This was consistent with the findings by Griffith,

Steptoe, and Cropley (1999), and Mearns and Cain (2003). Surprisingly, I found that reappraisal positively covariates with unpleasant emotion. This finding is not consistent with the findings of Gross and John (2003). One explanation may be the measure of emotion regulation strategies in the present study was based on selfreported general patterns in emotion regulation strategies where as the intensity of the unpleasant emotion was contextspecific instead of general. Therefore, there is a misalignment between the general patterns that teachers employed in emotion regulation and the emotion they actually felt in the specific events. Another explanation would be the directions between emotion regulation strategies need to be reversed in the model. Is emotion regulation an antecedent to emotions or a consequence of the emotions? Or perhaps, within the context of classroom management, those incidents were the ones that teacher can’t let it go. When these incidents are memorable, teachers may revisit it over and over again, that leads to feeling more intense emotions, and, in turn, burnout.

In terms of the antecedents to teacher burnout, the present study made a specific contribution to our understandings of relationships between teacher emotions and teacher burnout. Clearly, teachers who felt emotionally challenged from one episode are more likely to feel burned out. In other words, we can predict teachers’ overall feelings of burnout by the intensity of unpleasant emotions from one episode they reported. Therefore, teacher educators or noviceteacher mentors can help novice

81 teachers by identifying the emotional challenges they are facing in the classroom and reflecting on the appraisals they are making to the events. Without dealing with the emotions, teachers may feel burnout from just one episode. In addition, consistent with Lazarus’ theory (1984), I found that teachers who tend to suppress their emotions as a pattern of emotion regulation also experienced higher levels of burnout.

According to Linnenbrink (2007), the experience of certain emotions may activate us to ‘do something’ to modify the situations in order to approach our goals.

Activated unpleasant emotions (e.g. anger, anxious) may lead to more intense engagement than deactivated unpleasant emotions (e.g. frustration). Just as activating emotions might lead teachers to escalate conflict with students, deactivating emotion experiences can lead teachers to withdraw from engaging with students.

Learning how to monitor what you are feeling and the extent to which it provokes you to ‘do something’ can be empowering to teachers.

In identifying the factors that may protect against teacher burnout, this study corroborates the literature on teacher efficacy and teacher burnout in which teachers with higher teacher sense of efficacy are less likely to feel burnout (Brouwers &

Tomic, 1998; Friedman & Farber, 1992). In addition, this study also confirms the literature on proactive coping in which Greenglass (2002) found that proactive coping is effective in stress management. Therefore, teacher educators can focus on helping teachers to enhance their efficacy both in teaching task and in classroom management tasks. In addition, teachers need to be proactive in classroom management. One who foresees potential risk in the classroom will be more prepared to face problems and

82 not feel threat or loss from classroom discipline issues.

Lastly, the present study has found problemfocused coping as a mediating effects between teachers’ unpleasant emotions on burnout. Research has showed coping resources are essential to easing stress and burnout (Lazarus, 2006). This is also consistent with findings by Lazarus (1999) and Davis, DiStefano, & Schutz

(2008). Taskfocused coping strategies encourage teachers to focus on actual problems and direct actions to change the situations (Davis, DiStefano, & Schutz,

2008). Teachers must adopt effective and multiple coping strategies to regain their composure and to be proactive toward classroom problems.

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations recognized regarding the current study. First, there are limitations to generalize this study to all teachers in public schools due to following reasons: 1. the experience range of participants in the present study was limited to first to fifth years of teachers; 2. participants were recruited through email invitations for an online survey, teachers who had limited access to computer and internet were excluded from participating in the survey; 3. participants were recruited in only one state; 4. the low return rate due to the initial screening of the participants in which the survey required the participants to describe a challenging classroom incident.

Secondly, another important limitation is that due to correlational nature of structural equation modeling, no causal conclusions can be drawn from the current study. Future study may further examine the causal relationships by time ordering

83 the sequence of data collection.

