University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

(USC Thesis Other)

The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Teachers Are Breaking:
Personal, Behavioral, and Environmental Influences on Emotional Fatigue
by
Jamie Lynn Bone

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A Dissertation Presented to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Jamie Lynn Bone 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jamie Lynn Bone certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Rebecca Lundeen
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Teacher burnout affects school climate as well as student outcomes, and ultimately causes
teachers to leave the profession. The purpose of this study was to understand the extent to which
teachers experience and cope with emotional fatigue in their teaching experience. The study
participants were primary and secondary teachers at a group of independent P-12 schools in
southern California. Data was collected in Fall 2020 through an anonymous survey consisting of
two quantitative instruments, Maslach’s Burnout Inventory and the Professional Quality of Life
Instrument, as well as three open-ended response questions. The findings indicated that despite
increased general stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers’ feelings of personal
accomplishment and compassion satisfaction acted as mitigating experiences to burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and compassion fatigue. This study provides recommendations for schools
to relieve the problem of teacher emotional fatigue by creating collaborative support
opportunities, focusing on developing strong relationships and connectedness through
schoolwide SEL integration, and increasing teacher feelings of personal accomplishment.

v
Dedication
To the Cougar Crew who inspires me daily: Keep being the change.

vi
Acknowledgements
As this study suggests, the influences on a person are substantial to their outlook and
capabilities. I won the dissertation chair jackpot with Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi who provided
both grounding and motivation throughout the entire process. Her validating words “This works
for me” have become the ultimate praise and I look forward to adopting them, along with her
kind yet firm accountability within my own leadership. Dr. Courtney Malloy, who in addition to
serving on my committee and encouraging my learning engagement through several classes,
embodies the spirit of an educator that this study aims to honor. Dr. Rebecca Lundeen, my third
committee member but first professor at USC, gave me a tangible vision of a future I wanted and
the encouragement to get there. To these fierce mentors, I am forever grateful for your collective
dedication to student learning, and endless reservoir of support. Thank you.
Beyond the aforementioned committee members, I could not have completed this
dissertation without Dr. Marc Pritchard who provided the writing critique, quantitative analysis
guidance, and comic relief that encouraged me to maximize my potential. Finally, Dr. Alexandra
Wilcox, one of the most influential educators of my cumulative experience, and to whom I am
forever thankful for providing the direction to define and acknowledge my personal core values
of trust, connection, and authenticity—you’ve been a game changer. To all the USC Rossier
faculty: may you experience the mitigating impact of personal accomplishment and compassion
satisfaction in your teaching fatigue.
I am in awe of the caliber of student in the Organizational Change and Leadership
doctoral program. Cohort 12, I hope this is just the start of our lifelong learning adventures as my
mind and heart have been truly enriched. As we look forward to our book club, I remain eager
for your recommendations and insight. I feel extra thankful for my original LDT crew, and

vii
especially my “No Care Bears.” Dr. Jordan Chroman, Dr. Chinako Belanger, Dr. Farhad Tajali,
Dr. Daryl Klump, and the soon-to-be Dr. Astin Godwin, the real learning over the past several
years happened because of your friendship and I am forever thankful. Being in the trenches with
you made the tough moments worth it, and the great moments more enjoyable.
Finally, to my families—by blood, by Bryerton, and beyond—I love you. Thank you for
being a constant through the small and substantial challenges. Please know how greatly I
appreciate your support through the moments of social and solitary coping, and especially for the
endless encouragement to dream bigger. I do this work in hopes you also commit to becoming
your best selves. As you do, I look forward to it being my turn to provide reassurance and cheer
you on. Thank you for what you have been when I needed someone to lean on, and for what you
will continue to mean to me. Fight On!

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 2
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 2
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 3
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 4
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 7
Teacher Social Emotional States ......................................................................................... 8
Strategies and Recommendations to Mitigate Emotional Fatigue .................................... 22
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 31
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 36
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 36
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 37
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 38
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 39
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 41

ix
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 47
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 48
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 50
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 50
Research Question 1: To What Degree Do Teachers Experience Emotional Exhaustion
and Compassion Fatigue? ............................................................................................ 52
Research Question 2: Which Variables Predict Burnout in Teacher Experience? ............ 72
Research Question 3: How Does Teacher Experience Differ Post-COVID-19? .............. 80
Research Question 4: How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue? .................... 91
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 99
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 101
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 101
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 109
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 116
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 118
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 119
References ................................................................................................................................... 122
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 143
Appendix B: Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................. 152
Appendix C: Regression Analysis ............................................................................................... 224

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Source 38
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients 42
Table 3: Maslach Burnout Inventory Published Sample for Primary and Secondary Educators 51
Table 4: Professional Quality of Life Scale Construct Ranges 52
Table 5: MBI Descriptive Statistic Summary 53
Table 6: ProQOL Descriptive Statistic Summary 54
Table 7: ProQOL Subgroup Rating Distribution 56
Table 8: Study Variable and Subgroup Table 1 59
Table 9: Study Variable and Subgroup Table 2 60
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Emotional Exhaustion 61
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Depersonalization 64
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Burnout 66
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Secondary Traumatic Stress 68
Table 14: Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Compassion Satisfaction 70
Table 15: Maslach Burnout Inventory Comparison to Published Means 71
Table 16: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients 73
Table 17: Regression Analysis: The Effect of All Variables on Burnout 75

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Emotional Fatigue: A Conceptual Framework 35
Figure 2: Emotional Exhaustion (EE) strongly positively correlated with Burnout (BO) 76
Figure 3: Burnout (BO) strongly negatively correlated with Personal Accomplishment (PA) 79
Figure 4: Faculty Reported Coping Approaches 92
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The problem of practice addressed in this study is the emotional fatigue negatively
affecting teacher educators. High levels of stress affect teacher well-being and burnout, causing
46% of teachers to report high daily stress during the school year, which ties teaching with
nursing for the highest stress rate among all occupational groups (Gallup, 2014). Furthermore, in
comparison with other occupations, teachers report the highest levels of self-perceived
workplace stress (Hakanen et al., 2006). As a result, nearly half of all new teachers leave the
profession within five years (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Greenberg et al., 2016; Ingersoll et al.,
2014; Ryan et al., 2017), and approximately 8% of the national teaching force leaves the
profession annually (NCES, 2014). This high teacher turnover affects student achievement
(Greenberg et al., 2016; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Wolf et al., 2015) and costs schools an estimated
$7.3 billion per year nationally (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2007).
There is also an emotional cost associated with teachers who remain in the profession while
suffering from burnout, and this study aims at better understanding the implications of teacher
emotional fatigue on teacher well-being and the overall school community.
Context and Background of the Problem
This study examines the problem of practice in the specific context of the emotional
fatigue affecting teachers at Bryerton Preparatory Schools (pseudonym). Bryerton Prep educates
roughly 1,800 students across five campus locations: three preschool through eighth-grade
campuses, one preschool through high school, and one high school. The organization is privately
owned and celebrates over 65 years educating students in Southern California. The number one
factor influencing parental decisions to choose to enroll their children at Bryerton Prep,
according to annual survey results, is “highly qualified teachers,” followed closely by “student
2

safety” and “academic outcomes.” While the organization holds overall responsibility for these
factors, the day-to-day burden of meeting these expectations falls directly on 195 teachers. As an
independent school group, Bryerton teachers are non-unionized and are not required to complete
a teacher induction program or hold a teaching credential. The organization has a school
therapist as well as an education team comprised of four members who support all curriculum,
programs, training, and other faculty needs across all five campus sites. Aside from these
individuals, limited teacher-focused and organization-based support structures exist for teachers
at Bryerton to mitigate their emotional fatigue and support healthy coping.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of the study is to identify the factors that contribute to the emotional fatigue
that teachers experience and identify the support needed to allow teachers greater capacity to
cope with this form of burnout. The following research questions guide the study:
1. To what degree do teachers experience emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue?
2. Which variables predict burnout in teacher experience?
3. How does teacher experience differ post COVID-19?
4. How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue?
Importance of the Study
The classroom has become a high-stakes environment, and teacher educators need coping
skills to manage their own emotional fatigue and support the needs of their students both
individually and collectively. The social emotional demands on teachers are growing alongside
the concerning increase of American youth struggling with substantial mental health challenges.
The CDC (2018) reported significant growth since 2007 in youth suicide trends ranging from
teens experiencing ongoing feelings of sadness or hopelessness, escalating to those being injured
3

in suicide attempts. In 2017, 17.2% of high school students considered attempting suicide, 13.6%
made a suicide plan, and 7.4% attempted suicide (CDC, 2018). In the classroom, teacher
educators are not prepared to support students with the social and emotional challenges facing
both teacher and student (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). The teaching profession is already
emotionally draining due to creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with students
(Chang, 2009; Split et al., 2011) without adding the additional pressure of increasing youth
mental health concerns. Additionally, California legislative bill SB 419 (CA Education Code,
September 9, 2019) bans the suspension of K-8 students for willful defiance, thereby requiring
schools to use alternative disciplinary practices and making teacher educators further responsible
for the ways in which they support student social and emotional challenges. Most recently, the
COVID-19 pandemic introduced another dimension, remote learning, to the mounting challenges
influencing the relationships and connection between teacher and student. During the pandemic,
98% of teachers confessed to feeling more concerned and anxious about their students than
before (NAIS, 2020). As a result, the need for greater systemic and structural interventions to
minimize teacher emotional fatigue is critical.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Albert Bandura’s (1997, 2005) social cognitive theory (SCT) provides a theoretical lens
to examine teacher educator emotional fatigue and coping abilities. SCT presents a dynamic
learning model representing the interactional nature of the influences between a person, their
behavior, and their environment (Bandura, 1997, 2005). The fluid reciprocity between these
factors shows the complexity of interrelated factors impacting teacher emotional fatigue. SCT is
an ideal theory to examine the problem of practice because the theoretical framework highlights
4

the social nature of learning which resonates with the collective and relational aspects of
teaching (Hargreaves, 1998) that contribute to emotional fatigue.
A foundational principle of the theoretical framework is the reliance on observational
learning through modeling desired strategies and behaviors to improve overall learning and
performance, which is a foundational characteristic of a school community. SCT prioritizes the
environmental aspects of an individual’s vicarious experiences and observed social models as
influences that shape a person’s motivation and efficacy and contribute to their resulting
behavior (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Through the context of emotional fatigue, this study
focuses on analyzing the personal perspectives of the teachers to develop a better understanding
of the environmental influences and their behavioral processes.
The study methodology is a cross-sectional survey to capture the experiences and
perspectives of the collective Bryerton Prep teaching population. The quantitative research
design with limited open-ended qualitative response questions develops a more comprehensive
understanding of the problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The quantitative data collection is a
non-experimental survey sent to all teachers. Analysis of the findings from the qualitative
response items further details the experience of teacher emotional fatigue. In tandem, the
quantitative and qualitative response items of the survey provide a more in-depth analysis of the
problem.
Definitions
Several key concepts are integral to understanding the problem: burnout, compassion
fatigue, emotional exhaustion, emotional fatigue, social emotional learning, social emotional
competencies, and teacher stress.
5

• Burnout is defined according to Maslach et al.’s (1997) conclusion that burnout is a
breakdown in coping ability overtime. The researchers attribute three dimensions to
burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (cynicism), and feelings of a lack of
personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 1997).
• Compassion Fatigue is conceptualized by the empathic strain and general exhaustion that
results from prolonged work as caring and helping professionals (Figley, 1995).
• Emotional Exhaustion is defined according to Maslach (2015) as “feelings of being
overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources” (p. 930). Jennings
and Greenberg’s (2009) description provides a more practical definition: emotional stress
or exhaustion is created when teachers lack the necessary social emotional competencies
to handle classroom challenges relating to teacher-student relationships, classroom
management, or creating a positive classroom climate.
• Emotional Fatigue, int his study is the blending of emotional exhaustion and compassion
fatigue. Emotional fatigue combines the energy depletion element of emotional
exhaustion, with the compassion fatigue dimension of feeling too overwhelmed to keep
caring. The emotional warmth and relationship management capacities required of
teachers make them susceptible to emotional fatigue.
• Social Emotional Learning (SEL), per The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL) is “how children and adults learn to understand and
manage emotions, set goals, show empathy for others, establish positive relationships,
and make responsible decisions” (CASEL, n.d.). SEL is rooted in the need for positive
interaction and coping skills as a prerequisite for the social context of learning.
6

• Social Emotional Competencies are five interrelated abilities and behaviors define the
social emotional competencies: self-management, self-awareness, social awareness,
relationship skills, and responsible decision making (CASEL, n.d.). Sub-competencies
comprise each main domain resulting in a total of 25 social emotional factors within the
five main categories.
• Teacher Stress is defined by the negative emotions teachers experience in response to the
demands and pressures they face (Kyriacou, 2001, 2015). Prolonged exposure to internal
and external stressors will make teachers exhausted physically, emotionally and
attitudinally and overtime this results in depleted energy, enthusiasm, and commitment
(Kyriacou, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the importance and
structure of the study, as well as defines the fundamental terminology. Chapter Two reviews
existing literature detailing the key concepts of the study. Additionally, Chapter Two describes
the conceptual framework guiding the study. Chapter Three focuses on the methodology of the
study for selecting participants, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Four discusses the
findings of the study including an analysis of the findings. Finally, Chapter Five outlines
recommendations for practice, based on the data and literature, as well as suggested areas for
future research.

7

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Teacher burnout is a serious threat to retaining an engaged and energized educational
workforce. The concept of burnout, first introduced by Freudenberger (1974), describes a state of
physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion created by prolonged engagement in emotionally
demanding situations. Maslach and Jackson (1981, 1986) attributed three dimensions to burnout:
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (cynicism), and feelings of reduced personal
accomplishment. Rooted in these three components of burnout, Maslach et al. (1997, 2018)
concluded that burnout represents a breakdown in coping ability over time. Other researchers
described burnout more as a continuum: developed in stages (Golembiewski, 1989) or as a
burnout cascade (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Teacher burnout is closely connected with stress. Kyriacou (2001, 2015) defined teacher
stress as “the teacher’s experience of negative emotions such as anxiety, frustration, tension,
anger and depression, in response to the demands and pressures they face in their work as a
teacher” (p. 72) and suggested that burnout is the product of prolonged teacher stress over time.
Eventually, the internal and external stressors of teaching created physical, emotional, and
attitudinal exhaustion that resulted in burnout or depleted energy, enthusiasm, and commitment
(Kyriacou, 2015). For the purpose of this study, teacher burnout and stress were viewed as
interwoven and reciprocal constructs.
The impact of burnout is devastating to teacher well-being and retention, and therefore
school communities as a whole. Research indicated that as many as 40% to 50% of teachers
stopped teaching within their first five years in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Greenberg et al., 2016; Ingersoll et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2017). This turnover cost U.S. schools
more than $7 billion each year (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2007)
8

and negatively impacted student learning and achievement (Greenberg et al., 2016; Ronfelt et al.,
2013). There was also a cost associated with teachers who remained in the profession while
suffering from burnout. As an effort to better understand the teaching experience, this literature
review focused on those teachers who persisted in spite of their emotional fatigue.
Teacher Social Emotional States
The social emotional state of teachers had implications on student outcomes (Herman et
al., 2018; Hoglund et al., 2015; Klusmann et al., 2016; McLean & Connor, 2015), and classroom
climate (Harvey et al., 2012; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Li Grining et al., 2010), as well as
teacher motivation and efficacy (Bottiani et al., 2019; Fernet et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2014). This section focused on understanding the emotional aspects of teaching in order to
contextualize teacher burnout along two main emotional states: emotional exhaustion and
compassion fatigue. Then, the impact of these emotional states was explored on student
outcomes, classroom climate, and teacher motivation and self-efficacy.
The Emotional Labor of Teaching
The emotional intensity of teaching influenced the emotional exhaustion component of
teacher burnout. Hochschild (1983) described emotional labor as what people feel when
engaging in job-related interactions and tasks. Hargreaves (1998) built upon the concept of
emotional labor as a way to contextualize care beyond a personal choice or a moral imperative
and something that can pose as negative stress or self-sacrifice to the person exercising it. The
nature of teaching involved a variety of feelings, including pride, hope, connectedness, curiosity,
concern, inadequacy, vulnerability, and frustration. To complicate the emotional labor further, a
teacher could experience conflicting emotions simultaneously surrounding relationships with
different students or colleagues, thereby adding additional layers of feelings such as confusion,
9

worry, or guilt. Managing the magnitude of feelings alone provided demands for teachers that
depleted their emotional energies and led to emotional, cognitive, and physical fatigue (Ilies et
al., 2015). Understanding the emotional labor of teachers provided insight into teacher’s
emotional exhaustion (Chang, 2009).
Emotional Exhaustion
Emotional exhaustion highlights the energy depletion component of burnout. Maslach
(2015) defined emotional exhaustion as “feelings of being overextended and depleted of one’s
emotional and physical resources” (p. 930). Research identified emotional exhaustion as the
initial indicator that triggered other burnout dimensions of depersonalization and reduced
personal accomplishment (Leiter & Maslach, 1988). Lieter (1992) suggested the emotional
exhaustion component of burnout “implies depletion of the energy and emotional warmth
necessary for interacting with service recipients in a vibrant and supportive manner” (p. 110).
Awa et al. (2009) referred to emotional exhaustion as being depleted of one’s emotional
resources, which further illuminated the draining nature of this common teacher emotional state.
Due to the relational aspects of teaching, focusing on the emotional exhaustion component of
burnout was essential. In a longitudinal study across the school year, the findings of Fernet et al.
(2012) concluded that emotional exhaustion was stable throughout the year but identified
changes in the other burnout components: increased depersonalization and decreased personal
accomplishment. This pervasive and consistent experience of emotional exhaustion for teachers
suggested it was a constant contributor. Jennings and Greenberg (2009) attributed teacher
emotional exhaustion to the lack of social emotional competencies required to handle classroom
challenges relating to teacher-student relationships, classroom management, or creating a
10

positive classroom climate. Teachers experienced emotional exhaustion because of the taxing
nature of their work demands and relationships.
Work Demands as a Contributor to Emotional Exhaustion
The nature of teaching is demanding. Teacher emotional fatigue consisted of a variety of
classroom and personal demands, so examining it through the job demands-resource (JD-R)
model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2003) contextualized the interconnected
resources required of teachers. Several teacher burnout studies applied the framework of a JD-R
model to predict organizational outcomes by examining job strain and engagement (Bottiani et
al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2018; Fernet et al., 2012). The JD-R model assumed there are specific
physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of a job that impacted outcomes either
positively or negatively (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Unfortunately, most teacher education and
development programs did not adequately prepare teachers for the variety of job demands
experienced (Greenberg et al., 2016; Hargreaves, 2000). When job demands outweigh available
resources, teachers are likely to experience greater emotional fatigue.
Classroom demands. Teachers face demands in the classroom, including managing
student behavior and the learning environment that directly influence their emotional fatigue.
Friedman (2006) indicated teacher burnout stems primarily from the social-psychological aspects
of teaching rather than from instructional aspects, meaning classroom management issues or
challenging student relationships were more stressful to teachers than delivering new content or
struggling with low academic achievement. Disruptive student behavior was widely recognized
as the leading job demand impacting teacher emotional exhaustion (Bakker et al., 2007; Bottiani
et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2014, 2018; Martin et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Split et al.,
2011). Like other researchers, Tsouloupas et al. (2010) positively associated teacher perceptions
11

of student misbehavior with their emotional exhaustion. In addition to disruptive student
behavior, teachers managed a variety of other burnout-inducing classroom demands. Researchers
indicated the time pressures teachers experience directly related to the emotional exhaustion
dimension of burnout (Hargreaves, 2005; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010, 2011), and constantly
managing the flow of the school day was certainly challenging. In addition to the school and
classroom challenges, teachers also face more personal job demands that contribute to their
emotional fatigue.
Personal demands. The pressures of teaching affect educators on a personal level.
Teachers reported the highest levels of self-perceived workplace stress compared to other
professions (Hakanen et al., 2006) and it is important to understand the personal factors that
contribute to this perception. Chang (2009) suggested that teacher judgement about their own
experience leads to emotional exhaustion. As a result, further studies indicated the need for
teachers to regulate their own emotions while teaching. Applying Gross’s (2002) concept of
regulating emotion either by reappraisal or suppression allowed insight into how the impact of a
teacher’s emotion suppression affected a teacher’s cognitive capacity and contributed to
emotional exhaustion. Rather than dealing with their own emotions as they arise in the workday,
a teacher must neglect processing their own feelings and continue supporting the needs of their
students, or continuing to deliver academic material. Throughout the day, day after day, work
demands prevented teachers from successfully regulating their emotions and contributed to
increased teacher burnout and emotional exhaustion (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Chang,
2009). Compounding the demands associated with the work of teaching, relationships were
another critical factor in teacher experience.
12

Relationships as a Factor of Emotional Exhaustion
Developing and maintaining relationships is one of the most important characteristics of a
good teacher (Fransson & Frelin, 2016; Fried, 1995; Hargreaves, 1998). Successful teachers not
only are able to maintain rewarding relationships with their students but additionally are
connected to their colleagues and able to develop positive rapport with school administrators.
Together, these relationships enabled teachers to be fully integrated as part of the school
community and reflected strong teacher-environment fit (Pietarinen et al., 2013). Fernet et al.
(2012) suggested, “the relational nature of teaching puts teachers at high risk for emotional
drainage, which could explain their vulnerability to burnout” (p. 514). Research showed that
interpersonal relationships between teachers and their students, as well as the larger school
community contributed to burnout (Pyhalto et al., 2011).
Teacher-School Relationships. Relationships with adults on campus gave teachers a
sense of collegial support (Johnson et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2013), but required emotional
energy to manage relationships with parents, colleagues, and school administrators. Bottiani et
al. (2019) suggested that teachers’ perceptions of affiliations with colleagues were more
important than those with principal leadership in protecting against burnout. These findings
aligned with other research suggesting teachers’ perception of interpersonal relationships
influenced the burnout process more than their principal’s leadership behaviors (Fernet et al.,
2012). Teachers who did not feel a sense of belonging at school reported less job satisfaction and
were more apt to leave their school or the profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Relationships
with colleagues and school leadership either created a sense of belonging or connectedness if
positive or contributed to burnout symptoms if negative (Pietarinen et al., 2013).
13

Student-Teacher Relationships. Teacher-student relationships were often cited as the
critical factor causing teachers to stay in the profession (Hargreaves, 1998; O’Connor, 2008), yet
also represented a significant source of teacher emotional exhaustion (Chang, 2009; Harmsen et
al., 2018; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Split et al., 2011; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Chang (2009)
examined the habitual patterns in student-teacher relationships where a student’s behavior
impacted teachers’ judgements and created unpleasant emotions, which then resulted in burnout.
As this cycle repeated, the emotional stress demanded to manage student misbehavior heightened
teacher emotional exhaustion (Chang, 2009). These findings were consistent with other studies
where negative pupil aspects such as student misbehavior and poor student relationships were
positively connected to teacher stress responses of tension, discontent, and negative emotions
(Harmsen et al., 2018). The researchers explored teacher job demands (stress causes) and the
resulting psychological strain (stress responses), suggesting the more beginning teachers
experience negative pupil aspects, the greater their perceived discontent (Harmsen et al., 2018).
Furthermore, the researchers positively related discontent with attrition and found that teachers
with high discontent had 1.61 times greater odds of leaving the teaching profession (Harmsen et
al., 2018). Split et al. (2011) examined the influence of student misbehavior on teacher stress
from a relationship perspective and concluded that it was “not the student misbehavior in general
but the extent to which it undermines the teacher-student relationship that may cause prolonged
distress in teachers” (p. 470). This relationships-based perspective allowed for the variance in
how different teachers may experience stress or emotional exhaustion in different ways. The
relational aspect of teaching made it challenging for teachers to not become too personally
attached or care too deeply about their students, which may lead to other stressors.
14

Compassion Fatigue
Compassion fatigue is a parallel factor in teacher burnout. Figley (1995) concluded
compassion fatigue is “the cost of caring” (p. 7) and described it as a naturally occurring
response that was the resulting consequence of knowing about another’s trauma. Compassion
fatigue was further conceptualized as the empathic strain and general exhaustion that results
from prolonged work with people in distress (Figley, 1995). The parallel concept of secondary
traumatic stress, developed by Stamm (1995), described the negative emotions or fear in the
workplace caused by exposure to the traumatic events experienced by others. These potential
consequences may be experienced by those working in any caring and helping professions.
Previous research examined the impact on first responders and health professionals, but little
research applied these concepts to educators, the professionals daily representing the frontline of
student support.
Caring and helping professionals are vulnerable to absorbing stressors because of the
empathic component of their work. Slatten et al. (2011) designated the difference between
compassion fatigue and burnout in terms of the duration of the stressor, indicating that
compassion fatigue escalated quickly, compared to burnout which evolved gradually. The
researchers further illustrated compassion fatigue as an occupational hazard, in contrast to
burnout as an organizational hazard (Slatten et al., 2011). Similarly, Stamm (2010) further
distinguished compassion fatigue from burnout according to the component of work environment
contributions to psychological and emotional exhaustion. Ultimately, compassion fatigue is
distinguished from burnout and emotional exhaustion because of the chronic application of
empathy in helping others (Figley, 2002; Stamm, 2010).
15

Compassion fatigue is closely related to emotional exhaustion. In a meta-analysis of
factors associated with compassion fatigue among mental health professionals, Turgoose and
Maddox (2017) indicated that a large number of studies demonstrated an association between
compassion fatigue and burnout. After reviewing 32 studies, the researchers concluded, “As
constructs, they both purport to describe the psychological and physical effects of mentally and
emotionally demanding work that develop over time” (p. 180) and illuminated the shared
component of emotional exhaustion. Other studies in the meta-analysis indicated similarities and
crossover between predictors of compassion fatigue and emotional exhaustion. Sprang et al.
(2011) specified that younger mental health professionals experienced a greater likelihood to
report compassion fatigue. Turgoose and Maddox (2017) indicated that three studies correlated
higher levels of compassion fatigue among females (Sprang et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2014;
Zeidner et al., 2013). Finally, the researchers surmised that “professionals who are experiencing
psychological distress and fatigue are less likely to report feeling satisfaction in their role”
(Turgoose & Maddox, 2017, p. 179). Experience, gender, and job satisfaction as predictive
components of mental health worker compassion fatigue, were also found in the literature
predicting teacher emotional exhaustion. Similarly, social support at work was associated with
lower compassion fatigue (Thompson et al., 2014) just as meaningful relationships buffered
emotional exhaustion and teacher burnout (Bottiani et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Rooted in these similarities between compassion fatigue and
emotional exhaustion, it was possible that teachers in urban, low-income schools who reported
high levels of stress and burnout did so because of the care required to support students facing
chronic traumatic stressors (Bottiani et al., 2019; Dorado et al., 2016; Newell & MacNeil, 2010).
These intense and repetitive stressors greatly impacted teacher well-being.
16