Thirdly, the classroom incidents teachers reported in the present study were based on their recalls of the events. Therefore, when interpreting the results, one needs to be cautions because it may not accurately capture their perceptions about the events inthemoment.

In addition, in order to keep the parsimony of the model, the present study was not able to include some burnout factors suggested by the literature in prior chapter: such as influence of personality or personal lives, administrative support, and inappropriate workload (see p.5).

Lastly, coping is a changing process depending on the contexts as suggested by

Lazarus and Folkman (1987). In the present study, coping is studied in the context therefore conclusion can not be applied to and generalize to all the encounters one may face.

Setting a Research Agenda for Teacher Emotions and Burnout

First, the findings indicate that we can predict teacher burnout from one challenging episode in the classroom. We can further examine if the judgments teachers make on one episode become a habitual pattern and thus teachers may feel burnout from the habitual patterns they use to judge student behaviors?

Secondly, though many teachers experience burn out, some stay engaged and revitalized. How do they keep themselves refreshed? What are the external strategies and internal coping mechanisms they manifest that allow them to deal with the same students as those who burn out, yet not be affected in the same way?

84 Thirdly, due to the number of constructs and latent variables in present study, burnout was treated as a general latent variable. Further study can examine the model by separating the three dimensions in burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal achievement.

In addition, we need to be further exploring the regulation process for discrete emotions. What are the appraisal processes in each discrete emotion? What are the different processes when regulating different emotions, such as anger and frustration?

What are the effective regulating and coping processes involved in each discrete emotion? Because anger and frustration are the most common emotions teachers experienced in the face of disruptive behaviors, what are the most effective coping strategies in dealing with anger and frustration?

Lastly, emotion studies should employ some technology devices to study inthemoment emotions. Studies on teacher emotions have relied heavily on interviews. Interviewing data are usually based on recalled memories of participants, and these memories could be distorted based on the participants’ postinterpretation of the events. To further understand their inthemoment appraisals and regulation strategies, it is necessary to study teacher emotions through some technology devices, such as using digital physiological device, PDA (Carson, 2006) or web diary to help teachers record their instant responses to the events. In considering the feasibility, studies may be implemented by using some digital devices to record teachers’ physiological responses to the disruptive events and then have teachers to reflect on the events after the class on the PDA or web tools. In addition, intervention may

85 also be introduced to teachers through those digital devices, such as instant feedback on their appraisals of the events. With intervention studies, we may find better ways to help teachers cope with unpleasant emotions and potential burnout in teaching professions.

86 REFERENCES

Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bakker, A. B., Westman, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Crossover of burnout: An experimental design. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 16 , 220239.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived selfefficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 , 117148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman and Company.

Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 (1), 373403.

BenZe’ves, A. (2000). The Subtlety of Emotions. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Bibby, T. (2002). Shame: an emotional response of doing mathematics as an adult and a teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 705721.

BibouNakou, I.,Stogiannidou, A., & Koisseoglou, G. (1999). The relation between teacher burnout and teachers’ attributions and practices regarding school behavior problems. School Psychology International, 20 , 209217.

Blase, J. J. (1982). A socialpsychological grounded theory of teacher stress and burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (4), 93.

Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with wellbeing and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 149167

Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in the classroom. In Schutz, P.A. & Pekrun R. (Eds). Emotion in Education . MA: Elsevier Inc.

87 Brissie, J. S., HooverDempsey, K. V., & Bassler, O. C. (1988). Individual, situational contributors to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 82 (2), 106112.

Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers' reports of how they perceive and cope with problem students. Elementary School Journal, 93 (1), 368.

Brotheridge, C. M. & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 , 1739.

Brouwers, A., Evers, W. J. G., & Tomic, W. (1999). Teacher burnout and selfefficacy in eliciting social support . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437342.)

Bullough, R. V., & Baughman, K. (1997). FirstYear Teacher Eight Years Later: An Inquiry into Teacher Development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Bullough, D. A. M., & Mayes, P. B. (2006). Getting in touch: Dreaming, the emotions and the work of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 12 , 193208.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Draper, R. J. (2004). Mentoring and the emotions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30 , 271288.

Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1993). Work stress, role conflict, social support and psychological burnout among teachers. Psychological reports, 73 (2), 371.

Capel, S. A. (1991). A longitudinal study of burnout in teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 , 3645.

Carson, R. L. (2006). Exploring the episodic nature of teachers’ emotions as it relates to teacher burnout . Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3232157).

Carson, R. L. (2007). Emotional regulation and teacher burnout: Who says that the management of emotional expression doesn’t matter? Paper presented in the annul meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a

88 theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 267283.

Chan, D. W. (2006). Emotional intelligence and components of burnout among chinese secondary school teachers in hong kong. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22 (8), 10421054.

Coates, T. J. & Thoresen, C. E. (1976). Teacher anxiety: A review with recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 46 , 159184.

Davis, H. A. (2001). The quality and impact of relationships between elementary school students and teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26 , 431453.

Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role of studentteacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 207234.

Davis, H. A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal: Special Issue on the Interpersonal Contexts of Motivation and Learning, 106 , 193 – 223

Davis, H. A., DiStefano, C., & Schutz, P. A. (2008). Identifying patterns of appraising tests in first year college students: Implications for anxiety and emotion regulation during test taking. Journal of Educational Psychology,

Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: the role of emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education , 17 (4), 403415.

Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers Matter. NY: Open University Press.

DePanfilis, D. (2006). Compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction: Implications for retention of workers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10671069.

Dussault, M., & Deaudelin, C. (1999). Professional isolation and occupational stress in teachers. Psychological reports, 84 (3), 943.

Edelwich, J., & Brodsky, A. (1980). Burnout: Stages of disillusionment in the helping professions . New York: Human Sciences Press. 89 Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36 (2), 103112.

Enzmann[a], D., Schaufeli, W. B., Janssen, P., & Rozeman, A. (1998). Dimensionality and validity of the burnout measure. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 71 (4), 331351.

Evers, W. J. G., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004). Burnout among teachers. School Psychology International, 25 (2), 131148.

Farber, B. A. (1984). Stress and burnout in suburban teachers . Journal of Educational Research, 77, 325331.

Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with studentteaching? analyzing efficacy, burnout, and support during the studentteaching semester. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23 (6), 916934.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Unpacking positive emotions: Investigating the seeds of human flourishing. Routledge.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought ‐action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19 (3), 313332.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional wellbeing. Psychological Science, 13 (2), 172.

Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30 , 159165.

Friedman, I. A. (1995).Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 88 (5), 281.

Friedman, I. A. (1993). Burnout in teachers: The concept and its unique core meaning. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53 (4), 1035.

Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (??). Professional selfconcept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86 (1), 28.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 , 466475

90 Fullan, M. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 1217.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Golby, M. (1996). Teachers' emotions: An illustrated discussion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26 (3), 423.

Gold, Y. (1985). Burnout: Causes and solutions. Clearinghouse, 58, 210212.

Gold, Y., & Bachelor, P. (1988). Signs of burnout are evident for practice teachers during the teacher training period. Education, 108 (4), 546555.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64 , 55–118.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peerrate service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46 , 8696.

Greenglass, E. R. (2002). Proactive coping and quality of life management. In Frydenberg E. (Ed.) Beyond Coping: Meeting Goals, Visions, and Challenges . NY: Oxford.

Greenglass, E. R. & Burke, R. J. (1988). Career orientations and psychological burnout in teachers. Psychological Reports, 63, 107116.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent and responsefocused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74 (1), 224237.

Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13 (5), 551573.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39 (3), 281291.

91 Gross, J. J. & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 , 348362.

Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J.J.Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (6), 495513.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1 (4), 315.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers' perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (8), 811.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). Beyond anxiety and nostalgia. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (5), 373.

Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teaching and betrayal. Teachers & Teaching, 8 (3), 393407.

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24 (3), 287309.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21 (8), 967983.

Hargreaves, A. & Tucker, E. (1991). Teaching and guilt: Exploring the feelings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 491505.