Impact of Emotional States
The effects of emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue are detrimental to teacher
well-being. Studies linked work stress and burnout with serious mental health challenges such as
anxiety, depression, and suicide (Choi, 2018; Melchior et al., 2007). Additionally, burnout
created feelings of disengagement, detachment, helplessness, and depression (Leiter & Durup,
1994; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In addition to chronic physical and emotional exhaustion,
Negash and Sahin (2011) attributed compassion fatigue with headaches, feelings of inequity and
irritability, and negative feelings towards work, life, and others. Furthermore, female teachers
often reported higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion (Bottiani et al., 2019; O’Brennan
et al., 2017), which is concerning because 76.2 % of the United States teaching force is female
(NCES, 2020).
The psychosocial implications of chronic stress and burnout have lasting impact on
teacher well-being. McEwen’s allostatic load model explained how the effort-reward-imbalance
and exhaustion of chronic work stress contribute to compounded health challenges (McEwen,
1998; McEwen & Seeman, 1999; McEwen & Stellar, 1993). Allostatic load describes the
cumulative physiological burden managed by the body while adapting to and anticipating life’s
demands (McEwen, 1998). In a study of female teachers, Bellingrath et al. (2009) correlated high
levels of exhaustion and effort-reward-imbalance with high levels of allostatic load, “reflecting
the cumulative wear-and-tear that results from repeated efforts to adapt to stressors over time”
(p. 46). In addition to negatively impacting teacher well-being, emotional exhaustion and
compassion fatigue affected student outcomes, classroom climate, and teacher motivation and
efficacy.
17

Student Outcomes
A teacher’s overall well-being impacts student outcomes (Herman et al., 2018; Hoglund
et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2012; McLean & Connor, 2015). Johnson et al. (2012) illustrated the
connections between teacher work environment characteristics of collegial relationships,
principal support, and school culture with student achievement growth and indicated these
characteristics were important for student success as well as teacher growth. Herman et al.
(2018) also reported a relationship between poor student outcomes and teachers experiencing
high stress and high burnout with low coping abilities. Similarly, Hoglund et al. (2015) showed
how teacher burnout negatively affected teacher-student relationships, school engagement, and
literacy skills throughout a school term. The resulting culture of disengagement impacted
academic skills (Hoglund et al., 2015). In a study exploring depressive symptoms in third-grade
teachers with classroom quality and student achievement, McLean and Connor (2015) revealed
that teachers’ depressive symptoms resulted in weaker math achievement gains for students
compared to peers whose teachers have no or fewer symptoms. The researchers described a
negative loop where the low achievement introduced greater depressive feelings and thereby
weaker classroom learning environments and poorer student outcomes.
Classroom Climate
Teacher emotional states affect the classroom emotional climate and influence the felt
emotions of students (Harvey et al., 2012). Flanders (1970) initially developed the concept of a
classroom climate and only included one emotional element: a teacher’s acceptance of feelings.
In today’s classroom, however, research suggested that emotion played a significant role.
Teacher well-being directly influenced their ability to create a supportive learning environment
(Cumming, 2016; Jeon et al., 2018). Li Grining et al. (2010) suggested teachers’ psychosocial
18

stressors were significant predictors of their classroom emotional climate. The researchers
attributed lower rankings for classroom behavior management, social interaction, and ability to
manage work stressors in correlation with the greater number of personal stressors a teacher
managed (Li Grining et al., 2010). Other research suggested teacher well-being directly impacted
student prosocial and emotional behavior (Breeman et al., 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
A teacher’s ability to offer emotional support to students is a critical feature of a positive
classroom climate. Pianta et al. (2008) described emotional support as one of the three domains
of classroom quality and championed the need for emotional connection, mutual respect, and
appreciation for student perspectives. For emotional support to be integrated into the classroom
climate, Pianta et al. (2008) indicated the key importance of teachers’ emotional awareness and
their responsivity to students’ emotions as a result. Harvey et al. (2012) recognized emotional
interactions as a leading contributor to classroom tone and suggested emotions are the
foundations for “teachers’ interpersonal attitudes toward, their like, and caring for students, and
their ability to provide a safe, secure social environment” (p. 629). Moreover, the researchers
suggested that “teachers’ emotional skills (or deficits) are likely to be modeled for students
through countless emotional encounters on a day-to-day basis” (Harvey et al., 2012, p. 629),
indicating how critical a teacher’s emotional response patterns were to building positive
classroom climate. McLean and Connor (2015) concluded that teachers with greater depressive
symptoms were less likely to create high-quality classroom learning environments. They further
described how students with weaker math abilities at the start of the year made significant
achievement gains with teachers who maintained high-quality classroom learning environments.
The powerful impact of a teacher’s well-being on student success cannot be minimized;
therefore, supporting their continued motivation is critical.
19

Teacher Motivation
Teacher motivation is influenced by a combination of ability beliefs, values, and
expectancies for success--all of which can be negatively affected by emotional fatigue. Wigfield
and Eccles’ (2000) expectancy-value theory (EVT) model proposes that “individuals’ choice,
persistence, and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will do on
the activity and the extent to which they value the activity” (p. 68), and is comprised by three
main attributes: ability beliefs, expectancies for success, and values. Ability beliefs and
expectancies for success are closely connected to self-efficacy beliefs and expectations (Bandura,
1997) and are strong predictors of behavior, choice, effort, and persistence (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). EVT research demonstrates that an individuals’ values predict their choices, and ability
beliefs and expectancies for success reflect individuals’ performance (Eccles et al., 1993;
Wigfield et al., 1997). Value in the context of EVT has four components: attainment value,
intrinsic value, utility value, and cost (Eccles, 1983). Watt and Richardson (2007) expounded on
the EVT value constructs in conjunction with teacher motivation specifically. The researchers
conceptualized value as it related to teacher motivation as follows: personal utility value (i.e.,
attainment value) defining the personal importance placed on a task; social utility value
spotlighting the social importance of a task; intrinsic value emphasizing the satisfaction of
performing a task; and cost, interweaving the constructs of effort, financial, emotional, and
opportunity costs.
Ability beliefs, expectancies for success, and values have implications for motivation to
begin and to persist teaching. Richardson and Watt (2005) applied the EVT model to teacher
motivation and attribute abilities, intrinsic and social utility value, as well as aspirations to
interact with children, as key factors inspiring teachers to enter the profession. Research also
20

suggested the potential for meaningful relationships were a value that influenced the desire to
teach (Pop & Turner, 2009; Thomson & Palermo, 2018), and a teacher’s perception about
teaching was often influenced by their own K-12 schooling experiences (Thomson et al., 2012;
Thomson & Palermo, 2014). Furthermore, feelings about teaching in general often correlated
with feelings of success with students specifically (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001),
and teachers who felt successful interacting with students persisted in spite of various challenges
(Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Fernet et al. (2012) identified teacher perception of classroom
overload and disruptive student behavior as factors that negatively affected teacher autonomous
motivation, which impacted teacher emotional exhaustion. Eccles (2009) simplified EVT to two
fundamental motivational questions: “Can I do it?” and “Do I want to do it?” In the context of
teacher emotional fatigue, asking these motivational questions provides insight to determine how
greatly a teacher values the exhausting work of teaching and their efficacy beliefs to ensure
success.
Teacher Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy is a motivational construct that is predictive of emotional
exhaustion. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as an individuals’ beliefs regarding their
capabilities to successfully complete a course of action. In the framework of social cognitive
theory, self-efficacy beliefs provide the foundation for an individual’s motivation and well-
being. Pajares (2009) described self-efficacy beliefs as an individual’s self-perceptions about
their personal capabilities. Self-efficacy beliefs foster an individuals’ expected outcomes,
determine the amount of effort an individual will expend or choices they will make, and
influence a person’s emotional reactions (Pajares, 2009). Self-efficacy measures should reflect
judgements about capability, not intention (Bandura, 2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs show
21

their own perceived capability to positively influence student learning or behavior and are very
connected to teacher emotional fatigue as a result. Dicke et al. (2018) suggested that self-efficacy
in classroom management facilitated a critical role in teacher burnout because it had the power to
boost engagement and motivation while also buffering the emotional exhaustion caused by
classroom disturbance.
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs impact their feelings of emotional exhaustion. Leiter
(1992) referred to burnout as a crisis or breakdown in efficacy. Bottiani et al. (2019) claimed
teachers with higher self-efficacy reported lower levels of stress and burnout. These findings
were consistent with other researchers who positively related self-efficacy with work
engagement and job satisfaction, and negatively with emotional exhaustion (Avanzi et al., 2013;
Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). In a study of 2,569 Norwegian
elementary and middle school teachers, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) suggested that both
autonomy and self-efficacy were independent predictors of teacher engagement, job satisfaction,
and emotional exhaustion. When teachers perceived they have low self-efficacy to manage their
classrooms, researchers predicted significantly higher emotional exhaustion (Dicke et al., 2014;
Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Unfortunately, low classroom management self-efficacy is a pervasive
issue. Herman et al. (2018) reported that only 7% of teachers in their study categorized as “well-
adjusted” by indicating low stress and burnout and high coping and efficacy, which showed the
relationship between burnout and efficacy, and the severe effect burnout can have on a teacher’s
self-efficacy. Due to the serious implications of burnout, school communities are responsible for
introducing mitigating strategies to alleviate teacher emotional fatigue.
22

Strategies and Recommendations to Mitigate Emotional Fatigue
Implementing teacher-focused and organization-based strategies to protect against
emotional fatigue can support teachers personally, behaviorally, and environmentally. This
section focused on empirical recommendations to mitigate teacher emotional fatigue according
to the teacher-focused strategies of improving student-teacher relationships and developing
community through social connectedness. Additionally, the organization-based
recommendations of systemic interventions such as school-wide social emotional learning (SEL)
implementation or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) to improve school
culture were highlighted.
Teacher-Focused
Developing coping strategies and efficacy to enable teachers to better manage their
emotional fatigue is critical to their continued success in the profession. This section explored
the value of teacher-student relationships (Fransson & Frelin, 2016; Jennings & Greenberg,
2009; Split et al., 2011) and social connectedness (Bottiani et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2012;
Pietarinen et al., 2013; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011) as possible recommendations to mitigate
teacher emotional fatigue. Relationships and connectedness provide teachers with compassion
satisfaction, the pleasure derived from doing their work well (Stamm, 2012), and so focusing on
increasing their efficacy in these domains is important.
Teacher-Student Relationships
Improved teacher-student relationships minimized teacher emotional fatigue (Fransson &
Frelin, 2016; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Split et al., 2011). Fransson and Frelin (2016) studied
the characteristics of highly committed teachers and concluded that commitment to teaching
correlated with commitment to students because of the relationships formed. The researchers
23

shared that when committed teachers discussed student relationships, the “emotional aspects and
engagement seemed to be important factors for the informants and included joy, care, ‘love’ and
feeling important” (p. 903). These meaningful relationships helped teachers keep going and stay
committed to student learning and well-being. Additionally, healthy teacher-student relationships
were important for teacher well-being (Breeman et al., 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Research showed that children who developed positive relationships with their teachers
had stronger social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment in the learning environment (Breeman
et al., 2015; Split et al., 2011). Jennings and Greenberg (2009) focused on the social emotional
competencies (SEC) required for teachers to handle classroom and student challenges without
experiencing emotional stress. Social emotional competencies are categorized as self-awareness,
self-management, social-awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making
(CASEL, 2017). In order to develop and maintain caring and supportive teacher-student
relationships, teachers need to develop capacity for strong relationship management skills, a core
dimension of SEC. The promotion of healthy coping strategies as related to developing social
emotional competence of teachers allows them to be more connected to the school community as
a whole.
Social Connectedness
Teacher connectedness to the school community mitigates their experience of burnout.
Deci and Ryan (2000) considered relatedness a fundamental human need, and research indicated
these feelings of belonging contributed to teacher job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).
Weiss (1999) related supportive environments with teacher motivation to stay in the profession.
Furthermore, teachers reporting greater affiliation with colleagues reported lower stress and
burnout (Bottiani et al., 2019), which aligned with the findings of Xanthopoulou et al. (2007)
24

that attributed social support as a buffering resource against burnout. Pietarinen et al. (2013)
posited a “teacher’s successful co-regulation (i.e., their ability to utilise social resources)
correlates negatively with all burnout components: exhaustion, cynicism towards the teacher
community and inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction” (p. 69). Johnson et al. (2012) predicted
teacher job satisfaction with the social conditions of a school: the school’s culture, principal’s
leadership, and relationships between colleagues. When teachers are able to successfully seek
and receive social support, they feel greater connection.
Teachers who felt a sense of belonging were less likely to suffer from emotional
exhaustion and more likely to remain in the teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).
The researchers predicted feelings of belonging with teachers’ relations with principals,
colleagues, and parents, which “indicates the importance of creating an atmosphere of mutual
trust and respect among all groups at a school” (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011, p. 1036). While
teachers are ultimately responsible for the quality of their relationships and are in control of the
community they feel on campus, working in an environment where connectedness is valued by
their organization is helpful to their well-being.
Organization-Based
The emotional burden of teaching rests directly on the teachers in the absence of
organization-based systemic supports integrated throughout a school community. School-wide
SEL implementation (CASEL, 2017; Oberle et al., 2016; Jennings & Frank, 2015; Taylor &
Dymnicki, 2007) and PBIS adoption (Horner et al., 2005; Ross et al., 2012; Sorlie et al., 2016)
were two organization-based solutions that, when designed and administered effectively and with
fidelity, could potentially balance the weight teachers felt that compounded their emotional
fatigue. SEL and PBIS school-wide approaches provided frameworks of support to drive certain
25

behaviors and values consistently across school communities. These frameworks were examples
of Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) that provided a continuum of services to support the
academic, behavioral, and social emotional well-being of students, and focused on proactively
providing inclusive and universal supports to all students (CDE, 2019; Guide to Understanding
California MTSS, n.d.). An additional benefit of MTSS frameworks was the support provided to
teacher educators, as well as students, that strengthened the overall school community.
School-Wide SEL Implementation
School-wide SEL implementation results in the development of stronger coping
competencies for teachers and students. CASEL outlined a framework of five core SEL
competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social-awareness, relationship skills, and
responsible decision making (CASEL, 2017). When integrated into how and what is taught, these
five domains supported learners in a variety of ways, including the ability to manage stress,
regulate emotions, and set goals (CASEL, 2017). Beyond improved social interactions and
attitudes, research also reflected significant gains in academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011;
Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007; Zins et al., 2007). In a meta-analysis spanning Kindergarten through
12th-grade students, Durlak et al. (2011) attributed an 11-percentile-point gain in student
achievement following SEL implementation. The positive influence on student achievement as a
result of school-wide prioritization of SEL competencies implied beneficial implications for the
overall school community.
SEL competencies should be assimilated into all aspects of the school experience,
encompassing curricular resources, instructional practices, and relationships between teachers,
staff, students, and families (CASEL, 2017; Oberle et al., 2016; Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007). This
approach extends beyond intentional curricular integration and affects the interaction of people
26

on a school campus. Supporting and motivating teachers to integrate SEL into the many layers of
the school experience was critical because there were misconceptions about what SEL was and
why it was critical for success (Ambrose et al., 2010). Programmatically, most SEL frameworks
included skills-focused and environment-focused components that explicitly provided SEL skill
instruction incorporating techniques aimed to influence the implicit creation of an environment
that cultivated SEL development (O’Conner et al., 2017). With a school-wide approach, SEL
was taught both formally and informally via adult modeling of competencies in tandem with
classroom-based programming (Oberle et al., 2016). Adult modeling of SEL competencies was a
critical component of SEL integration on a school campus, and CASEL (n.d.) recommended a
focus on adult SEL as the first phase of implementation. Markowitz et al. (2018) posited school
culture played a significant role in teacher effectiveness when modeling SEL competencies and
that despite previous SEL training a teacher may have, it was a struggle to integrate SEL
competencies when not prioritized and part of the school culture. The researchers identified three
essential conditions that contributed to positive SEL outcomes: a supportive school culture with
consistent SEL language and approaches, a solid framework, and time for learning, practice,
reflection, and improvement amongst the teachers (Markowitz et al., 2018).
Both teachers and students have continuous opportunities for learning and connection
with an integrated school-wide approach. Yang et al. (2018) examined student engagement by
evaluating the influence of social and emotional instruction on teacher-student relationships and
student-student relationships, the main drivers of student connectedness and engagement. The
researchers suggested school-wide support was essential to teaching social emotional
competencies resulting in increased engagement and connectedness of students (Yang et al.,
2018). School-wide support and implementation of SEL developed teacher learning and
27

motivation through ongoing modeling of SEL competencies from all stakeholders (Ambrose et
al., 2010; Bandura, 2012). While the research showed that school-wide support was essential,
several organizational barriers impeded SEL implementation.
Organizational Barriers Impede Motivation. Teacher motivation to integrate SEL
approaches into instruction was one of the biggest obstacles preventing SEL adoption. Research
showed “ a school-wide SEL project, the use of SEL standards and a culture of learning by doing
enhance teachers’ integration of SEL in their classrooms, while time constraints, need for
differentiation and lack of planning space hinder teachers’ implementation of SEL” (Martinez,
2016, p. 21). With an abundance of organizational barriers challenging cohesive SEL
implementation, empowering teachers through collaborating around SEL best practices and
providing time to incorporate SEL planning helped motivate teachers to support SEL initiatives.
Teachers and administrators identified social and emotional competencies as contributors to
student success but often lacked the time and tools to facilitate intentional social emotional
learning (Bridgeland et al., 2013; DePaoli et al., 2017; Yoder & Nolan, 2018).
Researchers identified lack of time as a predominant challenge to developing SEL
competencies (Buchanan et al., 2009; Martinez, 2016), and this constraint posed a deterrent for
teachers. Martinez (2016) highlighted that while the teachers “expressed the desire to help
students be successful in the future and the need to address the whole child, the priority in
practice was on students’ mastery of the academic standards” (p. 11). As a result, the teachers
expressed tension between developing social and emotional competencies and developing
academic mastery; they felt they did not have sufficient time for adequate instruction in both
domains (Martinez, 2016). This finding was consistent with other teacher perceptions that
academic burdens prevented SEL instruction (Buchanan et al., 2009).
28

As teachers learned to become more fluent about their own SEL competencies, they
became more motivated to integrate them into their daily classroom practices (Jennings, 2015).
Buettner et al. (2016) explored the correlation between teachers’ psychological load and coping
abilities juxtaposed with their capacity to support the social-emotional needs of their students.
The researchers noted teachers with lower psychological loads (stress, emotional exhaustion,
etc.) and better coping competencies (ability to deal with stress through problem and emotion-
focused strategies) had greater social-emotional capacity, were able to better meet the emotional
needs of students, and responded to student emotions and demands more positively (Buettner et
al., 2016). Teachers’ motivation grew markedly when SEL was correctly implemented because
of the tangible benefits to both teacher and student. As a result, teachers need repeated exposure
and practice to develop and model social emotional competencies.
Ongoing Professional Development Needs. Teachers benefit from regular professional
development opportunities to build their social emotional competencies and teaching approaches.
Research demonstrated teacher preparation programs and professional development often lacked
SEL components (Buchanan et al., 2009; Markowitz, et al., 2018; Martinez, 2016; Oberle et al.,
2016; Yang et al., 2018; Yopp et al., 2017). Markowitz et al. (2018) described SEL as an
“iterative process that involves examining assumptions, modeling and observing competencies,
practicing strategies, and reflecting throughout the process” (p. 32). This iterative cycle required
ongoing professional development for teachers who identified knowledge and training as the
biggest obstacles to SEL success (Buchanan et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018). Therefore, school
leadership should allocate time and resources for ongoing professional development to support
teacher motivation and develop efficacy regarding SEL competencies. Poulou (2017) suggested
that teachers’ commitment to teaching emotional skills correlated with their overall stress, job
29

satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Furthermore, equipping teachers with the skills needed to
successfully implement SEL reduced educator burn-out and job stress while providing positive
outcomes for students (Jennings & Frank, 2015). Yoder and Gurke (2017) designed a toolkit to
support ongoing coaching for educators recognizing in order for teachers to facilitate the social
emotional growth of their students, they first needed tools and coaching to plan, observe, reflect,
and collaborate. This approach was consistent with Martinez’s (2016) conclusion that coaching-
style training models that allowed teachers to reflect, observe, and receive immediate feedback
about their teaching practices benefited teacher implementation. In their research, Taylor and
Dymnicki (2007) identified two key approaches: content-specific instruction in SEL and
developing nurturing and supportive learning communities. Teachers need ongoing support to
infuse SEL into existing academic curriculum and to incorporate informal SEL practices beyond
traditional classroom instruction.
PBIS Offers a School-Wide Framework
Research suggested adopting the positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)
framework can help offset teacher emotional exhaustion and burnout. PBIS, sometimes called
school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS), is a whole-school program aimed at promoting
positive behavior expectations and incentives to drive desired student behavioral outcomes
(Horner et al., 2005; Ross et al., 2012). A PBIS framework implemented consistently across all
school contexts included seven core features: a PBIS team, a behavioral support coach,
positively stated school-wide behavioral expectations, a plan to define and teach the school-wide
behavioral expectations, a reward system for students who exhibit expected positive behaviors, a
school-wide system for responding to behavior violations, and a formal system to collect,
analyze, and use disciplinary data (Horner et al., 2005). Maslach et al. (2001) encouraged
30

interventions targeted at mitigating burnout to teach individual skills as well as improve work
environments. The PBIS model accomplished this by addressing specific attitudes and behaviors
and creating a more positive school environment.
A goal of PBIS is to create opportunities for teachers and students to have positive
interactions and relationships. McIntosh et al. (2010) found that both teachers and students were
validated by the positive interactions that came from recognizing students who met the school’s
behavior expectations. Bradshaw et al. (2008) suggested that through targeting staff behaviors,
PBIS changed school environments by improving student behavior systems and procedures.
Potentially, as student behavior improves with PBIS implementation, the potential stressors
exhausting teachers can be minimized. In a study analyzing the relationship between teacher
well-being and implementation of PBIS, Ross et al. (2012) determined that teachers had
decreased burnout and increased self-efficacy in schools implementing PBIS with fidelity.
Importantly, schools with high PBIS fidelity and high socioeconomic status had significantly
higher teacher efficacy scores and significantly lower emotional exhaustion scores than average
(Ross et al., 2012). Ross and Horner (2007) also reported a relationship between PBIS and
teacher perception of increased self-efficacy and reduced stress. Other research indicated
improved collective efficacy across entire school campuses due to PBIS implementation (Sorlie
et al., 2016). Collective efficacy describes a group’s shared beliefs about their combined ability
to accomplish a course of action (Pajares, 2009). In the context of an educational community, the
positive implications of collective efficacy on a school environment were exciting to consider.
Improving teacher well-being through implementing PBIS allowed schools to target students’
social, emotional, and behavioral adjustments that had positive implications for teacher
31

emotional fatigue (Breeman et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2012). PBIS positively impacts overall
school organizational health.
The Organizational Health Inventory for Elementary Schools (OHI) measures five core
features: resource influence, staff affiliation, academic emphasis, collegial leadership, and
institutional integrity (Hoy & Feldman, 1987). Bradshaw et al. (2008) concluded that school-
wide PBIS implementation improved aspects of organizational health, especially the staff
affiliation component. The researchers suggested that training the teachers in PBIS increased
positivity, friendliness and collaboration among the staff. These attributes had a positive impact
on a teacher’s perception of connectedness and sense of belonging at school. Herman et al.
(2018) also suggested PBIS as a solution to foster nurturing environments, not just for students
learning on campus but also for the adults working on campus.
Summary
Teacher emotional fatigue is a pervasive and serious problem. Teaching is an emotional
practice (Hargreaves, 1998) that depletes the energy required of teachers (Ilies et al., 2015),
making them so vulnerable to burnout (Fernet et al., 2012). Furthermore, the relational aspects of
teaching compounded the emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1986) and
compassion fatigue (Figley, 1995) felt by teachers. The resulting emotional fatigue created by
work and relationship demands (Bottiani et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2018; Fernet et al., 2012;
Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011) on a teacher, specifically managing student relationships and
behavior (Chang, 2009; Harmsen et al., 2018; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Split et al., 2011;
Tsouloupas et al., 2010), had far-reaching effects.
Teacher emotional fatigue negatively impacted student learning outcomes (Herman et al.,
2018; Hoglund et al., 2015; Klusmann et al., 2016; McLean & Connor, 2015), classroom climate
32

(Cumming, 2016; Harvey et al., 2012; Jeon et al., 2018; Li Grining et al., 2010), and teacher
motivation and self-efficacy (Bottiani et al., 2018; Fernet et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2014). Correspondingly, emotional fatigue had a harmful impact on teacher well-being
(Bellingrath et al., 2009; Bottiani et al., 2019; McLean & Connor, 2015; O’Brennan et al., 2017).
Teacher-focused and organization-based strategies are needed to mitigate the effect of teacher
emotional fatigue. Teacher-focused strategies explored included building stronger relationships
and greater social emotional competence of teachers (Breeman et al., 2015; Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009). Effective organization-based solutions that provided school-wide support
systems such as SEL (CASEL, 2017; Oberle et al., 2016; Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007) or PBIS
implementation (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2012; Sorlie et al., 2016) also helped to offset
the negative impact this problem had on teachers. The interconnected and reciprocal
relationships of a teacher’s personal, behavioral, and environmental influences were important
components working in tandem to either compound or prevent teacher emotional fatigue.
Collectively, these factors and relationships form the basis of the SCT conceptual framework
guiding this study.
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical model of Bandura’s (1997, 2005) SCT provided the foundation of this
conceptual framework. SCT highlighted the interactional nature of the influences between a
person, their behavior, and their environment (Bandura, 1997, 2005). Due to the reciprocity
between these factors, each played a critical role in conceptualizing teacher emotional fatigue.
As a learning theory, SCT integrated self-efficacy and self-regulation into the ways that people
think, act, and were motivated (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Importantly, SCT examined the role of
the social learning environment in shaping a person and their behavior by considering an
33

individual’s vicarious experiences and observed social models (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
The personal, behavioral, and environmental implications relating to teacher emotional fatigue
are considerable.
Personal Factors
A teacher’s motivation, self-efficacy, and social emotional competencies were important
personal factors that impact their self-regulatory processes and emotional fatigue. The two
foundational questions proposed by expectancy-value theory of “Can I do it?” and “Do I want to
do it?” (Eccles, 2006) reflected both a teacher’s personal efficacy beliefs and motivation while
influencing their ability beliefs, values, and expectancies for success. These questions explained
the variance in teacher emotional fatigue from the personal perspective to indicate why some
experiences created burnout in certain teachers but not others. Consequently, teachers needed
strong social emotional competencies themselves to develop their own self-awareness, self-
management, social-awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making (CASEL,
2017) before they were able to interact effectively with students because of the behavior
challenges and complex relationships they presented, as well as environmental constraints
wherein a teacher operated. Building a teacher’s personal capacity first allowed them to
positively influence the emotional development and regulation of their students.
Behavioral Processes
The behavioral factors of a teacher’s relationships, connection, behavior management,
and coping strategies were rooted in their motivation and efficacy beliefs. When teachers
demonstrated choice, effort, and persistence, these behaviors reflected a commitment to building
strong relationships with students and adults that introduced a culture of connectedness on
campus (Fransson & Frelin, 2016; Harvey et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2013). Without this
34

sense of belonging, the personal demands felt too overwhelming, thus illustrating the reciprocal
nature of these components (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Research suggested that managing
student misbehavior was the leading contributor to teacher burnout (Bakker et al., 2007; Bottiani
et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2014, 2018; Martin et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Split et al.,
2011), which implied that teachers needed strong personal motivation, self-efficacy, and social
emotional competencies in order to cope effectively. Importantly, a teacher’s ability to build
meaningful connections within a campus community was facilitated not just by their personal
factors but also tethered to the environmental influences of their workplace.
Environmental Influences
Learning is a social experience (Veer et al., 1994), and the ways in which teachers
interact with the environmental influences of their school’s culture, values, support structures,
and leadership impacted their emotional fatigue. A school’s culture and values were strongly
reflected in the ways the school systematizes the support it provides to students and faculty
across all domain areas: academic, social emotional, and behavioral. Schein (2017)
conceptualized culture as an organization’s shared meaning for how individuals act, react, and
process their collective experience. The resulting observed social models influenced teacher-
student, teacher-teacher, teacher-staff, teacher-parent, and teacher-administrator relationships
and interactions to further define a school’s culture, values, and available support systems.
SCT and Emotional Fatigue
The personal, behavioral, and environmental components impacting teacher emotional
fatigue are interwoven, as seen in Figure 1. The interconnected elements either compounded or
alleviated the problem to allow teachers to successfully cope or energetically deplete when
confronted with emotionally demanding situations. Applying the SCT model to this problem
35

accounted for the variance in teacher emotional fatigue across gender, experience level, grade
taught, school community, and countless other variables. Therefore, SCT acknowledged the
complexity of the factors impacting teacher emotional fatigue, and the resulting implications on
sustainable teacher well-being and student success.