Henson, R. K., Bennett, D. T., Sienty, S. F., & Chambers, S. M. (2002). The relationship between meansend task analysis and context specific and global selfefficacy in emergency certification teachers: Exploring a new model of selfefficacy. TheProfessional Educator, 24 (2), 2950

Ho, I.T. & Hau, K.T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 , 313323. 92 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortage, and the Organization of Schools. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Intrator, S. (2006). Beginning teachers and emotional drama in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 ,232239.

Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22 (1), 120134.

Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 33 (6), 583593.

Kahn, J. H., Schneider, K. T., JenkinsHenkelman, T. M. & Moyle, L. L. (2006). Emotional social support and job burnout among highschool teachers: is it all due to dispositional affectivity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 793807.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

nd Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2

edition) . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitivemotivationalrelational theory of emotion. American Psychologist , 46 , 819834.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44 (1), 1.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55 (6), 665.

Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion . New York: 93 Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a personcentered conceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74 , 946.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping . New York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1 (3), 141169.

Liljestrom, A., Roulston, K., & deMarrais, K. (2007). “There is no place for feeling like this in the workplace”: Women teachers’ anger in school settings. In P.A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.). Emotions in Education . San Diego CA: Elsevier Inc.

Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teacher and Teacher Education, 15 , 835848.

Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., Morton, B. A., Rowland, R., et al. (2007). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 200405 teacher followup survey. NCES 2007307 National Center for Education Statistics.

Maslach, C. (1976). Burnedout. Human Behavior,5, 1622.

Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99113.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Maslach Burnout InventoryManual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Maslach, C., & Pines, A. (1977). The burnout syndrome in the day care setting Child Care Quarterly.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 397.

94 McCann, T. M., & Johannessen, L. R. (2004). Why do new teachers cry? The Clearing House, 77 (4), 138–146.

McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 6482.

McIntyre, T. C. (1983). The effect of class size on perceptions of burnout by special education teachers. Mental Retardation and Learning Disability Bulletin, 11 (3), 14245.

Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). Teacher selfefficacy and retaining talented teachers: A case study of an African American teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263276

Mohr, P., Howells, K., Gerace, A., Day, A., & Wharton, M. (2007). The role of perspective taking in anger arousal. Personality & Individual Differences, 43 (3), 507517.

Monat, A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Stress and coping some current issues and controversies. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and Coping (pp. 115). New York: Columbia University Press.

Muller, C., Katz, S., & Dance, L. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning. Dynamics of the teacher–student relationship from each perspective. Urban Education, 34 , 292–337.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children. Washington, DC: Author.

Newberry, M., & Davis, H. A. (2008). The role of elementary teachers’ conceptions of closeness to students on their differential behavior in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education , 24 , 1965–1985

Oplatka, I. (2007). Managing emotions in teaching: Toward an understanding of emotion displays and caring as nonprescribed role elements. Teachers College Record, 109 , 13741400.

Pekrun, R., & Schutz, P. A. (2007). Where do we go from here? Implications and future directions for inquiry on emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R.

95 Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 313–326). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pines, A. M. (2002). Teacher burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective. Teachers & Teaching, 8 (2), 121140.

Pintrich, P. R. (1991). Editor’s comment. Educational Psychologist, 26 , 199205.

Prawat, R., Byers, J., & Anderson, A. H. (1983). An attributional analysis of teachers’ affective reactions to student success and failure. American Educational Research Journal, 20 , 137152.

Roseman, I., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion (Vol. 319). New York: Oxford University Press.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., GarcíaRenedo, M., Burriel, R., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Toward a fourdimensional model of burnout: a multigroup factoranalytic study including depersonalization and cynicism. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 65 (5), 901913.

Sari, H. (2004). An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among turkish special school headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and job satisfaction. Educational Studies (Carfax Publishing), 30 (3), 291306.

Schaufeli, W. B. & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationship with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 20 , 177196.

Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, Methods, Research (pp. 92120). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sensemaking about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21 (8), 949965.

96 Schonfeld, I.S. (1992). A longitudinal study of occupational stressors and depressive symptoms in firstyear female teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8 , 151158.

Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner' guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2001). The Development of Academic SelfEfficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego: American Press.

Schutz, P. A., & Davis, H. A. (2000). Emotions and selfregulation during test taking. Educational Psychologist, 35 (4), 243256.

Schutz, P. A., Davis, H. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2002). Organization of concepts relevant to emotions and their regulation during test taking. Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (4), 316.

Schutz, P. A., Distefano, C., Benson, J., & Davis, H. A. (2004). The emotional regulation during testtaking scale. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17 (3), 253269.

Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., & Cross, D. I. (2007). Teacher candidates’ Organization of Statements Related to Beliefs about Emotions in the Classroom . Paper presented in the annul meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Tang, C. (2000). Teacher burnout in Hong Kong and Germany: A crosscultural validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 13 (3), 309.

Smith, C. A„ & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813838.

Smith, C.A., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1988). From appraisal to emotion: Difference among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 271302.

Smith, C.A., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Breaking the tautology: Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In: K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal theories of emotion: Theory, Methods, Research (pp.121140). 97 Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 609637). New York: Guilford.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Education Research Journal, 41 (3), 681714.

Smylie, M. A. (1999). Teacher stress in a time of reform. In R. Vandenderghe and A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice . NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sutton, R. (2004). Emotional regulation goals and strategies of teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 7 (4), 379398.

Sutton, R. E. (2005). Teachers' emotions and classroom effectiveness: Implications from recent research. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78 (5)

Sutton, R. E. (2007). Teachers’ anger, frustration, and selfregulation. In P.A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.). Emotions in Education . San Diego CA: Elsevier Inc.

Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (4), 327358.

Taris, T. W., Van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). Inequity, burnout and psychological withdrawal among teachers: A dynamic exchange model. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17 (1), 103122.

TschannenMoran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research , 68, 202–248.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher followup survey, 200001 (NCES 2004301). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 98 by M. T. Luekens, D. M. Lyter, E.E. Fox, & K. Chandler. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004301.pdf

Van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1999). Teacher burnout and lack of reciprocity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (1), 91108.

Van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change: Different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21 (8), 895898. Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & van de Ven, P. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive–affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21 (8), 917934.

Winograd, K. (2003). The functions of teacher emotions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Teachers College Record, 105 (9), 16411673.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. A. (2005). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Volume V: Selfefficacy beliefs during adolescence (pp. 117137). Information Age Publishing. In Greenwich, CT.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H. A. & Pape, S. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and thinking. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2 nd ed, pp. 715737.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Woolfolk Hoy A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers’ SelfEfficacy Beliefs. In Wentzel, K, & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). Handbook of motivation in schools . NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hoffman, N., & Ford, E. W. (2004). Experiencing job burnout: The roles of positive and negative traits and states. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (5), 887911.

Zembylas, M. (2003). Caring for teacher emotion: Reflections on teacher selfdevelopment. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 22 (2), 103125.

Zembylas, M., & Barker, H. (2007). Teachers’ spaces for coping with change in the context of a reform effort. Journal of Educational Change, 8 (3), 235256.

APPENDIX A

IRB Exemption Form

100

APPENDIX B

THE INSTRUMENT

101

102

103

104

105

106

107 APPENDIX C es es in the Model Table C.1 Correlation Matrix the for Latent Variabl

108 APPENDIX D Tables and Figures for Chapter Four

Item Weight Composite Variable TSES4 .71 TSESEN TSES8 .86 TSES9 .84 TSES5 .81 TSESCM TSES7 .89 TSES13 .80 TSES6 .73 TSESIS TSES10 .68 TSES14 .82 TSES1 .72 TSESGU TSES3 .79 TSES11 .83 Table D.1 Regression weights of composite variables for TSES scale