Figure 1
Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Emotional Fatigue: A Conceptual Framework

36

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methodology used to assess teacher
emotional fatigue, contributing factors, and mitigating strategies used by faculty at Bryerton
Preparatory Academy in order to illuminate the significance of this problem in the independent
school sector spanning primary and secondary teachers. The research process was rooted in SCT
as a framework for highlighting the personal, behavioral, and environmental influences that
contributed to the collective teacher emotional fatigue experience. In acknowledgement of the
researcher’s positionality, teacher subjects were invited to participate in an anonymous survey
consisting of standard Likert-type items and open-ended responses to share their experience.
Ethical implications associated with the research were considered as well.
Research Questions
The intent of these guiding questions served to better understand the experience of
teacher emotional fatigue as a blend of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and compassion fatigue.
Additionally, these questions guided a deeper exploration of the reciprocal relationships between
the contributing personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on a teacher’s cumulative
emotional fatigue. Subsequently, the research questions facilitated recommendations to better
support teachers in the future. The following research questions guided the study:
1. To what degree do teachers experience emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue?
2. Which variables predict burnout in teacher experience?
3. How does teacher experience differ post COVID-19?
4. How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue?
37

Overview of Design
A purposive quantitative research design guided the study. Quantitative research
provided standardized procedures for both questions and answers that increased the study’s
objectivity and allowed for the results to be applied to a wider setting and population (Morgan,
2014). The quantitative data collection was a non-experimental survey sent to all teachers that
aimed to describe, compare, and correlate conditions of teacher emotional fatigue. Primarily, the
study focused on describing teacher emotional fatigue, including contributing factors and coping
strategies. The comparative focus examined similarities and differences across the primary and
secondary teaching experience. Robinson and Leonard (2019) suggested an advantage of the
survey research design was the ability to easily compare between subgroups, and this was a
principal factor in the comparative analysis of this study. Additionally, the study aimed to
examine the teaching experience and emotional fatigue following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finally, a correlational dimension sought to determine a relationship between emotional
exhaustion and compassion fatigue to substantiate the presence of teacher emotional fatigue. The
survey research approach captured the attitudes and opinions of a population by studying the
Bryerton sample with the intent to generalize to the larger teaching population (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The survey consisted of Likert type items and open-ended response questions to
triangulate the data findings thereby increasing the credibility of the study. Table 1 describes the
data sources and alignment to research questions explored in the study.

38

Table 1
Data Source
Research Questions
Likert type
Questions
Open-ended
Questions
RQ1: To what degree do teachers
experience emotional exhaustion and
compassion fatigue?
X X
RQ2: Which variables predict burnout in
teacher experience?
X
RQ3: How does teacher experience differ
post COVID-19?
X
RQ4: How are teachers managing their
emotional fatigue?
X

Research Setting
Bryerton Preparatory Academy represented a group of independent schools in southern
California educating approximately 1,800 students aged preschool through high school.
Collectively, Bryerton employed 400 people, of which 195 were members of the teaching
faculty. In March 2020, Bryerton Prep transitioned from a traditional brick and mortar school to
a remote learning platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing shelter in place orders
for the state of California. The crisis response resulted in delivering instruction for the final
quarter of the 2019-2020 school year via an online approach combining asynchronous and
synchronous learning experiences. Teacher educators shifted their instructional and relational
approaches with a weekend’s notice, little training, and minimal direction. For the 2020-2021
school year, families chose between in-person and remote learning options. Bryerton received a
waiver from the state of California in mid-August 2020 to open on-campus learning. Teachers
39

taught on campus, and families could opt between learning physically on campus, or learning
remotely via livestream, creating two distinct groups of learners that the teachers provided
instruction for simultaneously. As such, Bryerton’s educational platform created a concurrent
classroom hybrid model for the school year. Primary students began on-campus instruction in
late August, and secondary students were permitted on campus in late September. The COVID-
19 pandemic created delays in the technology deployment, and as a result, the concurrent hybrid
model began the day following the technology installation. This resulted in the teachers
managing the technology as well as student learning on two different platforms with minimal
training and troubleshooting practice prior to delivering live instruction.
The Researcher
The researcher has been a member of the Bryerton community for over twelve years and
has held several different roles within the organization (department director, curriculum
designer, and teacher) prior to serving as Assistant Principal for two school years. At the start of
the 2020-2021 school year, the researcher became the Principal of Bryerton’s largest school site.
As a former teacher now working closely with teachers as a school administrator, the researcher
was part of the researched community. Tuck and Yang (2014) encouraged the critical need to
consider the theory of change or the impact of the research because of the contribution it would
have on the narrative around the population. The story of a teacher’s emotional fatigue is a
shared but varied experience among the teaching community due to the intersectionality between
the personal, behavioral, and environmental influences. With such a close connection between
researcher and participant, the researcher made every effort to not attempt to influence the
research process and tell the story the researcher wanted told according to her own experience
and bias, but to instead study the contributing factors of emotional fatigue and structures of
40

support around the researched. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highlighted the different responses
and actions people may share according to their perception of whether or not they consider the
researcher to be an insider or outsider of the community. Therefore, throughout the research
process, the researcher was mindful to join the participants in the collective experience of the
research. Furthermore, the potential difference in power between the researcher and participants
was considered because of the role influence, reprisal, and relationships can have on the data
(Williams, 2014). As such, the researcher tried to delicately balance her identity as a colleague of
the participants with her positionality as a member of the community holding a certain level of
power and agency within the organization.
On the one hand the researcher was seen as a member of the studied community, but as a
principal at one of the school sites, the researcher’s positionality within the organization and
within the study itself must be acknowledged. Positionality describes the effect the researcher
has on the participant group or community and the overall environment being examined (Rowe,
2014). Positionality includes the personal and social identity of the researcher, their beliefs, and
resulting value systems (Williams, 2014). With power dynamics present in nearly every aspect of
society, Plesner (2011) drew attention to the multiple facets existing in the research process and
tasks researchers to consider power inequalities present among the study participants. Rowe
(2014) concluded that researchers have an ethical duty to remain consciously and deliberately
aware of power dynamics when conducting a study. This was of utmost importance in this study
as the researcher was well connected with teachers on four of the Bryerton campuses. As a result
of these relationships, every effort was made to keep participation anonymous. For example, the
researcher made all demographic qualifiers optional as an effort to minimize any hesitation felt
by potential study participants should they feel uncomfortable sharing responses that the
41

researcher could potentially infer or trace back to them. Accordingly, the researcher invited
teachers to participate in the study with a clear understanding of both the confidentiality and the
goals of the research.
Data Sources
The study data was gathered via an online survey given between October 20 through
November 13, following the end of the first quarter grading period of the 2020-2021 academic
year. The survey instrument in this study was a blend of 52 Likert-type survey items and three
open-ended response questions. After completing the Likert-type items from adopted
instruments, participants had the option of sharing their perspective on the factors that influenced
their emotional fatigue, strategies used to mitigate it, and needed supports to more adequately
cope in a richer, more detailed approach through open-ended survey questions.
Participants
The study participants were teachers at Bryerton Preparatory Academy. There were 195
teachers at Bryerton comprised of preschool, elementary, junior high, and high school educators
at the time of the study. All members of the teaching faculty received an e-mailed link to the
survey, which 50% of the overall faculty completed. All invited participants (N = 195, 75%
female, 25% male) were teachers at one of the Bryerton Preparatory Academy campuses (Site A:
25.4%, Site B: 20%, Site C: 15.6%, Site D: 22.4%, and Site E: 16.6%). The participant pool
varied in grade levels taught: Primary: 54% (Preschool: 12%, Elementary: 42%), and Secondary:
46% (Junior High: 13%, High School: 33%). The mean years of teaching of the potential
participant pool were 9.7 years. Additionally, 47% of the prospective participants held a teaching
credential.
42

A census approach was used in the study, and all faculty were invited to participate in the
survey as a greater sample size increased the ability to generalize the findings to the overall
independent school teaching experience. This study examined the emotional fatigue of teachers
in the independent school sector and purposely invited all teachers in the Bryerton community to
participate in telling their collective story. Teacher participation was anonymous and included
six optional demographic questions to subgroup the study participants into specific categories by
grade level taught, age, gender, race/ethnicity, teaching credential, and years of experience.
Instrumentation
Instruments were adopted for this study to measure emotional exhaustion and burnout, as
well as compassion fatigue. Cronbach’s Alpha measures internal consistency and reliability,
showing the instrument measures what it claims to measure. High ratings indicate high reliability
of the variable being examined (Salkind, 2014). Adopting instruments in this study allowed for
comparison between the Bryerton population and other educators to more concretely generalize
the research findings. Table 2 compares the internal consistency of the reliability coefficients
determined by the original researchers with those generated in the current study.

Table 2
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients
Maslach’s Burnout Inventory
(Maslach et al., 2018)
Professional Quality of Life
Instrument (Stamm, 2010a)
EE DP PA BO STS CS
Reported
Alpha Scale
Reliability
0.87-0.90 0.76
0.84 -
0.76
0.75 0.81 0.88
Bryerton
Alpha
.93 .74 .79 .82 .82 .91
43

Burnout
Maslach’s Burnout Inventory for Educators (MBI, Maslach et al., 1986, 2018) was used
to measure the overall construct of burnout. The MBI included a total of 22 Likert-type items
that measured educator burnout through three subscales: emotional exhaustion (nine items),
depersonalization (five items), and personal accomplishment (eight items). As a standardized
instrument, MBI for Educators maximized the internal reliability of the survey. MBI for
Educators was developed according to the same psychometric properties as MBI tests for other
helping professions. Maslach et al. (1986, 2018) used a cross-validation study using principal
factor analysis to develop the construct validity of the test. The internal reliability of the scale
varied slightly across the subscales of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal
accomplishment. Cronbach’s alpha estimates are reported in Table 2. The validity analysis of the
original test came from studies assessing the relationship between the MBI burnout scales and
worked experience of teachers. Importantly, the validity of the scale links burnout with teacher
perceptions of student misbehavior and teacher self-efficacy, which were both large sections of
the study’s literature review. The study did not include a pre and post-test as there were no
intervention and control groups in the study.
Compassion Fatigue
The Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL, Stamm, 2010a) measured compassion
satisfaction, as well as two components of compassion fatigue: burnout and secondary traumatic
stress. The 30 Likert-type items in the ProQOL (10 items per subscale) provided a comparison to
the MBI by measuring a related but different construct. In preliminary findings, Stamm (2002)
reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .87-.90 for each subscale. More recent findings,
however, suggest Cronbach’s alpha ratings as follows: compassion satisfaction at .88; burnout at
44

.75; and secondary traumatic stress at .81 scale reliability (Stamm, 2010b) as reported in Table 2.
Through these scales, Stamm (2010b) provided tools for participants in helping professions to
examine one’s feelings about their work, workload, and work environment.
Open-Ended Response
To evaluate the impact of emotional fatigue and determine necessary coping supports,
participants were asked three open-ended survey items. These survey items served to explore a
deeper understanding of teacher emotional fatigue through detail-rich reported experiences.
Themes from the open-ended response items were compared against statistical findings from the
MBI and ProQOL instruments to triangulate and describe the participants’ perceptions and
experiences.
Demographical Data
Participants were asked to provide information about their gender, age, primary
(preschool and elementary) or secondary (junior high and high school) grade levels taught,
ethnicity, years spent teaching, and whether or not they hold a teaching credential. These
demographic questions served as a criterion for subgrouping the findings. Importantly, the
demographic survey items allowed for comparison to the existing literature surrounding teacher
emotional fatigue. All demographic data was self-reported by the participants and optional.
Data Collection Procedures
An online survey was used to collect the data in this study. The Qualtrics XM® on-line
survey instrument, an industry-standard tool, was used for this survey and provided legitimacy to
the data collection and storage processes. This web-based platform uses proprietary and secure
software that allows researchers to create and distribute surveys as well as generate analytic
reports based on the data received (Qualtrics, 2020). Participants were able to take the Qualtrics
45

survey either on a computer or mobile device without downloading additional programs or
applications, allowing for frictionless data collection (Qualtrics, 2020).
A representative from Bryerton’s Human Resources team sent an email to all teaching
faculty to invite participation in the study. Completing the survey required an estimated 10-15
minutes, depending on the depth shared in the open-ended short response questions. Emailed
instructions sent to all participants included the Qualtrics survey link, a description of the study’s
purpose and voluntary nature, as well as confidentiality policies and general instructions for
completing the survey. After the survey was emailed to all faculty, participants were reminded to
complete the survey by a snack basket filled with treats (chips, granola bars, candy, etc.) left in
the teacher’s lounge. The snacks encouraged teachers to take the survey by a QR code attached
to the snacks. Two reminder emails were sent during the survey period. Additionally, all teachers
(regardless of participation) received a participation ticket in their staff mailbox with instructions
to put their ticket in a designated box in the front office upon completion of the survey. At the
close of the survey period, a random participation ticket was drawn from each campus, and all
other tickets were shredded. The winners from each campus location’s participation drawing sent
a picture of their ticket to the researcher and were emailed a $50 Amazon gift card in return. This
drawing kept all potential study participant’s identification and participation completely
confidential.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis involves the systematic review and interpretation of survey
responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The primary research from this study was compared
with themes and findings from the literature review to provide a more detailed description of the
problem and improved recommendations to mitigate the effect of the overall problem (Johnson
46

et al., 2010). The data analysis of this study was conducted utilizing two main data sources:
Likert-type and open-ended responses.
Likert Type Responses
The Likert-type questions adopted from the MBI and ProQOL in this study were ordinal
with standardized responses (see Appendix A) and therefore needed to be converted to numeric
values to run the statistical analysis. Response frequencies were calculated, and means and
standard deviations were presented to identify average levels of responses. The original
researchers provided low, medium, and high ranges for each variable which allowed for
additional comparison of response levels beyond the current study. The researcher conducted
descriptive statistical analysis for each of the six variables to identify the teacher experience, and
then inferential statistical analysis to determine relationships and patterns between the variables.
Data analysis performed in JMP Pro 15.2 focused on providing descriptive and inferential
statistics as means comparisons based upon demographic elements and subgroups. To determine
a predictive relationship between variables, a regression analysis was used.
In order to analyze a predictive relationship between two (or more) variables, a regression
analysis was used (Salkind, 2014). The study looked for evidence of a predictive relationship
between the dependent variable of burnout (from the ProQOL instrument) and the five other
variables (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, secondary
traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction) in efforts to understand the possibility of
predicting burnout in teacher experience. The linear regression was performed within the SPSS
statistical software (see Appendix C).
47

Open-Ended Responses
The open-ended survey response items were coded into themes using Microsoft Excel to
collate and organize the qualitative responses. Thematic analysis of the open-ended responses
illuminated trends and relationships in the teacher’s reported experiences, including the
identification of pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework
and research questions.
Validity and Reliability
Acknowledging the researcher’s positionality and bias was another way to increase
validity and reliability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). McEwan and McEwan (2003) cautioned that
research can become worthless if the researchers fail to disclose their biases and connections to
the study subjects. Accordingly, the researcher was transparent about the relationships with the
study participants and made substantial effort to ensure participant anonymity throughout the
research process. Furthermore, the researcher attempted to minimize the threat to reliability by
not only adopting standardized instruments with high Cronbach’s alpha ratings (see Table 2) but
also validity threats by testing the items on the survey in a pilot test conducted in Spring 2020.
Validity was maximized by aiming to increase participation as much as possible from
each campus location in order to have a large, representative sample. While target participation
numbers were not reached in the study to be able to generalize the Bryerton study to the
experience of independent school teachers, the study nonetheless allowed findings to be
compared across the various study subgroups to develop a richer understanding of emotional
fatigue within the Bryerton population. This allowed triangulation of the findings to support a
deeper understanding of the overall Bryerton teaching experience during the COVID-19
48

pandemic. Furthermore, within the survey, a combination of both quantitative and qualitative
questions allowed for data triangulation to increase validity of the findings.
Ethics
The researcher conducted the study according to the University of Southern California
(USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines. Accordingly, the researcher ensured that
sufficient information was available to prospective participants to make informed decisions
about the purpose of the study, perceived risks or benefits to individuals, and voluntary
participation. All participation in this study was optional and conducted with adults choosing to
complete the survey anonymously. Participants acknowledged their informed consent in
choosing to complete the survey and were not compensated or incentivized for participating in
the survey beyond receiving a few snacks and having the option to enter a raffle for a $50
Amazon gift card at each campus site—incentives made available for all teachers without having
to participate in the study itself. Due to the researcher’s position in the organization, the survey
was completed anonymously by all participants via an anonymous Qualtrics survey link. All
demographic qualifier questions were made optional in order to keep the survey results
confidential and further protect the identity of the participants. Ethical considerations of avoiding
the collection of harmful information and respecting power imbalances were important to uphold
in this survey due to the researcher’s positionality (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Furthermore, the
survey results were used for the study only and not shared independently with the organization
beyond analysis in the final dissertation.
The research served no formal interest beyond contributing to general awareness around
the support structures needed for teacher educators that allow them to be successful in coping
with their own emotional fatigue. The reviewed existing literature about teacher stress and
49

burnout focused on the public sector, and therefore the private and independent sector was
positioned to benefit from the research. Furthermore, comparing findings between the public and
private sectors benefitted the comprehensive teaching community. Additionally, comparing and
contrasting findings between primary and secondary teachers within the same organizational
structure was a benefit of the study. No potential harm could come from the research from the
perspective of the researcher, who was an independent school administrator.

50

Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Four describes the study findings according to the four research questions that
guided the quantitative study. Research Question 1 used descriptive and inferential statistics to
detail the experience of emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue among the teacher
subgroups. When differences between any statistically significant subgroups emerged, these
findings were triangulated through the addition of open-ended quotes from teachers within those
significant subgroups. Research Question 2 used a statistical regression analysis to explore the
ability to predict burnout in teacher experience. Research Questions 3 and 4 both included the
analysis of open-ended responses to more richly describe the experience of teacher emotional
fatigue. Research Question 3 described both the student and school-centered differences in
teacher experience post-COVID-19, as well as outlined the resulting implications for teachers.
Finally, Research Question 4 focused on the solitary and social coping approaches reported by
the Bryerton teachers, as well as identified their desire for more supportive coping measures to
allow them to combat their emotional fatigue.
Instruments
To understand the statistical analysis and findings of Research Questions 1 and 2, a
deeper understanding of the survey instruments is necessary. Further information on instruments
can be found in Chapter Three. Maslach’s Burnout Inventory for Educators (MBI) measured
three constructs of burnout: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal
accomplishment (PA) using a 7-point Likert frequency scale ranging from Never (0) to Every
day (6). The MBI for Educators allowed for comparison to a published sample of 4,163 primary
and secondary educators to understand the study participants’ burnout experience. Table 3 details
the averages and ranges for the MBI to provide a baseline for the study analysis.
51

Table 3
Maslach Burnout Inventory Published Sample for Primary and Secondary Educators
Emotional Exhaustion Depersonalization
Personal
Accomplishment
M 21.25 11 33.54
SD 11.01 6.19 6.89
Range 0 - 54 0 -30 0 - 48

Note. n = 4,163 (Maslach et al., 2018)

The Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL) measured three constructs of
compassion fatigue: burnout (BO), secondary traumatic stress (STS), and compassion
satisfaction (CS). Unlike the MBI that had a special version specifically for educators, the
ProQOL was designed to measure compassion fatigue for any helping profession—teaching
included. The instrument used a 5-point Likert frequency scale ranging from Never (1) to Very
Often (5). In the instrument psychometrics, Stamm (2010a) indicated low, moderate, and high
ranges for each construct. These guidelines are outlined in Table 4.

52

Table 4
Professional Quality of Life Scale Construct Ranges
Burnout
Secondary Traumatic
Stress
Compassion Satisfaction
High 42 or more 42 or more 42 or more
Moderate 23 - 41 23 - 41 23 - 41
Low 22 or less 22 or less 22 or less

The ranges described within Tables 3 and 4 provided a foundation from which to evaluate
the degree of teacher experience in the study. When analyzing the data, higher scores in both
Table 3 and Table 4 indicate higher degrees of burnout for the emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization variable scales and higher degrees of compassion fatigue for burnout and
secondary traumatic stress variable scales. Subsequently, higher scores for the variables of
personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction indicate lower degrees of burnout and
fatigue.
Research Question 1: To What Degree Do Teachers Experience Emotional Exhaustion and
Compassion Fatigue?
Research question 1 focused on determining the burnout and fatigue experienced by the
teaching faculty. Quantitative data from the two adopted survey instruments were analyzed to
answer this research question, and findings were illuminated with richly detailed teacher
experiences triangulated from the survey open-response items. The current study demonstrated
the degree to which teachers experienced emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue was
complex, and therefore the findings in this section are organized first according to descriptive
53

statistics, then inferential statistical analysis using t-test and z-test group comparisons to
highlight the variance in teacher experience.
On a foundational level, when compared with the original scales (see Tables 3 and 4), the
teachers at Bryerton generally reported average levels of both emotional exhaustion and
compassion fatigue, in addition to higher levels of personal accomplishment and compassion
satisfaction which the original researchers indicated may buffer effects of burnout and fatigue.
This insinuated that despite the context of teaching in a pandemic, the Bryerton teachers
experienced regular levels of emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue but greater than
average feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction. Tables 5 and 6further described the overall
levels of burnout and compassion fatigue reported by the Bryerton teachers according to the
means and standard deviations. These findings suggested the study participants were not
experiencing extreme burnout or compassion fatigue at the time of the study.

Table 5
MBI Descriptive Statistic Summary
Maslach’s Burnout Inventory

Emotional Exhaustion Depersonalization Personal Accomplishment
n 94 94 93
M 38.9 11.7 45.7
SD 13.7 5.9 6.7

54

Table 6
ProQOL Descriptive Statistic Summary
Professional Quality of Life Instrument

Burnout
Secondary
Traumatic Stress
Compassion Satisfaction
n 100 96 97
M 26.9 24.1 38.3
SD 6.5 6.3 6.8

The high standard deviation from the mean level of emotional exhaustion indicated
considerable dispersion of the data and reflected the variance in teacher emotional exhaustion at
the time of the study. Considering the study findings through this lens of high variance in
feelings of emotional exhaustion contextualized the reality that teachers experienced a wide
range of burnout and fatigue. The varied experience of teacher emotional fatigue provided robust
opportunity to further analyze the study’s demographic subgroups.
In the study, teachers identified in different demographic subgroups: gender, ethnicity,
age, years of experience, teaching credential, and grade level. These data allowed for statistical
comparisons between the subgroups in each demographic category to highlight the differences in
teacher experience. According to the categorical ranges provided by the original ProQOL
researchers (see Table 4), the survey participant experience was further described within the
study’s comparison subgroups to illustrate the emotional fatigue felt at the time of the study.
Table 7 reports the groupings of the ProQOL findings according to low, average, and high levels
within each construct. These groupings showed that the majority of Bryerton teachers
55

experienced average levels of burnout, low to average levels of secondary traumatic stress, and
average to high levels of compassion satisfaction.