Figure D.1 The CFA model of TSES

109

Composites Factor Loadings with T-values Latent Variable TSESEN 0.79 (20.57) TSES TSESCM 0.84 (17.71) TSESIS 0.74 (14.70) TSESGU 0.58 (14.33) Table D.2 Measurement model for TSES latent variable

Figure D.2 The measurement model of TSES

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted 3. It was important for me to follow my lesson plans .522 .690 without disruption. 7. It was important for my students to engage in the .617 .617 lesson without interruptions. 9. Maintaining classroom order has always been .454 .713 important for me to carry out my lesson plans. 12. It was important to me that students were .546 .667 paying attention in the class. Table D.3 Appraisals-Importance scale reliability

110 Item Item-total Alpha if item correlation deleted

Appraisal item 2: The behavior disrupted my lesson .612 .649 plans. Appraisal item 4: Dealing with this behavior was an .334 .795 undesirable task for me. Appraisal item 15: This behavior interfered with the .674 .617 learning activities I planned for the class. Appraisal item 20: This behavior hindered me from .573 .672 reaching my teaching goal(s). Table D.4 Appraisals-Incongruence scale reliability

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted

Appraisal item 8: I had difficulty coming up with .571 .868 strategies to deal with the situation well. Appraisal item 14: I knew how to deal with the student’s .659 .814 disruptive behavior. Appraisal item 16: I was confident that I could deal with .773 .766 the situation. Appraisal item 18: When that incident happened, I .771 .767 knew I could deal with it successfully. Table D.5 Appraisals-Inefficacy scale reliability

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted Appraisal item 6: The student(s) was/were responsible .576 .721 for the misbehavior. Appraisal item 13: I think the student(s) could have .589 .713 controlled this misbehavior. Appraisal item 17: If the student(s) took control of .639 .683 his/her behavior, this never would have happened. Appraisal item 21: In the situation, it was nobody’s .511 .750 fault. Table D.6 Appraisals-Agency scale reliability

111

Latent Observed Variables Factor Loadings

Variables with T-values

Appraisal- Appraisal item 3: It was important for me to follow my lesson plans without 0.67 (14.86)

Importance disruption.

Appraisal item 7: It was important for my students to engage in the lesson without 0.82 (18.52) interruptions. Appraisal item 12: It was important to me that students were paying attention in the 0.57 (12.67) class. Appraisals- Appraisal item 2: The behavior disrupted my lesson plans. 0.76 (18.82)

Incongruence Appraisal item 15: This behavior interfered with the learning activities I planned for 0.84 (20.37)

the class.

Appraisal item 20: This behavior hindered me from reaching my teaching goal(s). 0.67 (16.37)

Appraisals- Appraisal item 8: I had difficulty coming up with strategies to deal with the 0.71 (15.81)

Inefficacy situation well.

Appraisal item 14: I knew how to deal with the student’s disruptive behavior. 0.87 (17.63)

Appraisal item 16: I was confident that I could deal with the situation. 0.90 (22.30)

Appraisals- Appraisal item 6: The student(s) was/were responsible for the misbehavior. 0.73 (16.79)

Agency Appraisal item 13: I think the student(s) could have controlled this misbehavior. 0.63 (14.87)

Appraisal item 17: If the student(s) took control of his/her behavior, this never 0.77 (17.66)

would have happened.

Table D.7 Factor loadings with T-values for Appraisal Scale

112

Figure D.3 CFA model of appraisal scale

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted

Proactive Coping item 6: Despite numerous setbacks, I .637 .789 usually succeed in getting what I want. Proactive Coping item 8: I always try to find a way to .670 .774 work around obstacles; nothing really stops me. Proactive Coping item 11: I turn obstacles into positive .650 .783 experiences. Proactive Coping item 13: When I experience a .655 .781 problem, I take the initiative in resolving it. Table D.8 Proactive coping scale reliability

113

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted Coping item 1: I got sympathy and understanding from .575 .842 someone. Coping item 5: I tried to get emotional support from .747 .770 friends, colleagues or relatives. Coping item 8: I talked to someone about how I felt. .663 .807 Coping item 9: I discussed my feelings with someone. .733 .775 Table D.9 Emotion-focused coping scale reliability

Item Item-total Alpha if item correlation deleted

Coping item 2: I asked people who have had similar .587 .722 experiences what they did. Coping item 3: I talked to someone to find out more .628 .700 about the situation. Coping item 4: I tried to get advice from someone about .673 .677 what to do.