56
Table 7
ProQOL Subgroup Rating Distribution

Burnout Compassion Satisfaction
Secondary Traumatic
Stress
Subgroup Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High
Current Sample
CS n 25 75 – 2 61 34 42 53 1
CS % 25% 75% – 2% 63% 35% 44% 55% 1%
Age
21-35 n 8 24 – – 23 9 15 15 1
21-35 % 25% 75% – – 72% 28% 48% 48% 3%
36+ n 14 37 – 1 27 20 22 26 –
36+ % 27% 73% – 2% 56% 42% 46% 54% –
Ethnicity
NW n 4 14 – – 8 11 8 9 –
NW % 22% 78% – – 42% 58% 47% 53% –
W n 15 38 – 1 35 14 23 28 –
W % 28% 72% – 2% 70% 28% 45% 55% –
Teaching Experience
1-10 n 9 34 – – 29 14 18 23 1
1-10 % 21% 79% – – 67% 33% 43% 55% 2%
11+ n 13 33 – 1 26 16 19 24 –
11+ % 28% 72% – 2% 60% 38% 44% 66% –
Gender
F n 15 53 – 1 39 26 23 41 1
F % 22% 78% – 2% 59% 39% 35% 63% 2%
M n 8 14 – – 16 5 15 6 –
M % 36% 64% – – 76% 24% 71% 29% –

57

Burnout Compassion Satisfaction
Secondary Traumatic
Stress
Subgroup Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High
Teaching Credential
NCT n 13 20 – – 19 12 17 15 –
NCT % 39% 61% – – 61% 39% 53% 47% –
CT n 7 40 – 1 29 17 16 29 –
CT % 15% 85% – 2% 62% 36% 36% 64% –
Grade Level
P n 10 41 – 1 31 16 17 30 1
P % 20% 80% – 2% 65% 33% 35% 63% 2%
S n 13 26 – – 25 14 21 17 –
S % 33% 67% – 64% 36% 55% 45% –

Note. Current sample (CS), Age (21-35) or 36 and Older (36+), Ethnicity Non-White (NW) or White (W), One to 10 Years of
Experience (1-10) or 11 or More Years of Experience (11+), Female (F) or Male (M), Non-Credentialed Teacher (NCT) or
Credentialed Teacher (CT), Primary (P) or Secondary (S).
58

Analyzing the teacher experience by demographics allowed for further insight into the
nuances in emotional fatigue reported by the participants. While the descriptive statistical
analysis offered a baseline of overall emotional fatigue, the inferential statistical analysis
provided opportunities to compare teacher experience. Tables 8 and 9 present an overview of the
comparative inferential statistics between the six demographic subgroups: gender, ethnicity, age,
years of experience, teaching credential, and grade level; and the six study variables: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, burnout, secondary traumatic stress,
and compassion satisfaction. In the statistical analysis, the t-test comparisons showed the
difference in teacher subgroups within each measured variable through the p-value. In Tables 8
and 9, statistically significant comparisons in teacher subgroups were indicated in bold. When
the p-value was less than 5%, as indicated in bold, this signified that the null hypothesis (in this
study, the difference in teacher experience was only due to chance) should be rejected because
the statistical findings showed the variances were too significant to be caused coincidentally.
These results suggested that there were key differences in the ways teachers experienced the
constructs of emotional fatigue based on gender (emotional exhaustion and secondary traumatic
stress), ethnicity (compassion satisfaction), years of experience (depersonalization), teaching
credential (burnout), and grade level (secondary traumatic stress), but not according to age
groupings.

Table 8
Study Variable and Subgroup Table 1
Maslach’s Burnout Inventory

Emotional Exhaustion Depersonalization
Personal
Accomplishment
n M SD p M SD p M SD p
Gender
Male 22 24.05 12.42
.02
6.71 5.70
.27
35.82 6.69
.09
Female 67 31.78 13.55 5.14 5.39 38.59 6.55
Ethnicity

White 52 29.56 13.27
.90
5.83 5.34
.68
37.5 6.38
.12
Non-White 19 29.11 12.06 6.42 5.37 40.16 5.84
Age
21-35 33 31.67 14.70
.22
7.70 6.46
.12
37 5.28
.54
36+ 49 27.84 13.15 5.65 5.19 37.99 7.73
Years of
Experience

1-10 44 31.23 14.38
.48
8.02 6.59
.03
36.98 6.39
.33
11+ 44 29.14 13.11 5.27 4.55 38.38 6.98
Teaching
Credential

Yes 47 32.17 12.51
.10
6.89 5.24
.40
37.26 7.55
.35
No 33 27.06 14.54 5.82 6.02 38.69 4.89
Grade Level

Primary 51 31.55 13.89
.22
7.04 6.01
.35
38.55 6.69
.19
Secondary 38 27.95 13.48 5.87 5.60 36.65 6.73

Note. 95% Confidence interval used for calculating p values.

Table 9
Study Variable and Subgroup Table 2
Professional Quality of Life Instrument
Burnout Secondary Traumatic
Stress
Compassion
Satisfaction
n M SD p M SD p M SD p
Gender
Male 22 27.03 6.49
.64
21.14 5.90
.01
37.24 5.74
.20
Female 67 26.27 6.99 25.29 6.09 39.29 6.48
Ethnicity

White 52 27.13 6.50
.32
24.43 6.62
.61
37.86 5.97
.00
Non-White 19 25.39 6.16 23.53 5.42 42.79 4.40
Age
21-35 33 27.25 7.16
.62
25.48 7.66
.10
37.47 6.30
.23
36+ 49 26.49 6.58 23.15 4.96 39.29 6.68
Years of
Experience

1-10 44 27.26 6.85
.80
25.33 6.97
.16
37.70 6.36
.24
11+ 44 26.89 6.54 23.47 5.21 39.33 6.47
Teaching
Credential

Yes 47 28.15 6.18
.04
25.17 5.99
.11
38.43 6.61
.41
No 33 25.09 6.61 23 5.53 39.65 5.78
Grade Level
Primary 51 27.22 6.32
.66
25.83 6.57
.01
39.08 6.85
.43
Secondary 38 26.59 7.22 22.26 5.29 37.97 6.07

Note. 95% Confidence interval used for calculating p values.

While all categories in Tables 8 and 9 were included in this data analysis, the following
sections predominately detail the statistically significant comparisons in teacher experience to
better articulate the degree to which teachers, or more specifically certain groups of teachers,
experienced more prominent levels of the constructs.

Emotional Exhaustion
The Emotional Exhaustion (EE) scale measured the initial indicator of burnout and
feelings of being overextended in and drained by one’s work (Maslach et al., 2018). Of the
demographic subgroups analyzed, only the gender category reflected significant differences in
teacher experience. No statistically significant differences in other demographic categories were
found among the Bryerton faculty beyond gender (see Tables 8 and 9). Female teachers (n = 67,
M = 31.78, SD = 13.55) at Bryerton reported statistically significantly higher levels of EE than
their male counterparts (n = 22, M = 24.05, SD = 12.42). Table 10 details these gender
comparisons.

Table 10
Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Emotional Exhaustion
Comparison n M SD df t F p
CS 94 29.85 13.67
F
M
67
22
31.78
24.05
13.55
12.42
1 -2.37 5.61 .02

Note. Current Sample (CS), Female (F), and Male (M). 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

The difference in emotional exhaustion between female and male teachers is further
illustrated by perspectives shared in the open response portion of the survey regarding how
respondents coped with emotional exhaustion and stress. There was a clear divide in reported
coping abilities where male teachers were better able to set boundaries as a way to cope with
their emotional exhaustion; a solution the female teachers did not identify, or expressed
frustration due to their inability to put in place. The male teachers shared perspectives indicating
their ability to leave work at work. One male teacher stated, “I push through each day at school
and try to keep work very separate from my personal life. I try to think as little as possible about
work when I am not there.” This was a common theme among male respondents as another male
teacher shared, “When I leave school to go home, I generally leave school behind. Unless
necessary, I do not take work home to grade.” One male secondary teacher shared how he was
able to set such a clear boundary between work and home, “I don’t do any work once I leave
campus…I purposely do not have my work email on my cell phone and I rarely bring any work
home” suggesting the conscious effort this boundary necessitates.
The female teachers, however, shared a very different reality. One female primary
teacher correlated her stress with her inability to stop working:
I don’t cope with my stress because I have too much work to do or I fall behind. COVID
has had an extreme effect on my emotional fatigue. We now have to make all work
available digitally, and that is very time-consuming. I’m falling behind on my grading
because I’m always creating in order to be ready for my students.
This teacher was not alone in feeling like she could not stop working, and it was impacting her
emotional fatigue. Other female teachers echoed this sentiment: “the daily grind of planning and
grading after hours is what is emotionally fatiguing. Because it is a matter of limited free time, it

is also difficult to manage that stress.” Another female teacher acknowledged the stress of trying
to set boundaries between work and school: “This year I promised myself I’d work only during
work hours. As a result, I’m always way behind in grading and preparing, which is stressful. I
don’t know what is worse.”
In addition to admitting they had to take work home either in prepping or grading, the
female teachers also described the tension of how this impacted their family life with responses
such as “[I feel] fatigue from trying to do too much and meet all the needs, including my own
family and kids.” One veteran female teacher shared concern that her out of school workload was
impacting her ability to prioritize family time:
I feel like we are expected to do a lot of this on our own time, and with a brand-new baby
at home, my time should be spent cuddling my baby. I am trying to learn to really master
time management and prioritize tasks.
Depersonalization
The DP scale measured the aspect of burnout where teachers may feel impersonal,
indifferent, or respond negatively to their students (Maslach et al., 2018). The literature
suggested that as teachers persist in the field, over time, these feelings of indifference may cause
burnout (Maslach, 2015; Schaufeli et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Among the Bryerton
faculty, however, educators who taught between one to 10 years (1-10) exhibited a higher level
of DP than their more experienced veteran colleagues who taught 11 or more years (11+) as
outlined in Table 11. While the differences in perception between teacher experience groups is
significant, it is important to note the mean level of DP for both groups is low, suggesting that
feelings of burnout among the Bryerton faculty were not reflected negatively in their
relationships with students.

Table 11
Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Depersonalization
Comparison n M SD df t F p
CS 94 6.68 5.89
1-10
11+
44
46
8.02
5.27
6.59
4.55
1 -2.28 5.18 .03

Note. Current sample (CS), One to 10 Years of Experience (1-10), and 11 or More Years of
Experience (11+). 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

Study participants with fewer years of experience teaching reported significantly higher
levels of depersonalization, suggesting the complexity of the current teaching experience. These
more in-depth experiences shared in the study’s open-response items describe how the impact of
these feelings of unpreparedness stemming from lack of teaching experience contributed to
increased depersonalization felt by newer teachers. A newer teacher shared, “I am constantly
tired and burned out. Teachers have been expected to learn and use several different technologies
on a daily basis. Teachers are then micromanaged while they do this.” A second-year teacher
articulated the negative impact of depersonalization in her raw insight, “My stress and emotional
fatigue have skyrocketed. Along with my anxiety. I cry every day. I am too exhausted to ask for
help and even when people offer it, I have no energy to take it.” It is possible that this expressed
sentiment of feeling like even offers of help felt like another to-do could account for the higher
levels of depersonalization reported by educators with fewer years of teaching experience.
Personal Accomplishment
An educator’s feeling of PA suggests they feel as if they contribute to the success of their
student’s development (Maslach et al., 2018). Higher scores in this scale reflect lower levels of

burnout. No statistically significant demographic comparisons were found among the Bryerton
survey respondents in any analyzed category. The overall feeling of personal accomplishment
reported by the Bryerton total sample (n = 93, M = 37.72, SD = 6.67) showed that the Bryerton
teachers felt as though they were making a positive impact on their students at the time of the
study. While no statistically significant differences between teacher subgroups emerged from the
data (see Table 8), the mitigating impact of personal accomplishment on burnout in teacher
experience was reflected throughout the open response questions. One teacher shared, “Teaching
at school is my happy place. It brings me joy. I am energized and excited when I create better
lessons. I stay longer and work harder because it brings me joy. My students inspire me.”
Burnout
The BO scale measured the element of compassion fatigue that results in helping
professionals feeling hopeless or that they are not effective in their work. Stamm (2010a)
suggested these gradual feelings were associated with either high workload or a non-supportive
work environment. None of the survey respondents at Bryerton reported high levels of BO
according to the ProQOL instrument creators; however, significant differences in perception
existed only between the non-credentialed and credentialed teacher subgroups and not in any
other demographic categories (see Tables 8 and 9 for other subgroups). Table 12 details the
differences in the non-credentialed and credentialed teacher subgroups showing that among the
study participants, credentialed teachers experienced higher levels of burnout than their
colleagues who did not hold a teaching credential.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Burnout
Comparison n M SD df t F p
CS 100 27.01 6.58
NCT
CT
33
47
25.09
28.15
6.61
6.18
1 2.17 4.48 .04

Note. Current sample (CS), Credentialed Teacher (CT), Non-Credentialed Teacher (NCT). 95%
CI utilized for calculating p values.

It is possible the higher burnout experienced by the credentialed subgroup can be
attributed to a more traditional expectation of what the teaching experience should entail. While
the non-credentialed teachers admitted that COVID presented challenges to their ability to
deliver instruction and connect with their students, as a whole, they were more able to reflect on
the positives of their experience in their open-response items. One non-credentialed teacher
shared:
As a teacher, normally, classroom management is what stresses me out the most, but
Zoom has changed classroom management, and now I feel like I don’t have to race the
clock. I can speak much easier and manage the class time much better. So, in that way,
teaching is less stressful.
On the other hand, the credentialed teacher responses generally indicated a desire to return to
status quo in their teaching. One credentialed primary teacher shared, “It (COVID-19) has
quadrupled my workload so, it’s upped my stress and fatigue considerably.” Another teacher
who held a credential admitted, “My stress has skyrocketed, I no longer love my job and have no
motivation to go to work. It is essentially work to get a paycheck and survive at this point. The

joy is gone.” However, one credentialed teacher shared an opposing viewpoint to this sentiment
and seemed to embrace the current teaching reality: “Now, it’s the new norm, so I’m used to it.”
As a whole, the non-credentialed subgroup expressed a greater perception of flexibility
and acceptance than the credentialed subgroup to adjust their expectations of teaching during a
pandemic rather than mourn the status quo. One of the few credentialed teachers who
demonstrated this mindset was able to separate teaching from the challenges presented by
COVID-19: “Every semi-negative response [to teaching] is in relation to the pandemic. Non-
pandemic times I rarely, if ever, feel overwhelmed by this job. In fact, I’m still pursuing
additional opportunities in education to remain in this field for life.” This clear distinction
indicating negative feelings towards COVID-19 but not towards teaching, in general, may help
to describe the average levels of burnout reported by teachers during unprecedented levels of
overall stress.
Secondary Traumatic Stress
Unlike the gradual onset of burnout, STS is often rapid or the result of a specific event
(Stamm, 2010a). This scale measured the impact of trauma exposure experienced by others.
Table 13 details the statistically significant differences in STS exposure reflected in two different
subgroups: gender and grade level. No other subgroups analyzed reported significant differences
(see Tables 8 and 9).

Table 7
Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Secondary Traumatic Stress
Comparison n M SD df t F p
CS 96 24.09 6.32
F
M
65
21
25.29
21.14
6.09
5.90
1 -2.73 7.47 .01
P
S
48
38
25.83
22.26
6.57
5.29
1 -2.72 7.41 .01

Note. Current Sample (CS), Female (F), Male (Male), Primary (P), and Secondary (S). 95% CI
utilized for calculating p values.

Female teachers reported higher levels of STS than their male colleagues. This finding is
consistent with existing compassion fatigue findings that insinuated women were more likely to
be affected by the experience of those around them than men (Chang, 2009; Ilies et al., 2015). In
the study, 63% of females reported average levels of STS, whereas 71% of male participants
conveyed low STS rankings (See Table 7). This data suggests Bryerton’s teachers aligned with
the greater literature surrounding compassion fatigue, even during the time of COVID-19.
Additionally, primary teachers stated higher levels of STS than secondary teacher
participants, which paralleled other literature suggesting primary teachers were more involved in
and affected by the learning experiences of their younger students (Buettner et al., 2016;
Jennings, 2015). Furthermore, recent findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had
negatively impacted learning for primary students disproportionately to secondary grade levels
(Arnett, 2021). It is possible this discrepancy in comparative experience accounted for the higher
secondary traumatic stress reported by the preschool and elementary teachers in the study.

Compassion Satisfaction
Research suggested that teachers entered and persisted in the profession because they
wanted to help others and do good (Fransson & Frelin, 2009; Hargreaves, 2005; Harmsen et al.,
2018). Compassion satisfaction measured a helping professional’s feeling of pleasure derived
from doing their work well and overall contentment about colleagues or the ability to contribute
in the work setting (Stamm, 2010a). In the study, 35% of Bryerton participants reported high
levels of CS (see Table 7), suggesting over a third of Bryerton teachers gained higher than
normal professional satisfaction from their roles as educators. This assertion was supported
through comments shared in the open-response items. A male primary teacher articulated this
buoyant feeling of compassion satisfaction when he shared, “I take walks on my lunch
break…Sometimes the kids are on the playground, and they will call to me. The fact that they
want to say hi makes me happy and gives me a boost in confidence and energy.”
While a much smaller participant pool, the non-White subgroup of respondents reported
significantly higher CS than the White subgroup, as described in Table 14. Interestingly, in the
current sample, 28 survey participants declined to share their ethnicity and were therefore not
included in either subgroup. This high percentage of declined participation must be
acknowledged in tandem with this finding because it may be skewing the significance of these
results. If all teachers in the study selected an ethnicity, these findings may be different due to
the 28 additional participants dispersed into the ethnic subgroups. Table 14 outlines the
difference in perception of compassion satisfaction derived from work between the non-White
and White subgroups. Zero open-ended responses included any mention of race or ethnicity, and
therefore providing context for this finding is challenging within the study data.

Table 8
Descriptive Statistics and Means Comparisons – Compassion Satisfaction
Comparison n M SD df t F p
CS 97 38.48 7.00
NW
W
19
50
42.79
37.86
4.40
5.97
1 -3.27 10.71 .00

Note. Current sample (CS), Non-White (NW), and White (W). 95% CI utilized for calculating p-
values.

Significant differences were found in a teacher’s experience of emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, personal accomplishment, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and
compassion satisfaction among the teacher subgroups. These differences reflected the wide
variance in both overall teacher emotional exhaustion and burnout measured by the MBI, and
compassion fatigue measured by the ProQOL.
Statistical Comparisons Beyond Bryerton
Beyond the subgroup associations, the current study findings were compared to other
primary and secondary teachers in the Maslach’s Burnout Inventory published sample to
describe the extent of teacher emotional fatigue reported at the time of the study. To relate the
current study with the published sample (Maslach et al., 2018), a z-test was used to compare the
means from the Bryteron sample with the published sample. In comparison, survey respondents
reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment, but lower
depersonalization compared to the evaluation of 4,163 educators by Maslach et al. (2018). Using
the population size, mean, and standard deviations, the z-test showed statistically significant
differences across all facets between the published sample and the current study. Table 15

highlights the associated means, standard deviations, z-statistics, and p-values to show how
differently the Bryerton teachers responded in comparison to the existing Maslach et al. (2018)
published sample.

Table 15
Maslach Burnout Inventory Comparison to Published Means
Comparison n M SD z p
EE-PS
EE-CS
4,163
94
21.25
29.85
11.01
13.67
-6.06 .00
DP-PS
DP-CS
4,163
94
11.00
6.68
6.19
5.89
7.02 .00
PA-PS
PA-CS
4,163
93
33.54
37.72
6.89
6.67
-5.97 .00

Note. Published Sample (PS) and Current sample (CS). 95% CI utilized for calculating p values.

Maslach et al.’s (2018) published sample detailed a range of primary and secondary
educators who were an undisclosed mix of the public and private sector and who certainly were
not teaching at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notwithstanding, the differences between
Maslach et al.’s (2018) published sample for educators and the current Bryerton sample were
statistically significant in all three measures of burnout but not as anticipated. The study
participants reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion (EE) than the published sample,
which during the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was anticipated due to increased general
stressors. However, the Bryerton sample denoted lower levels of depersonalization (DP),
suggesting that despite the challenging current reality of teaching during a pandemic, the study
participants conveyed higher feelings of attachment and positivity than the 4,163 educators who
previously completed the MBI instrument. Additionally, the Bryerton sample reported higher

levels of personal accomplishment (PA) than the published sample indicating the study
participants felt greater levels of satisfaction and achievement in their work as educators. The
impact of the study participants’ experience as independent school educators has unknown
implications on these results.
Research Question 2: Which Variables Predict Burnout in Teacher Experience?
Research Question 2 explored predicting burnout in teacher experience through all other
study variables: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, secondary
traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction. To test for burnout prediction, correlational and
regression analyses were conducted. First, the correlational analysis indicated a strong
correlation between the study constructs. Second, a simple linear regression predicted burnout in
teacher experience through two variables. This study measured burnout in two ways. First, the
MBI instrument used three subscales to describe an overall composite of burnout: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Second, the ProQOL instrument
measured burnout as one subscale (of three) to describe the overall condition of compassion
fatigue. The regression analysis was conducted with the ProQOL variable burnout as the
dependent variable, whereas the significant independent variables, emotional exhaustion, and
personal accomplishment, were measured through the MBI.
Correlations
Initial analysis of the variables incorporated inferential statistics to describe the highly
correlating relationships between the six variables. Strong relationships were evident between the
instruments and subscales, indicating significant associations between the study constructs. Most
relationships reported a p-value less than 0.01 suggesting the probability of attributing these
relationships to chance is less than 1%, which indicated a high level of confidence among these

subscale relationships. These strong correlations were anticipated due to the parallel constructs
measured by each instrument. Table 16 overviews these relationships and indicates the strength
of the correlation between variables.

Table 16
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Emotional Exhaustion –
2. Depersonalization 0.70** –
3. Personal Accomplishment -0.23* -0.40** –
4. Burnout 0.85** 0.67** -0.52** –
5. Secondary Traumatic Stress 0.69** 0.54** -0.14 0.59** –
6. Compassion Satisfaction -0.55** -0.53** 0.70** -0.70** -0.31** –

*p < .05. **p < .01.

As related constructs within the MBI burnout measure, it was anticipated that emotional
exhaustion (EE) positively correlates with depersonalization (DP) and negatively with personal
accomplishment (PA). Similarly, with the related ProQOL instrument measuring compassion
fatigue, positive correlations between burnout (BO) and secondary traumatic stress (STS) were
hypothesized. Personal accomplishment (PA) and compassion satisfaction (CS) were both
anticipated to act as buffering experiences to burnout and fatigue and therefore were predicted to
negatively correlate with the four other variables. As expected, these correlations were replicated
in the study findings as reported in Table 16. The strength of relationships between the variables
increased the ability to make connections between the subscales that influenced emotional
fatigue in teacher experience.
Regression Analysis
Performing a simple linear regression estimated which variables were the strongest
predictors of burnout, the dependent variable in the analysis, through the study subscale that
specifically measured burnout singularly. The regression model showed that 84% of the variance
in teacher burnout was explained by the other independent variables acting together (R square =
.842, see Appendix C). The regression analysis showed that both emotional exhaustion and
personal accomplishment were significant covariates, or independent variables, that significantly
predict burnout in teacher experience. Table 17 outlines the preliminary regression analysis with
a 95% confidence interval.

Table 17
Regression Analysis: The Effect of All Variables on Burnout
Effect Estimate SE 95% CI p
LB UB
Constant 29.924 3.270 23.414 36.433

Secondary Traumatic Stress .001 .073 −.143 .146 .987
Compassion Satisfaction −.094 .083 −.259 .072 .263
Depersonalization −.039 .077 −.192 .114 .610
Personal Accomplishment −.275 .067 −.408 −.142 .000
Emotional Exhaustion .375 .042 .291 .459 .000

Note. N = 84. R square = .842. SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval; LB = lower
bound; UB = upper bound.

A revised regression equation further explored only the significant predictors: personal
accomplishment and emotional exhaustion. The revised regression predicted 83% of the variance
in burnout to emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment (R square = .830, see
Appendix C) compared to 84% explained by all five other variables. These findings suggested
that burnout can be predicted by a teacher’s emotional exhaustion and feelings of personal
accomplishment.
Burnout measured by Maslach’s Burnout Inventory
The strongly correlated variables in the study (see Table 16) strengthened the relationship
between burnout, emotional exhaustion, and personal accomplishment found in the regression
analysis. Emotional exhaustion was strongly positively correlated with burnout (0.85, p < .01,
see Figure 2), depersonalization (0.70, p < .01) and secondary traumatic stress (0.69, p < .01)

indicating a parallel relationship in teacher experience. This finding suggested teacher emotional
exhaustion impacted a teachers’ feelings of burnout and depersonalization, and made educators
more susceptible to secondary traumatic stress. Furthermore, as expected, emotional exhaustion
was also strongly negatively correlated with compassion satisfaction (-0.55, p < .01),
highlighting the mitigating effect that feelings of doing work well had on a teacher’s emotional
exhaustion. Figure 2 visually illustrates the strong correlation between EE and BO as the primary
variables within each overall construct (other visual depictions are included in Appendix B).

Figure 2
Emotional Exhaustion (EE) strongly positively correlated with Burnout (BO)

Together, these positive correlations also suggested that a teacher’s level of emotional
exhaustion was directly tied to their burnout experience as a component of compassion fatigue.
These findings are significant because this study aimed to illuminate the relationship between
emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue as connected experiences. Subsequently, the data
also highlighted the strong negative correlation between the EE and CS variables, indicating that
the higher a teacher’s compassion satisfaction, the lower their emotional exhaustion. The
relationship further strengthens the combined concept of emotional exhaustion and compassion
fatigue as emotional fatigue because compassion satisfaction (a mitigating element of
compassion fatigue) acted as a buffer to emotional exhaustion. This same negative relationship
was found between EE and the other mitigating variable personal accomplishment (PA), but the
findings were not as statistically significant (-0.23, p < .05) as compared with EE and CS. This
was surprising because of the similarities between the constructs of CS and PA but nonetheless
suggested PA, like CS, acted as a mitigating buffer to burnout in teacher experience. Finally,
within the MBI measure itself, the strong positive correlation between the variables of EE and
DP (0.70, p < .01) underscored the known relationship of EE as the initial indicator of burnout
and DP as the long-term effect (Maslach et al., 2018). The above-average levels of emotional
exhaustion prevalent among the Bryerton faculty but generally low levels of depersonalization
suggested that the teachers were drained from the practice of teaching but not burned out from
teaching altogether.
As a measure of long-term burnout, depersonalization (DP) had strong positive
correlations with BO (0.67, p < .01) and STS (0.54, p < .01), as well as strong negative
correlations with CS (-0.53, p < .01) and PA (-0.40, p < .01). These strong relationships indicated
further alignment between the MBI and ProQOL instruments. Interestingly, the strong positive

correlation between DP and secondary traumatic stress (STS) denoted a relationship between the
teachers’ feelings of indifference and the continual impact of their exposure to the stress of
others. Ultimately, this finding suggested that the burned-out members of the faculty showed a
trend in mindset: either that they cared too much or did not want to care anymore.
Depersonalization strongly negatively correlated with the buffering variables compassion
satisfaction (-0.53, p < .01), and personal accomplishment (-0.40, p < .01) as expected. Teachers
who derived greater compassion satisfaction or increased feelings of personal accomplishment
from their work also indicated reduced feelings of indifference or negativity, suggesting the
mitigating effect that positive affect may have on a teacher’s emotional state. Ultimately, as
previously analyzed, the Bryerton faculty reported low levels of depersonalization, according to
the original researchers. This suggested their feelings of emotional fatigue had not yet progressed
to severe burnout for the majority of the study participants.
The original researchers posited high feelings of personal accomplishment mitigated the
effect of burnout (Maslach et al., 2018), and this was replicated in this study. PA was negatively
correlated with BO (-0.52, p < .01), DP (-0.40, p < .01), EE (-0.23, p < .05), and STS (-0.14, p >
.05). These findings further demonstrated the power that feeling one’s work is impactful can
have on buffering feelings of indifference, exhaustion, and inability to distance oneself from the
negative impact of another’s stress or trauma.
The subscales of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment
indicated burnout as measured through the MBI, a highly validated and reliable instrument. It
was therefore not surprising to find that the emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment
subscales were predictive of burnout in teacher experience.

Burnout as a Variable
The ProQOL, another highly validated and reliable instrument, measured the variable
subscale of burnout to indicate compassion fatigue among helping professionals (Stamm, 2010a).
This singular subscale measured burnout as a variable rather than as a combined construct in the
MBI. Examining burnout as a single variable allowed for the regression analysis to best predict
the causes of burnout as the dependent variable with emotional exhaustion and personal
accomplishment as the independent variables. Figure 3 illustrates the strong negative correlation
between burnout and personal accomplishment (-0.52, p < .01), reflecting the higher feeling of
personal accomplishment, the lower the resulting burnout.

Figure 3
Burnout (BO) strongly negatively correlated with Personal Accomplishment (PA)

As previously explained, BO is strongly positively correlated with emotional exhaustion
(0.85, p < .01) showing the predictive relationship that the higher a teacher’s experience of EE,
the higher their level of burnout. These predictive variables are leading indicators of the burnout
experience.
Research Question 3: How Does Teacher Experience Differ Post-COVID-19?
Research Question 3 described the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the teaching
experience. Teacher feedback from all three of the survey’s open response questions was
analyzed to understand the differences in teaching experience post-COVID-19 because the
pandemic was mentioned consistently in teacher responses throughout all open-ended questions:
1. How do you manage or cope with the level of stress or emotional fatigue you currently
experience?
2. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected your level of stress or emotional fatigue?
3. What would help you better manage or cope with the level of stress or emotional fatigue
you currently experience?
Of the 88 teachers who completed the open-ended responses, only two teachers expressed
the sentiment that teaching remained unaffected by COVID-19. Instead, 98% of respondents (n =
86) voiced the many implications that the pandemic has had on their teaching experience. These
data were coded into three main categories: student-centered differences, school-centered
differences, and implications for teachers. One primary teacher’s perspective was especially
powerful, providing a succinct overview of the changes in her experience due to COVID-19:
This year has been exceptionally tough on my mental state of mind. Having the school
support us as we navigate all of the stressful pieces of our year has been very
heartwarming. We are basically doing two jobs at once on top of recreating all of our

curriculum and assignments. I feel like I cannot connect with my students as I have in
years past, especially my students who are remote. I also feel terrible that our remote
students do not have the much-needed peer interaction and social and emotional growth
that they usually get in a typical school year. It has been emotionally draining to think of
what our children are missing in their academic/school lives. I often cannot sleep at night
because I am struggling with the emotional toll of knowing that not all of my students'
needs are being met each day. The added pressure of helping students as tech support on
top of a teacher is not helping either.
The teachers articulated their compounded stressors throughout the open-ended responses
showing the interconnected nature of the sources of increased fatigue currently experienced by
the participants. A secondary teacher described these interlocking layers to detail the impact
COVID-19 has had on her overall teaching experience:
I feel frustrated because I can not tell how my online students are comprehending or
improving. There is added work of cleaning and safety protocols. Less interaction and
fun times with students and fellow staff. Limits on activities I can do with my class due to
online learners and social distancing, so I feel like there are limits for different types of
learners. Feeling stressed that I cannot get sick and put more work on my fellow teachers.
Student-Centered Differences
The COVID-19 pandemic has made teachers question their ability to meet the needs of
their students. The demonstrated concern for student achievement and connection reported in the
study was touching because it is clear the majority of Bryerton teachers have put their concern
for their students over their concern for themselves during the pandemic. For the purpose of this
study, student-centered differences due to the COVID-19 pandemic were analyzed within the

greater themes of managing two learning spaces simultaneously, concern for student
achievement, and ability to connect with students.
Managing Two Learning Spaces Simultaneously
Teachers feel managing the concurrent classroom is stressful and impacting their feelings
of burnout. For the 2020-2021 school year, Bryerton Preparatory Academy adopted a high-
flexibility concurrent classroom model in response to the pandemic challenges where some
students were on-campus, and others were remote learners and livestreamed into the classroom
via Zoom. At Bryerton, these student groups were referred to as “Roomers” indicating they were
in the classroom with the teacher, or “Zoomers” indicating the students were experiencing the
classroom via technology. While a hybrid model, Bryerton’s concurrent classroom had the same
students on campus (5 days/week) rather than rotating groups of campus learners. Each of the
five Bryerton campuses enrolled a slightly different percentage mix of Roomers and Zoomers.
The most commonly reported difference in teacher experience as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic was in regards to delivering instruction in this model, which the teachers described as
everything from “challenging” to “horrible.”
The concurrent hybrid model forced teachers to manage two learner groups
simultaneously. Many teachers described the stress of balancing two sets of students in their
comments: “[I feel] stress about the online learning platform, balancing two distinct sets of
students and trying to keep both motivated, busy, and focused.” Another teacher shared, “Each
day I go home tired but it’s a different type of tired than previous years. Teaching remote and in-
person learners is a lot and is really teaching two classrooms, not one.” One primary teacher
described her pandemic teaching experience as having divided attention, a condition referred to
by other teachers as well:

Now, we are expected to teach in-person and remotely concurrently. This has increased
my stress immensely. I always have students in my room, along with an aide who mostly
just watches me teach. All of my routines are gone. I am tethered to my desk, and I have
not been able to connect to any of my students like I would like. My attention is always
divided. I hate teaching this way.
Beyond feeling like their attention was divided, other teachers voiced the feeling that
their fatigue stemmed from the never-ending feeling of things to do while managing the
concurrent learning environment. One teacher shared, “There is never a resting period now that
we are teaching online and in-class simultaneously. We don’t have any breaks. Although it is
going better now, it is very exhausting.” This teaching experience without the ability to recharge
during the school day was further illuminated by another teacher’s experience:
I am very fatigued from having to teach in Zoom at the same time I have students in
class. I also struggle with remembering to put assignments in multiple venues, i.e.,
Canvas, Blackbaud. I spend so much time doing administrative work that I feel like I do
not have time to develop quality lesson plans.
The teachers also expressed concerns for student achievement because of the divided classroom
approach with the high-flex model. One primary teacher admitted, “I feel frustrated because I
cannot tell how my online students are comprehending or improving.” Another teacher shared,
Things are way different than last school year. Teaching kids remotely and in-person is
exhausting. I feel some remote students are not even doing what they should be when we
meet. In person, students are not always doing what they should be doing as well. Having
to redirect both groups is exhausting and frustrating. I also feel that the constant
redirecting environment of other students is not fair for students who are engaged and

ready to learn and following directions. Parents have so much on their plate, that I also
feel some parents are not as active as last year, due to their own personal situations. As a
teacher I have been affected, and I am an adult. This has to mean that kids have also been
affected. Some days I cry at the end of a class, and some days I walk away happy because
everyone was able to do their work and there weren't any technology issues.
Ability to Connect with Students
Teachers worried about their own ability to connect with students, as well as bridging
social emotional connections between classmates in their classrooms. These social emotional
concerns compounded with their trepidations about meeting student’s academic needs making
the teachers feel inadequate as teachers. One teacher shared, “I don’t feel as emotionally
connected to my students and their parents, which stresses me out. I don’t feel they’re getting my
all, even though I’m trying.” At small independent schools like Bryerton, the teachers are
accustomed to feeling like they know their students well and are therefore able to adjust the
support provided to each family. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the teachers expressed they did
not feel as confident and comfortable in this regard which increased their exhaustion levels as
voiced by this veteran teacher:
I am definitely feeling more emotionally drained and my stress has increased. I usually
have a very low stress level. As teachers, we are always trying to support our students in
any way that we can, and it is a little frustrating that we can't give the students the same
support we would if they were in class. We certainly try, though!
Connection is central to teachers feeling effective in meeting their student’s needs, and it was
clear that the COVID-19 pandemic had negatively impacted teacher experience in this regard.

School-Centered Differences
The COVID-19 pandemic affected the overall school environment and campus climate.
COVID-specific challenges, including contact tracing, wearing masks, physical distancing, and
increased sanitizing procedures, all changed the teaching experience. Additionally, increased
technology expectations further influenced the school climate at Bryerton. School-centered
themes emerged during data analysis surrounding a teacher’s ability to connect with colleagues,
COVID-specific challenges, and technology issues. Ultimately, one teacher expressed, “We had
to completely change the way we teach and present the content,” showing that the
comprehensive teaching experience was affected.
Ability to Connect with Colleagues
The teachers described a lack of connection with their colleagues, which added to their
feeling of emotional fatigue. A male teacher admitted, “Getting compliments from my colleagues
always gives me a bit of energy,” which articulated one of the many reasons that teachers need
time to be together to support and vent. One teacher shared that a solution to her stress level
would be: “More time to talk to my fellow teachers. We never see each other anymore. My
fellow grade level teachers have no time to plan together unless we want to stay after school and
cut into our family time.” Another teacher expressed the wish to spend more time with other
teachers and shared sadness that contact tracing prevented that opportunity for connection.
Teachers also described their caution with putting an extra burden on their colleagues and how
that affected their own stress levels. A female primary teacher voiced the need to have “Greater
opportunity to take mental health days without punishing my peers in my absence…Tremendous
guilt comes with needing a personal day.”

COVID-Compliance Challenges
COVID-19 compliance became yet another stressor to teachers during the pandemic. In
addition to teaching while wearing a mask and ensuring their students were also wearing masks
properly, teachers became responsible for regularly sanitizing the physical classroom and
monitoring social and physical distancing requirements inside the learning environment. The
study participants voiced the exhaustion these protocols added, including one primary teacher
who shared, “Trying to stay COVID compliant is tough. Constantly making sure equipment are
disinfected and students remain safe by following protocol is straining.” Other teachers shared
frustration with their contact tracing responsibilities using the TRACE app (a software solution
that Bryerton requested teachers download to their personal phones to contact trace more
accurately), or admitted to feeling their personal safety was challenged. One teacher surmised,
“COVID-19 has definitely affected my level of stress due to the safety and precaution our school
chooses to take. Most of the time, I feel safe; sometimes, I wish the protocol could be a little bit
more.” These compliance concerns were a result of teaching on campus during the pandemic and
provided a considerable new source of stress and fatigue for the teachers.
Technology Issues
The study participants experienced a variety of technology challenges related to teaching
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-two percent of the teachers (n = 37) acknowledged
technology challenges in their open-ended response items. With the high-flex concurrent
classroom model, the teachers served as tech support in addition to delivering the academic
curriculum. One secondary teacher shared:

It added layers of requirements that need to be done each day. Sometimes it is a challenge
to remember everything. Sometimes it is a challenge when technology does not work,
and students cannot connect with class, or I cannot connect with students.
Teachers felt the technology interface affected their pacing, as voiced by this primary teacher:
“I’ve also had to slow down my curriculum to account for tech issues and limited resources, as
well as redesigning most elements of my classes since I can no longer use hands on materials.”
Other teachers felt overwhelmed by the newness of the technology integration. One teacher
attributed increased stress to “Managing tech and online platform issues that I have never had to
worry about before. Students have too much control over their visibility and interactions on
Zoom.” Other teachers expressed they did not have enough time to practice with the technology
prior to providing instruction which increased their stress level. Even teachers who felt they were
effective using technology pre-pandemic identified the heightened challenges using technology
adequately during COVID-19. A female primary teacher admitted, “Despite being pretty tech-
savvy, I find myself overwhelmed by having to show multiple ways to do things for my in-
person and remote students.” These finding suggests that using technology out of necessity
during the COVID-19 pandemic affected the collective efficacy of the Bryerton teachers.
Implications for Teachers
Teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic had widespread implications for teachers
ranging from increased stress teaching, questioning the long-term commitment to teaching, and
general concern about the impact of COVID-19 beyond teaching. Pre-pandemic, teacher burnout,
and attrition were considerable problems, and COVID-19 further increased teacher emotional
fatigue.

Increased Stress and Fatigue
COVID-19 increased teacher stress and fatigue. Eighty-five percent of the participants (n
= 75) specifically admitted feeling more exhausted or more stressed as a result of the pandemic.
One teacher divulged the wide-spread contributors to her increased fatigue:
My stress level and emotional fatigue have definitely increased. I am a very hands-on and
project-based teacher. Being apart from my students has made me have to rethink the
way I do everything, and it is overwhelming. I honestly just wish things would go back to
the way they were so I can sit next to my students to work with them again, or have them
work in groups together, and not have them sitting six feet apart (or working together
from different cities via Zoom).
The fatigue caused by missing what felt more normal in the teaching experience was a common
theme expressed by the participants. Teachers admitted they felt responsible for creating
normalcy for their students even when they did not feel it themselves. One teacher voiced the
impact of this sentiment on his own emotional health and fatigue:
I have sort of gone dormant waiting for a vaccine or normalcy to return. Things just seem
to become worse all the time so I’m sad a lot and I have to pretend to be positive for the
kids, which takes a lot of energy.
Additionally, the open-ended responses showed a link between increased stress or fatigue and
increased feelings of depression among the teachers. One teacher disclosed that changes to
teaching during COVID-19 reduced the fun aspects of teaching and increased her depression,
leaving her feeling drained by her work as an educator:
[COVID has] heightened the anxiety at work. Suddenly I am now responsible for helping
students progress academically while making sure everything and anything is clean and

making sure students are safe in their classroom environment. I can't understand the
remote kids. The way I teach has totally changed. It has taken the fun out of this job, and
I think that is the most depressing part that adds to the emotional fatigue.
A veteran female teacher suggested that COVID-19 contributed to greater contextual depression
in her current teaching experience:
It is an underlying current that is always running subconsciously in the back of my mind,
and I have a tendency to be less active, more sedentary, feel more anxiety about getting
it, feel sad more often, feel frustrated more often because I can’t just go and do things
when and how I want. I have managed fairly well by surrendering to what is and relied on
my spirituality to stay more calm and centered. Sometimes I do feel mildly depressed.
While the majority of teachers described increases to their stress and fatigue, a small number of
teachers (n = 3) expressed efforts to find the silver-lining in their experience and the growth
opportunity it created for them. One of these teachers voiced success in changing her mindset:
When we were first hit with it, the unknown was very stressful. Now I realize that it is
going to be here for the long term. Therefore, I had to change my train of thought. I had
to make positive changes in my life, the way that we think is a choice. We can choose to
be negative and stressed out every day, or we can choose to be happy, healthy, and
optimistic.
Questioning the Desire to Remain Teaching
Increased stress, fatigue, and feelings of depression enabled teachers to question their
decision to continue teaching post-pandemic. Five teachers (6 % of participants who completed
open-ended responses) alluded to evaluating their desire or decision to remain teaching as a
result of COVID-19. Teachers shared a variety of ways this has manifested in their experience,

ranging from thinking about quitting to actively looking at alternatives to teaching. One teacher
admitted, “There are days when I go home and just think about quitting and finding another job.
I find myself being short with people and not taking care of myself because I am always
preoccupied with work.”
Other teachers expressed the lack of joy in their teaching experience, like the veteran
secondary teacher who confessed, “I have developed anxiety and depression. My joy at work is
gone. I am officially looking for greener pastures.” This sentiment was echoed by other teachers,
including a female teacher who shared, “[My emotional fatigue] has skyrocketed, I no longer
love my job and have no motivation to go to work. It is essentially work to get a paycheck and
survive at this point. The joy is gone.” The seriousness of these complications created by the
COVID-19 pandemic on teacher burnout and attrition is yet unknown.
Stress Beyond the School or Teaching Experience
Teachers were unable to separate their professional stress from their personal stress as the
overwhelming level of stressors compounded together during the study period. In addition to the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the time of the survey, political unrest was mounting in
anticipation of the November 2020 presidential election. Furthermore, wildfires raged throughout
Southern California during the survey period, and hospitals began to prepare for anticipated
surges in community positivity rates due to upcoming holiday gatherings. The teachers in the
study showed that these situations beyond the school community also impacted them and
increased their feelings of being drained and stressed. One teacher shared, “I feel increased stress
everywhere. Stress about people, about being around people, about going out, stress about people
who are not following the rules.” Teachers also voiced their concern for their own family and
friends amid the social uncertainty:

I’m less stressed when I am by myself or around just one or two people. I get a lot of
anxiety when I’m around groups, especially in enclosed spaces. The uncertainty of the
near future, the closure of businesses I liked, the carelessness of anti-maskers, my
immunocompromised family members, my kid being separated from his friends, and
watching my friends lose their jobs are all disturbing and weigh heavily on me every day.
Amid the mounting COVID-19 uncertainty, however, many Bryerton teachers expressed the
anchor that teaching provided. One female described the refuge that teaching provided in
normalizing her overall experience despite the many current challenges:
I am constantly anxious, but it is unrelated to work. I am anxious about the state of our
country and political affairs, and the state of the pandemic. However, I feel my job is
safe, and I am happy to get out of the house and be distracted from the troubles of the
world. Children bring me joy and happiness, so work is really my saving grace during
this time.
The COVID-19 pandemic greatly affected the overall teaching experience of the study
participants through both student and school-centered differences, as well as in overarching
implications for the teachers.
Research Question 4: How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue?
Research Question 4 explored teacher’s coping and stress management practices. The
following survey question measured teacher perspectives: How do you manage or cope with the
level of stress or emotional fatigue you currently experience? Answers to this question were
analyzed and coded into themes and patterns in relation to how teachers managed their emotional
fatigue. The open-response items had an 89% completion rate by the study participants (n = 88).
Many teachers expressed a practice of using a variety of coping mechanisms similarly to the

teacher who shared, “I exercise, listen to music, talk to coworkers or teacher friends, and have a
glass of wine or unwind with a cocktail at night.” Some teachers responded very differently. One
teacher disclosed, “I am depressed and anxious in a high level. It is ruining my life.”
Nonetheless, three categories emerged when analyzing the open response questions detailing
how Bryerton teachers managed their emotional fatigue: solitary coping, social coping, and
desire for supportive coping. The variance of teacher experience and perception of emotional
fatigue described in Research Questions 1 and 2 indicate this same variation in ability to manage
one’s emotional fatigue, and most teachers shared a blend of coping tactics. Figure 4 provides a
visual representation of the coping approaches mentioned by the Bryerton faculty.

Figure 4
Faculty Reported Coping Approaches

69
31
21
15
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
3
3
2
2
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
EAT/DRINK
FAMILY
FRIENDS/COLLEAGUES
PRAYER/MEDITATION
READ
SET BOUNDARIES
MUSIC
NOT COPING
WATCH TV
SLEEP
CRY
GARDEN/NATURE
ART
JOURNAL

Solitary Coping
Of all coping approaches reported in the open-ended responses, 77% were solitary in
nature (n = 150). These approaches included exercise, being outdoors, watching TV, sleeping,
crying, drinking and eating, journaling, meditating or praying, reading, and listening to music. In
the study, healthy solitary coping strategies included a teacher’s ability to take outdoor breaks to
recharge, which included everything from walking, hiking, gardening, or going to the beach to
simply watch the waves. Solitary coping was also described through participation in reflective
practices like journaling, creating art, or practicing meditation. Teachers who demonstrated
positive solitary coping behaviors also indicated focusing on hobbies that were not work-related
as a way to recharge. While most teachers mentioned only a few coping approaches, others
described a combination of solitary practices that allowed them to feel more in control of their
situation:
During COVID, there is a lot more stress associated with our profession. We are expected
to teach students in class and remotely simultaneously. It is a lot more emotionally
draining. I find that being more structured and very organized assists with the stress.
When I am at home, I food prep for the week, I do aqua aerobics several times a week, I
walk daily. I also start every morning saying a positive affirmation and stretching with
bands. As soon as I get home in the evening, I change and then take about 10 minutes to
reflect on the day. Before bed, I meditate for 10 minutes.
Healthy solitary coping efforts included reflective practices. One teacher specified a positive
coping approach as, “I have a morning ritual of prayer, gratitude, breathing, and envisioning my
goals.” Another teacher shared:

I subscribe to the Calm App, and doing short meditations and breathing exercises
throughout the day helps center my attention. I also find a lot of success in journaling and
“brain dumping” my problems/to-do list at the beginning of each day. I have to actively
work every day towards lessening my stress levels, and these strategies help me the most.
The teachers even described their physical activity as more solitary in approach. 46% of
all solitary coping efforts reported (n = 69) involved some form of physical activity (e.g.,
exercise, yoga, run, walk/hike, garden/nature). One teacher shared the positive impact that
physical activity has had on her total outlook: “I’ve started working out more. Feeling and
looking more in shape has helped me feel better about things overall.” Another teacher shared,
“Exercise is huge for me. Self-care is how I deal with work stress. Making sure I am healthy and
spend enough time with my family, so I feel a good work-life balance.” While 47 teachers
directly referred to exercise or working out, 25 teachers did not refer to exercise directly and
simply shared their need to practice yoga, be outside to garden, walk on the beach or hike to help
them cope physically.
Of the coping approaches shared in the open-ended responses, 29% of the total coping
efforts were classified as negative solitary coping approaches (crying, sleeping, watching TV,
not coping, drinking, and eating). Some teachers only shared negative coping approaches, and
other teachers included them mixed together with some positive coping behaviors like this
teacher who shared the following coping approach: “I shut down at times and isolate myself,
libations, weekend trips, going for walks.” In the coding process, negative solitary coping themes
included escapism behaviors such as drinking alcohol, using CBD, or eating more, as well as
avoidance behaviors like sleeping or watching TV/Netflix.

Escapism Behaviors as a form of Solitary Coping
Teachers confessed they needed to distract themselves in order to cope with their
emotional fatigue at the time of the study. Open-ended responses included raw comments like
“I’m not doing well. I am eating more. I am losing interest in things and activities I used to do on
a regular basis,” and the reality that “Mainly, I look forward to having a drink over the weekend.
I also distract myself for 5 mins during lunch with social media.” The teachers who used food
and alcohol to escape the stress of their work expressed a desire to cope more positively, and that
was seen through responses like, “Some days, I barely survive and eat too much ice cream to
drown out my frustrations. Trying to do more positive outlets like exercise.” This theme was
replicated over and over through the teachers’ shared experiences confessing realities like “I
work out, or I try to. I also drink waayyyyy too much.”
Avoidance Behaviors as a form of Solitary Coping
The escapist behaviors of drinking are frequently coupled with avoidance behaviors in
many teacher experiences. One teacher shared, “I cope by going home to a cold bottle of
Sauvignon Blanc and some reality TV to turn my brain off.” Another teacher admitted that
avoidance and escapism were all she had capacity for:
Honestly, there is a lot of drinking involved. I also spend much of my time doing
mindless activities like watching TV or scrolling on social media. I try to read and do
calming activities like Yoga or baking on days that I feel I am capable. I am working to
integrate more physical activity into my daily routine again but don’t have the energy.
Still others did not even attempt to sugar-coat their avoidance coping approaches. When asked
how they coped with their emotional fatigue, one male secondary teacher shared, “Repression,
alcohol, sleep, escapism.” A female primary teacher reported, “I’m not sure I do cope. Lots of

sleep and mood swings.” The concept of sleep was very interesting in the study and was shared
in terms of a negative coping approach rather than something done to positively recharge and
rest. One primary teacher admitted, “I sleep more as I am drained every day.” Additionally,
teachers expressed that they were not sleeping well on the whole. One female primary teacher
stated, “I don't sleep well. I have trouble not worrying about work and the world at large.” It is
possible that this shared experience of avoiding stress through sleep has prevented sleep from
being seen as a way to recharge among the faculty members. One teacher admitted, “I’m not
coping well. I’m collapsing on the couch after work and neglecting my “regular life.” Another
shared, “I watch TV or procrastinate and put off thinking about things.” These types of responses
showed the extent to which the faculty’s emotional bandwidth had been depleted.
Social Coping
Social coping approaches were far less common (n = 44) and accounted for only 23% of
all coping practices reported in the open-ended responses. The teachers who practiced social
coping approaches prioritized spending time with family (n = 21, 48%) or friends and colleagues
(n = 14, 32%), and therefore shared about their efforts to set boundaries (n = 9, 20%). A male
secondary teacher reported:
I don't do any work once I leave campus, and I have hobbies and people outside of work.
I also try to enjoy my time when I'm not on campus. I spend time with family and friends,
and I enjoy music, movies/TV, and fantasy sports.
These teachers additionally described the need to vent with people they trusted or talk with
people who understood what they were experiencing as a form of social coping.

Desire for Supportive Coping
Teachers indicated they needed help coping, and 25% of the participants expressed the
need for supportive or collective coping opportunities to manage their emotional fatigue (n = 22).
This finding was not surprising given the high levels of solitary coping and low levels of social
coping approaches used by the teachers. The teachers expressed their desire to exercise with
someone, need for childcare support, or wish that their school administrators could help them by
taking things off their plate instead of adding more tasks and responsibilities. Teachers also
voiced a desire to talk more with others about their stressors and their need to spend greater time
with their friends and/or family to feel more supported in their ability to manage their stress.
Several teachers conveyed the desire to exercise but also a lack of capacity or
accountability to do so. One teacher even recommended that Bryerton provide a gym
membership to teachers as a way to better support them and hold the community more
collectively accountable for being more active. The sentiment that exercise was the first thing to
be pushed to the side when highly stressed was also a recurring theme: “I try to find time to
exercise 2-3 times per week. It is probably the best way to relieve stress and energize myself, but
it is usually the first activity I drop when I am too busy and stressed.”
The Bryerton teachers also expressed the need for school administrators to better
understand their teaching experience and provide greater support and resources. One teacher
conveyed the stress of figuring out how to navigate pandemic challenges without this type of
support: “[COVID-19] Raised [my emotional fatigue] due to unknowns in the workplace. No
direction given. We had to figure mostly everything out on our own.”
Another teacher clearly described the desire for a more supportive coping approach led
by a more engaged school administration:

During the pandemic, I feel that more and more pressure has been placed on teachers
with very little appreciation or understanding when/if things don't work correctly. This
environment feels more like "sink or swim" rather than administration and teachers
coming together as a [Bryerton] family to work together to deliver the best content and
support that we can to students. If administration tried to understand us more. If
administration stopped emailing and texting on nights and weekends. Administration
expects more and more every day, rather than trying to help teachers during this
extremely difficult transition time during COVID.
In the open-ended responses, two teachers indicated negative feelings towards their campus
administration. On the other hand, eight teachers recommended how helpful it would be to have
administrators who provided even better clarity, communication, and other supports to them at
this time.
In addition to expressing the need to feel more heard by their administrators, the teachers
also reported they needed to talk or “vent” with colleagues, teacher friends, or people who
understood what they were experiencing to help manage their stress. A secondary teacher shared,
“I enjoy people, so I give myself time to talk with them” as a way to cope with her emotional
fatigue. Another teacher indicated, “I cope by being around my family and being around people
who enjoy expressing themselves. Perhaps having more of a support group of individuals that are
in the similar situation as me [would help] but from other schools, perhaps maybe public school
environments.” Other teachers found social engagement to be distracting from their stress. One
teacher affirmed, “I spend time with people who will help me keep my mind off of work-related
things. I have learned to also stop caring about things out of my control.” While 36 teachers
expressed their need to be with friends and family to help them cope, other teachers were not

able to find that restorative. One newer teacher admitted, “I find myself isolating myself outside
of work because I’m too exhausted to socialize.” Another teacher shared the inconsistency of
being open to peer support: “Sometimes I hold it in. Sometimes, I discuss with colleagues or
friends.”
For some teachers, relying on friends and family was not enough and mentioned the need
for professional counseling support. One teacher shared, “I have to start meeting with a
counselor because my stress levels have been out of control, causing frequent panic attacks.”
Additionally, two teachers mentioned their appreciation for Bryerton’s school therapist as one of
the supports needed to manage this challenging time.
Summary
The teachers were stressed, emotionally exhausted, and burned out, but their strong
experiences of personal accomplishment and compassion fatigue acted as a buffer to mitigate the
feelings of extreme fatigue. These buffering emotions kept the teachers from experiencing high
levels of emotional exhaustion and burnout even during the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a large variance in teacher experience across all variables, and statistically significant
differences within teacher subgroups illuminated these distinctions. Findings further
demonstrated that burnout was able to be predicted through emotional exhaustion and personal
accomplishment in teacher experience. Furthermore, the strongly correlating variables in the
study indicated a foundation for the blended concept of emotional fatigue: a combination of the
elements of burnout and emotional exhaustion with compassion fatigue. Teachers conveyed
changes to their level of emotional fatigue because of the COVID-19 pandemic through student
and school-centered differences, as well as implications for themselves specifically. Finally, the
ways in which teachers coped with emotional fatigue were categorized into the themes of solitary

coping, social coping, and the desire among the teachers for more collaborative coping supports.
At the time of the study, the majority of Bryerton teachers expressed their use of solitary coping
practices compared to social coping approaches.