Coping item 7: I talked to someone who could do .454 .792 something concrete about the problem Table D.10 Problem-focused coping scale reliability

Figure D.4 CFA model of coping scale

114

Latent Observed Variables Factor

Variables Loadings

Proactive Proactive Coping item 8: I always try to find a way to work around obstacles; nothing 0.71

Coping really stops me.

Proactive Coping item 11: I turn obstacles into positive experiences. 0.76

Proactive Coping item 13: When I experience a problem, I take the initiative in 0.77

resolving it.

Emotion- Coping item 5: I tried to get emotional support from friends, colleagues or relatives. 0.88

focused Coping item 8: I talked to someone about how I felt. 0.68

Coping Coping item 9: I discussed my feelings with someone. 0.86

Problem- Coping item 2: I asked people who have had similar experiences what they did. 0.76

focused Coping item 3: I talked to someone to find out more about the situation. 0.66

Coping Coping item 4: I tried to get advice from someone about what to do. 0.83

Table D.11 Factor loadings with T-values for Coping Scale

Figure D.5 CFA model of unpleasant emotion scale

115

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted Emotional intensity .645 .711 Intensity of anger .483 .757 Intensity of frustration .694 .688 Intensity of challenge .586 .723 Intensity of fatigue .428 .792 Table D.12 Unpleasant emotion scale reliability

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted

Reappraisal item 10: I control my emotions by .74 .86 changing the way I think about the situation I’m in. Reappraisal item 11: When I want to feel less of an .74 .86 unpleasant emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change the way I’m thinking about the situation. Reappraisal item 15: When I want to feel less of an .77 .85 unpleasant emotion, I change what I’m thinking about. Reappraisal item 16: When I want to feel more pleasant .76 .85 emotions (such as joy or amusement), I change the way I’m thinking about the situation. Table D.13 Reappraisal scale reliability

Item Item-total Alpha if item correlation deleted

Suppression item 6: I keep my emotions to myself. .64 .57 Suppression item 8: I control my emotions by not .57 .65 expressing them. Suppression item 13: When I am feeling unpleasant .50 .74 emotions, I make sure not to express them. Table D.14 Suppression scale reliability

116

Figure D.6 CFA model of emotion regulation scale

Item Item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted Burnout item 1: I felt emotionally drained by my work. .68 .89 Burnout item 11: I felt used up at the end of a day at .74 .89 work. Burnout item 14: When I finished work, I felt so tired I .70 .89 couldn’t do anything else. Burnout item 2: I became less concerned about my .71 .89 students than I used to be. Burnout item 8: I tried to keep a distance to others .58 .91 including my colleagues and students. Burnout item 13: I did not really care what happened to .58 .91 some students. Burnout item 7: I did not feel confident about .76 .89 accomplishing my goals in teaching. Burnout item 12: I could not solve the problems that .72 .89 arose in my job. Burnout item 15: I did not think I made a meaningful .72 .89 contribution through my teaching job. Table D.15 Burnout scale reliability

117

Figure 4.07 CFA model of burnout scale

Item Weight Composite/ Latent Variable Burnout 1 .81 BURNEE Burnout 11 .89 Burnout 14 .81 Burnout 2 .80 BURNDP Burnout 8 .67 Burnout 13 .69 Burnout 7 .84 BURNIE Burnout 12 .76 Burnout 15 .81 Table D.16 Regression weights of composite variables for Burnout scale

Figure D.8 CFA model of burnout composite scale

118 Latent Factor Observed Variables Variables Loadings with

T-values

Teacher Composite: Teacher Sense of Efficacy in Student Engagement (TSESEN) 0.79 (20.23)