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter Five outlines the relevance of the findings compared with the existing literature
and the resulting recommendations both for practice and further research. Limitations and
delimitations of the study are also included. The discussion of findings serves as a bridge
between the data analysis and the organizational recommendations for practice. Significant
findings are analyzed through personal, behavioral, and environmental factors in accordance
with the study’s conceptual framework founded in social cognitive theory.
Discussion of Findings
The context of the COVID-19 pandemic deeply impacted the study findings. At Bryerton
specifically, higher burnout levels were anticipated due to the pandemic, but instead, the study
reported higher than average levels of personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction.
Despite the variety of teaching and learning challenges, Bryerton’s student learning outcomes
remained high, and the organization proudly reported the absence of COVID-slide in their 2020
Report Card. It is possible teacher satisfaction may have been elevated as a result of strong
learner outcomes due to the teacher’s successful and rapid pivot to remote instruction in March
2020, followed by continual changes to improve the learning experience in the 2020-2021 school
year. COVID-related findings from recent studies, however, detail that teachers are working
harder due to proximity and technology challenges, as well as having to create more materials
because existing curriculum is not designed for hybrid (Christensen Institute, 2021).
Additionally, the National Association of Independent Schools reported 98% of teacher
participants in their study noticed greater symptoms of worry and anxiety in their students while
also reporting increases in their own feelings of anxiety (NAIS, 2020).

Against this backdrop, this study conceptualizes emotional fatigue as a blend of the
energy depletion element of emotional exhaustion burnout, with the compassion fatigue
dimension of feeling too overwhelmed to keep caring. In order to describe and measure
emotional fatigue, two separate instruments were used in the study that incorporated separate
subscales to measure different contributing variables. The variance in findings indicated the MBI
and ProQOL instruments are not interchangeable but rather showed how related the constructs
are because of the strong correlations between the distinct subscales. The blended concept of
emotional fatigue combines not just the terms of the constructs but also connects the relationship
between emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue. Literature also relates the similarities by
which individuals cope with emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue, but the differences in
personal experiences reflected within teacher subgroups show they are different constructs. The
specific personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that contribute to teacher emotional
fatigue both in totality and as individual variables are explored in the following discussion.
Personal Factors
The literature suggests long-term exposure to stressors increases the likelihood of burnout
(Schaufeli et al., 2008; Sprang et al., 2011), but the Bryerton sample reported generally average
levels when compared with the scales provided by the original researchers (Maslach et al., 2018;
Stamm, 2010a). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this finding was surprising.
However, examining the impact of burnout through personal factors showed significant
differences within teacher subgroups. A number of these findings aligned with the existing
literature surrounding the unique variables within the emotional fatigue construct.
Female and male teacher subgroups reported significant differences in their experience of
emotional exhaustion and secondary traumatic stress. Female teachers reported higher levels of

emotional exhaustion than males, a finding consistent with other studies that found female
teachers often report higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion (Bottiani et al., 2019;
O’Brennan et al., 2017). Furthermore, in a study of female teachers, Bellingrath et al. (2009)
correlated high levels of exhaustion with high levels of allostatic load that developed in teachers
trying to manage a variety of stressors over time. This cumulative fatigue was mirrored in the
female teacher’s open-ended responses in the study as well. Female teachers also reported higher
levels of secondary traumatic stress than their male colleagues, which was also consistent with
literature where higher levels of compassion fatigue correlated among female helping
professionals (Sprang et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2014; Turgoose & Maddox, 2017; Zeidner et
al., 2013).
A surprising difference in teacher subgroups was found between the non-credentialed and
credentialed teachers. Teachers holding a credential reported higher levels of burnout than non-
credentialed teachers. This finding was opposite of what may be expected as a result of the
expected preparation that a teaching certificate provides. The literature suggests, however, that
teaching preparation programs do not prepare teachers for the job demands (Greenberg et al.,
2016; Hargreaves, 2000), and the study finding questioned if this can also be applied to
preparing teachers to cope with burnout as well. Furthermore, disruptive student behavior is
widely recognized as the leading job demand impacting teacher burnout (Bakker et al., 2007;
Bottiani et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2014, 2018; Martin et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011;
Split et al., 2011). With the assumption that credential teachers are more likely to have better-
developed skills to manage disruptive student behavior, the current study findings illustrated
student behavior may not currently be the leading stressor in the context of COVID-19.

Depersonalization measured long-term burnout in teacher experience, and surprisingly,
teachers with less experience ranging from 1-10 years reported higher levels of depersonalization
than teachers with 11+ years in the classroom. The literature suggests greater time in the
profession correlates with higher depersonalization (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Maslach et al.,
2001), but the Bryerton study differed from these findings. At Bryerton, the less experienced
teachers felt higher levels of depersonalization which illustrated an organizational need to
prevent the progression of drain and fatigue to developing into depersonalization and intense
feelings of indifference towards teaching or students. Teachers who derived greater compassion
satisfaction or increased feelings of personal accomplishment from their work also indicated
reduced feelings of indifference or negativity, suggesting the mitigating effect that positive affect
may have on a teacher’s emotional state. It is possible that the less experienced teachers may not
feel as effective, which may impede the mitigating impact of personal accomplishment. While
age was not a factor in the current study, Sprang et al. (2011) specified that younger mental
health professionals experienced a greater likelihood to report compassion fatigue suggesting a
parallel finding with overall years of experience.
Primary teachers reported statistically significant higher levels of secondary traumatic
stress than secondary teachers. These findings that suggest grade level taught is a factor of
compassion fatigue is consistent with the existing literature, which indicates primary teachers are
more involved in the emotional aspects of teaching (Buettner et al., 2016; Jennings, 2015;
O’Conner et al., 2017). The increased challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic of
incorporating technology and virtually engaging younger students made this finding anticipated
in the current study. The variance among teacher subgroups reflected unique differences in
personal factors contributing to teacher emotional fatigue.

Motivation and Efficacy
The personal influences of motivation and efficacy on teacher burnout experience were
central elements in the study’s conceptual framework and were closely tied with the personal
accomplishment and compassion satisfaction study variables. Because of the high levels of
personal accomplishment reported by the participants, expectancy value theory (EVT) provides a
relevant lens to analyze teacher emotional fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVT
research demonstrates that an individuals’ values predict their choices, ability beliefs, and
expectancies for success that all impact an individual’s performance (Eccles et al., 1993;
Wigfield et al., 1997). Examining personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction within
the EVT lens suggests that a teacher’s motivation is directly tied with the value they place on the
labor of teaching.
Personal accomplishment is linked with attainment, intrinsic, and utility value, and
therefore understanding teachers’ perceptions of their motivation to choose, persist, and optimize
mental effort is critical to finding appropriate recommendations to better support teacher
emotional fatigue. EVT raises personal questions: “Can I do it?” and “Do I want to do it?”
Among the Bryerton teachers in the current study, it is clear they can do it (i.e., teach a
concurrent classroom during a pandemic), but the findings continue to question if they want to
persist doing it. The implication this has on teachers choosing to remain in the profession has
potentially disastrous consequences for K-12 education.
Teachers in the Bryerton study indicated the use of solitary coping approaches, which
presented an interesting challenge to motivation and building teacher capacity. The context of the
COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly encouraged these solitary approaches, but nonetheless,
increased depression was found among the Bryerton participants. Research suggests burnout

created feelings of disengagement, detachment, helplessness, and depression (Leiter & Durup,
1994; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and linked work stress and burnout with serious mental health
challenges such as anxiety, depression, and suicide (Choi, 2018; Melchior et al., 2007).
Additionally, researchers connected teacher depressive symptoms with lower student outcomes
(McLean & Connor, 2015). These consequences of burnout impact the potential for feelings of
personal accomplishment among teachers. Motivation principles such as offering opportunities
for choice and control or providing positive feedback to validate perceptions of competence
(Ambrose et al., 2010), as well as focusing efforts to increase teacher self-efficacy, will be
important moving forward to increase feelings of attainment, intrinsic, and utility value.
Self-efficacy beliefs foster an individuals’ expected outcomes, determine the amount of
effort an individual will expend or choices they will make, and influence a person’s emotional
reactions (Pajares, 2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs show their own perceived capability to
positively influence student learning or behavior and therefore are connected to feelings of
personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction in teacher experience. The study findings
demonstrating personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction act as buffers to teacher
emotional fatigue suggest that higher self-efficacy could be a mitigating solution to burnout. This
concept is further strengthened by existing research. Bottiani et al. (2019) claimed teachers with
higher self-efficacy reported lower levels of stress and burnout. These findings were consistent
with other researchers who positively related self-efficacy with work engagement and job
satisfaction and negatively with emotional exhaustion (Avanzi et al., 2013; Federici & Skaalvik,
2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Researchers also found that lower self-efficacy resulted in
higher emotional exhaustion (Dicke et al., 2014; Herman et al., 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010;

Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Unquestionably, the literature links lower burnout with higher
efficacy.
Behavioral Factors
The solitary coping approaches reported by the Bryerton faculty indicate barriers to the
relationships and connection that were explored deeply in literature review and became central
elements in the study’s conceptual framework. Research suggested that interpersonal
relationships between teachers, students, and the extended school community contributed to
burnout (Fransson & Frelin, 2016; Pietarinen et al., 2013; Pyhalto et al., 2011), but the absence
of these connections may also impact feelings of burnout as shown in the study. Prior research
indicates that relationships with adults on campus give teachers a sense of collegial support
(Johnson et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2013), and a teacher’s sense of belonging and
connectedness helps them remain in the profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Building this
social community is essential, therefore, to supportive coping on a school campus.
The barriers presented by COVID-19 on developing close and meaningful relationships
with students due to technology and proximity challenges have further implications on teacher
emotional fatigue. Previous research indicated that poor student relationships increased teacher
stress responses of tension, discontent, and negative emotions (Harmsen et al., 2018), and it was
anticipated that teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic would further exacerbate these stress
responses. In the study, the emotional suppression of putting students first was a key theme
expressed by teachers. Researchers caution that in continuing to support the needs of students,
the work demands prevent teachers from successfully regulating their emotions and contribute to
increased teacher burnout and emotional exhaustion (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Chang,
2009). Building strong relationships and developing opportunities for meaningful connection

throughout the school community are imperative for balancing the solitary coping approaches
reported in the study.
Environmental Factors
The school environment also impacts teacher capacity for collective and supporting
coping efforts. Slatten et al. (2011) classified compassion fatigue as an occupational hazard that
escalated quickly, compared to burnout which evolved gradually as an organizational hazard.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, teacher emotional fatigue was a considerable problem
affecting educators across the world. The pandemic has further heightened awareness of the
culture and support components of this study’s conceptual framework. Research on school
climate suggested teacher well-being directly influenced their ability to create a supportive
learning environment (Cumming, 2016; Jeon et al., 2018) and indicated teachers’ psychosocial
stressors were significant predictors of their classroom emotional climate (Li Grining et al.,
2010). Other research suggested teacher well-being directly impacted student prosocial and
emotional behavior (Breeman et al., 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). With teachers in the
study admitting they did not feel they were coping well with their stressors, the overall learning
environment may have suffered. Many teachers shared their concern for students as one of the
contributors to increased emotional fatigue.
Supporting students is the primary role of a teacher and manifests academically,
physically, socially, and emotionally in the classroom. Pianta et al. (2008) described emotional
support as one of the three domains of classroom quality and championed the need for emotional
connection, mutual respect, and appreciation for student perspectives. With teachers sharing they
feel increased levels of emotional exhaustion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear they are
concerned they do not have ample bandwidth to offer this emotional support and connection to

their students. Harvey et al. (2012) recognized that teachers’ emotional skills and deficits are
modeled throughout the emotional exchanges in the learning process and served as the leading
contributor to classroom tone. These emotional response patterns signal security and support to
students and are even more critical because of learning challenges due to COVID-19, therefore
building teacher emotional capacity is essential to maintaining supportive learning environments.
The Bryerton teachers expressed a need for greater supportive and collective coping
approaches. Researchers associated social support at work with lower compassion fatigue
(Thompson et al., 2014) and attributed meaningful relationships as buffers to emotional
exhaustion and teacher burnout (Bottiani et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Xanthopoulou
et al., 2007). These approaches would allow teachers to model prosocial behaviors within the
school environment to increase teacher emotional bandwidth across the teaching team. The
teachers also expressed their appreciation of and desire for more engaged and communicative
school administration as a support mechanism that would stabilize their fatigue. This sentiment is
echoed in the literature, which indicated teachers felt more supported when administration was
highly involved and communicating effectively (Johnson et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2010). Together, these personal, behavioral, and environmental factors work in tandem to affect
the capacity of teachers to navigate feelings of emotional fatigue.
Recommendations for Practice
Three key recommendations emerged from analyzing the findings through the lens of the
study’s conceptual framework. To combat the problem of teacher emotional fatigue, independent
schools like Bryerton can better support teachers by creating collaborative support opportunities,
focusing on developing strong relationships and connectedness through greater SEL integration,

and increasing feelings of personal accomplishment. The challenge for schools implementing
these recommendations will be to ensure subsequent efforts do not further overload the teachers.
Recommendation 1: Create Collaborative Support Opportunities
Teachers expressed the need to work more closely with their colleagues as a way to
support their emotional well-being, and reduce their stress and burnout. The literature suggests
social support is imperative to buffering compassion fatigue (Thompson et al., 2014) and burnout
(Bottiani et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Prioritizing
collaborative support opportunities is therefore essential for school environments wishing to
balance teacher emotional fatigue. Unfortunately, however, a casualty of the COVID-19
pandemic was the elimination of common planning time in the Bryerton primary teacher
experience. This structured grade-level collaboration focus allowed teachers to jointly plan
instruction but also symbolized an organizational commitment to prioritizing teamwork and
support. Even during times of stress, maintaining these organizational values is critical to
prioritizing essential collaboration and connectedness. In addition to reinstating grade level
planning time post-pandemic, Bryerton is well-positioned to actionize the teacher’s expressed
desire for collaborative support opportunities and can more intentionally structure professional
learning community (PLC) time to guide collaborative opportunities across individual grade
levels, specific campuses, and across the Bryerton community of schools overall.
Each Friday afternoon, Bryerton teachers participate in PLC, and an organizational
commitment to use that time weekly to embed collaborative support and coping could positively
impact teacher experience. This time is already built into the teacher’s workweek and therefore
restructuring the learning community so that the teachers are not doing “more” but instead are
working together to jointly complete essential job functions such as unit planning, resource

creating, and lesson sharing will allow collaborative efforts to not feel like an additional task but
rather a helpful and actionable solution. This approach requires organizational planning to
implement. In the current structure, each campus determines the weekly PLC focus but shifting
to greater organizational oversight for the 2021-2022 school year could facilitate greater support
opportunities across the overall community. To effectively implement collaborative PLC
engagement that lessened the burden felt by teachers, Bryerton’s Education Department would
need agreement across the campuses to create a calendar that included grade-level planning
opportunities for specific task deliverables (i.e., integrated STEM unit planning), and unique
development discussions tailored to specific groups of teachers so that the collaboration space
met their unique needs to build efficacy, skills, and knowledge (i.e., new teacher support, or
technology tips and tricks).
Additionally, the study highlighted how distinctive groups of teachers experienced the
emotional fatigue constructs differently, and addressing burnout and fatigue within these
demographic subgroups could also uniquely support the challenges felt particularly by gender,
ethnicity, experience, credential, or grade level groupings. Focusing on these smaller
subgroupings would more concretely allow for building self-efficacy and collective-efficacy
among the faculty through tangible vicarious experience sharing and improved mastery
expectations as part of the collaborative support opportunities. One striking takeaway from the
study findings illuminated the teachers expressed they knew how to cope with their emotional
fatigue, but just were not doing it. Therefore, carving time in their professional week to allow
them greater collective accountability and resource sharing would signal how much the
organization valued them and their contribution to student learning. Furthermore, PLC time
could include a mindfulness component as a way to build reflective capacity. The occasional

incorporation of physical exercise challenges could also provide support and accountability for
the teachers struggling to incorporate coping approaches they know would benefit them but are
hesitant to explore.
Recommendation 2: Focus on Developing Relationships and Connectedness through
School-wide SEL Adoption
Bryerton teachers predominately reported solitary coping approaches, which may lead to
increased feelings of isolation. Many of these solitary approaches manifested more negatively in
practice due to the individualistic approach, which did not support effective coping both
personally or professionally. While these solitary approaches were undoubtedly influenced by
the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, they nonetheless impacted the teacher’s ability to
model strong SEL competencies and capacities to their students to leverage the power of
relationships and connectedness across a school community.
The literature supports a strong value on teacher-student relationships (Fransson & Frelin,
2016; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Split et al., 2011) and social connectedness (Bottiani et al.,
2019; Johnson et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2013; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011) as possible
recommendations to mitigate teacher emotional fatigue. Furthermore, research shows that
children who develop positive relationships with their teachers have stronger social, emotional,
and behavioral connections in the learning environment (Breeman et al., 2015; Split et al., 2011).
Additionally, teachers who feel a sense of belonging are less likely to suffer from emotional
exhaustion and more likely to remain in the teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).
These findings suggest that SEL competencies should be integrated into all aspects of the
school experience for the improved well-being of students and teachers alike. A school-wide
approach encompasses curricular resources, instructional practices, and a heightened focus on

developing quality relationships between teachers, staff, students, and families (CASEL, 2017;
Oberle et al., 2016; Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007). This process begins with a focus on improved
adult SEL development. Markowitz et al. (2018) posited school culture played a significant role
in teacher effectiveness when modeling SEL competencies. As a result, Bryerton faculty have an
inherent need for deeper SEL training and development so that these values become embedded in
the school community. Researchers indicated that teachers identified knowledge and training as
the biggest obstacles to SEL success (Buchanan et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2018), and therefore
ongoing professional development at Bryerton is paramount to SEL success.
A structure and shared language would be helpful to ensuring successful implementation
of the school-wide SEL adoption. Bryerton would benefit from exploring existing frameworks of
support rather than placing the burden of creating the implementation plan directly on the
campuses and teachers. For instance, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning provides numerous tools and resources for implementation, including program guides
that review frameworks and identify guidelines for selecting programs (CASEL, n.d.). A
commitment to evaluating SEL frameworks through Bryerton’s existing curriculum adoption
process would allow for taskforce review and initial program selection, piloting curricula and
training approaches, and ultimately determining the best overall program fit to streamline the
transition to embed instruction and SEL competencies school-wide. This implementation
approach structures the SEL integration and engages the organization to set priority and value on
embedding SEL competencies into the school community in a way that is sensitive to the
existing workload of teachers.

Recommendation 3: Increase Teachers’ Feelings of Personal Accomplishment
To combat burnout among teachers, schools must actively work to increase feelings of
personal accomplishment. Feelings of personal accomplishment buffer both initial emotional
exhaustion as well as long-term burnout (Maslach et al., 2018), just as compassion satisfaction
mitigates burnout and secondary traumatic stress (Stamm, 2010). The current study replicated
these findings, highlighting how powerful these positive emotions can be, even during times of
increased stress and uncertainty. Personal accomplishment is a challenging construct to measure
because feeling successful, or that one is making an impact, varies from teacher to teacher.
Organizationally, Bryerton can improve opportunities to show teacher appreciation and
the value placed on teacher impact. Literature indicates teachers feel better about their work
when they have meaningful relationships with their students (Pop & Turner, 2009; Thomson &
Palermo, 2018) and when they feel they actively contribute to student success (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Therefore, intentionally prioritizing
the development of strong student relationships or celebrating the impact of their efforts on
student success is paramount. At the preschool and elementary levels, Bryerton administration
works hard to place students with teachers that would be a good fit for their personality and
social emotional development. When teachers receive their class rosters, they receive a digital
overview of their students’ grades, standardized test scores, and notes from the prior year’s
teacher but administration can take this a step further to meet with teachers prior to the school
year to discuss the students in a teacher’s class and why that specific student was placed in their
classroom. This effort could jumpstart the development of strong relationships and validate
personal accomplishment prior to the school year even beginning. As the school year progresses,
quarterly check-in meetings with administrators can further develop the sense of personal

accomplishment while reflecting on student growth academically, socially, and emotionally as
well as celebrating teacher growth incorporating different technologies or instructional practices.
Targeting professional development in specific areas to improve teacher self-efficacy is
another measure Bryerton can take to increase feelings of personal accomplishment. Existing
literature suggests higher efficacy correlates with lower burnout and exhaustion (Avanzi et al.,
2013; Bottiani et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2014; Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Herman et al., 2018;
Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010, 2014). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the
teachers received minimal exposure to the technology prior to using it to deliver instruction
which heightened their sense of frustration and exhaustion and ultimately reduced their self-
efficacy beliefs and feelings of effectiveness. Additional awareness that technology can be used
differently for innovation and necessity and adjusting teacher expectations and needed support
will also improve feelings of personal accomplishment. Similarly, the unfamiliar dynamic of
managing a concurrent classroom also provided a challenge as traditional instructional
approaches no longer felt effective given the new learning demands. Targeted and ongoing
professional development to improve efficacy does not just provide tools and resources to
manage a concurrent classroom or connect students without traditional proximity to the teacher
or other students. Professional development that incorporates practice, feedback, and modeling
from other teachers can gradually impact the self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares, 2009) of the teachers,
and Bryerton must intentionally build these opportunities into teacher development to positively
impact their feelings of efficacy and ultimately personal accomplishment. Nuancing these
development opportunities uniquely to particular teacher subgroups as previously discussed will
allow for more targeted benefits of increased personal accomplishment.