Sense of Composite: Teacher Sense of Efficacy in Classroom Management (TSESCM) 0.84 (23.53)

Efficacy Composite: Teacher Sense of Efficacy in Instructional Strategies (TSESIS) 0.73 (18.43)

Composite: Teacher Sense of Efficacy in Guidance (TSESGU) 0.59 (14.85)

Appraisal- Appraisal item 3: It was important for me to follow my lesson plans without disruption. 0.66 (14.86)

Importance Appraisal item 7: It was important for my students to engage in the lesson without interruptions. 0.83 (18.52)

Appraisal item 12: It was important to me that students were paying attention in the class. 0.57 (12.67)

Appraisals- Appraisal item 2: The behavior disrupted my lesson plans. 0.77 (18.82)

Incongruence Appraisal item 15: This behavior interfered with the learning activities I planned for the class. 0.82 (20.37)

Appraisal item 20: This behavior hindered me from reaching my teaching goal(s). 0.68 (16.37)

Appraisals- Appraisal item 8: I had difficulty coming up with strategies to deal with the situation well. 0.65 (15.81)

Inefficacy Appraisal item 14: I knew how to deal with the student’s disruptive behavior. 0.71 (17.63)

Appraisal item 16: I was confident that I could deal with the situation. 0.86 (22.30)

Appraisals- Appraisal item 6: The student(s) was/were responsible for the misbehavior. 0.73 (16.79)

Agency Appraisal item 13: I think the student(s) could have controlled this misbehavior. 0.65 (14.87)

Appraisal item 17: If the student(s) took control of his/her behavior, this never would have 0.76 (17.66)

happened.

Proactive Proactive Coping item 8: I always try to find a way to work around obstacles; nothing really stops me. 0.70 (16.78)

Coping Proactive Coping item 11: I turn obstacles into positive experiences. 0.75 (18.53)

Proactive Coping item 13: When I experience a problem, I take the initiative in resolving it. 0.78 (19.40)

Reappraisal Reappraisal item 10: I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in. 0.79 (21.39)

Reappraisal item 11: When I want to feel less of an unpleasant emotion (such as sadness or anger), I 0.80 (21.94)

change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

Reappraisal item 15: When I want to feel less of an unpleasant emotion, I change what I’m thinking 0.84 (23.42)

about.

Reappraisal item 16: When I want to feel more pleasant emotions (such as joy or amusement), I 0.85 (23.75)

change the way I’m thinking about the situation.

Suppression Suppression item 6: I keep my emotions to myself. 0.82 (18.04)

Suppression item 8: I control my emotions by not expressing them. 0.72 (16.01)

Suppression item 13: When I am feeling unpleasant emotions, I make sure not to express them. 0.58 (13.02)

Emotion- Coping item 5: I tried to get emotional support from friends, colleagues or relatives. 0.88 (24.11) focused Coping item 8: I talked to someone about how I felt. 0.68 (17.19)

Coping Coping item 9: I discussed my feelings with someone. 0.86 (23.37)

Table D.17 Full Measurement Model Results (Continued) 119 Table D.17: Continued

Problem- Coping item 2: I asked people who have had similar experiences what they did. 0.76 (18.82) focused Coping item 3: I talked to someone to find out more about the situation. 0.66 (15.97)

Coping Coping item 4: I tried to get advice from someone about what to do. 0.82 (20.76)

Unpleasant Emotional intensity 0.81 (17.25)

Emotion Intensity of anger 0.48 (11.07)

Intensity Intensity of frustration 0.70 (17.47)

Intensity of challenge 0.76 (15.48)

Intensity of fatigue 0.48 (11.77)

Burnout Composite: Emotion Exhaustion 0.74 (19.26)

Composite: Depersonalization 0.80 (21.42)

Composite: Inefficacy 0.92 (26.15)

Note : Standardized estimates; all estimates significant (p < .05) unless ns indicated.

120

Figure D.9 Full Structural Equation Model of Proposed Model

121

Figure D.10 Full Structural Equation Model of Alternative Model

122