Expectancy value theory (EVT) is a key area to explore to improve feelings of personal
accomplishment among Bryerton teachers in order to balance and support the teachers’ overall
personal utility value, social utility value, intrinsic value, and cost value. The challenges
presented by the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in educators across the nation reframing the
value they placed on teaching. At Bryerton specifically, the parent community was so thankful
for the option to have their student(s) benefit from safely learning on campus for five full days
each week, and this praise and appreciation could have improved the feelings of intrinsic value
and ultimately personal accomplishment. Organizationally, however, the teachers expressed not
always feeling this same level of appreciation, even to the point of feeling taken for granted or
expendable. During the pandemic, Bryerton focused on the student outcomes and celebrated the
lack of COVID-slide experienced organizationally compared to the learning loss reported
nationally. Even a slight shift in focus and messaging to center on the efforts of the teachers
could have more positively impacted their motivation and expectancies for success. The
opportunity for Bryerton leadership to clearly identify and align the perceived personal utility
value, social utility value, intrinsic value, and mitigating cost felt by the teachers and actively
work to address potential barriers or misalignment in perspective can positively impact the
overall feeling of personal accomplishment experienced by the teachers.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are the influences on the study outside of the control of the researcher
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Identified influences included researcher
bias, subject self-reporting bias, and the possible hesitation of teachers to participate in the study.
The researcher was passionate about the problem of teacher emotional fatigue and held close
relationships with the overall study population, which required considerable self-reflection to

minimize the impact of researcher bias on the data analysis. On the other hand, self-reporting
bias suggested participants may provide answers they believe to be socially or professionally
desirable instead of sharing their true beliefs and experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Furthermore, the independent school setting could act as a limitation of the study because
the teachers do not represent the greater teaching force. The teachers in the study taught a mix of
on-campus and remote learners concurrently with many provisions made for their personal
safety. Finally, in this study, the data source was a survey and, therefore, survey fatigue and
nonresponse were a considerable limitation of the research (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). At the
time of the study specifically, participants were evacuated from their homes due to wildfires
raging throughout Southern California. For the first time in school history, Bryerton closed its
campuses for a day due to the number of staff, faculty, and families displaced due to the fires and
inability to provide concurrent instruction. The survey period also coincided with the November
2020 presidential elections and resulting general social unrest and political demonstrations.
These unique conditions, layered atop the COVID-19 pandemic, provided the context for the
survey period. Bryerton obtained a waiver to operate live on-campus instruction at the end of
August for preschool through sixth-grade students. Seventh graders through high schoolers were
able to return to campus learning at the end of September—a full month prior to the survey
period. Nonetheless, concurrent pandemic instruction was still new for the Bryerton faculty at
the time of the survey. Approximately half of the Bryerton teaching population participated in
the survey amid these incredible obstacles that created a substantial cause for increased
emotional fatigue.
A noteworthy limitation of the study surrounded the statistically significant difference in
compassion satisfaction between the non-White and White teacher subgroups. The non-White

subgroup reported higher levels of compassion satisfaction than the White subgroup, but it is
unclear how reliable this finding is because almost 30% of the participants chose not to respond
to the race/ethnicity demographic question (n = 28). Due to the make-up of the study population,
race and ethnicity were not explored in existing research surrounding teacher emotional fatigue,
which is a considerable limitation of the study.
Delimitations consider the influences that a researcher can control by carefully designing
the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the researcher
went to great lengths to assure participants of their anonymity throughout the research process
due to the perceived relationships within the organizational context. Furthermore, the study
design itself had been influenced by the extant literature allowing for the literature review to
serve as a source of data triangulation of the quantitative study. Triangulation increases the
credibility of research findings by ensuring data are evaluated through multiple lenses and
sources (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and so
comparing the quantitative and qualitative findings with the literature served as a delimitation.
Importantly, the study had been piloted in order to ensure including the two full instruments
(MBI and ProQOL) limited any potential survey fatigue. The survey period was also postponed
until after the first quarter grading period concluded to further support participation.
Recommendations for Future Research
Teacher emotional fatigue has been a concerning problem for K-12 education prior to and
also compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research exploring the similarities and
differences in burnout and compassion fatigue between the independent and public school
teaching experiences would improve the understanding of the overall impact of emotional fatigue
on teacher well-being in general. Hybrid instruction has not been widespread in K-12 education

prior to the pandemic, and therefore greater research comparing the different teacher experiences
in delivering remote, hybrid, and in-person instruction is a beneficial area to focus further
research, especially as school districts struggle with safely planning a return to in-person
instruction. Comparing the emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal
accomplishment subscales of the MBI with teaching populations, both public and independent,
and fully remote, hybrid, or fully in-person would be impactful research to develop best practices
for teacher well-being no matter the school, organization, or district approaches. Additional
research that examines specifically how burnout manifests differently by race would be helpful
to support teacher well-being in specific populations and teaching experiences. Evaluating
teacher emotional fatigue challenges and solutions through a diversity, equity, and inclusion
approach is an area for future research that could expand the study’s impact and
recommendations across a larger teaching population than the current study’s school community.
Finally, within the independent school sector specifically, more research to guide understanding
of the impact of teacher credentialing as it relates to teacher well-being and student outcomes is a
recommendation for further research.
Conclusion
Pre-pandemic, teachers reported the highest levels of self-perceived workplace stress than
any other profession (Hakanen et al., 2006). Pandemic research denoted 85% of teachers felt
they must spend more time preparing instruction than they did pre-pandemic (Arnett, 2021), and
98% of teachers confessed to feeling more concerned and anxious about their students than
before (NAIS, 2020), indicating that teacher emotional fatigue and workplace stress continued to
rise due to COVID-19. The current study mirrored these increasingly draining realities and
reflected high variance of teacher emotional exhaustion, a condition which existing research

suggested directly impacted teacher self-efficacy (Bottiani et al., 2019; Dicke et al., 2014;
Herman et al., 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Yet even during the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the study participants reported only average levels of
emotional exhaustion compared with high levels of personal accomplishment and lower than
average levels of depersonalization, suggesting positive teacher satisfaction was mitigating the
negative impact of burnout at the Bryerton schools. As a result, the organization must develop
opportunities for improved teacher collaboration, intentional school-wide SEL, and opportunities
for increased personal accomplishment in order to positively bolster teacher well-being and
encourage them to persist despite their fatigue. Implementing these recommendations with an
intentional focus to prioritize teacher well-being and decrease work demands will ensure the
teachers are not further overloaded in the process.
Teacher emotional exhaustion leads to depersonalization which results in severe burnout
(Maslach et al., 2018) and, ultimately, attrition from the profession (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Greenberg et al., 2016). Similarly, burnout and secondary traumatic stress cause increased
compassion fatigue which leads to the inability to continue helping and caring (Stamm, 2010).
Unfortunately, students need greater support as a result of the pandemic as well, with 98% of
independent school teachers facing high levels of student anxiety and 84% teaching students who
exhibit often or occasional signs of depression (Phillipo et al., 2020). Yet with these high
percentages of student well-being challenges, 48% of teachers reported handling student mental
health challenges themselves during the pandemic (NAIS, 2020). It is, therefore, unsurprising
that only 22% of independent school teachers surveyed strongly agreed they could cope with
their stress as a teacher (Phillipo et al., 2020). Teachers expressed heightened stressors and
anxiety both for themselves and their students (NAIS, 2020), and research showed that concern

for students is a heavy burden on teacher well-being (Breeman et al., 2015; Harvey et al., 2012;
Pianta et al., 2008; Split et al., 2011) thus perpetuating the revolving door of teacher burnout.
Teachers are burning out at an alarming rate which paralyzes their growth and effectiveness as
educators and discourages their continued efforts to persist in the profession.

References
Albrecht, S. F., Johns, B. H., Mounsteven, J., & Olorunda, O. (2009). Working conditions as
risk or resiliency factors for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1006-1022.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Arnett, T. (2021). Breaking the mold: How a global pandemic unlocks innovation in K-12
instruction. The Christensen Institute. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/BL-Survey-1.07.21.pdf
Avanzi, L., Miglioretti, M., Velasco, V., Balducci, C., Vecchio, L., Fraccaroli, F., & Skaalvik,
E.M. (2013). Cross-validation of the Norwegian teacher’s self-efficacy scale (NTSES).
Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 69-78.
Awa, W. L., Plaumann, M. & Walter, U. (2010). Burnout prevention: A review of intervention
programs. Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 184-190.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. Well-Being, 3, 1-28.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 62, 341-356.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K.G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.),
Great Minds in Management (pp. 9-35). Oxford University.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9-44
Bellingrath, S., Weigl, T., & Kudielka, B. (2009). Chronic work stress and exhaustion is
associated with higher allostastic load in female school teachers. Stress, 12(1), 37-48.
Bober, T., & Regehr, C. (2006). Strategies for reducing secondary or vicarious trauma: Do they
work? Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 6, 1-9.
Bottiani, J. H., Duran, C. A. K., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). Teacher stress and
burnout in urban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective
classroom practices. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 36-51.
Breeman, L. D., Wubbels, T., Van Lier, P. A., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A., &
Tick, N. T. (2015). Teacher characteristics, social classroom relationships, and children’s
social, emotional, and behavioral classroom adjustment in special education. Journal of
School Psychology, 53(1), 87-103.
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher
survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform
schools. Civic Enterprises.
Brotheridge, C.M., & Grandey, A.A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two
perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.
Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 30, 199-211.

Buchanan, R., Gueldner, B., Tran, O., & Merrell, K (2009). Social and emotional
learning in classrooms: A survey of teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and
practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25(2), 187-203.
Buettner, C., Jeon, L., Hur, E., & Garcia, R, (2016). Teachers’ social emotional capacity:
Factors associated with teachers’ responsiveness and professional commitment. Early
Education and Development, 27(7), 1018-1039.
California Department of Education (2019). Multi-Tiered System of Supports [web page].
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/
California Legislative Information. (2019, September 10). SB-419 Pupil discipline: suspensions:
willful defiance. Senate Bill No. 419. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB419
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health.
(2018). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data Summary & Trends Report, 2007-2017 [PDF
file]. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf
Chang, M. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work
of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 193–218.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publish.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2017). Core SEL
Competencies. https://casel.org/core-competencies/
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (n.d.). District Resource
Center. https://drc.casel.org/

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (n.d.). CASEL program guides:
Effective social and emotional learning programs. https://casel.org/guide/
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cumming, T. (2016). Early childhood educators' well-being: An updated review of the
literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 583-593.
Daniel, J. (2012). Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices.
SAGE.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Human needs and
the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
DePaoli, J.L., Atwell, M.N., & Bridgeland, J. (2017). Ready to lead: A national principal
survey on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform
schools. Civic Enterprises.
Dicke, T., Parker, P.D., Marsh, H.W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014).
Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional
exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106(2), 569-583.
Dicke, T., Stebner, F., Linninger, C., Kunter, M., & Leutner, D. (2018). A longitudinal study of
teachers’ occupational well-being: Applying the job demands-resources model. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 262-277.

Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy environments and
response to trauma in schools (hearts): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and
intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School
Mental Health, 8(1), 163-176.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D. & Schellinger, K. B.
(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-
analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1): 405–432.
Eccles, J. (1983) Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. A. (2007). Motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for
learning and teaching. In. R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Optimizing student
success in schools with the new three Rs (pp. 199–202). Information Age.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed.). Wiley.
Eccles, J. (2009) Expectancy Value Motivational Theory. In E. M. Anderman & L. H.
Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 390-
393). Macmillan Reference USA.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Teacher and principal self-efficacy: relations with
autonomy and emotional exhaustion. In B.L. Shari (Ed.), Self-efficacy in school and
community settings. New York: Nova Science Publ. Pp. 125-150.

Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in
teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 514-525.
Figley, C. (1995). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic stress disorder: An overview. In
C. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in
those who treat the traumatized (p. 1-20). Brunner/Mazel.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Addison-Wesley.
Fransson, G., & Frelin, A. (2016). Highly committed teachers: What makes them tick? A study
of sustained commitment. Teachers and Teaching, 22(8), 896-912.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30, 159-165.
Fried, R. L. (1995). The passionate teacher. Beacon Press.
Friedman, I. (2006). Classroom management and teacher stress and burnout. In C. M. Evertson
& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 925-944). Erlbaum.
Gallup (2014). State of American schools. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/services/178709/state-america-schools-report.aspx.
Greenberg, M. T., Brown, J. L., & Abenavoli, R. M. (2016). Teacher stress and health effects on
teachers, students, and schools. Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center,
Pennsylvania State University.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
14(8), 835-854.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in
teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21, 967–983.
Harmsen, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., & van Veen, K. (2018). The relationship between
beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behavior and attrition.
Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 626-643.
Harvey, S. T., Bimler, D., Evans, I. M., Kirkland, J., & Pechtel, P. (2012). Mapping the
classroom emotional environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 628-640.
Herman, K., Hickmon-Rosa, J., Reinke, W. (2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher
stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90-100.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hoglund, W. L. G., Klingle, K. E., & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources:
Teacher burnout, classroom quality, and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary
schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 337-357.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students
with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359-390). Guilford
Press.
Hoy, W., & Feldman, J. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38.
Huggard, P., & Dixon, R. (2011). Tired of caring: The impact of caring on resident doctors.
Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 3, 103-111.
Iancu, A. E., Rusu, A., Maroiu, C., Pacurar, R. & Maricutoiu, L. (2018). The effectiveness of
interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout: A meta-analysis. Education
Psychological Review, 30, 373-396.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching
force. CPRE Report (#RR80). Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University
of Pennsylvania.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491-525.
Jennings, P. A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, ands self-
compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes toward challenging students.
Mindfulness, 6(4), 732-743.
Jennings, P. A., & Frank, J. L. (2015). Inservice preparation for educators. In J. A. Durlak, C. E.
Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta, (Eds.), Handbook of social and
emotional learning: Research and practice (p.422-437). Guilford Press.

Jeon, L., Buettner, C., & Grant, A. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ psychological well-being:
Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early
Education and Development, 29(1), 53-69.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools:
The effect of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their
students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-39.
Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M. & Weissbourd, R. (2013). Educators’ social and emotional skills
vital to learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 62-65.
Kees, N. L. & Lashwood, P. A. (1996). Compassion fatigue and school personnel: Remaining
open to the affective needs of students. Educational Horizons, 75(1), 41-44.
Killian, K. (2008). Helping till it hurts? A multimethod study of compassion fatigue, burnout,
and self-care in clinicians working with trauma survivors. Traumatology, 14(2), 32-44.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741-756.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53,
27-35.
Kyriacou, C. (2015). Teacher stress and burnout: Methodological perspectives. International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 72-74.
Leiter, M. P. (1992). Burn-out as a crisis in self-efficacy: Conceptual and practical implications.
Work & Stress, 6(2), 107-115.

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and
organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297-308.
Li Grining, C., Cybele Raver, C., Champion, K., Sardin, L., Metzger, M., & Jones, S. M. (2010).
Understanding and improving classroom emotional climate and behavior management in
the “real world”: The role of head start teachers’ psychosocial stressors. Early Education
and Development, 21(1), 65-94.
Markowitz, N., Thowdis, W., Gallagher, M. (2018). Sowing seeds of SEL: University-
district partnership builds social and emotional learning across the teacher pipeline. The
Learning Professional, 39(4), 30-34.
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement,
instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-
class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(4), 546-559.
Martinez, L. (2016). Teachers’ voices on social emotional learning: Identifying the
conditions that make implementation possible. The International Journal of Emotional
Education, 8(2), 6-24.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Prentice-Hall.
Maslach, C. (2015). Psychology of burnout. International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2, 929-932.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory. In C.P. Zalaquett
& R.J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (p. 191-218). Scarecrow
Education.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1986-2018). Maslach burnout inventory. Manual
(4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. SAGE.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33-44.
McEwen, B. S. & Seeman, T. (1999). Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress:
Elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 30-47.
McEwen, B. S. & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093-2101.
McLean, L., & Connor, C. M. (2015). Depressive symptoms in third-grade teachers: Relations
to classroom quality and student achievement. Child Development, 86(3), 945-954.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and
effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 458-486.

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Chapter 3: Research design and research methods. In Integrating
qualitative and quantitative methods (pp. 45-62). Sage.
National Association of Independent Schools. (2020). Student and teacher wellness during the
COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/research/nais-research-student-
and-teacher-wellness-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Secondary Traumatic Stress Committee. (2011).
Secondary traumatic stress: A fact sheet for child-serving professionals. National Center
for Child Traumatic Stress.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2007). The High Cost of Teacher
Turnover [Policy Brief]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498001.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results
from the 2012-13 teacher follow up survey. National Center for Education, Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results
from the 2012-13 teacher follow up survey. National Center for Education, Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf
Newell, J. M., & MacNeil, G. A. (2010). Professional burnout, vicarious trauma, secondary
traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue. Best Practices in Mental Health, 6(2), 57-68.
Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C.E., Meyers, D.C., & Weissberg, R.P. (2016). Establishing
systematic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for
schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46, 277-297.

O’Conner, R., De Feyter, J., Carr, A., Luo, J. L., Romm, H. (2017). A review of the
literature on social and emotional learning for students ages 3-8: Characteristics of
effective social and emotional learning programs (part 1 of 4) (REL 2017-245). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 117-126.
Orange County Department of Education (n.d.). Guide to Understanding California MTSS [PDF
file]. https://ocde.us/MTSS/Documents/CA%20MTSS%20Guide.pdf
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher-and school-level predictors
of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 129-145.
Pas, E. T., Cash, A. H., O’Brennan, L., Debnam, K. J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Profiles of
classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior management
strategies and classroom composition. Journal of School Psychology, 53(2), 137-148.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system.
Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.
Pietarinen, J., Pyhalto, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: A
socio-contextual approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 62-72.

Pop, M., & Turner, J. E. (2009). To be or not to be...a teacher? Exploring levels of commitment
related to perception of teaching among students enrolled in a teacher education program.
Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 15(6), 683-700.
Poulou, M. S. (2017). An examination of the relationship among teachers’
perceptions of social-emotional learning, teaching efficacy, teacher-student interactions,
and students’ behavioral difficulties. International Journal of School & Educational
Psychology, 5, 126-136.
Pyhalto, K., Pietarinen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Teacher--working-environment fit as a
framework for burnout experienced by Finnish teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 1101-1110.
Raue, K., & Grey, L. (2015, September). Career Paths of Beginning Public School Teachers:
Results from the First through Fifth Waves of the 2007-08 Beginning Teacher
Longitudinal Study, stats in brief. NCES 2015-196. U.S. Department of Education.
Richards, J. (2012). Teacher stress and coping strategies: A national snapshot. The Educational
Forum, 76(3), 299-316.
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Puri, R., & Goel, N. (2011). Supporting
children’s mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers.
School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 1-13.
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. (2005). I’ve decided to become a teacher: Influences on career
change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 475-489.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4-36.
Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Teacher outcomes of schoolwide positive behavior
support. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3. http://journals.cec.sped.org/tecplus
Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of
school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 14, 118-128.
Ryan, S. V., Nathaniel, P., Pendergast, L. L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017).
Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability
policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1-11.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business
students. Pearson Education Limited.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. SAGE.
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, 177-196.
Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2008). Burnout: 35 years of research and practice.
Career Development International, 14(3), 205-220.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley
& Sons.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. Oxford University Press. DOI:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2

Schunk, D. H. & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1-10.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 611-625.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher
burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518-524.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the
teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional
exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1029-1038.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy:
Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion.
Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology & Marketing, 114(1), 68-77.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in the
teaching profession-what do teachers say? International Education Studies, 8, 181-192.
Spilt, J. M., Koomen, M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of
teacher–student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 457–477.
Sprang, G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007). Compassion fatigue, compassion
satisfaction, and burnout: Factors impacting a professional’s quality of life. Journal of
Loss and Trauma, 12, 259-280.

Sprang, G., Craig, C., & Clark, J. (2011). Secondary traumatic stress and burnout in child
welfare workers: A comparative analysis of occupational distress across professional
groups. Child Welfare, 90, 149-168.
Stamm, B. H. (Ed.) (1995). Secondary traumatic stress: Self-care issues for clinicians,
researchers, and educators. Sidran Press.
Stamm, B. H. (2002). Measuring compassion satisfaction as well as fatigue: Developmental
history of the Compassion Satisfaction and Fatigue Test. In C. R. Figley (Ed.),
Psychosocial stress series, no. 24. Treating compassion fatigue (p. 107–119). Brunner-
Routledge.
Stamm, B. H. (2010a). The ProQOL (Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion
satisfaction and compassion fatigue). Pro-QOL.org. www.proqol.org
Stamm, B.H. (2010b). The concise ProQOL manual (2nd ed). ProQOL.org.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-
wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259.
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), 327-
358.
Taylor, R. D., & Dymnicki, A. B. (2007). Empirical evidence of social and emotional
learning’s influence on school success: A commentary on “building academic success on
social and emotional learning: what does the research say?,” a book edited by Joseph E.
Zins, Roger P. Weissberg, Margaret C. Wang, and Herbert J. Walberg. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2), 225-231.

Thompson, I. A., Amatea, E. S., & Thompson, E. S. (2014). Personal and contextual predictors
of mental health counselors’ compassion fatigue and burnout. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 36, 58-77.
Thomson, M. M, Turner, J. E., & Nietfeld, J. (2012). A typological approach to investigate
motivation for teaching and beliefs about teaching of preservice teacher candidates.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 324-335.
Thomson, M. M., & Palermo, C. (2014). Preservice teachers’ understanding of their professional
goal: Case studies from three different typologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44,
56-68.
Thomson, M. M., & Palermo, C. J. (2018). Using an expectancy-value model to understand
teaching motivation among nontraditional preservice teachers: A phenomenological study
approach. Action in Teacher Education, 40(2), 151-168.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010).
Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and
emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation.
Educational Psychology, 30, 173-189.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. Humanizing research:
Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities, 223-248.
Turgoose, D., & Maddox, L. (2017). Predictors of compassion fatigue in mental health
professionals: a narrative review. Traumatology, 23(2), 172-185.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Characteristics
of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States:
Results From the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey First Look (NCES
2020- 142). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020142.pdf.
Veldman, I., Admiraal, W., van Tartwijk, J., Mainhard, T., & Wubbels, T. (2016). Veteran
teachers’ job satisfaction as a function of personal demands and resources in the
relationships with their students. Teachers and Teaching, 22, 913-926.
Vygotsky, L. S., van der Veer, R. E., Valsiner, J. E., & Prout, T. T. (1994). The Vygotsky reader.
Basil Blackwell.
Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career
choice: Development and validation of the FIT-choice scale. Journal of Experimental
Education, 75(3), 167-202.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career
choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15, 861-879.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. A., Freedman-Doan, C., &
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task
values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(3), 451-469.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural
perspective. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural
influences on motivation and learning (pp. 165-198). Information Age.
Wolf, S., Torrente, C., Frisoli, P., Weisenhorn, N., Shivshanker, A., Annan, J., & Aber, J.L.
(2015). Preliminary impacts of the “Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom”
intervention on teacher well-being in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 52, 24-36.
Woods, P. & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments. (p. 71). Open University Press.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14, 121-141.
Yang, C., Bear, G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide
social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle,
and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45-61.
Yoder, N. & Gurke, D. (2017). Social and emotional learning coaching toolkit: Keeping
SEL at the Center. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from:
www.air.org/resource/social-and-emotional-learning-coaching-toolkit
Yoder, N. & Nolan, L. (2018). What does SEL look like in the classroom? The Learning
Professional, 39(4), 60-66.
Yopp, A., McKim, B., Moore, L., Odom, S., & Hanagriff, R. (2017). A multidimensional
needs assessment of social emotional learning skill areas. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 58(1), 186-206.

Zeidner, M., Hadar, D., Matthews, G., & Robert, R. D. (2013). Personal factors related to
compassion fatigue in health professionals. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International
Journal, 26, 595-609.
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The
scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2-3), 191-210.

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Dear Participant:
My name is Jamie Bone and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California as well as a Principal at Bryerton Preparatory Academy, Campus X. For my
dissertation, I am examining teacher emotional fatigue, a construct blending the burnout concepts
of emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue. My research focuses on describing the
independent school teaching experience, and how a teacher’s emotional fatigue may be different
or similar across grade level banding (Primary or Secondary). As you are a teacher representing
this population, I am inviting you to participate in a strictly anonymous survey that will be used
solely for my research and your personal identifying information will never be attached to your
responses. This raw data will not be available to Bryerton other than in the final dissertation
format and all information will remain confidential.
The following questionnaire will require approximately 10 minutes to complete and
consists of 52 Likert type responses, 3 open-ended responses, and demographic questions which
will only be used to compare and contrast the overall experience of emotional fatigue. There is
no compensation for responding, but each of you has received a raffle card in your teacher
mailbox that you can put in a designated box in the front office upon completion of your survey.
At the conclusion of the survey period, one raffle ticket from each campus will be selected
randomly to win a $50 Amazon gift card.
This survey has been designed to be completely anonymous and there is no known risk to
participating. Furthermore, please note that your participation is strictly voluntary. The data
collected will provide useful information regarding the experience of teacher emotional fatigue
in the independent school context—a field underrepresented in the existing research about
teacher burnout. Upon analysis of the findings, recommendations for teacher support will be
made to benefit future teachers, both at Bryerton and beyond. Thank you for your consideration!

Thank you for choosing to participate in this survey.

Likert type items:

Maslach’s Burnout Inventory

1. I feel emotionally drained from my work.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

2. I feel used up at the end of the workday.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

3. I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the
job.
How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

4. I can easily understand how my students feel about things.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

5. I feel I treat some students as if they were impersonal objects.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

6. Working with people all day is really a strain for me.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

7. I deal very effectively with the problems of my students.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

8. I feel burned out from my work.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

9. I feel I'm positively influencing other people's lives through my work.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

10. I've become more callous toward people since I took this job.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

11. I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

I feel very energetic.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

12. I feel frustrated by my job.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

13. I feel I'm working too hard at my job.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

14. I don't really care what happens to some students.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

15. Working with people directly puts too much stress on me.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

16. I can easily create a relaxed atmosphere with my students.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

17. I feel exhilarated after working closely with my students.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

18. I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

19. I feel like I'm at the end of my rope.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

20. In my work, I deal with emotional problems very calmly.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

21. I feel students blame me for some of their problems.

How
often?
0
Never
1
A few
times a
year or less
2
Once a
month or
less
3
A few
times a
month
4
Once a
week
5
A few
times a
week
6
Every
day

Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) Instrument

Instructions:
When you teach people you have direct contact with their lives. As you may have found, your
compassion for those you teach can affect you in positive and negative ways. Below are some
questions about your experiences, both positive and negative, as a teacher. Consider each of
the following questions about you and your current work situation. Select the number that
honestly reflects how frequently you experienced these things in the last 30 days.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

1. I am happy.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

2. I am preoccupied with more than one person I teach.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

3. I get satisfaction from being able to teach people.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

4. I feel connected to others.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

5. I jump or am startled by unexpected sounds.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

6. I feel invigorated after working with those I teach.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

7. I find it difficult to separate my personal life from my life as a teacher.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

8. I am not as productive at work because I am losing sleep over traumatic
experiences of a person I teach.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

9. I think that I might have been affected by the traumatic stress of those I teach.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

10. I feel trapped by my job as a teacher.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

11. Because of my teaching, I have felt “on edge” about various things.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

12. I like my work as a teacher.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

13. I feel depressed because of the traumatic experiences of the people I teach.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

14. I feel as though I am experiencing the trauma of someone I have taught.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

15. I have beliefs that sustain me.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

16. I am pleased with how I am able to keep up with teaching techniques and
protocols.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

17. I am the person I always wanted to be.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

18. My work makes me feel satisfied.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

19. I feel worn out because of my work as a teacher.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

20. I have happy thoughts and feelings about those I teach and how I could help
them.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

21. I feel overwhelmed because my workload seems endless.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

22. I believe I can make a difference through my work.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

23. I avoid certain activities or situations because they remind me of frightening
experiences of the people I teach.
1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

24. I am proud of what I can do to teach.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

25. As a result of my teaching, I have intrusive, frightening thoughts.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

26. I feel “bogged down” by the system.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

27. I have thoughts that I am a “success” as a teacher.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

28. I can’t recall important parts of my work with trauma victims.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

29. I am very caring person.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

30. I am happy that I chose to do this work.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5= Very Often

Open-ended responses

1. How do you manage or cope with the level of stress or emotional fatigue you
currently experience?
(RQ3: How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue?)

2. What would help you better manage or cope with the level of stress or emotional
fatigue you currently experience?
(RQ3: How are teachers managing their emotional fatigue?)

3. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected your level of stress or emotional fatigue?
(RQ4: How does teacher experience differ post COVID-19?)

Demographic Questions
Gender:
● Male / Female / Prefer not to answer

Please indicate if you teach Primary (preschool & elementary) or Secondary (junior high & high
school) students most often.

Have you earned a teaching credential?
● Yes / No / Prefer not to answer

Please share your total years of Teaching Experience (even beyond Bryerton): ____

Please share your age: (drop down, includes prefer not to answer)

I identify my ethnicity as: (please select all that apply)
● Asian
● Black/African
● Caucasian
● Hispanic/Latinx
● Native American
● Pacific Islander
● Prefer not to answer

Thank you for participating in this survey!

Appendix B: Quantitative Analysis
Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.018658
Adj Rsquare 0.006391
Root Mean Square Error 13.79041
Mean of Response 29.37805
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 82

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference -3.830 t Ratio -1.23328
Std Err Dif 3.105 DF 80
Upper CL Dif 2.350 Prob > |t| 0.2211
Lower CL Dif -10.010 Prob > t 0.8895
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1105

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 289.253 289.253 1.5210 0.2211
Error 80 15214.027 190.175
C. Total 81 15503.280

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 33 31.666667 14.704733 2.5597654 26.452595 36.880738
36+ 49 27.836735 13.145574 1.8779392 24.060885 31.612584

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows20

Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.000246
Adj Rsquare -0.01424
Root Mean Square Error 12.96518
Mean of Response 29.43662
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 71

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference 0.4524 t Ratio 0.130173
Std Err Dif 3.4756 DF 69
Upper CL Dif 7.3861 Prob > |t| 0.8968
Lower CL Dif -6.4812 Prob > t 0.4484
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.5516

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 2.848 2.848 0.0169 0.8968
Error 69 11598.616 168.096
C. Total 70 11601.465

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 19 29.105263 12.064156 2.7677072 23.290526 34.92
W 52 29.557692 13.268588 1.8400221 25.863694 33.251691

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows31

Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.005871
Adj Rsquare -0.00569
Root Mean Square Error 13.76164
Mean of Response 30.18182
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 88

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.0909 t Ratio -0.71265
Std Err Dif 2.9340 DF 86
Upper CL Dif 3.7417 Prob > |t| 0.4780
Lower CL Dif -7.9235 Prob > t 0.7610
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.2390

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 96.182 96.182 0.5079 0.4780
Error 86 16286.909 189.383
C. Total 87 16383.091

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 44 31.227273 14.383233 2.1683539 26.85437 35.600175
11+ 44 29.136364 13.110604 1.976498 25.150376 33.122352

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows14

Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.060529
Adj Rsquare 0.04973
Root Mean Square Error 13.2884
Mean of Response 29.86517
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 89

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -7.731 t Ratio -2.36754
Std Err Dif 3.265 DF 87
Upper CL Dif -1.241 Prob > |t| 0.0201*
Lower CL Dif -14.221 Prob > t 0.9899
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0101*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 989.786 989.786 5.6053 0.0201*
Error 87 15362.596 176.582
C. Total 88 16352.382

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 67 31.776119 13.554403 1.6559339 28.469941 35.082298
Male 22 24.045455 12.415341 2.6469596 18.540801 29.550108

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows13

Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.034984
Adj Rsquare 0.022612
Root Mean Square Error 13.37934
Mean of Response 30.0625
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 80

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference 5.110 t Ratio 1.681566
Std Err Dif 3.039 DF 78
Upper CL Dif 11.159 Prob > |t| 0.0967
Lower CL Dif -0.940 Prob > t 0.0483*
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.9517

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 506.170 506.170 2.8277 0.0967
Error 78 13962.517 179.007
C. Total 79 14468.688

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 33 27.060606 14.54076 2.5312215 21.904677 32.216535
Yes 47 32.170213 12.507944 1.8244711 28.497743 35.842683

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows22

Oneway Analysis of EE (Sum) By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.016962
Adj Rsquare 0.005663
Root Mean Square Error 13.71739
Mean of Response 30.01124
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 89

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -3.6017 t Ratio -1.22521
Std Err Dif 2.9396 DF 87
Upper CL Dif 2.2411 Prob > |t| 0.2238
Lower CL Dif -9.4444 Prob > t 0.8881
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1119

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 282.467 282.467 1.5011 0.2238
Error 87 16370.522 188.167
C. Total 88 16652.989

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 51 31.54902 13.888576 1.9447897 27.642795 35.455245
Secondary 38 27.947368 13.482616 2.1871692 23.515743 32.378994

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows13

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.030348
Adj Rsquare 0.018228
Root Mean Square Error 5.73593
Mean of Response 6.47561
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 82

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.0439 t Ratio -1.58236
Std Err Dif 1.2917 DF 80
Upper CL Dif 0.5266 Prob > |t| 0.1175
Lower CL Dif -4.6144 Prob > t 0.9412
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0588

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 82.3795 82.3795 2.5039 0.1175
Error 80 2632.0717 32.9009
C. Total 81 2714.4512

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 33 7.6969697 6.4637685 1.1251977 5.4050171 9.9889223
36+ 49 5.6530612 5.194352 0.7420503 4.1610691 7.1450533

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows20

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.002482
Adj Rsquare -0.01197
Root Mean Square Error 5.34881
Mean of Response 5.985915
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 71

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference -0.5941 t Ratio -0.41436
Std Err Dif 1.4339 DF 69
Upper CL Dif 2.2664 Prob > |t| 0.6799
Lower CL Dif -3.4546 Prob > t 0.6601
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3399

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 4.9120 4.9120 0.1717 0.6799
Error 69 1974.0739 28.6098
C. Total 70 1978.9859

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 19 6.4210526 5.3677617 1.231449 3.8338743 9.0082309
W 52 5.8269231 5.3421049 0.7408167 4.3396716 7.3141746

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows31

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.056859
Adj Rsquare 0.045893
Root Mean Square Error 5.664767
Mean of Response 6.647727
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 88

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.7500 t Ratio -2.27699
Std Err Dif 1.2077 DF 86
Upper CL Dif -0.3491 Prob > |t| 0.0253*
Lower CL Dif -5.1509 Prob > t 0.9874
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0126*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 166.3750 166.375 5.1847 0.0253*
Error 86 2759.7045 32.090
C. Total 87 2926.0795

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 44 8.0227273 6.5927678 0.9938971 6.0183426 10.027112
11+ 44 5.2727273 4.5513281 0.6861385 3.888997 6.6564575

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows14

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.014
Adj Rsquare 0.002667
Root Mean Square Error 5.633122
Mean of Response 6.337079
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 89

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.5630 t Ratio -1.11144
Std Err Dif 1.4063 DF 87
Upper CL Dif 1.2322 Prob > |t| 0.2694
Lower CL Dif -4.3582 Prob > t 0.8653
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1347

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 39.1986 39.1986 1.2353 0.2694
Error 87 2760.6891 31.7321
C. Total 88 2799.8876

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 68 6.7058824 5.7043027 0.6917483 5.3251469 8.0866178
Male 21 5.1428571 5.3878169 1.175718 2.6903523 7.595362

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows13

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.009175
Adj Rsquare -0.00353
Root Mean Square Error 5.571651
Mean of Response 6.45
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 80

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference 1.0754 t Ratio 0.849887
Std Err Dif 1.2654 DF 78
Upper CL Dif 3.5946 Prob > |t| 0.3980
Lower CL Dif -1.4438 Prob > t 0.1990
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.8010

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 22.4228 22.4228 0.7223 0.3980
Error 78 2421.3772 31.0433
C. Total 79 2443.8000

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 33 5.8181818 6.0179655 1.0475933 3.684304 7.9520596
Yes 47 6.893617 5.2387936 0.7641566 5.3554496 8.4317844

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows22

Oneway Analysis of DP (Sum) By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.009949
Adj Rsquare -0.00143
Root Mean Square Error 5.843027
Mean of Response 6.539326
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 89

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.1708 t Ratio -0.93503
Std Err Dif 1.2521 DF 87
Upper CL Dif 1.3180 Prob > |t| 0.3524
Lower CL Dif -3.6596 Prob > t 0.8238
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1762

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 29.8487 29.8487 0.8743 0.3524
Error 87 2970.2637 34.1410
C. Total 88 3000.1124

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 51 7.0392157 6.0131881 0.8420148 5.3479793 8.7304521
Secondary 38 5.8684211 5.6048775 0.9092312 4.0261437 7.7106984

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows13

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.00475
Adj Rsquare -0.00785
Root Mean Square Error 6.873098
Mean of Response 37.58025
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 81

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference 0.9592 t Ratio 0.614016
Std Err Dif 1.5621 DF 79
Upper CL Dif 4.0686 Prob > |t| 0.5410
Lower CL Dif -2.1502 Prob > t 0.2705
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.7295

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 17.8100 17.8100 0.3770 0.5410
Error 79 3731.9184 47.2395
C. Total 80 3749.7284

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 32 37 5.2792961 0.9332565 35.096611 38.903389
36+ 49 37.959184 7.7297024 1.1042432 35.738954 40.179413

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows21

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.035262
Adj Rsquare 0.02128
Root Mean Square Error 6.243288
Mean of Response 38.21127
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 71

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.6579 t Ratio -1.58808
Std Err Dif 1.6736 DF 69
Upper CL Dif 0.6809 Prob > |t| 0.1168
Lower CL Dif -5.9967 Prob > t 0.9416
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0584

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 98.3047 98.3047 2.5220 0.1168
Error 69 2689.5263 38.9786
C. Total 70 2787.8310

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 19 40.157895 5.8429745 1.3404703 37.341671 42.974118
W 52 37.5 6.3785793 0.8845498 35.724192 39.275808

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows31

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.01105
Adj Rsquare -0.00059
Root Mean Square Error 6.703427
Mean of Response 37.70115
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 87

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference 1.4016 t Ratio 0.974529
Std Err Dif 1.4382 DF 85
Upper CL Dif 4.2612 Prob > |t| 0.3326
Lower CL Dif -1.4580 Prob > t 0.1663
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.8337

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 42.6759 42.6759 0.9497 0.3326
Error 85 3819.5540 44.9359
C. Total 86 3862.2299

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 42 36.97619 6.3916412 0.9862517 34.984415 38.967966
11+ 45 38.377778 6.9814328 1.0407306 36.280323 40.475232

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows15

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.032914
Adj Rsquare 0.021669
Root Mean Square Error 6.583301
Mean of Response 37.89773
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 88

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.7727 t Ratio -1.71082
Std Err Dif 1.6207 DF 86
Upper CL Dif 0.4491 Prob > |t| 0.0907
Lower CL Dif -5.9946 Prob > t 0.9546
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0454*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 126.8523 126.852 2.9269 0.0907
Error 86 3727.2273 43.340
C. Total 87 3854.0795

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 66 38.590909 6.546819 0.8058577 36.9815 40.200318
Male 22 35.818182 6.6949616 1.4273706 32.849802 38.786561

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows14

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.011476
Adj Rsquare -0.00136
Root Mean Square Error 6.609528
Mean of Response 37.83544
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 79

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.4322 t Ratio -0.94545
Std Err Dif 1.5148 DF 77
Upper CL Dif 1.5842 Prob > |t| 0.3474
Lower CL Dif -4.4486 Prob > t 0.8263
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.1737

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 39.0496 39.0496 0.8939 0.3474
Error 77 3363.8112 43.6859
C. Total 78 3402.8608

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 32 38.6875 4.8886801 0.8642047 36.924943 40.450057
Yes 47 37.255319 7.5511821 1.1014531 35.038209 39.472429

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows23

Oneway Analysis of PA (Sum) By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.019652
Adj Rsquare 0.008253
Root Mean Square Error 6.702186
Mean of Response 37.75
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 88

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.9004 t Ratio -1.31301
Std Err Dif 1.4473 DF 86
Upper CL Dif 0.9769 Prob > |t| 0.1927
Lower CL Dif -4.7776 Prob > t 0.9037
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0963

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 77.4401 77.4401 1.7240 0.1927
Error 86 3863.0599 44.9193
C. Total 87 3940.5000

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 51 38.54902 6.6852486 0.936122 36.668763 40.429276
Secondary 37 36.648649 6.7256401 1.1056884 34.406209 38.891089

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows14

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.003014
Adj Rsquare -0.00929
Root Mean Square Error 6.808442
Mean of Response 26.78313
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 83

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference -0.7598 t Ratio -0.49485
Std Err Dif 1.5354 DF 81
Upper CL Dif 2.2952 Prob > |t| 0.6220
Lower CL Dif -3.8148 Prob > t 0.6890
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3110

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 11.3513 11.3513 0.2449 0.6220
Error 81 3754.7451 46.3549
C. Total 82 3766.0964

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 32 27.25 7.1572206 1.2652298 24.669547 29.830453
36+ 51 26.490196 6.582925 0.9217939 24.638719 28.341674

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows19

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.014152
Adj Rsquare -0.00014
Root Mean Square Error 6.420476
Mean of Response 26.69014
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 71

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference 1.7432 t Ratio 0.995226
Std Err Dif 1.7515 DF 69
Upper CL Dif 5.2374 Prob > |t| 0.3231
Lower CL Dif -1.7511 Prob > t 0.1616
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.8384

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 40.8298 40.8298 0.9905 0.3231
Error 69 2844.3532 41.2225
C. Total 70 2885.1831

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 18 25.388889 6.1561914 1.4510282 22.327487 28.450291
W 53 27.132075 6.5045479 0.8934684 25.3392 28.924951

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows31

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.000758
Adj Rsquare -0.01073
Root Mean Square Error 6.69074
Mean of Response 27.06742
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 89

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference -0.3645 t Ratio -0.25683
Std Err Dif 1.4192 DF 87
Upper CL Dif 2.4564 Prob > |t| 0.7979
Lower CL Dif -3.1854 Prob > t 0.6010
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3990

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 2.9529 2.9529 0.0660 0.7979
Error 87 3894.6426 44.7660
C. Total 88 3897.5955

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 43 27.255814 6.8490285 1.0444671 25.147994 29.363634
11+ 46 26.891304 6.539549 0.9642039 24.949298 28.833311

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows13

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.002468
Adj Rsquare -0.00887
Root Mean Square Error 6.611203
Mean of Response 26.84444
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 90

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -0.7567 t Ratio -0.46664
Std Err Dif 1.6216 DF 88
Upper CL Dif 2.4658 Prob > |t| 0.6419
Lower CL Dif -3.9792 Prob > t 0.6790
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3210

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 9.5174 9.5174 0.2177 0.6419
Error 88 3846.3048 43.7080
C. Total 89 3855.8222

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 68 27.029412 6.4852774 0.7864554 25.45964 28.599183
Male 22 26.272727 6.9978352 1.4919435 23.170061 29.375394

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows12

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.054315
Adj Rsquare 0.042191
Root Mean Square Error 6.361628
Mean of Response 26.8875
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 80

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference 3.05803 t Ratio 2.116576
Std Err Dif 1.44480 DF 78
Upper CL Dif 5.93440 Prob > |t| 0.0375*
Lower CL Dif 0.18165 Prob > t 0.0187*
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.9813

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 181.3028 181.303 4.4799 0.0375*
Error 78 3156.6847 40.470
C. Total 79 3337.9875

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 33 25.090909 6.6113711 1.150892 22.746619 27.435199
Yes 47 28.148936 6.1819468 0.9017296 26.333849 29.964024

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows22

Oneway Analysis of BO By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.002169
Adj Rsquare -0.00917
Root Mean Square Error 6.728555
Mean of Response 26.94444
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 90

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -0.6259 t Ratio -0.43733
Std Err Dif 1.4313 DF 88
Upper CL Dif 2.2184 Prob > |t| 0.6629
Lower CL Dif -3.4703 Prob > t 0.6685
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.3315

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 8.6589 8.6589 0.1913 0.6629
Error 88 3984.0633 45.2734
C. Total 89 3992.7222

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 51 27.215686 6.3255473 0.8857538 25.436597 28.994775
Secondary 39 26.589744 7.2246579 1.1568711 24.24778 28.931707

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows12

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.034108
Adj Rsquare 0.021564
Root Mean Square Error 6.153577
Mean of Response 24.06329
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 79

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.3380 t Ratio -1.64897
Std Err Dif 1.4179 DF 77
Upper CL Dif 0.4853 Prob > |t| 0.1032
Lower CL Dif -5.1614 Prob > t 0.9484
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0516

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 102.9624 102.962 2.7191 0.1032
Error 77 2915.7211 37.867
C. Total 78 3018.6835

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 31 25.483871 7.6588553 1.375571 22.67458 28.293162
36+ 48 23.145833 4.959365 0.7158227 21.705784 24.585883

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows23

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.003886
Adj Rsquare -0.01121
Root Mean Square Error 6.346969
Mean of Response 24.20588
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 68

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference 0.9020 t Ratio 0.50743
Std Err Dif 1.7775 DF 66
Upper CL Dif 4.4509 Prob > |t| 0.6135
Lower CL Dif -2.6469 Prob > t 0.3068
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.6932

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 10.3725 10.3725 0.2575 0.6135
Error 66 2658.7451 40.2840
C. Total 67 2669.1176

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 17 23.529412 5.4212273 1.3148408 20.742074 26.31675
W 51 24.431373 6.6159048 0.926412 22.570619 26.292126

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows34

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.023129
Adj Rsquare 0.01136
Root Mean Square Error 6.142908
Mean of Response 24.38824
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 85

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.8682 t Ratio -1.40185
Std Err Dif 1.3327 DF 83
Upper CL Dif 0.7824 Prob > |t| 0.1647
Lower CL Dif -4.5189 Prob > t 0.9177
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0823

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 74.1572 74.1572 1.9652 0.1647
Error 83 3132.0310 37.7353
C. Total 84 3206.1882

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 42 25.333333 6.9726527 1.0759037 23.160502 27.506165
11+ 43 23.465116 5.206904 0.7940454 21.862668 25.067565

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows17

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.081692
Adj Rsquare 0.07076
Root Mean Square Error 6.047449
Mean of Response 24.27907
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 86

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -4.1495 t Ratio -2.7336
Std Err Dif 1.5179 DF 84
Upper CL Dif -1.1309 Prob > |t| 0.0076*
Lower CL Dif -7.1680 Prob > t 0.9962
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0038*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 273.2847 273.285 7.4726 0.0076*
Error 84 3072.0176 36.572
C. Total 85 3345.3023

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 65 25.292308 6.0923186 0.7556591 23.782705 26.80191
Male 21 21.142857 5.9015736 1.2878289 18.456493 23.829221

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows16

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.033914
Adj Rsquare 0.021033
Root Mean Square Error 5.804111
Mean of Response 24.27273
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 77

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference 2.1778 t Ratio 1.622608
Std Err Dif 1.3421 DF 75
Upper CL Dif 4.8515 Prob > |t| 0.1089
Lower CL Dif -0.4959 Prob > t 0.0544
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.9456

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 88.6949 88.6949 2.6329 0.1089
Error 75 2526.5778 33.6877
C. Total 76 2615.2727

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 32 23 5.529977 0.9775711 21.006231 24.993769
Yes 45 25.177778 5.9897218 0.892895 23.378266 26.977289

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows25

Oneway Analysis of STS By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.081076
Adj Rsquare 0.070136
Root Mean Square Error 6.039587
Mean of Response 24.25581
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 86

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -3.5702 t Ratio -2.72236
Std Err Dif 1.3114 DF 84
Upper CL Dif -0.9623 Prob > |t| 0.0079*
Lower CL Dif -6.1781 Prob > t 0.9961
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0039*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 270.3370 270.337 7.4112 0.0079*
Error 84 3064.0351 36.477
C. Total 85 3334.3721

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 48 25.833333 6.5666253 0.9478107 23.926584 27.740083
Secondary 38 22.263158 5.2949962 0.8589618 20.522736 24.00358

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows16

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Age (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.018811
Adj Rsquare 0.006232
Root Mean Square Error 6.53186
Mean of Response 38.5625
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 80

Pooled t Test
36+-21-35
Assuming equal variances

Difference 1.8229 t Ratio 1.222871
Std Err Dif 1.4907 DF 78
Upper CL Dif 4.7906 Prob > |t| 0.2251
Lower CL Dif -1.1448 Prob > t 0.1125
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.8875

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Age (Binned) 1 63.8021 63.8021 1.4954 0.2251
Error 78 3327.8854 42.6652
C. Total 79 3391.6875

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
21-35 32 37.46875 6.3040406 1.1144075 35.195901 39.741599
36+ 48 39.291667 6.6778718 0.9638678 37.352615 41.230719

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows22

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.137808
Adj Rsquare 0.124939
Root Mean Square Error 5.589406
Mean of Response 39.21739
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 69

Pooled t Test
W-NW
Assuming equal variances

Difference -4.9295 t Ratio -3.27244
Std Err Dif 1.5064 DF 67
Upper CL Dif -1.9228 Prob > |t| 0.0017*
Lower CL Dif -7.9362 Prob > t 0.9992
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0008*

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Ethnicity (Binned) 1 334.5612 334.561 10.7089 0.0017*
Error 67 2093.1779 31.241
C. Total 68 2427.7391

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
NW 19 42.789474 4.4042776 1.0104106 40.66668 44.912268
W 50 37.86 5.9659236 0.843709 36.164503 39.555497

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows33

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Experience (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.016198
Adj Rsquare 0.004486
Root Mean Square Error 6.418455
Mean of Response 38.51163
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 86

Pooled t Test
11+-1-10
Assuming equal variances

Difference 1.6279 t Ratio 1.17603
Std Err Dif 1.3842 DF 84
Upper CL Dif 4.3806 Prob > |t| 0.2429
Lower CL Dif -1.1248 Prob > t 0.1215
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.8785

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Experience (Binned) 1 56.9767 56.9767 1.3830 0.2429
Error 84 3460.5116 41.1966
C. Total 85 3517.4884

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
1-10 43 37.697674 6.3640915 0.9705149 35.739096 39.656253
11+ 43 39.325581 6.4723622 0.987026 37.333682 41.31748

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows16

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Gender (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.019344
Adj Rsquare 0.007807
Root Mean Square Error 6.318358
Mean of Response 38.7931
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 87

Pooled t Test
Male-Female
Assuming equal variances

Difference -2.0498 t Ratio -1.29487
Std Err Dif 1.5830 DF 85
Upper CL Dif 1.0977 Prob > |t| 0.1989
Lower CL Dif -5.1972 Prob > t 0.9006
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.0994

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Gender (Binned) 1 66.9360 66.9360 1.6767 0.1989
Error 85 3393.3398 39.9216
C. Total 86 3460.2759

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Female 66 39.287879 6.4849296 0.7982397 37.693684 40.882073
Male 21 37.238095 5.7437336 1.2533854 34.623579 39.852611

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows15

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Credential (Binned)

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.009133
Adj Rsquare -0.0039
Root Mean Square Error 6.298064
Mean of Response 38.91026
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 78

Pooled t Test
Yes-No
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.2196 t Ratio -0.83696
Std Err Dif 1.4572 DF 76
Upper CL Dif 1.6827 Prob > |t| 0.4052
Lower CL Dif -4.1219 Prob > t 0.7974
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.2026

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Credential (Binned) 1 27.7857 27.7857 0.7005 0.4052
Error 76 3014.5861 39.6656
C. Total 77 3042.3718

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
No 31 39.645161 5.7824354 1.0385561 37.524147 41.766176
Yes 47 38.425532 6.6127173 0.9645639 36.483965 40.367098

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows24

Oneway Analysis of CS By A-DEM-Teaching Level

Oneway Anova
Summary of Fit

Rsquare 0.007292
Adj Rsquare -0.00439
Root Mean Square Error 6.5103
Mean of Response 38.58621
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 87

Pooled t Test
Secondary-Primary
Assuming equal variances

Difference -1.1090 t Ratio -0.79016
Std Err Dif 1.4035 DF 85
Upper CL Dif 1.6815 Prob > |t| 0.4316
Lower CL Dif -3.8995 Prob > t 0.7842
Confidence 0.95 Prob < t 0.2158

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio Prob > F
A-DEM-Teaching Level 1 26.4624 26.4624 0.6243 0.4316
Error 85 3602.6410 42.3840
C. Total 86 3629.1034

Means and Std Deviations

Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err
Mean
Lower 95% Upper 95%
Primary 48 39.083333 6.8473736 0.9883332 37.095063 41.071603
Secondary 39 37.974359 6.067546 0.9715849 36.007488 39.94123

Analysis of Means

Missing Rows15

Appendix C: Regression Analysis
Response BO
Effect Summary

Source LogWorth PValue
EE (Sum) 12.779

0.00000
PA (Sum) 4.026

0.00009
CS 0.580

0.26298
DP (Sum) 0.214

0.61035
STS 0.006

0.98715

Summary of Fit

RSquare 0.842061
RSquare Adj 0.831936
Root Mean Square Error 2.782014
Mean of Response 27.14286
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 84

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio
Model 5 3218.5967 643.719 83.1721
Error 78 603.6890 7.740 Prob > F
C. Total 83 3822.2857 <.0001*

Parameter Estimates

Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|
Intercept 29.92361 3.269753 9.15 <.0001*
EE (Sum) 0.3748434 0.042103 8.90 <.0001*
DP (Sum) -0.039303 0.076819 -0.51 0.6104
PA (Sum) -0.275273 0.066846 -4.12 <.0001*
STS 0.0011722 0.072554 0.02 0.9872
CS -0.093776 0.083171 -1.13 0.2630

Effect Summary

Source LogWorth PValue
EE (Sum) 28.109

0.00000
PA (Sum) 8.693

0.00000

Lack Of Fit

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio
Lack Of Fit 83 583.93836 7.0354 0.3311
Pure Error 4 85.00000 21.2500 Prob > F
Total Error 87 668.93836 0.9777
Max RSq
0.9785

Summary of Fit

RSquare 0.830858
RSquare Adj 0.82697
Root Mean Square Error 2.772895
Mean of Response 26.96667
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 90

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Ratio
Model 2 3285.9616 1642.98 213.6809
Error 87 668.9384 7.69 Prob > F
C. Total 89 3954.9000 <.0001*

Parameter Estimates

Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|
Intercept 27.375198 2.079951 13.16 <.0001*
EE (Sum) 0.3761719 0.022556 16.68 <.0001*
PA (Sum) -0.309897 0.046293 -6.69 <.0001*

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Teacher burnout affects school climate as well as student outcomes, and ultimately causes teachers to leave the profession. The purpose of this study was to understand the extent to which teachers experience and cope with emotional fatigue in their teaching experience. The study participants were primary and secondary teachers at a group of independent P-12 schools in southern California. Data was collected in Fall 2020 through an anonymous survey consisting of two quantitative instruments, Maslach’s Burnout Inventory and the Professional Quality of Life Instrument, as well as three open-ended response questions. The findings indicated that despite increased general stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers’ feelings of personal accomplishment and compassion satisfaction acted as mitigating experiences to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and compassion fatigue. This study provides recommendations for schools to relieve the problem of teacher emotional fatigue by creating collaborative support opportunities, focusing on developing strong relationships and connectedness through school-wide SEL integration, and increasing teacher feelings of personal accomplishment.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher compassion fatigue in predominantly BIPOC classrooms - a qualitative study

PDF

Compassion fatigue among social work students: a gap analysis

PDF

Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices

PDF

Better together: teacher attrition, burnout, and efficacy

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Student engagement: a quantitative analysis on aspects that are predictive of engagement

PDF

Developing a critical consciousness toward culturally responsive teaching through critical reflection: A professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

A compassion fatigue informed approach: the wellness trail for refugee workers

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Compassion fatigue, burnout, and secondary trauma in resident assistants

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Connectedness and distance learning: a study of student, teacher, and parent perceptions

PDF

The science of medical philanthropy: a guide for physicians

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Bone, Jamie Lynn (author)

Core Title The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 05/03/2021

Defense Date 05/03/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Burnout,compassion fatigue,compassion satisfaction,COVID-19 pandemic,emotional exhaustion,emotional fatigue,independent school,OAI-PMH Harvest,personal accomplishment,primary teachers,secondary teachers,secondary traumatic stress

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Lundeen, Rebecca (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email dr.jamiebone@gmail.com,jbone@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-459776

Unique identifier UC11668410

Identifier etd-BoneJamieL-9589.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-459776 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BoneJamieL-9589.pdf

Dmrecord 459776

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bone, Jamie Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA